Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

[Link]

Thermal efficiency enhancement of nanofluid-based parabolic trough

collectors
Evangelos Bellos1 • Christos Tzivanidis1

Received: 25 January 2018 / Accepted: 4 February 2018

 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Abstract
The use of nanofluids in parabolic trough collectors is one of the most promising techniques for enhancing their perfor-
mance. The objective of this work is to investigate the use of various nanoparticles (Cu, CuO, Fe2O3, TiO2, Al2O3 and
SiO2) dispersed in thermal oil (Syltherm 800). A detailed parametric analysis is performed for flow rates from 50 to
300 L min-1, for inlet temperatures from 300 K to 650 K and for nanoparticle concentrations up to 6%, while the impact
of the solar irradiation level on the thermal efficiency enhancement is also investigated. Moreover, a new index for the
working fluid evaluation in solar collectors is introduced. The analysis is conducted with a developed thermal model in
Engineering Equation Solver. According to the final results, the most efficient nanoparticle is the Cu, with CuO, Fe2O3,
TiO2, Al2O3 and SiO2 to follow, respectively. It is found that the higher enhancement is observed for lower flow rates,
higher inlet temperatures and higher nanoparticle concentrations, while it is approximately constant for the different solar
irradiation levels. For the typical operating conditions with 150 L min-1 flow rate and 600 K inlet temperature, the thermal
efficiency enhancement is found 0.31, 0.54 and 0.74% for Cu concentrations 2, 4 and 6%, respectively.

Keywords Solar energy  Nanofluid  Parabolic trough collector  Thermal efficiency  Enhancement

List of symbols Re Reynolds number

A Area, m2 T Temperature, K
C Concentration ratio Tsky Sky temperature, K
cp Specific heat capacity under constant pressure, Ur Overall heat transfer coefficient, W m-2 K-1
J kg-1 K-1 V Volumetric flow rate, L min-1
D Diameter, m Vwind Ambient air velocity, m s-1
F Focal length, m W Width, m
Gb Solar direct beam irradiation, W m-2
H Heat transfer coefficient, W m-2 K-1 Greek symbols
hout Convection coefficient between cover and ambient, a Absorber absorbance
W m-2 K-1 b Ratio of the nanolayer thickness to the original
k Thermal conductivity, W m-1 K-1 particle radius
K Incident angle modifier c Intercept factor
L Tube length, m e Emittance
m Mass flow rate, kg s-1 gopt Optical efficiency
Nu Nusselt number gth Thermal efficiency
Pr Prandtl number h Solar beam incident angle, o
Q Heat flux, W l Dynamic viscosity, Pa s
q Density, kg m-3
qmir Mirror reflectance
& Evangelos Bellos
bellose@[Link]
s Cover transmittance
u Nanoparticle, concentration %
1
Thermal Department, School of Mechanical Engineering,
National Technical University of Athens, Heroon
Polytechniou 9, Zografou, 15780 Athens, Greece

123
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis

Subscripts and superscripts this term has been introduced by Choi in 1995 [11]. The
a Aperture main idea of the nanofluid utilization is the increase in the
am Ambient conductivity of the fluid because the utilized nanoparticles
bf Base fluid have many times higher thermal conductivity than the base
c Cover fluid (usually water or thermal oil) [12]. So, the heat
ci Inner cover transfer coefficient is enhanced because the heat can be
co Outer cover easier to be transferred from the region close to the tube to
fm Mean fluid the tube center. Moreover, the increased density of
in Inlet nanofluids, compared to the base fluids, leads to a higher
loss Thermal loss product of density-specific heat capacity and this fact
nf Nanofluids allows the nanofluids to carry higher heat amounts. So, the
np Nanoparticle adoption of nanofluids combines two different positive
out Outlet factors for the thermal efficiency enhancement.
r Receiver The use of nanofluids has been extensively examined in
ri Inner receiver the literature by many researchers. Table 1 includes 27
ro Outer receiver different studies [13–39] which investigate different
s Solar nanofluid types in parabolic trough solar collectors. These
u Useful studies use water, thermal oil or molten salt as base fluids,
0 Reference while a great variety of nanoparticles is applied, usually in
concentrations up to 6%. This table gives the thermal
Abbreviations efficiency enhancement and the heat transfer coefficient
CFD Computation fluid dynamic enhancement in every case and where it is given in a clear
EES Engineering equation solver way. These studies are experimental studies, computation
PTC Parabolic trough collector fluid dynamic (CFD) studies and studies with developed
thermal models. The thermal efficiency enhancement has
Introduction been found up to 15% while the heat transfer coefficient
enhancement up to 234%.
Solar energy utilization is a promising choice for facing The experimental studies have been performed in Refs.
numerous problems in the energy [1] and environmental [20, 21, 26, 34, 36, 37]. The study of Coccia et al. [21]
domain [2]. Solar concentrating collectors are able to found that the dispersion of nanoparticles in water does not
produce useful heat at medium and high-temperature lead to an adequate enhancement of the thermal efficiency
levels. Parabolic trough collectors are among the most which can be measured. On the other hand, the other
usual concentrating technologies and they can be exploited experimental studies have been found significant thermal
in many applications as solar cooling, industrial heat [3], efficiency enhancement. Chaudhari et al. [20] found 7%
desalination, methanol reforming and power production thermal efficiency enhancement with Al2O3/water nano-
[4]. fluid, Kasaeian et al. [34] 8% with MCNT/oil nanofluid,
The last years, a lot of research has been focused on Rehan et al. [34] 13% with Al2O3/water and 11% with
various ways for enhancing the thermal performance of Fe2O3/water, while similar enhancements close to 8.5% by
parabolic trough collector (PTC) in order more useful heat Subramani et al. [36, 37] with Al2O3/water and TiO2/water.
to be exploited. These techniques generally aim to increase The next part of the studies is associated with CFD
the heat transfer coefficient in the flow in order to achieve works which can be found in Refs.
beneficial heat transfer conditions in the flow [5]. These [15, 18, 19, 23–25, 27–33, 35, 38, 39]. These studies give
techniques are separated into two great categories; the use generally lower thermal efficiency enhancement values,
of geometry modifications in the absorber tube or the use of compared to the experimental works. Bellos et al. [15]
nanofluids as working fluids [6]. In the first category, the found thermal efficiency enhancement 4.25% with a low-
use of dimpled tubes [7], the use of internal fins [8, 9], as quality PTC, while 0.76% [18] with a high-quality PTC.
well as the use on flow inserts [10] are very common This result indicates that the type of the PTC creates dif-
techniques. These techniques try to increase the turbulence ferent thermal efficiency margins. Moreover, Ghasemi and
in the flow and thus the heat transfer between the absorber Ranjbar [14] found 0.5% thermal efficiency enhancement
tube and the fluid to be improved. On the other hand, the and Wang et al. [38] 1.2% for oil-based nanofluids.
use of nanofluids as working fluids is the other common Mwesigye et al. [28–33] have found higher values for the
technique [5]. The nanofluids are created by dispersing thermal efficiency enhancement in PTC with various
metallic or nonmetallic nanoparticles in the base fluid and nanofluids, as well as Kaloudis et al. [25].

