Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 5 (2015) 70–78

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

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

Investigations for effect of Al2O3–H2O nanofluid flow rate on

the efficiency of direct absorption solar collector
Hemant Kumar Gupta n, Ghanshyam Das Agrawal, Jyotirmay Mathur
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India

a r t i c l e in f o abstract

Article history: The efficiency of conventional tube‐ in plate type solar collectors is limited due to higher
Received 20 October 2014 heat losses for surface based solar energy absorption and indirect transfer of heat from hot
Received in revised form absorber surface to working fluid having poor heat transfer properties flowing through
24 December 2014
tubes. In this paper, a prototype direct absorption solar collector having gross area 1.4 m2
Accepted 16 January 2015
working on volumetric absorption principle is developed to investigate the effect of using
Available online 17 January 2015
Al2O3–H2O nanofluid as heat transfer fluid at different flow rates. Experimentation was
Keywords: carried using distilled water and 0.005% volume fractions of 20 nm size Al2O3 nano-
Direct absorption solar collector particles at three flow rates of 1.5, 2 and 2.5 lpm. ASHRAE standard 93-86 was followed for
Al2O3–water nanofluid
calculation of instantaneous efficiency of solar collector. Use of nanofluid improves the
Flow rate
optical and thermo physical properties that result into an increase in the efficiency of the
Collector testing
Efficiency enhancement collector in all cases of using nanofluids in place of water. Collector efficiency enhance-
ment of 8.1% and 4.2% has been observed for 1.5 and 2 lpm flow rate of nanofluid re-
spectively. Optimum flow rate of 2.5 and 2 lpm towards maximum collector efficiency
have also been observed for water and nanofluid respectively.
& 2015 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/).

1. Introduction

Solar thermal energy is one of the most popular renewable sources of sustainable energy with least environmental
impact, no requirement of transportation and free availability for every human being all over the world [1–3]. Solar thermal
collector is a widely used system for collection and conversion of solar energy into thermal energy. Among these different
types of solar collectors, the conventional ‘tube in plate’ type flat plate collector absorbs incident solar radiation through a
black solid surface, and transfers heat to working fluid flowing in tubes called risers, brazed onto the surface of the absorber
plate. The efficiency of a solar thermal collector relies on the effectiveness of absorbing incident solar radiant energy and
heat transfer from the absorber to the carrier, which is normally fluid. Due to surface heat absorption and indirect transfer of
heat to working fluid, the conversion of sunlight into thermal energy suffers from relatively low efficiencies [4].
In order to improve the efficiency of solar thermal collector, researchers proposed the concept of directly absorbing the
solar energy within the fluid volume in the 1970s called Direct Absorption Solar Collector (DASC) [5,6]. However, the ef-
ficiency of direct absorption collector is limited by the absorption properties of the conventional working fluid, which is very
poor over the range of wavelength in solar spectrum [7]. In the beginning, black liquids containing millimeter to micrometer
sized particles were also used as working fluid in direct absorption solar collectors to enhance the absorption of solar

n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hemant.rin2001@gmail.com (H.K. Gupta).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2015.01.002
2214-157X/& 2015 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/).
 H.K. Gupta et al. / Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 5 (2015) 70–78 71

