International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 3977–3983

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhmt

Heat and mass transfer analysis of a clay-pot refrigerator

A.W. Date
Mechanical Engineering Department and Center for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai 400076, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The simple clay-pot refrigerator is ideally suited for preserving vegetarian foods in hot and dry climates.
Received 5 May 2011 The refrigerator works on the evaporative cooling principle. In this paper, steady-state performance of the
Received in revised form 22 February 2012 refrigerator is analysed using Reynolds flow model of convective heat/mass transfer. For the assumed
Accepted 23 February 2012
respiratory cooling load, the preservation temperature is predicted under a variety of ambient tempera-
Available online 3 May 2012
tures and relative humidities.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Reynolds flow model
Heat/mass transfer
Clay-pot refrigerator

1. Introduction
In rural areas of India, vegetarian food is often preserved in a
clay-pot refrigerator. The cooling space is a smaller clay pot in-
serted within a larger clay pot (see Fig. 1 - left). The annular space
between the two pots is filled with sand or tiny pebbles. The voids
in the annular space are occupied by water . Convective and radi-
ative heat transfer Qin from the hot and dry surroundings evapo-
rates this water and brings about cooling of the space in the
inner pot where food is kept. Once the sensible heats are removed,
the preserved foods give out respiratory cooling load qload (typically
0.05  0.2 W/kg ).1 Thus, the Steady-State Coefficient of Performance
(COP) of such a refrigerator may be defined as
Q load qload  mfood
COP ¼ ¼ ð1Þ
Q in Q in
This definition is of course different from that used for a con-
ventional refrigerator in which Qin is replaced by work input Win.
But, whereas one pays for Win, Qin is free. Also, Win of a conven-
tional refrigerator is under designer’s control whereas Qin depends
on ambient conditions and therefore not under designer’s control.
In order to circumvent the above difficulty, here an efficiency
gth is newly defined based on thermodynamic considerations as
T  T cold
gth ¼ 1 ð2Þ
T 1  T dp
where the preservation temperature in the inner pot Tcold depends
on the ambient conditions viz. temperature T1 and relative humid-
E-mail address: awdate@me.iitb.ac.in
1
In addition, there may be cooling load due to heat transfers from the top and
bottom of the refrigerator.
ity U1 (or, vapour mass fraction xv,1) and irreversible heat and
mass transfer processes. On the other hand, if the moist ambient
air was cooled at constant pressure then the moisture will begin to
condense at what is called the dew point temperature Tdp. We may
now imagine that our refrigerator is used to bring about this ideal
cooling. Then, gth = 1 will represent maximum cooling performance.
The main irreversible heat and mass transfers are influenced by
the thermal conductivity of clay walls and sand + water as well as
by surface areas of inner and outer pots which determine the inter-
nal resistance to heat transfer whereas the external resistance to
heat transfer is influenced by the external (usually by natural con-
vection) heat transfer coefficient ao. Similarly, the evaporation rate
is influenced by the effective hydraulic conductivity (KH) of the
outer clay wall and the external mass transfer coefficient g.
Fig. 1 (right) shows the assumed model of the refrigerator. The
curved surfaces are replaced by straight cylindrical surfaces of radii
ri and ro with height H. The inner and outer clay wall thicknesses
are bi and bo respectively. The thermal conductivity of clay is des-
ignated kcl and effective conductivity of sand+water is designated
as keff. Then, dependence of gth (or COP) and Tcold will be given by
½gth ; T cold  ¼ FfðT 1 ; U1 Þ; ðr i ; r o ; H; bi ; bo Þ; ðkcl ; keff ; ai ; ao ; Þ; K H g ð3Þ
where  is emissivity of the outer surface of the outer pot and ai,o
are heat transfer coefficients associated with inner and outer pots.2
The objective of the present paper is to establish this functional
dependence using the Reynolds flow model due to Spalding [1]. This
2
It must be mentioned that, as a cooling device, although the clay-pot refrigerator
has been in use for very long in history (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Pot-in-pot-refrigerator) the present author has found no heat/mass transfer
related technical lierature in any professional hand-books, research journals or text-
books.