123
Thermal efficiency enhancement of nanofluid-based parabolic trough collectors

Table 1 Detailed literature review of studies about nanofluid-based PTC

References Nanofluid Enhancement/% Methods
Base fluid Nanoparticle gth h

Allouchi et al. [13] Synthetic oil CuO, Al2O3, TiO2 1.06, 1.17, 1.14 – Model
Basbous et al. [14] Syltherm 800 Ag, Cu, CuO, Al2O3 – 36, 33, 27, 18 Model
Bellos et al. [15] Thermal oil Al2O3 4.25 11 CFD
Bellos and Tzivanidis [16] Syltherm 800 CuO, Al2O3 1.26, 1.13 41, 35 Model
Bellos and Tzivanidis [17] Syltherm 800 Al2O3 with TiO2 1.31 117 Model
Bellos et al. [18] Syltherm 800, Molten salt CuO 0.76, 0.26 35, 12 CFD
Benabderrahmane et al. [19] Dowtherm A Al2O3, C, Cu, SiC – 68 CFD
Chaudhari et al. [20] Water Al2O3 7 32 EXP
Coccia et al. [21] Water Fe2O3, SiO2, TiO2, ZnO, Al2O3, Au *0 – EXP
Ferraro et al. [22] Synthetic oil Al2O3 0.1 60 Model
Ghasemi and Ranjbar [23] Water CuO, Al2O3 – 35, 28 CFD
Ghasemi and Ranjbar [24] Therminol 66 Al2O3 0.5 – CFD
Kaloudis et al. [25] Syltherm 800 Al2O3 8 – CFD
Kasaeian et al. [26] Mineral oil MCNT 11 – EXP
Khakrah et al. [27] Synthetic oil Al2O3 7 CFD
Mwesigye et al. [28] Syltherm 800 Al2O3 7.6 76 CFD
Mwesigye et al. [29] Syltherm 800 CuO 15 38 CFD
Mwesigye et al. [30] Water Al2O3 – 22 CFD
Mwesigye et al. [31] Therminol-VP1 Cu 12.5 32 CFD
Mwesigye et al. [32] Therminol-VP1 Ag, Cu, Al2O3 13.9, 12.5, 7.2 7.9, 6.4, 3.9 CFD
Mwesigye et al. [33] Therminol-VP1 SWCNT 4.4 234 CFD
Rehan et al. [34] Water Al2O3, Fe2O3 13, 11 – EXP
Sokhansefat et al. [35] Synthetic oil Al2O3 – 15 CFD
Subramani et al. [36] Water Al2O3 8.54 – EXP
Subramani et al. [37] Water TiO2 8.66 23 EXP
Wang et al. [38] Syltherm 800 Al2O3 1.2 – CFD
Zadeh et al. [39] Synthetic oil Al2O3 – 40 CFD

The use of thermal models for the prediction of PTC studies give a bit lower enhancements (4–13%), while the
performance has been investigated in Refs. model studies give enhancements close to 1%. There is the
[13, 14, 16, 17, 22]. These studies indicate low thermal experimental work of Coccia et al. [21] which indicates
efficiency enhancements for various nanofluids. negligible enhancement, while similar results can be found
Allouchi et al. [13] found 1.06, 1.17 and 1.14% thermal in Ref. [22]. So, it is not clear if and how the nanofluids can
efficiency enhancement with CuO/Oil, Al2O3/Oil and increase the thermal performance of PTC. A recent study in
TiO2/Oil nanofluids, respectively. Bellos et al. [15] found Ref. [40] proved that the heat transfer coefficient
1.26 and 1.13% thermal efficiency enhancement with CuO/ enhancement in PTCs can lead to a maximum thermal
Oil and Al2O3/Oil, respectively. Moreover, they [16] found efficiency enhancement close to 3%. This result is based on
1.31% thermal efficiency enhancement with the hybrid the extremely low thermal losses of the PTC, especially in
nanofluid Al2O3-TiO2/Oil. Ferraro et al. [22] found an the cases with evacuated tubes with selective coatings.
extremely low enhancement close to 0.1% with Al2O3/Oil. Moreover, this result corresponds to a reasonable flow rate
It is generally obvious that the model-studies results give which corresponds to an adequate thermal efficiency.
similar enhancement which takes relatively low values. At this point, it would be interesting to examine the
The previous literature review indicates the chaotic sit- possible reasons for the present situation in the literature.
uation about the thermal efficiency enhancement margin The first problem is associated with the thermal properties
with the use of nanofluids in PTCs. The experimental of nanofluids. There are numerous equations for the
studies give high enhancements (7–13%), and the CFD determination of the thermal conductivity and of the