radiation that had showed efficiency improvement. The applications of micron-sized particles into the base fluid for DASCs
lead to pipe blockage, erosion, abrasion and poor stability. Particle sedimentation from the suspensions resulted in clogged
channels [5].
Advance material synthesis technologies provide us an opportunity to produce the nano-size materials (nanoparticles),
when suspended in conventional fluids considered as nanofluids [8]. The use of nanofluid has a dramatic improvement on
the liquid thermo physical properties such as thermal conductivity [9,10]. Studies suggested the thermal conductivity en-
hancement due to dispersion of nanoparticles [11], intensification of turbulence [12], Brownian motion [13,14] and ther-
mophoresis [15].
Masuda et al. [16] dispersed Al2O3 and TiO2 nanoparticles in water and found thermal conductivity improvement by 32%
and 11%, respectively. Grimm [17] dispersed aluminum metal particles (1–80 nm) into water and claimed 100% increase in
thermal conductivity of the nanofluid for 0.5–10 wt%. Natarajan and Sathish [18] investigated the thermal conductivity
enhancement of base fluids using carbon nanotube (CNT) and suggested efficiency enhancement of the conventional solar
water heater by using CNT based nanofluids as a heat transport medium. Nanoparticles also offer the potential of improving
the radiative properties of liquids, leading enhanced efficiency of direct absorption solar collectors [19].
Recently Sheikholeslami et al. [20–24] used nanofluid and simulated nanofluid flow and heat transfer by different
methods for different kind of problems to enhance the heat transfer rate.
Yousefi et al. [25] reported the experimental results on a tube in plate type conventional solar collector (size 2 m2) using
Al2O3–H2O nanofluid of 0.2 wt% and 0.4 wt% concentrations for three different mass flow rates and found 28.3% im-
provement in efficiency with 0.2 wt% of nanofluid in comparison to water. Yousefi et al. [26] also examined the effects of
multiwall carbon nanotubes–water nanofluid and observed remarkable efficiency increase with 0.4 wt% nanofluid.
Tyagi et al. [27] numerically studied a direct absorption solar collector using aluminum nanoparticles in water for
performance evaluation and reported efficiency improvement up to 10% than that of a flat-plate collector. Otanicar et al. [28]
experimentally studied the role of different nanofluids as the absorption medium on the efficiency of horizontal micro size
(3 cm
5 cm) direct absorption collector in indoor environment and reported efficiency improvement up to 5%.
Very few studies on the thermal performance evaluation of flat plate solar collector with nanofluids are available. As such
no study on full size (1.4 m2) tilted DASC under actual outdoor condition is available. An attempt has been made in the
present paper, to experimentally study the effect of Al2O3–H2O nanofluid flowing as thin film over the glass absorber plate
as a direct absorbing medium on the efficiency of a tilted direct absorption solar collector under outdoor condition. Effect of
three different nanofluid flow rate i.e. 1.5 lpm, 2 lpm and 2.5 lpm were considered on the DASC efficiency and the collector
performance was also compared with base fluid distilled water.

2. DASC experimental setup

Schematic diagram explaining the working of direct absorption collector is shown in Fig. 1.
An experimental setup of direct absorption solar collector of size 1.54 m
0.9 m (gross area of 1.4 m2) has been devel-
oped as shown in Fig. 2.

2.1. Experimental apparatus and procedure

For experimental study, a setup of DASC was developed and erected at the roof top of Mechanical Engineering De-
partment, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur (26.01° latitude and 75.52° longitudes). The collector was or-
iented due south with a tilt angle of 26°. Photograph of experimental setup (Fig. 2) showing direct absorption collector, two
tanks and instruments used along specification of the collector components used in Table 1. It mainly consists of a glass base
plate (1.5 m long, 0.9 m wide, 0.006 m thick), mounted on a wooden box with inner glass wall on all four sides and equipped

Fig. 1. The schematic of direct absorption solar collector (DASC).

72 H.K. Gupta et al. / Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 5 (2015) 70–78

Fig. 2. Experimental setup of direct absorption solar collector.

Table 1
The specifications of DASC components.

