Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Effect of nanoparticle shape of Al2O3/Pure Water nanofluid on

evacuated U-Tube solar collector efficiency
Hüseyin Kaya a, *, Mohanad Alkasem b, Kamil Arslan b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bartın University, Bartın, Turkey
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Karabük University, Karabük, Turkey

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

Article history: Evacuated U-tube solar collector (EUSC) using Al2O3/Pure Water (PW) as working fluid was investigated
Received 7 April 2020 numerically in this research paper. The collector efficiency of the EUSC was analyzed for different
Received in revised form operating conditions. Al2O3 nanoparticles suspended in the pure water (PW) with different nanoparticle
26 July 2020
volume concentrations and shapes were used as collector fluid. Four different nanoparticle volume
Accepted 11 August 2020
Available online 15 August 2020
concentrations (1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 vol%) and three different nanoparticle shapes (blade, brick and
platelet) were used for formation of nanofluid. Calculations were also performed with three different
mass flow rates (0.01, 0.015 and 0.025 kg/s). The effect of volume concentration and shape of nano-
Keywords:
Solar collector
particle on the collector efficiency of a EUSC was analyzed in detail. The highest collector efficiency was
U-tube obtained at 67.1% for 4.0 vol% Al2O3/PW nanofluid with bricks nanoparticle shape which is 19.1% higher
Collector efficiency than PW as the working fluid in the system.
Nanofluid © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Nanoparticle shape

1. Introduction
Solar energy is the most important renewable energy resource
for earth. Benefiting of this renewable and free energy has critical
importance for us because of the decreasing energy sources
nowadays. Solar collectors are the mostly used devices as well as
solar photovoltaics for converting the solar energy into useable
energy. Electric and thermal energy are the most necessary types of
energies since they can be converted to another shape according to
needing. Nowadays, solar collectors have been used for heating
domestic water and generating electricity applications [1]. It is
expected that solar energy will be the most important energy
resource in the future because of raising the adverse effects of fossil
fuel sources on the environment. Therefore, developing higher
efficient solar energy systems are drawn great attention by re-
searchers. Evacuated tube solar collectors (ETSC) provide higher
collector efficiency values compared to flat plate ones (FPSC) at
higher temperatures and cold climates. Selective coating, vacuum
insulation and cylindrical shape of the absorber part provide ETSCs
higher collector efficiency [2,3]. Thus, ETSCs are commonly used for
providing hot water or space heating applications. The heat pipes
* Corresponding author. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of En-
gineering, Bartın University, 74100, Bartın, Turkey.
E-mail address: hkaya@bartin.edu.tr (H. Kaya).
and U-tube solar collectors are the most used types of the ETSCs [4].
The developments in nanotechnology in recent years have
pioneered producing of nanofluids. They are prepared with sus-
pending of nanoparticles into the conventional heat transfer fluids.
The particles having sizes smaller than 100 nm are named as
nanoparticles. The heat transfer fluids such as water, oil and
ethylene glycol are utilized as the base fluid for preparation of
nanofluid. In this way, conductivity of new heat transfer fluid in-
creases due to having higher conductivity of the nanoparticles than
the base fluids. This condition improves the convective heat
transfer characteristics. Higher thermal conductivity magnitudes
were obtained for nanofluids compared the conventional heat
transfer fluids [5e8]. Therefore, usability of nanofluids on different
engineering applications has been started to investigate by
different researchers, recently. Since one of the most important
factors affecting the efficiency of collectors is the working fluid,
improving the thermal performance of the working fluid has pos-
itive results in terms of efficiency [9e13]. Due to the higher
convective heat transfer performance and radiation absorption
capacity, it is expected that using of nanofluids as collector fluid in
ETSCs increases the collector efficiency.
Yousefi et al. [9] carried out an experimental study for analyzing
the thermal efficiency of a FPSC using Al2O3/water nanofluid as
working fluid. The nanoparticle weight concentrations of nano-
fluids were 0.2 wt% (weight concentration) and 0.4 wt%,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.08.039
0960-1481/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
268 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284

respectively. The highest thermal efficiency enhancement achieved
with 0.2 wt%. Another experimental study was done using 0.2 wt%
MWCNT (Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotube)/water nanofluid as
working fluid in a FPSC by Yousefi et al. [10] to clarify nanofluid pH
effect on collector efficiency. The highest efficiency was obtained
for 9.5 pH value for nanofluids among the 3.5, 6.5 and 9.5. Colangelo
et al. [14] obtained that heat transfer performance of a FPSC was
enhanced by 25% using Al2O3/water nanofluid as the working fluid
instead of water. Moghadam et al. [15] performed an experimental
study for determining the effect of using CuO/water nanofluid
(40 nm nanoparticle size) on efficiency of a FPSC. They reported
that the collector efficiency has been increased about 21.8%. Mahian
et al. [16] carried out an analytical analysis using Cu/water, Al2O3/
water, TiO2/water, and SiO2/water nanofluids as working fluids in a
FPSC. The nanoparticle volume concentration and nanoparticle size
of the nanofluids were 4.0 vol% and 25 nm, respectively. According
to the first law analysis, the highest heat transfer effect was ob-
tained with Al2O3/water nanofluid, while the second law analysis
showed that the lowest entropy generation was obtained with Cu/
water nanofluid.
In order to determine the collector efficiency, different types of
ETSCs (glass, heat pipe and U-tube) were investigated numerically
and experimentally [17e24].
The thermal conductivity of the working fluid of a solar collector
is the one of the important factors on the collector efficiency. Due to
the higher thermal conductivity and absorptivity magnitudes,
nanofluids are advantageous to enhance the efficiency of solar
collectors. Since energy absorptivity of working fluid is increased,
the solar radiation absorptivity of collector increases too. The spe-
cific heat of the base fluid decreases with the addition of nano-
particle, this condition enables obtaining higher temperature
difference with the same amount of energy. Liu et al. [25] experi-
mentally studied an open thermo siphon type ETSC using CuO/
water nanofluid with 1.2 wt% and 50 nm nanoparticle size as
working fluid. The increments of maximum and mean efficiencies
were 6.6% and 12.4%, respectively. Kim et al. [26] carried out ex-
periments about the thermal efficiency of an EUSC using Al2O3/
water nanofluid as working fluid. The different nanoparticle sizes
and volume concentrations of nanofluids were used. The highest
collector efficiency (72.4%) was obtained for 20 nm nanoparticle
size and 1.0 vol%. The theoretical study was made by Tong et al. [27]
for comparing of EUSC and evacuated heat pipe solar collectors. It
was observed that the heat pipe solar collector shows 8.0% higher
thermal performance than EUSC in sunny days. However, EUSC had
higher thermal performance than heat pipe collector in cloudy
days. Kaya et al. [28] studied ZnO/EG-PW nanofluid usage as a
working fluid in an EUSC having different nanoparticle volume
concentrations and mass flow rates, experimentally. They achieved
a notable improvement in the efficiency of the EUSC that was
calculated as 26.2% with 3.0 vol% at 0.047 kg/s. A numerical study
was conducted by Kaya and Arslan [29] to obtain collector effi-
ciency variation using different types of nanofluids (EG-PW based
Ag, ZnO and MgO nanofluids). The highest efficiency enhancement
was obtained with Ag/EG-PW nanofluid having 4.0 vol%. The latest
and important contributions to the literature about nanofluid usage
as a working fluid in evacuated tube and flat plate collectors are
listed in Table 1.
It is seen from the literature review that numerous experi-
mental, numerical and theoretical studies have been performed for
investigation of enhancement of solar collector performance by
using various nanofluid types as working fluid. FPSCs have been
analyzed mostly in the literature. Studies on the subject for EUSC
with using nanofluids as working fluid are fewer than other types.
Aim of this paper is to obtain the thermal efficiency of an EUSC
using Al2O3/PW nanofluid for different flow rates. The effect of
nanoparticle shape on collector efficiency has not been evaluated
for EUSC, yet. Therefore, in this numerical study, different nano-
particle volume concentrations (1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 vol%) and
nanoparticle shapes (blade, brick and platelet) of Al2O3/PW nano-
fluid has been used as working fluid. The thermal efficiencies of
EUSCs have been compared for different nanoparticle volume
concentrations and nanoparticle shapes of Al2O3/PW nanofluids.
The effect of mass flow rate on thermal efficiency of EUSC was also
determined.
2. Modeling of EUSC
The direct circulation method is used in EUSC. Copper pipes in
the evacuated tubes are used to collect the heat flux coming from
the sun by entering in the evacuated tube and leaving from the

