International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2013)

Performance Analysis of Single Slope Solar Still

Dinesh Kumar1, Patel Himanshu2, Zameer Ahmad3
M.Tech Student, Alternate Hydro Energy Centre, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee Uttarakhand- 247667
Abstract-- This paper presents evaluation of performance of solar water distillation using solar still. Solar distillation represents a most attractive and simple technique among other distillation processes, and it is especially suited to smallscale units at locations where solar energy is considerable. in this we have calculated internal heat transfer coefficient and the mass output hourly basis. The effect of depth of water and inclination of tilted glass on water output is also evaluated. The performance analysis is carried out by developing Matlab Simulink based model and result obtained is verified by experimental setup. Keywards-- Solar still, internal heat transfer coefficient, Matlab/ Simulink, distillation, inclination of tilted glass

Tripathi and Tiwari [5] thereafter applied the correlation of Kumar and Tiwari [4] to evaluate the internal heat and mass transfer correlations for active solar distillation for a very small inclination of condensing cover in winter climatic conditions.[6] Anil Kr. Tiwari and G. N. Tiwari evaluated Effect of Cover Inclination and Water Depth on Performance of a Solar Still. This paper comprises of six section. in section two we discussed mathematical model and in section three Matlab block diagram is discussed. Experimental setup is discussed in section four. While simulation result, experimental result, and conclusion are presented in section five and six respectively. II. MATHEMATICAL MODEL O F SOLAR S TILL These are the following equations which are presenting the solar still system. Temperature dependent physical properties of vapor Cp =999.2+0.1434 x Tv + 1.101 x 10-4x Tv2-6.7581x 10-8x Tv3 (1) =353.44/(Tv x 273.15) k=0.0244 x 0.7673 x 10-4 x Tv =10718 x 10 + 4.620 x 10 xTv L=3.1615x10 x[1-(7.616x10 xTv)]; Pci=exp[25.317 5144/(Tci + 273)] =1/(Tv + 273.15)
6 -4 -5 -8

I. INTRODUCTION The fresh water crisis is already evident in many parts of India, varying in scale and intensity at different times of the year. The fresh water crisis is not the result of natural factors, but has been caused by human actions. Indias rapidly rising population and changing lifestyles also increases the need for fresh water. Widespread pollution of surface and groundwater is reducing the quality of fresh water resources. Most of the conventional Water distillation processes are highly energy consuming and require fossil fuels as well as electric power for their operation. A solar still, however, employs a comparably shallow water basin located inside a fully closed, greenhouse like structure. Water vapour generated inside the still condenses at the inner side of its transparent cover, which is convectively cooled from the outside by natural airflow. Dunkle [1] who derived a widely used as well as analyzed, semi empirical relation for evaluating the internal heat and mass transfer within solar distillation units. This empirical relation is popularly known as Dunkles relation. Malik et al. [2] then summarized a historical review on solar distillation systems, Tiwari and Lawrence [3] attempted to incorporate the effect of inclination of the condensing surface using the same values of C and n as proposed by Dunkle. Kumar and Tiwari [4] developed a thermal correlation for outdoor conditions based on linear regression analysis to determine convective mass transfer for a varying range of Grashof numbers.

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Pw =exp[25.317 5144/(Tw + 273)] (7) (8)

Thus the heat transfer per unit area per unit time evaporation from the water surface to glass cover qew = hew (Tw-Tci) (9)

The relation between evaporative heat transfer coefficient and convective heat transfer coefficient hew = 0.016273*hcw*(Pw-Pci / Tw-Tci) (10) hew = 0.016273*[(k/a)c(Gr.Pr)n*(Pw-Pci/ Tw-Tci)] (11) qew= 0.016273*[(k/d)c(Gr.Pr)n*(Pw-Pci / TwTci)*(Tw-Tci)] (12)

66

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2013) It can also be written as qew = hew (Tw-Tci) (13)

The rate of mass transfer mew is given by me = qew/L (14) n mw=.0163(Pw-Pci)(k/d)c(Gr.Pr) *(3600/L)*Aw (15) III. MATLAB S IMULINK MODEL The above system equations (1)-(15) are implemented in Matlab simulink bloc diagram shown in figure 1 and its sub system block diagram are shown in figure 2.
Fig.3.Experimental setup of solar distillation with two different inclination of glass cover

