Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

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

Original article

A systematic parametric thermal analysis of nanofluid-based parabolic T

trough solar collectors
⁎
Evangelos Bellosa, , Christos Tzivanidisa, Zafar Saidb
a
Thermal Department, School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, Heroon Polytechniou 9, 15780 Athens, Greece
b
Sustainable and Renewable Energy Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Sharjah, 27272 Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The objective of this work is to investigate the thermal enhancement margin with the implementation of
Parabolic trough collector (Syltherm 800/Cu) nanofluid in parabolic trough collectors in a systematic way. Three different collector kinds
Nanofluid are studied; the evacuated tube receiver, the non-evacuated tube receiver and the bare tube without cover. The
Thermal enhancement study is a systematic parametric investigation for different values of the following parameters: ambient tem-
Thermal analysis
perature, solar irradiation, solar angle, wind speed, flow rate, inlet temperature, absorber emittance and na-
Numerical analysis
noparticle concentration. Moreover, this study is performed by developing a mathematical model in Engineering
Equation Solver which is validated with literature experimental data. The results indicate that the maximum
enhancements are found for the cases with higher thermal losses and also the use of nanofluids enhances most of
the performance in the bare tube. The maximum enhancements are found in small flow rates and for the cases
with higher emittance. The maximum enhancement was found at 7.16% for the bare tube, 4.87% for the non-
evacuated receiver and 4.06% for the evacuated receiver when the flow rate is 25 L/min and there is a cermet
coating. The respective enhancement values are 17.11%, 12.30% and 12.24% for 25 L/min and for a non-
selective absorber.

Introduction
Parabolic trough solar collector (PTC) is characterized as one of the
most mature and widespread solar concentrating systems and it can be
applied in a great variety of energy applications [1,2]. More specifi-
cally, the PTC can be used for power generation [3], industrial heat
production [4], chemical processes [5], solar cooling through sorption
machines [6], as well as for special applications like hydrogen pro-
duction [7].
Usually, the PTC can operate up to 400 °C with oil and up to 550 °C
with solar salt as the working fluid [8]. The concentration ratio is
generally in the range of 10 to 50 and it operates with a single-axis
tracking system. The specific cost of the PTC can be about 200 €/m2 for
large scale systems [9] and this value tries to compete for the other
conventional systems. However, there is a need for increasing the
performance of the PTC in order to make the PTC a more viable system.
The thermal efficiency of the PTC is relatively satisfying; however, a
lot of research has been performed in the direction of increasing this
parameter. Many different techniques have been studied in order to
achieve higher performance. The majority of these techniques aim to
improve the heat transfer rate between the absorber and the working
fluid in order to transfer more useful heat to the working fluid [10].
There are two main techniques for increasing thermal efficiency; the
use of turbulators in the flow and the use of nanofluids [11]. Both
techniques have found to be effective with similar enhancement values.
But, the use of turbulators leads to extremely high values in the pressure
drop along the tube and so the pumping work demand increases,
something that makes this technique to face this critical limitation [12].
On the other hand, the utilization of nanofluids faces smaller pres-
sure drop increase problems [13]. The nanofluid is practically a mixture
of the base fluid with nanoparticles. This mixture is created by dis-
persing nanoparticles inside the base fluid which can be thermal oil,
water or molten salt. Usually, the following nanoparticles are applied in
solar systems: Cu, Al2O3, Al, CuO, ZnO SiO2, TiO2 and the carbon na-
notubes (CNT, MWCNT and SWCNT) [14-16]. The use of nanofluids is a
promising idea in the solar concentrating systems and it will be ex-
tensively applied in the future after the effective solution of some
problems. More specifically, the nanofluids can face stability problems
because of the agglomeration of the nanoparticles and also at this time
they have a relatively high cost [17-19].
In the literature, there are many studies that examine the nanofluid-
based PTC experimentally and numerically. The most usual

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bellose@central.ntua.gr (E. Bellos).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100714
Received 8 February 2020; Received in revised form 25 March 2020; Accepted 20 April 2020
2213-1388/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Bellos, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714

Nomenclature ηopt Collector optical efficiency, -

ηth Collector thermal efficiency, -
A Area, m2 θ Solar incident angle, o
α Thermal diffusivity, m2 s−1 μ Fluid dynamic viscosity, Pa s
C Collector concentration ratio, - ρ Fluid density, kg/m3
cp Fluid specific heat capacity, J kg−1 K−1 σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant (=5.67 × 10-8 W m−2 K−4)
D Tube diameter, m τ Transmittance of the cover, -
dp Nanoparticle mean diameter, m
En Thermal efficiency enhancement, % Subscripts/superscripts
F Parabola focal distance, m
Fg Geometric parameter, - a aperture
Gb Direct beam solar irradiation, W m−2 abs absorbed
h Flow heat transfer coefficient, W m−2 K−1 air air between cover and absorber
hin Convective coefficient for absorber-cover heat exchange, am ambient
W m−2 K−1 bf basefluid (Thermal oil)
hout Convective coefficient for cover-ambient heat exchange, c cover
W m−2 K−1 ci inner surface of the cover
K Incident angle modifier, - co outer surface of the cover
keff Effective thermal conductivity, W m−1 K−1 fm mean fluid
k Fluid thermal conductivity, W m−1 K−1 in inlet fluid
L Collector length, m loss losses
m Fluid mass flow rate, kg s−1 max maximum value
Nu Nusselt number, - nf nanofluid (Syltherm 800 / Cu)
Ped Peclet number, - np nanoparticle (Cu)
Pr Prandtl number, - out outlet fluid
Q Heat rate, W r receiver
r Equivalent concentrator reflectance, - ri inner surface of the receiver
Ra Rayleigh number, - ro outer surface of the receiver
Re Reynolds number, - s solar
T Temperature, oC or K u useful production
Tsky Equivalent sky temperature, K
um Fluid mean velocity, m/s Abbreviations
V Fluid volumetric flow rate, L min−1
Vwind Air velocity, m s−1 BT Bare tube
Wa Collector width, m CNT Carbone nanotube
EES Engineering equation solver
Greek symbols ΕΤ Evacuated receiver
MWCNT Multi-wall carbon nanotube
α Absorbance of the absorber, - N-ET Non-evacuated tube
β Nano-layer thickness to the original particle radius, - SWCNT Single-walled carbon nanotube
ε Emittance, - PTC Parabolic trough solar collector

nanoparticle is the Al2O3 in the studies with PTC. Subramani et al. [20]
studied experimentally the utilization of water/Al2O3 in a PTC and it is
found 8.5% thermal efficiency improvement. In a numerical work,
Mwesigye et al. [21] found the performance enhancement with Syl-
therm 800/Al2O3 nanofluid to be about 7.6%. Moreover, Bellos et al.
[22] calculated the thermal efficiency enhancement at 4.3% with the
same nanofluid, while Wang et al. [23] found a 1.2% enhancement.
However, the use of Cu and CuO nanoparticles has been proved to
be more effective choices than Al2O3. Bellos et al. [24] performed a
comparative study and found that the Syltherm 800/CuO leads to a
1.26% thermal efficiency increase, while the Syltherm 800/Al2O3 to
1.13%. Moreover, Ghasemi and Ranjbar [25] carried out another
comparative study between water-based nanofluids and it is found that
the water/CuO leads to a 35% heat transfer coefficient increase, while
the water/Al2O3 to 2%. In another comparative work, Rehan et al. [26]
stated that the water/Al2O3 is more effective than water/Fe2O3 with
13% and 11% thermal efficiency enhancement respectively. Bellos et al.
[8] investigated the use of oil-based and molten salt-based nanofluids in
a PTC. They found 0.76% efficiency enhancement with Syltherm 800/
CuO and 0.26% with molten salt/CuO. In another work with Syltherm
800/CuO nanofluid, Bellos at al. [13] calculated that the thermal effi-
ciency enhancement with nanofluid and internal fins can be increased
from 0.76% with only nanofluid to 1.54% with both thermal en-
hancement techniques (nanofluid and internal fins in the absorber).
Recent trends in nanofluid studies investigate the use of carbon
nanotubes. Mwesigye and Meyer [27] found a 4.4% efficiency en-
hancement with Therminol VP-1/SWCNT with a computational fluid
dynamics study. Kasaeian et al. [28] calculated experimentally that the
oil/MWCNT leads to 5% thermal efficiency improvement, while in
another work, Kasaeian et al. [29] found 0.5% enhancement with a
numerical model. Moreover, another recent trend is the utilization of
hybrid nanofluids which includes two or more different kinds of na-
noparticles. Bellos and Tzivanidis [30] calculated that the Syltherm
800/(Al2O3 - TiO2) increases the performance 1.8%, while the mono
nanofluids about to 0.7%, while Minea and El-Maghlany [31] calcu-
lated 6% enhancement with water/(Cu - MgO).
The aforementioned literature review shows that there is a great
interest in the nanofluid-based PTC. Different techniques have been
applied in order to study this phenomenon and different nanofluids
have been studied. However, there is a lack of works which investigates
the use of nanofluids in different PTC kinds and for different operating
and design condition. In this direction, the present work comes to fill
this scientific gap and it examines the use of nanofluid in three different
PTC versions; the evacuated tube receiver, the non-evacuated tube

