Renewable Energy 71 (2014) 658e664

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

An experimental study on the effect of Cu-synthesized/EG nanofluid

on the efficiency of flat-plate solar collectors
Amirhossein Zamzamian*, Mansoor KeyanpourRad, Maryam KianiNeyestani,
Milad Tajik Jamal-Abad
Solar Energy Group, Energy Department, Materials and Energy Research Center(MERC), Karaj, Iran

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

Article history: An experimental study performed to investigate the effect of Cu nanoparticle on the efficiency of a flat-
Received 2 June 2013 plate solar collector. The weight fractions of the nanoparticles tested in this study having average
Accepted 4 June 2014 diameter of 10 nm, were 0.2% and 0.3% of the nanofluid. A one-step method was used to prepare copper
Available online 6 July 2014
nanofluid from reduction of CuSO4$5H2O with NaH2PO2$H2O in ethylene glycol as the solvent. The ex-
periments were performed in different volume flow rates of the nanofluid from 0.016 to 0.050 kg/s and
Keywords:
the standard of ASHRAE 93 was used to test the solar collector's performance. It was found that by
Cu/EG nanofluid
increasing the nanoparticle weight fraction, the efficiency of the collector was improved. Also, the lowest
Flat-plate solar thermal collector
Thermal efficiency
removed energy parameter could be reached by using 0.3 wt% Cu/EG nanofluid at 1.5 Lit/min and the
Thermal conductivity highest absorbed energy parameter was achieved under the same conditions.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Numerous researchers have investigated better ways to enhance

