Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

A novel procedure for transient CFD modeling of basin solar stills: Coupling
of species and energy equations
⁎
M. Keshtkar, M. Eslami, K. Jafarpur
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A novel procedure for transient numerical modeling of solar stills is proposed in this study. With no need to
Solar still specify the glass and water temperatures as boundary conditions, instantaneous weather and irradiance data are
CFD the only inputs in the present CFD simulation. The absorption of solar radiation and radiative heat transfer in
Latent heat different components of the solar still are accounted by solving the DO radiative transfer equation. Instead of
Evaporation
applying costly multi-phase techniques, species equation for water vapor is solved by coupling with energy
Condensation
equation through user defined functions. In this method, the latent heat of evaporation/condensation is con-
sidered as a sink/source term in the energy equation. The required evaporation and condensation rates are
calculated by integrating Fick's law on the water and glass surfaces. The latent heat of phase change is assumed
to be shared between the two neighboring bodies by introducing a coefficient α with the appropriate value of
0.5. Therefore, transient temperature and concentration distributions and productivity in passive and active
solar stills are calculated throughout a day with moderate computational cost. By applying the present method to
multi-stage active solar stills, it is shown that increasing the number of stages beyond six is not beneficial.

1. Introduction numerical studies of solar stills is provided by Edalatpour et al. [3].

Lack of fresh water resources has led to an increasing number of
researches on desalination processes. The conventional methods of
fresh water production consume a large amount of energy in terms of
thermal, electrical or mechanical power. On the other hand, application
of solar energy for desalination can be both environmental-friendly and
economical [1]. Among different systems for solar desalination, solar
still is a simple and popular device for fresh water production. In this
method, solar energy is transmitted through a glass cover and is ab-
sorbed by the saline water poured into a basin. The resulting water
vapor is then condensed on the colder glass cover. This distilled water is
collected and extracted from the system.
Many different analytical, numerical and experimental methods
have been proposed for calculating and analyzing performance of solar
stills. The large number of experiments on basin solar stills [2] are
valuable. However, results cannot be easily generalized to other designs
and environmental conditions. Analytical modeling is also common, but
the inherent simplifications may reduce the accuracy while limiting the
application to more complex systems. Meanwhile, numerical modeling
benefits from better accuracy without difficulties and costs of preparing
experimental setups. Moreover, a better understanding of the physical
phenomena inside the solar still can be achieved. A review on
While investigating a multi-stage evacuated solar distillation,
Ahmed et al. [4] provided results of a two-dimensional numerical si-
mulation for the first stage using Fluent software. They assumed that
the enclosure is filled with vapor only and considered fixed tempera-
tures for the lower and upper walls as boundary conditions. Setoodeh
et al. [5] conducted a numerical three-dimensional, two-phase mod-
eling at quasi-steady conditions using CFX software. They again as-
sumed fixed temperatures as boundary conditions for the glass and
bottom. Solar radiation, water and glass temperatures are also con-
sidered to be constant at each hour. Evaporation and condensation rates
are supposed to be equal and calculated from Dunkle's [6] relation.
Rahman et al. [7] used a finite element method to solve the two-
dimensional steady-state governing equations of a triangular solar
collector. The equations include mass, momentum, and energy con-
servation along with species dispersion of water vapor. They in-
vestigated the effect of Rayleigh number and buoyancy ratio on heat
and mass transfer. Moreover, Rahbar and Esfahani [8] examined the
feasibility of a two-dimensional CFD simulation for a single slope solar
still. They proposed a new equation based on the Chilton-Colburn
analogy to estimate the production of a solar still. The solution is based
on steady-state conservation equations and constant temperatures for
water and glass. Results showed that the trend of changes in the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kjafarme@shirazu.ac.ir (K. Jafarpur).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.114350
Received 4 November 2019; Received in revised form 27 December 2019; Accepted 25 January 2020
0011-9164/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: M. Keshtkar, M. Eslami and K. Jafarpur, Desalination, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2020.114350
M. Keshtkar, et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic of (a) passive basin solar still (b) four-stage active basin solar still.
production of fresh water is always similar to the convection heat
transfer coefficient. Besides, Edalatpour et al. [9] developed a two-di-
mensional steady-state CFD model to investigate the effect of blade
installation on the heat transfer and fluid flow inside a solar still. By
assuming fixed temperatures for water and glass, they showed that
performance of the solar still can be improved if the blade with an
appropriate length is put in a suitable position. A finite volume method
is applied to heat and mass transfer equations inside a solar distillation
system by Alvarado-Juárez [10]. They again assumed a steady-state
two-dimensional laminar flow in their modeling. The mixture of air and
water vapor is considered to be incompressible.
Malaiyappan and Ilumalai [11] proposed a three-dimensional nu-
merical simulation for a single-slope solar still. The phase change pro-
cess between water and vapor is modeled using VOF method by as-
suming constant saturation temperature in the whole process. No
symmetry is observed in contours of liquid fraction and the entire water
seems to be evaporated after a short time. Moreover, an experimental
and numerical study on the effect of zeolite particles on a pyramid-
shaped solar still is performed by Taamneh [12]. The numerical simu-
lation is based on a two-phase three-dimensional VOF model in Fluent
software. The solution is performed for just an hour and the tempera-
tures of the glass, air, and water have been set as boundary conditions
according to the experimental data. Panchal and Patel [13] also re-
ported a two-phase 3D numerical modeling using Ansys. Steam and
water are used as two phases in steady-state conditions, however, no
information is provided about the governing equations and boundary
conditions. Besides, Rashidi et al. [14] developed a VOF method to si-
mulate a solar still but they used constant temperature boundary con-
ditions obtained from experimental data. Aung and Soe [15] in-
vestigated the performance of a solar still integrated with a solar pond
experimentally and numerically. They used a 3D two-phase modeling at
quasi-steady conditions with fixed top and bottom temperatures.
Recently, Rabhy et al. [16] analyzed a solar distiller numerically
and experimentally. They proposed a lumped-CFD model where the
results of the lumped model are considered as boundary conditions of
the CFD model. The lumped model uses the conventional Dunkle's re-
lation [6]. In the CFD simulation, a multi-phase 3D VOF method at
quasi-steady conditions is implemented in CFX software. Furthermore,
Al-Rashed et al. [17] conducted a 3D CFD study to examine a cubical
solar distiller heated from inside. They investigated the effect of
buoyancy ratio, heater width and Rayleigh number on heat and mass
transfer and entropy generation.
The above literature review shows that only a limited number of
2
Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx
numerical simulations have been reported for solar stills, compared to
the large amount of experimental and analytical investigations.
Moreover, most of the numerical solutions assume steady-state condi-
tions with known glass and water temperatures as boundary conditions.
However, temperature distribution in different parts of a basin solar
still is not known prior to the solution and is a function of ambient
conditions such as solar irradiance, ambient temperature and wind
speed. Also, the proposed multi-phase calculations are usually compli-
cated and time-consuming. Therefore, the objective of the present paper
is to develop a novel transient numerical procedure in Fluent for solving
the temperature distribution and fresh water production in different
kinds of solar stills, while avoiding the difficulties associated with
multi-phase methods. Features and novelties of the present study in-
clude:
• Transient performance of solar stills is simulated numerically with
ambient conditions as the only inputs of the problem; with no need
to specify the glass/water temperature like most of the available
numerical simulations.
• Instead of applying known temperatures for glass/water as
boundary conditions, instantaneous weather data are considered by
user defined functions through the solution procedure.
• A novel approach is proposed for coupling the species and energy
equations in solar stills by considering the latent heats of evapora-
tion and condensation as sink and source terms in the energy
equation.
• Temperature, velocity and mass fraction distributions are calculated
and discussed in different parts of the system.
• Instantaneous and cumulative fresh water productions are obtained
through a complete day.
• Different types of passive and multi-stage active solar stills are in-
vestigated.
2. Mathematical modeling
2.1. Problem definition
Solar stills are usually longer in one dimension with almost uniform
behavior along that direction. Therefore, a two-dimensional geometry
is used for simulations in the present study. A single-slope single-basin
passive solar still [18] and multi-stage double-slope active solar stills
[19] with different number of stages are investigated as case studies.
Fig. 1-a illustrates geometry of the passive solar still including three
M. Keshtkar, et al. Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 1 [20]:
Geometry of different components in the passive solar still [18].
→
Component Parameter Value ⎧ ∂ (ρE¯ ) + ∇ . (v→
¯ (ρE¯ + P¯ )) = ∇ . ⎛λ eff ∇T¯ − ∑j h¯E , j J¯j ⎞ + Sh + SL forair
⎪ ∂t ⎝ ⎠
Water Thickness 0.02 m
⎪
⎪ − watervapormixture
Length 0.75 m
Width 0.75 m
⎨∂ →
⎪ ∂t (ρE ) + ∇ . (v (ρE + P )) = ∇ . (λ∇T ) + Sh + SL forwater
Air-water vapor gap Height of the left side 0.08 m ⎪∂
Glass Thickness 0.004 m ⎪ ∂t (ρE ) = ∇ . (λ∇T ) + Sh + SL forglass
Angle 30°
⎩
(3)