2
E. Bellos, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714

receiver and the bare tube receiver without cover. Moreover, the three optical efficiency (ηopt,max) and of the incident angle modifier (K). For
PTCs are studied for different weather conditions (solar irradiation the PTC, the maximum optical efficiency is found for zero solar angle
level, solar incident angle, ambient temperature and wind speed), as and it is 75.3% for the cases with cover (ET and N-ET) and 78.4% for
well as for different operating conditions (volumetric flow rate and the case without cover (BT).
fluid inlet temperature), while the nanoparticle concentration and the
ηopt (θ) = K(θ)·ηopt , max (3)
absorber emittance are also examined. To our knowledge, there is not
any other work that studies the use of nanofluids in a so detailed way The incident angle (θ) is calculated by taking into consideration the
and for the three versions of the PTC, so this work has to add something tracking system and the sun position. In this work, the PTC is assumed
new in the existing literature. The examined nanoparticle is Cu which is to be placed in the North-South direction and to follow the sun path in
an ideal nanoparticle due to its high thermal conductivity and it has the East-West direction. The incident angle modifier (K) is found from
been found to be an ideal one [32]. Lastly, it has to be said that the the following expression [34]:
simulation tool of this work is Engineering Equation Solver (EES).
K (θ) = cos(θ) + 0.000884·θ − 0.00005369·θ 2 (4)
Material and methods
Thermal analysis modeling
The studied parabolic trough solar collector
The objective of the PTC thermal analysis is to determine the useful
In the present work, the LS-2 PTC module is examined [34-36]
heat production (Qu). The energy balance on the PTC absorber is the
which is a common selection in the literature in works about thermal
first step in order to correlate the (Qu) with the (Qabs). So, it can be said:
enhancement techniques. The module of this PTC is depicted in Fig. 1.
This design includes an evacuated tube receiver with absorber-dia- Qabs = Qu + Qloss (5)
meters of (Dro = 70 mm – Dri = 66 mm and cover-diameters of
The thermal losses (Qloss) are radiation, convection, and conduction
(Dco = 115 mm and Dci = 109 mm). The tube length (L) is 7.8 m, the
thermal losses. The conduction is generally neglected due to the small
parabola width (Wa) is 5.0 m and the parabola focal distance (F)
thickness of the absorber material and its high thermal conductivity.
1.84 m. The maximum optical efficiency (ηopt,max) is about 73.3% [34-
36], the cover transmittance (τ) is 93.5%, the absorber absorbance (α) is
95% and the total-equivalent reflectance of the mirror (r) is 82.6% The useful heat (Qu) can be found by using energy balance in the
(including various optical losses, e.g. tracking errors). About the bare fluid volume as below:
tube, the maximum optical efficiency is 78.4% because there are not the
cover transmittance optical losses. Table 1 gives the basic information Qu = m ·cp·(Tout − Tin ) (6)
about the studied collector. Syltherm 800 is the working fluid in this
work which is typical thermal oil [37]. The nanoparticle is Cu which
has a thermal conductivity (knp) of 401 W/mK, a specific heat capacity Furthermore, the useful heat production (Qu) can be calculated as
(cp,np) of 385 J/kgK and a density (ρnp) of 8933 kg/m3 [32]. the heat that transferred by the hot absorber to the heat transfer
In the present study, three different receivers are investigated. The fluid:
conventional evacuate tube receiver (ET) which is used in the LS-2 PTC
module, the non-evacuated tube receiver (N-ET) and the bare tube re-
Qu = Aro ·h·(Tr − Tfm) (7)
ceiver (BT). Fig. 2 illustrates the three aforementioned receiver designs.
The N-ET has enclosure air between cover and absorber, while the ET
design has not air which is practically vacuum conditions. The existence
The fluid mean temperature (Tfm) is estimated according to the
of vacuum eliminates the convection thermal losses and so the system
next formula:
has increased thermal efficiency, especially in high operating tem-
perature levels. The BT design has no cover and the absorber comes
directly in touch with the ambient air. The BT has a bit higher optical Tin + Tout
Tfm =
efficiency compared to other designs due to the lack of the cover 2 (8)
transmittance optical loss. However, the BT has significantly lower
thermal efficiency compared to other designs with cover. Generally, the
The heat transfer coefficient (h) inside the flow is calculated by
ET is the most expensive designs, while the other design has a lower
using the Nusselt number (Nu) in this work.
cost.

Mathematical formulation of the analysis Nu·k

h=
Dri (9)
Optical analysis modeling
The direct solar beam irradiation on the PTC aperture area (Gb) is
the exploited part of the total incident solar irradiation. The heat input
in the PTC is the solar energy (Qs) which is expressed as below:
Qs = Aa ·Gb (1)

The absorbed solar energy (Qabs) is found by introducing the

system optical efficiency (ηopt):

Qabs = ηopt (θ)·Q (2)

s

The PTC optical efficiency is depended on the solar incident angle

(θ). The optical efficiency is modeled with the use of the maximum Fig. 1. The LS-2 PTC module which is examined in the present study.

3
E. Bellos, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714

Table 1 transfer coefficient values, the minimum value is selected to be 5 W/

Main parameters of the studied solar collector [34-36] m2K.
Parameters Symbols Values
The emittance of the selective cermet coating of the LS-2 (εr) is
Collector width (Wa) 5m calculated according to the next formula [35]:
Collector length (L) 7.8 m
Parabola focal distance (F) 1.84 m
Collector aperture area (Aa) 39 m2 εr = 0.06282 + 1.208·10−4 ·Tr + 1.907·10−7·Tr2 (14)
Concentration ratio (C) 22.7
Inner diameter of the receiver (Dri) 0.066 m At this point, it has to be said that during the parametric study the
Outer diameter of the receiver (Dro) 0.070 m
absorber emittance is also studied with specific constant values in order
Inner diameter of the cover (Dci) 0.109 m
Outer diameter of the cover (Dco) 0.115 m to examine different design scenarios. In all the other cases, Eq. (14) is
Emittance of the cover (εc) 0.86 applied as the default choice.
Maximum optical efficiency (ηopt,max) 75.3% The internal heat transfer coefficient between absorber and cover
Transmittance of the cover (τ) 93.5% (hin) is estimated by using the Eqs. (15) to (17) [40]. Eq. (15) gives the
Absorbance of the absorber (α) 96.0%
Total-equivalent reflectance (r) 82.6%
value of (hin) as a function of the effective thermal conductivity (keff):
2·keff
hin =
D
The next step is the determination of the thermal losses (Qloss). For Dro ·ln ⎡ D ci ⎤
⎣ ro ⎦ (15)
the ET and the N-ET cases, the following formula expresses the
thermal losses from the absorber to cover:
Eq. (16) shows the way that the effective thermal conductivity
(keff) can be found:
Tr4 − Tc4
Qloss = Aro ·σ· 1 1 − εc Ari
+ Aro ·hin ·(Tr − Tc )
εr
+ εc
·A (10) 0.25
co Prair
keff = kair ·0.386·⎛ ⎜
⎞ ⎟ ·Fg0.25·Raair
0.25