Table 1
Recent studies about nanofluid usage as a working fluid in FPSC and ETSC-EUSC.

Collector Type Nanofluid Type Vol./Wt. Concentration Shape of Nanoparticles

Yousefi et al. (2012) [9] FPSC Al2O3/water 0.2%, 0.4% (vol.) Spherical
Yousefi et al. (2012) [30] FPSC MWCNT/water 0.2%, 0.4% (vol.) Spherical
Liu et al. (2013) [25] ETSC CuO/water 1.2% (vol.) Spherical
Colangelo et al. (2013) [14] FPSC Al2O3, Fe2O3, ZnO/water 1.0%, 2.0%, 3.0% (vol.) Spherical (Al2O3, Fe2O3), Tube (ZnO)
Moghadam et al. (2014) [15] FPSC CuO/Water 0.4% (vol.) Spherical
Mahian et al. (2014) [16] FPSC Al2O3, Cu, TiO2 SiO2/water 4.0% (vol.) Spherical
Tong et al. (2015) [31] EUSC- ETSC MWCNT/water 0.06%, 0.12%, 0.18%, 0.24% (vol.) Tube
Kim et al. (2016) [26] EUSC Al2O3/Water 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5% (vol.) Spherical
Iranmanesh et al. (2017) [32] ETSC Graphene/water 0.025, 0.5, 0.075, 0.1 (wt.) Spherical
Ghaderian et al.(2017) [33] ETSC Cuo/water 0.03%e0.06% (vol.) Spherical
Kaya et al. (2018) [28] EUSC ZnO/EG-PW 1.0%, 2.0%, 3.0%, 4.0% (vol.) Spherical
Mahbubul et al. (2018) [34] ETSC SWCNT/water 0.2% (vol.) Tube
Eidan et al. (2018) [35] ETSC Al2O3 and CuO/acetone 0.25%, 0.5% (vol.) Spherical
Sharafeldin et al. (2019) [36] ETSC CeO2/water 0.015%, 0.025%, 0.035% (vol.) Spherical
Kaya et al. (2019) [29] EUSC Ag, MgO, ZnO/EG-PW 1.0%, 2.0%, 3.0%, 4.0% Spherical
Gan et al. (2019) [37] ETSC TiO2/water 0.5% (vol.) Spherical
Sharafeldin et al. (2019) [38] ETSC WO3/water 0.014%, 0.028%, 0.042% (vol.) Spherical
Dehaj et al. (2019) [39] ETSC MgO/water 0.014%, 0.032% (vol.) Spherical
Sarafraz et al. (2019) [40] ETSC Graphene nanoplatelets-methanol 0.025%, 0.05%, 0.075% and 0.1% (wt.) Platelet
Sharafeldin et al. (2019) [41] ETSC Cu/water 0.01%, 0.02%, 0.03% (vol.) Spherical
Kaya et al. (2019) [42] ETSC Ag/water 0.035% (wt.) Spherical
Peng et al. (2020) [43] ETSC Al2O3, CuO, TiO2/water 0.1%, 1.0%, 2.0%, 3.0%, 4.0% (vol.) Spherical
Sadeghi et al. (2020) [44] ETSC Cu2O 0.04%, 0.08% (vol.) Spherical
 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284 269

Fig. 1. Model representation and the detailed structure of EUSC.

tube. The aluminum fins were also used to provide more heat EUSC was calculated with necessary boundary conditions. A sche-
collection by copper tubes with increasing the conductive surfaces matic view of thermal network of an evacuated tube is presented in
(Fig. 1). Fig. 2(b). For calculating the overall loss coefficient, thermal re-
Total solar radiation coming from the sun cannot be absorbed sistances are used. Because of very small values of R4 and R7 re-
completely due to transmissivity (t) and reflectivity (r) of the tubes. sistances, they are neglected.
For this reason, optical efficiency must also be considered for According to the thermal resistance network, the heat loss and
calculating thermal efficiency of the EUSCs. Optical efficiency is a useful energy are expressed as follows:
function of the absorptivity (a) of the absorber, the transmissivity of
the glass cover and the reflectivity of the reflector. The material of
Qu ¼ S
QL (1)
the absorber tube contains three components that are aluminum,
aluminum nitrate and copper. The whole absorber layer has great


absorption value that is 0.93. QL ¼ UL Tp
Ta (2)
The model of evacuated tube using in EUSC is given in Fig. 2(a).
Evacuated tubes used in EUSC are consisted of high-quality boro-


silicate nested two glass tubes and a U-tube is placed in the vacuum Qu ¼ Ac IT ðtaÞe
UL Tp
Ta (3)
tubes. Due to the vacuum existence that have value of 10
4 Pa, the
heat loss by conduction and convection can be reduced [3]. Some where S and Qu are the amount of solar energy collected and useful
assumptions are applied to simplify the numerical calculations: (i) heat transfer to the working fluid, respectively. QL is the heat loss
the heat transfer by convection in the evacuated tube is neglected, and IT is the total solar radiation from the sun. Ac is the absorber
(ii) steady-state conditions are taken in the calculations [45]. In tube outer surface area. (ta) is the optical efficiency of the solar
order to calculate the collector efficiency accurately, overall heat collector. The overall heat loss coefficient of the solar collector is
loss coefficient should be determined. The thermal efficiency of a calculated as given in Eq. (4).
270 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284

Fig. 2. Physical model and thermal resistance network of an evacuated tube.

UL ¼ Ut þ Ue
where Ue is the loss coefficient of the header tube edge and the
value of this was found from experimental analysis as 0.1687 W/
(m2K) [46]. Ut is the heat loss coefficient from the absorber. The
magnitude of Ut can be determined from Eq. (5):
where hg-a is the convection heat transfer coefficient from the outer
(4) glass tube to the ambient. Its value is taken as 12.7 W/(m2K) [46].
Radiation heat transfer from outer glass tube to the ambient was
neglected due to its small magnitude. Also, hp-g is the summation of
coefficients of radiation and conduction heat transfers between the
absorber and glass tubes and it is calculated by Eq. (6).

