Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103299

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

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

Nanofluid-based photovoltaic thermal solar collector with

nanoparticle-enhanced phase change material (Nano-PCM) and
twisted absorber tubes
Anwer B. Al-Aasam a, Adnan Ibrahim a, *, Kamaruzzaman Sopian b,
Bassam Abdulsahib M a, c, Mojtaba Dayer a
a
Solar Energy Research Institute, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610, Seri Iskandar, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia
c
Al-Awsat Technical University, 31001, Iraq

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Huihe Qiu Photovoltaic thermal (PVT) collectors convert solar energy into thermal and photovoltaic energy.
Keywords:
The thermal performance of a PVT collector with a twisted absorber tube and nanoparticle-
PVT enhanced phase change material (Nano-PCM) was evaluated. The experiments were aimed to
Nano-PCM evaluate the photovoltaic, thermal and combination photovoltaic thermal efficiencies using an
Thermal efficiency indoor solar simulator. Circular and twisted absorber tubes with Nano-PCM were evaluated in
Photovoltaic efficiency two designs. The working fluid was water with 0%, 0.3%, and 0.6% volume fractions of SiC
Photovoltaic thermal efficiency nanofluids. The highest photovoltaic, thermal, and combined photovoltaic thermal efficiencies for
Primary energy saving efficiency the PVT-PCM with twisted tube and 0.6% nanofluids were 9.57, 84.74, and 94.31, respectively.
Exergy efficiency
The use of twisted absorber tubes with Nano-PCM increased the efficiency of the PVT collector.

Nomenclature

APV The area of the PVT

Cp The specific heat capacity of fluid
I Irradiance
ṁ The mass flow rate
Nano-PCM Nanoparticle-enhanced phase change material
Pm The maximum power
PES Primary Energy Saving
PV Photovoltaic
PVT Photovoltaic Thermal
Qu The useful energy gain
SiC Silicon carbide nanoparticles
Tin The inlet fluid temperature
Tout The outlet fluid temperature

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: iadnan@ukm.edu.my (A. Ibrahim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2023.103299
Received 5 January 2023; Received in revised form 3 July 2023; Accepted 14 July 2023
Available online 20 July 2023
2214-157X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A.B. Al-Aasam et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103299

ηP Typical power plant’s electric power generating efficiency

ηPES Primary Energy Saving efficiency
ηPV Photovoltaic efficiency
ηPVT Combined photovoltaic thermal
ηth Thermal efficiency