⎝ Prair + 0.861 ⎠ (16)

The internal heat transfer coefficient (hin) is zero for the design
with ET (hin,ET = 0), while for the case of N-ET is calculated with a It is useful to state that the thermal conductivity (k) of the air, the
methodology which is given below. Prandtl number (Pr) and the Rayleigh number (Ra) have to be used
in the mean temperature of cover-absorber.
The thermal losses from the absorber to cover are equal to the
thermal losses between cover and ambient because the receiver is as- Eq. (17) shows the way that the geometric parameter (Fg) can be found:
sumed to operate in steady-state conditions. So, there are not heat
storage terms and it can be said:
[ln(dci ) − ln(dro )]4
Qloss = Aco ·σ·εc ·(Tc4 − Tsky
4
) + Aco ·hout ·(Tc − Tam ) (11) Fg =
dci − dro 3
( 2 ) ·[dci−0.6 + dro−0.6 ]5 (17)

The sky temperature (Tsky) is calculated from the following

formula [38]: Lastly, the thermal efficiency of the PTC (ηth) is defined as below:

1.5
Tsky = 0.0552·Tam Qu
(12) ηth =
Qs (18)

The values of the temperature in Eqs. (11) and (12) have to be in

kelvin units. The thermal efficiency enhancement of the system with the use of
nanofluid (En) is calculated as below:
The heat transfer coefficient from the cover to ambient (hout) is found by the
next expression [39]: ηth (φ)
En = ⎡ − 1⎤·100%
⎢ η (φ = 0%) ⎥ (19)
⎣ th ⎦
0.58 −0.48
hout = 4·V wind ·Dco (13)
Practically, the enhancement parameter shows the percentage in-
For the case of the bare tube, the outer receiver diameter is used crease of the thermal efficiency for a case with (φ) volumetric con-
instead of the outer cover diameter. In the cases of very small heat centration of the nanoparticle in the base fluid compare to the case with

Fig. 2. The examined receivers a) Evacuated tube receiver b) Non-evacuated tube receiver c) Bare tube receiver.

4
E. Bellos, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714

Table 2 knf
anf =
The values of the examined parameters in this study. ρnf ·cp, nf (30)
Parameter Symbol Default Value Range

Direct beam irradiation Gb 1000 W/m2 300 – 1000 W/m2 The mean fluid velocity of the fluid (um) is used in Eqs. (29) and it
Incident angle θ 0o 0 – 60o is calculated as:
Ambient temperature Tam 25 °C 10 – 40 °C
Wind speed Vwind 1 m/s 0 – 10 m/s
Volumetric flow rate V 100 L/min 25 – 300 L/min m
Inlet fluid temperature Tin 300 °C 50 – 350 °C
um =
Absorber emittance εr Eq. (14) 0.05 – 0.95
ρnf · ( π
4
·Dri4 ) (31)
Nanoparticle concentration φ 4% 0 – 4%
Lastly, it has to be said that in this work, the volumetric flow rate
(V) in [L/min] can be connected with the mass flow rate in [kg/s] as
pure thermal oil (φ = 0%). Moreover, it is important to state that the below:
thermal efficiency enhancement is equivalent to the useful heat pro- kg
duction enhancement for this work. L m⎡ ⎤ L s
V⎡ ⎤ = ⎣ s ⎦ ·1000 ⎡ ⎤·60 ⎡ ⎤
kg 3
⎣ min ⎦ ρ⎡ 3⎤ ⎣ m ⎦ ⎣ min ⎦
⎣m ⎦ (32)
Calculation of nanofluid thermal properties

The nanofluid presents different thermal properties compared to the
base fluid and the calculation of these thermal properties is conducted
by applying the formulas of this subsection. The nanofluid case is
symbolized with (nf), the base-fluid (thermal oil) with (bf) while the
nanoparticle (Cu) with (np). Moreover, the volumetric nanoparticle
concentration is symbolized (φ) and it is ranged from 0% up to 4% in
this work.
The nanofluid density (ρ) is estimated as [41]:
ρnf = φ ·ρnp + (1 − φ)·ρbf
The nanofluid specific heat capacity (cp) is estimated as [41]:
φ ·ρnp ·cp, np + (1 − φ)·ρbf ·cp, bf
cp, nf =
ρnf
The nanofluid thermal conductivity (k) is found according to Yu and
Choi model [42].
knp + 2·kbf + 2·(knp − kbf )·(1 + β )3·φ
knf = kbf ·
knp + 2·kbf − (knp − kbf )·(1 + β )3·φ
The nano-layer thickness to the original particle radius (β) is a cri-
tical parameter that is selected at 0.1 [43].
The nanofluid dynamic viscosity (μ) o is calculated according to the
Bachelor model [44] which is valid up to 4% volumetric concentra-
tions.
μnf = μbf ·(1 + 2.5·φ + 6.2·φ2)
At this point, it has to be said that the used models about the
thermal properties of the oil-based nanofluid are general and they are
not based on developed formulas from experimental results due to the
lack of this information in the literature.
The Nusselt number (Nu) in the case of pure thermal oil is calculated
by the Dittus-Boelter model [45] which is the proper model for the
turbulent flow regime:
Followed methodology of this work
In the present work, the mathematical formulation of section 2.2
has been used in order to develop a proper thermal model in EES [33].
The present model takes inputs and calculates outputs in every case.
The main inputs are the solar irradiation, the incident angle, the wind
speed, the ambient temperature, the fluid inlet temperature, the volu-
metric fluid flow rate and the nanoparticle concentration. The main
outputs are the thermal efficiency of the system, the useful heat pro-
(20)
duction, and the thermal losses. Table 2 gives the default values of the
examined parameters, as well as the studied range of these parameters
in the parametric comparative study. The parametric analysis is con-
ducted for the three different PTC types (ET, N-ET, and BT), while the
(21) case with pure thermal oil (φ = 0%) and with nanofluid (φ = 4%) are
compared. The thermal efficiency enhancement (En) is calculated in
every case, as well as results about the decrease in the thermal losses
with the use of nanofluid are given. Lastly, it has to be said that an
important limitation of this work is the use of uniform heat flux over the
(22) absorber tube while in the real system there is a non-uniform heat flux
distribution. However, this assumption can be adopted as valid for the
present work because of the proper validation of our model with ex-
perimental results. The validation is given in section 2.4 which follows.
Validation of the developed model
The developed model in EES is validated with experimental data
(23)
from the literature. The results from Dudley et al. [34] are exploited for
conducting validation tests. The validation is conducted for the ET and
the N-ET, while the examined parameters are the PTC efficiency and the
PTC thermal losses. Figs. 3–6 show the results of the present model, of
Experimental Model
74%
72%
Thermal eĸciency - ɻ th

(27) 70%
Nu = 0.023·Re 0.8·Pr 0.4
68%
For the case of nanofluid, the formula of Xuan and Li [46] is applied
for the turbulent flow regime: 66%

64%
Nu = 0.005·(1 + 7.6286·φ0.6886 ·Ped0.001)·Re 0.9238·Pr 0.4 (28)
62%
The Peclet number (Ped) is defined as:
60%
um · d p 58%
Ped =
anf (29) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Inlet temperature - Tin (oC)
The nanoparticle diameter (dp) is selected at 100 nm in this work
(dp = 100 ∙ 10-9) as a typical one. The nanofluid thermal diffusivity (αnf) Fig. 3. Validation analysis about the thermal efficiency for the LS-2 evacuated
calculated as: tube receiver.