where λeff is the effective thermal conductivity given by the k-ε RNG
Table 2 →
Geometry of different components in the active solar stills [19]. turbulence model, and hE , j and Jj are the sensible enthalpy and diffusive
flux of species j. The terms on the right-hand side of the energy equation
Component Parameter Value
in the air-vapor mixture represent the heat transfer by conduction,
Air-water vapor gap 1 Height of the left side 0.085 m species diffusion, absorbed radiant energy (Sh) and latent heat of eva-
Length 0.03425 m poration or condensation, respectively.
Width 0.0685 m The term SL represents the latent heat of evaporation or condensa-
Tray Thickness 0.002 m
Angle 8°
tion that has been added as sink or source terms to the energy equation.
Water Average height 0.025 m In this way, the effects of evaporation and condensation in the tem-
Air-water vapor gap 2-3-4 Height of the left side 0.06 m perature distribution can be taken into account easily without im-
plementing multi-phase models. As evaporation occurs in the interface
of water and air, a percentage of the latent heat of evaporation is taken
zones of water, air-water vapor mixture and glass cover. Fig. 1-b also from the water and the rest is taken from the air. Similarly, the heat
shows the geometry of a four-stage solar still as an example. Due to the released by condensation on the glass surface is absorbed by both air
symmetry of the double-slope active solar stills, only half of the geo- and the glass body. The question is that what percent of the latent heat
metries are modeled and a symmetry boundary condition is used. The released/absorbed during the phase change interacts with each of the
water above the last stage in active solar stills is called cooling water neighboring bodies?
and does not produce vapor for fresh water production. Tables 1–2 To solve the problem, a coefficient α is introduced in the present
provide geometrical specifications of the passive and active solar stills modeling to account for the percentage of the heat that is taken from
respectively. the water or given to the glass. Eq. (4) shows how the sink/source term
SL is calculated in terms of α and the evaporation/condensation rate for
2.2. Governing equations each component of the solar still.