1 hp
g ¼ hp
g;r þ hp
g;c (6)

Ut ¼ 1
(5)
hg
a
þ h1
where the magnitude of hp-g,c is 0.2796 W/(m2K) [46]. Also, hp-g,r is
p
g

calculated as indicated in Eq. (7).

 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284 271

Table 2 that the fin cannot be fitted tightly, and it also prevents the heat
Technical properties considered EUSC. loss by convection from the system [31,49]. The temperature of the
Parameter Value absorber tube can be obtained as:
Diameter of the outer tube 47 mm
S þ UL Ta þ Cs T
Diameter of the absorber tube 38 mm Tp ¼ (11)
Thickness of the glass 1 mm UL þ C s
U-tube inner diameter 9 mm
U-tube thickness 0.50 mm If Eq. (10) and Eq. (11) are substituted into Eq. (9), the energy
Transmittance (t) 0.907 equation becomes:
Absorptivity of the absorber tube (a) 0.93
Emissivity of absorber tube 0.06 d2 T S þ UL ðTa
TÞ
Aluminum fin thickness 0.25 mm ¼
(12)
dx2
Air gap 1.5 mm kt 1 þ UCsL

Two boundary conditions must be used in order to solve this

sεp  
 equation. These boundary conditions are given as [47]:
2 2
hp
g;r ¼ ε D
 Tp þ Tg Tp þ Tg (7) 
1 þ εgpDg 1
εp dT 
¼ 0 and Tjx¼W
d ¼ Tb (13)
dx x¼0 2

where εp and εg are selective coating emissivity and glass tube

From the solution of differential equation with the boundary
emissivity, respectively. D is the absorber outer tube diameter; Dg is
conditions, the temperature distribution of the aluminum fin is
the diameter of outer glass tube and s is the Stefan-Boltzman
obtained as:
constant (s ¼ 5.67  10
8). The heat loss balance equation of the
evacuated tube can be expressed as Eq. (8).

cos mx S S



 T¼
Tb
Ta
þ Ta þ (14)
mðW
dÞ UL UL
Ut Tp
Ta ¼ hp
g;r Tp
Tg þ hp
g;c Tp
Tg (8) cos 2

The parameters of Tp and Ta are the absorber and ambient

temperatures, respectively. The bond temperature (Tb) and outlet where m:
working fluid temperature (To) were obtained from the calcula- vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
tions. Also, technical data of EUSC are listed in Table 2. u U
m¼u L
(15)
The balance of energy for the flow domain on the aluminum fin t
is given in Fig. 3. Where d is the U-tube diameter, t is the thickness
kt 1 þ UCsL
of the aluminum fin and W is the circumferential distance between
U-tubes. F’ is the collector efficiency factor and can be calculated as:
Energy balance equation on the fin can be expressed as [47]:
1
 
F0 ¼ 0 UL
1 (16)
dT  dT 

kt 

kt  þ Qu Dx ¼ 0 (9) B U
C
dx x dx xþDx 1þ CsL
WB 1 1C
@U ððW
dÞFþdÞ þ h pd þ Cb A
L f

where k and t are the thermal conductivity and the thickness of

aluminum fin, respectively. Qu can be calculated from energy bal-
ance between the aluminum fin and absorber tube as: where F is the standard fin efficiency and Cb is the bond conduc-
tance. Bond conductance is the expression of the interaction be-
Tp
T
 tween the aluminum fin and the U-tube. This value is available in
Qu ¼ tp t ¼ Cs Tp
T (10)
þk air the literature as 30 W/m K for full contact situation (no gap).
ka air
Therefore, literature value has been used in the calculations [47].
Cs (synthetic conductance) is the expression of the interaction The convective heat transfer coefficient can also be determined
between the absorber tube and the aluminum fin, that is, the heat from Eq. (17):
transfer mechanism with the conduction. In this case, since the air
gap is very small, the value of Cs was taken as 29 W/m K which is 1
hf ¼ (17)
the same magnitude in the literature [48]. The presence of the air 1
hnf
þ ktt
t
gap is generally existing and a result of manufacturing restrictions

Fig. 3. Energy balance on aluminum fin.

272 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284

The net amount of heat transferred to the working fluid is Table 5

calculated from Eq. (18). The coefficients of A1 and A2 in Eq. (29) for different nanoparticle shapes.

Shape of Nanoparticle A1 A2
_ p ðTo
Ti Þ
Qfl ¼ mc (18)
Brick 1.9 471.4
Blade 14.6 123.3
The solar collector thermal efficiency is expressed as:
Cylindrical 13.5 904.4
Platelet 37.1 612.6
_ p ðTo
Ti Þ
mc
h¼ (19)
I T Ap

where Ap in Eq. (19) is the aperture area of the solar collector.  

Collector thermal efficiency can also be expressed as Eq. (20):
mnf ¼ mf 1 þ A1 f þ A2 f2 (22)

ðTi
Ta Þ The magnitudes of the coefficients of A1 and A2 in Eq. (22) are

h ¼ FR ðtaÞ
FR UL (20) presented in Table 5 [55,56].
IT
The density and specific heat of nanofluids are also calculated
where FR and (TieTa)/IT are the heat removal factor and the heat loss from the correlations suggested by Corcione [57]:
parameter of the solar collector, respectively.
rnf ¼ ð1
fÞrf þ frs (23)



3. Properties of nanofluid
 ð1
fÞ rcp f þ f rcp s
cp nf ¼ (24)
ð1
fÞrf þ frs
As the nanoparticle volume concentrations of nanofluids in-
crease, their thermal conductivity magnitudes increase while The thermophysical properties of nanofluids for each nano-
handicaps occur in terms of viscosity and stability. Agglomeration, particle shape and volume concentration are indicated in Table 6.
aggregation and sedimentation are some of these conditions, which
adversely affect the thermal performance. It has been reported in
4. Solution procedure
the previous studies that the thermal performance of nanofluid
significantly improves until the volume concentration of nano-
The computational domain of the numerical study is given in
particle reaches 5.0 vol% [50e52]. According to this phenomenon,
Fig. 4. The diameter and the length of the U-tube are d ¼ 0.009 m
the nanoparticle volume concentration for this study was set as
and L ¼ 3.8 m, respectively. Also, the thickness of the copper U-tube
1.0e4.0 vol%. The thermophysical properties of Al2O3 nanoparticle
is tc ¼ 0.5 mm. Normally, an EUSC receives solar heat flux from the
and PW are given in Table 3.
side facing the sun. In this case the EUSC was considered that all the
The thermophysical properties of Al2O3/PW nanofluid are
geometry of the evacuated tube receives solar radiation with the
calculated from the correlations obtained from the literature. The
appropriate reflector placed at the bottom side of the collector.
subscripts “s” in the following equations refers the nanoparticle. “f”
The following equations were used as the governing equations
and “nf” are the base fluid and nanofluid, respectively.
for the flow of working fluid in the U-tube [58].
The influence of the nanoparticle shape on thermal conductivity
Continuity equation:
can be defined from Eq. (21) [54]:
!*
knf VV ¼0 (25)
¼ 1 þ Ck f (21)
kf Momentum equation:

where the Ck is thermal conductivity enhancement coefficient and !* !* !*

ð V V* Þ V ¼
EuV* P * þ ReV*2 V (26)
its magnitudes for different nanoparticle shapes are given in Table 4
[55,56]. Energy equation:
Viscosity of nanofluid for different nanoparticle shapes can be
determined from: 1 *2 * Ec *
V T þ F ¼0 (27)
RePr Re