5
E. Bellos, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714

70 Experimental Model 74% ʔ с 0% ʔ с 2% ʔ с 4% 1.8%

60 73% 1.6%

Thermal eĸciency enhancement

72% 1.4%
Thermal losses - Qloss (W)

Thermal eĸciency - ɻ th
50
71% 1.2%

40 70% 1.0%

69% 0.8%
30
68% 0.6%
20 67% 0.4%

66% 0.2%
10
65% 0.0%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Inlet Ňuid temperature - Tin (oC)
Inlet temperature - Tin (oC)
Fig. 7. Thermal efficiency of the ET for different fluid inlet temperatures.
Fig. 4. Validation analysis about the thermal losses for the LS-2 evacuated tube
receiver.
mean experimental error which is about 3.0%. Fig. 4 illustrates the
thermal losses validation procedure for the ET case. The deviation is
Experimental Model
75% 5.4 W/m2 and it is lower than the experimental mean error of 6.8 W/
m2. Fig. 5 exhibits the collector efficiency validation for the N-ET case.
70%
The mean thermal efficiency deviation is 2.7% which is lower than the
mean experimental error which is about 3.1%. Fig. 6 shows the thermal
Thermal eĸciency - ɻ th

losses validation procedure for the N-ET case. The deviation is 2.4 W/
65% m2 and it is lower than the experimental mean error of 7.5 W/m2. All
the previous results indicate that the found mean deviation between the
60% model results is lower than the experiment errors of [34]. So, it can be
said that the developed thermal model is valid and accurate.

55%
Results and discussion

50% Initial analysis: The influence of the inlet temperature on the efficiency
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Inlet temperature - Tin (oC) Section 3.1 presents the results about the impact of the inlet tem-
Fig. 5. Validation analysis about the thermal efficiency for the LS-2 non-evac-
perature of the working fluid on the system performance. Moreover, the
uated tube receiver. impact of the nanoparticle concentration is also given partially in this
section. Figs. 7 and 8 show results for ET, Figs. 9–10 for N-ET and
120
Figs. 11-12. Figs. 7, 9 and 11 show the thermal efficiency for the cases
Experimental Model
of pure thermal oil (φ = 0%) and of nanofluid with φ = 2% and
100 φ = 4%. Figs. 8, 10 and 12 give the thermal losses for the cases of pure
Thermal losses - Qloss (W)

thermal oil (φ = 0%) and of nanofluid with φ = 2% and φ = 4%.

80 Fig. 7 shows that the collector thermal efficiency curves have si-
milar trends with thermal oil and nanofluids. The use of nanofluid in-
60 creases thermal efficiency and higher nanoparticle concentration leads
to higher thermal efficiency. Moreover, it can be said that the en-
40
hancement is greater when the system operates at a higher temperature.
20
This is a reasonable result because in higher temperatures there are
more thermal losses and so there is a higher thermal efficiency en-
0 hancement margin. Fig. 8 validates the existence of higher thermal
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Inlet temperature - Tin (oC) 2500 ʔ с 0% ʔ с 2% ʔ с 4% 40%

2250
Fig. 6. Validation analysis about the thermal losses for the LS-2 non-evacuated 35%
tube receiver. 2000
30%
Thermal losses - Qloss (W)

Thermal loss decrease

1750
the experiment in Ref. [34] and also the error bars of the experiment 25%
1500
are given. In order to perform a proper validation, the operating con- 1250 20%
ditions of Ref. [34] are inserted in the developed model for 7 operating
1000
scenarios in every collector type. It is important to state that during the 15%

thermal losses test, the collector is unfocused and zero solar irradiation 750
10%
is given in order to determine the thermal losses as the reduction of the 500
working fluid energy rate. It is essential to state that in all cases, there 250
5%
was not any problem with the maximum outlet temperature which was
0 0%
under the limit of 400 °C for Syltherm 800. 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Fig. 3 shows the thermal efficiency validation for the ET case. The Inlet Ňuid temperature - Tin (oC)
mean thermal efficiency deviation is 1.2% which is lower than the
Fig. 8. Thermal losses of the ET for different fluid inlet temperatures.

6
E. Bellos, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714

73% ʔ с 0% ʔ с 2% ʔ с 4% 2.5% 9000 ʔ с 0% ʔ с 2% ʔ с 4% 30%

72%
71% 8000
25%
70% 2.0%

Thermal eĸciency enhancement

7000

Thermal losses - Qloss (W)

69%

Thermal loss decrease

Thermal eĸciency - ɻ th

68% 6000 20%

67%
1.5%
66% 5000
15%
65%
4000
64%
1.0%
63% 3000 10%
62%
61% 2000
60% 0.5% 5%
1000
59%
58% 0 0%
57% 0.0% 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Inlet Ňuid temperature - Tin (oC)
Inlet Ňuid temperature - Tin (oC)
Fig. 12. Thermal losses of the BT for different fluid inlet temperatures.
Fig. 9. Thermal efficiency of the N-ET for different fluid inlet temperatures.

5000 ʔ с 0% ʔ с 2% ʔ с 4% 30%
efficiency enhancement due to the relatively low thermal losses of the
PTC with an evacuated tube receiver.
4500
Figs. 9 and 10 show results about the N-ET case. Practically, similar
25%
4000 comments can be done with Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. It is important
Thermal losses - Qloss (W)

3500 to state that the enhancement is a bit higher with the N-ET compared to
Thermal loss decrease

20%
the ET case. More specifically, Fig. 9 shows that for the case φ = 2%
3000
the thermal efficiency enhancement reaches up to 1.46% for the N-ET,
2500 15%
higher than the 1.15% of the ET case. Moreover, the N-ET case for
2000 φ = 4% has a maximum enhancement of 1.98% which is higher than
10% the 1.54% of the ET case.
1500
Fig. 10 indicates that the thermal losses of the N-ET can reach up to
1000
5% 4714 for operation at 350 °C with thermal oil, while this value in Fig. 8
500
was 2295 W, something that indicates that the existence of air between
0 0% cover and absorber leads to double thermal losses in the PTC. Moreover,
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Fig. 10 shows that for the φ = 2% case the thermal losses are ranged
Inlet Ňuid temperature - Tin (oC)
from 5.64% up to 13.74%, while for φ = 4% from 7.64% up to 27.63%.
Fig. 10. Thermal losses of the N-ET for different fluid inlet temperatures. These values are lower compared to the ET case because there are
different reference values in every case in the calculation of the per-
76% ʔ с 0% ʔ с 2% ʔ с 4% 3.5% centages.
74% Figs. 11 and 12 show the operation with BT and they give the
72% 3.0% thermal efficiency and the thermal losses respectively. Fig. 11 indicates
Thermal eĸciency enhancement

70% that the use of nanofluid leads to efficiency enhancement again which is
2.5% up to 2.23% for φ = 2% and up to 30.4% for φ = 4%. According to
Thermal eĸciency - ɻ th

68%
66% Fig. 12, the maximum thermal losses are 7921 W which is very higher
2.0%
64% compared to ET and NET cases. The thermal losses for the φ = 2% case
62%
1.5%
are ranged from 4.37% up to 13.25%, while for φ = 4% from 5.95% up
60% to 27.09%.
58% 1.0% In the last part of this section, the performance comparison of the
56% three different PTCs is given in Figs. 1 and 14. In Fig. 13, the thermal
54% 0.5% efficiency curves for operation with pure thermal oil are plotted for the
52%
50% 0.0%
ET (ʔ = 0%) N-ET (ʔ = 0%) BT (ʔ = 0%)
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
75% 3.5%
Inlet Ňuid temperature - Tin (oC)
3.0%
Thermal eĸciency enhancement

Fig. 11. Thermal efficiency of the BT for different fluid inlet temperatures. 70%
Thermal eĸciency - ɻ th

2.5%
65%
losses in higher operating temperature levels. Also, Fig. 8 shows that
2.0%
the use of nanofluids decreases the thermal losses and the percentage 60%
decrease is higher in lower operating temperature levels. Practically, 1.5%
the thermal losses decrease is greater in higher temperatures but the 55%
1.0%
thermal losses decrease as a percentage is higher in lower temperatures
because in lower temperatures the absolute value of the thermal losses 50% 0.5%
is not high.
The thermal efficiency enhancement with φ = 2% reaches up to 45% 0.0%
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
1.15% and with φ = 4% up to 1.54% for Tin = 350 °C. The thermal Inlet Ňuid temperature - Tin (oC)
losses decrease for the φ = 2% is ranged from 10.33% up to 19.75%,
while for φ = 4% from 13.86% up to 37.62%. The high percentage Fig. 13. Thermal efficiency comparison of the three PTC for operation with
decrease of the thermal losses is translated into a small thermal pure thermal oil and thermal efficiency enhancement for (φ = 4%).