S. no. Component Dimension Remark

1 Collector 1.54 m
0.9 m Gross area¼1.40 m2

2 Absorber 1.44 m
0.80 m Effective area¼ 1.15 m2
3 Transparent cover 6 mm Material toughened glass
4 Base plate 6 mm thick Material toughened glass
5 Collector box inner glass wall 6 mm thick Material -plain glass
6 Film formation system ¾″ Header pipe with 1 mm dia holes-106 no, pitch 1 mm Aluminum pipe
7 Bottom insulation 50 mm thick Glass wool
8 Side insulation 25 mm thick Glass wool
9 Frame 200 mm height Material-M.S.

with a spray system for film formation over the glass base plate. In DASC no tubes are used for carrying fluid and nanofluid
flows directly over the glass plate, which is used in place of black absorber plate. A perforated header pipe (106 holes of
1 mm diameter with 1 mm pitch) is used to obtain a uniform nanofluid film on the glass plate.
Experimental test setup consists of a solar collector, working fluid loop and data acquisition system. The working fluid
loop has two tanks called bottom storage reservoir and upper reservoir. A simple manual globe valve is used to control flow
rate of working fluid and flow rate is measured with the help of electromagnetic digital flow meter (Make-Electronet, range
0–5 lpm, accuracy 71%). A centrifugal pump circulates the collected fluid in the system.
Three J-type thermocouples were installed to measure collector inlet and outlet fluid temperatures and the ambient
temperature. These readings were collected and stored in a computer through a data logger (Make-Agilent, model-34970A,
16 channels). Intensity of total solar radiation was recorded using digital solar meter (Range 1–1300 W/m2, accuracy 75% of
measurement). The experiments were performed at different inlet temperatures of working fluid according to ASHRAE
Standard 93-86 [29].
Before every test run, the experimental test loop was cleaned using distilled water to remove oxides of nanoparticles and
fouling residue that could affect the collector performance.
 H.K. Gupta et al. / Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 5 (2015) 70–78 73

Table 2
Physical properties of Alumina (Al2O3) nanoparticles.

Size of particles 20–30 nm

Shape of particles Spherical particles
Density 3700 kg/m3
Surface area per unit weight 15–20 m2/g
Crystal form Gamma
Al2O3 content 99.99%

2.2. Nanofluid preparation

Preparation of stable nanofluid with uniform dispersion is an important requirement for improving heat transfer per-
formance of conventional fluids and nanofluid needs to be prepared in a systematic and careful manner. Three methods
available for preparation of stable nanofluids are [30].

i. Surfactant addition to the base fluid.

ii. Acid treatment of base fluid.
iii. Ultrasonic mixing of nanopowder in base liquid.

Thermo physical properties of nanofluids are affected with the use of surfactants and acid treatment may cause material
degradation after some days of continuous usage of nanofluids in practical applications. The sonication is an approved
technique for dispersing the aggregated nanoparticles [31,32]. In the present study ultrasonic vibration mixer is used for
preparation of nanofluid with minimum aggregation of nanoparticles and improved dispersion behavior. Dry Al2O3 nano-
particles of 99.99% purity and average size of 20–30 nm (procured from Nanoshel-Intelligent Materials Private Ltd., USA
based company) are used with distilled water as base fluid in nanofluid preparation. Properties of the Al2O3 nanoparticles
used are tabulated in the Table 2.
The quantity of Al2O3 nanoparticles required for preparation of nanofluid of different volume concentrations is calculated
using formula in Eq. (1). A sensitive balance (make-citizen, model-CTG 602 resolution-0.1 mg) is used to weigh the Al2O3
nanoparticles very accurately.

mnp = Vt VFnp ρnp (1)

3
where mnp is the mass of nanoparticles (kg), Vt is the total volume of nanofluid (m ), VFnp is the volume fraction of na-
noparticles and ρnp is the density of nanoparticles (kg/m3).
Ultrasonication was applied for 6–7 h to mix calculated amount of Al2O3 nanoparticles in distilled water using ultrasonic
vibration mixer (Make-Toshniwal, model-UP-600S, power-600 W, frequency-2773 kHz,) as shown in Fig. 3.
The Al2O3 nanofluid thus prepared was kept for observation and no particle settlement was observed at the bottom of
the flask even after twenty four hours. During the experimentation, the time taken to complete the experiment is less than
the time required for first sedimentation to take place and hence surfactants are not mixed in the Al2O3 nanofluids. Four
different volume concentrations of 0.001, 0.005, 0.01, and 0.05% were used in the study.

