Energy 94 (2016) 497e507

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Theoretical investigation of the efficiency of a U-tube solar collector

using various nanofluids
Hyeongmin Kim a, Jeonggyun Ham a, Chasik Park b, Honghyun Cho c, *
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate School of Chosun University, 303 Pilmun-daero, Dong-gu, Gwangju 501-759, Republic of Korea
b
School of Mechanical Engineering, Hoseo University, Baebang-Myun, Asan-Si, Chungnam 336-795, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, 303 Pilmun-daero, Dong-gu, Gwangju 501-759, Republic of Korea

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

Article history: Using thermal energy balance, this paper analyzes and investigates the thermal performance of a U-tube
Received 11 August 2015 solar collector whose temperature thermal energy is high due to solar radiation. A working fluid of 20%
Received in revised form PG (propylene glycol)ewater is used. Solar collector efficiency was calculated and energy savings pre-
6 November 2015
dicted for various nanofluids, such as MWCNT, Al2O3, CuO, SiO2, and TiO2. As a result, thermal conduc-
Accepted 8 November 2015
Available online 11 December 2015
tivity increased as the concentration of nanofluid increased. Solar collector efficiency increased in the
following order from greatest to least: MWCNT, CuO, Al2O3, TiO2, and SiO2 nanofluids. When the thermal
loss value ((Ti
Ta)/G) was equal to 0, the solar collector using 0.2vol% MWCNT nanofluid showed the
Keywords:
U-tube solar collector
greatest efficiency (62.8%, a 10.5% improvement compared to 20% PGewater). By dispersing nano-
Nanofluids particles in the working fluid, the coal usage could be further reduced by approximately 39.5e131.3 kg
Thermal efficiency per year when 50 solar collectors are used. Therefore, CO2 generation could be reduced by 103.8
Energy saving e345.3 kg and SO2 generation by 0.4e1.1 kg per year, compared to solar collectors using a base working
fluid of 20% PGewater. These findings contribute to knowledge of solar energy technology, which has the
potential to reduce electricity and energy consumption world-wide.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This study aims to overcome these shortcomings and to increase

Solar energy is one of the most common renewable energy
sources. Because they are so useful for heating systems and do not
generate any pollutants, solar energy systems have been a subject
of keen interest in the scientific literature. The performance of solar
collectors, used to collect solar energy and convert solar radiation
to heat energy, is particularly crucial.
Glass evacuated-tube solar collectors offer the combined bene-
fits of a highly selective surface coating and the vacuum insulation
of the absorber element. They therefore possess higher heat
extraction efficiency and higher outlet temperature than flat-plate
collectors for a wide range of operating temperatures. Generally,
the working fluid of a solar collector is water-based and may also
contain a mixture of antifreeze to prevent freezing in winter.
However, a solar collector using a water-based working fluid is
limited in its ability to increase efficiency under various operating
conditions.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ82 62 230 7050; fax: þ82 62 230 7055.
E-mail address: hhcho@chosun.ac.kr (H. Cho).
solar collector efficiency, by applying structural changes to the solar
collector or by using a nanofluid as the working fluid (produced by
dispersing tiny metallic or non-metallic solid nanoparticles in a
base fluid) [1]. Because the metallic or non-metallic solid nano-
particles have a higher thermal conductivity than the base fluid,
nanofluids increase certain thermophysical properties of the base
fluid, such as thermal conductivity, viscosity, thermal diffusivity
and heat transfer coefficient. When this approach is applied to the
solar collector design, the heat transfer resistance of collected heat
is reduced and heat is therefore transferred more effectively,
resulting in a more efficient solar collector.
Recently, many researchers have proposed methods of using a
nanofluid as the working fluid in solar collectors, including flat-
plate solar collectors. Yousefi et al. [2] performed an experiment
to measure the thermal efficiency of a flat-plate solar collector
using Al2O3ewater nanofluid and nanoparticle weight fractions of
0.2% and 0.4%. They reported the greatest increase in thermal ef-
ficiency occurred when the weight fraction of nanofluid was 0.2%
(an increase of 28.3%) and found that adding surfactant to the
nanofluid increased the efficiency considerably. In a subsequent

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.021
0360-5442/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
498 H. Kim et al. / Energy 94 (2016) 497e507
Nomenclature
A surface area of solar collector (m2)
C conductance (W/m K)
Cp specific heat capacity (J/kg K)
d diameter (m)
F0 solar collector efficiency factor
F fin efficiency of straight fin
f friction factor
G solar radiation absorbed by absorber coating (W/m2)
h heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K)
hfu heat transfer coefficient between fluid and tube (W/
m2 K)
hga convective heat transfer coefficient from outer glass
tube to surroundings (W/m2 K)
hpgd heat transfer coefficient through thermal conductivity
between absorber tube and glass tube (W/m2 K)
hpgc radiative heat transfer coefficient between absorber
tube and glass tube (W/m2 K)
k thermal conductivity (W/m K)
L length (m)
MWCNT multi-walled carbon nanotube
m_ mass flow rate (kg/s)
Nu Nusselt number
Pr Prandtl number
Q heat (W)
Re Reynolds number
r radius (m)
T temperature (K)
t thickness (m)
study of nanofluids in flat-plate solar collectors, Yousefi et al. [3]
found that a 0.4wt.% of MWCNT (multi-walled carbon nano-
tube)ewater nanofluids was more efficient than a 0.2 wt.% one.
Prasher et al. [4] theoretically studied the use of flat-plate solar
collectors and DAC (direct absorption solar collectors) using
AleH2O nanofluids as the working fluid. They observed that the
presence of nanofluids increased the absorption of incident radia-
tion by more than nine times that of pure water; the efficiency of a
DAC using nanofluids was up to 10% higher than that of a flat-plate
solar collector. In addition, Colangelo et al. [5] reported that the
heat transfer coefficient of a flat-plate collector improved up to 25%
when a dispersion of Al2O3 nanofluids was minimized. Chaji et al.
[6] experimentally found the efficiency of a flat-plate solar collector
using 0.3wt% TiO2ewater. Tiwari et al. [7] gave a comprehensive
overview of the thermal performance of various nanofluids in flat-
plate solar collectors that were used to heat water. They showed
that using a 1.5% particle volume fraction of Al2O3 nanofluid
increased the thermal efficiency and decreased CO2 by 31.6% (in kg/
kWh).
Taylor et al. [8] observed that the aluminum nanofluid-based
concentrating parabolic solar collector was 5e10% more efficient
than the conventional parabolic solar collector. Otanicar et al. [9]
conducted an experimental study regarding the effect of the
nanofluid on the efficiency of a micro solar collector, and they
observed that efficiency improved by up to 5% in solar collectors
when nanofluids were used as the absorption medium. Rahman
et al. [10] investigated the natural convection of nanofluids (Cu,
Al2O3, and TiO2) in a triangular solar collector and found that the
heat transfer increased by 24.28% when 10% Cuewater nanofluid
was used instead of water. Si et al. [11] investigated the radiative
properties and thermal performance of direct solar absorbers using
U overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K)
W circumferential distance between U-tubes (m)
Greek symbols
h efficiency
ε emissivity
m viscosity
4 volume concentration of nanoparticles
r density
Subscripts
a ambient, apparent
b fin base
bf base fluid
c absorber coating, copper fin
e edge
fu fluid
g glass tube
h header tube edge
i inlet, inside
l loss
n nanoparticle
nf nanofluid
o outlet
p pipe
s synthetic
t tube
u useful
x length of section of U-tube
SiO2, TiO2, and ZrC aqueous solutions; they showed that the solar
absorbance of ZrCewater nanofluid was superior to that of the
other two nanofluids. Saidur et al. [12] also analyzed the effect of
using a nanofluid as the working fluid in direct solar collectors,
finding that the particle size had minimal influence on the optical
properties of nanofluid and that the extinction coefficient was
linearly proportionate to volume fraction.
Much research has focused on evaluating the thermal properties
and heat transfer of nanofluids. Zamzamian et al. [13] reported the
effect of the forced convective heat transfer coefficient in turbulent
flow using a double pipe and plate heat exchanger with Al2OeEG
and CuOeEG nanofluids. They found that the convective heat
transfer coefficient of a nanofluid increased as nanoparticle con-
centration and nanofluid temperature increased. Natarajan and
Sathish [14] investigated the thermal conductivity of base fluids
using CNT (carbon nanotube) and suggested that the efficiency of a
conventional solar water heater could be enhanced by using CNT
nanofluid as a heat transport medium. Keshavarz and Razvarz [15]
experimentally studied the effect of Al2O3ewater nanofluid on the
efficiency of a heat pipe for different operating conditions,
concluding that the thermal efficiency of a heat pipe charged with
nanofluid is higher than that of a heat pipe using pure water as a
working fluid. Said et al. [16] investigated the thermophysical
properties of Al2O3 nanofluid; they reported that water-based
alumina nanofluids had preferable sedimentation and aggrega-
tion compared to nanofluids based on an ethylene glycolewater
mixture. In addition, they showed that thermal conductivity of two
fluids increased linearly as their concentration increased.
The literature, however, contains very little existing research
regarding the excellent thermal performance of evacuated U-tube
solar collectors. He et al. [17] experimentally studied the lighteheat
 H. Kim et al. / Energy 94 (2016) 497e507 499