Table 3 where the dimensionless parameters in Eqns. 25e27:

Thermophysical properties of Al2O3 nanoparticle and pure water [53].
!
Thermophysical Property PW Al2O3 !* V !* ! rVDh * P
P∞ * ! g
V ¼ V ¼ V Dh Re ¼ P ¼ g ¼ T*
r(kg/m3) 997 3970 Um m P0
P∞ g
m(N/m.s) 0.000855 e T
T∞ mcp Um2 P
P∞
k(W/m.K) 0.613 40 ¼ Pr ¼ Ec ¼ Eu ¼ 0 2 (28)
cp(J/kg.K) 4179 765 Tw
T∞ k cp ðT0
Tm Þ rV
The boundary conditions must be used for obtaining solution of
the governing equations. The representation view of the boundary
Table 4
conditions is presented in Fig. 4. At the inlet section of the U-tube,
The values of Ck for different nanoparticle shapes.
uniform velocity and temperature profiles of nanofluid were used
Shape of Nanoparticle Aspect Ratio Ck as inlet boundary conditions. No-slip boundary condition for hy-
Brick 1:1:1 3.37 drodynamic calculations and uniform surface heat flux for thermal
Blade 1:6:1/12 2.74 calculations were applied on the surface of the U-tube. The pres-
Cylindrical 1:8 3.95 sure at the outlet of the computational domain was taken as at-
Platelet 1:1/8 2.61
mospheric pressure for outlet boundary condition. On the
 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284 273

Table 6
Thermophysical properties of nanofluids.

Al2O3/water Nanofluid Bricks Blades Platelets

1.0 vol% k ¼ 0.6273 W/m K k ¼ 0.6235 W/m K k ¼ 0.6227 W/m K

cp ¼ 4046.99 J/kg K cp ¼ 4046.99 J/kg K cp ¼ 4046.99 J/kg K
r ¼ 1026.73 kg/m3 r ¼ 1026.73 kg/m3 r ¼ 1026.73 kg/m3
m ¼ 0.94*10
3 kg/m.s m ¼ 1.031*10
3 kg/m.s m ¼ 1.275*10
3 kg/m.s
2.0 vol% k ¼ 0.6479 W/m K k ¼ 0.6401 W/m K k ¼ 0.6385 W/m K
cp ¼ 3922.41 J/kg K cp ¼ 3922.41 J/kg K cp ¼ 3922.41 J/kg K
r ¼ 1056.46 kg/m3 r ¼ 1056.46 kg/m3 r ¼ 1056.46 kg/m3
m ¼ 1.092*10
3 kg/m.s m ¼ 1.194*10
3 kg/m.s m ¼ 1.768*10
3 kg/m.s
3.0 vol% k ¼ 0.6683 W/m K k ¼ 0.6567 W/m K k ¼ 0.6544 W/m K
cp ¼ 3804.65 J/kg K cp ¼ 3804.65 J/kg K cp ¼ 3804.65 J/kg K
r ¼ 1086.19 kg/m3 r ¼ 1086.19 kg/m3 r ¼ 1086.19 kg/m3
m ¼ 1.318*10
3 kg/m.s m ¼ 1.479*10
3 kg/m.s m ¼ 2.371*10
3 kg/m.s
4.0 vol% k ¼ 0.6888 W/m K k ¼ 0.6734 W/m K k ¼ 0.6703 W/m K
cp ¼ 3693.17 J/kg K cp ¼ 3693.17 J/kg K cp ¼ 3693.17 J/kg K
r ¼ 1115.92 kg/m3 r ¼ 1115.92 kg/m3 r ¼ 1115.92 kg/m3
m ¼ 1.629*10
3 kg/m.s m ¼ 1.785*10
3 kg/m.s m ¼ 3.083*10
3 kg/m.s

Fig. 4. Solar energy analysis and the boundary conditions.

Fig. 5. Mesh distribution of computational domain.

274 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284

symmetry plane, the symmetry boundary condition was
performed.
Tetrahedron cells with non e uniform grid distribution was
performed as depicted in Fig. 5. Boundary layer mesh type was used
near the surface for more accurate analysis of flow and smooth
mesh distribution. Also, the inflation mesh type has been used in
the simulations for increment mesh numbers on the surface of the
pipe.
In this study, finite volume method was used in the numerical
calculations. The continuity, momentum and energy equations
were solved iteratively under laminar flow condition (Re < 2300).
Ansys Fluent 18.2 commercial code has been used in the simula-
tions. The calculations were run until the residuals fall lower than
10
6. Second order upwind scheme was used for discretization of
convection and energy terms. The under-relaxation factors for
pressure, density, body forces, momentum and energy were 0.3, 1.0,
1.0, 0.7 and 0.9, respectively. Resolving the coupling between the
velocity and pressure, SIMPLE algorithm was used [59].
The thermo-hydraulic performance is very significant for flow
systems. Nanofluids are used to increase the heat transfer. How-
ever, nanofluids require higher pumping power since they have
higher viscosity values than the base fluids. The performance
evaluation criterion (PEC) also makes it possible to make a general
system evaluation depending on the ratio of the increase of
convective heat transfer to the increase of the pumping power. The
value of PEC was calculated by Eqn. (29).
sun to reach the higher temperatures. Also, turbulent flow is so
difficult to obtain in systems working according to natural circu-
lation, and in direct circulated systems, suitable pumps must be
used to maintain low flow rate.
5. Results and discussion
In order to obtain the results independently of the mesh
structure, mesh compatibility study was conducted for the volume
in which the flow occurs in the solar collector with water as a
working fluid. This study was performed for average Nu number
and average Darcy friction factor and it was assumed that the op-
timum mesh number was obtained when the variations were less
than 1.0%. To ensure the accuracy of the results, eight mesh
numbers were tried with pure water and at a constant mass flow
rate and 1.6  106 mesh number were chosen as the optimum mesh
number as seen in Fig. 6.
In this study, Al2O3/PW nanofluid having different nanoparticle

Nunf
Nubf
PEC ¼  1=3 (29)
fnf
fbf

The pipe diameter of the U-tube of the EUSC’s is so small

(d ¼ 0.009 m). Also, the mass flow rates are in the range of 0.01 kg/s
- 0.025 kg/s. Hence, laminar flow condition is seen most of the
applications of EUSC [19,26,60]. In addition, the purpose of using
solar collectors is generally to heat water or to use the energy ob-
tained through heated water. It is aimed to obtain higher temper-
atures generally. Therefore, laminar flow, that is low speed flow, is
preferred for the flow condition with the energy coming from the Fig. 7. Validation of this study.