Recently, many studies have been conducted on the efficiency of
flat-plate collector. Flat-plate collectors can be either glazed or
unglazed and either air or liquids can be used as heat transporting
fluids. Either a sheet-and-tube plate [1] or a channel plate [2] can be
used to transfer the heat from the cells towards the fluid. So €zen
et al. [3] developed a new formula based on artificial neural
network (ANN) technique to determine the efficiency of flat-plate
solar collectors. There are so many ways to increase the efficiency
of solar water heaters [4e7]. But the new approach is to introduce
the nanofluids in solar water heater instead of conventional heat
transfer fluids (like water). The poor heat transfer properties of
such conventional fluids compared to most solids are the primary
obstacle to the high compactness and effectiveness of the system.
Prasad et al. [8] illustrated that the use of solar tracking in flat plate
collectors can achieve 21% higher thermal efficiency.Y. Deng et al.
[9] investigated performance of a novel flat plate solar collector
with micro-channel heat pipe array (MHPA-FPC). They found that,
the novel MHPA-FPC is one of the top level solar collectors among
the current products and the maximum efficiency was found to be
80%.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: azamzamian@merc.ac.ir, AZAMZAMIAN@HOTMAIL.COM
(A. Zamzamian).
the thermal performance of heat transfer fluids. One of the
methods used is to add nano-sized particles of highly thermal
conductive materials like carbon, metal, metal oxides into the heat
transfer fluid to improve the overall thermal conductivity of the
fluid. Xuan and Li and Yu et al. [10,11] have demonstrated that the
heat transfer properties of transformer oil can be improved by
using nanoparticle additives. Zamzamian et al. [12] investigated the
force convective heat transfer coefficient of Al2O3-EG and CuO-EG
nanofluids in a double pipe and plate heat exchangers under tur-
bulent flow. They found that convective heat transfer coefficient of
the nanofluid increased with increasing concentration of the
nanofluids and also with the temperature. The heat transfer coef-
ficient and friction factor of the Alewater and Cuewater nanofluids
flowing in a spiral coil in the laminar flow regime was investigated
by M.T Jamal-Abad et al. [13]. They found that, the Nusselt number
increases by enhancing the De number and nanofluids concentra-
tion and Nusselt number oscillations can be seen for different
nanofluids which are caused by the secondary flow. Also, applying
spiral coil is more effective than using nanofluid to enhance the
convection heat transfer coefficient. Using various nanofluids as the
working fluid in the collector has been demonstrated by Otanicar
et al. [14] and observed that nanofluid could improve the perfor-
mance of the collector. Effect of Al2O3/water nanofluid, as working
fluid, on the efficiency of a flat-plate solar collector was investi-
gated experimentally by Yousefi et al. [15]. The results showed that,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.06.003
0960-1481/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Zamzamian et al. / Renewable Energy 71 (2014) 658e664
Nomenclature
Aa surface area of solar collector (m2)
Cp heat capacity (J/kg K)
Cp,bf hHeat capacity of base fluid (water)(J/kg K)
Cp,np heat capacity of nanoparticles (Al2O3)(J/kg K)
Cp,nf heat capacity of nanofluid (J/kg K)
FR heat removal factor
Gt global solar radiation (W/m2)
m_ volume flow rate of fluid flow (Lit/s)
Qu rate of useful energy gained (W)
t tTime(s)
Tamb ambient temperature (K)
Ti inlet fluid temperature of solar collector (K)
To outlet fluid temperature of solar collector (K)
using the nanofluids as working fluid increased the efficiency of the
collector. Yousefi et al. [16] has studied experimentally the effect of
MWCNT/water nanofluids on the efficiency of the flat-plate solar
collectors. They found that the efficiency improved in solar thermal
collectors by utilizing the nanofluids as the working fluid and a
proper surfactant. The review of the nanofluids' applications in
solar thermal engineering systems was investigated by Mahian
et al. [17] and the effects of nanofluids on the performance of solar
collectors and solar water heaters from the efficiency, economic
and environmental considerations were studied. Moreover, they
proposed some suggestions for using the nanofluid in different
solar thermal systems such as photovoltaic/thermal systems, solar
ponds, and solar thermoelectric cells. A combined modeling and
experimental study to optimize the efficiency of liquid-based solar
receivers seeded with carbon-coated absorbing nanoparticles was
presented by Lenert et al. [18]. They found that the efficiency of
nanofluid volumetric receivers increases with increasing solar
concentration and nanofluid height. The potential to design a
smaller solar collector that can produce the same desired output
temperature by using nanofluid instead of working fluid was esti-
mated by Faizal et al. [19]. Some parameters such as efficiency, size
reduction, cost and embodied energy savings were calculated for
various nanofluids and they estimated that 10,239 kg, 8625 kg,
8857 kg and 8618 kg total weight for 1000 units of solar collectors
could be saved for CuO, SiO2, TiO2 and Al2O3 nanofluid respectively
and also the average value of 220 MJ embodied energy could be
saved for each collector. Experimental investigation of the ther-
mophysical properties of Al2O3-nanofluid was studied by Said et al.
[20]. They found that water based alumina nanofluids more pref-
erable against sedimentation and aggregation than ethylene glycol/
water mixture based nanofluids. The measured thermal conduc-
tivities of both types of the nanofluids increased almost linearly
with concentration. The measured viscosities of the Al2O3ewater
nanofluids showed a non-linear relation with concentration even in
the low volume concentration while Al2O3eEG/water mixture
exhibited Newtonian behavior. Results showed that nanofluids
could be used as a working medium with a negligible effect of
enhanced viscosity and the pressure drop of the nanofluid flows
were very close to that of the base liquid for low volume concen-
tration. The heat transfer performance and entropy generation of
forced convection through a direct absorption solar collector was
investigated by Parvin et al. [21]. They used Cuewater nanofluid as
the working fluid. The results provided a useful source of reference
for enhancing the forced convection heat transfer performance,
while simultaneously reducing the entropy generation and
659
To,I collector outlet initial fluid temperature
To,s collector outlet fluid temperature after time t
UL overall loss coefficient of solar collector (W/m2 K)
Greek symbols
mnf nanofluid viscosity
mw nanoparticles viscosity
rnf nanofluid density
rs base fluid density
rw nanoparticles density
ta absorptanceetransmittance product
t time constant of solar collector (min)
h instantaneous collector efficiency
4 weight fraction of nanoparticles in nanofluid
illustrate that both the mean Nusselt number and entropy gener-
ation increased as the volume fraction of Cu nanoparticles
increased.
In this study, we report the performance of a thermal collector
by using synthesized Cu nanoparticles/ethylene glycol as the
nanofluid. Comparing with previous works in similar subjects, new
method for producing one-step metal nanofluid was used. More-
over the base fluid was chosen to be ethylene glycol instead of pure
water. The base fluid, size of the nanoparticles which was chosen to
be a metal nanoparticle are considered to be the innovations in this
work. Likewise, a specific flat collector was built for charging it with
the working fluid.
The results were then compared to that of the system when
ethylene glycol was used as the working fluid in the collector. At
last, the mechanisms for enhancement of the solar collector effi-
ciency were discussed.
2. Experimental setup and procedure
2.1. Experimental setup
The experimental work involved experiments conducted on the
rig equipped with two types of working fluids, namely ethylene
glycol and the nanofluid. The panel of the collector was fabricated 4
sections consisting of the pipes with 0.96 m long which were
attached to the fins. The four sections of the panel consist of pipes
(radius of 10 mm) and fins (110 mm in width) fully made of copper,
as shown in Fig. 1. The inside surface of the panel was black painted
for maximum absorption of solar energy. The collector panel was
Fig. 1. Flat-plate solar collector.
660 A. Zamzamian et al. / Renewable Energy 71 (2014) 658e664