1. Introduction
Photovoltaic (PV) panels are capable of converting over 20% of solar energy into electrical energy [1]. It is important to note that
the surface temperature of the PV panel directly affects the system’s electrical energy output [2]. For every 1 ◦ C increase in the PV
panel surface temperature, the PV efficiency is reduced by approximately 0.45%–0.50%. In order to enhance the photovoltaic effi­
ciency, a PVT collector is employed, which simultaneously generates both electricity and thermal energy. By cooling the PV panel
using a working fluid within the PVT collector, the photovoltaic efficiency can be improved. Additionally, the thermal collector in­
tegrated into the PVT system contributes to increased thermal efficiency. Consequently, the combined photovoltaic thermal efficiency
is expected to increase [3].
In recent years, various approaches have been employed to enhance cooling and increase the efficiency of photovoltaic thermal
(PVT) systems. These methods involve utilizing working fluids with improved thermal properties through the addition of nanoparticles
or modifying the cross-section of absorber tubes to enhance surface area and fluid flow turbulence [4,5]. Numerous nanofluids were
used to improve the performance of the PVT collector such as Al2O3, CuO, and SiC with water [5,6] SiO2, TiO2 and SiC with water [7].
However, limited research has been conducted on the influence of different thermal collector cross-sectional shapes on PVT thermal
efficiency and operating temperatures [8].
Al-Waeli et al. [9] developed and validated a mathematical model for a nanofluid-based PVT collector incorporating nano-PCM.
The model accurately predicted temperature and demonstrated satisfactory simulation of electrical and thermal efficiencies,
achieving a thermal efficiency of 72%. In another study by Al-Waeli et al. [10] on a PVT collector, increasing the mass fraction of
SiC/water nanofluid to 0.1% led to a 0.03% improvement in relative thermal conductivity enhancement. Further increasing the mass
fraction to 0.5% resulted in a higher enhancement of 0.04%. However, for mass fractions above 1%, the improvement was insignif­
icant, with the enhancement remaining below 0.045%. Rejeb et al. [11] proposed a novel PVT design with an optical coating, circular
absorber tube, and thermal insulation, resulting in improved photovoltaic and thermal efficiencies of 15.4% and 73%, respectively,
compared to a standard PVT collector. Poredoš et al. [12] developed a PVT collector with serpentine, parallel, and bionic absorber tube
designs, conducting numerical simulations and experiments. The parallel and bionic absorbers showed lower outlet-water temperature
and pressure losses than the serpentine design. Experimental results confirmed the superior electrical and exergy efficiencies of the
PVT collector with a bionic absorber. However, the PVT collector with parallel absorber tubes outperformed in thermal efficiency.
Examining alternative absorber tube designs, Shahsavar, Eisapour [8] investigated nanofluid-based PVT systems employing
triangular, circular, and rectangular serpentine absorber tubes, which demonstrated varying effects on photovoltaic efficiency.
Additionally, the utilization of eight-fin tubes in a sheet and tube nanofluid-based PVT system yielded the highest combined photo­
voltaic thermal efficiency of 84.13% [13]. In another study by Shahsavar et al. [14], a comparison between circular tubes and rifled
tubes with three or six ribs showcased the superiority of the six-ribbed rifled tube, achieving a maximum combined photovoltaic
thermal efficiency of 22.5%. Furthermore, Bassam et al. [15] examined a nanofluid-based PVT collector with an absorber tube
featuring inner micro fins and nano-PCM. Remarkably, this configuration achieved an exceptional photovoltaic thermal efficiency of
86.78% by utilizing SiC nanoparticles. Table 1 summarizes the findings from these investigations, highlighting the potential of
alternative absorber tube designs in improving PVT efficiency.
The novelty of this work lies in the utilization of twisted absorber tubes within a nanofluids-based PVT (Photovoltaic Thermal)

Table 1
The use of various cross-section absorber tubes and nanofluids with PVT.

Authors Ref. Year Fluid Cross-section Thermal efficiency photovoltaic efficiency

Al-Waeli et al. [9] 2019 SiC/water Circular 72% 13.7%

Rejeb et al. [11] 2020 Water Circular 58% 13.7%
Square 73% 15.4%
Poredoš et al. [12] 2020 Water Circular 61.4% 14.5%
Shahsavar et al. [8] 2020 Magnetite/water Circular 38.03% 12.76%
Triangular 34.2% 12.48%
Rectangular 40.5% 12.9%
Shahsavar et al. [13] 2021 Magnetite/water Circular 41.4% 11.86%
Four fin tubes 47.3% 12.13%
Eight fin tubes 51.7% 12.26%
Shahsavar et al. [14] 2021 Magnetite/water Circular 41.4% 13.91%
Rifled tube with three ribs 54.8% 14.16%
Rifled tube with six ribs 57.7% 14.39%
Bassam et al. [15] 2023 SiC/water Inner micro fins 77.5 9.21

2
A.B. Al-Aasam et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103299

collector, which is further enclosed in a container enhanced with nanoparticles to enhance its performance. The primary objective of
this study is to investigate the effectiveness of two PVT designs, both incorporating water and nanofluids with varying volume fractions
(0.3% and 0.6%) of SiC and compare their performance against a conventional bare PV panel. To evaluate the performance and ef­
ficiencies of these collectors, comprehensive measurements of photovoltaic, thermal, and combined thermal efficiencies will be
conducted using an indoor solar simulator. This research aims to provide a clearer understanding of the novel approach and its po­
tential to enhance the performance of PVT collectors.