Fig. 3. Ultrasonic cleaner apparatus for sonication process of Al2O3–water nanofluids.

74 H.K. Gupta et al. / Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 5 (2015) 70–78

3. Testing method

Thermal performance of solar collectors is commonly evaluated using ASHRAE Standard 93-86. Collector thermal per-
formance is calculated by determining collector instantaneous efficiency for different incident solar radiations, ambient
temperatures, and inlet fluid temperatures. Intensity of incident solar radiations as well as useful heat gain by the working
fluid is measured under steady state conditions.

3.1. Time attempt

As per ASHRAE Standard 93-86 steady-state conditions should be maintained during the data period and also during a
specified time interval prior to the data period, called the pre-data period. For attaining steady state conditions the mass
flow rate must be within 71%, irradiation must be within 750 W/m2, the outdoor ambient temperature must not vary
more than 71.5 K, and the inlet temperature must be within 70.1 K for the entire test period.

3.2. Governing equations for efficiency calculation

The experiments were performed at different inlet temperatures of working fluid according to ASHRAE Standard. The
measurements were taken for ambient, inlet & outlet temperature, global solar intensity and the mass flow rate of working
fluid. The useful heat gain by the fluid can be calculated using Eq. (2).
Q u = mC
̇ p (To − Ti ) = A c FR [IT (τα) − UL (Ti − Ta )] (2)

where Q u is the useful heat gain (W), ṁ is the mass flow rate of fluid (kg/min), Cp is the heat capacity of water or nanofluid
(J/kg K), To is the outlet fluid temperature of solar collector (K), Ac is the surface area of solar collector (m2), FR is the heat
removal factor, (τα) is absorptance–transmittance product, IT is the global solar radiation (W/m2), UL is the overall loss
coefficient of solar collector, and Ta is the ambient temperature (K).
The heat capacity of nanofluid is calculated with the help of equation [33].
C p, nf = C p, np (ϕ) + C p, bf (1 − ϕ) (3)

where ϕ indicates the volume fraction of nanoparticles, and C p, np and C p, bf are heat capacities of nanoparticles (773 J/kg K)
and base fluid (4180 J/kg K) respectively. Instantaneous collector efficiency relates the useful heat gain to the incident solar
energy by Eqs. (4) and (5).

Qu mC
̇ p (To − Ti )
ηi = =
A c IT IT (4)

(Ti − Ta )
ηi = FR (τα) − FR UL
IT (5)

If the thermal efficiency test is performed at the normal incidence conditions then FR (τα), and FR UL is constant for the
temperature range of the collector. When the efficiency values obtained from averaged data is plotted against (Ti − Ta/IT ) a
straight line will result according to Eq. (5). Intersection of the line with the vertical efficiency axis equals to absorbed
energy parameter, FR (τα). At this point the temperature of the fluid entering the collector equals the ambient temperature
and collector efficiency is at its maximum. Slope of the line indicates energy loss from the collector that is nominated as
energy loss parameter FR UL . At the intersection of the line with the horizontal axis collector efficiency is zero and designated
as stagnation point, usually occurs when no fluid flows in the collector.

3.3. Experimental uncertainty analysis

As per ASME guidelines, absolute measurements do not exist and errors arise from many sources. Some of the common
sources of error are: Calibration errors, data acquisition errors and data reduction errors. The uncertainty of the experi-
mental results in the present work was determined by following ASME guidelines on reporting uncertainties in experi-
mental measurements based on the deviation in experimental parameters. The major components to uncertainty in

Table 3
Results of uncertainty analysis.