123
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis

dynamic viscosity and various equations have been used in utilization of nanofluids in PTC. Moreover, a new evalu-
the studies of Table 1. Moreover, there are two different ation index is introduced which takes into consideration the
models for the specific heat capacity determination which heat transfer coefficient and the density-specific heat
leads to different results, especially in the experimental capacity product. The analysis is performed with a devel-
studies. Furthermore, these models are usually valid for oped thermal model in Engineering Equation Solver (EES)
water-based nanofluids in generally low concentrations. which has been validated in our previous studies [16, 17].
There are no reliable models for oil-based nanofluids in
medium–high temperatures which correspond to the real
operating conditions in PTCs. Furthermore, the preparation Materials and methods
methods play a significant role in the nanofluid properties.
Another important problem is associated with the exam- The examined PTC module
ined operating conditions of the various cases. In order to
achieve reasonable conclusions, the main parameters of the In this work, the module of LS-2 PTC is investigated which
system as flow rate, inlet temperature, nanoparticle con- has been used in various studies. This is a typical PTC with
centration and solar irradiation have to be selected at usual 22.74 concentration ratio, 39 m2 aperture with 7.8 m
values. However, many studies do not apply reasonable length and 5 m aperture. The evacuated tube collector has
values for these parameters and so the obtained results are an absorber with 70 mm outer diameter and a glass cover
questionable in some cases. For instance, the PTC has to be with 115 m outer diameter. The optical efficiency of this
investigated at high temperature with high flow rates in collector is 57.7% for zero incident angle. More details
order to achieve turbulent flow, as in real concentrating about the examined PTC are given in Table 2 and in Ref.
power plants. [41]. Moreover, the examined module can be seen in
So, high heterogeneity among the examined studies is Fig. 1. There is an evacuated tube with a selective coating
observed. For instance, in low-temperature levels, the in the absorber. The emittance of the absorber, for the
thermal losses of PTC are extremely low in realistic sys- Cermet coating, is calculated as [42]:
tems and the thermal efficiency enhancement margins are
er ¼ 0:05599 þ 1:039  104  Tr þ 2:249  107  Tr2 : ð1Þ
approximately zero. However, if the PTC examined at
extremely low flow rates or the examined system has low The optical efficiency of the present collector is about
quality (for instance uncovered absorber), then the thermal 75.7%, and it is a result of 95% cover transmittance, 96%
losses are higher and there are higher margins for receiver absorbance and 83% mirror reflectance. The
improvement. reduced value of the reflectance includes the possible
The present study comes to examined different scenarios optical losses due to errors, dust and other reasons as they
of PTC operation with nanofluids. Oil-based nanofluids are have described in Ref. [41]. The intercept factor has been
examined because the thermal oils are the most usual
working fluids at medium–high temperatures. Moreover, Table 2 Parameters of the examined PTC [41]
the use of molten salt is not indicated according to the
Parameters Symbols Values
results of [18] because of their very good thermal proper-
ties. Six different nanoparticles (Cu, CuO, Al2O3, TiO2, Width W 5.0 m
SiO2 and Fe2O3) are selected to be examined in this work Length L 7.8 m
in order to investigate different nanofluids. Different con- Focal distance F 1.84 m
centrations up to 6% are examined, while the flow rate, the Aperture Aa 39.0 m2
inlet temperature and the solar irradiation level are exam- Concentration ratio C 22.74
ined parametrically. The comparative study, among the Absorber inner diameter Dri 66 9 10-3 m
nanofluids and the operating scenarios, is performed in a Absorber outer diameter Dro 70 9 10-3 m
systematic way. This is something which is missing from Cover inner diameter Dci 109 9 10-3 m
the literature because in the majority of the studies only Cover outer diameter Dco 115 9 10-3 m
one or two nanoparticles are examined with the same Cover emittance ec 0.86
model. In every case, the thermal efficiency enhancement Cover transmittance s 0.95
is the main goal of this work and not the heat transfer Absorber absorbance a 0.96
enhancement because in PTC the increase in the useful heat Concentrator reflectance qmir 0.83
production is the final objective by the nanofluid utiliza- Intercept factor c * 100%
tion. The results of this work can clearly indicate the cases Maximum optical efficiency gopt 0.757
where the thermal efficiency enhancement is important and
when it has to be applied, something very important for the

123
Thermal efficiency enhancement of nanofluid-based parabolic trough collectors

The mean fluid temperature (Tfm) can be estimated as:

Tin þ Tout
Tfm ¼ : ð7Þ
2
The thermal losses of the collector can be calculated
L using Eqs. 8 and 9. The present study investigates the
W thermal performance in steady-state conditions, so it can be
said that the thermal losses from the receiver to the cover
Fig. 1 The examined module of LS-2 PTC (Eq. 8) are the same with the thermal losses of the cover to
the ambient (Eq. 9):
 
selected to be approximately 1 [40]. Equation 2 gives the Aro  r  T4r  Tc4
calculation of the optical efficiency. In this work, the col- Qloss ¼   ; ð8Þ
1 1ec Aro
þ 
lector has been examined for zero incident angle in order to er ec Aci

give the emphasis in the thermal analysis and in the com-  

parison of various nanofluids. Thus, the incident angle Qloss ¼ Aco  hout  ðTc  Tam Þ þ Aco  r  ec  Tc4  Tsky
4
:
modifier (K) is equal to 1 in all the cases. ð9Þ
gopt ¼ q  c  s  a  KðhÞ: ð2Þ The ambient temperature has been selected at 300 K,
while the sky temperature (Tsky) can be estimated as [47]:
The developed thermal model 1:5
Tsky ¼ 0:0553  Tam : ð10Þ

The basic equations for the thermal modeling of the PTC The heat convection coefficient between cover and
are given in ‘‘The developed thermal model ’’ section. Th- ambient (hout) is estimated using Eq. 11 for a wind speed of
ese equations are energy balances in the various subsys- 1 m s-1 [48]. This wind speed leads to heat convection
tems. All these equations are used for the development of coefficient close to 10 W m-2 K-1.
the thermal model. The same model, with the proper 0:58
hout ¼ 4  Vwind  D0:42
co : ð11Þ
modifications in every case, has been applied in other
The next important equation of the developed model is
studies [16, 17, 40, 43–45]. The validation of this model
the energy balance in the absorber. According to this
has been given in the previous references, and there is no
equation, the absorbed heat is separated into useful heat
reason for giving it again. The developed thermal model
and to thermal losses:
has been developed in Engineering Equation Solver (EES)
[46]. Qs  gopt ¼ Qu þ Qloss : ð12Þ
The thermal efficiency (gth) of the solar collector can be
The last parameter that has to be defined is the heat
written as the ratio of the useful heat (Qu) to the available
transfer coefficient between absorber and fluid (h). This
solar irradiation (Qs):
parameter can be estimated using the Nusselt number. For
Qu turbulent flow conditions (Re [ 2300), the Nusselt number
gth ¼ : ð3Þ
Qs can be calculated using the Dittus-Boelter equation [49].
The solar energy in the collector aperture is the product Nu ¼ 0:023  Re0:8  Pr 0:4 : ð13Þ
of the direct beam irradiation (Gb) to the total aperture (Aa):
Below, the definitions of important parameters about
Q s ¼ Aa  G b : ð4Þ this work are given.
The nominal solar irradiation level in this study is at Nusselt number (Nu):
1000 W m-2, while a parametric analysis is performed in h  Dri
order to examine the system in different solar potentials. Nu ¼ : ð14Þ
k
The useful energy production (Qu) can be calculated in two
Reynolds number (Re) for circular tube:
ways. The first one is using the energy balance in the fluid
volume (Eq. 5), and the second one is by using the heat 4m
Re ¼ : ð15Þ
transfer from the absorber tube to the fluid (Eq. 6): p  Dri  l
Qu ¼ m  cp  ðTout  Tin Þ; ð5Þ Prandtl number (Pr):
l  cp
Qu ¼ h  Ari  ðTr  Tfm Þ: ð6Þ Pr ¼ : ð16Þ
k