2. Methodology
2.1. Experimental setup
The PVT was developed to combine nanofluids and nano-PCM with twisted absorber tubes (PVT-PCM). The silicon carbide (SiC)
nanoparticle was used because of its high heat conductivity (370–490 W/m.K), low cost, and fluid stability [16]. The SiC nanoparticles
were combined with water to create a nanofluid and with paraffin wax to create a Nano-PCM. These materials were prepared using the
two-step method. The volume fractions of nanofluids were 0.3% and 0.6%, respectively, and the nano-PCM had a volume fraction of
1%.
Experiments were conducted in a solar simulator at a room temperature of 25 ◦ C, with the working fluid temperature set to 20 ◦ C
and solar irradiance level equal to 800W/m2 Several components were crucial in the PVT setup, including the SPH20 cooling unit, fluid
tank, and plate heat exchanger. Measurement devices such as DHYB-800 flow meter (0.5% accuracy, 0.1–3 m3/hr range), DT80
DataTaker data logger (5 built-in channels, expandable to 24), and MP-11 I–V Checker (with Sensor Unit MP-170) played important
roles. The DHYB-800 flow meter accurately measured flow rates, while the DT80 DataTaker provided versatile temperature mea­
surements using thermocouples and RTD sensors. The MP-11 I–V Checker, with an integrated MP-170 pyranometer, evaluated elec­
trical characteristics and solar irradiance, providing insights into cell performance and PVT system efficiency. The PV panel used was a

Fig. 1. The experimental setups of the PVT (a) parallel absorber tubes (b) schematic (c) actual diagram.

3
A.B. Al-Aasam et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103299

model BS-30P, with a maximum power of 30W and dimensions of 64 by 30 cm [15]. The absorber tubes were attached underneath the
PV panel using an enhanced silicone glue bond. Additionally, a nano-PCM container was added to surround the absorber tubes, as
shown in Fig. 1. The experimental setup comprised several components, with the most important ones being the PVT unit, fluid tank,
heat exchanger, pumps, and a cooling unit. The setup also included measuring devices, such as a Datataker DT80 with thermocouples
and RTD pt100 sensors, an MP-11 I–V Checker coupled with the Sensor Unit MP-170, which is an integrated pyranometer and
DHYB-800 digital flow meter. The PVT setup is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The PVT unit is the most crucial component of the experimental setup. Several examinations were conducted, involving changes in
the absorber tube and the working fluid. The examined configurations were as follows:
1. Circular absorber tubes with PVT-PCM with water (C-PVT-PCM-SiC-0%)
2. Twisted absorber tubes with PVT-PCM with water as cooling fluid (T-PVT-PCM-SiC-0%)
3. Circular absorber tubes with PVT-PCM with nanofluid 0.3 SiC (C-PVT-PCM-SiC-0.3%)
4. Twisted absorber tubes with PVT with nanofluid 0.3 SiC as cooling fluid (T-PVT-SiC-0.3%)
5. Conventional absorber tubes with PVT-PCM with nanofluid 0.6 SiC (C-PVT-PCM-SiC-0.6%)
6. Twisted absorber tubes with PVT with nanofluid 0.6 SiC as cooling fluid (T-PVT-SiC-0.6%)

2.2. Uncertainty analysis

Uncertainty analysis is crucial during the initial stages of an experiment to optimize the selection of measurement techniques. The
analysis involves the identification of variables to be measured, evaluation of measurement techniques’ uncertainty, and consideration
of factors such as cost, technology availability, data collection ease, and acceptable levels of uncertainty. While selecting techniques
with lower uncertainty is desirable, cost considerations may lead to the adoption of methods with slightly higher uncertainty within
acceptable limits.
The researcher’s task is to determine and account for uncertainties in empirical data analysis, ensuring scientific acceptability and
accounting for different experimental circumstances. Uncertainties arise from various sources, including systematic errors, random
errors, and difficulties in differentiating between them. Expressing uncertainties and calculating them for desired experimental out­
comes involves statistical distribution and consideration of measurement variations.
The uncertainty analysis is required to assess the error associated with the measurement equipment The uncertainty is as in Eq. (1)
[17]:
[( )2 ( )2 ( )2 ]0.5
∂R ∂R ∂R
WR = ω1 + ω2 + … + ωn (1)
∂χ 1 ∂χ 2 ∂χ n

