Accepted Manuscript

Heat transfer performance of MQL grinding with different nanofluids for Ni-based
alloys using vegetable oil

Benkai Li, Changhe Li, Yanbin Zhang, Yaogang Wang, Dongzhou Jia, Min Yang,
Naiqing Zhang, Qidong Wu, Zhiguang Han, Kai Sun

PII: S0959-6526(17)30682-0
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.213
Reference: JCLP 9340

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 26 December 2015

Revised Date: 8 March 2017
Accepted Date: 29 March 2017

Please cite this article as: Li B, Li C, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Jia D, Yang M, Zhang N, Wu Q, Han Z, Sun K,
Heat transfer performance of MQL grinding with different nanofluids for Ni-based alloys using vegetable
oil, Journal of Cleaner Production (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.213.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Heat transfer performance of MQL grinding with different
nanofluids for Ni-based alloys using vegetable oil

Benkai Lia, Changhe Lia, *, Yanbin Zhanga, Yaogang Wanga, Dongzhou Jiaa, Min Yanga
Naiqing Zhangb , Qidong Wub, Zhiguang Hanc and Kai Sunc

a
School of Mechanical Engineering, Qingdao University of Technology, 266520 Qingdao, China

PT
b
Shanghai Jinzhao Energy Saving Technology CO.LTD, 200436 Shanghai, China
c
Shandong Outailong Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. 262501 Weifang, China

RI
*Corresponding author. School of Mechanical Engineering, Qingdao University of Technology, 266520 Qingdao, China
Tel: +86-532-68052760; Fax: +86-532-85071286; E-mail address: [email protected]
(Changhe Li)

SC
Aothorships: Benkai Li, School of Mechanical Engineering, Qingdao Technological University, 266033 Qingdao, China
E-mail address: [email protected]

U
Changhe Li, School of Mechanical Engineering, Qingdao Technological University, 266033 Qingdao, China
AN
E-mail address: [email protected]
Yanbin Zhang, School of Mechanical Engineering, Qingdao Technological University, 266033 Qingdao, China
E-mail address:[email protected]
Yaogang Wang, School of Mechanical Engineering, Qingdao Technological University, 266033 Qingdao, China
M

E-mail address: [email protected]

Dongzhou Jia, School of Mechanical Engineering, Qingdao Technological University, 266033 Qingdao, China
D

E-mail address: [email protected]

Min Yang, School of Mechanical Engineering, Qingdao Technological University, 266033 Qingdao, China
TE

E-mail address: [email protected]

Naiqing Zhang, Shanghai Jinzhao Energy Saving Technology CO.LTD, 200436 Shanghai, China
E-mail address: [email protected]
EP

Qidong Wu, Shanghai Jinzhao Energy Saving Technology CO.LTD, 200436 Shanghai, China
E-mail address: [email protected]
Han Zhiguang, Shandong Outailong Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. 262501 Weifang, China
C

E-mail address [email protected]

Sun kai, Shandong Outailong Heavy Industry Co., Ltd. 262501 Weifang, China
AC

E-mail address [email protected]

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Abstract:

An investigation into the effect of nanofluid minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) on the
temperatures in surface grinding is presented and discussed. Six types of nanoparticles, namely
molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), zirconium dioxide (ZrO2), carbon nanotube (CNT), polycrystalline
diamond, aluminum oxide (Al2O3), and silica dioxide (SiO2), are considered to mix individually
with a pollution-free palm oil in preparing the nanofluids. A commonly used Ni-based alloy is

PT
chosen as the workpiece material. It is shown that CNT nanofluid results in the lowest grinding
temperature of 110.7°C and the associated energy proportionality coefficient of 40.1%. Furthermore,

RI
the relevant physical properties of the nanofluids such as the coefficient of thermal conductivity,
viscosity, surface tension and the contact state between the droplets and workpiece surface (contact

SC
angle) are discussed to shine a light on their effect on the cooling performance. A mathematical
model for convective heat transfer coefficient is then developed based on the boundary layer

U
theories. The model calculation indicates that the CNT nanofluid has the highest heat transfer
AN
coefficient (1.3 × 104 W/(m⋅K)) which to some extent explains why CNT nanofluid MQL gives the
lowest grinding temperature.
M
D

Keywords: MQL grinding; Heat transfer, Nanofluids; Grinding temperature; Heat transfer model;
TE

Carbon nanotube
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Nomenclature

Nomenclature Ft tangential grinding force (N)

MQL minimum quantity lubrication Fn normal grinding force (N)
MoS2 molybdenum disulfide vs velocity of the grinding wheel (m/s)
ZrO2 zirconium dioxide ap grinding depth (mm)
CNT carbon nanotube k heat transmission coefficient (W/m2⋅k)
PCD polycrystalline diamond β a constant
Al2O3 aluminum oxide α thermal diffusivity (m2/s)
SiO2 silica dioxide θmax maximum grinding temperature rise (°C)
qtotal total heat flux density (J/(m2⋅K·s)) R energy ratio coefficient

PT
Q grinding power (J/s) ds equivalent diameter of the grinding wheel (mm)
S contact area (mm2) λ thermal conductivity (W/(m⋅°C))
b grinding width (mm) ρ density (kg/m3)
l grinding contact length (mm) µ∞ outflow velocity of nanofluids (m/s)

RI
δ velocity boundary layer (mm) v kinematic viscosity of nanofluids (m2/s)
δt temperature boundary layer (mm) η dynamic viscosity of nanofluids (Pa⋅s)

SC
Re x Reynolds number at point x h convective heat transfer coefficient (W/(m2·K))
Pr Prandtl number h boiling heat transfer coefficient (W/(m2·K))
Cp constant pressure specific heat (J/(kg⋅K)) σ 0 surface tension of the base fluid

U
σ surface tension of nanofluids φ volume fraction of nanoparticles (%)
θ contact angle m, n constants
AN
1. Introduction
M

Grinding process for metal materials is associated with a large amount of energy consumption in
D

the grinding zone. Most of the energy is converted into heat to cause temperature increase. Grinding
TE

temperature affects the surface integrity of the processed workpiece as well as the performance of

abrasive particles on the grinding wheel (Ren and Hua, 1988). A high grinding temperature can
EP

change the metallographic structure of the material surface and cause grinding burn (Li and Zhao,

2003). It can also result in thermal stress during grinding and cooling, which can in turn cause
C

considerable residual stress and even cracks on the ground surface, as well as affect the dimensional
AC

and geometrical accuracies of ground parts. This problem is more significant when grinding

metallic materials with low thermal conductivity, such as titanium alloys. It is thus evidence to

understand and control the temperatures in the grinding process.