123
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis

The inlet temperature level is examined from 300 to At this point, it is essential to state that the used equa-
650 K with step 50 K and the flow rate from 50 to tions for the determination of the thermal properties are
300 L min-1 with step 50 L min-1. The reference oper- general and they can be applied to all the nanoparticles.
ating conditions in this study are selected for inlet tem- This fact makes the comparative analysis to be performed
perature equal to 600 K and flow rate equal to under similar conditions. The reason for not using more
150 L min-1. special equations for the determination of the thermal
properties is the lack of experimental studies for oil-based
Thermal properties of the examined nanofluids nanofluids in temperature levels over 100 C. So, there are
no available experimental correlations at the present time.
‘‘Thermal properties of the examined nanofluids’’ section is However, the selected Eqs. 17–20 are very usual selections
devoted to presenting the equations about the thermal which are acceptable and they give reasonable results.
properties of the examined nanofluids. The base fluid (bf) is
the Syltherm 800 [50], a thermal oil which operates up to The suggested evaluation index
400 C with safety. The thermal properties of the examined
nanoparticles (np) are listed in Table 3. In this work, a new evaluation index is introduced in order
The density of the nanofluids (nf) can be calculated to evaluate the use of nanofluids in solar thermal systems.
proportionally with the volumetric concentration (u) [12]: This index takes into account the heat transfer coefficient
qnf ¼ qbf  ð1  /Þ þ qnp  /: ð17Þ (h), as well as the density-specific capacity product (qcp).
This product indicates the amount of the heat that can be
The specific heat capacity can be calculated using the transferred from the fluid. Higher values of this product
following formula. This formula has proved to be the indicate that higher amounts of heat can be transferred and
proper one according to the detailed analysis of Ref. [51]. thus higher thermal performance to be achieved. The
qbf  ð1  /Þ qnp  / conventional studies evaluate only the heat transfer coef-
cp;nf ¼  cp;bf þ  cp;np : ð18Þ ficient enhancement and they do not take into account the
qnf qnf
increase in the (qcp). Moreover, other studies evaluate the
The thermal conductivity can be calculated using the increase in the Nusselt number and so they do not take into
suggested equation by Yu and Choi [52]. This equation is consideration the increase in the thermal conductivity of
the modified Maxwell equation which includes the the nanofluids. Thus, the introduction of a more general
parameter b. This parameter is the ratio of the nanolayer index is vital for the proper and quick evaluation of the
thickness to the original particle radius, and usually, this nanofluids in solar thermal systems.
parameter is taken equal to 0.1 [53]. Using Eqs. 5–7, the useful heat can be written as:
 
knp þ 2  kbf þ 2  knp  kbf  ð1 þ bÞ3 / Qu ¼ Ari  Ur  ðTr  Tin Þ: ð21Þ
knf ¼ kbf    :
knp þ 2  kbf  knp  kbf  ð1 þ bÞ3 / With the overall heat transfer coefficient (Ur) to be
ð19Þ calculated as:
" #1
The dynamic viscosity can be calculated using the 1 Ar
Batchelor model [54] which can be applied in low and high Ur ¼ þ   : ð22Þ
h 2  q  cp  V
concentrations for spherical nanoparticles [53]:
  This overall heat transfer coefficient is the new intro-
lnf ¼ lbf  1 þ 2:5  / þ 6:2  /2 : ð20Þ
duced evaluation index which takes into consideration
many parameters. This index evaluates the following
parameters:
Table 3 Thermal properties of the examined nanoparticles
Nanoparticle q/kg m-3 cp/J kg-1 K-1 k/W m-1 K-1
• The heat transfer coefficient in the flow (h).
• The density-capacity product (qcp).
Cu 8933 397 393 • The flow rate of the collector.
CuO 6000 551 33
Higher values of this parameter lead to lower receiver
Fe2O3 5180 670 6.9
temperature if the useful heat is assumed constant. So, it
TiO2 4230 692 8.4
can be said that when the overall heat transfer coefficient is
Al2O3 3960 773 40
high, the receiver temperature is lower, and the thermal
SiO2 2200 765 1.4
losses are lower. This leads to thermal enhancement in the

123
Thermal efficiency enhancement of nanofluid-based parabolic trough collectors

solar collector. This hypothesis will be verified with the V = 100 L min–1 V = 150 L min–1 V = 200 L min–1
numerical results of this works in the following section. V = 250 L min–1
0.76

Followed methodology 0.74

Thermal efficiency
0.72
The presented equations of this section have been inserted
in EES [46], and a thermal model has been developed. This 0.70