The air-vapor mixture flow inside the solar stills is found to be αm˙ h
⎧+ c fg, g g forglass
A
Vg
turbulent in this study according to the corresponding Rayleigh ⎪
⎪ αm˙ h A
number. Therefore, the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations SL = − e fg, w w forwater
⎨ Vw
(RANS) accompanied by k-ε RNG turbulence model are solved in this ⎪ +(1 − α ) m˙ c hfg, g Ag − (1 − α ) m˙ e hfg, w Aw
study. ⎪ forair − watervapormixture
⎩ Va (4)

2.2.1. Continuity In the above equation, ṁ c and ṁ e are the rates of condensation and
evaporation per unit area on the glass and water surfaces, hfg, g and hfg, w
∂ρ →
+ ∇ . (ρv ) = 0 are the enthalpies of condensation and evaporation on the glass and
∂t (1)
water temperatures, Ag and Aw are areas of glass cover and water, and
→
where ρ and v are the density and time-averaged velocity vector, re- Vg, Vw and Va are the volumes of glass, water, and air, respectively. The
spectively. positive and negative signs in the above equation indicates source and
sink terms, respectively.
2.2.2. Momentum Evaporation and condensation rates per unit area are calculated
The temperature difference between water and glass surfaces causes according to Fick's law as expressed in Eqs. (5) and (6). These rates are
natural convection in the enclosure. Therefore, the air-water vapor integrated on the water and glass surfaces to obtain total evaporation
mixture density is considered to be a function of temperature based on and condensation rates at each time step.
the ideal gas law. Besides, the Boussinesq approximation is used to
Lg
model the convection currents within the liquid water in laminar re- −ρDm
gime. Eq. (2) expresses the momentum conservation in different regions
ṁ c =
Lg
∫ ∂∂Yy dx
→ 0 glass (5)
of fluid. The effective shear stress terms (τ̄eff )
on the right hand side are
calculated with the help of k-ε RNG turbulence model.
Lw
−ρDm
→ →→ → →
⎧ ∂ (ρv¯ ) + ∇ . (ρv¯ v¯ ) = −∇P¯ + ∇ . (τeff ) + ρg for air − watervapor mixture
∂t
ṁ e =
Lw
∫ ∂∂Yy′ dx ′
→ →→ → →
0 water (6)
⎨ ∂ (ρv ) + ∇ . (ρv v ) = −∇P + ∇ . (τ ) + ρg β (T − T ) for water
0
⎩ ∂t
where Dm is the molecular diffusion coefficient of water vapor in the air,
(2) Y is the mass fraction of water vapor, Lg and Lw are the lengths of water
where β is the thermal expansion coefficient of water. basin and glass cover as defined in Fig. 1. Two different coordinates are
considered in which y and y′ are vertical coordinates perpendicular to
2.2.3. Energy the water and glass surfaces, respectively. The molecular diffusion
The temperature distribution is obtained by solving the following coefficient of the water vapor in the air is calculated from Eq. (7) which
energy conservation equation in different components of the system is established for ideal gases [21].

3
M. Keshtkar, et al. Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 2. Schematic of boundary conditions used in (a) the passive solar still (b) the four-stage active solar still.

2.2.5. Species transport

Concentration of water vapor in the humid air at each point of the
domain is calculated by solving the following species dispersion equa-
μ
tion [20]. The eddy mass diffusivity term ( t ) is obtained according to
Sct
the k-ε RNG turbulence model:
∂ → →
(ρYi ) + ∇ . (ρv Yi ) = −∇ . ( Ji )
∂t (10)

→ μ
Ji = −⎛ρDi, m + t ⎞ ∇Yi
⎜ ⎟

⎝ Sct ⎠ (11)

Eq. (11) is the famous Fick's law and states that the diffusion flux of
a species in a binary mixture is proportional to the gradient of its mass
fraction and diffusion occurs in the reverse direction of the gradient
Fig. 3. Solar irradiance and ambient temperature profiles for the passive solar vector [21]. The hourly produced fresh water is obtained by integrating
still [18]. Eq. (5) for each hour.
Lg
−3600 × ρ × Dm
Dm = 0.26 × 10−4 ⎛
101325
⎞⎛
T 2
⎞
3
ṁ hourly =
Lg
∫ ∂∂Yy dx
⎝ P ⎠⎝ 298 ⎠ (7) 0 glass (12)

The enthalpies of evaporation and condensation are calculated re-

spectively at water and glass temperatures according to Eq. (8) [8]. 2.2.6. Turbulence modeling
The k-ε RNG model is used for modeling turbulence. Eqs. (13) and
hfg (T ) (14) are respectively the kinetic energy of turbulence and dissipation
= 2.4935 × 10−6 (1 − 9.4779 × 10−4T + 1.3132 × 10−7 rate.
T 2 − 4.7947 × 10−9T 3) (8) ∂ ∂ ∂ ⎛ ∂k ⎞
(ρk ) + (ρkui ) = ⎜αk μeff ⎟ + Gk + Gb − ρε − YM
∂t ∂x i ∂x j ⎝ ∂x j ⎠ (13)

2.2.4. DO radiation ∂ ∂ ∂ ⎛ ∂ε ⎞ ε2
The following radiative transfer equation [20] is solved along with (ρε ) + (ρεui ) = ⎜α ε μ ⎟ + Clε Gk − C2ε ρ − Rε
∂t ∂x i ∂x j ⎝ eff ∂x j ⎠ k (14)
other conservation equations, simultaneously and the amount of ab-
sorbed solar irradiance has been added to the energy equation through In the above equations, Gk and Gb are the generations of turbulence
source term of Sh. kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients and buoyancy re-
spectively, Ym is the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in com-
∇ . (I (→
r ,→
s )→
s ) + (a + σs ) I (→
r ,→
s)
pressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate, αk and αε are the
4π
σT 4 σ → inverse effective Prandtl numbers for k and ε, the constants C1ε and C2ε
= an2
π
+ s
4π
∫ I (→r , →s ) Φ (→s , s′ ) dΩ′ are equal to 1.42 and 1.68 respectively. The resulting k and ε values are
0 (9)
then used to find the effective turbulent viscosity used in Eq. (2), ef-
In Eq. (9), I is the radiation intensity, a and n are the absorption fective thermal conductivity in Eq. (3) and eddy mass diffusivity in Eq.
coefficient and refractive index, and σ is Stefan-Boltzmann constant (11). The turbulent Schmidt number is also considered to be 0.85. More
(5.67e−8 W/m2·K4). Air-water vapor enclosure is considered to be a information on details of these terms and constants can be found in ref.
nonparticipating medium in the present modeling. [20].