Fig. 6. Mesh independence study.

 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284 275

shapes and volume concentrations was used as working fluids in a
EUSC and the results were discussed. It was compared with a
previous experimental study to test the accuracy of numerical
analysis with pure water, and the results were found to be
consistent with each other as seen in Fig. 7 [61]. The average de-
viation amount was calculated as 3.1% with experimental data and
this value can be taken as acceptable.
The variation of total heat loss coefficient parameter according
to (Tp-Ta) is given in Fig. 8 for pure water and nanofluids with
different nanoparticle shapes. The overall heat loss coefficient of
the solar collector is an important parameter affecting the collector
performance and this value represents the energy loss occurred by
different heat transfer mechanisms (conduction, convection and
radiation) between the working fluid and the environment. Overall
heat loss coefficient increases with increasing temperature differ-
ence between outdoor and absorber temperature and highest value

Fig. 8. Variation of overall heat loss coefficient for (a) pure water for different ambient temperatures (b) nanofluids with different nanoparticle shape as a function of (Tp-Ta).
276 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284

Fig. 9. Variation of hpgr according to ambient temperature and working fluid of the EUSC.
 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284 277

Fig. 10. Variation of (Tg-Ta) with (Tp-Ta).

is obtained for pure water in this study. This is an expected result gradually increasing with (Tp-Ta) and previous studies have ob-
since the higher UL causes the lower the collector efficiency. The tained results in this direction [28,48]. The lowest UL was achieved
highest UL was 1.09 W/m2K, which was at 293 K ambient temper- with 4.0 vol% bricks-shaped Al2O3/PW nanofluid in this study as
ature. In addition, the tendency of this parameter to change is 0.444 W/m2K at 273 K ambient temperature. This also means that
278 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284
the heat capacity of the bricks-shaped nanofluid was the highest
comparing to others.
The radiation heat loss parameter (hpgr) is dependent on (Tp-Ta)
and the variation of it is given in Fig. 9 with the change in ambient
temperature. Since hpgr is a component of the total heat loss
parameter, the trends of change are similar. The radiation heat loss
parameter is generally higher than the heat loss through conduc-
tion (hpgc) apparently, due to the evacuation between the glasses.
The lowest hpgr was calculated as 0.1652 W/m2K at Tp ¼ Ta ¼ 273 K
with bricks-shaped 4.0 vol% Al2O3/PW nanofluid.
The parameter that determines the heat transfer between the
outer glass tube of the solar collector and the environment is the
temperature difference (Tg-Ta) between these two mediums. As the
difference between the absorber and the ambient temperature
increases, the temperature of the outer glass tube increases, so the
(Tg-Ta) difference increases as shown in Fig. 10 for pure water and
different types of nanofluids. This increment is not linear and
temperature difference reaches its maximum value at the highest
ambient temperature as 7.23 K with pure water. A lower value
means the higher collector efficiency, which is directly related to
the heat capacity of the working fluid, as previously mentioned. It
was also obtained that the thermal losses in the collector increase
with the increase of the ambient temperature [29,48,49].
Fig. 11 shows the temperature distribution on the aluminum fin
around the U-tube for pure water and different nanofluid types. The
lowest temperatures were obtained for the bricks-shaped Al2O3/
PW nanofluids. As can be seen from the temperature distribution;
considering the fin shape, the temperature increases in the regions
close to the U-tube while the other side remains lower. Since the
aluminum fin is in direct contact with the copper U-tube at bond
region, the highest temperature on the fin is obtained at there
where the temperature is also equal to the bond temperature (Tb).
In Fig. 12, the trend of collector efficiency factor parameter (F0 ) as
a function of nanoparticle shape and UL value is given according to
the synthetic conductance Cs. As can be seen from the figure, the
collector efficiency factor shows a rapid increase up to the point
where the synthetic conductance value is about 40 W/m K and then
shows an almost constant tendency. This can be considered as an
indication that the effect of the synthetic conductance parameter
on the collector efficiency is clearly up to 40 W/m K and that this
Fig. 11. General temperature distribution behavior on the fin.
value can be considered as an optimum value. Previous studies
already confirm this result [19,28,49]. The results show the influ-
ence of thermal resistance of air layer on the efficiency of the solar
collector increases due to the larger overall loss coefficient, which
reduces obviously the thermal performance of the solar collector.
Decreasing the air gap in a particular value, the convective heat
transfer remains constant. Since Fˊ is a parameter that affects the
collector efficiency, it is possible that different nanofluid types also
reveal different values for this parameter. Here, the highest Fˊ value
was obtained with bricks-shaped Al2O3/PW nanofluid type. Refer-
ring to Fig. 9a and b, it is seen that the major variable affecting the
efficiency factor is the overall heat loss coefficient [49].
The temperature difference of working fluid inlet temperature
and ambient temperature is a major component on the heat loss
from the collector as well as the collector efficiency. When this
temperature difference is kept constant, the effect of solar radiation
intensity on the collector efficiency can be calculated. The collector
efficiency versus solar intensity is given in Fig. 13, which can only be
obtained when the difference between the inlet and ambient
temperature is constant. When the heat transfer between working
fluid and outdoor environment is variable, the collector efficiency
does not change proportionally only with the effect of solar radi-
ation intensity. Under these conditions, when the working fluid and
the ambient temperature are constant, the collector efficiency
tends to increase as the intensity of solar radiation increases. But
this increment is not a continuous and linear. The enhancement
amount of collector efficiency, which shows a decreasingly
increasing trend, becomes constant after a certain point. It is seen
from the graph that collector efficiency is obtained at higher values
than pure water by using nanofluid as working fluid. Moreover,
considering the effect of the nanoparticle shape of the nanofluid,
the highest performance in terms of collector efficiency was ob-
tained with bricks-shaped Al2O3/PW nanofluid. When comparing
the pure water under the same operating conditions, the efficiency
enhancements with bricks, blades and platelets shape of Al2O3/PW
nanofluid types having 4.0 vol% were obtained as 28.4%, 18.2% and
17.6% at 200 W/m2 solar radiation, respectively. When we look at
the variation of collector efficiency with solar intensity, it shows a
rapid upward trend up to about 300 W/m2 and a steady upward
trend after about 800 W/m2 as similar to previously reported
 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284 279

Fig. 12. Collector efficiency factor according to synthetic conductance.

280 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284

Fig. 13. Effect of solar radiation on collector efficiency as a function of shape of nanoparticle.

