Desalination 268 (2011) 103–110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / d e s a l

Modeling and determination of heat transfer coefficient in a basin solar still

using CFD
Narjes Setoodeh, Rahbar Rahimi ⁎, Abolhasan Ameri
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran

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

Article history: Even though the use of solar energy in distillation of saline water to produce potable water due to the increase
Received 14 May 2010 of fossil fuel cost and environmental consideration has become wide spread, their usages are prohibited by
Received in revised form 30 September 2010 their cost. This required study on the modeling and transport parameters determination of basin solar still for
Accepted 2 October 2010
an efficient design. Hence a three-dimensional, two-phase model was developed for evaporation and
Available online 11 November 2010
condensation processes in solar still by using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method to simulate the
Keywords:
model. The simulation results were compared with the available experimental data of basin solar still. The
Solar still amount of fresh water productivity and water temperature were in good agreement with experimental data.
CFD Convective and evaporative heat transfer coefficients based on two literature correlations for both
Heat transfer coefficient experimental and CFD results were calculated and compared. Study shows that CFD is a powerful tool for
Evaporation design, parameter analysis and diagnostic purposes of solar still.
Condensation © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction investigating different parameters. Literature review shows that there

Now days, encountering with the lack of potable water is one of
the major problems in communities. Most of the water reservoir are
saline or have harmful bacteria, hence are not potable. On the other
hand, great dependency of industrial communities to energy
resources such as fossil fuels has intensified usage of renewable
energy. One of these energies is solar energy. It can be used as a
permanent useful source because its production is cost free; and its
usage has no harmful impact on the environment. Hence application
of solar stills for distillation of sea or salty water for the production of
fresh water is economical with respect to the energy requirements
but, the distillate rate is low.
An extensive review paper of solar stills has been published by
Kalogirou [1]. Attempts have been made to model solar stills
mathematically. Mowla et al. [2] calculated the rate of production of
fresh water from sea water as a function of different meteorological
parameters and the solar still geometrical specifications. Transient
mathematical models of still that did not take account of phase change
of materials were introduced by El-sebaii et al. [3]. Radhwan [4]
studied the transient performance of a stepped solar still with built-in
latent heat thermal energy storage. Increasing solar still efficiency is
an essential task for the purpose of higher fresh water production rate,
setting an optimum system and lowering capital cost. Those can be
achieved by having a proper mathematical model of solar stills for
has been less attention to solar stills modeling by means of CFD.
Ahmed et al. [5] CFD model of multistage evacuated solar distillation
system was 2-dimensional.
In this paper, a 3-dimensional two phase model was developed for
one-stage basin solar still by using CFD technique. Heat transfer
coefficient, h, was determined. Modeling results were compared with
the available experimental data of Tabrizi et al. [6]. They were in good
agreement. Modeling results are applicable in design of optimum
equipment.
2. Mathematical model
A two-phase model was developed in the volume of fluid (VOF)
framework for liquid water and mixture of air and water vapor system
at quasi steady state condition; thus only surface evaporation of liquid
occurs and their interface should be considered for modeling. A
distinct interface between vapor and liquid phases exists, hence both
phases are continuous. No turbulence models were used for both
phases because liquid were taken stagnant and vaporization rate is
low. Energy and mass transfer have been considered in this work. For
each phase the time and volume-average continuity, energy and mass
equations are numerically solved.
2.1. Governing equations

⁎ Corresponding author. P.O. Box 98164-161, Zahedan, Iran. Tel.: + 98 541 8052450;
The model equations based on the continuity, momentum, energy
fax: + 98 541 2447091. and mass transfer conservation principles at steady state condition
E-mail address: rahimi@hamoon.usb.ac.ir (R. Rahimi). follow.

0011-9164/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2010.10.004
104 N. Setoodeh et al. / Desalination 268 (2011) 103–110

2.1.1. Continuity equations hL and hG are specific enthalpies of phase L and G, respectively. The
first term in the parentheses on the right hand side of above equations
• Gas phase is the energy transfer between phases, and the second term is the
energy transfer associated with the mass transfer between phases.
∇d ðrG ρG VG Þ + SLG = 0 ð1Þ Heat transfer between phases must satisfy the local balance condition.