Fig.1.bloc diagram of solar still

Fig.4.Instruments used

V. RESULT AND D ISCUSSION These figures 5 and 6 indicate that the internal heat transfer coefficients decrease with the increase of water depth in the basin due to decrease in the temperature difference between the glass and water temperature. Further it is important to note that the fluctuation in internal convective heat transfer coefficient decreases with the increase of water depth due to storage effect presents the theoretical and experimental results of the hourly yield for the studied water depths in the basin. From it is observed that there is a fair agreement between the experimental and theoretical results for 0.05 m water depth in the basin. However, for higher depths (0.10 m and 0.15 m), the fluctuation between the experimental and theoretical results is large.

Fig.2. sub system solar still

IV. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP The installed experimental setup is shown in Fig.3 Experiments are performed for both stills with different depth of water to three consecutive days and the following data are observed as temperatures at water surface, inner & outer surface of glass and ambient condition, global and diffuse radiation and yield are recorded hourly basis round the clock.

67

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2013)

Fig.5.Variation of convective heat transfer coefficient(hc) from Tiwari model vs time Fig.8. global radiation vs time at 23 degree

B. Comparison Of Id For Both Still The diffused radiation for both still at different water level as illustrated below and it is found that the higher value is found in case of 15cm depth of water for both still at different angle of inclination. the higher value is found during time interval 12noon to 1pm and its value is reach up to179W/m2 for both still.The graph of defused radiation for both still at different level of water separately is also shown and it also varies with similar way and higher value is found at 15cm depth of water for both still.

Fig.6.Explanation given for solar still with inclination angle of 30 degree is same as in this case also.

A. Comparison Of Ig For Both Still The global radiation for both the still varies with almost same characteristics and it is found higher during time interval 11am to 2 pm in this interval the global radiation is almost 1000 to 1050W/m2. And the comparison of the Ig for same depth of water separately for both still is also illustrated in fig as this varies almost similar way there is no more deviation found.
Fig.9. diffuse radiation vs time at 23 degree

Fig.7.global radiation vs time at 30 degree

Fig.10.diffuse radiation vs time at 30 degree

68

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2013) C. Comparision Of Tw For Both Still The variation of temprature of water for both still at different water level is illustrated and is found its value higher when the depth of water is minimum and its value is approximately 54 degree in all cases either seperately at different level or combined for both the still. And its value is higher during time 1to 2 pm and water temprature varies similarly for different depth at difffrent angle of onclination.

Fig.13.inner glass temp vs time at 30 degree

Fig.11.Water temp vs time at 30 degree

Fig.14.inner glass temp vs time at 23 degree

E. Comparision Of Tgo For Both Still The variation of temprature of outer glass surface with different glass cover inclination at difrent depth of water is illustrated its variation is similar for both still and higher value is also same for all depth of watereither seperately or combined and its value is approximately equal to51 degree centigrate and it is found during 1pm to 2pm.

Fig.12.Water temp vs time at 23 degree

D. Comparision Of Tgi For Both Still The variation of temprature of inner glass surface with different glass cover inclination at difrent depth of water is illustrated its variation is similar for both still and higher value is also same for all depth of watereither seperately or combined and its value is approximately equal to52 degree centigrate and it is found during 1pm to 2pm.

Fig.15.outer glass temp vs time at 30 degree

69

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2013)

Fig.16.outer glass temp vs time at 23 degree

Fig.18.Yield vs time at 30 degree by experiment

Yield (ml) vs Time (hr) at 23 deg inclination 120

F. Comparision Of Yeild For Both Still The variation of yield with different angle of inclination of different depth of water is illustrated bellow . the value of yeild is found higher at 5cm depth of water for both the still during 3pm to 4pm but when the grapf is ploted seperately at same depth of water and different angle of inlination is also shown.the higher value is found in 30 degree angle of inclination for all the depth of water seperately and it is found during same time intervalas above for combined graph.
Yield (ml) VS Time (hr) at 30 deg inclination 80 70 5 cm depth 60

100 5 cm depth 80
YIELD (ml)

60 10 cm depth 40 15 cm depth 20

10

12 14 TIME (hr)