7
E. Bellos, et al.
three receivers. It can be said that the ET case leads to the maximum
efficiency, and the N-ET is the second choice for inlet temperatures
higher than 125 °C. In the range of 50 °C up to 125 °C, the BT is the
second choice because of the higher optical efficiency due to the not
existence of the cover. Moreover, it has to be said that for Tin = 50 °C,
the ET and BT have approximately the same efficiency, so for low-
temperature level application, the use of a BT is a better choice due to
its lower cost compared to the ET. Furthermore, Fig. 13 shows the
thermal efficiency enhancement with the use of φ = 4%. It is obvious
that BT can be enhanced more than other cases, while the ET presents
the lowest enhancements. So, it can be said that the use of nanofluids is
a more efficient method in receivers of lower quality (N-ET or BT)
which present high thermal losses. So, the use of nanofluids can be
applied in simpler PTC designs in order to achieve significant efficiency
values.
Fig. 14 illustrates the thermal losses of the three-receiver designs. It
is obvious that BT has significantly higher thermal losses compared to
other cases. On the other hand, BT has a lower percentage decrease of
the thermal losses with nanofluids compared to the other cases because
the reference value of the thermal losses is higher for the BT case.
Parametric study
In section 3.2, the influence of various system parameters on the
results is given. More specifically, the subsections from 3.2.1 up to 3.2.7
include the parametric analysis results with one parameter in every
time to be varied in the horizontal axis of the figures. The other para-
meters are kept to their default values according to table 2. An excep-
tion is done only for the temperature which is also given parametrically
for three inlet temperature levels 100 °C, 200 °C, and 300 °C. In the
cases that the inlet temperature level is not given, it is assumed to be
300 °C.
The impact of the nanoparticle concentration
Fig. 15a shows the impact of the nanoparticle concentration on the
PTC efficiency for the three-receiver designs. It is obvious that the ET
case has higher efficiency than the other cases, while BT has the lowest
efficiency. Higher values of the nanoparticle concentration lead to a
small increase in thermal efficiency. Fig. 15b shows that the thermal
efficiency enhancement is the highest for the BT with N- ET and ET to
follow respectively. The maximum efficiency enhancement is found for
φ = 4% and it is 1.08% for ET, 1.55% for N-ET and 2.52% for BT.
Fig. 16 shows that the thermal efficiency is higher when there are
higher operating temperature levels for the ET receiver because of the
higher thermal losses in high temperatures which give a higher thermal
efficiency enhancement margin. This result is valid for the other two
receivers but the results are not given because they follow the trends of
Fig. 15a.
The impact of the volumetric flow rate
Fig. 17a depicts that a greater volumetric flow rate leads to an in-
crease in the thermal efficiency of all the receivers. After the limit of
100 L/min, the increase of the efficiency is not so high, thus there is not
an important reason for using a higher flow rate because of the in-
creased pressure drop in the high flow rate. Fig. 17b indicates that the
thermal efficiency improvement is greater for BT with N-ET and ET to
follow respectively. The thermal efficiency enhancement is high in low
flow rates due to the enhancement margin, while it is relatively low in
high flow rates. So, it can be said that the use of nanofluids is more
important in cases with a low flow rate due to the higher enhancements
in these cases. For the BT, the maximum enhancement is 7.16%, for the
N-ET 4.87% and for the ET 4.06%. Fig. 18 indicates that the increase of
the temperature creates higher enhancement margins and the en-
hancement curves trends are the same for all the examined temperature
levels. Moreover, it is interesting to state that efficiency and efficiency
enhancement are increased a lot from 50 L/min to 100 L/min. In this
8
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714
range, there is an important increase in the Reynolds number which
leads to significant enhancement in the heat transfer coefficient and
thus there is an important increase in the PTC performance. After the
limit of the 100 L/min, the heat transfer rate is high and further in-
crease cannot affect a lot the results.
The impact of the emittance
The impact of the absorber emittance is exhibited in Fig. 19a.
Higher emittance reduces significantly the thermal efficiency. The case
with an emittance of 0.05 is an ideally selective absorber, while the case
with an emittance of 0.95 is a non-selective absorber (low-quality ab-
sorber). An interesting result is that the efficiency of the BT is reduced
linearly with the increase of the emittance due to the lack of the cover
which makes the impact of the emittance not so important. Fig. 19b
illustrates the thermal efficiency enhancement for the three receivers
which has an increasing rate with the increase of the emittance. The
maximum enhancement is 4.23% for ET, 4.33% for N-ET and 7.31% for
BT. Also, Fig. 19b indicates that the thermal efficiency improvement
linearly increased with the emittance increase. Another important point
is that for the non-selective absorber (εr = 0.95) the thermal efficiency
enhancement is similar for ET and N-ET because of the high thermal
losses which make collectors have similar efficiency and behavior.
Moreover, Fig. 20 shows that thermal efficiency enhancement is greater
in higher operating temperatures. Finally, the results indicate that the
use of nanofluid is more important in cases with higher emittance and
especially for BT.
The impact of the solar irradiation level
Fig. 21a shows that the increase in solar irradiation leads to higher
collector efficiency. Especially for the N-ET and BT receivers, the ex-
istence of at least 600 W/m2 solar direct beam irradiation is vital in
order to have adequate performance. Practically, when the system op-
erates in specific inlet temperature, there are some unenviable thermal
losses that are approximately the same for all the irradiation levels and
thus these losses have a higher impact on the efficiency in lower solar
irradiation levels. Fig. 21b illustrates the efficiency improvement with
the increase of the solar irradiation level. It is clear that the increase in
solar potential leads to a very small improvement in efficiency en-
hancement. So, the value of the nanofluid utilization is not so depen-
dent on the solar irradiation levels that the PTC usually operates. For
the ET case, the maximum enhancement is 1.13%, for the N-ET is
1.60% and for BT is 2.58%. Fig. 22 depicts the impact of the inlet
temperature and of the solar irradiation on the results and it is clear
again that greater fluid inlet temperature leads to greater enhancement
for the ET case.
ET (ʔ = 0%) N-ET (ʔ = 0%) BT (ʔ = 0%)
9000 40%
8000 35%
7000
Thermal losses deacrease
30%
Thermal losses - Qloss (W)
6000
25%
5000
20%
4000
15%
3000
2000
10%
1000 5%
0 0%
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Inlet Ňuid temperature - Tin (oC)
Fig. 14. Thermal losses comparison of the three PTC for operation with pure
thermal oil and thermal losses decrease for (φ = 4%).
E. Bellos, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714

75% ET N-ET BT

70%

Thermal eĸciency - ɻ th
65%

60%

55%

50%

45%

40%
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Volumetric Ňoǁ rate - V (L/min)

(a) (a)

8% ET N-ET BT

7%

Thermal eĸciency enhancement

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
Volumetric Ňoǁ rate - V (L/min)

(b)
(b)
Fig. 17. The impact of the volumetric flow rate on the a) thermal efficiency b)
Fig. 15. The impact of the nanoparticle concentration on the a) thermal effi- thermal efficiency enhancement for the three examined receivers with the inlet
ciency and b) thermal efficiency enhancement for the three examined receivers temperature to be at 300 °C.
with the inlet temperature to be at 300 °C.
4.5% Tin = 100ȗC Tin = 200ȗC Tin = 300ȗC
Tin = 100ȗC Tin = 200ȗC Tin = 300ȗC
1.2% 4.0%
Thermal eĸciency enhancement