Fig. 14. Collector efficiency vs. (TieTa)/IT.

results [48]. The most obvious reason for this situation is that the
heat gain of the solar collector cannot increase after a certain point.
Fig. 14 shows the variation of collector efficiency with respect to
((TieTa)/IT). This figure also allows to evaluation of the effect of
nanoparticle shape for the performance of the nanofluid in the
collector. The efficiency of the solar collector is directly related to
the thermophysical properties of the working fluid. Although the
thermal conductivity of the nanofluid stands out, the increase in
viscosity of nanofluids at high volume concentrations may have a
negative impact on the overall performance evaluation. In this
study in which the effect of different nanoparticle shapes on col-
lector efficiency was investigated, bricks-shaped nanofluid
 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284 281

provides highest collector efficiency than blade and platelets- rate [9,28,36]. This is related to the heat transfer from the collector
shaped nanofluids under the same operating conditions. As can surface to the external environment, and the effect of the mass flow
be seen from Fig. 10, the highest collector efficiency for each case appears to be an increment in efficiency. Fig. 16 shows the effect of
was obtained when the ambient temperature and the inlet tem- the variation in mass flow rate of the working fluid on the collector
perature of the working fluid were equal ((TieTa)/IT ¼ 0). Because of efficiency. In the figure, the effect of the change in the mass flow
the design of the collector, convective heat transfer occurs only rate of 4.0 vol% nanofluid with bricks-shaped nanoparticles and the
inside. However, the heat loss from the system is so small compared pure water in which the highest efficiency is obtained can be seen
the convective heat transfer to the fluid. This condition does not on the efficiency. The maximum collector efficiency has been ob-
affect the collector efficiency significantly. In other words, it is tained in this study with bricks-shaped 4.0 vol% alumina nanofluid
negligible. Also, as seen from the thermal network the radiation the at 0.025 kg/s as indicated previously.
effect of radiation heat transfer has been handled in the calcula- Fig. 17 shows how the nanoparticle shape and volumetric con-
tions. The radiation heat transfer having heat transfer coefficient centration of the nanofluid affect the efficiency of the solar col-
hp-g,r has been given with Eqn. (7). Collector efficiency values are % lector. The variations shown in two figures Fig. 16 (a) and (b) are
67.1 and 36.1% with 4.0 vol% bricks-shaped nanofluid when the heat given for the values of 0 and 0.14 of the heat loss parameters and
loss parameter equals to 0 and 0.14, respectively. The highest col- represent the highest and lowest efficiency values for each
lector efficiency was obtained as 67.1% at 4.0 vol% with bricks-
shaped Al2O3/PW nanofluid which was 19.1% higher than the
base fluid under the same conditions. These results are in consis-
tency with the results obtained the previous studies in the litera-
ture [62e64]. In addition, nanofluids have blades and platelets
shaped nanoparticles provide the highest collector efficiencies as
62.8% and 60.9%, respectively. These values are 18.2% and 17.6%
higher than the base fluid under the same conditions ((TieTa)/
IT ¼ 0), respectively.
The results of performance evaluation criterion are presented
with Fig. 15 as a function of nanoparticle shape according to mass
flow rate of the working fluid. Since the viscosity value is the
highest for nanofluids have platelet shaped nanoparticles, the PEC
number of it is in any case smaller than other nanoparticle shapes,
which is also reflected in the results of the collector efficiency. The
highest effectiveness was determined for nanofluids have 4.0 vol%
with bricks-shaped nanoparticles. PEC value equals to 1.387 in this
case.
An important factor affecting the efficiency of the solar collector
is the mass flow rate. Previous studies have shown that the effi-
ciency of the solar collector increases with increasing mass flow Fig. 16. Effect of mass flow rate on collector efficiency for different shape of
nanoparticles.

Fig. 15. Performance evaluation criterion vs mass flow rate.

282 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284

Fig. 17. Collector efficiency for different shape of nanoparticles.

operating condition, respectively. As shown in the figure, in this M molecular weight [g/mol]
study, bricks-shaped nanofluids are the most efficient for the solar N Avogadro number
collector as the working fluids. T temperature [K]
UL overall heat loss coefficient [W/m2K]
6. Conclusion
Greek Symbol
The effect of nanoparticle shape of nanofluids on thermal per- b thermal expansion [
]
formance of a EUSC was analyzed in this work. Al2O3/PW nano- f nanoparticle volume concentration [
]
fluids having volume concentration of 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 vol% were j nanoparticle sphericity [
]
used as the working fluids for different mass flow rates. Numerical k Boltzmann constant [J/K]
computations were taken place for outlet and wall temperatures of m dynamic viscosity [Ns/m2]
U-tube in the solar collector and thereafter the results were used r density [kg/m3]
via thermal equations steps for evaluation of collector efficiency. n kinematic viscosity [m2/s]
According to the results, it was seen that nanofluids with bricks-
shaped nanoparticles provide higher collector efficiency than the Subscript
platelets and blades-shaped ones under the same operating con- a ambient
ditions. Maximum efficiency improvement was achieved with b bond
4.0 vol% bricks-shaped nanofluids at 0.025 kg/s. The average f base fluid
improvement in collector efficiency due to the increase in the g outer glass tube
volume concentration of nanofluid (1.0e4.0 vol%) is about 15.8% for i inlet
bricks-shaped and this value is higher than the others. nf nanofluid
p absorber tube
CRediT authorship contribution statement s nanoparticle