WR . (ω1 , ω2 , …, ωn ) are the uncertainties in the independent variables, while R is a known function of (χ 1 , χ 2 ,…, χ n ). The uncertainty of
this experiment is 1.86%, indicating acceptable results.
Table 2 includes the measurement equipment and their respective uncertainties. Moreover, Uniform conditions are assumed for all
tests, but achieving uniform solar irradiance levels or mass flow rates can be challenging. To address this, the root mean square de­
viation (RMSD) is calculated to account for variations between actual experimental conditions and uniform conditions. This calcu­
lation helps quantify the uncertainty of the experiment. As a result, the practical experiences of this research are questionable in the
following ways:
[ ]0.5
WR1 = (0.1)2 + (0.01)2 + (0.5)2 + (1.5)2 + (2.91)2 + (0.28)2 (1)2 + (1.5)2 + (2.91)2 = 3.82%

The overall uncertainty is less than 4%, indicating that the measurements are within acceptable limits and the findings are accurate.

2.3. Efficiencies analysis

The combination of photovoltaic efficiency ηPV and thermal efficiency ηth , or the combined photovoltaic thermal efficacy ηPVT is as
in Eq. (2) [17,18]:
ηPVT = ηPV + ηth (2)
Comparing kWh of electricity to a kWh of heat makes the electrical power generated by a PVT be regarded as a higher-grade type of
energy versus the heat energy stored in water [19]. Thus, the Primary Energy Saving (PES) efficiency, ηPES is as in Eq. (3) [20],

Table 2
Details of the measurement equipment.

Sensor/Instrument Parameter Experimental uncertainty

Thermocouples (K-type) Temperature 0.1 ◦ C

RTD sensor (PT100) Temperature 0.01 ◦ C
Flow meter (DHYB-800) Mass glow rate ∓0.5%
Pyranometer (MP-170) Solar irradiance ∓1.5%
IV Checker (MP-11) Voltage and current ∓1%
RMSD for determining solar irradiance level – ∓2.91%
RMSD for determining the mass flow rate – ∓0.28

4
A.B. Al-Aasam et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103299

ηPV
ηPES = ηth + (3)
ηP

ηP is a typical power plant’s electric power generating efficiency, and the value is 38% [21].
The photovoltaic efficiency, as in Eq. (4) [22],
Pm
ηPV = (4)
I ∗ APV

Pm is the maximum power of the PVT, I is the irradiance on the PV plane, and APV is the area of the PVT.
The useful energy gain Qu and the thermal efficiency is as in Eqs. (5) and (6) [23].
Qu = ṁ∗Cp ∗ (Tout − Tin ) (5)

Qu
ηth = (6)
I ∗ APV

ṁ is the mass flow rate of fluid, Cp is the specific heat capacity of fluid (water/nanofluid), Tin and Tout is the inlet and outlet fluid
temperature of the PVT, respectively.

Fig. 2. (a)Thermal efficiency, (b) PV surface temperature, and (c) photovoltaic efficiency based on the mass flow rate.