0017-9310/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2012.03.028
3978 A.W. Date / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 3977–3983

Nomenclature

A surface area m 2 k latent heat J/kg

B Spalding number U relative humidity
b clay wall thickness m
Bi Biot number Suffixes
Cp specific heat J/kg  K a air
g mass transfer coefficient kg/m2  s cl clay
H pot height m cold inner pot environment
h enthalpy of the mixture J/kg dp dew point
k thermal conductivity W/m  K e energy conservation principle
kp permeability m2 eff sand + water
KH hydraulic conductivity m/s i inner pot
Le Lewis number in radiation + convection
m_ evaporation rate kg/s load cooling load
m mass kg m mass conservation principle or mean
P pressure N/m2 M transferred substance state
Q heat transfer W mean mixed mean
T temperature °C nc natural convection
o outer pot
Greek symbols rad radiation
a heat transfer coefficient W/m2  K ref reference value
b volumetric coefficient K1 v vapour
x mass fraction w water or w-w state
gth thermodynamic efficiency 1 ambient condition
 emissivity

Fig. 1. Clay pot refrigerator and assumed model.

model is presented in Section 2. The computed results for several

values of parameters are presented in Section 3. Finally, conclu-
sions are reported in Section 4.

2. Reynolds flow model

2.1. Definitions of states and phases

The Reynolds flow model is an algebraic model of mass transfer

m_ w (kg/s) across the interface between the transferred substance
(water, in the present case) and the considered phase (stagnant sur-
rounding air in the present case.). Fig. 2 shows the mass transfer
situation.
The interface in the present case is the outer surface of the outer
pot and is designated by w-w. The width of the considered phase
spans from w-w surface to the imaginary 1  1 surface. In the
Reynolds flow model, the transferred substance is taken at uniform
temperature and concentration. But, in the present case, the tem-
perature will vary in the annular space occupied by the transferred Fig. 2. Reynolds flow model.

substance. Therefore, we construct an imaginary transferred sub-

stance state M-M with uniform (or, mixed-mean) properties given Ti þ To
TM ¼ and xv ;M ¼ 1 ð4Þ
by 2
 A.W. Date / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 3977–3983 3979

where Ti and To are temperatures of the outer surface of the inner pot and Bim  g/(qw KH) may be viewed as mass transfer Biot number.
and inner surface of the outer pot, respectively as shown in Fig. 2.
2.2.2. Energy conservation principle
2.2. Reynolds flow hypothesis Writing the energy conservation principle for the air-water va-
pour mixture between 1  1 and w-w surfaces, we have
The Reynolds Flow Model postulates two mass flows (see Fig 2).
_ w hMw ¼ Q rad þ Q nc þ ðm
gAo h1 þ m _ w þ gAo Þhw ð11Þ
1. A mass flow g Ao (kg / s) crossing the 1  1 surface flowing
where hMw = Cpw (Tw  Tref) is the enthalpy of the transferred sub-
towards the w-w surface but carrying with it properties of the
stance (water) in the w-state and Qrad and Qnc are heat transfers
1-state.
due to radiation and natural convection respectively.
2. A mass flow (gAo þ m_ w ) crossing the 1  1 surface away from
Similarly, between 1  1 and M-M surfaces
the w-w surface but carrying with it properties of the w-state.
_ w hM þ Q load ¼ Q L þ ðm
gAo h1 þ m _ w þ gAo Þhw ð12Þ
where Ao = 2proH. Now, since m _ w enters the considered phase at
the w-w surface, mass balance over the width of the considered where hM = Cpw (TM  Tref). QL is the heat conduction in the sand+
phase shows that hypothesising existence of fictitious mass flow water layer. Combining Eqs. (11) and (12) gives
(g Ao) does not create or destroy any mass in the considered phase.
As such, the hypothesis claims that all phenomena of the real flow _ w ðhMw  hM Þ  Q rad  Q nc
Q load  Q L ¼ m ð13Þ
 
in the considered phase and their effects on the heat/mass transfer T þ To
¼m _ w Cpw T w  i  Q rad  Q nc ð14Þ
processes at the w-w surface will be unaffected by the Reynolds 2
flow model hypothesis. With this claim, we invoke conservation
of mass and energy principles. where the left hand side of this equation can be evaluated from heat
conduction considerations as
 
