Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry (2021) 145:1413–1429

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-021-10575-y

A numerical and exergy analysis of the effect of ternary nanofluid

on performance of Photovoltaic thermal collector
Humphrey Adun1 · Michael Adedeji1 · Mustafa Dagbasi1 · Olusola Bamisile2 · Mehmet Senol1 · Ravinder Kumar3

Received: 23 November 2020 / Accepted: 9 January 2021 / Published online: 25 February 2021
© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2021

Abstract
Hybrid nanofluids have been known to provide perceptibly increased heat transfer characteristics over conventional fluid,
and so have been experimentally applied to solar collector applications. Recently, attention has grown towards three-particle
hybrid nanocomposites, to investigate their increased thermophysical properties for heat transfer applications. This study
numerically investigates the practical application of CuO-MgO-TiO2 ternary nanofluids in a photovoltaic thermal (PV/T)
collector. The proposed model explores the effect of volume fraction, solar irradiation, and mass flow rate on the performance
of the collector system. The result showed an improved electrical efficiency of 13.54%. 58.38% and 15.68% thermal efficiency
and energy efficiency respectively were also gotten, calculated at an optimum volume fraction of 0.01. The maximum cell
temperature drop was 8.24 °C measured at a mass flow rate of 0.1 kg s−1. The study also concludes that a maximum increase
of 11.14% of the total PV/T system was achieved by the use of ternary nanofluid. The study also investigated the pressure
drop and pumping power of the PV/T collector with and without nanofluid. The result showed that a lower pressure drop and
pumping power for the CuO–MgO–TiO2 ternary nanofluid which makes it more desirable as compared to the ­Al2O3–ZnO
hybrid nanofluid. Finally, it is shown that the performance of the PV/T collector depends highly on the volume fraction of
the ternary nanofluid.

Keyword Ternary nanofluid · Electrical efficiency · Exergy · Photovoltaic thermal collector · Cell temperature
List of symbols k Thermal conductivity (W m−1K−1)
Ac Collector surface area ­(m2) L Length of riser (m)
As Surface area of edges ­(m2) ṁ Mass flow rate (kg s−1)
Cp Specific heat capacity (J kg−1 K−1) Nu Nusselt number
cf Conversion factor Pr Prandtl number
D Diameter of tube outer (m) Qu Absorbed heat by plate (W)
Di Tube inner diameter (m) t Thickness (m)
F Standard fin efficiency T Temperature (K)
F’ Collector efficiency factor U Heat loss
Fr Heat removal factor V Wind velocity (m s−1)
h Heat transfer coefficient (W m–2K−1) W Spacing of tubes (m
It Solar radiation on solar collector (W m−2)
Subscripts
b Bottom
* Olusola Bamisile e Edges
boomfem@hotmail.com
t Top
1
Energy Systems Engineering Department, Cyprus i Inlet
International University, Mersin 10, Haspolat, Lefkosa, ref Reference
Turkey nf Nanofluids
2
School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, University np Nanoparticles
of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, fm Mean fluid
Sichuan, People’s Republic of China
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lovely Professional
University, Phagwara, Jalandhar 144411, Punjab, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1414
Abbreviations
HTF Heat transfer fluid
τ Transmittance
φ Volumetric fraction of nanoparticles (%)
𝜂 Efficiency
Introduction
Global population growth and improving economies are
major factors that have continually contributed to the high
demand for energy [1]. Fossil fuels constitute the most
utilized source of energy; however, it has caused global
concern due to its adverse environmental effects. Coupled
with the increasing demand for energy and depleting fossil
fuel reserves, the integration of sustainable energy into the
energy mix has been on the increase in recent times [2].
Considering the high availability of solar energy resources,
there have been practical utilization for several applications
like space heating, water heating, ad power generation [3].
Furthermore, due to the cost-effectiveness of solar photovol-
taic (PV) systems, there has been an increasing penetration
of the PV technology in the global energy production mix
[4]. PV systems have comparatively lower initial invest-
ment and maintenance costs, with higher output electricity,
as against concentrated solar power systems [5]. The opera-
tion of photovoltaic panels involves the transformation of
solar irradiance through a photoelectric effect into electrical
energy [5]. The improvement of the efficiency of PV systems
has been a subject of research interest in recent years, as
the electrical power generated ranges between 15 to 20%
[6]. The performance limitations of the PV system are also
due to the heat produced by the PV panels. Studies [7]–[13]
have shown that integrating solar thermal collectors into PV
systems can reduce the operating temperature of the system
and thereby improving the overall system efficiency [14].
The photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) system can utilize about
80% of the solar spectrum. [15]. The electrical efficiency of
the PV/T collector has improved significantly when the PV
panels are cooled. Some fluids that have been experimentally
and numerically applied to PV/T collectors are air, water,
and phase change materials (PCM) [16]. Also, these fluids
have shown remarkable thermal efficiency characteristics,
but their deficiency in thermal conductivity characteristics
created a need for better heat transfer fluids. [17].
Recently, applications of nanofluids have generated huge
interest because they have comparatively better heat trans-
fer characteristics, making them ideal for solar technology
systems with low-temperature operating conditions [1].
The thermophysical and rheological properties of nano-
fluids are crucial to their heat transfer enhancement [18].
Nanofluids are also known to have relatively high thermal
conductivity properties [16, 19], and some studies [5, 20]
13
H. Adun et al.
have highlighted their improved heat transfer performance.
Experimental and numerical investigations have been made
to analyze varying conditions of nanofluids like volume frac-
tion, base fluid, mixture ratio, etc., and their effects when
applied as a heat transfer fluid (HTF) in PV/T collectors.
Ahmed, I. et al. [21] carried out a numerical analysis to
observe the effect of silicon Oxide nanofluid and PCM on
the efficiency of PV/T collectors. Their results showed that
at 3% mass fraction of the ­SiO2/water HTF, the thermal effi-
ciency was 10.40%, as compared to that of pure water as the
coolant. Salaheldin et al. [22] using an experimental set-
up, investigated the effect of utilizing the multiwall carbon
nanotubes (MWCNT), and graphene nanoplatelets on PV/T
performance. The outdoor experiment which was operated
at 0.5 mass% concentration and 0.5 L min−1 volume flow
rate showed the highest energetic efficiency of 63.1% for
graphene-water, compared to the 53.4% and 57.2% effi-
ciency for distilled water and MWCNT-water respectively.
Gangadezi and Vinayagam [23] synthesized A ­ l2O3/water,
CuO/water nanofluids for experimentally investigating their
impact on PV/T solar collectors. The result showed that the
highest overall efficiency of the PV/T system was obtained
at 0.2% volume concentration for all the nanofluids utilized.
The study showed that an optimum thermal efficiency of
75% was gotten when ­Al2O3/water was used. Ahmad, F.
et al. [24] observed the performance of PV/T collector when
­TiO2 nanofluid was used under conditions of varying vol-
ume concentrations, intensities of solar radiation, and mass
flow rates. It was observed in the study that at 1.0 mass%
­TiO2, the energy efficiency of the system was between 85
and 89% compared with 60–76% of the water-based collec-
tor. The analysis also showed that the HTF’s mass flow rate
also influenced the output of the PV/T. It was shown that
the system’s maximum performance was at 0.0255 kg s−1.
Sekar and Vasanth [25] experimentally analyzed, the use
of ZnO/water, CuO/water, and PCM as coolants in a PVT
system. Their study observed that there was a reduction in
the cell temperature by 47% when an HTF of PCM/CuO was
used as against 43% recorded for PV/T system with HTF
of PCM/ZnO. Furthermore, the experiment showed a 16%
higher efficiency for PCM/CuO as compared to PCM/ZnO.
Rehena N. et al. [26] studied three water-based nanofluids
using Ag, Cu, and Al nanoparticles of volume fractions up to
3%. The study observed the performance of a PV/T collector
when nanofluid is used. The result showed that the maxi-
mum enhancement of 7.49% was observed for 7.08% Ag/
water nanofluid. Hader and Al-Kouz [27] investigated the
effect of A
­ l2O3 on the efficiency of a PV/T system. The study
concluded that the efficiency of the PV/T system increases
with an increase in volume fraction. Furthermore, several
researchers have also utilized nanofluids in concentrated
photovoltaic/thermal systems (CPV/T). In a study by Ali
et al. [28], ­Al2O3-water and Silicon carbide (SiC)- water
A numerical and exergy analysis of the effect of ternary nanofluid on performance of Photovoltaic…
nanofluids were utilized to examine the performance of a
CPV/T system using a microchannel heat sink. The result
of their numerical study showed that there was a high reduc-
tion of the cell temperature of CPV/T when the nanofluids
were used as HTF as compared with water. Their study con-
cluded that there was a 19% electrical efficiency when the
cell temperature was reduced to 38 °C. A similar study by
Bellos and Christos [29] compared a CPV/T operating with
and without nanofluids. Their study utilized Syltherm 800/
copper oxide as HTF and results showed that enhancement
of 1.66%, 5.17%, 2.08%, and 3.05% was recorded in thermal,
electrical, total, and exergy efficiency respectively. Also, a
study by Zelin et al. [30] investigated the use of nanofluid in
a CPV/T system. Their study also concluded that there was
improved total efficiencies in utilizing nanofluid as com-
pared to base fluid.
The findings of the aforementioned literature clearly
show that traditional nanofluids improve PV/T and CPV/T
performance. However, the comparatively better thermo-
physical and rheological properties of hybrid nanofluids
give them several advantages over conventional types [31].
Several numerical and experimental studies have shown
the enhancement of PV/T systems using hybrid nanoflu-
ids. Younis, A et al. [32] numerically assessed the thermal,
electrical, and exergetic efficiency of a PV/T system with
HTF of ­Al2O3-ZnO/ethylene glycol hybrid nanofluid. The
result showed a 4.1% and 4.6% improvement in energy and
exergy efficiency respectively. Ifeoluwa, O. et al. [33] stud-
ied the effect of the mixture ratio of ­Al2O3-ZnO/water hybrid
nanofluid on the thermal and electrical efficiency of a PV/T
system. The numerical study also investigated the influence
of temperature, volume concentration, and mass flow rate of
the hybrid nanofluids on the PV/T system. The study found
that the hybrid nanofluid’s optimum mixture ratio for best
PV/T efficiency was 0.47. At 0.1 kg s−1 mass flow rate, the
optimum electrical, thermal and exergy efficiency of the
PV / T system was 13.8%, 55.9%, and 15.13% respectively.
Hjerrild, E., et al. [34] studied the effect of Ag-SiO2/water
hybrid nanofluid on a PV/T system. It was shown that at
0.026 mass%, the PV/T system’s combined (thermal and
electrical) efficiency was 30% higher than using base fluid.
He, Y. et al. [35] studied Ag-TiO2/ethylene glycol–water
hybrid nanofluid to investigate their ability to selectively
absorb incident sunlight. The result showed an improve-
ment in the efficiency of the PV/T system of up to 83.7% at
1.0 kW m−2 solar insolation. It was concluded that improved
performance resulted from broadband light absorption,
which produced a large amount of thermal energy. A review
study by Hossein et al. [36] further stated that despite that
hybrid nanofluids can significantly increase the efficiency of
solar systems, their performance is dependent on the types
of hybrid nanostructures, and other operational conditions.
A study by Milad et al. [37] in corroboration showed that
1415
operational conditions like inlet temperature, volumetric
flow rate, and nanofluid concentration affect the thermal
efficiency of solar systems. Table 1 shows some other stud-
ies on PV/T using nanofluids as heat transfer fluids.
As literature has shown, the impact of nanofluids on PV/T
systems has been numerically and experimentally investi-
gated by researchers, and conclusively stated that due to the
comparatively higher thermophysical and rheological prop-
erties of hybrid nanofluids, they ensure higher efficiencies.
Also, the advantage of hybrid nanofluids over conventional
nanofluids when applied to PV/T systems is that higher
efficiency can be achieved without increasing the volume
concentration of the nanoparticles [33]. This will enhance
the cost-effectiveness of the system. Recently, some studies
[38]–[46] have explored the synthesis, thermophysical and
rheological properties of ternary nanofluids. In a study by
S.M.Mousavi et al. [42], the effect on thermophysical and
rheological properties of CuO/MgO/TiO2 ternary nanofluid
was investigated in terms of temperature and volume con-
centration. The results showed that, at low volume concen-
trations, ternary nanofluid thermal conductivity was higher
than at high volume concentrations. The study attributed
this to better stability and uniformity of the fluid at a lower
concentration. A study done by Sang, L. [38] corroborated
this explanation by investigating the enhancement of spe-
cific heat capacity (SHC) and thermal conductivity (TC) in
­SiO2-ternary nanofluid carbonate ­(K2O3–LiCO3–Na2CO3).
Their result showed that the homogeneity of the fluid was
different at different stirring rates and times, and this affected
the SHC and thermal conductivity. Cakmak, N. et al. [43]
examined the stability and thermal conductivity of rGO-
Fe3O4-TiO2 ternary nanofluid. The experimental analysis was
carried out at varying mass fraction (0.01–0.25 mass%) and
temperature (25–60 °C). The findings of their analysis state
that an increase in the mass concentration and temperature
caused an increase in thermal conductivity. The study also
showed that the maximum thermal conductivity enhancement
of 13.3% was recorded at 60 °C for 0.25 mass%.
According to the best knowledge of the authors, no study
has analyzed the effect of ternary nanofluids on PV/T sys-
tems, therefore this work is the first study on the effect of
ternary nanofluids on PV/T systems. This study explicitly
investigates the impact of the volume concentration, tem-
perature, and mass flow rate of ternary nanofluids on the
thermal, electrical, and exergetic efficiency of a PV/T sys-
tem. This study is novel as it analyzes and compares the
performance of hybrid and ternary nanofluid when used as
a working fluid in a PV/T system. The understanding of the
results would be important in designing an efficient PV/T
system with low-cost materials. This study utilized the
properties of the CuO/MgO/TiO2 ternary nanofluid [42] in
numerically analyzing the performance of the PV/T collec-
tor. This study also aims to:
13
1416 H. Adun et al.