• Liquid phase Q LG = −Q GL ð7Þ

∇d ðrL ρL VL Þ−SLG = 0 ð2Þ

2.1.4. Volume conservation equation
This is simply the constraint that the volume fractions sum to
SLG is the rate of mass transfer from liquid phase to gas phase and
unity.
vice versa. Mass transfer between phases must satisfy the local
balance condition, so SLG = −SGL. rG + rL = 1 ð8Þ

2.1.2. Momentum equations

2.1.5. Pressure constraint
• Gas phase
The two phases share the same pressure field.



T
∇d ðrG ðρG VG VG ÞÞ = −rG ∇PG + ∇d rG μlaminar;G ∇VG + ð∇VG Þ PG = PL = P ð9Þ
ð3Þ
+ rG ρG g−MGL

2.1.6. Mass transfer equations

• Liquid phase Transport equations for mass fraction of light component A can be


 written.
T
∇d ðrL ðρL VL VL ÞÞ = −rL ∇PL + ∇d rL μlaminar; L ∇VL + ð∇VL Þ
ð4Þ • Gas phase
+ rL ρL g + MGL
∇d ½rG ðρG VG YA −ρG DAG ð∇YA ÞÞ−SLG = 0 ð10Þ

MGL describes the interfacial forces acting on each phase due to the • Liquid phase
presence of other phase. The details of interfacial forces are given in
the CFX11 solution manual [7]. The required drag coefficient due to ∇d ½rL ðρL VL XA −ρL DAL ð∇XA ÞÞ + SLG = 0 ð11Þ
high interfacial area was assumed to be 0.44.

2.1.3. Energy equations 2.2. Closure relationships

• Gas phase We need heat and mass transfer equations for modeling
evaporation and condensation processes. The two-resistance model
∇d ðrG ρG VG hG Þ = −∇d q + ðQ LG + SLG hLG Þ ð5Þ for interphase heat transfer has been used. The heat transfer
coefficient across interface and gas phase was modeled by using
• Liquid phase zero equation model and for liquid phase has been expressed by

∇d ðrL ρL VL hL Þ = −∇d q−ðQ LG + SLG hLG Þ ð6Þ hL; total = hrw + hcw + hew ð12Þ

Fig. 1. A schematic drawing of the experimental setup [6].

 N. Setoodeh et al. / Desalination 268 (2011) 103–110 105

Dunkle's [8] relation for convective heat transfer coefficient from 3.1. Boundary and initial conditions
water to glass, hcw, was employed. Dunkle's relation could be used
since the temperature range was about 25 to 60 °C. To solve the continuity and momentum equations, appropriate
boundary conditions were specified at all boundaries. The recorded
2
 31
Pw −Pg ðTw + 273Þ =3 experimental data are for 14 h. CFD simulation run time of 14 h that is
hcw 4
= 0:884 Tw −Tg + 5 ð13Þ required for modeling of solar still which is an unsteady state process
268:9×103 −Pw is impossible due to high number of time steps and computer time
limitations. It was assumed that in a time period of 1 h, the received
where solar radiation by the basin still as well as water and glass
temperatures of the basin are almost constant. Hence an overall
 
5144 process was modeled as 14 stages of 1 h interval in a quasi steady state
Pw = exp 25:317− ð14Þ
Tw + 273 condition. Boundary conditions for glass, bottom and downcomer
were considered as constant temperature boundary. Fig. 3 shows
and glass, heat reservoir and water temperatures based on the experi-
mental data. The experiments were carried out in spring days of year
!
5144
Pg = exp 25:317− ð15Þ
Tg + 273

The evaporative and radiative heat transfer coefficients, hew and

hrw, from water to glass are given by Eqs. (16) and (17), respectively
[9].