In order to control the temperature in the grinding zone and hence improve the quality of ground

components, a grinding fluid has been commonly applied into the grinding zone in the way of

flooding. Although this conventional cooling technique can improve the performance of the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
grinding process, the large dose of grinding fluid is associated with a high cost to the process and a

great impact to the environment (Howes et al., 1991). Therefore, it is necessary to develop clean,

low-consumption, and high-efficiency cooling techniques. It has been found that some new cooling

techniques, such as cryogenic cooling, and minimum quantity lubrication (MQL), have been

employed in an attempt to replace the conventional cooling technique. Among the few new cooling

PT
techniques, MQL has become a promising alternative method which has attracted significant

attention to the grinding research community (Wang et al., 2016). Likewise, It is essential to

RI
develop environmental-friendly, high-efficiency and low consumption grinding fluids.

SC
To improve the cooling performance and reduce the environmental impacts, green manufacturing

technologies using minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) and nanofluid as the machining fluids are

U
in the trend to replace traditional flood cooling lubrication because of their various advantages
AN
(Malkin and Guo, 2007). Hadad et al. (2012) investigated the grinding process of a 100Cr6 material

using MQL where an overhead thermocouple was used to measure the grinding temperatures. They
M

found that MQL grinding consumed 7%–10% less energy than dry grinding. Barczak et al. (2010)

compared the grinding power, grinding force, grinding temperature and surface roughness of MQL
D

grinding with those of flood grinding and dry grinding. Their results revealed that MQL grinding is
TE

superior to flood grinding in terms of grinding force and grinding power at an appropriate material
EP

removal rate. However, MQL grinding shows inferior in terms of workpiece surface roughness and

residual stress. Although MQL grinding has more technological advantages than dry grinding and
C

flood grinding, the research indicated that it has insufficient heat transfer capability. Silva et al.
AC

(2007) compared workpiece surface integrity, specific grinding energy, and grinding wheel wear

between flood grinding and MQL grinding. They found that MQL grinding provided more effective

lubrication but it yielded a lower cooling effect and lower workpiece surface integrity than flood

grinding.

Given the low cooling capability of MQL, grinding fluids containing nanoparticles, i.e.

nanofluids, have been investigated in MQL grinding to overcome this problems. It is believed that
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
adding nanoparticles to the base fluid can significantly increase the thermal conductivity of the

slurry and enhance the heat transfer capability in the grinding zone. Vajjha and Das (2012) studied

an Al2O3 nanofluid (6% concentration) and found that the thermal conductivity of the nanofluid was

22.4% higher than that of the base fluid. Choi et al. (2001) experimentally studied the thermal

conductivity of multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT) nanofluid and showed that the thermal

PT
conductivity was 150% higher than that of the base fluid. Hong et al. (2005) synthesized a

Fe-ethylene glycol (EG) nanofluid through chemical vapor condensation. They increased the

RI
dispersity of the Fe-EG nanofluid through ultrasonic high-energy pulses. Their experimental results

SC
revealed a nonlinear growth of thermal conductivity as the volume fraction of nanoparticles

increases. The thermal conductivity of the Fe-EG nanofluid with 0.55% volume fraction of

U
nanoparticles was found to be 18% higher than that of the base fluid. Murshed et al. (2005)
AN
measured the thermal conductivity of rod-like and spherical TiO2 water-based nanofluids, which

showed that the thermal conductivity increased with the volume fraction of nanoparticles and the
M

shape and size of nanoparticles could affect thermal conductivity. They showed that the thermal

conductivity of both the rod-like and spherical nanofluids with a 5% volume concentration was 33%
D

and 30% higher than that of the base fluid, respectively.

TE

Likewise, Shen et al. (2009) prepared nanofluids by adding Al2O3 and polycrystalline diamond
EP

(PCD) nanoparticles to water for grinding a cast iron. They found that nanofluid MQL significantly

reduced the grinding force and surface roughness and eliminated workpiece burning. A high
C

nanoparticle concentration leaded to a high grinding ratio. Lee et al. (2010) studied the grinding
AC

performances under dry, liquid paraffin MQL and PCD nanofluid MQL grinding conditions, and

showed that nanofluid MQL resulted in a much lower grinding force and surface roughness than the

others. Moreover, smaller nanoparticles leaded to better surface quality. Kalita et al. (2012a)

conducted an experimental study on grinding a cast iron and EN24 alloy steel using MoS2 nanofluid.

They found that MoS2 nanofluid could reduce grinding force and specific grinding energy and

increase the grinding ratio. Kalita et al. (2012b) also conducted an experimental study on the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
grinding of spheroidal graphite cast iron 100-70-30 by using different concentrations of MoS2

nanofluids. They found that 8% molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) nanofluid yielded the lowest

grinding temperature. Mao et al. (2012a) tested dry grinding, flood grinding, MQL grinding, and

Al2O3 nanofluid MQL grinding of AISI 52100 steel. They found that nanofluid MQL gave the

lowest grinding force and grinding temperature. They also studied the effect of nanofluid MQL

PT
parameters and found that the lowest grinding temperature was achieved at 15° nozzle angle, 20

mm distance between the nozzle and the grinding zone, and 0.6 MPa air pressure (Mao et al., 2013).

RI
Jia et al. (2014) studied the lubrication effect of nanofluid MQL grinding of the 45 steel where the

SC
nanofluid was supplied using a jet. They found that when the nanoparticle mass concentration in the

nanofluid was less than 6%, the lubrication effect increased with an increase in the nanoparticle

U
concentration, while a decreasing trend was found when the nanoparticle mass concentration was
AN
higher than 6%. Therefore, this 6% turning point was taken as best lubrication condition. Zhang et

al. (2015a & b) studied the grinding of the 45 steel with different nanofluids, including soybean oil,
M

ZrO2, and CNT. The volume fraction of all nanofluids was 1%. They analyzed the energy

proportionality coefficient and specific grinding energy during the grinding process and found that
D

the CNT nanofluids resulted in lower grinding temperature and energy proportionality coefficient
TE

than the other two nanofluids. This was believed to be a result of the excellent heat conduction of
EP

the CNT nanofluid. Zhang et al. (2015c) also discussed the lubrication effect of nanofluid MQL

grinding of 45 steel with different base oils, including vegetable oil (soybean, palm, and rapeseed)
C

and mineral oil (liquid paraffin). They found that 6% mass fraction is the optimal concentration for
AC

MoS2 nanoparticles in soybean oil.