2.2.1. Mass conservation principle keff Ai
Thus, invoking the mass conservation principle for water-vapour Q load  Q L ¼ ðT i  T o Þ ð15Þ
ri ln ðr o =r i Þ
between w-w and 1  1 states, we have  
kcl Ao
¼ ðT o  T w Þ ð16Þ
gAo xv ;1 þ m _ w þ gAo Þxv ;w
_ w ¼ ðm ð5Þ bo
where xv is vapour mass-fraction. Of course, mass fraction of air Combining the last two equations, it can be shown that
will be xa = 1  xv. Upon rearrangement,  
bo ri lnðr o =r i Þ
xv ;1  xv ;w Ti  Tw ¼ þ ðQ load  Q L Þ ð17Þ
_ w;m ¼ gAo  B where B ¼
m ð6Þ kcl Ao keff Ai
xv ;w  1
Similarly, heat transfer across S-S surface gives
and, since the Lewis number Le ’ 1 (for our air-water vapour sys-  
tem) the mass transfer coefficient g (kg/m2-s) can be estimated Q load 1 bi
T cold  T i ¼ þ ð18Þ
[1,2] from natural convection heat transfer coefficient ao as Ai ai kcl
ao Adding the last two equations,
g’ ð7Þ    
Cpm Q load 1 bi bo r i ln ðr o =r i Þ
T cold  T w ¼ þ þ þ ðQ load  Q L Þ
In Eq. (6), subscript m designates that m _ w;m is evaluated from Ai ai kcl kcl Ao keff Ai
mass-conservation principle and B is called the Spalding number. ð19Þ
The value of xv,1 is known but that of xv,w is not known. The latter
will be determined from equilibrium condition at the w-w surface Now, using Eqs. (16) and (17), it can be shown that
   
when Tw is known. Ti þ To 2bo ri ln ðr o =r i Þ
Further, this evaporation rate meets with resistance of the out- Tw  ¼ þ ðQ load  Q L Þ ð20Þ
2 kcl Ao keff Ai
er-pot clay wall thickness. Therefore, using Darcy’s law, the aver-
age mass flow rate over height H is Substituting this equation in Eq. (14), we have
  
qw kp Ao pa pH=2 pw;sat   1
_ w;m ¼
m  ð8Þ _ w Cpw 2bo
m ri ln ðr o =r i Þ
lw bo pa pa Q load  Q L ¼ ðQ rad þ Q nc Þ 1 þ þ
2 kcl Ao keff Ai
where kp (m2) is permeability. Note that pH/2/pa = 1 + 0.05 H because ð21Þ
pa  10 m of water. Also, since saturation conditions prevail at the
w-w surface, pw, sat/pa = xv,w/(0.622 + 0.378 xv,w), we have Hence, substitution in Eq. (19) gives
   
0:622ð1 þ 0:05HÞ þ ð0:0189H  0:622Þ xv ;w bo r i ln ðr o =r i Þ
_ w;m ¼ qw K H Ao
m T cold  T w ¼  þ  ðQ rad þ Q nc Þ
0:622 þ 0:378 xv ;w kcl Ao keff Ai
  1  
ð9Þ m_ w Cpw 2bo r i ln ðr o =r i Þ Q 1 bi
 1þ þ þ load þ
2 kcl Ao keff Ai Ai ai kcl
where K H ¼ ðk pa Þ=ðlw bo Þ is hydraulic conductivity expressed
ð22Þ
in (m/s).
Combining Eq. (9) with Eq. (6), we can write _ w from the energy conser-
Finally, using Eq. (11), we evaluate m
vation principle as
m_ w;m ¼ gAo  B where
ð0:622  0:0189HÞxv ;1  0:622ð1 þ 0:05HÞ Q rad þ Q nc þ gAo ðh1  hw Þ
B ¼ ð10Þ _ w;e ¼
m ð23Þ
ð:622  0:0189HÞðxv ;w  1Þ  Bim ð0:622 þ 0:378xv ;w Þ hMw  hw
3980 A.W. Date / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 3977–3983