1.1%
3.5%
1.0%
Thermal eĸciency enhancement

3.0%
0.9%
0.8% 2.5%
0.7% 2.0%
0.6%
1.5%
0.5%
0.4% 1.0%

0.3% 0.5%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1% 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
0.0% Volumetric Ňoǁ rate - V (L/min)
0% 1% 2% 3% 4%
Fig. 18. The impact of the volumetric flow rate on the ET thermal efficiency for
three different inlet temperature levels.
Fig. 16. The impact of the nanoparticle concentration on the ET thermal effi-
ciency for three different inlet temperature levels.
the examined angles. Fig. 23b shows that the impact of the incident
angle on the enhancement is negligible and the enhancements for the
The impact of the incident angle
three receivers are approximately the same for all the examined angles.
The influence of the solar incident angle on the results with pure
A more deep analysis indicates that the enhancement is a bit higher in
thermal oil is given in Fig. 23a. A higher solar angle leads to lower
lower angles because the available absorbed solar energy is higher in
thermal efficiency. Especially after the 10°, the decrease of the thermal
these cases. For the ET the maximum enhancement is 0.94%, for the N-
efficiency is significant and so there is a need for taking into con-
ET is 1.44% and for BT is 2.38%. Fig. 24 shows that a higher inlet
sideration the solar angle in the calculations. The thermal efficiency
temperature leads to higher enhancement for all the incident angles.
curves of the three different receivers are parallel to each other for all

9
E. Bellos, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714

80% ET N-ET BT 80% ET N-ET BT

70% 70%

60% 60%
Thermal eĸciency - ɻ th

Thermal eĸciency - ɻ th
50% 50%

40% 40%

30% 30%

20% 20%

10% 10%

0%
0%
0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Absorber emiƩance - ɸ r Solar irradiaƟon - Gb (W/m2)

(a) (a)

8% 3.0% ET N-ET BT
ET N-ET BT

7%
2.5%

Thermal eĸciency enhancement

Thermal eĸciency enhancement

6%
2.0%
5%

4% 1.5%

3%
1.0%

2%
0.5%
1%

0% 0.0%
0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Solar irradiaƟon - Gb (W/m2)
Absorber emiƩance - ɸ r
(b)
(b)
Fig. 21. The impact of the irradiation level on the a) thermal efficiency b)
Fig. 19. The impact of the absorber emittance on the a) thermal efficiency b) thermal efficiency enhancement for the three examined receivers with the inlet
thermal efficiency enhancement for the three examined receivers with the inlet temperature to be at 300 °C.
temperature to be at 300 °C.

1.2% Tin = 100ȗC Tin = 200ȗC Tin = 300ȗC

4.5% Tin = 100ȗC Tin = 200ȗC Tin = 300ȗC
1.1%
4.0%
1.0%
Thermal eĸciency enhancement
Thermal eĸciency enhancement

3.5% 0.9%

3.0% 0.8%
0.7%
2.5%
0.6%
2.0%
0.5%
1.5%
0.4%
1.0% 0.3%

0.5% 0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.85 0.95 0.0%
Absorber emiƩance - ɸ r 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Solar irradiaƟon - Gb (W/m2)
Fig. 20. The impact of the absorber emittance on the ET thermal efficiency for
three different inlet temperature levels. Fig. 22. The impact of the irradiation on the ET thermal efficiency for three
different inlet temperature levels.

The impact of the ambient temperature

Fig. 25a proves that for all the examined PTC, the impact of the 1.08% for the ET 1.56% for the N-ET and 2.52% for BT. Fig. 26 vali-
ambient temperature on the efficiency is very low. Theoretically, higher dates again that greater fluid inlet temperature leads to higher en-
ambient temperature increases performance, for a specific inlet tem- hancements for all the ambient temperatures.
perature, because there are lower thermal losses. However, the impact
of the ambient temperature is too small to give an adequate change in
efficiency. Also, Fig. 25b shows that the influence of the ambient The impact of the wind speed
temperature on the enhancement is extremely low. It can be said that The impact of the wind speed on the results is given in Fig. 27a. The
the maximum enhancements are found for Tam = 10 °C and they are values of zero wind speed mean that there is no significant air move-
ment and in these cases, the (hout) is selected at 5 W/m2K. Fig. 27a

10
E. Bellos, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714

80% ET N-ET BT

70%

60%
Thermal eĸciency - ɻ th

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Incident angle - ɽ (o)

(a)

3.0% ET N-ET BT

2.5%
Thermal eĸciency enhancement

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Incident angle - ɽ (o)

(b)
Fig. 23. The impact of the incident angle on the a) thermal efficiency b) thermal efficiency enhancement for the three examined receivers with the inlet temperature
to be at 300 °C.

11
E. Bellos, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714

1.2% Tin = 100ȗC Tin = 200ȗC Tin = 300ȗC 1.2% Tin = 100ȗC Tin = 200ȗC Tin = 300ȗC
1.1% 1.1%
1.0% 1.0%

Thermal eĸciency enhancement

Thermal eĸciency enhancement

0.9% 0.9%
0.8% 0.8%
0.7% 0.7%
0.6% 0.6%
0.5% 0.5%
0.4% 0.4%
0.3% 0.3%
0.2% 0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Incident angle - ɽ (o) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Ambient temperature - Tam (oC)
Fig. 24. The impact of the angle on the ET thermal efficiency for three different
inlet temperature levels. Fig. 26. The impact of the ambient temperature on the ET thermal efficiency
for three different inlet temperature levels.
80% ET N-ET BT
80% ET N-ET BT
70%
70%
60%
Thermal eĸciency - ɻ th

60%

Thermal eĸciency - ɻ th
50%
50%
40%
40%

30%
30%

20% 20%

10% 10%

0% 0%
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ambient temperature - Tam (oC) Wind speed - Vwind (m/s)

(a) (a)

3.0% ET N-ET BT 7% ET N-ET BT

6%
Thermal eĸciency enhancement

2.5%
Thermal eĸciency enhancement

5%
2.0%

4%
1.5%
3%
1.0%
2%

0.5%
1%

0.0% 0%
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ambient temperature - Tam (oC) Wind speed - Vwind (m/s)

(b) (b)
Fig. 25. The impact of the ambient temperature on the a) thermal efficiency b) Fig. 27. The impact of the wind speed on the a) thermal efficiency b) thermal
thermal efficiency enhancement for the three examined receivers with the inlet efficiency enhancement for the three examined receivers with the inlet tem-
temperature to be at 300 °C. perature to be at 300 °C.

shows that the wind speed has no important impact on the ET and N-ET enhancement is very small for the ET and N-ET cases, but is a critical
designs. However, it has a great influence on BT. Practically, BT has not parameter for the BT case. For the ET and N-ET cases, the maximum
a cover and the wind speed has a direct impact on the (hout) which takes efficiency enhancement is found for the wind speed of 10 m/s and they
heat directly from the absorber. In the cases with cover, the increase of are 1.10% and 1.74% respectively. It is useful to state that the impact
the wind speed is not so important on the results. For the BT, the on the N-ET is higher than in the ET because of the higher thermal
thermal efficiency at 300 °C can be ranged from 64.93% for zero wind losses in the N-ET. For BT, the enhancement is 1.85% for zero wind
speed up to 16.72% for a wind speed of 10 m/s. speed and it reaches up to 6.18% for a wind speed of 10 m/s. So, it has
Fig. 27b indicates that the impact of the wind speed on the been found that the use of nanofluids in designs with BT can be