model has also been used in other studies 0.68

[16, 17, 40, 43–45] where it has been validated many times. 0.66
In this work, the use of six different nanofluids is per-
0.64
formed using Syltherm 800 as the base fluid in all the cases
[50]. The examined nanoparticles are Cu, CuO, Fe2O3, 0.62
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
TiO2, Al2O3 and SiO2. These nanoparticles are examined
Inlet temperature/K
for concentrations up to 6% with step 1%. In ‘‘Nanoparticle
investigation’’ section, these nanoparticles, for all the Fig. 2 Thermal efficiency curves for different flow rates
concentrations, are compared for the reference operating
conditions with flow rate 150 L min-1, inlet temperature Tin = 300 K Tin = 400 K Tin = 500 K Tin = 600 K
600 K and solar irradiation level 1000 W m-2. The flow 0.76
0.75
rate of 150 L min-1 has been suggested as a reliable 0.74
choice, after a simple sensitivity analysis with pure thermal 0.73
oil (u = 0%). The inlet temperature of 600 K is a high- Thermal efficiency 0.72
0.71
temperature level which is representative for applications 0.70
with PTCs. The comparative analysis of the nanofluids 0.69
proved that Cu/Oil nanofluid is the best choice using the 0.68
0.67
thermal efficiency enhancement criterion. Moreover, in the 0.66
‘‘Nanoparticle investigation’’ section, the suggested index 0.65
(overall heat transfer coefficient) is presented and 0.64
50 100 150 200 250 300
discussed.
Flow rate/L min–1
‘‘Parametric analysis’’ section is devoted to presenting a
detailed parametric analysis with Cu/Oil nanofluid which is Fig. 3 The impact of the flow rate on the thermal efficiency for
the most efficient nanoparticle according to the compara- various inlet temperatures
tive analysis of ‘‘Nanoparticle investigation’’ section. The
flow rate is studied from 50 L min-1 up to 300 L min-1 thermal efficiency in a clearer way. It is obvious that flow
with step 50 L min-1, the inlet temperature from 300 K up rates over 150 L min-1 give adequate thermal efficiency
to 650 K with step 50 K and the nanoparticle concentration for all the examined inlet temperatures. This flow rate
from 0% up to 6% with 1% step. Furthermore, an extra (150 L min-1) is selected as the most appropriate choice
parametric analysis with the solar irradiation from because higher values will lead to higher pressure drop
500 W m-2 up to 1000 W m-2 is given. with a negligible impact on the thermal efficiency. A
similar analysis has been presented in Ref. [9]. Moreover,
higher flow rate needs greater equipment and this leads to
Results higher system cost. It can be also stated that the impact of
the flow rate is greater in the higher inlet temperature levels
Nanoparticle investigation because in these cases there are higher thermal losses.
Figure 4 illustrates the impact of the nanoparticle con-
The first presented results give the thermal efficiency of the centration on the thermal efficiency of the collector for the
PTC with pure thermal oil for various inlet temperatures six examined nanoparticles. These results are given for the
and flow rates. Figure 2 shows the thermal efficiency operating case with inlet temperature equal to 600 K and
curves for four different flow rates (100, 150, 200 and 150 L min-1 flow rate. It is obvious that the Cu nanopar-
250 L min-1). Higher inlet temperature leads to lower ticle gives the highest performance with CuO and Fe2O3 to
thermal efficiency, while higher flow rate leads to higher follow. TiO2 and Al2O3 are the next nanoparticles which
thermal efficiency. It is obvious that only the curve of lead to similar performance, while SiO2 gives the lowest
100 L min-1 gives a significantly lower performance. performance. An interesting observation is the correlation
Moreover, Fig. 3 depicts the impact of the flow rate on the of the thermal conductivity of the nanoparticles with their

123
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis

Cu CuO Fe₂O₃ TiO₂ Al₂O₃ SiO₂ trends of Fig. 4 about the thermal efficiency enhancement.
0.8%
However, the curves of Fig. 5 have a more linear character.
Thermal efficiency enhancement

0.7% In any case, it is proved that higher values of the overall

0.6% heat transfer coefficient lead to higher thermal efficiency.
The direct dependency between the overall heat transfer
0.5%
coefficient enhancement and the thermal efficiency
0.4% enhancement is given in Fig. 6. Higher values of the
0.3% overall heat transfer coefficient enhancement lead to higher
0.2%
thermal efficiency enhancement in a monotonic way.
Equation (23) expresses this dependency with R2 equal to
0.1%
99.95%, an extremely high value.
0.0%      
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% gth Ur Ur
 1 ¼ 0:0272   1  0:0192  1 :
Nanoparcle concentraon gth0 Ur0 Ur0
ð23Þ
Fig. 4 Thermal efficiency enhancement for various nanofluids (Inlet
temperature 600 K and flow rate 150 L min-1) Equation (23) is valid for the present collector and
shows that the thermal efficiency enhancement is approx-
performance sequence. According to Table 3, Cu has the imately a second degree polynomial of the overall heat
highest thermal conductivity, and it is the most efficient transfer coefficient enhancement. It is essential to state that
choice according to Fig. 4. On the other hand, SiO2 has the the results of Fig. 6 validate the initial hypothesis which
lowest thermal conductivity and the lowest thermal per- states that the thermal efficiency enhancement is depended
formance. This interesting observation aids to the proper on the overall coefficient.
nanoparticle evaluation using the thermal conductivity The last figure of this subsection is Fig. 7 where
criterion. numerical values for the thermal efficiency enhancement
Another interesting result is associated with the and the overall heat transfer coefficient enhancement are
nanoparticle concentration. Higher concentration leads to given for the case of 4% nanoparticle concentration. The
higher thermal efficiency enhancement but the increasing thermal efficiency enhancements are ranges from 0.19%
rates are getting lower after the concentration of 3–4%. for SiO2 up to 0.54% for Cu. Respectively, the enhance-
This result indicates the use of generally high concentra- ment of the overall heat transfer coefficient is ranged from
tions, but not extremely high values. The thermal efficiency 7.28% for SiO2 to 24.42% for Cu. It is again obvious that
enhancement with Cu reaches up to 0.74%, with CuO up to higher values of the overall heat transfer coefficient
0.62%, with Fe2O3 up to 56%, with TiO2 up to 0.50%, with enhancement mean higher thermal efficiency enhancement.
Al2O3 up to 0.49% and with SiO2 up to 0.26%. Thus, this parameter can be used for the quick evaluation
Figure 5 depicts the overall heat transfer coefficient of different nanofluids under the same operating
enhancement for all the examined nanofluids (all the cases conditions.
of Figs. 4, 5). The trends of this figure are similar to the

Cu CuO Fe₂O₃ TiO₂ Al₂O₃ SiO₂

40% 0.8%
Thermal efficiency enhancement
Overall coefficient enhancement

35% 0.7%

30% 0.6%

25% 0.5%

0.4%
20%
0.3%
15%
0.2%
10%
0.1%
5%
0.0%
0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Overall coefficient enhancement
Nanoparcle concentraon
Fig. 6 Thermal efficiency enhancement for different overall heat
Fig. 5 Overall heat transfer coefficient enhancement for various transfer coefficient enhancements (Inlet temperature 600 K and flow
nanofluids (Inlet temperature 600 K and flow rate 150 L min-1) rate 150 L min-1)