where
h1 ¼ Cpa ðT 1  T ref Þ þ ½ðCpv  Cpa ÞðT 1  T ref Þ þ kref xv ;1
hw ¼ Cpa ðT w  T ref Þ þ ½ðCpv  Cpa ÞðT w  T ref Þ þ kref xv ;w
hMw ¼ Cpw ðT w  T ref Þ
and kref is latent heat of water at Tref.
2.3. Solution procedure
Eqs. (10)–(23) are solved iteratively since the temperature Tw at
the outer surface of the outer pot is unknown. The main steps are:
2.3.1. Preliminary steps
1. Specify geometry parameters: ri, ro, bi, bo and H.
2. Specify ambient parameters T1 and U1 (or xv,1, see Appen-
dix) and respiratory load Qload.
3. Specify properties: Cpw, Cpa, Cpv, KH, ka, kcl and keff.
2.3.2. Begin iterations
1. Hydraulic conductivity: Abu-Zeig and Atoun [4] and Gil et al.
[5], among others, report considerable variation 2  109 <
KH(m/s) < 3  108.
2. Thermal conductivity of clay: The values vary 1 < kcl
(W/m-K) < 2.5; the higher value is typically taken for fired brick.
3. Thermal conductivity of sand + water: The value of keff depends
on the material of solid particles used and the void space
occupied by water. The plausible range of values is 1 < keff
(W/m-K) < 3.5.
4. Respiratory load: For different food materials the values of
respiratory load vary 0.2 < qload(W/kg of food) < 2 [6].
In view of the above variations, we set-up a reference case with
values shown in Table 1. The total cooling heat load comprising
respiratory (3 kg food) + leakage from top and bottom of the reg-
frigerator (0.4 W) is taken as Qload = 3  0.2 + 0.4 = 1 W.
Calculations are first presented for the reference case. Then, ef-
fects of parameters are individually assessed keeping all other val-
ues corresponding to the reference case. In all calculations, the
inner heat transfer coefficient is taken as ai = ao, Pr = 0.7 and emis-
sivity  = 1.

4. Assume Tw and evaluate xv,w from correlation given in

3.2. Reference case
Appendix.
5. Evaluate xv,mean = 0.5(xv,1 + xv,w). Hence, evaluate Cpm =
Table 2 shows typical computed results for one case of
Cpa(1  xv,mean) + Cpvxv,mean.
T1 = 40 °C and U1 = 10% for Qload = 1 W by way of an example.
6. Evaluate ao from McAdams [3] correlation for natural convec-
The results are obtained by iteratively determining Tw. The results
tion from a vertical surface NuH = 0.59(GrH Pr)0.25 where
show that Ti < To < Tw but Tcold > Ti as expected. Also, the dew point
ao H 9:81 bðT 1  T w ÞH3 corresponding to ambient consitions Tdp < Tcold as expected
NuH ¼ and GrH ¼
ka m2a giving gth = 0.4748. The conduction heat transfer QL > Qin but (Qin +
where b = 1./Tmean and Tmean = 0.5(Tw + T1) (K) and ka and ma are Qload) > QL as expected giving COP = 0.02727. Also, anc < arad indi-
evaluated at Tmean. cating importance of accounting for radiation heat transfer. Corre-
7. Knowing ao, evaluate g from Eq. (7) and hence, Bim, B⁄ and sponding to Tw = 27.536 °C, xv,w = 0.02317 giving Spalding number
m_ w;m from Eq. (10). B = 0.0189. The mass transfer driving force B is further attenuated
8. Now, evaluate (Qrad + Qnc) = (arad + ao)Ao(T1  Tw) where to B⁄ = 0.00207 due to Darcy resistance. Finally, the mass transfer
 Biot number Bim > > 1.
arad ¼ r T 21 þ T 2w ðT 1 þ T w Þ
3.3. Parametric variations
9. Now, evaluate m_ w;e from Eq. (23).
10. Calculate percentage difference 3.3.1. Effect of T1 and U1


Table 3 shows the effect of relative humidity U1 at 3 values of

m_ w;e  m _ w;m

F ¼

 100

T1. It is seen that at each value of T1, compared to dry ambient, the
m_ w;m
evaporation rate m _ w decreases whereas the outer pot surface tem-
If F > 0.01, revise Tw and go to step 4. perature Tw increases with increase in U1. Since the temperature
11. Continue till convergnce and evaluate COP = Qload/(Qrad + Qnc) difference T1  Tw deceases with increase in U1, value of anc de-
and Tcold from Eq. (22) with m _w¼m _ w;e ¼ m
_ w;m . Also evaluate creases. Due to higher absolute temperatures, however, arad in-
gth from Eq. (2). creases. The value of Spalding number B, as expected, decreases
with increase in U1 but that of B⁄, though smaller than B due to
Solutions Tcold, gth and COP for given T1, U1 and Qload are of Darcy resistance, increases somewhat. The value of COP increases
interest.