Hüseyin Kaya: Formal analysis, Resources, Writing - original References

draft, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization, Software.
Mohanad Alkasem: Data curation, Software. Kamil Arslan: Su- [1] M. Thirugnanasambandam, S. Iniyan, R. Goic, A review of solar thermal
technologies, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 312e322, https://doi.org/
pervision, Project administration, Writing - review & editing. 10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.014.
[2] Y. Gao, R. Fan, X.Y. Zhang, Y.J. An, M.X. Wang, Y.K. Gao, Y. Yu, Thermal per-
formance and parameter analysis of a U-pipe evacuated solar tube collector,
Declaration of competing interest Sol. Energy 107 (2014) 714e727, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2014.05.023.
The authors declare that they have no known competing [3] Y. Kim, T. Seo, Thermal performances comparisons of the glass evacuated tube
solar collectors with shapes of absorber tube, Renew. Energy 32 (2007)
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
772e795, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2006.03.016.
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. [4] M.A. Sabiha, R. Saidur, S. Mekhilef, O. Mahian, Progress and latest de-
velopments of evacuated tube solar collectors, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51
(2015) 1038e1054, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.016.
Nomenclature  A.
ndez-Seara, K. Du, A.
[5] Y. Li, J. Ferna  Pardin
~ as, L.L. Latas, W. Jiang, Experimental
investigation on heat transfer and pressure drop of ZnO/ethylene glycol-water
A1, A2, Ck constants [
] nanofluids in transition flow, Appl. Therm. Eng. 93 (2016) 537e548, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.09.020.
Cb bond conductance [W/mK] [6] K.A. Hamid, W.H. Azmi, R. Mamat, K.V. Sharma, Experimental investigation on
Cs synthetic conductance [W/mK] heat transfer performance of TiO2 nanofluids in water-ethylene glycol
cp specific heat [J/kgK] mixture, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Tran. 73 (2016) 16e24, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2016.02.009.
d diameter [nm]
[7] J. Xu, K. Bandyopadhyay, D. Jung, Experimental investigation on the correla-
F’ collector efficiency factor [
] tion between nano-fluid characteristics and thermal properties of Al2O3
hpgr heat transfer coefficient absorber tube eouter glass tube nano-particles dispersed in ethylene glycol-water mixture, Int. J. Heat Mass
[W/m2K] Tran. 94 (2016) 262e268, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.11.056.
IT solar radiation [W/m2] [8] D. Cabaleiro, M.J. Pastoriza-Gallego, M.M. Pineiro, L. Lugo, Characterization
m_ mass flow rate of the working fluid [kg/s] and measurements of thermal conductivity, density and rheological
 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284
properties of zinc oxide nanoparticles dispersed in (ethane-1,2-diol þ water)
mixture, J. Chem. Thermodyn. 58 (2013) 405e415, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jct.2012.10.014.
[9] T. Yousefi, F. Veysi, E. Shojaeizadeh, S. Zinadini, An experimental investigation
on the effect of Al2O3-H2O nanofluid on the efficiency of flat-plate solar
collectors, Renew. Energy 39 (2012) 293e298, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2011.08.056.
[10] T. Yousefi, F. Veisy, E. Shojaeizadeh, S. Zinadini, An experimental investigation
on the effect of MWCNT-H2O nanofluid on the efficiency of flat-plate solar
collectors, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 39 (2012) 207e212, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.expthermflusci.2012.01.025.
[11] Z. Said, M.H. Sajid, M.A. Alim, R. Saidur, N.A. Rahim, Experimental investiga-
tion of the thermophysical properties of AL2O3-nanofluid and its effect on a
flat plate solar collector, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Tran. 48 (2013) 99e107,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2013.09.005.
[12] T. Sokhansefat, A. Kasaeian, Numerical study of heat transfer enhancement by
using Al2O3/synthetic oil nanofluid in a parabolic trough collector tube,
World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 69 (2012) 1154e1159.
[13] S.A. Kalogirou, Solar thermal collectors and applications, Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci. 30 (2004) 231e295, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2004.02.001.
[14] G. Colangelo, E. Favale, A. De Risi, D. Laforgia, A new solution for reduced
sedimentation flat panel solar thermal collector using nanofluids, Appl. En-
ergy 111 (2013) 80e93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.04.069.
[15] A.J. Moghadam, M. Farzane-Gord, M. Sajadi, M. Hoseyn-Zadeh, Effects of CuO/
water nanofluid on the efficiency of a flat-plate solar collector, Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 58 (2014) 9e14, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.expthermflusci.2014.06.014.
[16] O. Mahian, A. Kianifar, A.Z. Sahin, S. Wongwises, Performance analysis of a
minichannel-based solar collector using different nanofluids, Energy Convers.
Manag. 88 (2014) 129e138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.08.021.
[17] Y. Gao, Q. Zhang, R. Fan, X. Lin, Y. Yu, Effects of thermal mass and flow rate on
forced-circulation solar hot-water system: comparison of water-in-glass and
U-pipe evacuated-tube solar collectors, Sol. Energy 98 (2013) 290e301,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.10.014.
[18] R.B. Liang, J.L. Zhang, L. Zhao, L.D. Ma, Performance enhancement of filled-type
solar collector with U-tube, J. Cent. South Univ. 22 (2015) 1124e1131, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11771-015-2624-5.
[19] R. Liang, L. Ma, J. Zhang, D. Zhao, Theoretical and experimental investigation of
the filled-type evacuated tube solar collector with U tube, Sol. Energy 85
(2011) 1735e1744, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2011.04.012.
[20] R. Liang, L. Ma, J. Zhang, L. Zhao, Performance analysis of a new-design filled-
type solar collector with double U-tubes, Energy Build. 57 (2013) 220e226,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.11.004.
[21] R. Liang, J. Zhang, L. Zhao, L. Ma, Research on the universal model of filled-type
evacuated tube with U-tube in uniform boundary condition, Appl. Therm. Eng.
63 (2014) 362e369, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.11.020.
[22] L. Ma, T. Zhao, J. Zhang, D. Zhao, Numerical study on the heat transfer char-
acteristics of filled-type solar collector with U-tube, Appl. Therm. Eng. 107
(2016) 642e652, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.05.133.
[23] J.A. Alfaro-Ayala, G. Martínez-Rodríguez, M. Pico n-Nún
~ ez, A.R. Uribe-Ramírez,
A. Gallegos-Mun ~ oz, Numerical study of a low temperature water-in-glass
evacuated tube solar collector, Energy Convers. Manag. 94 (2015) 472e481,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.01.091.
[24] E. Azad, Theoretical and experimental investigation of heat pipe solar col-
lector, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 32 (2008) 1666e1672, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.expthermflusci.2008.05.011.
[25] Z.H. Liu, R.L. Hu, L. Lu, F. Zhao, H.S. Xiao, Thermal performance of an open
thermosyphon using nanofluid for evacuated tubular high temperature air
solar collector, Energy Convers. Manag. 73 (2013) 135e143, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2013.04.010.
[26] H. Kim, J. Kim, H. Cho, Experimental study on performance improvement of U-
tube solar collector depending on nanoparticle size and concentration of
Al2O3 nanofluid, Energy 118 (2017) 1304e1312, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2016.11.009.
[27] Y. Tong, H. Cho, Comparative study on the thermal performance of evacuated
solar collectors with U-tubes and heat pipes, Int. J. Air-Cond. Refrig. 23 (2015)
1550019, https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010132515500194.
[28] H. Kaya, K. Arslan, N. Eltugral, Experimental investigation of thermal perfor-
mance of an evacuated U-Tube solar collector with ZnO/Etylene glycol-pure
water nanofluids, Renew. Energy 122 (2018) 329e338, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.115.
[29] H. Kaya, K. Arslan, Numerical investigation of efficiency and economic analysis
of an evacuated U-tube solar collector with different nanofluids, Heat Mass
Tran. 55 (2019) 581e593, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-018-2442-z.
[30] T. Yousefi, F. Veisy, E. Shojaeizadeh, S. Zinadini, An experimental investigation
on the effect of MWCNT-H2O nanofluid on the efficiency of flat-plate solar