placed in aluminum boxes with fiber glass insulation beneath. Two Table 2
PT100 type thermocouples were inserted into the flow at the inlet Required environmental conditions (ASHRAE 93).

and exit of the test section to measure the bulk temperatures of the Variable Absolute limits
nanofluids. Also a portable thermocouple used to measure the Total solar irradiance 790 (minimum)
ambient temperature. All thermocouples were calibrated and the normal to sun (W/m2)
error of deviation at measuring temperatures was around 0.05
C. Diffuse fraction (%) 20 (maximum)
The flow rate of the fluid in the panels was determined using a flow Wind speed, u (m/s) 2.2 < u < 4.5
Incidence angle modifier 98% < normal incidence value < 102%
meter which was mounted just after the valves in a vertical posi-
tion. The manufacturer of this product also advised that correct
measurement would be possible if the pipe is full and the
Table 3
maximum measured error would be ±0.5%. The level of the heat
Maximum variation of key variables (ASHRAE 93).
flux was measured using a Solar Power Meter TES-1333R and the
temperature values were recorded using a data logger. Also a cir- Variable Maximum variation
culatory pump mounted at the immediate outlet of the tank which Total solar irradiance ±32
continuously circulates the ethylene glycol from the outlet and back normal to surface (W/m2)
into the inlet. The detailed specifications of the data for the solar Ambient temperature (K) ±1.5
Volume flow rate The greater of ±2% or ±0.005 (gpm)
collector are listed in Table 1. Inlet temperature The greater of ±2% or 1 (K)
The ASHRAE 93 [22] was used for evaluating the testing solar
collector. The specific environmental conditions required by the
ASHRAE 93 in performing the thermal efficiency test are listed in
of the nanofluid (0.2% and 0.3% weight fraction) were prepared for
Table 2. The application efficiency equation requires that steady-
the tests.
state conditions should be maintained during the testing period.
Table 3 lists the allowed maximum variation of key variables that
define a steady-state condition in accordance to ASHRAE 93. After 2.3. Efficiency calculations and analysis
reaching steady state conditions, the data for each the experiment
are averaged and used in the analysis as a single point while other ASHRAE Standard suggests performing the tests in various inlet
data were rejected. temperatures. The theory of flat-plate solar collectors is well
These two conditions are checked throughout the test period. established and can be found in the basic literatures [24e26]. The
The difference between the maximum and minimum solar irradi- collector performance test is performed under steady e state
ance upon the collector plane must be less than 64 W/m2 during condition, including steady radiation energy falling on the collector
any 20 min interval within the test period. For the fixed test mount surface, steady fluid flow rate, constant wide speed and ambient
measurements must be taken symmetric to solar noon according to temperature. It should be pointed out that a constant outlet fluid
ASHRAE 93 further reducing the number of test days. Closed loop temperature from the collector should be maintained. In this case,
collector test rings, are shown in Fig. 2. the useful energy gain from the collector is calculated from the
following equation:

2.2. Preparation of Cu/EG nanofluids _ p ðTo  Ti Þ

25 ml ethylene glycol solution (0.1 M) of copper sulfate penta-
hydrate (CuSO4$5H2O) was mixed with 5 ml of ethylene glycol
solution (0.01 M) of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP-K30), followed by
magnetic stirring with 300 rpm for 40 min. Then 25 ml of ethylene
glycol solution (0.25 M) of sodium hypophosphite (NaH2PO2$H2O)
was added and stirred for another 15 min. It was then heated at
120
C for 20 min [23]. The color of the reduction mixture changed
from blue to dark red, which was the sign of formation of the
copper nanoparticles .The suspension was cooled to the ambient
temperature and the nanoparticles were collected by centrifuge.
Furthermore, it was observed that Cu/EG nanofluids were well
dispersed and deposited only in small amount after being allowed
to stand for two weeks.
The thermal conductivity of nanofluids is measured with the aid
of a KD2-pro thermal property meter. It works on the basis of
transient hot wire method. Likewise, two different concentrations
Qu ¼ mC (1)
The useful energy collector from a solar collector is given by
Qu ¼ Aa FR ½Gt ðtaÞ  UL ðTi  Tamb Þ (2)
where Qu is the rate of useful energy gained, m _ is the volume flow
rate of fluid flow, Cp is the heat capacity of water or nanofluid, To
and Ti are the outlet and inlet fluid temperature of solar collector,
respectively. Also Ac denotes in this equation, the surface area of the
solar collector, FR is the heat removal factor, (ta)n absorptancee-
transmittance product, Gt is the global solar radiation, UL is the
overall loss coefficient of solar collector, and Ta is the ambient
temperature.

Table 1
Specification for solar collector.

Collector length (m) 1

Collector width (m) 0.67
Plate type Flat plate
Absorber material Black steel
Cover material Ordinary clear glass
Number of cover 1
Insulation material Fiber glass, k ¼ 0.045 W/m K
Collector tilt angle (degree) 35
Fig. 2. Schematic of closed loop test system for solar collector.
 A. Zamzamian et al. / Renewable Energy 71 (2014) 658e664 661

Moreover the thermal efficiency is obtained by dividing Qu by

the energy input as in Equation 3
 
Ti  Tamb
h ¼ FR ðtaÞn  FR UL (3)
Gt
Therefore, the term (ta)n is used in Equations (2) and (3) to
denote normal transmittance absorptance. On the other hand
thermal efficiency was calculated by experimental data according
Equation 4

_ p ðTo  Ti Þ
mC
h¼ (4)
Aa Gt
For a collector operating under steady irradiation and fluid flow
rate, the factors FR, (ta)n and UL are nearly constant. If the effi-
ciencies are plotted against Ti  Tamb/Gt, a straight line will result.
The intercept (intersection of the line with the vertical efficiency
axis) equals the FR(ta)n and slop of the line equals the FRUL. This
slop indicates that how much of energy has removed from the solar
collector and the intercept illustrates that maximum collector ef- Fig. 3. TEM image of Cu nanoparticles.

ficiency where the temperature of the fluid entering the collector

equals the ambient temperature.
of the line with vertical axis, where Ti ¼ Ta denotes that the collector
The physical and thermal properties such as density, viscosity
efficiency is at maximum value. At the intersection of the line with
and specific heat of the nanofluid are calculated using different
the horizontal axis, collector efficiency is zero. This condition il-
Equations (5)e(7) at the mean bulk temperature presented in the
lustrates a low radiation level or high temperature of the fluid
literature [27e30].
circulating inside the collector. Each test was performed in several
rnf ¼ frs þ ð1  fÞrf (5) days and repeated three times. The overall standard deviation of
the results was about 7%. Fig. 6 shows the average of the results of
the tests recorded for ethylene glycol base fluid at 1.5 Lit/min in
mnf ¼ mf ð1 þ 2:5Þf (6) single test. All the tests were performed around the solar noon
between 10:30 and 14:30. Fig. 7 presents the variations of collector

 
f rs Cps þ ð1  fÞ rf Cpf efficiency versus the reduced temperature parameters, (Ti e Ta)/Gt,
Cpnf ¼ (7) for the volume flow rates of 0.5, 1, and 1.5 Lit/min. It is noticed from
rnf Fig. 7 that the solar collector efficiency decreases when volume
flow rate decreases from 1 to 1.5 Lit/min to 0.5 Lit/min. In order to
wWhere, Cp is the specific heat of the nanofluid, 4 is the wieght
concentration, mnf is the viscosity of the nanofluid and rnf is the
effective density of nanofluid. Subsacripts w, s, and nf refer to the
base fluid, the nanoparticles, and the nanofluid, respectively.