conversion characteristics of nanofluids in a vacuum tube solar where Uh is the overall heat transfer coefficient of the header tube
collector; they reported that the lighteheat conversion character- edge. The resulting value, 0.1687 W/(m2 K), depends on the thick-
istic of a CNTewater nanofluid is higher than that of a TiO2ewater ness of the insulation and by the thermal conductivity and surface
nanofluid. Li et al. [18] experimentally investigated the use of areas of the header tube [23]. Ua is the coefficient of overall heat
Al2O3ewater, ZnOewater, and MgOewater as the working fluid in transfer from the absorber tube to the ambient, expressed as:
tubular solar collectors, showing that of these nanofluids, ZnOe-
water with 0.2vol% is the most efficient. Cho et al. [19,20] theo- 1
Ua ¼ (3)
retically investigated two-layered glass evacuated solar collectors 1 þ h1
hga pg
with heat pipe and U-tube, under various operating conditions. The
0.24vol% multi-walled carbon nanotubeewater nanofluid was used
where hga is the coefficient of convective heat transfer from the
as a working fluid in U-tube solar collectors; the resulting heat
outer glass tube to the surroundings [23] and was found to be
transfer coefficient of the nanofluid was about 8% greater than that
12.7 W/(m2 K). The variable hpg is the sum of hpgc and hpgd, which
of a water base.
represent the coefficient of heat transfer through the thermal
As discussed above, various studies have examined the impact
conductivity and the radiative between the absorber tube and the
of nanofluid use on the performance of solar collectors. However,
glass tube. hpgc is assumed to be 0.2796 W/(m2 K) [23]. In addition,
most of this research was conducted with a flat-plate solar col-
hpgd is defined as follows:
lector only. The literature is very limited in terms of predicting
performance of evacuated U-tube solar collectors; particularly sεc
 
scarce are studies that examine nanofluid use in evacuated U-tube hpgd ¼ εc d
T2t þ T2g Tt þ Tg (4)
1þ ε g dg
ð1
εc Þ
solar collectors. Much of the previous theoretical and experi-
mental research was performed using water as a base fluid in flat-
plate solar collectors. Therefore, it is rare to find 20% PGewater where εc is the emissivity of the absorber coating, εg is the emis-
used as a working fluid in actual systems, though the working fluid sivity of the inner surface of the outer glass tube, dg is the outer
is used in solar collectors in general. As in the mentioned study, a glass tube diameter, d is the absorber tube outer diameter, and s is
U-tube solar collector can reach a higher-temperature heat than a the StefaneBoltzmann constant. The value is equal to 5.67  10
8.
flat-plate solar collector can. Moreover, a U-tube solar collector In reference to Fig. 1(b), the heat loss of the evacuated tube can be
with various nanofluids can yield good thermal performance, expressed as
resulting that achieved relatively higher efficiency and higher-    
temperature heat. Ua ðTt
Ta Þ ¼ hpgd Tt
Tg þ hpgc Tt
Tg (5)
This study develops, therefore, a theoretical model of a U-tube
Using Equations (3)e(5), if the ambient temperature (Ta) and
solar collector with 20% PGewater, which is used as the base
absorber tube temperature (Tp) are given, Ua and Tg can be deter-
working fluid of solar collectors in order to prevent freezing. The
mined. To simplify the analysis of thermal model, it was assumed
model is then used to predict thermal performance. Various
that the absorber tube is parallel to the copper fin; thus a flat-plate
nanofluids (such as MWCNT-, Al2O3-, CuO-, TiO2- and SiO2-based
model is assumed. The temperature gradient in the radial direction
20% PGewater) are also applied to the U-tube solar collector in
is negligible, and the temperature of the absorber tube is assumed
order to measure improvements in heat transfer performance.
to be constant [24].
Fig. 2 shows the heat balance for the flow direction on the
2. Modeling of an U-tube solar collector copper fin. The equation can be expressed as:
   