Table 1  Some Nanofluid study in PV/T between 2018 and 2020

Reference Nanofluid Used Volume concentration Optimum volume concen- Result
tration

Saber et al. [47] MWCNT/water 0–0.3% 0.075% Cell temperature reduction:

12 °C for PV; Overall
system efficiency: 83.26%;
Average temperature reduc-
tion: 10.3 °C
Fudholi et al. [24] TiO2/water 0.5% and 1% 1% Energy efficiency: 85–89%;
Exergy efficiency: 6.02%;
Optimum mass flow rate:
0.0255 kg s−1
An et al. [48] Cu9S5/Oleylamine (as opti- – – Maximum overall efficiency:
cal filter) 34.2%
Ali-Waeli et al. [49] SiC/water 0–5% 5% Maximum thermal energy
gained: 72%; Temperature
reduction: 17 °C; Open
circuit voltage: 20–21 V
Ali-Waeli et al. [50] SiC/water SiC:3%; nano-PCM: 0.1%, 3% SiC and 3% nano-PCM Overall PV/T efficiency:
0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3% 85.7%; Numerical electrical
efficiency: 13.2%; Numeri-
cal thermal efficiency:
71.3%; Experimental
electrical efficiency: 13.7%;
Thermal experimental effi-
ciency: 72%
Salem et al. [51] Al2O3/water 0–1% 1% Exergy efficiency: 52.3%;
thermal efficiency: 68.4%;
Electrical efficiency: 10.9%;
Average temperature drop:
14.5 °C
Alous et al. [22] MWCNT/graphene 0.5 mass% at 0.5L min−1 0.5 mass% Overall energy efficiency: for
flow rate MWCNT/water 57.2% and
for graphene/water; 63.1%
Fayaz [52] CNT/water 0%, 1% 0.75 mass% Increment in numerical
thermal efficiency: 5.62%;
Experimental thermal
efficiency increment: 5.13%;
Thermal efficiency: 81.24%
(numerical), 79.1% (experi-
mental) at 120L/h; Electrical
performance: 10.72%
(experimental), 12.25%
(numerical)
Ebaid et al. [53] TiO2/water-polyethylene 0.01 mass%, 0.05 mass%, 0.1 mass% Electrical efficiency: 15.8% at
glycol 0.1 mass% 500 mL ­min−1
Al2O3/ water-polyethylene
glycol
Nasrin et al. [54] MWCNT/water 0–1% at 0.5L ­min−1 1% Enhanced PV performance:
9.2%; Overall efficiency:
89.2% (numerical), 87.65%
(experimental)

• Numerically examine how volume concentration of CuO/
MgO/TiO2 TNF affect the performance of a PV/T collec-
tor
• Investigate the effect of CuO/MgO/TiO2 TNF tempera-
ture on the thermal and electrical efficiency of the PV/T
system. of a PV/T collector
• Investigate the effect of solar irradiance in CuO/MgO/
TiO2 TNF HTF on the thermal and electrical efficiency
of a PV/T system
• Compare the thermal and electrical efficiency of a TNF
HTF PV/T system with a hybrid HTF PV/T system, and
a base fluid PV/T system

13
A numerical and exergy analysis of the effect of ternary nanofluid on performance of Photovoltaic…
Furthermore, numerically investigation of the effect of
the HTF on the PV/T system was done using on-site mete-
orological data retrieved from a solar PV plant in Cyprus
International University (Lefkosa, Northern Cyprus). The
model developed is also validated.
PV/T collector model development
In this study, the performance of a PV/T system using
hybrid and ternary nanofluids as HTF is analyzed and
compared. Figure 1 shows the schematic representation
of the PV/T collector system. The PV/T utilizes nanofluid
as the HTF. The PV/T consists of a PV panel, glass cover,
absorber tubes, heat exchanger, and insulation layers. The
system, besides PV/T, includes a pump, heat exchanger to
cool the HTF, a charge control unit. The measuring equip-
ment. in the system includes thermometers, rotameters,
ammeter, and voltmeter. The following assumptions were
taken into account for the simplicity of the simulation:
Table 2 presents the design parameters of the PV/T col-
lector for simulations.
PV/T Width
PV/TLength
Length
Tube
d tubes
Fluid out
Fluid in
Fig. 1  A PV/T collector utilizing nanofluid coolant
1417
1. Uniform average temperature in each layer of the PV/T
except for the working fluid
2. One-dimensional heat transfer
3. The heat received due to radiation is negligible
4. The thermal conductivity and heat capacity of the PV/T
components are constant
Ternary nanofluid used in this study
The thermophysical and heat transfer properties of the ter-
nary nanofluids are paramount when considering the mathe-
matical model used in calculating the efficiency of the PV/T
collector. In this study, CuO–MgO–TiO2/water ternary nano-
fluid is considered. The synthesis of the CuO–MgO–TiO2/
water ternary Nanofluid is detailed in a study presented by
S.M.Mousavi et al. [42]. The thermochemical procedure
was employed in fabricating the nanocomposites. A mix-
ture of CuO, nitrate of MgO, T­ iO2, and water was made and
thoroughly stirred. Drops of ammonia hydroxide were then
added to the mixture, after which the mixture was filtered
and the sediments were washed with distilled water. A spray
dryer was used in drying the mixture at 170 °C to get a pow-
der substance. To obtain a more consistent combination of
PV/T collector
Water in
Heat exchanger
Water out
1
Pump
PV/T panel back surface
13
1418 H. Adun et al.