12
E. Bellos, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714

significant when the PTC operates under high wind speeds. In the end, studied on a deep basis.
Fig. 28 indicates that a higher inlet temperature leads to higher en-
hancements for all the wind speeds.
Conclusions
Final evaluation of the results
The objective of the present study is to examine systematically the
thermal efficiency improvement of a nanofluid-based PTC for different
The last section of the results summarizes and discusses the most
cases. Three different PTC designs with an evacuated tube (ET), with a
interesting cases with high enhancements. Table 3 includes the cases
non-evacuated tube (N-ET) and with a bare tube (BT) are studied with
with the maximum enhancement for all the examined parameters with
thermal oil (Syltherm 800) and with nanofluids (Syltherm 800 / Cu
Tin = 300 °C. It can be said that the parameters that can influence more
with φ = 4%). The PTCs are studied parametrically and a total of 8
on the results are the volumetric flow rate and the absorber emittance.
different parameters are considered. More specifically, the impact of
So, these parameters are selected to be studied further and its combi-
inlet fluid temperature, nanoparticle concentration, volumetric flow
nation is given in Fig. 29. Furthermore, it is remarkable to say that the
rate, absorber emittance, solar irradiation level, solar incident angle,
enhancement is always maximized for the BT with the N-ET and ET
ambient temperature and wind speed on the efficiency enhancement
cases to follow respectively. It has a lot of interest that the wind speed
are studied. The analysis is done with a validated mathematical model
has a high impact on BT due to the lack of cover, while it has a rela-
that is created in EES. The most valuable conclusions of the present
tively low impact on the other absorbers. More specifically, the en-
study are listed below:
hancement in the BT is 6.185% with the maximum examined wind
speed, while it is 1.735% for the N-ET and 1.105% for the ET. Another
- The thermal efficiency enhancement with the use of nanofluid is
remarkable result is the variation of the incident angle, of the ambient
higher in cases with significant thermal losses. So, the maximum
temperature and of the solar irradiation is not high on the enhancement
enhancements are found for the cases with BT and the minimum
values.
with ET, while the N-ET leads to intermediate enhancements.
Fig. 29 shows that for all the emittance values, the higher flow rate
- The most important parameters on the thermal efficiency enhance-
leads to lower enhancement. The ideally selective absorber (εr) has the
ments are the fluid inlet temperature level, the volumetric flow rate,
lowest enhancement, while the non-selective absorber has the max-
the absorber emittance, and the nanoparticle concentration.
imum enhancements. The real selective absorber with Cermet coating
- The ambient temperature, the solar irradiation level, the solar angle,
has intermediate enhancements. It can be said that the overall max-
and the wind speed variation have not high influence on the thermal
imum enhancement is found for V = 25 L/min and εr = 0.95. The
efficiency enhancement. Among the aforementioned parameters,
maximum enhancement for the ET is 12.24%, for the N-ET is 12.30%
only the wind speed has a high impact on BT because of the lack of
and for the BT is 17.11%.
cover.
Generally, it can be said that the utilization of nanofluid is more
- There have been found cases with high enhancements. The use of a
effective in cases with greater thermal losses and so it is more effective
Cermet coating and a low flow rate (V = 25 L/min) can lead to a
in the BT and in the N-ET compared to the ET. The enhancement is high
7.16% enhancement for the bare tube, 4.87% for the non-evacuated
when there is not high-quality absorber (high emittance) and when the
receiver and 4.06% for the evacuated receiver. For the non-selective
system operates with a relatively low flow rate. On the other hand, the
absorber (εr = 0.95) and the same flow rate, the respective en-
enhancement is not influenced by the ambient conditions except for the
hancements are 17.11%, 12.30%, and 12.24%.
BT case which is influenced by the wind speed a lot. So, it can be said
- In future studies, there is a need to evaluate the financial viability of
that the use of nanofluids can be used as an effective method for in-
the nanofluid-based solar collector in order to check the sustain-
creasing the performance of the PTC with lower quality receivers (BT
ability of this idea.
and N-ET). Also, it gives enhancements in the ET case but these en-
hancements are generally low and they are about 1%. These results
about enhancements close to 1% for the ET case can be also found in the CRediT authorship contribution statement
literature and for example in Refs [8,13,23,24,29].
In the future, there is a need for detailed works about the financial Evangelos Bellos: Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
viability of the nanofluid-based solar systems in order to check if the editing, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization.
extra cost of the use of nanofluids can be balanced by the increased Christos Tzivanidis: Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
efficiency. Maybe the use of nanofluids can lead to viable investments editing, Software, Methodology. Zafar Said: Writing - original draft,
in low-quality PTC because of the higher thermal efficiency enhance- Writing - review & editing, Conceptualization, Methodology.
ment margins and the lower capital cost of the parabolic trough col-
lector in these cases. In recent work, Ehyaei et al. [47] found that the 1.2% Tin = 100ȗC Tin = 200ȗC Tin = 300ȗC
use of nanofluid does not lead to a significant increase in the total cost 1.1%
1.0%
Thermal eĸciency enhancement

of the solar system. Kasaeian et al. [28] found that the payback period
of the nanofluid-based PTC is lower than the payback period of the PTC 0.9%

without nanofluid. So, there are encouraging results about the financial 0.8%

viability in the literature. Moreover, there is a need for conducting 0.7%

studies about the viability of different nanoparticles in terms of energy 0.6%

and financial viability. There is a lot of interest to compare the most 0.5%

cost-effective choices which can be easier commercialized. For ex- 0.4%

0.3%
ample, the most usual nanoparticles that can be tested are the following
0.2%
Cu, CuO, Al2O3 and MWCT.
0.1%
About the agglomeration issues, there is a need for performing many
0.0%
experimental works with thermal oil-based nanofluids in high tem-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
peratures. The use of proper surfactants can be a choice for creating Wind speed - Vwind (m/s)
stable nanofluids. Another point of future research is the use of alter-
native base fluids. Different thermal oils can be used such as Therminol Fig. 28. The impact of the wind speed on the ET thermal efficiency for three
VP-1 and Dowtherm oils, while water and molten salts can be also different inlet temperature levels.

13
E. Bellos, et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714

Table 3 [13] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Tsimpoukis D. Enhancing the performance of parabolic

Summary of the enhancement variation in the parameters examined ranged trough collectors using nanofluids and turbulators. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
(Tin = 300 °C – φ = 4%). 2018;91:358–75.
[14] Gupta M, Singh V, Kumar S, Kumar S, Dilbaghi N, Said Z. Up to date review on the
Parameters Values for maximumenhancement Maximum Enhancement synthesis and thermophysical properties of hybrid nanofluids. J Cleaner Prod
ET N-ET BT 2018;190:169192.
[15] Hassani S, Saidur R, Mekhilef S, Hepbasli A. A new correlation for predicting the
φ 4% 1.076% 1.553% 2.524% thermal conductivity of nanofluids; using dimensional analysis. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 2015;90:121–30.
V 25 L/min 4.059% 4.871% 7.161%
[16] Gupta M, Singh V, Kumar R, Said Z. A review on thermophysical properties of
εr 0.95 4.229% 4.335% 7.312%
nanofluids and heat transfer applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
Gb 1000 W/m2 1.132% 1.600% 2.583%
2017;74:638–70.
θ 0ο 1.076% 1.553% 2.524% [17] Z. Said, S. Arora, E. Bellos, A review on performance and environmental effects of
Tam 10 °C 1.081% 1.557% 2.524% conventional and nanofluid-based thermal photovoltaics, Renewable and
Vwind 10 m/s 1.105% 1.735% 6.185% Sustainable Energy Reviews 2108;94:302-316.
[18] Said Z, Allagui A, Abdelkareem MA, Alawadhi H, Elsaid K. Acid-functionalized
carbon nanofibers for high stability, thermoelectrical and electrochemical proper-
18% ET / ɸr = 0.05 ET / Cermet coaƟng ET / ɸr = 0.95 ties of nanofluids. J Colloid Interface Sci 2018;520:5057.
N-ET / ɸr = 0.05 N-ET / Cermet coaƟng N-ET / ɸr = 0.95 [19] Kasaeian A, Daneshazarian R, Mahian O, Kolsi L, Chamkha AJ, Wongwises S, et al.
16% BT / ɸr = 0.05 BT / Cermet coaƟng BT / ɸr = 0.95 Nanofluid flow and heat transfer in porous media: A review of the latest develop-
Thermal eĸciency enhancement

ments. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2017;107:778–91.