S. no. Parameter Uncertainty (%)

1 Solar intensity 75.6

2 Volumetric flow 71.4
3 Temperature difference 71.7
 H.K. Gupta et al. / Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 5 (2015) 70–78 75

collector efficiency are the inaccuracy in flow rate measurement, temperature measurement and solar radiation intensity
measurement. The results of uncertainty analysis of the measurements including all the sources of errors are presented in
Table 3.
General form of equation for uncertainty analysis is as given below.
n
U y2 = ∑ UX2i
i=1 (6)

where Uy is the total uncertainty of calculated parameter and Uxi is the root sum square of scatter and measuring uncertainty
of each measured parameter.
The combined uncertainty for evaluating collector efficiency, Uη, was obtained by the root sum square method (RSS),
based on Eq. (4) by the following relation.
⎡ ⎤
⎛ Δṁ ⎞2 ⎛ Δ (Tout − Tin ) ⎞
2
⎛ ΔI ⎞2
= ⎢⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟⎥
2
(Uη ) ⎢⎣ ⎝ ṁ ⎠
⎟ + ⎜
⎝ Tout − Tin ⎠ ⎝ I ⎥⎦
⎠
(7)

The maximum uncertainty obtained in the present study in determining the collector efficiency, at various tests was
around 6%.

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Water as working fluid

Experimental tests were performed with distilled water on direct absorption solar collector from 10 AM to the time at
which stagnation point is reached for three flow rates of 1.5, 2 and 2.5 lpm on several days in October 2013. The best data
satisfying conditions of ASHRAE standard have been taken. Fig. 4 shows the variation of collector efficiency versus the
reduced temperature parameters, (ṁ Ti Ta)/IT, for each flow rate. The experimental data are best fitted with linear equations
to provide the performance characteristic parameters of the collector for different flow rates. The efficiency parameters, FRUL
and FR(τα), at each flow rate are presented in the Table 4.
It is observed from Fig. 4 that the collector maximum efficiency (Ti ¼Ta) increases 7.2%, when the flow rate is increased
from 1.5 lpm to 2 lpm, while increasing the flow rate to 2.5 lpm causes the maximum efficiency to increase only 0.9%.
Table 3 shows that the energy loss parameter FRUL is the minimum for 2.5 lpm flow rate. So, the efficiency of the collector is
the highest at optimum value of 2.5 lpm flow rate.
It can also be seen from Fig. 4 that the efficiency of solar collector increases with increasing the flow rate. These results
show that by increasing the Reynolds number the efficiency is increased.

4.2. Al2O3–water as working fluid-effect of flow rates

Al2O3 nanoparticles are mixed in base fluid distilled water to get nanofluid of 0.005 volume fraction concentration and
investigations are performed to determine the effect of different flow rates at 1.5, 2 and 2.5 lpm. Nanofluid is collected in the
bottom tank and then pumped to overhead tank. At each flow rate experiments with several test periods at different inlet
fluid temperature in quasi steady state conditions were conducted from 10.00 AM to time when stagnation temperature is
achieved on a day. The experimental results are plotted as shown in Fig. 5. The efficiency parameters FR(τα) and FRUL of
collector for three flow rate of Al2O3 nanofluid are presented in Table 5.
Fig. 5 shows that the collector efficiency lines for 2 and 2.5 lpm intersect each other at reduced temperature value of

Fig. 4. Efficiency versus (Ti  Ta)/IT curve at three flow rates for water.
76 H.K. Gupta et al. / Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 5 (2015) 70–78

Table 4
Collector efficiency parameters at three flow rates for water as working fluid.

S. no. Flow rate (lpm) FRUL FR(τα) R2

1 1.5 11.197 0.4926 0.9817

2 2 11.56 0.528 0.968
3 2.5 9.9727 0.5326 0.9557

Fig. 5. Efficiency versus (Ti  Ta)/IT curve at three flow rates for Al2O3–water nanofluid.

Table 5
Collector efficiency parameters for Al2O3–water nanofluid.