This above review has revealed that considerable studies have been reported to assess the

lubrication and cooling performance of a variety of nanofluids and supply techniques. It has become

apparent that MQL is a promising approach to reduce the environmental impact, while various

nanoparticles can be used to increase the cooling performance of the cutting fluids. However, there

is a lack of systematic study to evaluate the relative performance of the various nanofluids available
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
as well as the fundamentals to explain the lubricating and cooling capability of the nanofluids under

MQL condition. In this study, physical properties and contact state of different nanoparticles

nanofluids, to be used as minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) grinding fluids is investigated to

shine a light on their effect on the heat transfer performance. This is on this ground that this

research was undertaken.

PT
This paper presents an experimental study to examine the cooling performance of six nanofluids,

namely, the fluid respectively containing Al2O3, diamond, MoS2, CNT, ZrO2, and SiO2

RI
nanoparticles with palm oil as the base oil, when grinding a Ni-based alloy. The mechanisms behind

SC
which the nanofluids can effectively remove the heat and reduce the grinding temperature are also

discussed.

U
2. Experiment
AN
The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. The experiment was performed with a K-P36 CNC

precision surface grinder. The main technical parameters were 4.5 kW maximum output power of
M

the main spindle and the spindle speed range of 45 to 4,800 rpm. The grinder was equipped with a

magnetic worktable with a dimension 950×1,000 mm. A white corundum grinding wheel with 80
D

mesh grain size and 300 mm in diameter was used. A Bluebe MQL fluid supply unit was employed
TE

for nanofluid delivery. The grinding parameters for the experiment are shown in Table 1. The
EP

grinding wheel was dressed on the machine using a PCD dresser before each test to achieve a

controllable grinding process and comparable conditions among all tests.

C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig. 1. Experimental setup for surface grinding.

Table 1 Grinding parameters

M

Grinding pattern Surface grinding

Peripheral speed of grinding wheel Vs (m/s) 30
Feed speed Vw (mm/s) 50
D

Grinding depth ap (µm) 10

MQL flow rate (mL/h) 50
MQL nozzle standoff distance (mm) 12
TE

MQL nozzle supply angle (°) 15

MQL supply gas pressure (MPa) 0.6

The specimen material was a high-temperature, commonly used nickel-based alloy, GH4169.
EP

Due to its high temperature strength, extreme toughness, and poor thermal diffusivity, grinding of
C

this material can result in grinding burn to the work material and a fast wheel wear rate (Chen et al.,
AC

2015). The dimension of the workpiece was 40×30 mm with a 30 mm thickness to facilitate the

grinding tests and data measurements.

Palm oil was used as the MQL base oil. This oil has a good lubrication and cooling capability due

to its relatively high viscosity and good polarity (Li et al., 2016). Six types of nanoparticles were

used individually to form six nanofluids so that a comprehensive study could be conducted to

evaluate their performance; those nanoparticle materials were MoS2, SiO2, PCD, CNT, Al2O3 and

ZrO2. The average length of CNT was 10-30 µm, with the mean diameter of 50 nm. The average
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
size of the other nanoparticles was 50 nm. Based on the findings of the studies by Jia et al. (2014)

and Zhang et al. (2015b), nanofluids with 6% mass fraction of nanoparticles were prepared.

Polysorbate 80 was added at 0.3% mass fraction as a dispersant to prevent the agglomeration of the

nanoparticles in the base oil. Sonication was performed for 1 hour with a numerically controlled

ultrasonic oscillator (Model KQ3200DB from Kunshan Shumei in China) before each nonafluid

PT
was used in the experiment. Further, the viscosity of the six nanofluids at variable temperatures was

measured with a Brookfield DV2T viscometer and a DKB-501A super-heated water tank, which

RI
will be presented later in the paper.

SC
A type YDM–III 99 3-component dynamometer was utilized to measure the three force

components. The sample frequency for measuring the grinding forces was 1 kHz in 60 second

U
duration for each test. At the same time, grinding temperature was measured using a clip-type
AN
thermocouple. After the experiment, 100 data points were selected from the stable grinding region

of each test for a statistical analysis.

M

3. Experimental Results
3.1 Grinding force ratio
D

Grinding force ratio, defined as the ratio of the tangential force to the normal force with reference
TE

to the grinding wheel, is a reflection of the interaction between abrasive particles and the workpiece

surface, and is closely correlated to the ground surface quality. Typical values of the grinding force
EP

ratio ranges from 0.2 to 0.7 (Rowe et al., 2012).The as-measured grinding force signals for grinding

using the six nanofluids are shown in Fig. 2 where red indicates normal force that has the greatest
C
AC

value, green is for tangential force and blue is for axial force that has the smallest value.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
Fig. 2. As-measured force signals for MQL grinding with six nanofluids
AN
The grinding force ratio in MQL grinding with the six nanofluids is shown in Fig. 3. PCD
M

nanofluid MQL grinding yielded the maximum grinding force ratio (µPCD = 0.40) followed by ZrO2
D

nanofluid MQL grinding (µZrO2=0.387). The two smallest grinding force ratios are found when

using SiO2 and MoS2 nanofluids (µSiO2=0.365 and µMoS2=0.367), which are respectively 8.75% and
TE

8.25% lower than PCD nanofluid. This comparison shows that the lubrication performance of PCD
EP

and ZrO2 nanofluids is not as good as that of the SiO2 and MoS2 nanofluids, while CTN and Al2O3

nanofluids performed moderately among the six nanofluids.

C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
0.5

0.031 0.031
0.031 0.013
0.4 0.023 0.017

Grinding force radio

0.3

0.2

PT
0.1

RI
0.0
MoS2 Al2O3 CNT SiO2 ZrO2 PCD
Fig. 3. Grinding force ratios in MQL grinding with six nanofluids.

SC
3.2 Grinding temperatures
Part of the heat generated in grinding results in temperature increase and excessive temperature

U
rise on the workpiece can have adverse effects to the ground component. Fig. 4 shows the
AN
temperature curves of MQL grinding with the six nanofluids with respect to a dimensionless
M

grinding distance x/l. It can be seen that the workpiece temperature increased sharply after the

grinding process was initialized, but then decreased gradually to a stabilized temperature when a
D

nanofluid was supplied to the grinding hone.