Table 2  PV/T design PV/T Value Symbol

parameters
Collector width 0.505 m Wc
Collector Perimeter 3.3 m Pc
Collector Area 1.6665 Ac
Collector width 0.505 m Wc
Slope 14 β
absorber plate’s thermal conductivity 51 W m k−1 kabs
Material of Absorber plate Copper
Back Insulation thermal conductivity 0.045 W m k−1 kb
Back insulation thickness 0.05 m Lb
Edge insulation thickness 0.025 m Le
thickness of absorber 0.002 m delta
distance between tubes 0.0151 Wtubes
Outer diameter of tubes 0.0252 m Dtubes
Number of tubes 13 Ntubes
thickness of collector 0.03752 m Lc
length of collector 1.6971 m L
Number of glass covers 1 N
Emittance of glass 0.88 𝜀g
Emittance of plate 0.82 𝜀p
Mass flow rate of fluid 0.008 kg s−1 mfluid
Transmittance 0.88 t
absorptance 0.75 α
Temperature factor of PV efficiency 0.0045 βref
Electrical efficiency for the reference temperature 0.14 ηref

the CuO–MgO–TiO2 composite, the powder was afterward
heated for about 80 min at 680 °C composite. The nanocom-
posite was then heated at 540 °C and ball milled for 80 min
to obtain a consistent nanocomposite.
The stability of Ternary nanofluid is an important fac-
tor especially in practical applications for solar systems.
The limitations of clogging and agglomeration occur when
there is low stability of nanofluids. The stability of the
CuO–MgO–TiO2/water ternary nanofluid considered in
this study was investigated using SEM images at different
ultrasonication times and Zeta potential measurements. The
stability tests were carried out at 10, 15, 20, and 30 days
after synthesis. A study by Vandsburger [55] reported that a
Zeta potential above ± 30–45 mV proofs favorable stability
and excellent stability when Zeta potential is above 60mv.
The stability result of the CuO–MgO–TiO2/water ternary
) ( / ) (
Knf = 0.72768391 − 9.6816854T −1 + 283.69209 T 2 + 4718.87133T −3 + 43232.493T −4 − 175433.68T −5
( ) (
( ) ( ) (
− (274.276 × 𝜑) + −159781.42 × 𝜑2 + 41691000 × 𝜑3 − 3.6405833 × 109 × 𝜑4
nanofluid gave Zeta potential of 30.54mv- 49mv, which
shows a good stability result.
Thermophysical properties of ternary nanofluid
Developing correlation equations for the thermophysi-
cal properties of nanofluids is important due to the lack of
existing trustworthy numerical equations. Researchers have
utilized experimental data in developing regression formulas
that accurately map the input parameters to the thermophysi-
cal properties of nanofluids. The accuracy of these correla-
tion equations in mapping experimental data is measured by
applying the root mean square (RMSE) and the coefficient
of correlation (R2) values. The Eq. (1–3) shows the thermal
correlation equation developed for the thermophysical and
rheology properties for the CuO–MgO–TiO2/water ternary
nanofluid.
The thermal conductivity equation is derived as [42]
) ( )
) (1)

The viscosity equation is [42]

13
A numerical and exergy analysis of the effect of ternary nanofluid on performance of Photovoltaic… 1419

( )
𝜇nf = 1.7366342 + (−0.043695678 × T) + (95.543052 × 𝜑) + 0.00046772016 × T 2
(2)
+ −29249.903 × 𝜑2 + (1.3496487 × T × 𝜑) + −1.6016472 × 10−6 × T 3
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
+ 6832500 × 𝜑3 + −337.97403 × T × 𝜑2 + −0.011498485 × T 2 × 𝜑

The specific heat capacity equation [42]

(3)
CP,nf = 4.2028064 + (−0.0015020303 × T) + 2.0272727 × 10−5 × T 2 + (−17.03 × 𝜑)
( )

The density equation [42]

𝜌nf = 1.0020693 + (−0.00011319091 × T) + −3.2636364 × 10−6 × T 2

( )
(4)
+ (4.0702857 × 𝜑) + −15.714286 × 𝜑2
( )

where Knf , 𝜇nf , CP,nf , 𝜌nf are respectively the TC, the viscos- 1
Ut =
ity, the SHC, and density. T is the temperature of the nano- N
[ T −T ]e + 1
fluid, and 𝜑 is the solid volume concentration. hw
C pm a
Tpm
× N+f
) ( 2 (9)
( )
𝜎 × Tpm + Ta × Tpm + Ta2
Thermodynamıc equations for PV/T collector
+
1 (2×N)+(f −1)+(0.133×𝜀p )
+ −N
Useful energy produced as a result of the flow of fluid through 𝜀p +(0.00591×N×hw ) 𝜀g

the PV/T tubes can be obtained using Eq. 5 [56]:

where N is the number of glass cover, 𝜀g reflects the emit-
tance of the glass cover, 𝜀p represents the emittance of the
[ )]
(5)
(
Qu = Ac 𝜏𝛼G − U L Tpm − Ta
plate.
where the PV/T collector area is defined f = (1 − 0.04hw + 0.0005h2w )(1 + 0.091N) (10)
by Ac , 𝜏𝛼 i s t h e t r a n s m i t t a n c e - a b s o r p t a n c e ,
G the incident solar radiation on the PV∕T surface. Tpm and
C = 365.9 1 − 0.00883𝛽 + 0.0001298𝛽 2 (11)
( )
Ta represent the mean plate temperature and ambient tem-
perature respectively. U L represents the total heat loss [56].
The overall back surface losses (Ub), Losses at the edges [
100
]
(Ue), and the losses through the top of the panel (Ut) make up e = 0.43 1 − (12)
Tpm
the overall heat loss coefficient (UL):
where 𝛽 is the angle of the collector. Wind speed (V) and
UL = Ub + Ue + Ut (6)
collector length ( L) are used to measure the air heat transfer
The bottom, edge, and top losses are computed using coefficient, ( hw ) [56]:
Eqs. (7)-(9) [56, 57].
8.6V 0.6
hw = (13)
k L0.4
Ub = b (7)
Lb
Calculating the useful energy gain in terms of the inlet fluid
where kb and Lb reflect thermal conductivity and back-insu- temperature will be easier as it is a known quantity. Therefore,
lating material thickness. the inlet fluid temperature is used instead of the mean plate
temperature and this requires a modified heat removal factor
kb
× Perimeter × Lc (F R) [56]–[58].
Ue =
Le
(8)
Ac
[ )]
(14)
(
Qu = F R Ac 𝛼𝜏G − U L Ti − Ta
where Le is the thickness of the insulation at the edges and
Lc is the collector’s thickness. To calculate the modified heat removal factor, the overall
heat loss coefficient UL is replaced with the modified version
(U L) In the equation for the heat removal factor [56].

13
1420 H. Adun et al.