5
A.B. Al-Aasam et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103299

3. Results and observations

The performance of the bare PV panel was evaluated under a solar irradiance level of 800W/m2. It was found that the panel had a
surface temperature of 77.59 ◦ C and photovoltaic efficiency of approximately 7%.
Subsequently, the PVT-PCM system was examined at different mass flow rates ranging from 0.008 to 0.04 kg/s. The impact of these
flow rates on thermal efficiency, PV surface temperature, and photovoltaic efficiency is depicted in Fig. 2.
Increasing the mass flow rate enhanced the efficiency of all the PVT-PCM designs. The thermal efficiency increased by 12% when
the flow rate increased from 0.008 to 0.04 kg/s using the circular tube and by about 13.5% with the twisted tube. This improvement
was attributed to the increased convection heat transfer coefficient, resulting in a higher heat transfer rate between the PV panel and
the absorber tubes.
The twisted tube design exhibited significantly higher thermal efficiency compared to the circular tube design within the PVT-PCM
system, as shown in Fig. 2, a. The thermal efficiency increased from 62.2% to 79.4% when comparing the circular tube with the twisted
tube using water as the working fluid. When using nanofluids with a volume fraction of 0.3% and 0.6%, the thermal efficiency
increased from 71% to 82% and from 77.6% to 84.7%, respectively. This improvement can be attributed to the breaking of the thermal
boundary layer by the twisted tubes, resulting in a more significant temperature gradient near the tube’s wall. This enhanced tem­
perature gradient enhances the convection heat transfer coefficient, increasing heat convection between the PV panel and the absorber
tubes.
It can be noted that the increase in the mass flow rate did not have a significant effect on the PV surface temperature, as the
temperature only decreased by 3 ◦ C when the flow rate increased from 0.008 to 0.04 kg/s, as shown in Fig. 2, b. Thus, increasing the
mass flow rate did not significantly affect the photovoltaic efficiency. On the contrary, using the twisted tube significantly reduced the
PV surface temperature compared to the circular tube. The PV surface temperature decreased by 7.3 ◦ C, 8.8 ◦ C, and 9.3 ◦ C when
comparing the PV surface temperature using a twisted tube to a circular tube at a flow rate of 0.04 kg/s with the use of water and
nanofluids with a volume fraction of 0.3% and 0.6%, respectively.
Fig. 3 presents the current-voltage (IV) and power-voltage (PV) curves for the PVT-PCM system with a mass flow rate of 0.04 kg/s.
These curves provide valuable insights into the system’s electrical performance under this specific condition. The change in the
absorbent tube cross-section area did not significantly affect the short-circuit current, as it was approximately 0.95 A for all cases.
However, there was a significant effect on the open-circuit voltage, which increased by 5% when comparing PVT with a circular tube to
PVT with a twisted tube. Thus, it can be seen that the maximum power achieved by PVT when using a twisted tube reached around
16W.
Photovoltaic thermal efficiency and primary energy-saving efficiencies of PVT-PCM are shown in Fig. 4. The T-PVT-PCM-0.6% has
a maximum photovoltaic thermal efficiency of 94.31% and 109.94% primary energy savings efficiency. These findings are comparable
to those of Menon et al. [1], who achieved a photovoltaic thermal efficiency of 88.79% and a primary energy saving efficiency of
108.87% for a PVT using nanofluid. Table 3 summarizes the main experimental findings, showing that using twisted tubes in PVT
setups with nanofluids as the primary fluid considerably enhances PVT efficiencies.
Fig. 5 compares the PVT thermal efficiency. Previous studies have compared the efficiency of PVT setups using nanofluid. The
technologies employed the absorber tube design and the experiment site (outdoor or indoor) can influence PVT efficiencies. Hence,
there exist challenges in correctly evaluating the thermal efficiency compared to the PV efficiency. However, the twisted tube design
outperformed the other design in terms of thermal efficiency.

4. Conclusions
Study utilized a nanofluids-based PVT collector with twisted absorber tubes and PCM enhanced with nanoparticles to enhance
performance. SiC nanoparticles were used in both nanofluids and nano-PCM. Two PVT designs were compared to a bare PV panel using
water with 0%, 0.3%, and 0.6% volume fractions of SiC nanofluids. Results demonstrated that twisted absorber tubes achieved lower
PV panel temperatures compared to circular absorber tubes. The T-PVT-PCM-SiC-0.6% configuration showed thermal and photo­
voltaic efficiencies of 84.74% and 9.61%, respectively. Its electrical output was 16 W, compared to 10.49 W for the bare PV panel. This

Fig. 3. IV and PV curves at a mass flow rate of 0.04 kg/s.

6
A.B. Al-Aasam et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103299

Fig. 4. The photovoltaic thermal efficiency and the primary energy savings efficiency based on the mass flow rate.