123
Thermal efficiency enhancement of nanofluid-based parabolic trough collectors

Thermal efficiency Overall transfer coefficient higher concentration leads to higher performance. Gener-
0.6% 24.42% 30%
0.54% ally, it can be said that for high flow rates the thermal
Thermal efficiency enhancement

Overall coefficient enhancement

19.49% efficiency enhancement is up to 0.4%, while it can reach up
0.5% 0.46% 17.16% 25%
0.41%
to 2.2% for low flow rates. In the cases with lower thermal
14.50% 14.30%
0.4% 0.35% 0.35%
20% efficiency, the thermal losses are higher and so the thermal
efficiency enhancement margin is higher. These cases
0.3% 15%
7.28%
correspond to low flow rates (see Figs. 2, 3). So, when a
0.2%
0.19%
10% system operates with low flow rates, then the use of
nanofluids is recommended. Similar conclusions can be
0.1% 5% extracted from Fig. 9 where the results are given as a
function of the concentration for four flow rates. Again, the
0.0% 0%
Cu CuO Fe₂O₃ TiO₂ Al₂O₃ SiO₂ thermal efficiency enhancement margin is higher for lower
flow rates and higher nanoparticle concentrations.
Fig. 7 Thermal efficiency enhancement and overall heat transfer The thermal efficiency enhancement margin for differ-
coefficient enhancement for 4% concentration (Inlet temperature
600 K and flow rate L min-1)
ent inlet temperatures is given in Figs. 10 and 11. The
curves of Fig. 10 seem to be parallel to each other, while
Parametric analysis the curves of Fig. 11 have variable distances which are
more intense in higher concentrations. Both these fig-
The ‘‘Parametric analysis’’ section is devoted to giving a ures make clear that the thermal efficiency enhancement
detailed parametric analysis of the collector performance margin is greater for higher inlet temperatures. This result
with Cu/Oil nanofluid. This is the most efficient nanofluid, is based on the higher thermal losses for higher inlet
according to the results of ‘‘Nanoparticle investigation’’ temperatures and to the greater improvement margin. So,
section. The inlet temperature, the flow rate, the nanopar- the use of nanofluids is recommended for cases with higher
ticle concentration, as well as the solar irradiation level are inlet temperature levels. The obtained thermal efficiency
the investigated parameters of this analysis. The objective enhancements are generally up to 1% which is low values.
of this parametric analysis is to identify the cases with These low values are explained by the general high per-
higher thermal efficiency margin with the utilization of formance of PTC which cannot be increased in a great
nanofluids as working fluids. It is important to state again percentage.
that all the comparisons are conducted using the pure oil At the end of this subsection, the impact of the solar
case as the reference one. irradiation level on the results is investigated. Figure 12
Figure 8 illustrates the impact of the flow rate on the depicts this analysis for the case of 150 L min-1 flow rate
thermal efficiency enhancement for various concentrations and 600 K inlet temperature. It is obvious that the thermal
and inlet temperature equal to 600 K. Higher flow rates enhancement does not present significant variation with the
allow lower thermal efficiency margins for all the exam- solar potential. A small increase in the efficiency is
ined nanoparticles. All the curves for the examined observed only for cases with high concentrations (5 and
nanoparticles have the same trends, and in all the cases, 6%). Thus, it can be said that the thermal efficiency

V = 100 L/min–1 V = 150 L/min–1 V = 200 L/min–1

2.5%
Tin = 600 K V = 250 L/min–1
Thermal efficiency enhancement

1.2%
Tin = 600 K
Thermal efficiency enhancement

φ = 1%
2.0%
φ = 2% 1.0%
φ = 3%
1.5% 0.8%
φ = 4%
φ = 5% 0.6%
1.0% φ = 6%
0.4%
0.5%
0.2%

0.0% 0.0%
50 100 150 200 250 300 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Flow rate/L min–1 Nanoparcle concentraon

Fig. 8 Thermal efficiency enhancement for different flow rates with Fig. 9 Thermal efficiency enhancement for different Cu concentra-
various Cu concentrations and inlet temperature equal to 600 K tions with various flow rates and inlet temperature equal to 600 K

123
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis

φ = 1% φ = 2% φ = 3% φ = 4% possible operating conditions. On the other hand, the

φ = 5% φ = 6% thermal efficiency enhancement is found to be dependent
1.2%
V = 150 L min –1 on the other examined parameters (inlet temperature, flow
Thermal efficiency enhancement

rate and nanoparticle concentration) with a high way.

1.0%

0.8%
Conclusions
0.6%

0.4% The objective of this work is to investigate the utilization

of nanofluids in parabolic trough collectors. The module of
0.2% LS-2 PTC is examined with a developed thermal model in
EES. Six different nanoparticles are examined with Syl-
0.0%
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 therm 800 as the base fluid for concentrations up to 6%.
Inlet temperature/K The inlet temperature level, the flow rate and the solar
irradiation level are the investigated parameters, as well as
Fig. 10 Thermal efficiency enhancement for inlet temperatures with the nanoparticle concentration. Moreover, a new evaluation
various Cu concentrations and flow rate equal to 150 L min-1
index for the nanofluid evaluation in solar collectors is
Tin = 300 K Tin = 400 K Tin = 500 K Tin = 600 K
introduced. The most important findings of this work are
0.8% listed below:
Thermal efficiency enhancement

V = 150 L min –1
0.7%
• The Cu nanoparticle is found to lead to higher thermal
0.6%
efficiency enhancement while the SiO2 to the lowest. The
0.5% thermal conductivity of the nanoparticles is found to be a
0.4% determining factor in the respective nanofluid performance.
0.3% • Higher concentration ratio is found to be beneficial for
0.2% all the examined operating conditions. However, after
0.1% 4% nanoparticle concentration, the thermal efficiency
0.0% enhancement does not present high increasing rate.
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% • The thermal efficiency margin is found to be higher for
Nanoparcle concentraon low flow rates and higher inlet temperatures. Thus, the
Fig. 11 Thermal efficiency enhancement for inlet temperatures with use of nanofluids is recommended in the cases with
various Cu concentrations and flow rate equal to 150 L min-1 these operating conditions. Practically, the use of
nanofluids is recommended in cases with higher
φ = 1% φ = 2% φ = 3% φ = 4% thermal losses because of the higher thermal efficiency
φ = 5% φ = 6% enhancement margin.
0.8% V = 150 L min –1 – Tin = 600 K • It is found that the impact of the solar irradiation level has a
Thermal efficiency enhancement

0.7% negligible impact on the thermal efficiency enhancement.