( )
mC
̇ p T o − Ti f = 64
Re Re < 2300 (24)
FR = [ ( )] (15)
Ac 𝛼𝜏G − U L Ti − Ta
f = 0.3164Re−0.25 Re > 2300 (25)
� The pumping power of the system can then be determined
mC
̇ p⎡
⎢1 − exp ⎜− Ac U L F using:
⎛ ⎞⎤
FR = ⎟⎥ (16)
Ac U L ⎢⎣ ⎜ mC ̇ p ⎟⎥ ( )
ṁ
Ẇ pump = 𝜌 nf ΔP (26)
⎝ ⎠⎦
nf
where Ti the fluid inlet temperature into the PV/T col-
lector, the mass flow rate of the fluid is designated as Equation (27) shows the derivation of the mean fluid tem-
′
ṁ and F is the modified collector efficiency factor deter- perature [56, 57]:
mined by [56]: Qu∕
Ac ( �� )
/ Tfm = Ti + × 1−F (27)
1 FR × UL
� UL
F = ′
where F is the flow factor in the collector and is given by
[( ) ( )]
1
wtubes × + 𝜋×D 1 ×h
U L ×(Dtubes +(wtubes −Dtubes )×F ) out,tubes [56]:
(17) �� / �
wtubes represents the tube spacing, Dtubes is the tubes’ diam- F = FR F (28)
eter. The standard fin efficiency F is calculated using
Eq. (18). Also, the heat transfer coefficient h is calculated The outlet fluid temperature can then be calculated using
using Eqs. (19) [56, 57]: [63]:
[ ( )/ ] Qu
tanh m × wtubes − Dtubes 2 To = Ti + (29)
F= ( ) (18) ṁ × Cp,nf
m × wtubes − Dtubes /
2 The thermal efficiency of the PV / T is the ratio of the
useful energy collected to the energy provided by solar radi-
Nu × knf ation to the collector [64].
h= (19)
Dtubes
To − Ti
where h is the convective heat transfer coefficient between
𝜂th,PVT = mC
̇ p,nf (30)
GAc
the fluid and the tube wall, which is a critical variable for the
flow model in the PV/T collector [59]. The Nusselt number The PV/T collector’s electrical conversion efficiency is
Nu of the nanofluids is calculated using Eq. (20) [60]: determined based on [58]:

(31)
[ ( )]
Nu = 0.021 × Re0.8 × Pr0.5 (20) 𝜂el,PVT = 𝜂Tref 1 − 𝛽ref Tc − Tref

The derivation of the Reynolds number is seen in Eq. (21). where the PV/T cell temperature Tc is assumed to be at the
The Prandtl number is also determined using Eqs. (22) [61]: mean plate temperature Tpm.
4 × ṁ tubes The total efficiency of the PV/T is the sum of the electri-
Re = (21) cal efficiency (𝜂el, PVT ) and thermal efficiency (𝜂th,PVT ) and
𝜋 × Dtubes × 𝜇nf
can be calculated using [65]:

𝜇nf × Cp,nf 𝜂PVT = 𝜂el, PVT + 𝜂th,PVT (32)

Pr = (22)
knf Another way of comparing the performance of the PV
and PV/T systems is to use the electrical equivalent of the
In calculating the pressure drop of the piping system, Eq. 23
PV/T’s electrical efficiencies compared to the PV’s electri-
is used [62]:
cal efficiency. This can be done by multiplying the PV/T
(
4
ṁ nf
)2 thermal efficiency by a conversion factor (cf = 0.38), which
(23)
f 𝜌nf L
represents the average thermal efficiency of power gener-
n
ΔP = 2Dtubes 𝜌nf 𝜋D2
ating systems[64, 66]–[68] The PV/T equivalent electrical
where n is the number of tubes and the friction factor f is efficiency can therefore be calculated as:
calculated as:

13
A numerical and exergy analysis of the effect of ternary nanofluid on performance of Photovoltaic… 1421

(33) half-angle given as π/2. Of worthy mention is the study

( )
𝜂th,equi,PVT = 𝜂el, PVT × Cf + 𝜂th,PVT
by Petela [71] on the exergy of solar radiation. The study
As earlier stated, the accumulation of heat in solar cells explained that the conversion of heat energy to radiation
normally causes degradation of the electric performance of emissions from the sun occurs at an exergy loss mathemati-
PV systems. The performance improvement achieved by the cally expressed as 𝛿b = T0 where 𝛿b is a loss of exergy,
∏ ∏
PV/T collector can therefore be measured by comparing the is the entropy growth, b is exergy value of the sun radiation
electrical performance of the PV/T collector relative to its flux in space and T0 is the environment temperature. Upon
PV counterpart. This relative performance can be calculated the assumption that the sun is surrounded by the vacuum
using: of temperature T0 = 0 and zero emissivity, the temperature
of the absorbing surface (Ta ) is equal to the temperature of
|𝜂el, PVT −𝜂el, PV |
𝜂el,relative = 𝜂el, PV
(34) the sun (Ts ). Dividing the exergy loss by the exergy of the
sun gives the expression of the percentage of exergy loss as
shown in Eq. (40) [71]
Exergy analysis of the PV/T collector
𝛿b 1
( )
=
(40)
b sun ( )3
The overall exergetic efficiency of the PV/T system is given
Ts T
3 ∗ T + T0 − 4
by [69]:
o s

̇ th + Ex
Ex ̇ el
𝜀PVT =
̇Exin (35)
Model validation
where Ex
̇ in the result of the equation of the exergy balance
The validation of the model developed in this study for the
given by [70]:
numerical investigation of the HTF effect on the PVT was
̇ in = Ex
Ex ̇ el + Ex
̇ th − Ex
̇ loss (36)

̇ el = Ė el
Ex (37) 12 2.4
Numerical Experimental Percentage deviation
The overall exergy of the thermal system is calculated
as [69]: 11.6 1.8
Efficiency/%

Deviation/%
( )
T
̇ th = Ė th 1 − a
Ex (38) 11.2 1.2
Tf,0

The sun’s exergy is calculated as [65]: 10.8 0.6

[ )]
)1 Ta 4
(
4 Ta ( 4 1
̇ sun = G 1 −
Ex 1 − cos 𝛽 + (39) 10.4 0
3 Tsun 3 Tsun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Day
where the Tsun is the sun’s temperature at the black body
which is approximately 5800 K. 𝛽 is known as the sun Fig. 2  Validation analysis of the model used in this study

Table 3  Meteorology data and Cases Ambient Global solar irra- Velocity of the Model effi- Experimental Deviation/%
validation analysis of the model temperature/oC diation/Wm−2 wind/ms−1 ciency/% efficiency/%

1 32.8 346.5 3.1 0.1102 0.1088 0.01301

2 27.4 336.7 2.2 0.1121 0.1119 0.00148
3 27.5 313.9 2.9 0.1143 0.1121 0.01925
4 29.4 333.3 2.8 0.1126 0.1108 0.0161
5 28.8 349.4 3.7 0.1106 0.1096 0.009444
6 30.6 351.4 3.2 0.1115 0.1099 0.01455
7 30.9 343.8 3.1 0.1107 0.1099 0.007354
8 27.9 258 2.5 0.1144 0.1126 0.01603

13
1422 H. Adun et al.

done using on-site meteorological data retrieved from a 1000 33

PV installation in Cyprus International University (CIU),

–2
Incident solar radiation/Wm
Cyprus. The PV plant is located on longitude 35.2oN and

Ambient temperature/°C
800 31
latitude of 33.4oE, Nicosia, which is the capital city of the
Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC). The weather
600 29
data retrieved were solar irradiation, ambient temperature,
and wind speed. The efficiency of the PV system in the solar Solar radiation

power farm is also retrieved and compared with the numeri- 400 Ambient temperature 27
cal result calculated in this study. Table 3 shows the weather
data utilized for verifying the model. Figure 2 shows the 200 25
model validation result. A maximum deviation of 1.93% in 8 10 12 14 16 18

the efficiency result of the numerical analysis is recorded Time of day/h

as against the efficiency of the on-site solar farm proofs the

accuracy of the model developed. Fig. 3  Weather conditions at the location for a specific period

66
Results and discussion
61
The results of the model used in the calculation of the PV/T

PV/T cell temperature/°C

Cuo/MgO/TiO2 (phi= 0.001)
collector are discussed in this section. The effect of ternary 56
Cuo/MgO/TiO2 (phi= 0.005)
nanofluid on the PV cell temperature, thermal efficiency,
Cuo/MgO/TiO2 (phi= 0.01)
electrical efficiency, and overall efficiency is explained in 51

detail. A comparison of hybrid nanofluid, conventional

nanofluid, and water with ternary nanofluid is also dis- 46

cussed. Also, the PV/T efficiency concerning different

41
solar radiation and mass flow rates is elaborated. Finally,
the mathematical model developed in this study is validated 36
using meteorological data culled from the solar PV instal- 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
–1
lation at CIU. Fluid mass flow rate/kgs

Fig. 4  Effect on PV/T cell temperature at different volume fractions

based on the mass flow rate
Effect of mass percent on the performance of PV/T

The effect of the ternary nanofluid volume fraction on the
PV/T collector with a solar fixed radiation of 928 W m−2 is
determined. Figure 4 shows that at 0.1 kg s−1, the cell tem-
perature of the PV system was 36.2 °C at a volume fraction
of 0.01, while at the same mass flow rate the cell tempera-
ture was 41.2 °C and 41.3 °C at a volume fraction of 0.001
and 0.005 respectively. The better performance of the 0.01
volume fraction can be attributed to the higher thermal con-
ductivity of the heat transfer fluid, which enables it to extract
more heat from the PV system. This finding is verified by an
experimental study performed by Khanjari et al. [2]. Their
analysis showed a substantial increase in the volume fraction
of the nanofluid heat transfer coefficient from 0.01 to 0.12
and clarified that this increase induces an increased excess
energy exchange due to spontaneous movements of nano-
particles. Furthermore, an experimental study on ternary
nanofluid by Cakmak, N. et al. [43] observed that the ther-
mal conductivity of the rGO–Fe3O4–TiO2 ternary nanofluid
increased with increase in particle loading concentration.
This was also corroborated by a study by Parekh [39] which
concluded that there was a 45% enhancement of thermal
conductivity at a volume fraction of 0.01. However, it is vital
to state that a continuous increase in nanoparticle dispersion
in the base fluid would at some point cause a corresponding
increase in viscosity, which will eventually lead to a drop in
the efficiency of the system [33].
Mass flow rate impact on the performance of PV/T
The mass flow rate of the HTF is investigated within the
range of 0.01 kg s−1 to 0.1 kg s−1 at constant solar irra-
diation of 928 W m−2 measured at 1 pm. Figure 3 shows
that the solar irradiation rose from, 380.5 W m−2 at 8 am
to 928 W m−2 at 1 pm. Figure 4 shows that at increasing
mass flow rate, there was a reduction in the PV/T cell
temperature. This is attributed to the difference between