collectors, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 39 (2012) 207e212, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.expthermflusci.2012.01.025.
[31] Y. Tong, J. Kim, H. Cho, Effects of thermal performance of enclosed-type
evacuated U-tube solar collector with multi-walled carbon nanotube/water
nanofluid, Renew. Energy 83 (2015) 463e473, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2015.04.042.
[32] S. Iranmanesh, H.C. Ong, B.C. Ang, E. Sadeghinezhad, A. Esmaeilzadeh,
M. Mehrali, Thermal performance enhancement of an evacuated tube solar
collector using graphene nanoplatelets nanofluid, J. Clean. Prod. 162 (2017)
283
121e129, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.175.
[33] J. Ghaderian, N.A.C. Sidik, A. Kasaeian, S. Ghaderian, A. Okhovat, A. Pakzadeh,
S. Samion, W.J. Yahya, Performance of copper oxide/distilled water nanofluid
in evacuated tube solar collector (ETSC) water heater with internal coil under
thermosyphon system circulations, Appl. Therm. Eng. 121 (2017) 520e536,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.04.117.
[34] I.M. Mahbubul, M.M.A. Khan, N.I. Ibrahim, H.M. Ali, F.A. Al-Sulaiman, R. Saidur,
Carbon nanotube nanofluid in enhancing the efficiency of evacuated tube
solar collector, Renew. Energy 121 (2018) 36e44, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2018.01.006.
[35] A.A. Eidan, A. AlSahlani, A.Q. Ahmed, M. Al-fahham, J.M. Jalil, Improving the
performance of heat pipe-evacuated tube solar collector experimentally by
using Al2O3 and CuO/acetone nanofluids, Sol. Energy 173 (2018) 780e788,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.08.013.
[36] M.A. Sharafeldin, G. Gro  f, Evacuated tube solar collector performance using
CeO2/water nanofluid, J. Clean. Prod. 185 (2018) 347e356, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.054.
[37] Y. Yang Gan, H. Chyuan Ong, T. Chuan Ling, N.W.M. Zulkifli, C.-T. Wang, Y.-
C. Yang, Thermal conductivity optimization and entropy generation analysis
of titanium dioxide nanofluid in evacuated tube solar collector, Appl. Therm.
Eng. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.09.012.
[38] M.A. Sharafeldin, G. Gro f, Efficiency of evacuated tube solar collector using
WO3/Water nanofluid, Renew. Energy 134 (2019) 453e460, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2018.11.010.
[39] M.S. Dehaj, M.Z. Mohiabadi, Experimental investigation of heat pipe solar
collector using MgO nanofluids, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 191 (2019)
91e99, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2018.10.025.
[40] M.M. Sarafraz, M.R. Safaei, Diurnal thermal evaluation of an evacuated tube
solar collector (ETSC) charged with graphene nanoplatelets-methanol nano-
suspension, Renew. Energy 142 (2019) 364e372, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2019.04.091.
[41] M.A. Sharafeldin, G. Gro f, E. Abu-Nada, O. Mahian, Evacuated tube solar col-
lector performance using copper nanofluid: energy and environmental anal-
ysis, Appl. Therm. Eng. 162 (2019) 114205, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2019.114205.
[42] H. Kaya, N. Eltugral, A. Kurukavak, K. Arslan, Efficiency assessment of an
evacuated U-tube solar collector using silver nanofluid, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 141
(2019), https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4044881.
[43] Y. Peng, A. Zahedidastjerdi, A. Abdollahi, A. Amindoust, M. Bahrami,
A. Karimipour, M. Goodarzi, Investigation of energy performance in a U-
shaped evacuated solar tube collector using oxide added nanoparticles
through the emitter, absorber and transmittal environments via discrete or-
dinates radiation method, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 139 (2020) 2623e2631,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-019-08684-w.
[44] G. Sadeghi, S. Nazari, M. Ameri, F. Shama, Energy and exergy evaluation of the
evacuated tube solar collector using Cu2O/water nanofluid utilizing ANN
methods, Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 37 (2020) 100578, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.seta.2019.100578.
[45] J.T. Kim, H.T. Ahn, H. Han, H.T. Kim, W. Chun, The performance simulation of
all-glass vacuum tubes with coaxial fluid conduit, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Tran. 34 (2007) 587e597, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.icheatmasstransfer.2007.01.012.
[46] Q. Tian, Study on thermal efficiency and performance of U-tubular all-glass
evacuated tube solar collector, Energy Eng. 6 (2006) 36e40.
[47] J. Duffie, W. Beckman, Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, fourth ed., John
Wiley & Sons, Haboken, New Jersey, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2930068.
[48] H. Kim, J. Ham, C. Park, H. Cho, Theoretical investigation of the efficiency of a
U-tube solar collector using various nanofluids, Energy 94 (2016) 497e507,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.021.
[49] L. Ma, Z. Lu, J. Zhang, R. Liang, Thermal performance analysis of the glass
evacuated tube solar collector with U-tube, Build. Environ. 45 (2010)
1959e1967, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.01.015.
[50] C.H. Li, G.P. Peterson, Experimental investigation of temperature and volume
fraction variations on the effective thermal conductivity of nanoparticle sus-
pensions (nanofluids), J. Appl. Phys. 99 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1063/
1.2191571.
[51] S.K. Verma, A.K. Tiwari, Progress of nanofluid application in solar collectors: a
review, Energy Convers. Manag. 100 (2015) 324e346, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2015.04.071.
[52] H. Masuda, A. Ebata, K. Teramae, N. Hishinuma, Alteration of thermal con-
ductivity and viscosity of liquid by dispersing ultra-fine particles (Dispersion
of Al2O3, SiO2 and TiO2 ultra-fine particles), Netsu Bussei 7 (1993) 227e233,
https://doi.org/10.2963/jjtp.7.227.
[53] F.P. Incropera, T.L. Bergman, A.S. Lavine, D.P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of Heat
and Mass Transfer, seventh ed., John Wiley & Sons, Haboken, New Jersey,
2011.
[54] S.M. Vanaki, H.A. Mohammed, A. Abdollahi, M.A. Wahid, Effect of nanoparticle
shapes on the heat transfer enhancement in a wavy channel with different
phase shifts, J. Mol. Liq. 196 (2014) 32e42, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.molliq.2014.03.001.
[55] E.V. Timofeeva, J.L. Routbort, D. Singh, Particle shape effects on thermophys-
ical properties of alumina nanofluids, J. Appl. Phys. 106 (2009), https://doi.org/
10.1063/1.3155999.
[56] S.M. Vanaki, H.A. Mohammed, A. Abdollahi, M.A. Wahid, Effect of nanoparticle
shapes on the heat transfer enhancement in a wavy channel with different
284 H. Kaya et al. / Renewable Energy 162 (2020) 267e284
phase shifts, J. Mol. Liq. 196 (2014) 32e42, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.molliq.2014.03.001.
[57] M. Corcione, Heat transfer features of buoyancy-driven nanofluids inside
rectangular enclosures differentially heated at the sidewalls, Int. J. Therm. Sci.
49 (2010) 1536e1546, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2010.05.005.
[58] A. Bejan, Convection Heat Transfer, fourth ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken,
New Jersey, 2013 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118671627.
[59] S.K. Das, S.U.S. Choi, W. Yu, T. Pradeep, Nanofluids: Science and Technology,
John Wiley & Sons, Haboken, New Jersey, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1002/
9780470180693.
[60] R. Liang, L. Ma, J. Zhang, D. Zhao, Experimental study on thermal performance
of filled-type evacuated tube with U-tube, Heat Mass Tran. 48 (2012)
989e997, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-011-0912-7.
[61] Z.Q. Yin, G.L. Harding, R.E. Collins, The thermal performance of the coaxial
evacuated glass tubular solar collector, Sol. Energy 2 (1997) 19e20 ([in
Chinese]).
[62] A. Papadimitratos, S. Sobhansarbandi, V. Pozdin, A. Zakhidov, F. Hassanipour,
Evacuated tube solar collectors integrated with phase change materials, Sol.
Energy 129 (2016) 10e19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.12.040.
[63] R. Ellahi, M. Hassan, A. Zeeshan, Shape effects of nanosize particles in Cu - H
2O nanofluid on entropy generation, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 81 (2015)
449e456, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2014.10.041.
[64] M.M. Elias, I.M. Shahrul, I.M. Mahbubul, R. Saidur, N.A. Rahim, Effect of
different nanoparticle shapes on shell and tube heat exchanger using different
baffle angles and operated with nanofluid, Int. J. Heat Mass Tran. 70 (2014)
289e297, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2013.11.018.