Table 2
3. Results and discussion
Results for the reference case: T1 = 40 °C, U1 = 10% (Tdp = 2.57 °C) , Qload = 1 W.

3.1. Manner of presentation Tw = 27.536 m_ w ¼ 2:224  106 anc = 3.851 g = 0.00379

To = 27.104 QL = 37.635 arad = 6.55 B = 0.0189
Ti = 20.371 Qin = 36.67 Bim = 473.79 B⁄ = 0.00207
As noted under Preliminary Steps, the model requires several in-
Tcold = 22.23 COP = 0.02727 gth = 0.4748 xv,w = 0.02317
put parameters. Among these, the most uncertain parameters are:

Table 1
Parametric values-reference case

Geometry (cm) Sp Heat J/kg-K Th conductivity W/m-K Hy conductivity m/s Others

ri = 7.5 Cpa = 1005 ka = 0.027 KH = 8  109 Qload = 1 W
ro = 15 Cpv = 1880 kcl = 1.5 ma = 16.5  106 m2/s
bi = bo = 0.5 Cpw = 4186 keff = 2.0 Tref = 0 °C
H = 30 kref = 2503 kJ/kg
 A.W. Date / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 3977–3983 3981

Table 3
Effect of T1 and U1 – Qload = 1 W.

U1 _ w 106
m Tw anc arad B B⁄ COP Tcold Tdp gth
T1 = 35 °C
0 2.228 22.852 3.84 6.25 0.0179 0.00208 0.0288 17.94
10 2.216 24.38 3.71 6.29 0.016 0.00214 0.0333 20.44 1.176 0.4025
20 2.21 25.78 3.58 6.34 0.0142 0.00222 0.0387 22.74 8.66 0.4655
30 2.2 27.15 3.44 6.38 0.0124 0.0023 0.0458 24.97 14.8 0.4965
40 2.193 28.47 3.28 6.419 0.0106 0.00241 0.0558 27.15 19.35 0.5016
50 2.184 29.87 3.09 6.46 0.0087 0.00255 0.072 29.47 23.0 0.4608
T1 = 40 °C
0 2.24 25.667 3.99 6.49 0.0124 0.0020 0.0235 19.16
10 2.233 27.536 3.85 6.55 0.0189 0.00206 0.0273 22.23 2.57 0.4747
20 2.19 29.317 3.70 6.61 0.0167 0.00214 0.0321 25.16 12.74 0.5444
30 2.233 30.947 3.55 6.66 0.0145 0.00222 0.0382 27.85 19.09 0.5811
40 2.163 32.518 3.38 6.71 0.0124 0.00233 0.0468 30.45 23.79 0.5891
50 2.16 33.967 3.204 6.75 0.0104 0.00245 0.0588 32.87 27.56 0.5732
T1 = 45 °C
0 2.226 28.323 4.13 6.74 0.0248 0.00193 0.0195 20.03
10 2.208 30.556 3.98 6.81 0.0221 0.00199 0.0227 23.73 6.3 0.5500
20 2.19 32.62 3.82 6.87 0.0195 0.00206 0.0267 27.18 16.79 0.6317
30 2.172 34.55 3.67 6.94 0.017 0.00214 0.0319 30.38 23.54 0.6813
40 2.153 36.345 3.50 7.0 0.0146 0.00224 0.0389 33.37 28.22 0.6930
50 2.134 38.14 3.30 7.06 0.01207 0.00236 0.0497 36.376 32.12 0.6700

irrespective of T1 and U1, the water evaporation rate is relatively

unaffected.
1
In order to further appreciate the influence of T1 and U1, values
of g th are plotted in Fig. 3. It is seen that for a fixed ambient tem-
0.9 perature, gth is maximum at U1 ’ 40% whereas, gth increases with
T1.
0.8
3.3.2. Effect of Qload
T = 45 °C Table 4 shows the effect of assumed Qload on COP, gth and Tcold at
8