This study theoretically investigates the thermal performance of dT dT
a U-tube solar collector. A U-tube solar collector consists of a two-
kt 

kt  þ Qu Dx ¼ 0 (6)
dx x dx xþDx
layered glass evacuated tube and a U-tube, as shown in Fig. 1(a). The
two-layered glass evacuated tube transfers heat well because little
heat is lost due to conduction, convection, and radiation among the Tt
T
Qu ¼ ¼ Cs ðTt
TÞ (7)
tubes. Solar radiation can be transferred to the working fluid
tc
ka
þ ktair
air
through the outer glass tube, and the absorber tube obtains about
80% of the solar radiation [21]. To simplify calculations in the Here, tair and tc are the thicknesses of air gap and absorber tube,
simulation model, a constant overall heat transfer coefficient from respectively, and kair and ka are their corresponding thermal con-
the header tube is assumed, and the effect of air convention in the ductivities. Combining Equations (1)e(3) yields the following
evacuated tube is assumed to be negligible. Finally, all processes equation for the absorber tube temperature.
were assumed to be steady states [22]. Table 1 presents the speci-
fications of the U-tube solar collector. G þ Ul Ta þ Cs T
Tt ¼ (8)
According to the energy balance, the useful heat energy gain Ul þ C s
from the solar collector is equal to the amount of solar radi-
Here, by substituting Equations (7) and (8) into Equation (2), the
ationdi.e., the difference between the heat energy obtained by the
following energy equation can be obtained. The boundary condi-
solar collector, and the energy loss to the environment. This
tions are necessary to solve the equation.
equation is expressed as

Qu ¼ G
Ql (1) dT 
¼ 0; Tjx¼W
d ¼ Tb (9)
dx x¼0 2

where G is the amount of solar energy absorbed by the selective

To simplify the calculation, let m be defined as
absorbing coating. The overall heat loss coefficient of the solar   1
2
collector is calculated as follows: Ul =kt 1 þ Ul
. The temperature distribution equation can then
Cs
Ul ¼ Ua þ Uh (2) be expressed as
500 H. Kim et al. / Energy 94 (2016) 497e507

Fig. 1. Two-layered glass evacuated U-tube solar collector.

 
Table 1 cos mx G G
T¼   Tb
Ta
þ Ta þ (10)
Specifications of the solar collector. U U
cos mðW
dÞ
2
l l
Parameter Specification

Outer tube outer diameter (mm) 47 The heat gain is equal to sum of energies q0f collected from both
Outer tube thickness (mm) 2 sides of the U-tube and the heat gain q0t in the tube. The heat gain is
Transmittance 0.907
Inner tube outer diameter (mm) 37
equal to the energy transferred to the fluid. These mathematical
Inner tube thickness (mm) 2 relationships can be written as
Absorptivity of the absorber tube 0.93
Solar collector length (mm) 1200 ðW
dÞðG
Ul ðTb
Ta ÞÞF dðG
Ul ðTb
Ta ÞÞ
Emissivity of the absorber tube 0.06 q0u ¼ q0f þ q0t ¼ Ul
þ
Copper fin thickness (mm) 0.6 1þ Cs 1þU
Cs
l

Thermal conductivity of copper fin (W/m K) 307

Air gap (mm) 1.5
(11)
Thermal conductivity of air gab (W/m K) 0.025
U-tube outer diameter (mm) 8
ððW
dÞF þ dÞðG
Ul ðTb
Ta ÞÞ
Bond conductance (W/m K) 30 q0u ¼ (12)
Synthetic conductance (W/m K) 29 1þU
Cs
l
 H. Kim et al. / Energy 94 (2016) 497e507 501

Fig. 2. Energy analysis of copper fin.

 3. Modeling of nanofluid
tanhð mðW
dÞ
2 Þ
F¼ (13) In a nanofluid mixture, 1e100 nm size metallic or nonmetallic
mðW
dÞ=2 particle have been dispersed in a base fluid, thereby improving
the base fluid's thermal properties. After Choi et al. [26] proposed
Tb
Tfu the use of nanofluids in 1995, many studies have been performed
q0u ¼ 1
(14) regarding the thermal properties of nanofluid and its applica-
hfu pd
þ k1 tions. However, it is difficult to define these characteristics, as
c

thermal properties vary according to nanoparticle type, size, and

where hfu is the heat transfer coefficient between the fluid and the
tube wall and kc represents the conductance of copper fin. The
conductance of copper fin resulting value is less than 30 W/(m K)
[25]. Solving Equation (14) for Tb and substituting the result into
Equation (12), the result is net heat gain, as shown below.



q0u ¼ WF 0 G
Ul Tfu
Ta
where the collector efficiency factor (F0 ) and the coefficient of heat
transfer between the fluid and the copper tube can be calculated
using the following equations:
shape.
In this study, nanofluid is assumed to be a homogeneous fluid.
Nanofluids (such as MWCNT, Al2O3, CuO, SiO2, and TiO2) were used
at different concentrations in a base fluid of 20% PGewater; the
resulting mixtures were used as the working fluids in solar col-
lectors. The thermal properties of each nanoparticle are presented
in Table 2.
(15)
The density and the specific heat of the nanofluid can be
calculated using the following equation [27]:
rnf ¼ ð1
4Þrbf þ 4rn (21)

1 where rbf is density of the base fluid, rn is density of the nano-

F0 ¼
Ul
! (16) particle, and 4 is concentration of the nanoparticle.
Ul
1þ
Cs
Wð U ððW
dÞFþdÞ þ h 1pd þ k1
l fu c
ð1
4Þrbf Cpðbf Þ þ 4rn CpðsÞ
Cpðnf Þ ¼ (22)
ð1
4Þrbf þ 4rn
1
hfu ¼ ! (17) where Cp(bf) is heat capacity of the base fluid and Cp(n) is heat ca-
1 þ ktt pacity of the nanoparticle. Thermal conductivity of the nanofluid is
hnf t
calculated by the Maxwell model, expressed as:

The heat gained by the fluid in the pipe can be calculated by:

kn þ 2kbf þ 24 kn
kbf
_ p ðTo
Ti Þ knf ¼
 kbf (23)
Qfu ¼ mC (18)
kn þ 2kbf
4 kn
kbf
where m_ and Cp are the mass flow rate and the specific heat of the
working fluid, respectively. The thermal efficiency of the solar where kbf is thermal conductivity of the base fluid and kn is the
collector is defined as thermal conductivity of the nanoparticles.