S. no. Flow rate (lpm) FRUL FR(τα) R2

1 1.5 10.903 0.5455 0.9349

2 2 15.663 0.7372 0.982
3 2.5 9.4418 0.5322 0.925

0.035. For low temperature range, (Ti  Ta)/IT o0.035, the collector efficiency is greater at 2 lpm due to higher value of
absorbed energy parameter. However for high temperature range, (Ti  Ta)/IT 40.035, the collector efficiency is greater at
2.5 lpm due to reduced heat losses. As collector is operated most of the time in the low temperature range hence, 2 lpm flow
rate is observed as an optimum value of the flow rate for maximum collector efficiency.
At very low flow rates, the fluid residence time in the collector was high so greater absorption of solar energy allowing
more temperature rise. But emission of radiation from the fluid scales with the fourth power of temperature, the fluid
suffered higher emissive losses at lower velocities, which resulted in smaller collector efficiencies. Thus, the heat transfer
rate is influenced by these two parameters.
At higher velocities, though, the temperature rise in the fluid itself was small, but this resulted in a progressively weaker
effect of emissive losses hence, collector efficiencies were seen to be independent of flow rates at higher values.
Figs. 6, 7 and 8 present the relative effect of water and nanofluid on the collector efficiency for 1.5, 2 and 2.5 lpm flow rate
respectively. It is seen that for all the considered flow rates, the collector efficiency using nanofluid is higher than using
water. Efficiency can be estimated by comparing the values of absorbed energy and heat loss parameters in Tables 4 and 5.
Collector efficiency value for 1.5 and 2 lpm flow rates in the case of Al2O3 nanofluid are higher than that of water up to 8.1%
and 4.2% respectively and for 2.5 lpm efficiency is almost same. As the flow rate increase from 1.5 lpm to 2.5 lpm, the
collector efficiency enhancement with nanofluid decreases due to the less residence time for fluid in the collector at higher
flow rates resulting negligible effect of nanofluid at higher flow rate in direct absorption solar collector.

y = -11.197x + 0.4926
R² = 0.9902
η→

(Ti -Ta)/IT (m2K/W) →

Fig. 6. Efficiency versus (Ti  Ta)/IT curve at 1.5 lpm flow rate for water and nanofluid.
 H.K. Gupta et al. / Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 5 (2015) 70–78 77

y = -11.561x + 0.528 y = -15.67x + 0.7374

R² = 0.9796 R² = 0.9888

η→

(Ti -Ta)/IT (m2K/W) →

Fig. 7. Efficiency versus (Ti  Ta)/IT curve at 2 lpm flow rate for water and nanofluid.

y = -9.9734x + 0.5326
R² = 0.9813
y = -9.4831x + 0.533
R² = 0.9682
η→

(Ti -Ta)/IT (m2K/W) →

Fig. 8. Efficiency versus (Ti  Ta)/IT curve at 2.5 lpm flow rate for water and nanofluid.

Fig. 9 shows the comparison of efficiency at optimum flow rate for water (2.5 lpm) and nanofluid (2 lpm). It is seen that
efficiency lines intersect each other. For low temperature range (operating range of collector), collector efficiency using
nanofluid is higher due to higher absorbed energy parameter.
Adding solid nanosize particles to base fluid at such small volume concentration has many advantages (compared with
pure water) other than the improved thermo physical properties of fluid such as thermal conductivity and heat transfer
coefficient, which is responsible for high efficiency. Nanoparticles mass migration phenomenon in the nanofluid working
media enhances the heat transfer enhancement. Mixing of a small amount of nanoparticles to the base fluid also makes the
clear fluid water completely opaque to the naked eye, improving the absorptivity hence extinction coefficient of nanofluid
than pure water (optical properties) as well as enlarge heat transfer surface area and much larger absorption efficiency in
comparison to the scattering efficiency due to very tiny size particles, all together increase the efficiency of direct-absorption
solar collectors, and the indicated experimental results are well justified.

