Heat and Mass Transfer

, Volume 55, Issue 3, pp 581–593 | Cite as

Numerical investigation of efficiency and economic analysis of an evacuated U-tube solar collector with different nanofluids

  • Hüseyin KayaEmail author
  • Kamil Arslan


In this paper, an evacuated U-tube tube solar collector (EUSC) was designed and simulated numerically. The thermal performance of the EUSC was analyzed under different operating conditions. In order to enhance the heat transfer efficiency and also collector efficiency, higher thermal conductivity working fluids were used. Ag, ZnO and MgO nanoparticles in 30%:70% (by volume) ethylene glycol-pure water (EG-PW) mixture and different nanoparticle volumetric concentrations were used as working fluids. The highest collector efficiency is found at 68.7% for 4.0 vol% Ag/EG-PW nanofluid which is 26.7% higher than EG–PW. Furthermore, using nanofluids in solar collectors helps to reduce the coal usage with CO2 and SO2 generation. The maximum values of reduction of coal usage and CO2 and SO2 generation are 855.5 kg, 2241.4 kg and 7.2 kg per year, respectively, when 30 solar collectors are installed with using 4.0 vol% Ag/EG-PW nanofluid. These findings reveal that the using of solar energy comprehensively is more beneficial for health of earth.



The authors would like to acknowledge the KBÜ-BAP office. This work was supported by KBÜ-BAP (Project ID number: KBÜ-BAP- 16/1-KP- 240).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Thirugnanasambandam M, Iniyan S, Goic R (2010) A review of solar thermal technologies. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:312–322. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gao Y, Fan R, Zhang XY, An YJ, Wang MX, Gao YK, Yu Y (2014) Thermal performance and parameter analysis of a U-pipe evacuated solar tube collector. Sol Energy 107:714–727. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim Y, Seo T (2007) Thermal performances comparisons of the glass evacuated tube solar collectors with shapes of absorber tube. Renew Energy 32:772–795. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li Y, Fernández-Seara J, Du K, Pardiñas ÁÁ, Latas LL, Jiang W (2016) Experimental investigation on heat transfer and pressure drop of ZnO/ethylene glycol-water nanofluids in transition flow. Appl Therm Eng 93:537–548. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hamid KA, Azmi WH, Mamat R, Sharma KV (2016) Experimental investigation on heat transfer performance of TiO2 nanofluids in water-ethylene glycol mixture. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 73:16–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xu J, Bandyopadhyay K, Jung D (2016) Experimental investigation on the correlation between nano-fluid characteristics and thermal properties of Al2O3 nano-particles dispersed in ethylene glycol-water mixture. Int J Heat Mass Transf 94:262–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cabaleiro D, Pastoriza-Gallego MJ, Pineiro MM, Lugo L (2013) Characterization and measurements of thermal conductivity, density and rheological properties of zinc oxide nanoparticles dispersed in (ethane-1,2-diol + water) mixture. J Chem Thermodyn 58:405–415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yousefi T, Veysi F, Shojaeizadeh E, Zinadini S (2012) An experimental investigation on the effect of Al2O3-H2O nanofluid on the efficiency of flat-plate solar collectors. Renew Energy 39:293–298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yousefi T, Veisy F, Shojaeizadeh E, Zinadini S (2012) An experimental investigation on the effect of MWCNT-H2O nanofluid on the efficiency of flat-plate solar collectors. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 39:207–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Said Z, Sajid MH, Alim MA, Saidur R, Rahim NA (2013) Experimental investigation of the thermophysical properties of AL2O3-nanofluid and its effect on a flat plate solar collector. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 48:99–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sokhansefat T, Kasaeian A (2012) Numerical Study of Heat Transfer Enhancement by using Al2O3 / Synthetic Oil Nanofluid in a Parabolic Trough Collector Tube, in: World Acad. Sci Eng Technol 69:1154–1159Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalogirou SA (2004) Solar thermal collectors and applications. Prog Energy Combust Sci 30:231–295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Colangelo G, Favale E, De Risi A, Laforgia D (2013) A new solution for reduced sedimentation flat panel solar thermal collector using nanofluids. Appl Energy 111:80–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moghadam AJ, Farzane-Gord M, Sajadi M, Hoseyn-Zadeh M (2014) Effects of CuO/water nanofluid on the efficiency of a flat-plate solar collector. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 58:9–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faizal M, Saidur R, Mekhilef S (2013) Potential of size reduction of flat-plate solar collectors when applying MWCNT nanofluid. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 16:012004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahian O, Kianifar A, Sahin AZ, Wongwises S (2014) Performance analysis of a minichannel-based solar collector using different nanofluids. Energy Convers Manag 88:129–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gao Y, Zhang Q, Fan R, Lin X, Yu Y (2013) Effects of thermal mass and flow rate on forced-circulation solar hot-water system: Comparison of water-in-glass and U-pipe evacuated-tube solar collectors. Sol Energy 98:290–301. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liang RB, Zhang JL, Zhao L, Ma LD (2015) Performance enhancement of filled-type solar collector with U-tube. J Cent South Univ 22:1124–1131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liang R, Ma L, Zhang J, Zhao D (2011) Theoretical and experimental investigation of the filled-type evacuated tube solar collector with U tube. Sol Energy 85:1735–1744. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liang R, Ma L, Zhang J, Zhao L (2013) Performance analysis of a new-design filled-type solar collector with double U-tubes. Energy Build 57:220–226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liang R, Zhang J, Zhao L, Ma L (2014) Research on the universal model of filled-type evacuated tube with U-tube in uniform boundary condition. Appl Therm Eng 63:362–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ma L, Zhao T, Zhang J, Zhao D (2016) Numerical study on the heat transfer characteristics of filled-type solar collector with U-tube. Appl Therm Eng 107:642–652. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alfaro-Ayala JA, Martínez-Rodríguez G, Picón-Núñez M, Uribe-Ramírez AR, Gallegos-Muñoz A (2015) Numerical study of a low temperature water-in-glass evacuated tube solar collector. Energy Convers Manag 94:472–481. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Azad E (2008) Theoretical and experimental investigation of heat pipe solar collector. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 32:1666–1672. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yin ZQ, Harding GL, Collins RE (1997) The thermal performance of the coaxial evacuated glass tubular solar collector. Sol Energy 2:19–20Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu ZH, Hu RL, Lu L, Zhao F, Xiao HS (2013) Thermal performance of an open thermosyphon using nanofluid for evacuated tubular high temperature air solar collector. Energy Convers Manag 73:135–143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim H, Kim J, Cho H (2017) Experimental study on performance improvement of U-tube solar collector depending on nanoparticle size and concentration of Al2O3 nanofluid. Energy 118:1304–1312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tong Y, Cho H (2015) Comparative Study on the Thermal Performance of Evacuated Solar Collectors with U-Tubes and Heat Pipes. Int J Air-Conditioning Refrig 23:1550019. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim JT, Ahn HT, Han H, Kim HT, Chun W (2007) The performance simulation of all-glass vacuum tubes with coaxial fluid conduit. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 34:587–597. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tian Q (2006) Study on thermal efficiency and performance of U-tubular all-glass evacuated tube solar collector. Energy Eng 6:36–40Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tian Q (2007) Thermal performance of the U-type evacuated glass tubular solar collector. Build Energy Environ 26(3):51–54Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Duffie J, Beckman W (2006) Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken. Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Choi SUS, Eastman JA (1995) Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with nanoparticles. ASME Int Mech Eng Congr Expo 66:99–105. Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Incropera FP, Bergman TL, Lavine AS, DeWitt DP (2011) Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 7th ed. John Wiley & Sons, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pak BC, Cho YI (1998) Hydrodynamic and Heat Transfer Study of Dispersed Fluids With Submicron Metallic Oxide Particles. Exp Heat Transf 11:151–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hussein AM, Sharma KV, Bakar RA, Kadirgama K (2013) The effect of cross sectional area of tube on friction factor and heat transfer nanofluid turbulent flow. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 47:49–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shah RK (1975) Thermal entry length solutions for the circular tube and paralel plates. In: 3rd Natl. Heat Mass Transf. Conf., pp. 11–75Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Li CH, Peterson GP (2006) Experimental investigation of temperature and volume fraction variations on the effective thermal conductivity of nanoparticle suspensions (nanofluids). J Appl Phys 99.
  39. 39.
    Verma SK, Tiwari AK (2015) Progress of nanofluid application in solar collectors: A review. Energy Convers Manag 100:324–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Masuda H, Ebata A, Teramae K, Hishinuma N (1993) Alteration of Thermal Conductivity and Viscosity of Liquid by Dispersing Ultra-Fine Particles (Dispersion of Al2O3, SiO2 and TiO2 Ultra-Fine Particles). Netsu Bussei 7:227–233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bejan A (2013) Convection Heat Transfer, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Das SK, Choi SUS, Yu W, Pradeep T (2007) Nanofluids: Science and Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kim H, Ham J, Park C, Cho H (2016) Theoretical investigation of the efficiency of a U-tube solar collector using various nanofluids. Energy 94:497–507. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ma L, Lu Z, Zhang J, Liang R (2010) Thermal performance analysis of the glass evacuated tube solar collector with U-tube. Build Environ 45:1959–1967. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Verma SK, Tiwari AK, Chauhan DS (2016) Performance augmentation in flat plate solar collector using MgO / water nanofluid. Energy Convers Manag 124:607–617. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Li Y, Xie HQ, Yu W, Li J (2011) Investigation on Heat Transfer Performances of Nanofluids in Solar Collector. Mater Sci Forum 694:33–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
  48. 48.
  49. 49., (2016)Google Scholar
  50. 50., (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringKarabük UniversityKarabükTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringBartın UniversityBartınTurkey

Personalised recommendations