_ p ðTo
Ti Þ
mC Table 2
h¼ (19) Thermophysical properties of the nanoparticle and base fluid [32e34].
AG
Material Density Thermal Specific heat
Equation (19) can also be rewritten as follows:
(kg/m3) conductivity (J/kg K)
(W/m K)
ðTi
Ta Þ
h ¼ FR ðtaÞ
FR Ul (20) MWCNT 1350 3000 650
G Al2O3 3970 36 765
CuO 6500 17.65 533
where FR is the heat removal factor, (ta) is the absorptance- SiO2 2220 1.38 745
transmittance solar collector, and (Ti
Ta)/G is the heat loss TiO2 4175 8.4 710
20% PGewater 1011 0.52 4023
parameter or reduced temperature.
502 H. Kim et al. / Energy 94 (2016) 497e507

for the range 0.2e4vol% and reported an 8e55% increase in

mbf
mnf ¼ 2:5
ð1
4Þ
Effective viscosity is calculated using the Brinkman model [28]
as shown in Equation (24). The Brinkman model is widely used to
predict effective viscosity of nanofluids; the margin of error is un-
der 5% in nanofluids with shaped nanoparticle. In addition, the
Nusselt number is calculated to obtain the heat transfer coefficient
of nanofluid. The Nusselt number was calculated using the Gnie-
linski correlation [29], which is valid for 3000  Re  5  105 and
0.5  Pr  2000. The equations are as follows.
ðf =8ÞðRe
1000ÞPr
Nu ¼  
1 þ 12:7ðf =8Þ0:5 Pr2=3
1
f ¼ ð0:79 ln Re
1:64Þ
2
Thermal properties of the nanofluid can improve with the in-
crease of nanoparticle concentration, because the thermal prop-
erties of nanoparticles are superior to those of a basic fluid.
However, when the nanoparticle concentration exceeds its opti-
mum level, sedimentation and aggregation phenomena occur
because the nanoparticles are not dispersed effectively in the base
fluid. When the sedimentation and aggregation phenomenon of
the nanoparticles occurs, the performance of the solar collector is
reduced. In addition, the density and viscosity of fluid increase as
the nanofluid volume concentration increases, while high volume
concentration can increase the pressure drop of a fluid in the tube.
An increase in density and viscosity leads to a greater pressure
drop than the tube's base fluid; the pumping power can be
increased to circulate the fluid and the main the fault failure of
pump can occur, so the lifetime is reduced. Each nanofluid has the
limitation of dispersion stability because its sediment becomes
less stable when the nanoparticle concentration reaches over a
certain level.
Table 3 summarizes the experimental and theoretical studies of
the performance improvement and stability of dispersion in solar
collectors using nanofluids. Existing studies on the solar collector of
nanoparticle are too numerous and varied to summarize compre-
hensively, but Table 3 shows a selective list of research that is
closely related to this study's nanofluids research. Most of these
studies conducted the test in consideration of dispersion stability
(24) efficiency.
In the present work, according to the results of previous
experimental studies, the limits of the dispersion stability of
different nanofluids (MWCNT [32], Al2O3, CuO, TiO2, and SiO2
[33,34]) in 20% PGewater were set at suggested ranges, which were
then applied to the concentration of nanofluid in this study. Most of
the literature showed the result of the conversion from weight to
volume concentration, where limitations of volume percent about
MWCNT nanofluid were 0.2vol% and the limitation concentrations
of Al2O3, CuO, TiO2, and SiO2 were 3vol%. This study, therefore,
defines the limitations of nanofluid concentration on the stability
with 3vol% for Al2O3, CuO, TiO2, and SiO2, and with 0.2vol% for
MWCNT nanofluid. The performance of the U-tube solar collector
(25)
was predicted and analyzed for various nanofluids, for low con-
centration to concentration limits, and under various operating
conditions.
(26)
4. Results and discussion
This study compares the efficiency of U-tube solar collector
using a base fluid of 20% PGewater to the experimental results in
order to verify the accuracy of the developed model, investigating
the thermal performance of U-tube solar collector using various
nanofluids. In general, solar collector efficiency is evaluated ac-
cording to the change of the heat loss parameter (TieTa)/G, which is
crucial to determining the instantaneous efficiency of the solar
collector. The solar collector efficiency curve depends on (TieTa)/G,
because the absorbed energy of absorber tube and the heat loss of
the ambient do not change.
First, to evaluate the accuracy of these results, the solar collector
efficiency of this study was compared to that of the experimental
results from Yin et al. [38] and Cho et al. [17], as shown in Fig. 3. As
the inlet temperature of the working fluid increases, the solar
collector efficiency tends to decrease. As the temperature differ-
ence between the working fluid and ambient increases, the heat
loss from the solar collector to the ambient increases proportion-
ally. Compared with the experimental results of Yin et al. [38], the
simulation result of this study is consistent within a margin of
about 1.5%. The difference is small because Yin et al. [38] used pure
water as the working fluid in the solar collector, while n this study
used 20% PGewater, which has lower thermal properties such as
thermal conductivity and specific heat [39]. The experimental re-
sults of Cho et al. [17] show an efficiency value that is 2.5% higher

Table 3
Representative previous studies of nanofluid in solar collectors.

Reference Geometry Nanofluid Concentration Efficiency Thermal conductivity Notea

enhancement (%) enhancement (%)