13
A numerical and exergy analysis of the effect of ternary nanofluid on performance of Photovoltaic… 1423

the PV temperature and the nanofluid in the inlet pipe. At a 46

mass flow rate of 0.1 kg s−1, the cell temperature decreased φ = 0.01
by 18%, as against when the HTF flowed at 0.01 kg s−1.
At 0.01 kg s−1, the cell temperature was 45 °C, while at 42

Mean fluid temperature/°C

0.1 kg s−1, it was 37 °C. The reason for this occurrence
is because, at a higher mass flow rate, there is a corre- 38
sponding increase in heat transfer coefficient due to an
increase in the Reynold number. As a result, there is a CuO/MgO/TiO2
higher extraction of heat from the collector system, hence 34
AI2O3/ZnO
reducing the cell temperature. This result is corroborated Water
by an experimental study done by Fayaz et al. [52], which
30
investigated the effect of mass flow rate on PV/T collec- 8 10 12 14 16 18
tor. The study showed an increase of 6.26% in the overall Time of day/h
performance of the PV/T collector when the mass flow
rate was 0.03 kgs as compared to when the mass flow rate Fig. 6  Comparison of mean fluid temperatures of cooling fluid in the
was 0.006 kg s−1. PV/T collector

Performance of nanofluid based PV/T using

nanofluid heat transfer fluids
This study uses CuO–MgO–TiO2/water TNF to calculate the
performance of the PV/T collector concerning the cell tem-
perature. A comparative analysis is made using numerical
calculation of hybrid ­Al2O3–ZnO/water [72, 73] nanofluid.
The effect of the nanofluids on the cell temperature on the
PVT collector was calculated at 0.01 volume fraction. The
PV / T system’s cell temperature is shown in Fig. 5. It is
shown that at the peak ambient temperature of 32.90 °C,
the PV cell temperature was 53.23 °C. Figure 5 also shows
that PV/T with the ternary nanofluid performed better than
the ­Al2O3–ZnO/water, water, and PV system. This can be
explained as at 0.01 volume fraction, the viscosity of the
­Al2O3-ZnO/water is high, and therefore, there is a corre-
sponding net negative in the system which decreased the
efficiency of the PV/T system. The research done in [33]
corroborates this, which explains that at a volume fraction of
0.01, the viscosity of the hybrid nanofluid increases, which
is a net negative in the system. Furthermore, the heat transfer
property of the ternary nanofluid is improved with increas-
ing volume fraction and this improves heat removal from the
PV cell. Figure 6 shows the mean fluid temperature of the
nanofluid heat transfer fluids. It is also seen that the maxi-
mum mean fluid temperature of the ternary nanofluid was
45.11 °C, which is an enhancement of 1.35% compared with
water. Also, it is seen that the Al2O3/ZnO had a maximum
mean fluid temperature of 43.41 °C.
Figure 7 indicates that the temperature of the outlet HTF
fluid increases from 8 am to 2 pm. This is a period in the day
when the solar irradiance increases correspondingly. The
highest outlet fluid temperature was recorded for the CuO/
MgO/TiO2 ternary nanofluid. The fluid outlet temperature
increased by 14.05 °C, 10.81 °C, 12.91 °C for CuO/MgO/

55 55

φ = 0.01
φ = 0.01
50 50
Fluid outlet temperature/°C
Cell temperature/°C

45 45

40 40
PV CuO/MgO/TiO2

CuO/MgO/TiO2 AI2O3/ZnO
35 35
AI2O3/ZnO Water

Water
30 30
8 10 12 14 16 18 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time of day/h Time of day/h

Fig. 5  Comparison of PV and PV/T cell temperatures using different Fig. 7  Comparison of outlet temperatures of cooling fluid from the
cooling fluids PV/T collector

13
1424 H. Adun et al.

TiO2, ­Al2O3–ZnO/water, and water respectively. This is 500 75

φ = 0.01
because the ternary heat transfer fluid is extracting more

PV/T thermal energy efficiency/%

heat from the PV/T system at the volume fraction of 0.01. 400
70

This is attributed to the higher heat transfer characteristics

Useful energy/W
of the fluid. It is also notable that more heat was removed 65
Useful energy
from the system using water compared to the A ­ l2O3-ZnO/ 300

water hybrid nanofluid owing to the poor thermal conductiv- 60

ity of this nanofluid at the volume fraction considered. The 200

PV/T thermal energy efficiency
study by Wole-Osho et al. [33] which numerically evaluated 55

the effect of A
­ l2O3-ZnO/water in the PV/T collector reveals PV/T total energy efficiency
100 50
that at 0.01 volume fraction, there was high viscosity of 8 10 12 14 16 18
the Nanofluid and this caused an increase in friction losses Time of day/h
within the system. The study showed that a better perfor-
mance is achieved at 0.001 volume fraction. This is to also Fig. 9  PV/T useful energy and thermal performance for the CuO/
conclude that, there is a better possibility of increasing the MgO/TiO2 nanofluid
volume fraction of the ternary nanofluid, which will allow
for higher heat extraction, as there will be less friction loss
in the system. Figure 8 shows the electrical and relative effi- is measured as 13.55%, while the highest PV efficiency is
ciency of the PV/T system for the nanofluid of 0.01 volume 13.11%.
fraction. Figure 8 also shows the PV electrical efficiency, for Figure 9 also shows a similar trend in the increase of the
which it is observed that the efficiency decreases from 13.1% useful energy in the period of high solar irradiance. The use-
at 8 am to 11.91% at 2 pm. The least efficiency of 11.91% ful energy extracted from the PV/T system peaks at 1 pm,
coincides with the time of peak solar irradiance and ambient due to the peak ambient temperature condition of the PV/T
temperature. This is due to the high temperature of PV cells, system. The useful energy increased from 182.3 W at 8 am
during high ambient temperature conditions. This phenom- to 450.3 W at 2 pm. The maximum energy and thermal effi-
enon is elaborated by Nasrin et al. [6] which explained that ciency of the PV/T collector are measured as 463.6 W and
for each 100 W m−2 increase in irradiation, there is a 0.09% 58.3% respectively. It is shown that at the beginning of the
decrease in cell efficiency. The PV/T electrical efficiency is day, the thermal efficiency starts at a low value and increases
significantly higher than the PV efficiency recorded at peak until about noon, and then begins to decrease again. This is
irradiation time. The relative efficiency is seen to increase as due to the thermal efficiency dependency on the temperature
the solar irradiance increase across the day. The maximum of the PV cells. The thermal efficiency is influenced by the
relative efficiency is 11.13% measured at 2 pm. The relative temperature of the different parts of the absorber plate. The
efficiency begins to decrease due to a drop in the ambient total energy efficiency is also shown to start at a low value
temperature between 2 and 6 pm. This pattern is attributed in the morning and peaks at the time of highest solar irradi-
to the increase in cell temperature, therefore enough thermal ance at noon. The increase in the total energy efficiency is
energy is absorbed. The maximum PV/T electrical efficiency 4% recorded between 8 am and 12 pm. This result is cor-
roborated by an experimental study [1]. An improvement

14 12
13.5 36
Pv/T electrical equivalent eff/%

φ = 0.01
φ = 0.01
Pv electrical efficiency/%
Electrical efficiency/%

13.5 10
13
Relative efficiency

35.25
13 8 PV electrical efficiency (%)
PV/T electrical efficiency
Relative efficiency 12.5 PV/T electrical equivalent eff (%) 34.5
12.5 6
PV electrical efficiency
12 33.75
12 4

11.5 2 11.5 33
8 10 12 14 16 18 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time of day/h Time of day/h

Fig. 8  Comparison of PV and PV/T electrical efficiencies for the Fig. 10  PV electrical and PV/T electrical equivalent efficiencies for
CuO/MgO/TiO2 nanofluid the CuO/MgO/TiO2 fluid

13
A numerical and exergy analysis of the effect of ternary nanofluid on performance of Photovoltaic… 1425

4 15.8 The result shows that the equivalent electrical efficiency

φ = 0.01 increases and peaks at a value of 35.41% at noon. The effi-
Thermal exergy efficiency/%

Total exergy efficiency/%

3
ciency decreases in the afternoon before the end of the day
15.55
when the sun’s solar irradiance decreases. Figure 11 shows
the exergy efficiency variation of the PV/T collector across
2 15.3 the day at 0.01 volume fraction. The figure shows a simi-
PV/T thermal exergy efficiency lar trend for the PV/T thermal and overall efficiency. The
1 PV/T overall exergy efficiency 15.05
maximum thermal and overall exergy efficiency is 2.5%
and 15.7% respectively measured between 12 and 2 pm.
The exergy efficiency then drops when the solar irradiance
0
8 10 12 14 16
14.8
18 begins to decrease. The improvement in thermal exergy effi-
Time of day/h ciency and overall exergy efficiency is estimated at 61.3%
and 4.3% between the start of the analysis at 8 am and 12 pm
Fig. 11  PV/T exergy performance for the CuO/MgO/TiO2 nanofluid when the efficiencies are at maximum values. This is due to
the increase in solar irradiance and the ambient temperature.
Figure 12 and Table 4 presents the thermal and electrical
1.8 4.6 enhancement of the PV/T system with ternary HTF as com-
pared with water. The result shows an optimum electrical
Thermal enhancement/%
Electrical enhancement/%

