Influence of water based binary composite nanofluids on thermal performance of solar thermal technologies: sustainability assessments

Figures & data

Table 1. Previous experimental and computational studies on the use of hybrid nanofluids inside FPSCs.

		Hybrid nanofluid
Reference	Base fluid	Type	Size	Mass/volume%	Study type	Working conditions	Remarks
(Farajzadeh et al., 2018)	H2O	Al2O3/TiO2	TiO2 (15 nm): Al2O3 (20 nm)	0.1 wt.% & 0.2 wt.%	Exp. and num.	1.5, 2 and 2.5 LPM	Thermal efficiency increased to 26%.
(Ranga Babu et al., 2018)	H2O	Cu-CuO	/	1–5 vol.%	Analytical	0.01 and 0.5 kg/s	Efficiency increased by 2.175%.
(Verma et al., 2018)	H2O	MgO-MWCNTs; CuO-MWCNTs	MWCNTs, OD 7 nm (avg.); CuO 42 nm	0.25–2 wt.%	Exp.	0.5 to 2.0 LPM	Exergy and energy efficiency were 71.54% and 70.55% (MgO-MWCNTs) and 70.63% and 69.11% (CuO-MWCNTs).
(Hussein et al., 2020)	H2O	h-BN, GNPs, MWCNTs	MWCNTs (OD 15 nm); GNPs (Dia. 2 µm)	0.05 wt.%, 0.08 wt.% & 0.1 wt.%	Exp.	2, 3 and 4 LPM	Efficiency enhanced up to 11.8% for 0.05 wt.% and 21.9% for 0.10 wt.%.
(Sundar et al., 2021)	H2O	ND–Co3O4	/	0.05–0.15 wt.%.	Exp.	0.56–1.35 LPM	The collector thermal efficiency was found to be 59% at 0.15 wt.% of hybrid nanofluid.
(Okonkwo et al., 2020)	H2O	Al2O3-Fe	Al2O3 (29 nm) and Fe (46 nm)	0.05 wt.%, 0.1 wt.%, and 0.2 wt.%	Exp.	0.001–0.07 kg/s	The hybrid nanofluids did not provide a better thermal option to H2O.
(Xiong et al., 2021)	H2O	Ag-Al2O3	Ag (average 13 nm); Al2O3 (average 17.5 nm)	0.005 wt.%–0.1 wt.%	Num.	Re = 5-50	Employing hybrid nanofluid was leading to slightly raised supply temperature at low Re.
(Alrowaili et al., 2022)	H2O	CuO-Cu	CuO (40 nm)-Cu (50 nm)	CuO 3.5 g + Cu 0.5 g, CuO 3 g + Cu 1 g, CuO 2.5 g + Cu 1.5 g	Exp.	0.0125–0.0175 L/s.	Thermal-optical efficiency was increased by 61.7% with hybrid nanofluid.
(Khetib et al., 2022)	H2O	DWCNTs-TiO2	/	1 ≤ ϕ ≤ 3	Num.	7000 ≤ Re ≤ 28,000	Energy efficacy enhances by augmenting the twisting  ratio.
(Said et al., 2022)	H2O	MWCNT-Fe3O4	MWCNTs (10–30 ηm); Fe3O4 (13 nm)	0.3%, 0.2%, 0.1% and 0.05% by vol.	Exp. & Computational	235.62 ≤ Re ≤ 1774.61	Exergy efficiency of solar collector increased up to 40.51%.
Current study	H2O	Al2O3-Cu; MWCNTs-Fe3O4; Ag-MgO; CuO-Cu	Al2O3@Cu (17 nm); MWCNTs (Dia. of 10–30 nm); Fe3O4 (13 nm); MgO (40 nm); Ag (25 nm) & CuO-Cu (50 nm)	/	Num.	500 ≤ Re ≤ 1900	Low thermal performance enhancement of 7.59% and 7.44% were reported by 0.1%-Al2O3@Cu/DW and 0.3%-MWCNTs@Fe3O4/DW.

Figure 1. A drawing of the FPSC numerical model and the grid domain.

Table 2. Thermo-physical properties of H₂O and different types of hybrid nanofluid at 293 K (Minea, 2017).

				Thermo-physical properties
Study	DW/Hybrid nanofluid	Nanoparticle size	Mixing ratio	Density (kg/m^3)	Specific heat capacity (J/kg·K)	Thermal conductivity (W/m·K)	Dynamic viscosity (kg/m-s)
Sundar et al. (2021)	H2O	/	/	998.5	4182	0.602	7.9 × 10^−4
Suresh et al. (2011)	0.1%-Al2O3@Cu/H2O	17 nm	90%:10%	1001.3	4176.83	0.620	9.3 × 10^−4
Sundar et al. (2021)	0.1%-MWCNTs@ Fe3O4/H2O	MWCNTs = dia. of 10–30 nm and L of 0.5–500 µm; Fe3O4 = 13 nm	26%:74%	1002.34	4182.66	0.6734	9.1 × 10^−4
	0.3%-MWCNT@ Fe3O4/H2O			1010.04	1010.04	0.6856	10.1 × 10^−4
Hemmat Esfe et al. (2015)	0.5%-Ag@MgO/H2O	40(MgO) and 25(Ag)  nm	(50% Ag and 50% MgO)	1028.68	4163.86	0.630	8.38 × 10^−4
	1%-Ag@MgO/H2O			1058.87	4166.64	0.659	8.9 × 10^−4
Balla et al. (2013)	1%-S1	50 nm	2CuO-1Cu	1059.65	4145.02	0.795	19 × 10^−4
	1%-S2	50 nm	1CuO-2Cu	1069.75	4144.52	0.843	22 × 10^−4

Table 3. Grid independence test using different grid domains under the conditions 293 K and Reynolds number 500.