Table 3
Summary of the performance.

Configuration ηth % TPV ◦ C Pm W ηPV % ηPES %

PV – 86.25 10.49 7.00 18.42
C-PVT-PCM-0% 62.27 59.78 15.38 8.92 85.83
T-PVT-PCM-0% 79.40 52.46 16.06 9.48 104.31
C-PVT-PCM-SiC-0.3% 71.07 58.28 15.47 9.14 95.16
T-PVT-PCM-SiC-0.3% 82.02 49.45 16.05 9.48 107.01
C-PVT-PCM-SiC-0.6% 77.12 57.28 15.29 9.21 101.92
T-PVT-PCM-SiC-0.6% 84.74 47.94 16.05 9.61 109.94

Fig. 5. Comparisons of PVT and PVT-PCM in the literature and the present work.

study demonstrates that the proposed PVT design, combined with nanofluids in twisted absorber tubes and nanoparticle enhanced
PCM, yields higher thermal and photovoltaic energy output. Further investigation opportunities for this field include utilizing twisted
tape in twisted absorber tubes with PVT to enhance performance, exploring enhanced convection heat transfer coefficients, and
investigating the application of twisted tubes in other absorber tube designs for potentially improved results. Overall, this study serves
as a promising starting point, providing potential avenues for future research and advancements in PVT collector designs.

Author statement
Anwer. B. Al-Aasam devised the conceptual ideas, including writing, reviewing, designing the model, computational framework,
data analysis, and draft preparation. Kamaruzzaman Sopian, Bassam Abdulsahib M., and Mojtaba Dayer verified the analytical
methods and investigation. Adnan Ibrahim performed the visualization, funding acquisition and supervised the findings of this work.
All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final and revised manuscript.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

7
A.B. Al-Aasam et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 49 (2023) 103299

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgement
The financial support by the UKM through research funding FRGS/1/2019/TK07/UKM/02/4 Fundamental Research Grant Scheme
(FRGS) is gratefully acknowledged