16

18

20

22

24

Fig.19.Yield vs time at 23 degree by simulation

50
YIELD (ml)

10 cm depth 40 30 15 cm depth 20 10 0

10

12 14 TIME (hr)

16

18

20

22

24

Fig.17.Yield vs time at 30 degree by simulation

Fig.20.Yield vs. time at 23 degree by experiment

70

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2013) G. Comparision Of Efficiency For Both Still The variation of efficiency with different angle of inclination of different depth of water is illustrated bellow . the value of efficiency is found higher at 5cm depth of water for both the still during 3pm to 4pm but when the grapf is ploted seperately at same depth of water and different angle of inlination is also shown.the higher value is found in 30 degree angle of inclination for all the depth of water seperately and it is found during same time intervalas above for combined graph.
efficiency vs water depth 30

Nomenclature Cp = Specific heat = Density k =Thermal conductivity =Viscosity L =Latent heat of Vaporization of water Pci=Partial saturated Vapor pressure at condensing cover temperature Pw=Partial saturated vapor pressure at water temperature =Expansion factor

25

30 degree inclination

hew= evaporative heat transfer coefficient

20

Efficiency(%)

hcw= convective heat transfer coefficient.

15

Tw=water surface temperatue

23 degree inclination

10

Tci=glass inner temperature, Tv=vapor temperature qew= heat transfer per unit area per unit time mew= rate of mass transfer, kg/s Pr = Prandtl number Gr= Grashoffs number d=depth of water in cm Aw =evaporative surface area, m2 REFERENCES
[1 ] Dunkle, R. V., 1961, Solar Water Distillation: The Roof Type Still and a Multiple Effect Diffusion Still, Proceedings of the International Development in Heat Transfer, ASME, University of Colorado, Pt. V, p. 895. [2 ] Malik, M. A. S., Tiwari, G. N., Kumar, A.,and Sodha, M. S., 1982, Solar Distillation, Pergamon, London. [3 ] Tiwari, G. N., and Lawrence, S. A., 1999, New Heat and Mass Transfer Relations for a Still, Energy Convers. Manage., 31, pp. 201203. [4 ] Kumar, S., and Tiwari, G. N., 1996, Estimation of Convective Mass Transfer in Solar Distillation System, Sol. Energy, 57, pp. 459464. [5 ] Tripathi, R., and Tiwari, G. N., 2005, Effect of Water Depth on Internal Heat and Mass Transfer for Active Solar Distillation, Desalination, 173, pp. 7388 [6 ] Anil Kr. Tiwari and G. N. TiwariEffect of Cover Inclination and Water Depth on Performance of a Solar Still for Indian Climatic Conditions Journal of Solar Energy Engineering, MAY 2008, Vol. 130 / 024502-1 [7 ] Tiwari, A. Kr., and Tiwari, G. N., 2006, Effect of Water Depth on Heat and Mass Transfer in a Passive Solar Still: In Summer, Desalination, 195, pp. 7894.

9 10 11 depth of water(cm)

12

13

14

15

Fig.21.Efficiency vs. depth of water by simulation

Fig.22.Efficiency vs. depth of water by experiment

VI. CONCLUSION The performance analysis of solar still is carried out by developing Matlab model and result obtained is verified by experimental setup.Dynamic system simulation studies demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed single slope solar still. The investigation is carried out for 30 degree and 23 degree inclination, based on this investigation it is concluded that 30 degree inclination of solar still is more efficient and effective for all point of view as heat transfer coefficients, yield, global radiation diffused radiation for the month of April.

71

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2013)
[8 ] Tiwari, G. N., 2002, Solar Energy, 1st ed., Narosa, New Delhi/CRC, New York, p. 506. [9 ] Anil Kumar, G.N. Tiwari, Thermal modeling of a natural convection greenhouse drying system for jaggery: An experimental validation, Solar Energy 80 (2006) 11351144. [10 ] Rajesh Tripathi and G.N. Tiwari, Thermal modeling of passive and active solar stills for different depths by using concept of solar fraction, solar energy., 80 (2006) 956-967. [11 ] Bala, B.K., Mondol, M.R.A., Biswas, B.K., Das Chowdury, B.L., Janjai, S., 2003. Solar drying of pineapple using solar tunnel drier. Renewable Energy 28 (2), 183190.

72