3. Results and discussion

The effect of the nanofluid on the performance of the flat-plate

solar collector was investigated, using two different concentrations
of the nanofluid (0.2% and 0.3% weight fraction).
Transmission electron microscope (TEM) image of the Cu
nanoparticles is shown in Fig. 3, indicating that the product consists
of spherical particles with the diameter size of about 20 nm. The
XRD (Siemens-D500) pattern of a typical sample is shown in Fig. 4.
The XRD showed the related specific peaks of Cu between 40
C and
50
C.
The thermal conductivity of Cu/EG nanofluids in different tem-
peratures and particle weight fractions has been shown in Fig. 5.
The results illustrate that the thermal conductivity of the nano-
fluids considerably increases with increasing nanofluid tempera-
ture and particle weight fraction; however there is a slight increase
with increasing weight fraction from 0.3% to 0.6% at 35
C .Thermal
conductivities of Cu/EG nanofluids are larger than that of pure
ethylene glycol (0.256 W/m K). For example, it reaches to 0.263 (W/
m K) for 0.6% weight fraction at 30
C.
Experimental data on collector heat delivery at various tem-
peratures and solar conditions are plotted with efficiency as the
vertical axis and x ¼ Ti  Tamb/Gt as the horizontal axis. The best
straight line through the data points correlates the collector per-
formance with solar and temperature conditions. The intersection Fig. 4. XRD analysis of Cu nanoparticles.
662 A. Zamzamian et al. / Renewable Energy 71 (2014) 658e664
Fig. 5. Thermal conductivity of the Cu/EG nanofluids.
Fig. 6. Experimental curve for 1 day.
compare the effect of various volume flow rates on the collector
efficiency, the characteristic parameters of the flat collector should
be calculated. The efficiency parameters, FRUL and FR(ta)n at each
volume flow rate are demonstrated in Table 4. The highest FR(ta)n
value obtained for 1 Lit/min and FRUL value in this volume flow rate
was 14.47. Meanwhile, the FRUL value of the collector for 1.5 Lit/min
was the lowest. Based on the Equation (3), the FR(ta)n is dominant
parameter in small temperature differences, and FRUL is dominant
Fig. 7. Variations of collector efficiency versus the reduced temperature.
Table 4
The efficiency parameters at different volume flow rate.
Volume flow FRUL FR(ta)n R2
rate (Lit/min)
0.5 18.47 0.621 0.978
1 14.47 0.680 0.975
1.5 8.3 0.652 0.970
parameter in higher temperature differences. The value of FR(ta)n
for 1 Lit/min is greater than that for 1.5 Lit/min in lower tempera-
ture differences. Therefore, based on Equation (3), the efficiency for
1 Lit/min is approximately greater than for 1.5 Lit/min in this range.
In higher temperature differences, the value of FRUL for 1.5 Lit/min
is smaller than that 1 Lit/min so, the efficiency of the collector in
this range for 1.5 Lit/min is greater than that for 1 Lit/min. Fig. 8
demonstrates that present of the nanofluids have enhancement
effect on the efficiency of the collector. For 0.3% weight fraction of
the nanofluid, efficiency reaches to 0.81, while it drops to 0.69 for
0.2% Cu/EG nanofluid, which indicates that the efficiency of the flat-
plate solar collector increases with Cu/EG nanofluid concentration.
The data listed in Table 5 compares the efficiency parameters, FRUL
and FR(ta)n, for Cu/EG nanofluids and base fluid for volume flow
rate of 0.5 Lit/min.
The removed energy parameter, FRUL values for 0.3 wt% Cu/EG
nanofluid was the lowest and the absorbed energy parameter
FR(ta)n, was the highest. This shows that, the efficiency of solar
collector for concentration of 0.3 wt% Cu/EG nanofluid was the
highest. For 0.2% weight fraction of Cu/EG nanofluid, the removed
energy parameter and the absorbed energy parameter were 13.28
and 0.732, respectively, which caused the efficiency of the solar
collector became greater than the base fluid.
Ding et al. [31] provided that the local heat transfer coefficient,
h, can be approximately given as k/dt which k and dt are thermal
conductivity and the thickness of thermal boundary layer, respec-
tively. It is clear that, increasing of the fluid thermal conductivity
and decreasing of thermal boundary layer thickness cause the heat
transfer coefficient to increase. For nanofluids, thermal conductiv-