−3 : Pw −Pg
hew = 16:273 × 10 hcw d ð16Þ
Tw −Tg

and

2 h i
2
hrw = εeff d σ ðTw + 273Þ + Tg + 273 Tw + Tg + 546 ð17Þ

Where;

1 1
εeff = + −1 ð18Þ
εg εw

For mass transfer models, specified interfacial mass flux was used.
We assumed that the rate of water evaporation is equal to the rate of
fresh water production. Therefore, a mass flux equation between the
two phases is [9]

•
• qew d Aw d t
mew = ð19Þ
hfg

where;
h
6 −4 −7 2
hfg = 2:4935 × 10 1−9:4779 × 10 T + 1:3132 × 10 T
i ð20Þ
−9 3 ∘
−4:7974 × 10 T for Tb70 C

and

•

q ew = hew Tw −Tg ð21Þ

3. Flow geometry

A schematic diagram of experimental setup of Tabrizi et al. [6] is

shown in Fig. 1. Evaporative surface area is 0.41 m2. The solar energy
transparent surface which is of windows glass has a 45° angle with the
horizontal surface. The water level inside the basin was 4 cm. Other
dimensions are shown in the Fig. 1. A 3-dimensional model geometry
and boundary conditions and its unstructured meshes are shown in
Fig. 2(a) and (b), respectively. Fig. 2. a. Model geometry and boundary conditions.b. Unstructured mesh of model.
106 N. Setoodeh et al. / Desalination 268 (2011) 103–110
Fig. 3. Temperature variation of different elements of the still [6].
2009 from 8:30 A.M. till 10:30 P.M. In every 1 h time interval, an
average temperature was set as boundary condition. Downcomer
temperature was specified equal to glass temperature. Bottom and
heat reservoir temperatures were equal. Solar intensity is based upon
absorption factor and emissivity of glass, water and bottom. For drop
formation on the glass, adhesion forces were taken into account in
simulations. Side walls were assumed adiabatic. A no-slip wall
boundary condition was specified for the liquid phase and free-slip
boundary condition was used for the gas phase.
The initial water level at the commencement of first stage in the
system was 4 cm, so water and mixture volume fractions were
considered to be 0.12 and 0.88, respectively. Initial temperature of
water and gas mixture was used according to the experimental data in
each hour. As evaporation took place the water level decreased.
Therefore for the remaining stages the water level adjusted to account
for pressure. In other words, system pressure was defined on the basis
of hydrostatic pressure proportional to the still water level.
4. Simulation results
The CFD analysis was carried out using the commercial package
ANSYS CFX 11 on eight 2.76 GHz CPU processors and two 3.00 GHz
CPU processors as parallel run were used for solving the equations.
Fig. 4. The rate of fresh water production from experimental data and simulation
results.
Fig. 5. Water temperature predicted by the CFD simulation and experimental data.
The computation time per simulation required to reach quasi steady
state condition was about 4 to 12 h according to the computer used for
CFD simulations.
Building model geometry and its meshing were done using ANSYS
Workbench 11. Unstructured mesh of type tetrahedral was used. The
sensitivity of the simulation results to grid size were checked by
comparing the results for 32322, 47179, 64694 and 84315 cells. With
increasing number of grids to 64694 and 84315, CFD prediction
results become insignificantly closer to the experiment results, hence
for lowering computational effort, the simulations were carried out
with 47179 nodes.
The objective of this paper is CFD modeling of evaporation and
condensation processes that occur in solar stills. Water in the system
vaporizes by cause of solar energy. Temperature difference between
water vapor and glass leads to vapor condensation on the glass
surface. Droplets slip down and gather on the downcomer. For fresh
water calculation in simulations, amount of accumulated water on
downcomer were considered as the rate of water production. Fresh
water production rate and water temperature from simulation results
were compared with experimental data.
Fig. 4 shows the results of simulation runs and the experimental data
in a 14 h time period. In this figure it is noted that as the process begins at
8:30 A.M., by passing time water in the still warms up due to solar
Fig. 6. Water volume fraction contour on glass.
 N. Setoodeh et al. / Desalination 268 (2011) 103–110 107

Fig. 9. Gas mixture temperature on a plane inside the solar still.