Yousefi et al. [2,3] Flat-plate solar collector Al2O3ewater 0.2 and 0.4% (wt) 28.3 E
MWCNTewater
Tyagi et al. [4] Non-Concentration Al2O3ewater 1.8e5.0vol% 8 N
Direct Absorption
Faizal et al. [30] Flat-plate solar collector CuOewater 3vol% 38.5 N
Al2O3ewater 28.8
TiO2ewater
SiO2ewater
Faizal et al. [31] Flat-plate solar collector MWCNTewater 0.2 and 0.4% (wt) 55.6 E
Indhuja et al. [32] MWCNTewater 0.14e0.24vol% E
Das et al. [35] Al2O3ewater 1.0e4.0vol% 2e24 E
CuOewater 7e36
Pelevic and Meer [36] Rectangular box Al2O3eethylene 0e6.0vol% 0e20 N
CuOeethylene
Masuda et al. [37] Circular tube Al2O3ewater 0e4.0vol% 30 E
TiO2ewater 10
a
Note: “E” refers to an experimental study; “N” refers to a numerical study.
 H. Kim et al. / Energy 94 (2016) 497e507
Fig. 3. Comparison of present study's efficiency results with previous experimental
results.
than the one presented in this study. This is because Cho et al. [17]
used 0.2vol% MWCNT between the absorber tube and copper fins
instead of air layer in order to improve the thermal performance of
the U-tube solar collector. Because the 0.2vol% MWCNT fluid has
better thermal conductivity than the air between the absorber tube
and copper fin, the result is relatively large heat transfer and greater
efficiency. Considering these differences, the margin of error be-
tween the proposed model of this study and the experimental data
of previous studies is within the acceptable range. Overall, the solar
collector efficiency predicted in this study agrees with the experi-
mental values and shows similar trends under various operating
conditions.
Fig. 4 shows the variation of overall heat loss coefficient ac-
cording to the difference in temperature between the absorber
coating (Tp) and the ambient (Ta) for various ambient temperature
conditions when 20% PGewater is applied to the solar collector as
the working fluid. The overall heat loss coefficient has the greatest
impact on solar collector performance. The overall heat loss coef-
ficient increases linearly with the rise of ambient temperature, and
the overall heat loss coefficient increases as (Tp
Ta) increases.
Therefore, thermal loss from the absorber tube to the outside
Fig. 4. Variation of overall heat loss coefficient, according to difference between the
absorber coating (Tp) and the ambient temperature (Ta).
503
increases when the ambient temperature increases with a constant
temperature difference between the absorber coating and the
ambient. The highest value for overall heat loss coefficient is
1.16 W/m2$K when ambient temperature is 303 K and (Tp
Ta) is
90 K. In addition, as (Tp
Ta) increases, the differences among the
overall heat loss coefficients gradually increases depending on
ambient temperature, as shown in previous studies [43].
Fig. 5 presents the variation in the thermal conductivity of
nanofluids for various temperatures and volume concentrations.
The thermal conductivity of working fluid is directly related to the
heat transfer coefficient. As the thermal conductivity of nanofluid
increases, the heat transfer coefficient increases proportionally,
resulting in a higher thermal efficiency of solar collector. For all
nanofluids, thermal conductivity increases when the temperature
and volume concentration increases. In addition, thermal conduc-
tivity of nanofluids at the limit of dispersion stability increases in
the following sequential order (from greatest to least): MWCNT,
Al2O3, CuO, TiO2, and SiO2 nanofluids. Although the volume con-
centration of the MWCNT nanofluid at the limit of dispersion sta-
bility is relatively small, the MWCNT nanofluid sees a significant
increase in thermal conductivity under the given conditions
because its thermal conductivity is high (83e2000 times larger)
compared to those of other nanoparticles, as already described in
Table 2. When the operating temperature is 323 K, the 0.2vol%
MWCNT nanofluid has the greatest thermal conductivity, 0.588 W/
(m K), which is about 10% greater than that of 20% PGewater. The
1vol%-SiO2 nanofluid shows the least improvement in thermal
conductivity: its conductivity is about 1% greater than that of 20%
PGewater. In addition, the difference in the thermal conductivity
values of MWCNT and SiO2 nanofluids at the limit of dispersion
stability is about 7%, and the differences in thermal conductivity
between the various nanofluids become significantly large. Lee
et al. [40] experimentally established the linear relationship be-
tween thermal conductivity and volume concentration for an
Al2O3ewater nanofluid and reported the maximum increase in
thermal conductivity was 1.44%, when the concentration of nano-
fluid was 0.01e0.3vol% and nanoparticle size was below 30 nm. The
thermal conductivity improvement found in Lee's results was 16%
smaller than that of this study, likely because the maximum volume
concentration of nanofluid was about 10% smaller than that used in
this study. In addition, Liu et al. [41] and Lu et al. [42] carried out
experiments for a CuOewater nanofluid in an evacuated tubular
solar collector. They reported that the CuO nanoparticles increased
the evaporation heat transfer coefficient by about 30% and that the
Fig. 5. Thermal conductivity according to temperature for various nanofluids.
504 H. Kim et al. / Energy 94 (2016) 497e507
maximum and mean values of increases in solar collector efficiency
were 12.4% and 6.6%, respectively, using 1.2wt% (0.2vol%) concen-
tration and an operating temperature of 100  C.
Fig. 6 shows the variation in differences between outlet and
inlet temperatures according to the inlet temperature of the
working fluid for various mass flow rates. Because heat loss of the
solar collector increases as inlet temperature of the working fluid
increases, the difference between the outlet and inlet temperatures
decreases and the net heat gain of the working fluid decreases as a
result. In addition, the outlet temperature of the solar collector
increases with an increase in mass flow rate of a solar collector's
working fluid. It is due to the increase of heat transfer coefficient
with the increase of Re number. When the mass flow rate of a
nanofluid is 0.001 kg/s, the outlet temperature decreases by an
average of 1.4 K as the solar collector's inlet temperature increases
from 303 K to 353 K. However, when the mass flow rate of a
nanofluid is 0.003 kg/s, the solar collector's outlet temperature
decreases by an average of 0.4 K, and the reduction rate in outlet
temperature decreases as the mass flow rate increases. The 0.2vol%
MWCNT nanofluid has the highest solar collector outlet tempera-
ture, which is about 1.6 K higher than that of 20% PGewater. This is
because the increase of heat transfer coefficient of MWCNT nano-
fluid. MWCNT's thermal properties improve significantly due to
thermal conductivity that is higher and specific heat that is lower
than those of other nanofluids. The outlet temperatures of 3vol%
CuO and 3vol% Al2O3 nanofluids are substantially the same. This is
because the thermal conductivity of Al2O3 nanoparticles is twice as
high as that of CuO, while the CuO nanofluid has a greater density
and low specific heat; these phenomena offset each other in
impacting the nanofluids' respective heat transfers. As a result, the
thermal performances of the two nanofluids are quite similar. Ac-
cording to Ma et al. [43], for a filled-type evacuated tube with U-
tube, the outlet temperature difference decreases by 0.65 K when
the inlet fluid temperature increases from 303 K to 363 K for a mass
flow rate of 0.003 kg/s, but it decreases by 1.96 K for the mass flow
rate of 0.001 kg/s. When nanofluids are applied to a U-tube solar
collector under similar operating conditions, the reduction of the
difference between outlet and inlet temperatures was slightly