1.45 4.4
and thermal enhancement of 1.69% and 4.59% respectively.
The comparatively better performance of the nanofluid is
due to their improved thermophysical properties. This result
1.1 4.2
is corroborated by a study carried out by several studies [7,
65, 74]
Electrical enhancement
0.75 4 Investigation of the frictional resistance to the flow of
Thermal enhancement the heat transfer fluids is of important consideration, as it
3.8
helps to determine the amount of pumping power required
0.4
8 10 12 14 16 18 to circulate the fluid in the PV/T system. The effects of
Time of day/h pressure drop in the PV/T system is shown in Fig. 13 as
a function of mass flow rate and volume concentration.
Fig. 12  Electrical and thermal enhancement CuO/MgO/TiO2 nano- The result shows a linear relationship between mass flow
fluid as against water
rate and pressure drop. Also, it is seen that the least pres-
sure drop values were recorded for water. The results of the
in the thermal efficiency of the PV/T system from 9 am to pressure drops of the nanofluids at low concentrations are
1:30 pm was observed in the study. close to that of water. This result is corroborated by a study
Figure 10 shows that the total electrical equivalent effi- done by Zaid et al. [75]. The nanofluids at a higher concen-
ciency of the PV / T collector is calculated with Eq. 34. tration of 0.01 had higher pressure drops. The increase in

Table 4  Hourly electrical and Time of Electrical efficiency/% Electrical effi- Thermal efficiency/% Thermal efficiency
thermal enhancement CuO/ day/hour ciency enhance- enhancement/%
MgO/TiO2 nanofluid as against Water CuO-MgO-TiO2 ment/% Water CuO-MgO-TiO2
water
8 13.41 13.50 0.6711 53.06 55.23 4.09
9 13.26 13.40 1.056 55.5 57.63 3.838
10 13.14 13.32 1.37 55.66 57.97 4.15
11 13.06 13.26 1.531 55.74 58.13 4.288
12 13.0 13.22 1.614 56.03 58.4 4.23
13 13.0 13.22 1.692 55.89 58.29 4.294
14 13.03 13.23 1.535 55.89 58.25 4.223
15 13.15 13.32 1.293 55.1 57.49 4.338
16 13.19 13.34 1.137 54.3 56.79 4.586
17 13.32 13.34 0.9009 53.74 56.05 4.298
18 13.48 13.55 0.5193 50.73 52.84 4.159

13
1426 H. Adun et al.

8.6 nanoparticle concentration causes an increase in viscosity,

δp Al2O3/ZnO (0.01) which is directly related to the pressure drop and pump-
δp CuO/MgO/TiO2 (0.01) ing power [75]. This result is corroborated by Amin et al.
6.55
[76] which explained that higher viscosity results in higher
Pressure drop/Pa

pumping power. Also, the high-pressure drop is explained by

4.5
δp Water an increase in the friction factor. The lower pressure drop of
δp Al2O3/ZnO (0.001) the CuO–MgO–TiO2 ternary nanofluid makes it more desir-
δp CuO/MgO/TiO2 (0.001) able as compared to the A ­ l2O3–ZnO hybrid nanofluid. The
2.45 lower pressure drop of the ternary fluid could be attributed
to the fact that it is a metallic nanofluid with three nanoparti-
cles. This result and explanation are corroborated by a study
0.4
0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01
done by Reza et al.[77] which showed that metallic nanoflu-
ids decreased the pressure drop while metalloid nanofluids
Fluid mass flow rate/kg–1 S–1
increase the pressure drop.
A pump is required to circulate the heat transfer fluid
Fig. 13  Pressure drop for nanofluids vs mass flow rate
through the piping system, and the pumping power
required to achieve this is an important criterion to con-
0.00009 sider in the design of a PV/T system. Figure 14 shows
Wpump Al2O3/ZnO (0.01)
the pumping power for nanofluids at low concentrations
Wpump CuO/MgO/TiO2 (0.01)
are very close to that of water. It is also seen that higher
0.000068 Wpump Al2O3/ZnO (0.001)
pumping power was recorded for the nanofluids at 0.01
Pump work/W

Wpump CuO/MgO/TiO2 (0.001)

volume concentration as against the volume concentration
0.000046 at 0.001. This is attributed to an increase in the viscos-
ity of the nanofluids at higher nanoparticle concentration
WpumpWater
0.000024
which results in greater energy for pumping of the fluid in
the system. This result is corroborated in a study by Nilesh
et al. [78], which stated that increasing the nanoparticle
0.000002
0.005 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01
concentration increases the viscosity, which increases
Fluid mass flow rate/kg–1 S–1 pumping power consumption.
It is of worthy note that despite the drawback of
Fig. 14  Pump work of fluids vs mass flowrate increased pumping power due to high pressure, this

Table 5  Hybrid Nanofluid Reference Hybrid nanofluid Optimum vol- 𝜂el, PVT/% 𝜂th,PVT/% 𝜀PVT/% Overall
based PV/T efficiency ume fraction effi-
ciency/%

[79] Ag–SiO2 0.025 – – – 33.2

[34] Ag–SiO2 0.026 6.6 – – –
[35] Ag–TiO2 200 ppm – – – 83.7
[33] Al2O3–ZnO 0.0001 13.8 55.9 15.13 91
Present Study CuO–MgO–TiO2 0.01 13.54 58.8 15.68 91.34

Table 6  Electrical and thermal Reference Nanofluid Optimum volume Thermal efficiency Electrical effi-
efficiency enhancement fraction enhancement/% ciency enhance-
comparison with literature ment/%

[65] ZnO–water 0.004 5 –

[80] Cu–water 0.02 4.1 1.9
[54] MWCNT–water 0.01 3.67 0.44
Present study CuO–MgO–TiO2 0.01 4.59 1.69