0.7 T1 = 40 °C by way of an example. Compared to the reference case

ηth

of Qload = 1 W, both COP and Tcold increase but gth decreases with
T = 40 °C
increase in Qload as expected.
8

0.6

T = 35 °C 3.3.3. Effect of keff

8

0.5
Table 5 shows the effect of thermal conductivity of sand + water
keff. The table shows that compared to reference case of keff = 2 W/
0.4 m-K, the values of Tcold are reduced for keff = 1 at each U1. At
keff = 3, the corresponding values of Tcold are higher. The table con-
firms our expectation that value of keff should be as low as possible
10 20 30 40 50 so as to enhance COP and gth.
Φ(%)

Fig. 3. Typical variation of gth with U1-data of Table 3.
with U1 because of reduced Qin. Finally, the temperature inside the
inner pot Tcold increases with U1, as expected. Most importantly,
the value of Tcold remains greater than dew-point temperature Tdp
(see Appendix) corresponding to T1 and U1 with the difference
(Tcold  Tdp) decreasing with increase in U1. Finally, note that
3.3.4. Effect of kcl
Table 6 shows the effect of thermal conductivity of clay kcl. It is
seen that compared to the reference value of kcl = 1.5 W/m-K, Tcold
reduces for kcl = 1 and increases for kcl = 2, though these effects are
very marginal.
3.3.5. Effect of KH
Finally, Table 7 shows effect of hydraulic conductivity KH to be
very marginal irrespective of the value of U1.

Table 4
Effect of Qload at T1 = 40 °C.

U1 (%) Qload (Ref) = 1 W Qload = 2 W Qload = 3 W

COP Tcold gth COP Tcold gth COP Tcold gth
0 0.0235 19.16 0.047 20.95 0.0706 22.756
10 0.0273 22.23 0.4747 0.0545 24.09 0.425 0.0818 25.95 0.3753
20 0.0321 25.16 0.5444 0.0642 27.08 0.474 0.0962 29.01 0.4031
30 0.0382 27.85 0.5811 0.0765 29.87 0.4844 0.1147 31.88 0.3883
40 0.0468 30.45 0.5891 0.0936 32.57 0.4584 0.1404 34.69 0.3275
50 0.0588 32.87 0.5732 0.117 35.106 0.3934 0.1765 37.33 0.2146
3982 A.W. Date / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 3977–3983

Table 5
Effect of keff (W/m-K) at T1 = 40 °C and Qload = 1 W.

U (%) keff = 1 keff (Ref) = 2 keff = 3

COP Tcold gth COP Tcold gth COP Tcold gth
0 0.02353 11.37 0.0235 19.16 0.02353 21.76
10 0.02727 15.51 0.654 0.0273 22.23 0.4747 0.0272 24.47 0.4149
20 0.03207 19.43 0.7545 0.0321 25.16 0.5444 0.03207 27.05 0.475
30 0.03825 23.06 0.8101 0.0382 27.85 0.5811 0.03825 29.45 0.5045
40 0.0468 26.54 0.8304 0.0468 30.45 0.5891 0.04682 31.76 0.5083
50 0.0588 29.76 0.8230 0.0588 32.87 0.5732 0.05883 33.91 0.4895

Table 6
Effect of kcl (W/m-K) at T1 = 40 °C and Qload = 1 W.

U (%) kcl = 1 kcl (Ref) = 1.5 kcl = 2

COP Tcold gth COP Tcold gth COP Tcold gth
0 0.02353 18.922 0.0235 19.16 0.02353 19.279
10 0.02727 22.027 0.4802 0.0273 22.23 0.4748 0.0272 22.33 0.4721
20 0.03207 24.97 0.5513 0.0321 25.16 0.5444 0.03207 25.24 0.5414
30 0.03825 27.71 0.5877 0.0382 27.85 0.5810 0.03825 27.925 0.5775
40 0.0468 30.34 0.5959 0.0468 30.45 0.5891 0.04682 30.515 0.5851
50 0.0588 32.788 0.5797 0.0588 32.87 0.5731 0.05883 32.92 0.5691

Table 7
Effect of KH (m/s) at T1 = 40 °C and Qload = 1 W.