4
M. Keshtkar, et al. Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 3
Thermophysical properties of materials [20,25].
Properties Air Water vapor Water Glass Aluminum

3
Density (kg/m ) Eq. (35) Eq. (35) 998.2 2700 2719
Specific heat (J/kgK) 1006.43 2014 4182 840 871
Thermal conductivity (W/mK) 0.028 0.0261 0.6 0.96 202.4
Viscosity (kg/ms) 1.7894e−5 1.34e−5 0.001003 – –
Thermal expansion coefficient (1/K) – – 0.0005 – –
Specific gas constant (J/kgK) 287 461.4 – – –

Table 4 2.3.1. Momentum boundary conditions

Optical properties for components of solar stills [26,27].
Properties Water Glass Aluminum Rubber • A no-slip boundary condition is considered for all the walls of the
solar still, except the water interface with air that zero shear stress is
Emissivity 0.96 0.94 0.09 0.9 applied for modeling of the free surface.
Absorption coefficient (1/m) 0.15 0.2 3500 –
Refractive index 1.33 1.5 1 –
2.3.2. Thermal boundary conditions

• The solar stills were insulated in the experiments [18,19]. Therefore

the lateral and bottom walls are assumed to be adiabatic in all cases
in the present modeling.

∂T
= 0atx = 0, L w
∂x (15)

∂T
= 0aty = 0
∂y (16)

• At the surface of the water and the interior face of the glass, coupled
boundary condition is used to account for energy conservation be-
tween fluid-fluid and fluid-solid regions.

∂Tw ∂T
λw = λa a and Tw = Ta atwatersurface
∂y ∂y (17)

∂Ta ∂Tg
λa = λg and  Ta = Tg atglasssurface
∂y ′ ∂y′ (18)

• Heat loss through convection and radiation to ambient is considered

for the top boundary.

∂Tg
− λg = hcv (Tg − Tamb) + eσ (Tg4 − Tsky
4
)
∂y′ (19)

In Eq. (19), hcv is found by combining both free and forced con-
vective heat transfer coefficients [22]:
3 3 1
hcv = [hfree + hforced ]3 (20)

Free convection coefficient heat transfer on the tilted glass surface

of the passive solar still is calculated based on the following equations
[21]:
1 1 1
Nu Lg = 0.14 ⎡Ra Lg 3 − Racr 3 ⎤ + 0.56(Racr cos γ ) 4 (21)
Fig. 4. Flowchart of the UDF codes for solving energy equation in each time
⎣ ⎦
step.
gβLg 3ρ2 cp (Ts − T∞ )
Ra Lg = Pr GrLg =
μλ (22)
2.3. Boundary and initial conditions
∘
⎧5 × 10 γ = 15
9
The governing equations described in Section 2.2 should be solved
⎪ 2 × 109 γ = 30∘
in accordance with appropriate boundary conditions as illustrated in Grcr =
Fig. 2. The following expressions are used to find the boundary con- ⎨108 γ = 60∘
⎪106 γ = 70∘
ditions for different faces at each time step. ⎩ (23)

Free convection heat transfer on the horizontal cooling water sur-

face of the active solar stills is calculated as below [21]:

5
M. Keshtkar, et al. Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 5. Generated mesh for (a) passive basin solar still (b) four-stage active solar still.

Table 5 systems are placed indoors with zero wind velocity.

Results of grid study for the passive solar still. Forced convection heat transfer for the tilted surface of the passive
Number of cells Daily productivity (kg/m2) Percentage of difference
solar still is calculated through the following expressions [21]. The
average wind velocity for the simulation day is 3 m/s.
9500 4.229 – 1
3 3
29,673 5.6 32.42%
Nu Lg = A (Pr ) Re Lg ⎡ ⎛ B (Pr) 1 ⎞ ⎤
44,400 5.652 0.93% ⎢1 + A (Pr) Bo 5 ⎥
⎜ ⎟

70,803 5.654 0.04% ⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦ (25)

1
2 −4
1⎡ 0.0207 3 ⎤
A (Pr) = 2 × 0.464Pr 3 ⎢1 + ⎛ ⎞
Table 6 ⎝ Pr ⎠ ⎥ (26)
Results of time step study for the passive solar still. ⎣ ⎦

Daily productivity (kg/m2) 5 2 1

Time step (s) Percentage of difference B (Pr) = × Pr 5 [4 + 9 Pr + 10 Pr]− 5
4 (27)
20 4.15 −26.57%
10 5.652 −0.19% (GrLg cos γ )
5 5.663 – Bo = 5
Re Lg 2 (28)

• Sky temperature for radiation heat transfer is calculated from Eq.

(29) [23]:
1.5
Tsky = 0.0552Tamb (29)
where Tamb is the ambient temperature (K).

• The basin temperature of the first stage in the active systems is

specified according to the experimental data of Karimi Estahbanati
et al. [19].

2.3.3. Species boundary conditions

• The mass fraction of vapor on the evaporating and condensing

surfaces can be found by assuming that air is saturated with water
Fig. 6. Effect of latent heat energy source coefficient on the hourly productivity vapor (φ = 100%) [8]. Accordingly, the following equations are
of passive solar still. used to calculate the mass fraction of vapor on the water surface and
also the inner side of glass cover [24]:
¯ Lch = 0.13Ra Lch 14 forRa Lch ≥ 5 × 108
Nu Tcr
K ⎛1 − ⎞
1 Psat (T ) = Pcr ⎛⎜10 ⎝ T ⎠ ⎞⎟
¯ Lch =
Nu 0.16Ra Lch 3 forRa Lch ≤5× 108 ⎝ ⎠ (30)
Lch = A/ p (24)
T T 2 T 3
K = 4.39553 − 6.2442 ⎛ ⎞ + 9.953 ⎛ ⎞ − 5.151 ⎛ ⎞
where A and p are the surface area and the perimeter of the water ⎝ 1000 ⎠ ⎝ 1000 ⎠ ⎝ 1000 ⎠ (31)
surface, respectively.
Forced convection heat transfer for the active solar stills is zero as

6
M. Keshtkar, et al. Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 7. Contours of (a) temperature (b) density (c) velocity (d) velocity vector (e) relative humidity (f) water vapor mass fraction in the passive basin solar still at
3 PM.