14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Volumetric Ňow rate - V (L/min)
Fig. 29. Thermal efficiency enhancement for different flow rates and emittance
values (Tin = 300 °C).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Ghaith Fadi A, Razzaq Haseeb-ul-Hassan. Performance of solar powered cooling
system using Parabolic Trough Collector in UAE. Sustainable Energy Technol Assess
2017;23:21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2017.08.005.
[2] Wang Q, Yang H, Zhong S, Huang Y, Hu M, Cao J, et al. Quantitative analyses and a
novel optimization strategy on negative energy-flow region in parabolic trough
solar receivers. Sol Energy 2020;196:663–72.
[3] Shahverdi K, Loni R, Ghobadian B, Monem MJ, Gohari S, Marofi S, et al. Energy
harvesting using solar ORC system and Archimedes Screw Turbine (AST) combi-
nation with different refrigerant working fluids. Energy Convers Manage
2019;187:205–20.
[4] Quinones G, Felbol C, Valenzuela C, Cardemil JM, Escobar RA. Analyzing the po-
tential for solar thermal energy utilization in the Chilean copper mining industry.
Sol Energy 2020;197:292–310.
[5] J. Fang, Q. Liu, T. Liu, J. Lei, H. Jin, Thermodynamic evaluation of a distributed
energy system integrating a solar thermochemical process with a double-axis
tracking parabolic trough collector, Applied Thermal Engineering 2108;145:541-
551.
[6] Tzivanidis C, Bellos E. The use of parabolic trough collectors for solar cooling – A
case study for Athens climate. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 2016;8:403–13.
[7] Bamisile O, Huang Q, Hu W, Dagbasi M, Kemena AD. Performance analysis of a
novel solar PTC integrated system for multi-generation with hydrogen production.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45(1):190–206.
[8] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Tsimpoukis D. Thermal, hydraulic and exergetic evaluation
of a parabolic trough collector operating with thermal oil and molten salt based
nanofluids. Energy Convers Manage 2018;156:388–402.
[9] L.S. Conrado, A. Rodriguez-Pulido, G. Calderón, Thermal performance of parabolic
trough solar collectors, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2107;67:1345-
1359.
[10] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Tsimpoukis D. Thermal enhancement of parabolic trough
collector with internally finned absorbers. Sol Energy 2017;157:514–31.
[11] Fuqiang W, Ziming C, Jianyu T, Yuan Y, Yong S, Linhua L. Progress in concentrated
solar power technology with parabolic trough collector system: A comprehensive
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;79:1314–28.
[12] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C. Alternative designs of parabolic trough solar collectors. Prog
Energy Combust Sci 2019;71:81–117.
[20] Subramani J, Nagarajan PK, Wongwises S, El-Agouz SA, Sathyamurthya R.
Experimental Study on the Thermal Performance and Heat Transfer Characteristics
of Solar Parabolic Trough Collector Using Al2O3 Nanofluids. Environ Prog
Sustainable Energy 2018;37(3):1149–59.
[21] Mwesigye A, Huan Z, Meyer JP. Thermodynamic optimisation of the performance
of a parabolic trough receiver using synthetic oil–Al2O3 nanofluid. Appl Energy
2015;156:398–412.
[22] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA, Gkinis G. Thermal enhancement of solar
parabolic trough collectors by using nanofluids and converging-diverging absorber
tube. Renewable Energy 2016;94:213–22.
[23] Wang Y, Xu J, Liu Q, Chen Y, Liu H. Performance analysis of a parabolic trough
solar collector using Al2O3/synthetic oil nanofluid. Appl Therm Eng
225 250 275 300 2016;107:469–78.
[24] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C. Parametric investigation of nanofluids utilization in para-
bolic trough collectors. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 2017;2:71–9.
[25] Ghasemi SE, Ranjbar AA. Thermal performance analysis of solar parabolic trough
collector using nanofluid as working fluid: A CFD modelling study. J Mol Liq
2016;222:159–66.
[26] Rehan MA, Ali M, Sheikh NA, Khalil MS, Chaudhary GQ, Rashid T, et al.
Experimental performance analysis of low concentration ratio solar parabolic
trough collectors with nanofluids in winter conditions. Renewable Energy
2018;118:742–51.
[27] Mwesigye A, Yılmaz DH, Meyer JP. Numerical analysis of the thermal and ther-
modynamic performance of a parabolic trough solar collector using
SWCNTsTherminol®VP-1 nanofluid. Renewable Energy 2018;119:844–62.
[28] Kasaiean A, Sameti M, Daneshazarian R, Noori Z, Adamian A, Ming T. Heat transfer
network for a parabolic trough collector as a heat collecting element using nano-
fluid. Renewable Energy 2018;123:439–49.
[29] Kasaeian A, Daviran S, Azarian RD, Rashidi A. Performance evaluation and nano-
fluid using capability study of a solar parabolic trough collector. Energy Convers
Manage 2015;89:368–75.
[30] Bellos E, C.. Tzivanidis Thermal analysis of parabolic trough collector operating
with mono and hybrid nanofluids, Sustainable Energy Technologies and.
Assessments 2017;26:105–15.
[31] Minea AA, El-Maghlany WM. Influence of hybrid nanofluids on the performance of
parabolic trough collectors in solar thermal systems: Recent findings and numerical
comparison. Renewable Energy 2018;120:350–64.
[32] E. Bellos C. Tzivanidis Parametric analysis and optimization of an Organic Rankine
Cycle with nanofluid based solar parabolic trough collectors Renewable Energy
2017;114(B): 1376 1393.
[33] F-Chart Software, Engineering Equation Solver (EES) http://www 2015 fchart.com/
ees).
[34] V. Dudley, G. Kolb, M. Sloan, D. Kearney, SEGS LS2 solar collector-test results,
Report of Sandia National Laboratories, SAN94-1884,1994.
[35] Forristall R. Heat transfer analysis and modeling of a parabolic trough solar receiver
implemented in engineering equation solver. Colorado: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL); 2003.
[36] Behar O, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K. A novel parabolic trough solar collector model –
Validation with experimental data and comparison to Engineering Equation Solver
(EES). Energy Convers Manage 2015;106:268–81.
[37] https://www.loikitsdistribution.com/files/syltherm-800-technical-data-sheet.pdf.
[38] Swinbank WC. Long-wave radiation from clear skies. QJR Meteorol Soc
1963;89:339–40.
[39] Bhowmik NC, Mullick SC. Calculation of tubular absorber heat loss factor. Sol
Energy 1985;35(3):219–25.
[40] Raithby GD, Hollands K. A general method of obtaining approximate solutions to
laminar and turbulent free convection problems. Adv Heat Transf
1975;11:265–315.
[41] Khanafer K, Vafai K. A critical synthesis of thermophysical characteristics of na-
nofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2011;54(19):4410–28.
[42] Yu W, Choi SUS. The role of interfacial layers in the enhanced thermal conductivity
of nanofluids: a renovated Maxwell model. J Nanopart Res 2003;5:167.
[43] Duangthongsuk W, Wongwises S. An experimental study on the heat transfer per-
formance and pressure drop of TiO2-water nanofluids flowing under a turbulent
flow regime. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2010;53(1–3):334–44.

14
E. Bellos, et al.
[44] Batchelor GK. The effect of Brownian motion on the bulk stress in a suspension of
spherical particles. J. Fluid Mech. 1977;83:97–117.
[45] J. Leinhard IV, J. Leinhard V, A Heat Tranfer Textbook, fourth ed., Philogiston
Press, USA, 2012.
[46] Xuan Y, Li Q. Investigation on Convective Heat Transfer and Flow Features of
15
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39 (2020) 100714
Nanofluids. ASME. J. Heat Transfer 2003;125(1):151–5.
[47] Ehyaei MA, Ahmadi A, El Haj Assad M, Hachicha AA, Said Z, Energy,. exergy and
economic analyses for the selection of working fluid and metal oxide nanofluids in a
parabolic trough collector. Sol Energy 2019;187:175–84.