5. Conclusion

The effect of using Al2O3–water nanofluid on the direct absorption solar collector efficiency with three different flow
rates 1.5, 2, 2.5 lpm have been studied experimentally. The volume fraction of nanoparticles has been selected as 0.005%. The
collector efficiency increased with nanofluid than pure water for all flow rates. Collector efficiency enhancement of 8.1% and
4.2% has been observed for 1.5 and 2 lpm flow rate of nanofluid respectively. The experimental results prove that the

y = -9.9734x + 0.5326
R² = 0.9813 y = -15.67x + 0.7374
R² = 0.9888
η→

(Ti -Ta)/IT (m2K/W) →

Fig. 9. Efficiency versus (Ti  Ta)/IT curve at optimum flow rate for water and nanofluid.
78 H.K. Gupta et al. / Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 5 (2015) 70–78

optimum flow rate for maximum collector efficiency occurs at different flow rate for water and nanofluid i.e. 2.5 and 2 lpm
respectively in this study.
Significant enhancement in solar radiation absorption and collector efficiency makes nano-fluids as a suitable heat
transfer fluid for solar thermal applications and can also be used in solar collectors for effectively capturing and transporting
thermal energy.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the Department of Science & Technology, India for supporting fund (Project no.
075370015) under the program of Solar Energy Research Initiatives (SERI) Project. The authors would like to thank the
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, for supporting testing facilities.