φPsat conditions:
w = 0.622
P − φPsat (32)
∂Y
1 = 0atx = 0, L w
Y= ∂x (34)
1
1+ w (33)
The initial temperature in the passive solar still is 302 K and in the
where Psat is saturation pressure, Pcr is critical pressure of water active systems, the room temperature which is 293 K is considered as
(22.1 MPa), Tcr is critical temperature of water (647.3 K), P is total initial temperature. Also, the initial velocity is set to zero in all cases.
pressure, φ = 1 is the relative humidity and w is humidity ratio. Ambient temperature and solar irradiance are applied according to
the experimental data [18]. Fig. 3 shows the ambient temperature and
• Impermeable walls are modeled by zero diffusive flux boundary solar irradiance profiles for the passive basin solar still. The diffuse

7
M. Keshtkar, et al. Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 8. Temperature contours of the passive solar still at (a) 12 PM (b) 3 PM (c) 6 PM (d) 9 PM during a day.

Fig. 9. Mean temperature of different components in passive basin solar still by Fig. 10. The hourly productivity of passive basin solar still predicted by the
present simulation. present simulation and experimental data [18].

irradiance is calculated by subtracting the beam irradiance from the P

ρ=
global irradiance and then the direct and diffuse components of solar RT (35)
irradiance are applied to the glass surface.
1
ρ= Y
∑ ρi
i i (36)
2.4. Thermophysical and optical properties

Water vapor and air density and molecular diffusion coefficient are
cp = ∑ Yi cp,i
i (37)
functions of temperature as expressed by Eqs. (35) and (7), while other
properties are assumed to be constant according to Tables 3–4. Prop- λ= ∑ Yi λi
erties of the humid air are calculated using Eqs. (36)–(39) as a function i (38)
of water vapor mass fraction. Since fresh water was used in the ex-
periments of Feilizadeh et al. [18] and Karimi Estahbanati et al. [19], μ= ∑ Yi μi
the properties of 100% fresh water are used in the present simulation. i (39)