U1 (%) KH = 2  109 KH (Ref) = 8  109 KH = 3  108

COP Tcold gth COP Tcold gth COP Tcold gth
0 0.02354 19.165 0.0235 19.16 0.02348 19.14
10 0.02729 22.236 0.4746 0.0273 22.23 0.4746 0.02721 22.208 0.4745
20 0.0321 25.157 0.5445 0.0321 25.16 0.5445 0.032 25.126 0.5444
30 0.03828 27.86 0.5806 0.0382 27.85 0.5806 0.03816 27.83 0.5806
40 0.04686 30.464 0.5883 0.0468 30.45 0.5883 0.04668 30.434 0.5882
50 0.0589 32.88 0.5723 0.0588 32.87 0.5723 0.05863 32.85 0.5722

4. Conclusions
Correlation is valid for 20 < Tw (C) < 100.
In this paper, the steady state performance of a clay-pot refrig-
erator is analysed using the Reynolds flow model of mass transfer 2. Knowing relative humidity U1,xv,1 is evaluated from [7]
due to Spalding [1]. The main conclusions are !
W1 pv ;1
1. For a given geometry, thermal and hydraulic conductivities and
xv ;1 ¼ where W 1 ¼ 0:622  and
1 þ W1 ptot  pv ;1
cooling load, all parameters including COP, gth and inner pot    
temperature Tcold show expected magnitudes irrespective of pv ;1 U1 p F T1
¼ and sat ¼ exp where s ¼ 1 
ambient T1 and U1. psat 100 pcr 1s T cr
2. For a given T1, COP and Tcold increase with increase in U1 but,
(Tcold  Tdp) decreases with increase in U1. Consequently, gth F ¼ a1  s þ a2  s1:5 þ a3  s3 þ a4  s3:5 þ a5  s4 þ a6  s7:5
increases with increase in T1 for a given U1.
a1 ¼ 7:85951783; a2 ¼ 1:84408295; a3 ¼ 11:7866497;
3. The effect of increasing Qload is to increase Tcold as expected.
4. The effect of thermal conductivity of sand + water keff is most a4 ¼ 22:6807411; a5 ¼ 15:9618719; a6 ¼ 1:80122502
pronounced. Lower value of keff is to be preferred to reduce Tcold
and increase gth.
Here, Tcr = 647.096 K, pcr = 220.64 bar and ptot = 1.01324 bar
5. The effects of thermal conductivity kcl and hydraulic conductiv-
3. Dew point temperature Tdp may be evaluated from [7]
ity KH on Tcold are found to be marginal.
 
237:7  c 17:271  T 1 U1
T dp ¼ where c ¼ þ ln
17:271  c 237:7 þ T 1 100
Appendix A

1. Knowing Tw. xv,w is evaluated from [2]

xv ;w ’ 3:416  103 þ ð2:7308  104 ÞT w þ ð1:372  105 ÞT 2w References

þ ð8:2516  10 ÞT 3w  ð6:9092  109 ÞT 4w
8
[1] D.B. Spalding, Convective Mass Transfer, Edward Arnold (publishers) Ltd,
London, 1963.
þ ð3:5313  1010 ÞT 5w  ð3:7037  1012 ÞT 6w
[2] M. Crawford, W.M. Kays, Convective Heat and Mass Transfer, McGraw-Hill Int
þ ð6:1923  1015 ÞT 7w þ ð9:9349  1017 ÞT 8w Edition, New York, 1993.
[3] W.H. McAdams, Heat Transmission, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954.
 A.W. Date / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55 (2012) 3977–3983 3983

[4] M.M. Abu-Zreig, M.F. Atoun, Hydraulic chrarcteristics and seepage modelling of
clay pitchers produced in jordan, Canadian Biosystems Engineering 46 (2004)
1.15–1.20.
[5] M. Gil, L.R. Sinobas, L. Juana, Evolution of spherical cavity radius generated
around a subsurface drip emitter, Biosciences Discussion 7 (2010) 1935–1958.
[6] Y.A. Cengel, A.J. Ghajjar, Heat and Mass Transfer: Fundamentals and
Applications, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, Ryerson, 2006.
[7] W. Wagner, A. Pruss, International equations for the saturation properties of
ordinary water substance. revised according to the international temperature
scale of 1990, J. Phy. Chem. Ref. Data 22 (3) (1993) 783–787.