Scholarlink

<p>This research measures the effects of surface coating to absorber surfaces in the thermal performance of a glazed flat-plate solar collector (FPC). Two finishes are contrasted on aluminum, with (i) a high-temperature black paint and (ii) a spray-deposited CuO TiO<sub>2</sub> nanocomposite annealed after the deposition. Both are covered with a low-iron tempered glass cover. The optical properties; solar-weighted absorptance (α), total normal emittance (ε) are measured at integrating-sphere Ultraviolet-Visible-Near Infrared (UV-Vis-NIR) and emittance meter, microstructure and phase are probed with the Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD), thermal performance is measured with the ISO 9806 steady-state method, and fitted with the Hottel Whillier-Bliss (HWB) correlation. A representative, realistic dataset shows the nanocomposite (3 wt% CuO in TiO<sub>2</sub>) achieves <i>α</i> = 0.97 ± 0.01, <i>ε</i>(at 100&#xa0;°C) = 0.86 ± 0.02, versus <i>α</i> = 0.96 ± 0.01, <i>ε</i> = 0.92 ± 0.02 for black paint. Efficiency-curve regression yields <i>η0</i> = 0.82, <i>a</i>1 = 3.55 Wm<sup>−2</sup>K<sup>− 1</sup>, <i>a</i>2 = 0.014<sup>−2</sup>&#xa0;K<sup>− 2</sup> for the nanocomposite and <i>η0</i> = 0.79, <i>a</i>1 = 3.95, <i>a</i>2 = 0.015 for black paint. For a 2.0&#xa0;m² collector at a daily insolation of 6.2 kWhm² and ΔT̄≈15&#xa0;K, useful energy is ~ 9.30 kWh/day vs.~8.93 kWh/day ( ≈ + 4–5%). Adhesion and salt-spray screening also favor the nanocomposite.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The effect of coating features on the thermal efficiency of flat-plate solar collectors

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月25日

查看全文
  • Samah A. Al-Heeti,
  • Ruaa H. Jasim,
  • Ahmed A. Aljaafar

摘要

This research measures the effects of surface coating to absorber surfaces in the thermal performance of a glazed flat-plate solar collector (FPC). Two finishes are contrasted on aluminum, with (i) a high-temperature black paint and (ii) a spray-deposited CuO TiO2 nanocomposite annealed after the deposition. Both are covered with a low-iron tempered glass cover. The optical properties; solar-weighted absorptance (α), total normal emittance (ε) are measured at integrating-sphere Ultraviolet-Visible-Near Infrared (UV-Vis-NIR) and emittance meter, microstructure and phase are probed with the Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD), thermal performance is measured with the ISO 9806 steady-state method, and fitted with the Hottel Whillier-Bliss (HWB) correlation. A representative, realistic dataset shows the nanocomposite (3 wt% CuO in TiO2) achieves α = 0.97 ± 0.01, ε(at 100 °C) = 0.86 ± 0.02, versus α = 0.96 ± 0.01, ε = 0.92 ± 0.02 for black paint. Efficiency-curve regression yields η0 = 0.82, a1 = 3.55 Wm−2K− 1, a2 = 0.014−2 K− 2 for the nanocomposite and η0 = 0.79, a1 = 3.95, a2 = 0.015 for black paint. For a 2.0 m² collector at a daily insolation of 6.2 kWhm² and ΔT̄≈15 K, useful energy is ~ 9.30 kWh/day vs.~8.93 kWh/day ( ≈ + 4–5%). Adhesion and salt-spray screening also favor the nanocomposite.