8
M. Keshtkar, et al.
Fig. 11. The cumulative productivity of passive basin solar still predicted by the
present simulation and experimental data [18].
3. Solution procedure
All of the governing equations (continuity, momentum, turbulence,
energy and species) with their relevant boundary conditions are solved
simultaneously in the present method. In order to implement the
source/sink terms in the energy equation considering the instantaneous
boundary conditions described in Section 2, the algorithm shown in
Fig. 4 is employed with the help of user defined functions (UDF). At
each time step, solar irradiance (direct and diffuse) and ambient tem-
perature are applied as the only needed information. The diffusion
coefficient and the density of air-water vapor mixture are computed as
functions of temperature according to Eqs. (7) and (35). Next, the
boundary conditions for water vapor mass fraction on the water and
glass surfaces are calculated by Eqs. (30)–(33). Species equation (Eq.
(10)) is then solved to find the water vapor mass fraction in the solar
still. By calculating the gradient of the mass fraction on the water and
inner glass surfaces, the evaporation and condensation rates are ob-
tained by integrating Fick's law on surfaces through Eqs. (5)–(6).
Condensation rate is reported as output each time, and the amount of
evaporated water is subtracted from the basin water. Afterwards, the
latent heats are calculated using evaporation and condensation rates at
their corresponding temperature based on Eq. (4). Finally, these latent
heats are applied as sink and source terms in energy equation and
temperature distribution is calculated. All of these processes are re-
peated every time step.
Ansys Fluent 17.1 is used for simultaneous solution of the governing
equations with finite volume method on a system with eight 4 GHz CPU
processors in parallel. Fig. 5 shows the generated mesh used in the
modeling of the passive and the four-stage active solar stills. Grid and
time step studies are performed to make sure that results are in-
dependent of grid and time step sizes. For example, Table 5 shows that
the daily productivity does not change significantly from 44,400 to
70,803 cells and the grid with 44,400 cells is selected accordingly. On
the other hand, daily productivity for different time step sizes is com-
pared in Table 6. There is not much difference between the results of 5
and 10 s time steps and therefore 10 s time step is chosen. It takes about
5 h and 30 min to simulate the passive solar still through a day with the
present modeling.
SIMPLE method is used for coupling of velocity and pressure
equations. PRESTO scheme is used for pressure interpolations as it is
suitable for rotational currents due to the natural convections occurring
inside the solar still [20]. The second-order upwind discretization
scheme is also applied to the momentum, energy, and species equa-
tions.
9
Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Validation and determination of the coefficient α
In Section 2.2, a coefficient α was introduced in the latent heat
energy source term to account for the fraction of absorbed/released
latent heat by any of the two neighboring bodies. Since the latent heat
is absorbed or released at the water-air or glass-air surfaces, a value of
0.5 for this coefficient is logical. In this study, different values of α are
investigated in the passive solar still. As illustrated in Fig. 6, α = 0.5
can predict the experimental data of Feilizadeh et al. [18] perfectly,
which also validates the accuracy of the present method.
From a physical point of view, the latent heat of evaporation de-
creases the water temperature, whereas the latent heat of condensation
increases the glass temperature. If energy sources in water and glass are
neglected, the water temperature will rise and the glass temperature
will drop to a lower temperature than reality; thus the difference of
water and glass temperatures and the productivity rate will increase
and the solution will diverge after a few hours. While by considering
the coefficient α to be equal to one, the decrease in water temperature
and the increase in glass temperature are higher than reality. As a re-
sult, the temperature difference of water and glass and hence the
freshwater production will decrease. In fact, only a percentage of the
latent heat of evaporation or condensation is rejected from water or
absorbed by the glass and the rest is given to air. According to the
results of the present study, it is observed that by applying 50% of the
latent heat to water and glass, more accurate productivity is achieved.
Therefore, the value of α = 0.5 is now used in modeling various solar
stills including active systems. The very good agreement between the
present method and the available experimental data presented in the
following subsections, proves the applicability of this solution method
for different types of solar stills.
4.2. Passive solar still
The present numerical procedure is now applied to the passive basin
solar still (defined in Fig. 1) from 9 AM to 7 AM of the next day with the
weather data (solar irradiance and ambient temperature) reported by
Feilizadeh et al. [18]. Contours of temperature, density, velocity, re-
lative humidity, and mass fraction at 3 PM are presented in Fig. 7. The
large vortex inside the enclosure is formed by the buoyancy force due to
the temperature difference between saline water and glass cover. The
bottom wall of the basin is black and absorbs most of the incident solar
radiation which accelerates warming of the basin water. On the other
hand, the glass cover is the coldest part of the system due to the con-
vective and radiative heat transfer to the ambient. The resulting natural
convection due to the density variations (illustrated in Fig. 7-b) leads to
the upward flow of water vapor with high velocity adjacent to the
vertical wall. A high velocity zone is also observed near the cold glass
where condensation occurs and density increases. Velocity vectors in
Fig. 7-d show that a small vortex is also formed at the tip of the solar
still. In the middle zones, most of the properties are uniformly dis-
tributed. Accordingly, the relative humidity is almost 100% in the
whole enclosure which implies that the air is saturated everywhere.
However, the sudden change in the temperature or mass fraction near
the evaporating and condensing surfaces is in agreement with pre-
viously published results [28].
Fig. 8 illustrates contours of temperature distribution in the solar
still at different hours of the day. The temperature difference between
the evaporating and condensing surfaces is preserved at these contours.
However, the temperature difference drops from 8 °C at 6 PM to 6 °C at
9 PM which results in lower productivity at night.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of average temperature in different
components of the solar still during the day. The corresponding hourly
productivity is also provided in Fig. 10. During the first hour, there is no
temperature difference between water and glass and therefore the
M. Keshtkar, et al.
Fig. 12. Temperature Contours of active solar stills at different hours of a day (a) one-stage (b) two-stage (c) three-stage (d) four-stage.
productivity is almost zero. At 3 PM, the maximum temperature dif-
ference of 9 °C is observed which is consistent with the maximum
productivity in Fig. 10. The cumulative productivity is also illustrated
and compared with the experimental data [18] in Fig. 11. The total
yield predicted by the present solution is 5.652 kg/m2 during the day
which is only 0.73% different from the experimental results of Feili-
zadeh et al. [18].
4.3. Active solar stills
Active solar stills with various number of stages are also simulated
from 6 AM for 24 h using a similar procedure. Instead of modeling
10
Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx
active solar collectors coupled with the system, the water temperature
in the first stage and other environmental parameters are set as time-
dependent boundary conditions according to experiments of Karimi
Estahbanati et al. [19].
Figs. 12–14 show contours of temperature, velocity, and mass
fraction of water vapor in active basin solar stills with one to four stages
at three different hours of the day. The temperature difference between
the water surface and each tray is responsible for water condensation
on tray surfaces. The temperatures rise smoothly in the morning and
consequently, velocity of the air and vapor mixture and also the mass
fraction of water vapor increase.
As the number of stages increase, the average air-vapor mixture
M. Keshtkar, et al.
Fig. 13. Velocity contours of active solar stills at different hours of a day (a) one-stage (b) two-stage (c) three-stage (d) four-stage.
temperature in the first stage also increases. The reason is that the extra
stages perform as insulating layers and do not let the vapor in the first
stage to be cooled easily with the ambient air. The same reason also
results in the sooner warming of the lower stages. For example, Fig. 12
illustrates that the average temperature of the first stage at 12 PM is
highest in the four stage system and decreases proportionally in the
systems with lower number of stages. Although the peak temperatures
in the first stage of the systems with three and four stage are approxi-
mately the same (as shown in Fig. 15), the four stage systems starts
cooling earlier in the afternoon, due to the different environmental
conditions in the experiments of Karimi Estahbanati et al. [19].
Most of the time, four vortices are created in each stage of the solar
11
Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx
stills. However, the number of created vortices may increase when the
temperature difference is not high enough. According to Fig. 13-c and
d, at 9 AM there are six vortices at upper stages which are reduced to
four vortices later in the day when higher temperatures are observed at
this stage. In the center of each vortex, the temperature and mass
fraction distributions are almost uniform. Nevertheless, sudden varia-
tions are observed near the lower and upper surfaces due to the eva-
poration and condensation.
In the early hours, the second and upper stages are not warm yet
and therefore lower velocities are observed in upper stages. As time
passes, the temperature difference between the evaporation and con-
densation surfaces and consequently the velocity increase. However,
M. Keshtkar, et al.
Fig. 14. Water vapor mass fraction contours of active solar stills at different hours of a day (a) one-stage (b) two-stage (c) three-stage (d) four-stage.
the productivity of the upper stages is less than the lower ones. Hence,
the appropriate choice for number of stages is of crucial importance.
Evolution of mean water temperature at each stage is illustrated in
Fig. 15. Since the active heating mechanism is placed in the first basin,
it will take a while for the cooling water to sense the heat and the
temperatures rise in upper stages. High temperature water in the first
basin evaporates and the resulting vapor moves up until collides with
the colder first tray. Condensation on the tray surface occurs and the
heat of condensation transmits to the second stage. This process con-
tinues until the last stage warms up. The required energy for evapora-
tion in upper stages is provided by latent heat of condensation.
Therefore, the maximum cooling water temperature occurs a few hours
12
Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx
later than the maximum temperature of the basin water. In other words,
there is a delay in the rising temperature of the water at different stages
due to the high thermal inertia of water on the trays. Also, the max-
imum water temperature in each stage is less than that of the lower
stage. Later in the afternoon, the temperature of the second stage is
almost equal to the mean temperature of first basin. But due to the
thermal inertia of the system, the water in the upper stages is cooled at
a slower rate and results in the productivity of upper stages at night.
Fig. 16 compares the simulated amount of hourly freshwater pro-
duction with the experimental data [19] for systems with different
number of stages. It is clear that the time of the maximum productivity
is coincident with the maximum temperature time. The interesting
M. Keshtkar, et al. Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 15. Water temperature in active solar stills (a) one-stage (b) two-stage (c) three-stage (d) four-stage.