ities increase with an increase in the nanofluid concentrations, and
thermal boundary layer thickness decreases, because of particles
migration and reduction of viscosity at the wall region. Figs. 9 and
10 show that how the parameters of absorbed energy and removed
energy parameter of the solar collector vary with nanofluid con-
centration. Fig. 9 shows that using the nanofluid increased the
absorbed energy parameter of the solar collector. For volume flow
rate of 1.5 Lit/min, this parameter was the highest. Fig. 10 shows
Fig. 8. Variations of collector efficiency versus the reduced temperature for nanofluids.
 A. Zamzamian et al. / Renewable Energy 71 (2014) 658e664
Table 5
The efficiency parameters for nanofluid.
Base fluid type FRUL FR(ta)n
EG 18.47 0.621
Cu/EG nanofluid (0.2%) 13.28 0.732
Cu/EG nanofluid (0.3%) 10.13 0.821
Fig. 9. The absorbed energy parameter of the flat plate solar collector with various
concentrations.
that the removed energy parameter, FRUL with increasing concen-
trations decreases slightly for all volume flow rates. For example,
the removed energy parameter reaches 3.6 from 8.3 in 1.5 Lit/min.
39% and 45% decrease can be seen for 1 Lit/min and 0.5 Lit/min.
According to Figs. 9 and 10, the lowest removed energy parameter
can be reached for 0.3 wt% Cu/EG nanofluid at 1.5 Lit/min and the
highest absorbed energy parameter was achieved in this condition.
Therefore, based on the Equation (3) the efficiency of the solar
collector in this volume flow rate and concentration was maximum
which should be denoted that the optimum point for solar collector
efficiency. It can be seen from Figs. 9 and 10 that the efficiency of
solar collector increases with increasing the volume flow rate.
These results show that by increasing the Reynolds number the
efficiency is increased. It is worth noting that Reynolds numbers is
defined Re ¼ ruD/m that r is density, m viscosity and, u is velocity of
the fluid. Also, D is the geometric parameter. It is clear that Rey-
nolds number for different nanofluids (working fluids) is different
because of different properties of nanofluids (density and
viscosity).
Fig. 10. The removed energy parameter of the flat plate solar collector with various
concentrations.
663
4. Conclusion
R2 The effect of Cu/EG nanofluid, as the working fluid, on the effi-
0.978
ciency of a flat plate solar collector was investigated experimen-
0.98 tally. The volume flow rate of the nanofluid varied from 0.5 to
0.973 1.5 Lit/min and the ASHRAE standard was used to calculate the
efficiency of the collector. The highlights of the study could be
stated as following:
✓ The solar collector efficiency decreased with decreasing the
volume flow rate and the highest FR(ta)n value obtains for 1 Lit/
min.
✓ Efficiency of flat-plate solar collector increased with Cu/EG
nanofluid concentration
✓ Nanofluid increased the absorbed energy parameter of the solar
collector. For volume flow rate of 1.5 Lit/min, this parameter was
the highest.
✓ The removed energy parameter, FRUL, with increasing concen-
trations there was a slight decrease for all volume flow rates.
✓ Optimum point for solar collector efficiency could be reached for
0.3 wt% Cu/EG nanofluid at 1.5 Lit/min
References
[1] Saitoh KH, Hamada Y, Kubota H, Nakamura M, Ochifuji K, Yokoyama S, et al.
Field experiments and analysis on a hybrid solar collector. Appl Therm Eng
2003;23:2089e105.
[2] Chow TT, He W, Ji J. Hybrid photovoltaic-thermosyphon water heating system
for residential application. Sol Energy 2006;80:298e306.
[3] So€ zen A, Menlik T, Ünvar S. Determination of efficiency of flat-plate solar
collectors using neural network approach. Expert Syst Appl 2008;35(4):
1533e9.
[4] Ho CD, Chen TC. The recycle effect on the collector efficiency improvement of
double-pass sheet-and-tube solar water heaters with external recycle. Renew
Energy 2006;31(7):953e70.
[5] Hussain AM. The performance of a cylindrical solar water heater. Renew En-
ergy 2006;31(11):1751e63.
[6] Xiaowu W, Hua B. Energy analysis of domestic-scale solar water heaters.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2005;9(6):638e45.
[7] Xuesheng W, Ruzhu W, Jingyi W. Experimental investigation of a new-style