TE
C EP
AC

Fig. 4. Grinding temperature variation for the six nanofluids.

Fig. 5 shows the grinding temperatures when using the six nanofluids. The highest temperature of

125.7o is found with the ZrO2 nanofluid, followed by SiO2 (119.3o). CNT nanofluid yielded the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
lowest temperature of 110.7o, 11.9% lower than grinding with ZrO2 nanofluid. From these data, the

CNT nanofluid shows the best cooling performance presumably it has good heat transfer properties.

140 125.7
117.7 119.3
112.4 114.7
120 110.7
Grinding temperature （ °C）

100

PT
80

RI
60

40

SC
20

U
CNT Al2O3 MoS2 PCD SiO2 ZrO2
Fig. 5. Grinding temperatures of the six nanofluids.
AN
3.3 Energy ratio coefficients
M

Energy ratio coefficient is defined as the ratio of the energy that is transmitted to the workpiece

to the total energy that is generated during grinding. It has been reported that approximately
D

60%–95% of the grinding heat, which should be proportional to energy, is transferred to the
TE

workpiece in traditional grinding process, which causes the workpiece temperature to increase
EP

(Rowe et al., 1997). The energy ratio coefficient, R, can be expressed as (Zhang et al., 2015a):

R = q wb q total (1)
C

where the qwb and qtotal are respectively the flux density that is transmitted to the workpiece and the
AC

total flux density generated during grinding and are given by

1/ 2
kvw
qwb = θ max (2)
βα w a p1/ 4 d s1/ 4
1/ 2

Q Ft ⋅ vs
qtoatal = = (3)
S l ⋅b

The symbols in the above equations are as defined in the nomenclature. The energy ratio

coefficients for MQL grinding using the six nanofluids were obtained from Eqs. (1) to (3) and are
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
shown in Fig. 6. It can be noticed that CNT nanofluid yielded the lowest energy ratio coefficient

(40.1%) followed by Al2O3 nanofluid with an energy ratio coefficient of 41.0%. The energy ratio

coefficients for SiO2 and ZrO2 nanofluids are the highest with 46.4% and 46.5% respectively, which

are 15.7% and 16% higher than that for using CNT nanofluid. For all the nanofluids, the energy

ratios are significantly lower than the 60-95% reported in conventional grinding process.

PT
45.9 46.4 46.5
50 44.5
41.0
40.1

RI
40
R （ %）

SC
30

20

10

U
AN
0
SiO2 PCD CNT Al2O3 ZrO2 MoS2
M

Fig. 6. Energy ratio coefficients for MQL grinding using nanofluids.

4. Discussions
D

4.1 Nanoparticles thermal conductivity

TE

Adding nanoparticles to the base fluid can significantly improve the heat transfer performance of

the base fluid. Nanofluids with high thermal conductivity have a good heat transfer performance.
EP

From Table 2, CNT nanoparticles have the highest thermal conductivity (3000 W(m⋅K)−1) among

the 6 types of particles. This may tell why CNT nanofluid yielded the lowest workpiece temperature.
C

Fig. 6 show that the energy ratio coefficient of the heat transferred to the workpiece of CNT
AC

nanofluid MQL grinding is 40.1%, so that about 60% of the heat generated was not transferred to

the workpiece under the assistance of CNT nanoparticles.

The thermal conductivity of PCD nanoparticles is dozens of times that of Al2O3 nanoparticles,

but the energy ratio coefficient of PCD nanofluid MQL grinding is higher than that transferred to

the workpiece of Al2O3 nanofluid MQL grinding. This may be attributed to the better lubrication

ability which was in favor of heat transfer. On one hand, the hardness of Al2O3 nanoparticles is
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
much lower than that of PCD nanoparticles; thus, Al2O3 nanoparticles deform upon extrusion of the

grinding wheel. On the other hand, soft nanoparticles may be melt on the workpiece surface under a

high local temperature of the grinding zone, thereby forming a layer of nano-protective film in the

grinding zone, although this may be not the case in this study. This nano-protective film has

excellent anti-friction and lubrication effects (Li et al., 2013). The high grinding force ratio of PCD

PT
nanofluids is related to their high hardness. PCD nanoparticles that have stable structures do not

easily deform and result in chemical reactions during the grinding process. Some PCD nanoparticles

RI
are likely to fill the pores of the grinding wheel and the gaps of abrasive particles, thus serving as

SC
abrasive particles of the grinding wheel to offer collaborative material removal.

Table 2 Thermal conductivity of the six nanoparticles.

Nanoparticles ZrO2 SiO2 Al2O3 MoS2 PCD CNT

U
Thermal conductivity /W(m⋅K)−1 <2 7.6 40 138 2300 3000
AN
4.2 Nanofluid viscosity
M

Adding nanoparticles to the base fluid can increase the viscosity of the base fluid. Nanofluids

with high viscosity result in poor liquidity on the grinding interface and low heat-carrying capacity
D

and thermal conductivity, so that their heat transfer capability is very limited. Zhong (2014)
TE

conducted a rational analysis of the convection heat transfer of the MQL cooling mechanism by

using the theory of boundary layer. According to the principle of fluid mechanics, the existence of a
EP

solid wall and fluid viscosity gradually decrease the flowing velocity of the fluid on the wall surface
C

to zero. Thus, the no slip boundary condition of the wall surface is met. Starting from zero velocity
AC

on the wall, frictional drag between the wall surface and the fluid, which hinders fluid flow, is

generated. This frictional drag transfers to the fluid along the viscosity normal direction. However,

the effect of the wall surface declines as it moves away from the wall surface, and fluid velocity is

gradually restored. In this manner, a fluid film whose velocity changes significantly is formed near

the wall surface; this film is called the velocity boundary layer (Schlichting et al., 2000). When the

fluid passes through the wall surface with different temperatures, the no slip boundary condition of

the wall surface is met. Fluid temperature close to the wall surface must be equal to the wall surface
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
temperature. Of the entire heat transferred from the wall surface into fluid, some is carried by the

fluid downstream, which decreases the heat transfer along the normal direction of the wall surface

gradually. This decrease gradually lowers the fluid temperature. Such heat transfer in the nanofluids

forms a region with violent temperature change on the wall surface, which is called the temperature

boundary layer. Physically, the velocity boundary layer reflects the momentum diffusivity of fluid.