smaller than that of Ma's results, because a collector using nano-
fluids could deliver more heat than one using pure water as the
working fluid. In addition, less heat is lost as the solar collector inlet
temperature increases than when water is used as the working
fluid.
Fig. 6. Variation in temperature difference according to inlet temperature of working
fluid.
Fig. 7 shows the efficiency changes of the U-tube solar collector
according to solar radiation for various nanofluids. When the
ambient temperature is constant, the solar collector efficiency in-
creases according to solar radiation; the rate of increase then de-
creases gradually until the rate is constant. Solar collectors that use
higher-heat-transfer nanofluids are found to be more efficient than
those using 20% PG-water as a working fluid, because nanofluids
have a higher thermal conductivity than 20% PGewater. For various
solar radiations, the most efficient working fluid is 0.2vol% MWCNT
nanofluid, which is 5.6% and 9.7% more efficient than 20% PG-water
when solar radiation is 200 W/m2 and 1000 W/m2, respectively.
The figure also shows that the efficiency difference between 0.2vol
% MWCNT nanofluid and 20% PG-water increases as solar radiation
increases. The least efficient nanofluid, on the other hand, is the
3vol% SiO2, which is only 1.7% and 2.9% more efficient than 20% PG-
water at the same operating conditions. For all working fluids, solar
collector efficiency rapidly increases near 300 W/m2 of solar radi-
ation. This is because heat transfer between the U-tube and
working fluid is relatively low, because heat flux is low under low
solar radiation. In addition, beyond about 800 W/m2 of solar radi-
ation, the rate of increase for solar collector efficiency is almost zero
because the heat transfer performance of a solar collector reaches
its limit, yielding a constant level of solar collector efficiency.
Fig. 8 shows the comparison of solar collector efficiency using
different nanofluids and volume concentrations when mass flow
rate of nanofluid is 0.01 kg/s and (Ti
Ta)/G is 0 and 0.15. In general,
solar collector efficiency increases as the concentration of nano-
particles in the base fluid increases. In this study, for (Ti
Ta)/G ¼ 0,
the solar collector efficiency is greatest when the inlet temperature
and ambient temperature of the solar collector are the same. The
figure shows that the solar collector efficiency decreases as (Ti
Ta)/
G increases. For both (Ti
Ta)/G ¼ 0 and (Ti
Ta)/G ¼ 0.15, solar col-
lector efficiency increases in the following sequential order from
greatest to least: MWCNT, CuO, Al2O3, TiO2, SiO2, and 20%
PGewater. Solar collector efficiency using 0.2vol% MWCNT nano-
fluid is 62.8% and 39% when (Ti
Ta)/G ¼ 0 and 0.15, respectively,
which are about 10.5% and 4.2% greater, respectively, than 20%
PGewater for a given condition. Meanwhile, solar collector effi-
ciency using 0.3vol% SiO2 nanofluid is 55.5% and 34.5% when
(Ti
Ta)/G ¼ 0 and 0.15, respectivelyda 3.1% and 2.0% increase in
efficiency, respectively, compared to that using 20% PGewater.
Solar collector efficiency decreases as (Ti
Ta)/G increases, while
solar collectors that use nanofluids are more efficient than 20%
Fig. 7. Analysis of solar collector efficiency according to solar radiation.
 H. Kim et al. / Energy 94 (2016) 497e507
Fig. 8. Solar collector efficiency at different nanofluid concentrations.
PGewater. Some experimental research [30,31] reported that a flat-
plate solar collector's efficiency could increase by 28.8%e38.5%
when using CuO, Al2O3, CuO, TiO2, and SiO2 nanofluids and by about
55.6% when using MWCNT as the volume flow rate of the nanofluid
varied from 1 Lpm to 3.8 Lpm. Improvements in efficiency for flat-
plate and U-tube solar collectors differ depending on the type of
nanofluid; overall, however, efficiency improved according to the
increase of mass flow rate of nanofluid. In this study, the U-tube
solar collector saw less performance improvement than did the
flat-plate solar collector. However, this may be because the mass
flow rate of a nanofluid in the U-tube solar collector is lower in this
study than in previous studies [30,31]. U-tube solar collectors are
found to be more efficient than flat-plate solar collectors when the
mass flow rate of the working fluid is equal for both systems.
Therefore, the U-tube solar collector shows greater improvement in
efficiency than does the flat-plate solar collector when a nanofluid
is used as the working fluid.
Fig. 9 compares solar collector efficiency for different
maximum-concentration nanofluids, according to (TieTa)/G. For all
solar collectors using nanofluids, heat lost from the inside of the
solar collector to the ambient increases as (TieTa)/G increases
because the difference in temperature increases significantly. In
addition, the differences between the solar collector efficiency of
various nanofluids decrease. The 0.2vol% MWCNT nanofluid is
505
Fig. 9. Comparison of solar collector efficiency for different nanofluids under
maximum concentration.
found to be the most efficient working fluid; it has an advantage in
terms of heat transfer performance improvement because a
MWCNT nanoparticle has 99.8%e99.9% higher thermal conductiv-
ity and 9e17.7% lower specific heat than other nanoparticles. The
solar collector efficiency of 3vol% CuO nanofluid is higher due to its
39% relative higher density and its 30% lower heat capacity than
Al2O3, even though the CuO nanoparticle has a 50% lower thermal
conductivity than does Al2O3. Thus, it has a higher heat transfer
performance than does the Al2O3 nanofluid. When (Ti
Ta)/G in-
creases from 0 to 0.15, the efficiency of solar collectors using 0.2vol
%-MWCNT and 3vol%-SiO2 nanofluids decreases by 23.8% and 21%,
respectively, while the efficiency of solar collectors using 20%
PGewater decreases by 19.9%.
Table 4 shows the monthly average solar radiation and ambient
temperatures in Gwangju, South Korea, located at latitude of 35
and longitude of 126 [17]. Table 5 shows the relative reduction of
coal usage and of CO2 and SiO2 generation when various nanofluids
are applied to 50 EA solar collectors in Gwangju, Korea, for one year.
Generally, when 1 kg of coal is fully combusted, 29,306 kJ of energy
is generated [44]. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 and SiO2 are
emitted during coal consumption, which has an effect on global
warming. Therefore, the use of solar collectors for heating can
reduce greenhouse gas generation as much as it can coal
consumption.
Of the various nanofluids addressed in this study, the 0.2vol%
MWCNT nanofluid has the highest heat transfer efficiency in solar
collectors. This type therefore corresponds to the largest reduction
in coal usage (about 792.1 kg per year) and the largest reduction in
CO2 generation (2083.1 kg) and SO2 generation (6.7 kg). Corre-
sponding to reductions in coal usage, solar collectors using 3vol%
of CuO, Al2O3, TiO2, and SiO2 nanofluids can reduce CO2 generation
by 1997.5 kg, 1980.3 kg, 1876.5 kg, and 1841.6 kg per year,
respectively, and reduce SO2 generation by 6.5 kg, 6.4 kg, 6.1 kg,
and 6.0 kg per year, respectively. A solar collector using nanofluids
can further reduce coal usage by 39.5e131.3 kg, CO2 generation by
103.8e345.3 kg, and SO2 generation by 0.3e1.1 kg per year,
compared to a solar collector using 20% PGewater as a working
fluid.
Fig. 10 shows variations in electricity and cost savings according
to the number of solar collectors using 0.2vol% MWCNT nanofluid,
which has the highest heat transfer efficiency under the operating
conditions, as shown in Table 5 (Kwangju, Korea). One solar col-
lector by using 0.2vol% MWCNT nanofluid can save an average of
506 H. Kim et al. / Energy 94 (2016) 497e507