References

[1] J. Fong, Z. Alwan, Modelling to predict future energy performance of solar thermal cooling systems for building applications in the North East of
England, Appl. Therm. Eng. 57 (2013) 81–89.
[2] H. Ghaebi, M.N. Bahadori, M.H. Saidi, Performance analysis and parametric study of thermal energy storage in an aquifer coupled with a heat pump
and solar collectors, for a residential complex in Tehran, Iran, Appl. Therm. Eng. 62 (2014) 156–170.
[3] I. Ben Hassine, U. Eicker, Impact of load structure variation and solar thermal energy integration on an existing district heating network, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 50 (2013) 1437–1446.
[4] J.E. Pacheco, Demonstration of solar-generated electricity on demand: the solar two project, J. Sol. Energy Eng. Trans. ASME, 123, , 2001, 5.
[5] J.E. Minardi, H.N. Chunag, Performance of a black liquid flat-plate solar collector, Sol. Energy 17 (1975) 179–183.
[6] R. Bertocchi, J. Karni, A. Kribus, Experimental evaluation of a non-isothermal high temperature solar particle receiver, Energy 29 (2004) 687–700.
[7] T.P. Otanicar, P.E. Phelan, J.S. Golden, Optical properties of liquids for direct absorption solar thermal energy systems, Sol. Energy 83 (7) (2009)
969–977.
[8] S. Ferrouillat, A. Bontemps, O. Poncelet, O. Soriano, J.A. Gruss, Influence of nanoparticle shape factor on convective heat transfer and energetic
performance of water-based SiO2 and ZnO nanofluids, Appl. Therm. Eng. 51 (2013) 839–851.
[9] S.M. Peyghambarzadeh, S.H. Hashemabadi, M. Naraki, Y. Vermahmoudi, Experimental study of overall heat transfer coefficient in the application of
dilute nanofluids in the car radiator, Appl. Therm. Eng. 52 (2013) 8–16.
[10] M. Kole, T.K. Dey, Thermal performance of screen mesh wick heat pipes using water-based copper nanofluids, Appl. Therm. Eng. 50 (2013) 763–770.
[11] X.Q. Wang, A.S. Majumdar, Heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids, a review, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 46 (1) (2007).
[12] B.C. Pak, I.Y. Cho, Hydrodynamic and heat transfer study of dispersed fluids with sub-micron metallic oxide particles, Exp. Heat Transfer 11 (1998)
151–170.
[13] Y. Xuan, Q. Li, Heat transfer enhancement of nanofluids, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 21 (1) (2000) 58–64.
[14] P. Keblinski, S.R. Phillpot, S.U.S. Choi, J.A. Eastman, Mechanisms of heat flow in suspensions of nano-sized particles (nanofluids), Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 45 (4) (2002) 855–863.
[15] J. Koo, C. Kleinstreuer, Impact analysis of nanoparticle motion mechanisms on the thermal conductivity of nanofluids, Int. Commun. Heat Mass
Transfer 32 (9) (2005) 1111–1118.
[16] H. Masuda, A. Ebata, K. Teramae, N. Hishinuma, Alteration of thermal conductivity and viscosity of liquid by dispersing ultra-fine particles (dispersion
of g-Al2O3, SiO2 and TiO2 ultra-fine particles), Netsu Bussei (Jpn.) 7 (1993) 227–233.
[17] A. Grimm, Powdered aluminum-containing heat transfer fluids, German Patent DE 4131516 A1, 1993.
[18] Natarajan E., Sathish R. Role of nanofluids in solar water heater. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.; 2009. 10.1007/s00170-008-1876-8.
[19] L.J. Mu, Q.Z. Zhu, L.L. Si: Radiative properties of nanofluids and performance of a direct solar absorber using nanofluids, in: Proceedings of the 2nd
ASME Micro/Nanoscale Heat & Mass Transfer International Conference, vol. 1, 2010, pp. 549–553.
[20] M. Sheikholeslami, D.D. Ganji, M.M. Rashidi. Ferrofluid flow and heat transfer in a semi annulus enclosure in the presence of magnetic source
considering thermal radiation, J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. (2014).
[21] M. Sheikholeslami, D.D. Ganji, Nanofluid flow and heat transfer between parallel plates considering Brownian motion using DTM, Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng. 283 (2015) 651–663.
[22] M. Sheikholeslami, M. Hatami, G. Domairry, Numerical simulation of two phase unsteady nanofluid flow and heat transfer between parallel plates in
presence of time dependent magnetic field, J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 46 (2015) 43–50.
[23] M. Sheikholeslami., KKL correlation for simulation of nanofluid flow and heat transfer in a permeable channel, Phys. Lett. A 378 (2014) 3331–3339.
[24] M. Sheikholeslami, Effect of spatially variable magnetic field on ferrofluid flow and heat transfer considering constant heat flux boundary condition,
Eur. Phys. J. Plus 129 (2014) 248.
[25] T. Yousefi, F. Veysi, E. Shojaeizadeh, S. Zinadini, An experimental investigation on the effect of Al2O3–H2O nanofluid on the efficiency of flat-plate solar
collectors, Renew. Energy 39 (2012) 293–298.
[26] T. Yousefi, F. Veisy, E. Shojaeizadeh, S. Zinadini, An experimental investigation on the effect of MWCNT–H2O nanofluid on the efficiency of flat-plate
solar collectors, Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 39 (2012) 207–212.
[27] H. Tyagi, P. Phelan, R. Prasher, Predicted efficiency of a low-temperature nanofluid-based direct absorption solar collector, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 131 (4)
(2009) 1–7.
[28] T.P. Otanicar, P.E. Phelan, R.S. Prasher, G. Rosengarten, R.A. Taylor, Nanofluid based direct absorption solar collector, J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2
(033102) (2010) 1–13.
[29] ASHRAE Standard 86-93. Methods of Testing to Determine the Thermal Performance of Solar Collectors Atlanta, GA, USA, 1986.
[30] V. Trisaksri, S. Wongwises, Critical review of heat transfer characteristics of nanofluids, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 11 (2007) 512–523.
[31] J. Liu, A.G. Rinzler, H.J. Dai, J.H. Hafner, R.K. Bradley, P.J. Boul, et al., Fullerene pipes, Science (1998)1253e6.
[32] X.F. Li, D.S. Zhu, X.J. Wang, Evaluation on dispersion behavior of the aqueous copper nano suspensions, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 310 (2007) 456e63.
[33] X. Zhang, H. Gu, M. Fujii, Effective thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of nanofluids containing spherical and cylindrical nanoparticles, J.
Appl. Phys. 100 (2006) 044325.