13
A numerical and exergy analysis of the effect of ternary nanofluid on performance of Photovoltaic…
limitation is negligible about the improved heat transfer
enhancement [77].
Table 5 presents a comparative highlight of the optimum
efficiency for the PV/T system in this study in comparison
with results culled from the literature. Table 5 shows that
the overall efficiency of 91.34% of the CuO–MgO–TiO 2
ternary nanofluid outperformed the overall efficiency of
PV/T systems culled from the studies that utilized hybrid
nanofluids. Table 6 likewise shows the comparison of the
electrical and thermal efficiency enhancement of utilizing
nanofluids as HTF in PV/T collectors. The electrical and
thermal enhancement of 1.69% and 4.59% respectively
recorded in this study shows a higher enhancement as
compared to results retrieved from literature. This high
enhancement can be attributed to the higher thermophysi-
cal properties of ternary nanofluids. This is also explained
as ternary nanofluids have a high synergistic effect that
improves their heat transfer properties.
Conclusions
In this study, the impact of different thermophysical or
rheological properties of ternary nanofluids, solar irradi-
ance, and mass flow rate in a PV/T collector are presented
in a numerical simulation. Validation of the model devel-
oped in this study for numerically investigating the effect
of the HTF on the PVT was done using on-site meteoro-
logical data retrieved from a PV installation in CIU. The
following conclusions are drawn from the findings and
discussions discussed above in this study;
• The increase in the volume fraction of the ternary nano-
fluid improved the heat transfer properties
• There is less effect of friction loss in ternary nanoflu-
ids at higher volume fraction as compared with hybrid
nanofluids. This is seen in the higher CuO–MgO–TiO2
based PV/T efficiency at a volume fraction of 0.01%
compared to that for A ­ l 2O 3–ZnO at the same vol-
ume fraction. Also, an enhancement of 3.24 °C in the
fluid outlet temperature for the ternary nanofluid was
obtained against that of for ­Al2O3-ZnO nanofluid.
• The efficiency of the PV/T is amplified with increasing
volume fraction. The study showed that with 0.001%
and 0.005% volume fraction, the PV/T performance
was lower as compared with that of 0.01% volume frac-
tion.
• The maximum electrical, thermal and exergy efficiency
achieved in this study using ternary nanofluid was
13.54%, 58.38%, and 15.68% respectively. This repre-
sents a thermal enhancement of 4.2% compared to that
of using water.
1427
• Increasing the mass flow rate in the PV/T collector sys-
tem increases the heat extracted from the PV cells. The
cell temperature was reduced from 43.85 °C to 37.05 °C
by using 0.01% volume fraction TNF instead of water.
• The overall efficiency of 91.34% of ternary CuO–MgO–
TiO2 exceeded the overall efficiency of PV/T systems
reported from literature using hybrid nanofluids.
• It is also seen that higher pressure drop and pumping
power was recorded for the nanofluids at 0.01 volume
concentration as against the volume concentration at
0.001.
• The lower pressure drop and pumping power of the
CuO–MgO–TiO2 ternary nanofluid make it more desir-
able as compared to the ­Al2O3–ZnO hybrid nanofluid.
The authors will recommend that the effect of the mix-
ture ratio of ternary fluids be investigated on the perfor-
mance analysis of PV/T collectors. Furthermore, economic
analysis should be carried out for practical applications of
ternary nanofluids in solar systems.
References
1. Aberoumand S, Ghamari S, Shabani B. Energy and exergy anal-
ysis of a photovoltaic thermal (PV/T) system using nanofluids:
an experimental study. Sol Energy. 2018;165(March):167–77.
2. Khanjari Y, Pourfayaz F, Kasaeian AB. Numerical investigation
on using of nanofluid in a water-cooled photovoltaic thermal
system. Energy Convers Manag. 2016;122:263–78.
3. Grosu L, Mathieu A, Rochelle P, Feidt M, Ahmadi MH, Sad-
eghzadeh M. Steady state operation exergy-based optimiza-
tion for solar thermal collectors. Environ Prog Sustain Energy.
2020;39(3):13359.
4. Hoffmann W, PV as a major contributor to the~ 100% renewably
powered world and solving the climate battle. In: High-efficient
low-cost photovoltaics. High-efficient low-cost photovoltaics;
2020. pp. 9–30.
5. Ahmadi MH, et al. Solar power technology for electricity gen-
eration: a critical review. Energy Sci Eng. 2018;6(5):340–61.
6. Nasrin R, Hasanuzzaman M, Rahim NA. Effect of high irra-
diation on photovoltaic power and energy. Int J Energy Res.
2018;42(3):1115–31.
7. Ghadiri M, Sardarabadi M, Pasandideh-Fard M, Moghadam AJ.
Experimental investigation of a PVT system performance using
nano ferrofluids. Energy Convers Manag. 2015;103:468–76.
8. Fudholi A, Sopian K, Yazdi MH, Ruslan MH, Ibrahim A, Kazem
HA. Performance analysis of photovoltaic thermal (PVT) water
collectors. Energy Convers Manag. 2014;78:641–51.
9. Alwan Sywan Alshaheen A, Kianifar A, Baradaran Rahimi
A. Experimental study of using nano-(GNP, MWCNT, and
SWCNT)/water to investigate the performance of a PVT
module: Energy and exergy analysis. J Therm Anal Calorim.
2020;139(6):3549–61.
10. Kazemian A, Hosseinzadeh M, Sardarabadi M, Passandideh-
Fard M. Experimental study of using both ethylene glycol and
phase change material as coolant in photovoltaic thermal sys-
tems (PVT) from energy, exergy and entropy generation view-
points. Energy. 2018;162(2018):210–23.
13
1428
11. Fudholi K, Musthafa A, Ridwan MF, Yendra A, Desvina R,
Rahmadeni AP, Sopian R. Energy and exergy analysis of air
based photovoltaic thermal (PVT) collector: a review. Int J Elec-
tron Comput Eng. 2019;9(1):109.
12. Fudholi K, Zohri A, Rukman M, Nazri NSB, Mustapha NS, Yen
M, Sopian CH. Exergy and sustainability index of photovol-
taic thermal (PVT) air collector: a theoretical and experimental
study. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2019;100:44–51.
13. Lee JH, Hwang SG, Lee GH. Efficiency improvement of a pho-
tovoltaic thermal (PVT) system using nanofluids. Energies.
2019;12(2019):3063.
14. Binti Rukman NS, Fudholi A, Mohd Razali NF, Hafidz Ruslan
M, Sopian K, Investigation of TiO2 and MWCNT nanofluids-
based photovoltaic-thermal (PV/T) system. In: IOP conference
series: earth and environmental science, vol. 268, no. 1.
15. Du M, Tang GH, Wang TM. Exergy analysis of a hybrid PV/T
system based on plasmonic nanofluids and silica aerogel glaz-
ing. Sol Energy. 2019;183(March):501–11.
16. Jia Y, Ran F, Zhu C, Fang G. Numerical analysis of photovol-
taic-thermal collector using nanofluid as a coolant. Sol Energy.
2020;196:625–36.
17. Al-Waeli AHA, Chaichan MT, Sopian K, Kazem HA. Influence
of the base fluid on the thermo-physical properties of PV/T
nanofluids with surfactant. Case Stud Therm Eng. 2019;13:1–8.
18. Ahmadi MH, Sadeghzadeh M, Maddah H, Solouk A, Kumar
R, Wing Chau K. Precise smart model for estimating dynamic
viscosity of SiO2/ethylene glycol–water nanofluid. Eng Appl
Comput Fluid Mech. 2019;13(1):1095–105.
19. Sadeghzadeh M, et al. Prediction of thermo-physical properties
of TiO2-Al2O3/water nanoparticles by using artificial neural net-
work. Nanomaterials. 2020;10(4):697.
20. Nasirzadehroshenin F, et al. Modeling of heat transfer perfor-
mance of carbon nanotube nanofluid in a tube with fixed wall tem-
perature by using ANN–GA. Eur Phys J Plus. 2020;135(2):1–20.
21. AL-Musawi AIA, Taheri A, Farzanehnia A, Sardarabadi M, Pas-
sandideh-Fard M. Numerical study of the effects of nanofluids and
phase-change materials in photovoltaic thermal (PVT) systems. J
Therm Anal Calorim. 2019;137(2):623–36.
22. Alous S, Kayfeci M, Uysal A. Experimental investigations of using
MWCNTs and graphene nanoplatelets water-based nanofluids as
coolants in PVT systems. Appl Therm Eng. 2019;162:114265.
23. Gangadevi R, Vinayagam BK. Experimental determination of
thermal conductivity and viscosity of different nanofluids and
its effect on a hybrid solar collector. J Therm Anal Calorim.
2019;136(1):199–209.
24. Fudholi A, et al. TiO2/water-based photovoltaic thermal (PVT)
collector: novel theoretical approach. Energy. 2019;183:305–14.
25. Manigandan S, Kumar V. Comparative study to use nanofluid
ZnO and CuO with phase change material in photovoltaic thermal
system. Int J Energy Res. 2019;43(5):1882–91.
26. Nasrin R, Hasanuzzaman M, Rahim NA. Effect of nanoflu-
ids on heat transfer and cooling system of the photovoltaic/
thermal performance. Int J Numer Methods Heat Fluid Flow.
2019;29(6):1920–46.
27. Connolly LMD, Lund H, Mathiesen BV. The first step towards
a 100% renewable energy-system for Ireland. Appl Energy.
2011;88(2):502–7.
28. Radwan A, Ahmed M, Ookawara S. Performance enhancement of
concentrated photovoltaic systems using a microchannel heat sink
with nanofluids. Energy Convers Manag. 2016;119:289–303.
29. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C. Investigation of a nanofluid-based con-
centrating thermal photovoltaic with a parabolic reflector. Energy
Convers Manag. 2019;180:171–82.
30. Xu Z, Kleinstreuer C. Concentration photovoltaic-thermal energy
co-generation system using nanofluids for cooling and heating.
Energy Convers Manag. 2014;87:504–12.
13
H. Adun et al.
31. Che Sidik NA, Mahmud Jamil M, Aziz Japar WMA, Muham-
mad Adamu I. A review on preparation methods, stability and
applications of hybrid nanofluids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev.
2017;80:1112–22.
32. Younis A, Onsa M, Alhorr Y, Elsarrag E. The influence of Al2O3–
ZnO–H2O nanofluid on the thermodynamic performance of pho-