Table 4 $1289.50, $773.70, and $515.80, respectively [45]. Energy savings

Average solar radiation and ambient temperatures according to month (in Kwangju, can, of course, increase or decrease depending on operating con-
Korea).
ditions, as outside temperatures and solar radiation change ac-
Month Solar radiation (MJ/m2/Month) Ambient temperature ( C) cording to the season and time of day in certain regions. Overall,
1 420.4 0.5 however, this study shows that the use of nanofluids in solar col-
2 425.4 4.4 lectors has the potential to produce significant energy savings and
3 492.1 7.4 to reduce CO2 and SO2 generation.
4 194.4 11.2
5 487.0 18.6
6 410.8 23.7 5. Conclusions
7 382.4 26.3
8 423.2 18.1
9 438.4 13.6 This paper numerically analyzed the thermal performance of a
10 515.3 15.7 U-tube solar collector, using various nanofluids as the working
11 422.4 8.4 fluid. The base fluid 20% PGewater is used to prevent freezing, as
12 395.9 2.5 with a normal solar collector. As a result, the thermal conductivity
of nanofluids increased as the temperature and volume concen-
tration increased. The 0.2vol%-MWCNT nanofluid had the largest
Table 5 thermal conductivity, 0.588 W/(m K), which was about 10% greater
Energy savings from solar collectors in the form of reduced coal use and CO2 and SO2 than that of 20% PGewater. When various nanofluids were applied
generation.
to the solar collector, solar collector efficiency improved in the
Nanofluid Weight of Weight of Weight of following sequential order from greatest to least: MWCNT, CuO,
coal (kg) CO2 (kg) SO2 (kg) Al2O3, TiO2, and SiO2 nanofluids. Using 0.2vol% MWCNT nanofluid,
0.2vol% MWCNT 792.1 2083.1 6.7 solar collector efficiency was 62.8% and 39% when (Ti
Ta)/G ¼ 0 and
3vol% CuO 759.5 1997.5 6.5 0.15, respectively, which was found to be about 10.5% and 4.2%
3vol% Al2O3 753.0 1980.3 6.4
higher, respectively, than 20% PGewater under the same operating
3vol% TiO2 713.5 1876.5 6.1
3vol% SiO2 700.2 1841.6 6.0
conditions. When (Ti
Ta)/G ¼ 0, solar collector efficiency increased
20% PGewater 660.8 1737.8 5.6 about 0.52% on average as the volume concentration of nanofluids
increased from 1vol% to 2vol% for CuO, Al2O3, TiO2, and SiO2
nanofluids, or from 0.1vol% to 0.15vol% for MWCNT.
Various nanofluids of maximum volume concentration were
applied over one year to a 50 EA solar collector in Gwangju, South
Korea, located at a latitude of 35 and longitude of 126 . The re-
sults showed a reduction in coal usage of about 700.2e792.1 kg
and a reduction of 1841.6e2083.1 kg in CO2 generation and of
6.0e6.7 kg in SO2 generation. In particular, the solar collector
using 0.2vol% MWCNT nanofluid showed the largest reduction in
coal usage, by about 792.1 kg per year, as well as a reduction of
2083.1 kg in CO2 generation and 6.7 kg in SO2 generation. In
addition, a solar collector using nanofluids can potentially reduce
coal usage by 39.5e131.3 kg per year, compared to one using a
base working fluid of 20% PGewater. As a result, CO2 and SO2
generation could be reduced by 103.8e345.3 kg and 0.3e1.1 kg,
respectively. A solar collector using 0.2vol% MWCNT nanofluid,
furthermore, could see excellent efficiency improvement, saving
about 6447.3 kWh of electricity per year, a yearly reduction that is
Fig. 10. Analysis of cost and electricity savings for solar collectors. 1068.4 kWh greater than that of a solar collector using a base
working fluid of 20% PGewater. With Germany seeing a maximum
yearly cost savings of $2643.40, and other countries could save
equivalents of $515.80e$1805.20 per year. These results demon-
31.4 MJ per year more than using 20% PGewater as a working fluid,
strate that the use of nanofluids in solar collectors has the po-
and therefore 1570 MJ per year can be more saved when 0.2vol%
tential to produce significant energy savings, reduce CO2 and
MWCNT nanofluid is used in 50 solar collectors under the same
SO2 generation, and subsequently, have broad environmental
operating conditions. As well, when 0.2vol% MWCNT nanofluid is
impact.
used in 50 solar collectors, the total energy saving is 18,858 MJ per
year. Corresponding to the thermal heat savings of reduced elec-
tricity use, about 6447.3 kWh of electricity usage can be saved per References
year by using 50 solar collectors with 0.2vol% MWCNT nanofluid. In
[1] Nagarajan PK, Subramani J, Suyambazhahan S, Sathyamurthy Ravishankar.
addition, a solar collector using 0.2vol% MWCNT nanofluid can Nanofluids for solar collector applications: a review. Energy Procedia 2014;61:
further reduce electricity usage by 1068.4 kWh per year, compared 2416e34.
to a solar collector using 20% PGewater as a base working fluid. Due [2] Yousefi T, Veysi F, Shojaeizadeh E, Zinadini S. An experimental investigation
on the effect of Al2O3eH2O nanofluid on the efficiency of flat-plate solar
to these electricity savings, in Germany (a country with one of the
collectors. Renew Energy 2012;39:293e8.
highest electricity cost rates in the world), cost savings per year [3] Yousefi T, Veysi F, Shojaeizadeh E, Zinadini S. An experimental investigation
could amount to US $2643.40, based on the corresponding cost of on the effect of MWCNTeH2O nanofluid on the efficiency of flat-plate solar
the electricity ($ 0.41 per 1 kWh). Furthermore, in Italy, the United collector. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2012;39:207e12.
[4] Tyagi H, Phelan P, Prasher R. Predicted efficiency of a low-temperature
Kingdom, the United States, and South Korea (all of which have nanofluid-based direct absorption solar collector. J Sol Energy Eng
high electricity cost rates), cost savings could equal $1805.20, 2009;131:041004.
 H. Kim et al. / Energy 94 (2016) 497e507
[5] Colangelo G, Favale E, de Risi A, Laforgia D. A new solution for reduced
sedimentation flat panel solar thermal collector using nanofluids. Appl Energy
2013;111:80e93.
[6] Chaji H, Ajabshirchi Y, Esmaeilzadeh E, Heris SZ, Hedayatizadeh M, Kahani M.
Experimental study on thermal efficiency of flat plate solar collector using
TiO2/water nanofluid. Mod Appl Sci 2013;7(10):60e9.
[7] Tiwari AK, Ghosh P, Sarkar J. Solar water heating using nanofluids e a
comprehensive overview and environmental impact analysis. Int J Emerg
Technol Adv Eng 2013;3:221e4.
[8] Khullar V, Tyagi H, Phelan PE, Otanicar TP, Singh H, Taylor RA. Solar energy
harvesting using nanofluids-based concentrating solar collector.
J Nanotechnol Eng Med 2013;3(3):031003.
[9] Otanicar T, Phelan PE, Prasher RS, Rosengarten G, Taylor RA. Nanofluid based
direct absorption solar collector. J Renew Sust Energy 2010;2:033102.
[10] Rahman MM, Mojumder S, Saha S, Mekhilef S, Saidur R. Augmentation of
natural convection heat transfer in triangular shape solar collector by utilizing