PT
A thick velocity boundary layer represents a wide reach of surface rubbing on fluid velocity, a high

momentum diffusion coefficient of the fluid, and strong momentum diffusivity of the fluid. The

RI
temperature boundary layer reflects the heat diffusion capability of the fluid. A thick temperature

SC
boundary layer implies a wide reach of surface heating or cooling to fluid temperature and strong

heat diffusion. Thermal diffusivity is the heat diffusion capability of the fluid. A fluid with high

U
thermal diffusivity has a thick temperature boundary layer (Zhao, 2008).
AN
According to boundary layer theory, given that nanofluids are viscous, the velocity and

temperature boundary layers form on the workpiece surface when nanofluids are sprayed from the
M

MQL nozzle to the workpiece surface, as shown in Fig. 7. Nanofluids with high viscosity have a

thin velocity boundary layer, weak momentum diffusivity, and poor liquidity. Therefore, they have
D

a large amount of accumulated heat in the grinding zone, low thermal conductivity, and poor heat
TE

transfer enhancement. The velocity boundary layer of nanofluids with low viscosity is equal to or
EP

slightly lower than the temperature boundary layer; thus, these nanofluids have good heat transfer

performance.
C
AC

Fig. 7. The nanofluid boundary in the grinding zone.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig. 8 presents the relations between the temperature and viscosity of the six nanofluids. The

viscosity of the six nanofluids differs significantly at 40 °C, but it is basically the same at 100 °C.

CNT nanofluids have high viscosity, whereas MoS2 nanofluids have low viscosity. Thus, CNT

nanofluids form a smaller velocity boundary layer on the workpiece surface than MoS2 nanofluids,

but they have a thicker temperature boundary layer. According to the analysis of boundary layer

PT
thickness, CNT nanofluids have worse heat transfer performance than MoS2 nanofluids.

Nevertheless, this finding disagrees with the experimental results probably because of the thermal

RI
conductivity of the formed boundary layers.

SC
50 MoS2
SiO2
ND

U
CNTs
40
Al2O3
Viscosity (mm2/s)

ZrO2
AN
30
M

20
D

10
TE

40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Temperature ( )
Fig. 8. Relations of the temperature and viscosity of the six nanofluids.
EP

According to boundary layer theory, the thicknesses of velocity and temperature boundary layers

are (Zhong, 2014):

C

δ = 4.64 x Re x −1/ 2 (4)

AC

δt 1
ξ= = Pr −1/ 3 (5)
δ 1.026

µ∞ x µ∞ xρ
Re x = = (6)
v η

v C pη
Pr = = (7)
α λ

where the symbols are as defined in the nomenclature.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
For the palm oil used as the base oil of nanofluids, the Pr is in the magnitude of the order 103. Eq.

(5) indicates that a temperature boundary layer is formed when a nanofluid sprayed to the grinding

zone is thinner than the velocity boundary layer, which indicats the higher momentum diffusivity of

the velocity boundary layer. Therefore, the heat transfer performance is enhanced in the grinding

λ
zone. The local surface thermal conductivity of the boundary layer is hx = 0.332 Re1x/ 2 Pr1/ 3 . For a
L

PT
given workpiece length L, the mean thermal conductivity of the entire workpiece surface can be

RI
1 L
calculated from h =
L ∫0
hx dx . The mean thermal conductivity obtained from the integral is

SC
λ
h = 0.664 Re1L/ 2 Pr1/ 3 (8)
L

U
The mean thermal conductivity curves of the boundary layers of the six nanofluids are shown in
AN
Fig. 9. It indicates that the mean thermal conductivity of the boundary layers of CNT nanofluids is

the highest which is due to the highest thermal conductivity of CNT nanoparticle. ZrO2 nanofluids
M

have the lowest mean thermal conductivity of boundary layers, i.e., only 8 × 102 W/(m⋅K). Fig. 5

and Fig. 6 show that CNT nanofluids yielded the lowest temperature and energy ratio coefficients.
D

Thus, CNT nanofluid can enhance the heat transfer performance.

TE
C EP
AC

Fig. 9. Mean thermal conductivity curves of the boundary layers for the six nanofluids.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4.3 Nanofluid boiling heat transfer
During MQL grinding, the grinding heat transfer process is complex and nonlinear. When

grinding temperature reaches a certain specific value, MQL oil drops are boiled and vaporized after

entering the grinding zone (Mei et al., 2003; Deb and Yao, 1989). Therefore, boiling heat transfer

may occur in the grinding zone at local high temperature. The boiling heat transfer was attempted to

explore for the enhancement of grinding process. Mao et al. (2012b) studied heat transfer on the

PT
workpiece surface during MQL grinding. The heat transfer mechanism on the workpiece surface

RI
during MQL grinding is highly credible. Boiling heat transfer is a heat transfer process

accompanied by liquid–gas phase transition. Boiling can be divided into pool boiling and flow

SC
boiling according to the flow behavior of the boiling liquid. Flow boiling refers to the boiling of a

U
fluid in an orientation movement. Such an orientation movement is caused by either external forces
AN
or natural convection. Fluids have not only forced or natural convection without phase change, but

also convection caused by the development and movement of abundant bubbles. Boiling heat
M

transfer in the grinding zone can be viewed as flow boiling. This is because the grinding fluid

makes an orientation movement under the influence of high-pressure gas (Chu and Yu, 2009).
D

4.3.1 Workpiece surface topography

TE

Small pits or cracks on a rough surface are likely to become nucleation sites. They adsorb some

gas or steam and become bases of new bubbles (Das et al., 2003a; Bang and Chang, 2005). More
EP

small pits and cracks exist on a rough workpiece surface than on a smooth workpiece surface; hence,
C

more nucleation sites exist on a rough workpiece surface, which can make more heat transfer
AC

through nucleation boiling. In other words, a rough workpiece surface has better boiling heat

transfer performance than a smooth one. In Fig. 6, CNT and Al2O3 nanofluids have the lowest

energy ratio coefficient, followed by PCD and MoS2 nanofluids. SiO2 and ZrO2 nanofluids have

relatively high energy ratio coefficients.