Fig. 16. Hourly productivity of active solar stills (a) one-stage (b) two-stage (c) three-stage (d) four-stage.

observation is that by adding one stage to the single-stage solar still, the
peak of productivity of the first stage is reduced from 1.83 to 1.46 kg/
m2·h. The reason is that by increasing the number of stages, the tem-
perature difference between the heating section and the colder ambient
is now divided between a number of stages. In other words, the tem-
perature difference between the hot and cold surfaces of each stage is
decreased by adding more stages. However, the productivity of the
additional stages can improve the total performance of the system. In
fact, the overall productivity of two-stage solar still is about 37% more
than the one-stage. Similarly, addition of each stage reduces the pro-
ductivity of the previous stage while increases the total productivity.
The transient process of heat transfer from lower to upper stages
greatly depends on thermal inertia of the active solar stills. The amount
of material, water and details of insulation can play a great role in the
transient response of the system, especially at upper stages.
Accordingly, the higher deviations between results of the numerical
simulations and the experimental data in the three and four stage solar
stills can be associated to this fact. As details of the actual thermo-
physical properties (specific heats and thermal conductivity), geometry
and insulation thickness are unavailable and cannot be exactly re-
produced in the numerical model, the effect of this difference in
thermal inertia is observed at upper stages, as time passes.
To find the effect of adding more stages, active solar stills with 5–7
stages are also studied. The amounts of fresh water produced at each
hour are compared in Fig. 17. In the afternoon, the temperature dif-
ference between the stages decreases and therefore, the productivity
decreases from the first stage to the last one during the day; while there
is an increase in the productivity from the first to the last stage at night.
It can be seen that by adding the seventh stage, the amount of pro-
ductivity during the day is almost zero, resulting in a low total yield.

13
M. Keshtkar, et al. Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 17. Hourly productivity of five-stage to seven-stage solar still obtained from present study.

Fig. 19 also shows the percentage of increase in the productivity by

adding each stage. It is observed that by adding the fifth stage, the
productivity increases by 3.5% while adding the sixth one can only add
a 0.8% increase in daily productivity. Although the optimum number of
stages should be found by considering economical parameters, going
beyond 6 stages is not logical.

5. Conclusion

In the present study, a two-dimensional transient computational

fluid dynamics model is proposed to obtain the temperature and con-
centration distributions inside the solar stills without applying surface
temperatures as boundary conditions. In most of the previous numerical
studies, the glass cover and basin water were not modeled and tem-
peratures of water and glass were specified based on the experimental
data or by assuming arbitrary values. While in the present method,
Fig. 18. Daily productivity of the multi-stage active solar still.
basin water and glass cover are modeled and the surface temperatures
are obtained through the solution procedure. The absorption of solar
radiation in glass and water, and also radiative heat transfer between
different surfaces are accounted by solving DO radiative transfer
equation. The present method avoids the difficulties and high compu-
tational cost associated with multiphase techniques. Instead, the species
transport equation of water vapor is solved with a novel procedure for
considering the latent heat of evaporation/condensation as a sink/
source term in the energy equation. A coefficient α is defined to share
the latent heat between the two neighboring bodies. The proposed
numerical modeling is validated with the available experimental data
for passive and active multi-stage solar stills. It is concluded that:

• The new proposed model can accurately simulate transient perfor-

Fig. 19. Effect of number of stages on the productivity of the multi-stage active
solar still.
The daily productivity of each stage and the total multi-stage sys-
tems are presented in Fig. 18. The trend of total productivity is as-
cending but its rate is slowing down as the number of stages increases.
Accordingly, the difference between total productivity in six-stage and
seven-stage systems is insignificant.
mance of solar stills through a day, with ambient conditions as the
only inputs of the problem.
• Species and energy equations can be coupled through user defined
functions in Fluent by considering the latent heats of evaporation
and condensation as energy source terms. In this way, the large
computational cost of multi-phase models is avoided.
• The appropriate value for the coefficient α is found to be 0.5 with
the closest results to the experimental data for different solar stills
investigated in the present study.
• The instantaneous temperature distribution and evaporation and

14
M. Keshtkar, et al. Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx

condensation rates are achievable with relatively low computational σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant, W/m2K4
cost throughout a day. Accordingly, performance of various solar τ shear stress, N/m2
stills, with different geometries and ambient conditions can be φ relative humidity
predicted accurately.
• The maximum hourly productivity of passive solar still is at 3 PM Subscripts
when there is the maximum temperature difference between water
and glass. a air
• The number of vortices decreases as the temperature difference and amb ambient
consequently velocity inside the multi-stage solar stills increase. c condensation
This behavior affects the productivity of the system in different ch characteristic
hours. cr critical
• By increasing the number of stages in active solar still, the pro- e evaporation
ductivity of each stage decreases, but the total productivity is in- eff effective
creased. g glass
• The daily productivity of active solar still increases from 11.82 to sat saturated
24.3 kg/m2 by increasing the number of stages from one to six sky sky
stages. t turbulent
• Increasing the number of stages beyond 6 is not beneficial in the w water
multi-stage active solar still. 0 operating