double-tube heat exchanger for heating crude oil using solar hot water.
Appl Therm Eng 2005;25(11e12):1753e63.
[8] Prased PR, Bryegowda HV, Gangavati PB. Experimental analysis of flat plate
collector and comparison of performance with tracking collector. Eur J Sci Res
2010;40(1):144e55.
[9] Denga Y, Zhaoa Y, Wanga W, Quana Z, Wanga L, Yub D. Experimental inves-
tigation of performance for the novel flat plate solar collector with micro-
channel heat pipe array (MHPA-FPC). Appl Therm Eng 2013;54(2):440e9.
[10] Xuan Y, Li Q. Heat transfer enhancement of nanofluids. Int J Heat Fluid Flow
2000;21(1):58e64.
[11] Yu W, Choi SUS, Drobnik J. Temperature and concentration dependence of
effective thermal conductivities of alumina oil based nanofluids. In: ECI con-
ference on nanofluids: fundamental and application copper mountain, Colo-
rado; 2007 Sept. pp. 16e20.
[12] Zamzamiana A, Nasseri Oskouieb Sh, Doosthoseinic A, Joneidic A, Pazoukia M.
Experimental investigation of forced convective heat transfer coefficient in
nanofluids of Al2O3/EG and CuO/EG in a double pipe and plate heat ex-
changers under turbulent flow. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2011;35:495e502.
[13] Jamal-Abad MT, Zamzamiana A, Dehghan M. Experimental studies on the heat
transfer and pressure drop characteristics of Cuewater and Alewater nano-
fluids in a spiral coil. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2013;47:206e12.
[14] Otanicar T, Phelan P, Prasher R, Rosengarten G, Taylor RA. Nanofluid-based
direct absorption solar collector. J Renew Sustain Energy 2010;2:033102.
[15] Yousefi T, Veysi F, Shojaeizadeh E, Zinadini S. An experimental investigation
on the effect of Al2O3eH2O nanofluid on the efficiency of flat-plate solar
collectors. J Renew Energy 2012;39:293e8.
[16] Yousefi T, Veysi F, Shojaeizadeh E, Zinadini S. An experimental investigation
on the effect of MWCNT-H2O nanofluid on the efficiency of flat-plate solar
collectors. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2012;39:207e12.
[17] Mahian O, Kianifar A, Kalogirou SA, Pop Ioan, Wongwises Somchai. A review
of the applications of nanofluids in solar energy. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2013;57:582e94.
[18] Lenert A, Wang EN. Optimization of nanofluid volumetric receivers for solar
thermal energy conversion. Sol Energy 2012;86(1):253e65.
[19] Faizal M, Saidur R, Mekhilef S, Alim MA. Energy. economic and environmental
analysis of metal oxides nanofluid for flat-plate solar collector. Energy
Convers Manag 2013;76:162e8.
664 A. Zamzamian et al. / Renewable Energy 71 (2014) 658e664
[20] Said Z, Sajid MH, Alim MA, Saidur R, Rahim NA. Experimental investigation of
the thermophysical properties of Al2O3-nanofluid and its effect on a flat plate
solar collector. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 2013;48:99e107.
[21] Parvin S, Nasrin R, Alim MA. Heat transfer and entropy generation through
nanofluid filled direct absorption solar collector. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2014;71:386e95.
[22] ASHRAE Standard 93. Methods of testing to determine the thermal perfor-
mance of solar collectors; 2003 [Atlanta, GA, USA].
[23] Zhu H, Lin Y, Yin Y. A novel one-step chemical method for preparation of
copper nanofluids. J Colloid Interface Sci 2004;277:100e3.
[24] Goswami DY, Kreith F, Kreider JF. Principles of solar engineering. 2nd ed.
Taylor & Francis; 1999.
[25] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 3rd ed. Wiley
& Sons, Inc; 2006.
[26] Gordon J, editor. Solar energy e the state of art. (ISES), James & James; 2001.
[27] Khanafer K, Vafai K, Lightstone M. Buoyancy-driven heat transfer enhance-
ment in a two-dimensional enclosure utilizing nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass
Transf 2003;46(19):3639e53.
[28] Hamilton RL, Crosser OK. Thermal conductivity of heterogeneous two
component systems. EC Fundam 1963;1(3):187e91.
[29] Xuan Y, Roetzel W. Conception for heat transfer correlation of nanofluid. Int J
Heat Mass Transf 2000;43(19):3701e7.
[30] Drew DA, Passman SL. Theory of multi component fluids. Berlin: Springer;
1999.
[31] Ding Y, Alias H, Wen D, Williams RA. Heat transfer of aqueous suspensions of
carbon nanotubes (CNT nanofluids). Int J Heat Mass Transf 2006;49:240e50.