The above analysis indicates that grinding with CNT and Al2O3 nanofluids results in worse

workpiece surface quality than grinding with the other four nanofluids. The workpiece surface

morphologies of MQL grinding using the six nanofluids are shown in Fig.10. PCD, ZrO2, and SiO2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
nanofluids result in good workpiece surface quality of MQL grinding, whereas MoS2, CNT, and

Al2O3 fail to improve the workpiece surface quality of MQL grinding. This finding indicates that

the workpieces surface ground with CNT and Al2O3 nanofluids are relatively rough and have many

small pits and cracks, which easily develop into nucleation sites. When boiling begins, bubbles are

produced on small pits and cracks. As the grinding temperature increases, the number of nucleation

PT
sites on the workpiece surface ground with CNT and Al2O3 nanofluids is larger than that on the

workpiece surface ground with the other nanofluids. Owing to the high workpiece surface

RI
temperature and the higher temperature of nanofluids than the inner temperature of bubbles, heat is

SC
continuously converted into bubbles, vaporizes the surrounding nanofluids, and continuously

expands the bubbles until they are driven away from the workpiece surface by buoyancy.

U
Subsequently, the surrounding nanofluids fill the vacancies. They absorb grinding heat and produce
AN
new bubbles. These bubbles carry away grinding heat continuously and thus decrease the grinding

heat transferred to the workpiece, as illustrated in Fig. 11. This decrease explains the smaller energy
M

ratio coefficient of CNT and Al2O3 nanofluids in MQL grinding than the other nanofluids.
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
CEP

Fig. 10. Grinding surface topography using the six nanofluids.

AC

Fig. 11. Schematic of the bubble generation process in pits or cracks.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fig.10 also shows that although MoS2 nanofluid MQL grinding results in worse workpiece

surface quality than the PCD nanofluid, it possesses a higher energy ratio coefficient. This

phenomenon may be caused by two conditions. Firstly, Table 2 reveals that the thermal

conductivity of PCD nanoparticles is significantly higher than that of MoS2 nanoparticles. The

thermal conductivity of nanoparticles significantly influences heat transfer during grinding. When

PT
boiling heat transfer occurs, nanoparticles attach to the surrounding bubbles and even leave the

workpiece surface with bubbles shown in Fig.12. Given that PCD nanoparticles have high thermal

RI
conductivity, abundant heat is carried away from the workpiece surface by bubbles, thus reducing

SC
the energies transferred to the workpiece. Secondly, Shi et al. (2006) studied the boiling

characteristics of nanofluids and found that nanoparticles fill the pits on the surface; thus, the size

U
and quantity of pits on the original heating surface are reduced, the degree of superheat increases,
AN
and boiling heat transfer weakens. The density of MoS2 nanoparticles is higher than that of PCD

nanoparticles; thus, more MoS2 nanoparticles are deposited after nanofluids are sprayed onto the
M

workpiece surface. Deposited small nanoparticles fill up the pits and cracks on the workpiece

surface and thus reduce the number of nucleation sites and bubbles and weaken boiling heat transfer.
D

As a result, a small amount of heat is carried away, and a large amount of heat is transferred to the
TE

workpiece.
C EP
AC

Fig. 12. Schematic of the bubbles with attached nanoparticles.

4.3.2 Nanofluid droplets state

During MQL grinding, nanofluids are sprayed from the nozzle onto the grinding zone between

the workpiece and the grinding wheel as droplets for cooling and lubrication. Hence, the droplets

state which refers to the contact angle between the droplets and the workpiece determines the

cooling and lubrication effects. Zhang et al. (2015d) analyzed the influence of contact angle (as
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
shown Fig. 13) on the lubrication effect of MQL grinding. They found that contact angle can

significantly influence the workpiece surface quality. A small contact angle leads to low roughness

of the workpiece surface. It can also result in good cooling and lubrication effects because a small

contact angle represents a large infiltration area (effective lubrication area of MQL grinding fluid)

and full cooling and lubrication by the MQL grinding fluid (Zhang et al., 2015e). The contact angle

PT
of nanofluid droplets significantly affects both lubrication and cooling. For boiling heat transfer,

such an influence is manifested by the wettability of droplets. Research has shown that during

RI
boiling heat transfer, given fixed heating surface (workpiece surface in the grinding process)

SC
conditions, structure, and size, a system with poor wettability produces bubbles more easily than a

system with good wettability (Bi and Shi, 2007).

U
The contact angles of the six nanofluids on a Ni-based alloy workpiece are displayed in Fig. 13,
AN
where θ(SiO2) = 49.2°, θ(CNT) = 47.5°, θ(MoS2) = 46°, θ(Al2O3) = 45.5°, θ(PCD) = 43.5°, and θ(ZrO2) = 41.5°.

According to the above analysis, SiO2 nanofluids are the easiest to produce bubbles on the
M

workpiece surface and carry away heat in the process of boiling heat transfer. However, the energy

proportionality coefficient demonstrates that CNT nanofluids are better than SiO2 nanofluids. This
D

result may be due to the fact that heat transfer performance is determined by various aspects.
TE

Although contact angle affects boiling heat transfer significantly, it is not a crucial factor. Moreover,
EP

CNT nanofluids have a larger contact angle than the other five nanofluids and thus have worse

wettability. Compared with the other five nanofluids, CNT nanofluids produce more bubbles on the
C

workpiece surface and carry away more heat, thus reducing the heat transferred to the workpiece.
AC

According to bubble dynamic theory (Xu and Jia, 2000), the research of Wang and Dhir (1993), and

the above analysis of boiling heat transfer, the relationship between boiling heat transfer coefficient

and contact angle can be expressed as h (1-cosθ). Hence, the boiling heat transfer coefficient of

the other five nanofluids can be calculated from their contact angles. It is found that their relations

are CNT > MoS2 > Al2O3 > PCD > ZrO2. With a higher boiling heat transfer coefficient than the

other five nanofluids, CNT nanofluids carry away more heat, which decreases the heat transferred
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
to the workpiece accordingly. This result agrees with the test energy proportionality coefficient.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig. 13. Contact angle between the MQL droplet of the six nanofluids and the workpiece.
M

4.3.3 Nanofluid surface tension

D

Das et al. (2003b) measured the surface tension of nanofluids. They found that adding
TE

nanoparticles to the base fluid can reduce the surface tension of the base fluid. The surface tension

of nanofluids is negatively correlated with boiling heat transfer. Furthermore, surface tension plays
EP

an important role in boiling heat transfer, especially during bubble formation, expansion, separation,

and movement (Bi and Shi, 2007). A small surface tension of nanofluids implies weak binding force
C

against bubble formation and expansion; many bubbles and high activity of boiling heat transfer
AC

thus exist. The presence of numerous bubbles and high activity of boiling heat transfer are

advantageous to obtain excellent performance, such as reducing the temperature of the grinding

zone, avoiding workpiece burn, and improving the processing quality of the workpiece. Bubble

dynamic theory shows that surface tension affects the boiling heat transfer coefficient. Their

relationship is h 1/σ3 (Xu and Jia, 2000).