water based nanofluids having a corrugated bottom wall. Int. Commun. Heat
Mass Transf 2014;50(263):117e27.
[11] Mu LJ, Zhu QZ, Si LL. Radiative properties of nanofluids and performance of a
direct solar absorber using nanofluids. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2009 2nd
Micro/Nanoscale Heat & Mass Transfer International Conference,
MNHMT2009-18402. p. 549e553.
[12] Saidur R, Meng TC, Said Z, Hasanuzzaman M, Kamyar A. Evaluation of the
effect of nanofluid-based absorbers on direct solar collector. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 2012;55:5899e907.
[13] Zamzamiana A, Nasseri OS, Doosthoseinic A, Joneidic A, Pazoukia M. Experi-
mental investigation of forced convective heat transfer coefficient in nano-
fluids of Al2O3/EG and CuO/EG in a double pipe and plate heat exchangers
under turbulent flow. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2011;35:495e502.
[14] Natarajan E, Sathish R. Role of nanofluids in solar water heater. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-008-1876-8.
[15] Keshavarz M, Razvarz S. Experimental investigation of aluminum oxide
nanofluid on heat pipe thermal performance. Int Commun Heat Mass
2012;39:1444e8.
[16] Said Z, Sajid MH, Alim MA, Saidur R, Rahim NA. Experimental investigation of
the thermophysical properties of Al2O3-nanofluid and its effect on a flat plate
solar collector. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 2013;48:99e107.
[17] He Y, Wang S, Ma J, Tian F, Ren Y. Experimental study on the light-heat
conversion characteristics of nanofluids. Nanosci Nanotechnol Lett 2011;3:
494e6.
[18] Li Y, Xie HQ, Yu W, Li J. Investigation on heat transfer performances of
nanofluids in solar collector. Mater Sci Forum 2011;694:33e6.
[19] Tong Y, Kim J, Cho H. Effects of thermal performance of enclosed-type evac-
uated U-tube solar collector with multi-walled carbon nanotube/water
nanofluid. Renew Energy 2015;83:463e73.
[20] Tong Y, Cho H. Comparative study on the thermal performance of evacuated
solar collectors with u-tubes and heat pipes. Int J Air Cond Refrig 2015;23(3):
1550019.
[21] Kim Y, Seo T. Thermal performances comparisons of the glass evacuated tube
solar collectors with shapes of absorber tube. Renew Energy 2007;32:772e95.
[22] Kim JT, Ahn HT, Han H, Kim HT, Chun W. The performance simulation of all
glass vacuum tubes with coaxial fluid conduit. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf
2007;34:587e97.
[23] Tian Q. Study on thermal efficiency and performance of U-tubular all-glass
evacuated tube solar collector. Energy Eng 2006;6:36e40.
[24] Tian Q. Thermal performance of the U-type evacuated glass tubular solar
collector. Build Energy Environ 2007;26(3):51e4 [in Chinese].
[25] Duffie JA, Bechman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. New York,
USA: Jhon Wiley & Sons; 1980.
507
[26] Choi US. In: Siginer DA, Wang HP, editors. Enhancing thermal conductivity of
fluids with nano-particles, developments and applications of non-Newtonian
glows, FED-vol. 231/MD-vol. 66. New York: ASME; 1995. p. 99e105.
[27] Pak BC, Cho YI. Hydrodynamic and heat transfer study of dispersed fluids with
submicron metallic oxide particles. Exp Heat Transf 1998;11(2):151e70.
[28] Gnielinski V. New equations for heat and mass transfer in turbulent pipe and
channel flow. Int Chem Eng 1976;16:359e68.
[29] Javadi FS, Sadeghipour S, Saidur R, BoroumandJazi G, Rahmati B, Elias MM,
et al. The effects of nanofluid on thermophysical properties and heat transfer
characteristics of a plate heat exchanger. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf
2013;44:58e63.
[30] Faizal M, Saidur R, Mekhilef S, Alim MA. Energy, economic and environmental
analysis of metal oxides nanofluid for flat-plate solar collector. Energy
Convers Manag 2013;76:162e8.
[31] Faizal M, Saidur R, Mekhilef S. Potential of size reduction of flat-plate solar
collectors when applying MWCNT nanofluid. In: 4th International Conference
on Energy and Environment (ICEE2013), Conf. Series: Earth and Environ-
mental Science 16; 2013. p. 012004.
[32] Indhuja A, Suganthi KS, Manikandan S, Rajan KS. Viscosity and thermal con-
ductivity of dispersions of gum arabic capped MWCNT in water: influence of
MWCNT concentration and temperature. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 2013;44:
474e9.
[33] Mahian O, Kianifar A, Sahin AZ, Wongwises S. Performance analysis of a
minichannel-based solar collector using different nanofluids. Energy Convers
Manag 2014;88:129e38.
[34] Ahmed MA, Yusoff MZ, Ng KC, Shuaib NH. Effect of corrugation profile on the
thermal-hydraulic performance of corrugated channels using CuO-water
nanofluid. Case Stud Therm Eng 2014;4:65e75.
[35] Das SK, Putra N, Thiesen P, Roetzel W. Temperature dependence of thermal
conductivity enhancement for nanofluids. J Heat Transf 2003;125(4):567e74.
[36] Pelevic N, van der Meer Th H. Numerical investigation of the effective thermal
conductivity of nano-fluids using the lattice Boltzmann model. Int J Therm Sci
2012;62:154e9.
[37] Masuda H, Ebata A, Teramae K, Hishinuma N. Alteration of thermal conduc-
tivity and viscosity of liquid by dispersing ultra-fine particle (dispersion of
Al2O3, SiO2 and TiO2 ultra-fine particle). Netsu Bussei (Japen) 1993;4(4):
227e33.
[38] Yin ZQ, Harding GL, Collins RE. The thermal performance of the coaxial
evacuated glass tubular solar collector. Sol Energy 1997;2:19e20 [in Chinese].
[39] Shojaeizadeh E, Veysi F, Yousefi T, Davodi F. An experimental investigation
on the efficiency of a flat-plate solar collector with binary working fluid: a
case study of propylene glycol(PG)-water. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2014;53:
218e26.
[40] Lee JH, Hwang KS, Jang SP, Lee BH, Kim JH, Choi SU. Effective viscosities and
thermal conductivities of aqueous nanofluids containing low volume con-
centrations of Al2O3 nanoparticles. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2008;51:2651e6.
[41] Liu Z, Hu R, Lu L, Zhao F, Xiao H. Thermal performance of an open thermo-
syphon using nanofluids for evacuated tubular high temperature air solar
collector. Energy Convers Manag 2013;73:135e43.
[42] Lu L, Liu ZH, Xiao HS. Thermal performance of an open thermosyphon using
nanofluids for high-temperature evacuated tubular solar collectors part 1:
indoor experiment. Sol Energy 2011;85:379e87.
[43] Ma L, Lu Z, Zhang J, Liang R. Thermal performance analysis of the glass
evacuated tube solar collector with U-Tube. Build Environ 2010;45:1959e67.
[44] European nuclear society (Coal equivalent). Available online: http://www.
euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/coalequivalent.htm.
[45] LINDSAY WILSON. Average electricity prices around the world: $/kWh.
Available online: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-electricity-prices-
kwh.