0.6%
• The maximum thermal efficiency enhancement is found
to be 2.2% for 6% Cu concentration, flow rate
0.5%
50 L min-1 and inlet temperature 600 K. On the other
0.4%
hand, the thermal efficiency enhancement margin for
0.3%
high flow rates and low temperature is approximately
0.2% negligible.
0.1% • The suggested index for the evaluation of the perfor-
0.0% mance enhancement is found to be directly connected
500 600 700 800 900 1000
with the thermal efficiency enhancement. Thus, its
Solar beam irradiaon/W m–2
adoption can be made. This index takes into consider-
Fig. 12 The impact of the solar irradiation level on the thermal ation the heat transfer coefficient, the density-specific
efficiency enhancement for flow rate equal to 150 L min-1, inlet heat capacity product and the flow rate level.
temperature equal to 600 K and Cu nanoparticle

enhancement is approximately constant and independent of Acknowledgements Dr. Evangelos Bellos would like to thank ‘‘Bo-
the solar irradiation level. This result is explained by the dossaki Foundation’’ for its financial support.
generally high thermal performance of PTC for all the

123
Thermal efficiency enhancement of nanofluid-based parabolic trough collectors

References with thermal oil and molten salt based nanofluids. Energy Con-
vers Manag. 2018;156:388–402.
19. Benabderrahmane A, Aminallah M, Laouedj S, Benazza A,
1. Loni R, Askari Asli-ardeh E, Ghobadian B, Kasaeian AB, Gorjian
Solano JP. Heat transfer enhancement in a parabolic trough solar
Sh. Thermodynamic analysis of a solar dish receiver using dif-
receiver using longitudinal fins and nanofluids. J Therm Sci.
ferent nanofluids. Energy. 2017;133:749–60.
2016;25:410–7.
2. Fernandez AG, Galleguillos H, Fuentealba E, Perez FJ. Thermal
20. Chaudhari KS, Walke PV, Wankhede US, Shelke RS. An
characterization of HITEC molten salt for energy storage in solar
Experimental investigation of a nanofluid (al2o3 ? H2O) based
linear concentrated technology. J Therm Anal Calorim.
parabolic trough solar collectors. Br J Appl Sci Technol.
2015;122(1):3–9.
2015;9(6):551–7.
3. Mathioulakis E, Papanicolaou E, Belessiotis V. Optical perfor-
21. Coccia G, Di Nicola G, Colla L, Fedele L, Scattolini M. Adoption
mance and instantaneous efficiency calculation of linear Fresnel
of nanofluids in low-enthalpy parabolic trough solar collectors:
solar collectors. Int J Energy Res. 2017. [Link]
numerical simulation of the yearly yield. Energy Convers Manag.
er.3925.
2016;118:306–19.
4. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Papadopoulos A. Enhancing the perfor-
22. Ferraro V, Settino J, Cucumo MA, Kaliakatsos D. Parabolic
mance of a linear Fresnel reflector using nanofluids and internal
trough system operating with nanofluids: comparison with the
finned absorber. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2018. [Link]
conventional working fluids and influence on the system perfor-
1007/s10973-018-6989-1.
mance. Energy Proc. 2016;101:782–9.
5. Fuqiang W, Ziming C, Jianyu T, Yuan Y, Yong S, Linhua L.
23. Ghasemi SE, Ranjbar AA. Thermal performance analysis of solar
Progress in concentrated solar power technology with parabolic
parabolic trough collector using nanofluid as working fluid: a
trough collector system: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain
CFD modelling study. J Mol Liq. 2016;222:159–66.
Energy Rev. 2017;79:1314–28.
24. Ghasemi SE, Ranjbar AA. Effect of using nanofluids on effi-
6. Sandeep HM, Arunachala UC. Solar parabolic trough collectors:
ciency of parabolic trough collectors in solar thermal electric
a review on heat transfer augmentation techniques. Renew Sus-
power plants. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2017;42(34):21626–34.
tain Energy Rev. 2017;69:1218–31.
25. Kaloudis E, Papanicolaou E, Belessiotis V. Numerical simula-
7. Huang Z, Li Z-Y, Yu G-L, Tao W-Q. Numerical investigations
tions of a parabolic trough solar collector with nanofluid using a
on fully-developed mixed turbulent convection in dimpled para-
two-phase model. Renew Energy. 2016;97:218–29.
bolic trough receiver tubes. Appl Therm Eng. 2017;114:1287–99.
26. Kasaeian A, Daviran S, Danesh Azarian R, Rashidi A. Perfor-
8. Xiangtao G, Fuqiang W, Haiyan W, Jianyu T, Qingzhi L, Huaizhi
mance evaluation and nanofluid using capability study of a solar
H. Heat transfer enhancement analysis of tube receiver for
parabolic trough collector. Energy Convers Manag.
parabolic trough solar collector with pin fin arrays inserting. Sol
2015;89:368–75.
Energy. 2017;144:185–202.
27. Khakrah H, Shamloo A, Kazemzadeh S. Hannani, Determination
9. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Tsimpoukis D. Multi-criteria evaluation
of parabolic trough solar collector efficiency using nanofluid: a
of parabolic trough collector with internally finned absorbers.
comprehensive numerical study. ASME J Sol Energy Eng.
Appl Energy. 2017;205:540–61.
2017;139(5):051006.
10. Mwesigye A, Bello-Ochende T, Meyer JP. Heat transfer and
28. Mwesigye A, Huan Z, Meyer JP. Thermodynamic optimisation of
entropy generation in a parabolic trough receiver with wall-de-
the performance of a parabolic trough receiver using synthetic
tached twisted tape inserts. Int J Therm Sci. 2016;99:238–57.
oil—Al2O3 nanofluid. Appl Energy. 2015;156:398–412.
11. Choi SU, Eastman J. Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids
29. Mwesigye A, Huan Z, MeyerJP, Thermal performance of a
with nanoparticles. Lemont: Argonne National Lab; 1995.
receiver tube for a high concentration ratio parabolic trough
12. Mahian O, Kianifar A, Sahin AZ, Wongwises S. Entropy gen-
system and potential for improved performance with Syltherm
eration during Al2O3/water nanofluid flow in a solar collector:
800-CuO nanofluid. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2015 interna-
Effects of tube roughness, nanoparticle size, and different ther-
tional mechanical engineering congress and exposition IMECE,
mophysical models. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2014;78:64–75.
2015 Nov 13–19, 2015, Houston, Texas.
13. Allouhi A, Benzakour Amine M, Saidur R, Kousksou T, Jamil A.
30. Mwesigye A, Huan Z. Thermodynamic analysis and optimization
Energy and exergy analyses of a parabolic trough collector
of fully developed turbulent forced convection in a circular tube
operated with nanofluids for medium and high temperature
with water–Al2O3 nanofluid. Int J Heat Mass Transf.
applications. Energy Convers Manag. 2018;155:201–17.
2015;89:694–706.
14. Basbous N, Taqi M, Janan MA. Thermal performances analysis
31. Mwesigye A, Huan Z, Meyer JP. Thermal performance and
of a parabolic trough solar collector using different nanofluids.
entropy generation analysis of a high concentration ratio para-
Renew Sustain Energy Conf (IRSEC). 2016. [Link]
bolic trough solar collector with Cu-TherminolVP-1 nanofluid.
1109/irsec.2016.7984006.
Energy Convers Manag. 2016;120:449–65.
15. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA, Gkinis G. Thermal
32. Mwesigye A, Meyer JP. Optimal thermal and thermodynamic
enhancement of solar parabolic trough collectors by using
performance of a solar parabolic trough receiver with different
nanofluids and converging-diverging absorber tube. Renew
nanofluids and at different concentration ratios. Appl Energy.
Energy. 2016;94:213–22.
2017;193:393–413.
16. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C. Parametric investigation of nanofluids
33. Mwesigye A, Yılmaz İH, Meyer JP. Numerical analysis of the
utilization in parabolic trough collectors. Therm Sci Eng Progr.
thermal and thermodynamic performance of a parabolic trough
2017;2:71–9.
solar collector using SWCNTs-TherminolVP-1 nanofluid.
17. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C. Thermal analysis of parabolic trough
Renew Energy. 2017. [Link]
collector operating with mono and hybrid nanofluids. Sustain
047.
Energy Technol Assess. 2017. [Link]
34. Rehan MA, Ali M, Sheikh NA, Khalil MS, Chaudhary GQ, ur
10.005.
Rashid T, Shehryar M. Experimental performance analysis of low
18. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Tsimpoukis D. Thermal, hydraulic and
concentration ratio solar parabolic trough collectors with
exergetic evaluation of a parabolic trough collector operating
nanofluids in winter conditions. Renew Energy. 2018;118:742–51.