Grid domain	Elements	hsur (W/m^2·K)	ΔP (Pa)	Tout (K)	Heat gain (W)	Solar collector efficiency (%)	Tsur (K)
1	462,000	2447.244	3.135	319.471	429.077	42.908	333.555
2	612,600	2496.967	3.132	316.988	388.822	38.882	332.659
3	697,800	2501.875	3.132	316.424	379.685	37.968	332.523
4	773,400	2622.039	3.133	314.299	345.242	34.524	330.470
5	872,000	2659.458	3.133	313.177	327.055	32.705	329.621

Figure 2. Comparison between the current data and the previous results of Verma et al. (2018).

Figure 3. Comparison between the present work and the experimental results of Farajzadeh et al. (2018).

Figure 4. Thermo-physical properties of different nanocomposites and DW at 293 K.

Figure 5. Outlet temperature versus Reynolds number for DW and different hybrid nanofluids.

Figure 6. Surface temperature versus Reynolds number for DW and different hybrid nanofluids.

Figure 7. Surface heat transfer coefficient versus Reynolds number for DW and different hybrid nanofluids.

Figure 8. Pressure drop versus Reynolds number for DW and different hybrid nanofluids.

Figure 9. Heat gain versus Reynolds number for DW and different hybrid nanofluids.

Figure 10. Thermal efficiency versus Reynolds number for DW and different hybrid nanofluids.

short-legendFigure A1.

Farajzadeh, E., Movahed, S., & Hosseini, R. (2018). Experimental and numerical investigations on the effect of Al2O3/TiO2H2O nanofluids on thermal efficiency of the flat plate solar collector. Renewable Energy, 118, 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.10.102

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ranga Babu, J. A., Kiran Kumar, K., & Srinivasa Rao, S. (2018). Thermodynamic analysis of hybrid nanofluid based solar flat plate collector. World Journal of Engineering, 15(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJE-03-2017-0048

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Verma, S. K., Tiwari, A. K., Tiwari, S., & Chauhan, D. S. (2018). Performance analysis of hybrid nanofluids in flat plate solar collector as an advanced working fluid. Solar Energy, 167, 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.04.017

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hussein, O. A., Habib, K., Muhsan, A. S., Saidur, R., Alawi, O. A., & Ibrahim, T. K. (2020). Thermal performance enhancement of a flat plate solar collector using hybrid nanofluid. Solar Energy, 204, 208–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.04.034

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sundar, L. S., Misganaw, A. H., Singh, M. K., Sousa, A. C. M., & Ali, H. M. (2021). Efficiency analysis of thermosyphon solar flat plate collector with low mass concentrations of ND–Co3O4 hybrid nanofluids: An experimental study. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 143(2), 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-020-10176-1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Okonkwo, E. C., Wole-Osho, I., Kavaz, D., Abid, M., & Al-Ansari, T. (2020). Thermodynamic evaluation and optimization of a flat plate collector operating with alumina and iron mono and hybrid nanofluids. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 37, 100636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100636.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xiong, Q., Tayebi, T., Izadi, M., Siddiqui, A. A., Ambreen, T., & Li, L. K. B. (2021). Numerical analysis of porous flat plate solar collector under thermal radiation and hybrid nanoparticles using two-phase model. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 47, 101404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101404

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alrowaili, Z. A., Ezzeldien, M., Shaaalan, N. M., Hussein, E., & Sharafeldin, M. A. (2022). Investigation of the effect of hybrid CuO-Cu/water nanofluid on the solar thermal energy storage system. Journal of Energy Storage, 50, 104675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.104675

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khetib, Y., Alzaed, A., Tahmasebi, A., Sharifpur, M., & Cheraghian, G. (2022). Influence of using innovative turbulators on the exergy and energy efficacy of flat plate solar collector with DWCNTs-TiO2/water nanofluid. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 51, 101855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101855

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Said, Z., Sharma, P., Syam Sundar, L., Nguyen, V. G., Tran, V. D., & Le, V. V. (2022). Using Bayesian optimization and ensemble boosted regression trees for optimizing thermal performance of solar flat plate collector under thermosyphon condition employing MWCNT-Fe3O4/water hybrid nanofluids. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 53, 102708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102708

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Minea, A. A. (2017). Challenges in hybrid nanofluids behavior in turbulent flow: Recent research and numerical comparison. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 71, 426–434.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Suresh, S., Venkitaraj, K. P., Selvakumar, P., & Chandrasekar, M. (2011). Synthesis of Al2O3–Cu/water hybrid nanofluids using two step method and its thermo physical properties. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 388(1–3), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2011.08.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hemmat Esfe, M., Arani, A. A. A., Rezaie, M., Yan, W. M., & Karimipour, A. (2015). Experimental determination of thermal conductivity and dynamic viscosity of Ag–MgO/water hybrid nanofluid. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2015.06.003

 Google Scholar

Balla, H. H., Abdullah, S., MohdFaizal, W., Zulkifli, R., & Sopian, K. (2013). Numerical study of the enhancement of heat transfer for hybrid CuO-Cu nanofluids flowing in a circular pipe. Journal of Oleo Science, 62(7), 533–539. https://doi.org/10.5650/jos.62.533

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data used in this research presented in the article itself.