4.7 Article

Heat pipe flat plate solar collectors operating with nanofluids

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.solmat.2020.110798

关键词

Thermal collector; Heat pipe; Nanofluid; Energy; Exergy; Modeling

资金

  1. Institut de Recherche en Energie Solaire et Energies Nouvelles (IRESEN) under the project SOL'R SHEMSY

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to characterize the performance of a heat pipe flat plate solar collector using different nanofluids, with CuO-based nanofluid showing the highest enhancements in energetic and exergetic efficiencies. The decrease in specific heat of nanofluids is identified as the main thermal property responsible for performance improvement.
The aim of this work is to characterize numerically the performance of a heat pipe flat plate solar collector operating with nanofluids. A mathematical formulation under a 1-dimensional transient heat transfer model was introduced for this purpose. Spatio-temporal temperature variation of each collector subelement was predicted for a typical sunny day in the Moroccan city, Fez. CuO, Al2O3 and TiO2-based nanofluids were compared energetically and exergetically under various operating modes. The nanoparticle loading and mass flow rate of the working fluid were varied in the range of 0-3% and 0.018-0.036 kg/s, respectively. For the flow regime under focus, the decreased specific heat of nanofluids is the main thermal property responsible for the perfor-mance enhancement when nanofluids are used. CuO-based nanofluid was found to engender the highest relative enhancements in the energetic and exergetic efficiencies which were estimated at 2.7% and 11.1%, respectively compared to the base fluid (water). Using nanofluids for this collector class can ensure up to 2.95% surplus daily thermal energy generation compared to the base fluid. Moreover, the use of CuO-based nanofluid caused the largest increase in the pressure drop across the collector with a maximum value of 13.26% predicted for 3% nanoparticle loading.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据