tovoltaic–thermal hybrid solar collector system. Innov Energy
Res. 2018;07(01):1–8.
33. Wole-Osho I, Adun H, Adedeji M, Okonkwo EC, Kavaz D,
Dagbasi M. Effect of hybrid nanofluids mixture ratio on the per-
formance of a photovoltaic thermal collector. Int J Energy Res.
2020;44(11):9064–81.
34. Hjerrild NE, Mesgari S, Crisostomo F, Scott JA, Amal R, Tay-
lor RA. Hybrid PV/T enhancement using selectively absorb-
ing Ag-SiO2/carbon nanofluids. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells.
2016;147:281–7.
35. He Y, Hu Y, Li H. An Ag@TiO2/ethylene glycol/water solution as
a nanofluid-based beam splitter for photovoltaic/thermal applica-
tions in cold regions. Energy Convers Manag. 2019;198:111838.
36. Babatunde AA, Abbasoglu S. Predictive analysis of photovoltaic
plants specific yield with the implementation of multiple linear
regression tool. Environ Prog Sustain Energy. 2019;38(4):1–9.
37. Sadeghzadeh M, Ahmadi MH, Kahani M, Sakhaeinia H, Chaji H,
Chen L. Smart modeling by using artificial intelligent techniques
on thermal performance of flat-plate solar collector using nano-
fluid. Energy Sci Eng. 2019;7(5):1649–58.
38. Sang L, Ai W, Wu Y, Ma C. SiO2-ternary carbonate nanofluids
prepared by mechanical mixing at high temperature: Enhanced
specific heat capacity and thermal conductivity. Sol Energy Mater
Sol Cells. 2019;203:110193.
39. Parekh K. Thermo-magnetic properties of ternary polydispersed
Mn0.5Zn 0.5Fe2O4 ferrite magnetic fluid. Solid State Commun.
2014;187:33–7.
40. Sahoo RR, Kumar V. Development of a new correlation to deter-
mine the viscosity of ternary hybrid nanofluid. Int Commun Heat
Mass Transf. 2020;111:104451.
41. Seo J, Shin D. Enhancement of specific heat of ternary nitrate
(LiNO3-NaNO3-KNO3) salt by doping with SiO2 nano-
particles for solar thermal energy storage. Micro Nano Lett.
2014;9(11):817–20.
42. Mousavi SM, Esmaeilzadeh F, Wang XP. Effects of temperature
and particles volume concentration on the thermophysical prop-
erties and the rheological behavior of CuO/MgO/TiO2 aqueous
ternary hybrid nanofluid: Experimental investigation. J Therm
Anal Calorim. 2019;137(3):879–901.
43. Cakmak NK, Said Z, Sundar LS, Ali ZM, Tiwari AK. Prepara-
tion, characterization, stability, and thermal conductivity of rGO-
Fe3O4-TiO2 hybrid nanofluid: An experimental study. Powder
Technol. 2020;372:235–45.
44. Boroomandpour A, Toghraie D, Hashemian M. A comprehensive
experimental investigation of thermal conductivity of a ternary
hybrid nanofluid containing MWCNTs- titania-zinc oxide/water-
ethylene glycol (80:20) as well as binary and mono nanofluids.
Synth Met. 2020;268:116501.
45. Sang L, Ai W, Wu Y, Ma C. Enhanced specific heat and ther-
mal conductivity of ternary carbonate nanofluids with car-
bon nanotubes for solar power applications. Int J Energy Res.
2020;44(1):334–43.
46. Abbasi M, Heyhat MM, Rajabpour A. Study of the effects of par-
ticle shape and base fluid type on density of nanofluids using
ternary mixture formula: A molecular dynamics simulation. J Mol
Liq. 2020;305:112831.
47. Abdallah SR, Saidani-Scott H, Abdellatif OE. Performance anal-
ysis for hybrid PV/T system using low concentration MWCNT
(water-based) nanofluid. Sol Energy. 2019;181:108–15.
A numerical and exergy analysis of the effect of ternary nanofluid on performance of Photovoltaic…
48. An W, Wu J, Zhu T, Zhu Q. Experimental investigation of a con-
centrating PV/T collector with Cu9S5 nanofluid spectral splitting
filter. Appl Energy. 2016;184:197–206.
49. Al-Waeli AHA, et al. Comparison study of indoor/outdoor exper-
iments of a photovoltaic thermal PV/T system containing SiC
nanofluid as a coolant. Energy. 2018;151:33–44.
50. Al-Waeli AHA, Chaichan MT, Sopian K, Kazem HA, Mahood
HB, Khadom AA. Modeling and experimental validation of a
PVT system using nanofluid coolant and nano-PCM. Sol Energy.
2019;177:178–91.
51. Salem MR, Elsayed MM, Abd-Elaziz AA, Elshazly KM. Per-
formance enhancement of the photovoltaic cells using Al2O3/
PCM mixture and/or water cooling-techniques. Renew Energy.
2019;138:876–90.
52. Fayaz H, Nasrin R, Rahim NA, Hasanuzzaman M. Energy and
exergy analysis of the PVT system: Effect of nanofluid flow rate.
Sol Energy. 2018;169(May):217–30.
53. Ebaid MSY, Ghrair AM, Al-Busoul M. Experimental investiga-
tion of cooling photovoltaic (PV) panels using (TiO2) nanofluid
in water -polyethylene glycol mixture and (Al2O3) nanofluid in
water- cetyltrimethylammonium bromide mixture. Energy Con-
vers Manag. 2018;155:324–43.
54. Nasrin R, Rahim NA, Fayaz H, Hasanuzzaman M. Water/
MWCNT nanofluid based cooling system of PVT: Experimental
and numerical research. Renew Energy. 2018;121:286–300.
55. Ahmed W, et al. Ultrasonic assisted new Al2O3 @ TiO2-ZnO/DW
ternary composites nanofluids for enhanced energy transportation
in a closed horizontal circular flow passage. Int Commun Heat
Mass Transf. 2020;20:105018.
56. Kalogirou SA. Solar energy engineering: processes and systems.
2nd ed. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2014.
57. Duffie J, Beckman W. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes,
vol. 116. Hoboken: Wiley; 2013.
58. Gopal NT, Swapnil D, Fundamentals of photovoltaic modules and
their applications; (2009).
59. Maadi SR, Kolahan A, Passandideh-Fard M, Sardarabadi M, Mol-
oudi R. Characterization of PVT systems equipped with nano-
fluids-based collector from entropy generation. Energy Convers
Manag. 2017;150(May):515–31.
60. Duangthongsuk W, Wongwises S. An experimental study on the
heat transfer performance and pressure drop of TiO2-water nano-
fluids flowing under a turbulent flow regime. Int J Heat Mass
Transf. 2010;53(1–3):334–44.
61. Babu RJ, Kumar K, Thermodynamic analysis of hybrid nanofluid
based solar flat plate collector. World J Eng. 2017; 15.
62. Qiu Z, Zhao X, Li P, Zhang X, Ali S, Tan J. Theoretical investi-
gation of the energy performance of a novel MPCM ( Microen-
capsulated Phase Change Material ) slurry based PV / T module.
Energy. 2015;87:686–98.
63. Alobaid M, Hughes B, O’Connor D, Calautit JK, Heyes A.
Improving thermal and electrical efficiency in photovoltaic ther-
mal systems for sustainable cooling system integration. J Sustain
Dev Energy Water Environ Syst. 2018;6:305–22.
64. Sardarabadi M, Hosseinzadeh M, Kazemian A, Passandideh-
Fard M. Experimental investigation of the effects of using metal-
oxides/water nanofluids on a photovoltaic thermal system (PVT)
from energy and exergy viewpoints. Energy. 2017;138:682–95.
1429
65. Sardarabadi M, Passandideh-Fard M, Maghrebi MJ, Ghazikhani
M. Experimental study of using both ZnO/water nanofluid and
phase change material (PCM) in photovoltaic thermal systems.
Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells. 2016;161:62–9.
66. Kumar R, Rosen MA. Performance evaluation of a double pass
PV/T solar air heater with and without fins. Appl Therm Eng.
2011;31(8):1402–10.
67. Notton G, Motte F, Cristofari C, Canaletti J-L. Performances and
numerical optimization of a novel thermal solar collector for resi-
dential building. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2014;33:60–73.
68. Sarafraz M, et al. Experimental investigation on thermal perfor-
mance of a PV/T-PCM (Photovoltaic/Thermal) system cooling
with a PCM and nanofluid. Energies. 2019;12:2572.
69. Chow TT, He W, Ji J. Hybrid photovoltaic-thermosyphon
water heating system for residential application. Sol Energy.
2006;80(3):298–306.
70. Agrawal S, Tiwari GN. Energy and exergy analysis of hybrid
micro-channel photovoltaic thermal module. Sol Energy.
2011;85(2):356–70.
71. Petela R. Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation. Sol Energy.
2003;74(6):469–88.
72. Wole-Osho I, Okonkwo EC, Kavaz D, Abbasoglu S. An experi-
mental investigation into the effect of particle mixture ratio on
specific heat capacity and dynamic viscosity of Al2O3-ZnO
hybrid nanofluids. Powder Technol. 2020;363:699–716.
73. Wole-Osho I, Okonkwo EC, Adun H, Kavaz D, Abbasoglu S. An
intelligent approach to predicting the effect of nanoparticle mix-
ture ratio, concentration and temperature on thermal conductivity
of hybrid nanofluids. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2020;29:1–18.
74. Sardarabadi M, Passandideh-Fard M, Zeinali Heris S. Experimen-
tal investigation of the effects of silica/water nanofluid onPV/T
(photovoltaic thermal units). Energy. 2014;66:264–72.
75. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Tsimpoukis D. Thermal, hydraulic and
exergetic evaluation of a parabolic trough collector operating with
thermal oil and molten salt based nanofluids. Energy Convers
Manag. 2018;156:388–402.
76. Ahmadi MH, Ghazvini M, Sadeghzadeh M, Alhuyi Nazari
M, Ghalandari M. Utilization of hybrid nanofluids in solar
energy applications: a review. Nano-Struct Nano-Objects.
2019;20:100386.
77. Brottier L, Brottier L, Bennacer R. Pressure drop in parallel flow
flat-plate PVT collectors. 2017;2:1–11.
78. Purohit N, Jakhar S, Gullo P, Dasgupta MS. Heat transfer and
entropy generation analysis of alumina/water nanofluid in a flat
plate PV/T collector under equal pumping power comparison cri-
terion. Renew Energy. 2018;120:14–22.
79. Crisostomo F, Hjerrild N, Mesgari S, Li Q, Taylor RA. A hybrid
PV/T collector using spectrally selective absorbing nanofluids.
Appl Energy. 2017;193:1–14.
80. Hissouf M, Feddaoui M, Najim M, Charef A. Numerical study of
a covered Photovoltaic-Thermal Collector (PVT) enhancement
using nanofluids. Sol Energy. 2020;199:115–27.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13