Nomenclature Author statement

A area, m2 M. Keshtkar: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,

a absorption coefficient, 1/m Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft,
cp specific heat, J/kgK Visualization
Dm molecular diffusion coefficient, m2/s M. Eslami: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing -
E energy, W/m3 Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision
e emissivity K. Jafarpur: Conceptualization, Resources, Review & Editing,
Gr Grashof number Project administration
g gravity, m2/s
hE sensible enthalpy, J/kgK Declaration of competing interest
hfg enthalpy of vaporization, J/kg
hcv convection heat transfer coefficient, W/m2K The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
hfree free convection heat transfer coefficient, W/m2K interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
hforced forced convection heat transfer coefficient, W/m2K ence the work reported in this paper.
I radiation intensity, W/m2
J diffusive flux, kg/m2s References
k kinetic energy of turbulence, m2/s2
L length, m [1] P. Vishwanath Kumar, A. Kumar, O. Prakash, A.K. Kaviti, Solar stills system design:
ṁ mass flux, kg/m2s a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 51 (2015) 153–181.
[2] P. Durkaieswaran, K.K. Murugavel, Various special designs of single basin passive
Nu average Nusselt number solar still – a review, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 49 (2015) 1048–1060.
n refractive index [3] M. Edalatpour, K. Aryana, A. Kianifar, G.N. Tiwari, O. Mahian, S. Wongwises, Solar
P pressure, Pa stills: a review of the latest developments in numerical simulations, Sol. Energy 135
(2016) 897–922.
p perimeter, m [4] M.I. Ahmed, M. Hrairi, A.F. Ismail, On the characteristics of multistage evacuated
Pr Prandtl number solar distillation, Renew. Energy 34 (6) (2009) 1471–1478.
Ra Rayleigh number [5] N. Setoodeh, R. Rahimi, A. Ameri, Modeling and determination of heat transfer
coefficient in a basin solar still using CFD, Desalination 268 (1–3) (2011) 103–110.
Re Reynolds number
[6] R.V. Dunkle, Solar water distillation, the roof type still and a multiple effect dif-
Sc Schmidt number fusion still, international developments in heat transfer, Proceedings of the ASME
Sh radiant energy source, W/m3 International Heat Transfer, Part 5, University of Colorado, 1961, p. 895.
[7] M.M. Rahman, H.F. Öztop, A. Ahsan, M.A. Kalam, Y. Varol, Double-diffusive natural
SL latent heat source, W/m3
convection in a triangular solar collector, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf 39 (2)
T temperature, K (2012) 264–269.
t time, s [8] N. Rahbar, J.A. Esfahani, Productivity estimation of a single-slope solar still: the-
V volume, m3 oretical and numerical analysis, Energy 49 (1) (2013) 289–297.
[9] M. Edalatpour, A. Kianifar, S. Ghiami, Effect of blade installation on heat transfer
v velocity, m/s and fluid flow within a single slope solar still, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf 66
w humidity ratio (2015) 63–70.
Y mass fraction [10] R. Alvarado-juárez, J. Xamán, G. Álvarez, I. Hernández-lópez, Numerical study of
heat and mass transfer in a solar still device: effect of the glass cover, Desalination
359 (2015) 200–211.
Greek symbols [11] P. Malaiyappan, N. Elumalai, Numerical investigations: basin materials of a single-
basin and single-slope solar still, Desalin. Water Treat. 57 (45) (2016)
21211–21233.
α energy source coefficient [12] Y. Taamneh, Influence of Jordanian zeolite on the performance of a solar still:
β thermal expansion coefficient, 1/K experiments and CFD simulation studies, Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 16 (6)
γ angle with vertical line (2016) 1700–1709.
[13] H.N. Panchal, N. Patel, ANSYS CFD and experimental comparison of various
ε dissipation rate, m2/s3
parameters of a solar still, Int. J. Ambient Energy 39 (6) (2018) 551–557.
λ thermal conductivity, W/mK [14] J.A. Rashidi, S. Bovand, M. Esfahani, Volume-of-fluid model for simulating va-
μ viscosity, kg/ms por–liquid phase change in a solar still, Journal Thermophys. Heat Transf. 32 (4)
(2018) 917–924.
ρ density, kg/m3

15
M. Keshtkar, et al.
[15] N.N. Aung, M.M. Soe, Performance and numerical analysis of single basin solar still,
Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 7 (12) (2017) 821–843.
[16] O.O. Rabhy, I.G. Adam, M.E. Youssef, A.B. Rashad, G.E. Hassan, Numerical and
experimental analyses of a transparent solar distiller for an agricultural greenhouse,
Appl. Energy 253 (February) (2019) 113564.
[17] A.A.A.A. Al-rashed, et al., CFD study of heat and mass transfer and entropy gen-
eration in a 3D solar distiller heated by an internal column, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 152
(December 2018) (2019) 280–288.
[18] M. Feilizadeh, M. Soltanieh, M.R. Karimi Estahbanati, K. Jafarpur,
S. Ashrafmansouri, Optimization of geometrical dimensions of single-slope basin-
type solar stills, Desalination 424 (October) (2017) 159–168.
[19] M.R. Karimi Estahbanati, M. Feilizadeh, K. Jafarpur, M. Feilizadeh,
M.R. Rahimpour, Experimental investigation of a multi-effect active solar still: the
effect of the number of stages, Appl. Energy 137 (2015) 46–55.
[20] Fluent 17.1 Documentation.
[21] S.M. Ghiaasiaan, Convective Heat and Mass Transfer, Cambridge University Press,
2011.
16
Desalination xxx (xxxx) xxxx
[22] T.L. Bergman, F.P. Incropera, D.P. DeWitt, A.S. Lavine, Fundamentals of Heat and
Mass Transfer, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
[23] A. Agrawal, R.S. Rana, P.K. Srivastava, Heat transfer coefficients and productivity
of a single slope single basin solar still in Indian climatic condition: experimental
and theoretical comparison, Resour. Technol 3 (4) (2017) 466–482.
[24] J.F. Kreider, P.S. Curtiss, A. Rabl, Heating and Cooling of Buildings: Design for
Efficiency, CRC Press, 2009.
[25] T. Elango, K. Kalidasa Murugavel, The effect of the water depth on the productivity
for single and double basin double slope glass solar stills, Desalination 359 (2015)
82–91.
[26] Y. Cengel, Heat and Mass Transfer: Fundamentals and Applications, McGraw-Hill
Higher Education, 2014.
[27] J.R. Howell, R. Siegel, M.P. Menguc, Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, CRC Press,
2011.
[28] S. Rashidi, J. Abolfazli, N. Rahbar, Partitioning of solar still for performance re-
covery: experimental and numerical investigations with cost analysis, Sol. Energy
153 (2017) 41–50.