References
[1] G.S. Menon, S. Murali, J. Elias, D.S. Aniesrani Delfiya, P.V. Alfiya, M.P. Samuel, Experimental investigations on unglazed photovoltaic-thermal (PVT) system
using water and nanofluid cooling medium, Renew. Energy 188 (2022) 986–996.
[2] A. Ibrahim, M.Y. Othman, M.H. Ruslan, S. Mat, K. Sopian, Recent advances in flat plate photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) solar collectors, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 15 (1) (2011) 352–365.
[3] J. Siecker, K. Kusakana, B.P. Numbi, A review of solar photovoltaic systems cooling technologies, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79 (2017) 192–203.
[4] E.G. Barbosa, M.E.V.d. Araujo, M.J.d. Moraes, M.A. Martins, B.G.X. Alves, E.G. Barbosa, Influence of the absorber tubes configuration on the performance of low
cost solar water heating systems, J. Clean. Prod. 222 (2019) 22–28.
[5] A.H.A. Al-Waeli, M.T. Chaichan, H.A. Kazem, K. Sopian, Comparative study to use nano-(Al 2 O 3 , CuO, and SiC) with water to enhance photovoltaic thermal
PV/T collectors, Energy Convers. Manag. 148 (2017) 963–973.
[6] A.H.A. Al-Waeli, K. Sopian, M.T. Chaichan, H.A. Kazem, A. Ibrahim, S. Mat, M.H. Ruslan, Evaluation of the nanofluid and nano-PCM based photovoltaic thermal
(PVT) system: an experimental study, Energy Convers. Manag. 151 (2017) 693–708.
[7] A.N. Al-Shamani, K. Sopian, S. Mat, H.A. Hasan, A.M. Abed, M.H. Ruslan, Experimental studies of rectangular tube absorber photovoltaic thermal collector with
various types of nanofluids under the tropical climate conditions, Energy Convers. Manag. 124 (2016) 528–542.
[8] A. Shahsavar, M. Eisapour, P. Talebizadehsardari, Experimental evaluation of novel photovoltaic/thermal systems using serpentine cooling tubes with different
cross-sections of circular, triangular and rectangular, Energy 208 (2020).
[9] A.H.A. Al-Waeli, M.T. Chaichan, K. Sopian, H.A. Kazem, H.B. Mahood, A.A. Khadom, Modeling and experimental validation of a PVT system using nanofluid
coolant and nano-PCM, Sol. Energy 177 (2019) 178–191.
[10] A.H.A. Al-Waeli, H.A. Kazem, M.T. Chaichan, K. Sopian, Experimental investigation of using nano-PCM/nanofluid on a photovoltaic thermal system (PVT):
technical and economic study, Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 11 (2019) 213–230.
[11] O. Rejeb, L. Gaillard, S. Giroux-Julien, C. Ghenai, A. Jemni, M. Bettayeb, C. Menezo, Novel solar PV/Thermal collector design for the enhancement of thermal
and electrical performances, Renew. Energy 146 (2020) 610–627.
[12] P. Poredoš, U. Tomc, N. Petelin, B. Vidrih, U. Flisar, A. Kitanovski, Numerical and experimental investigation of the energy and exergy performance of solar
thermal, photovoltaic and photovoltaic-thermal modules based on roll-bond heat exchangers, Energy Convers. Manag. 210 (2020).
[13] A. Shahsavar, P. Jha, M. Arici, G. Kefayati, A comparative experimental investigation of energetic and exergetic performances of water/magnetite nanofluid-
based photovoltaic/thermal system equipped with finned and unfinned collectors, Energy 220 (2021).
[14] A. Shahsavar, P. Jha, M. Arıcı, P. Estellé, Experimental investigation of the usability of the rifled serpentine tube to improve energy and exergy performances of
a nanofluid-based photovoltaic/thermal system, Renew. Energy 170 (2021) 410–425.
[15] A.M. Bassam, K. Sopian, A. Ibrahim, M.F. Fauzan, A.B. Al-Aasam, G.Y. Abusaibaa, Experimental analysis for the photovoltaic thermal collector (PVT) with nano
PCM and micro-fins tube nanofluid, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 41 (2023).
[16] A.H.A. Al-Waeli, K. Sopian, H.A. Kazem, M.T. Chaichan, Evaluation of the electrical performance of a photovoltaic thermal system using nano-enhanced paraffin
and nanofluids, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 21 (2020).
[17] H.A. Kazem, A.H.A. Al-Waeli, M.T. Chaichan, K. Sopian, Numerical and experimental evaluation of nanofluids based photovoltaic/thermal systems in Oman:
using silicone-carbide nanoparticles with water-ethylene glycol mixture, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 26 (2021).
[18] H.A. Kazem, Evaluation and analysis of water-based photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) system, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 13 (2019).
[19] J.S. Coventry, K. Lovegrove, Development of an approach to compare the ‘value’ of electrical and thermal output from a domestic PV/thermal system, Sol.
Energy 75 (1) (2003) 63–72.
[20] A. Fudholi, K. Sopian, M.H. Yazdi, M.H. Ruslan, A. Ibrahim, H.A. Kazem, Performance analysis of photovoltaic thermal (PVT) water collectors, Energy Convers.
Manag. 78 (2014) 641–651.
[21] A. Fudholi, N.F.M. Razali, M.H. Yazdi, A. Ibrahim, M.H. Ruslan, M.Y. Othman, K. Sopian, TiO2/water-based photovoltaic thermal (PVT) collector: novel
theoretical approach, Energy 183 (2019) 305–314.
[22] J.H. Lee, S.G. Hwang, G.H. Lee, Efficiency improvement of a photovoltaic thermal (PVT) system using nanofluids, Energies 12 (16) (2019).
[23] K. Sopian, A.H.A. Al-Waeli, H.A. Kazem, Energy, exergy and efficiency of four photovoltaic thermal collectors with different energy storage material, J. Energy
Storage 29 (2020).