123
 E. Bellos, C. Tzivanidis

35. Sokhansefat T, Kasaeian AB, Kowsary F. Heat transfer 44. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA. A detailed working
enhancement in parabolic trough collector tube using Al2O3/ fluid investigation for solar parabolic trough collectors. Appl
synthetic oil nanofluid. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. Therm Eng. 2017;114:374–86.
2014;33:636–44. 45. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C. A detailed exergetic analysis of parabolic
36. Subramani J, Nagarajan PK, Wongwises S, El-Agouz SA, trough collectors. Energy Convers Manag. 2017;149:275–92.
Sathyamurthya R. Experimental study on the thermal perfor- 46. F-Chart software, engineering equation solver (EES), 2015.
mance and heat transfer characteristics of solar parabolic trough [Link]
collector using Al2O3 nanofluids. Environ Progr Sustain Energy. 47. Swinbank WC. Long-wave radiation from clear skies. QJR
2017. [Link] Meteorol Soc. 1963;89:339–40.
37. Subramani J, Nagarajan PK, Mahian O, Sathyamurthy R. Effi- 48. Qiu Y, Li M-J, He Y-L, Tao W-Q. Thermal performance analysis
ciency and heat transfer improvements in a parabolic trough solar of a parabolic trough solar collector using supercritical CO2 as
collector using TiO2 nanofluids under turbulent flow regime. heat transfer fluid under non-uniform solar flux. Appl Therm Eng.
Renew Energy. 2018;119:19–31. 2017;115:1255–65.
38. Wang Y, Xu J, Liu Q, Chen Y, Liu H. Performance analysis of a 49. Leinhard J IV, Leinhard V. A heat transfer textbook. 4th ed.
parabolic trough solar collector using Al2O3/synthetic oil nano- Cambridge: Philogiston Press; 2012.
fluid. Appl Therm Eng. 2016;107:469–78. 50. [Link]
39. Zadeh PM, Sokhansefat T, Kasaeian AB, Kowsary F, Akbarzadeh [Link].
A. Hybrid optimization algorithm for thermal analysis in a solar 51. Khanafer K, Vafai K. A critical synthesis of thermophysical
parabolic trough collector based on nanofluid. Energy. characteristics of nanofluids. Int J Heat Mass Transf.
2015;82:857–64. 2011;54(19):4410–28.
40. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C. Assessment of the thermal enhancement 52. Yu W, Choi SUS. The role of interfacial layers in the enhanced
methods in parabolic trough collectors. Int J Energy Environ Eng. thermal conductivity of nanofluids: a renovated Maxwell model.
2017. [Link] J Nanopart Res. 2003;5:167.
41. Behar O, Khellaf A, Mohammedi K. A novel parabolic trough 53. Duangthongsuk W, Wongwises S. An experimental study on the
solar collector model—Validation with experimental data and heat transfer performance and pressure drop of TiO2—water
comparison to Engineering Equation Solver (EES). Energy nanofluids flowing under a turbulent flow regime. Int J Heat Mass
Convers Manag. 2015;106:268–81. Transf. 2010;53(1–3):334–44.
42. Forristall R. Heat transfer analysis and modeling of a parabolic 54. Batchelor GK. The effect of Brownian motion on the bulk stress
trough solar receiver implemented in engineering equation solver. in a suspension of spherical particles. J Fluid Mech.
Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory–NREL; 2003. 1977;83:97–117.
43. Bellos E, Tzivanidis C, Antonopoulos KA, Daniil I. The use of
gas working fluids in parabolic trough collectors—an energetic
and exergetic analysis. Appl Therm Eng. 2016;109(A):1–14.

123