The surface tension of nanofluids can be calculated from the Szyszkowski equation as follows
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(Gu et al., 2004):

σ0 −σ φ
= n ln( + 1) , (9)
σ0 m

Eq. (9) and Table 3 indicate that the surface tension sequence of the six nanofluids is ZrO2 >

MoS2> Al2O3 > PCD > SiO2 > CNT. Accordingly, the boiling heat transfer coefficient sequence is

ZrO2 < MoS2 < Al2O3 < PCD < SiO2 < CNT. CNT nanofluids have the highest boiling heat transfer

PT
coefficient and thus have the best boiling heat transfer performance. In other words, a large amount

RI
of heat is eliminated through boiling heat transfer, and only a small amount is transferred to the

workpiece. The energy ratio coefficient decreases, which is in accordance with the experimental

SC
results.

Table 3 Density of the six nanoparticles

Nanoparticle ZrO2
U
MoS2 Al2O3 PCD SiO2 CNT
AN
Density g/cm3 5.8 4.8 3.7 3.45 2.2 2.1

5. Conclusions
M

In this experimental investigation, palm oil was used as the MQL base oil, and MoS2, ZrO2, CNT,
D

PCD, Al2O3, and SiO2 nanoparticles were added to the base fluid to form nanofluids. The heat
TE

transfer performance of the six nanofluids was studied. The following conclusions were obtained:

(1) SiO2 nanofluids have the lowest grinding force ratio (0.365), followed by MoS2 nanofluids
EP

(0.367). PCD nanofluids have the highest grinding force ratio (0.40). But CNT nanofluids have

the lowest grinding temperature (110.7 °C) and energy proportionality coefficient (40.1%),
C

followed by Al2O3 nanofluids (112.4 °C and 41.0%, respectively). Overall, CNT nanofluids
AC

have the best heat transfer performance among the studied nanofluids.

(2) Nanofluids with high thermal conductivity have good heat transfer performance. Further, the

effect of nanofluid viscosity on heat transfer performance was discussed. It revealed that the

CNT nanofluid has the highest heat transfer coefficient (1.3 × 104 W/(m⋅K)).

(3) The effect of surface morphology, the contact state between the droplets and workpiece surface

(contact angle), and surface tension of the nanofluids on boiling heat transfer were analyzed. It
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
has been found that the workpiece surface ground using CNT nanofluid MQL has many small

pits and cracks and CNT nanofluid has a large contact angle and low surface tension. CNT

nanofluid has been found to have a good boiling heat transfer capability.

Acknowledgments

This research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51575290;

PT
51175276), Qingdao Science and Technology Program of Basic Research Projects (14-2-4-18-jch), and Huangdao

District Application Science and Technology Project (2014-1-55).

RI
SC
Conflict of Interests

The authors hereby confirm that no conflict of interest exists for this article.

References
U
AN
Bang, I.C., Chang, S.H., 2005. Boiling heat transfer performance and phenomena of Al2O3-water nanofluids form a
plain surface in a pool. Int J Heat Mass Transf. International Journal of Heat & Mass Transfer. 48,2407-2419.
M

Barczak, L.M., Batako, A.D.L., Morgan, M.N.,2010. A study of plane surface grinding under minimum quantity
lubrication (MQL) conditions. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture. 50(11), 977-985.
D

Bi, S.S., Shi, L., 2007. Advances in boiling heat transfer nanofluids. Chemical Engineering
Progress.10(10),1411-1418.
TE

Chen, Z. Z., Xu, J. H., Ding, W. F., Ma, C. Y., & Fu, Y. C., 2015. Grinding temperature during high-efficiency
grinding inconel 718 using porous cbn wheel with multilayer defined grain distribution. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 77(1), 165-172.
EP

Choi, S.U.S., Zhang, Z.G., Yu, W., Lockwood, F.E., 2001. Anomalous thermal conductivity enhancement in
nanotube suspensions.Applied Physics Letters. 79(14), 2252-2254.
C

Chu, H.Q., Yu, B.M.,2009. Fractal analysis of boiling heat. Advances in Mechanics.13,259-272.
Das, S.K., Putra, N., Roetzel, W., 2003a. Pool boiling of nano-fluids on horizontal narrow tubes. International
AC

Journal of Multiphase Flow.29(8),1237-1247.

Das, S.K., Putra, N., Roetzel, W., 2003b. Pool boiling characteristics of nano-fluid. International Journal of Heat &
Mass Transfer. 46(5), 851-862.
Deb, S., Yao, S.C., 1989 Analysis on film boiling heat transfer of impacting spray. Heat Mass Transf.32,2099-2112.
Gu, T.R., Zhu, B.Y., Li, W.L., 2004. Surface chemistry. Beijing: Science Press.
Hadad, M.J. Tawakoli, T. Sadeghi, M.H., Sadeghi, B., 2012. Temperature and energy partition in minimum
quantity lubrication-MQL grinding process. International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture.
54-55(3),10-17.
Hong, T.K., Yang, H.S, Choi, C.J.,2005. Study of the enhanced thermal conductivity of Fe Nanofluids, Journal
ofApplied Physics. 97(6),064311-064314.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Howes, T. D., Tönshoff, H. K., Heuer, W., Howes, T., (1991). Environmental aspects of grinding fluids. CIRP
Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 40(2), 623-630.
Jia, D., Li, C., Zhang, D., Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., 2014. Experimental verification of nanoparticle jet minimum
quantity lubrication effectiveness in grinding. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 16(12),1-15.
Kalita, P., Ajay, P., Malshe, S., Arun, V.G., Yoganath, T., 2012a. Gurumurthy, Study of specific energy and friction
coefficient in minimum quantity lubrication grinding using oil-based nanolubricants. Journal of
Manufacturing Processes.18, 1-9.
Kalita, P., Malshe, A.P., Rajurkar, K.P., 2012b. Study of tribochemicallubricant film formation during application of

PT
nanolubricants in minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) grinding. CIRP Annals: Manufacturing Technology.
61(1),327-330.

RI
Lee, P.H., Nam, T.S., Li, C., Lee, S.W., 2010. Environmentally-Friendly Nano-fluid Minimum Quantity
Lubrication (MQL) Meso-scale Grinding Process Using Nano-diamond Particles. International Conference on
Manufacturing Automation (pp.44-49). IEEE Computer Society.

SC
Li, B.K., Li, C.H., Zhang, Y.B., Wang, Y.G., Jia, D.Z., Yang, M., 2016. Grinding temperature and energy ratio
coefficient in MQL grinding of high-temperature nickel-base alloy by using different vegetable oils as base oil.

U
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics. 29(4),1084-1095.
Li, B.M., Zhao, B. 2003. Modern grinding technology. Beijing, China. China Machine Press.
AN
Li, C.H., Li, J.Y., Wang, S., Jia, D.Z., 2013. Modeling and numerical simulation of the grinding temperature field
with nanoparticle jet of MQL. Advances in Mechanical Engineering. 7 (2), 167-181.
M

Malkin, S, Guo, C, 2007. Thermal analysis of grinding. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology. 56(2), 760-782.
Mao, C., Tang, X.J., Zou, H.F., Huang, X.M., Zhou, Z.X., 2012a. Investigation of Grinding Characteristic using
Nanofluids Minimum Quantity Lubrication. Int J precision engineering and manuf. 13(10), 1745-1752.
D

Mao, C., Zou, H.F., Huang, X.M., Zhang, J.A., Zhou, Z.X., 2013. The influence of spraying parameters on grinding
TE

performance for nanofluids minimum quantity lubrication. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 64, 1791-1799.
Mao, C., Zou, H.F., Huang, Y., Li, Y.F., Zhou, Z.X., 2012b. Analysis of heat transfer coefficient on workpiece
surface during minimum quantity lubricant grinding. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
EP

Technology. 66(1-4), 363-370.

Mei, G.H., Meng, H.J., Wu, R.Y., Ci, Y., Xie, Z., 2004. Analysis of spray cooling heat transfer coefficient on high
temperature surface. Energy Metalll Ind. 23(6),18-22.
C

Murshed, S.M.S. Leong, K.C. Yang, C., 2005. Enhanced thermal conductivity of TiO2-water based nanofluids.
AC

International Journal of Thermal Science. 44(4),367-373.

Ren, J.X., Hua, A.D., 1988. Grinding principle. Press of Northwestern Polytechnic University, Xian, China.
Rowe, W.B., Black, S.C.E, Mills, B., 1997. Grinding temperatures and energy partitioning. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 453(1960),1083-1104.
Rowe, W.B., Dimitrov, B., Ohmori, H., 2012. Tribology of Abrasive Machining Processes. William Andrew.
Schlichting, H., Gersten, K., Gersten, K., 2000. Boundary-layer theory. Springer Science & Business Media.
Shen, B., Albert, J.S., Simon, C.T., 2009. Application of nanofluids in minimum quantity lubrication grinding.
Tribology & Lubrication Technology. 51(6), 730-737.
Shi, M.H., Shuai, M.Q., Lai, Y.E.,2006. Experimental study of nanoparticle suspension bubbly boiling pool.
Engineering Thermophysics. 2, 298-300.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Silva, L.R., Bianchi, E.C., Fusse, R.Y., Catai, R.E., Fran?a, T.V., & Aguiar, P.R., 2007. Analysis of surface integrity
for minimum quantity lubricant-MQL in grinding. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture.
47(2), 412-418.
Vajjha, R.S., Das, D.K.,2012. A review and analysis on influence of temperature and concentration of nanofluids on
thermophysical properties, heat transfer and pumping power. International Journal of Heat & Mass Transfer.
55(15-16), 4063-4078.
Wang, C.H., Dhir, V.K., 1993. Effect of surface wettability on active nucleation site density during pool boiling of
water on a vertical surface.Asme Journal of Heat Transfer.115(3), 659-669.

PT
Wang, Y.G., Li, C.H., Zhang, Y.B., Yang, M., Li, B.K., Jia, D.Z., Hou, Y.L., Mao, C.,2016. Experimental evaluation
of the lubrication properties of the wheel/workpiece interface in MQL grinding using different types of

RI
vegetable oils. Journal of Cleaner Production.127,487-499.
Xu, J.J., Jia, D.N., 2000. Boiling heat transfer and two-phase flow. Beijing, China. Atomic Energy Press.
Zhang, D.K., Li, C.H., Jia, D.Z., Zhang, Y.B., Zhang, X.W., 2015b. Specific grinding energy and surface roughness

SC
of nanoparticle jet minimum quantity lubrication in grinding. Chin J Aeronaut. 28(1):570-81.
Zhang, D.K., Li, C.H., Zhang, Y.B., Jia D.Z., Zhang, X.W., 2015a. Experimental research on the energy ratio

U
coefficient and specific grinding energy in nanoparticle jet MQL grinding. Int J Adv Manuf Technol.78 (5-8),
1275-1288.
AN
Zhang, Y.B., Li, C.H., Jia, D.Z., Zhang, D.K., 2015c. Experimental evaluation of nanoparticles in jet MQL grinding
nickel-based alloys. Modular Machine Tool Automatic Manufacturing Technique .6.113-7.
M

Zhang, Y.B., Li, C.H., Jia, D.Z., Zhang, D.K., Zhang, X.W., 2015d. Experimental evaluation of the lubrication
performance of MoS2/CNT nanofluids for minimal quantity lubrication in ni-based alloy grinding.
International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture. 99, 19-33.
D

Zhang, Y.B., Li, C.H., Jia, D.Z., Zhang, D.K., Zhang, X.W., 2015e. Experimental evaluation of mos2 nanoparticles
TE

in jet mql grinding with different types of vegetable oil as base oil. Journal of Cleaner Production. 87,
930-940.
Zhao, Z.N., 2008. Heat Transfer (second edition). Beijing, China: Higher Education Press.
EP

Zhong, W., 2014. Little quantity lubricant cooling mechanisms under condition of liquid forced convection based
on Prandtl boundary layer theory. Lubrication engineering.(9),79-82.
C
AC