Fig. 7. Water volume fraction contour on downcomer.

radiation. Gradually the still space saturates with water vapor and the down and forces the lighter warm phase toward the glass. Hence, free
fresh water production rate increases until about 14:00 P.M. After that by convection heat transfer mechanism can be seen in the solar still unit.
decreasing solar radiation, produced water amount comes down slowly.
Water temperatures predicted by CFD simulation are compared 5. Heat transfer coefficient analysis
against experimental data in Fig. 5. It changes in an analogous manner
to explanations given for Fig. 4. The average errors for production rate As mentioned earlier, heat transfer in the system is due to the
and water temperature are 7.79% and 14.48% respectively. buoyancy force. This force is a cause of density difference in the gas
Condensed water droplets on the glass are shown in Fig. 6. Volume phase. Density difference also occurs because of temperature
fraction of droplet on glass in comparison with its surface is low. So we difference in the mixture. Therefore gas phase gets a circular motion
set the legend range of the contour between zeros to 1 × 10−4 for a in the solar still and heat transfer takes place as natural convection.
proper representation of condensed droplets. This vapor flow pattern is shown in Fig. 10. As the system is closed and
In Figs. 7 and 8, water volume fraction contours corresponding to we have not any external flow into still, convective heat transfer
downcomer and side view of the system are shown. As it is obvious in includes only free convection.
Fig. 8, liquid and gas phases are completely apart and their interface is Convection heat transfer rate from water to glass is calculated from
distinct. Liquid phase can only be seen on the glass, downcomer and Eq. (22).
bottom of the model geometry.

•
Gas phase temperature in each stage is almost constant in the still. q cw = hcw Tw −Tg ð22Þ
The temperature contour for gas is shown in Fig. 9.
Gas velocity vector on a plane inside the solar still is presented in hcw is convective heat transfer coefficient. Dimensionless Nusselt
Fig. 10. Gas phase moves on circular path lines between bottom and number is defined as
the glass. Warm phase moves upward due to the effect of buoyancy
hcw d d n
force, and portion of it condenses on the glass. So it cools and comes Nu = = C ðGrd PrÞ ð23Þ
k

Fig. 8. Water volume fraction contour at the side view. Fig. 10. Gas mixture velocity vector on a plane inside the solar still.
108 N. Setoodeh et al. / Desalination 268 (2011) 103–110

Table 1
Temperature dependent physical properties of vapor.

Quantity Symbol Expression

Specific heat Cp CP = 999.2 + 0.1434 . T*v + 1.101 × 10− 4 . T2v − 6.7581 × 10− 8
Density ρ ρ = ðTv 353:44
+ 273:15Þ
Thermal conductivity k k = 0.0244 + 0.7673 × 10− 4 . Tv
Viscosity μ μ = 1.718 × 10− 5 + 4.620
h × 10− 8 . Tv i
Latent heat of vaporization of water hfg hfg = 2:4935 × 106 d 1−9:4779 × 10−4 d Tv + 1:3132 × 10−7 d Tv −4:7974 × 10−9 d Tv3 ; for Tv b 70∘ C
Expansion factor β β = ðTv + 273:15Þ
1

*Tv = (Tw + Tg)/2.

hence By substitution hcw from Eq. (24) into Eq. (16), we have:
" #
k n k n Pw −Pg
hcw = d C ðGrd PrÞ ð24Þ hew = 0:01623 d C ðGrd PrÞ d ð27Þ
d d Tw −Tg

•
Where Gr and Pr are the Grashof and Prandtl numbers, respectively Further, by substituting hew into Eq. (21) and then qew into
and are given by the expressions shown below. Eq. (19), we get

βg d3 ρ2 ΔT • 0:01623 k

n
Gr = ð25Þ m ew = d d Aw d td Pw −Pg d C ðGrd PrÞ ð28Þ
μ2 hfg d

μd Cp Therefore;
Pr = ð26Þ
k
•
mew n
= C ðGrd PrÞ ð29Þ
The variables on right hand side of expressions are temperature R
dependent physical properties of vapor and are given in Table 1 [10].
In order to calculate vapor physical properties which are required Where;
in Eqs. (23)–(26), Tw and Tg were averaged over volume and glass
0:01623 k

surface respectively. So the Nu number and heat transfer coefficient
R= d d Aw d td Pw −Pg ð30Þ
obtained are average values. hfg d
Calculation of constants C and n in Eq. (24), were based on
regression analysis of the predicted results of CFD using Tiwari et al.
[10] and Kumar and Tiwari [11] method. The convective heat transfer Taking the logarithms of both sides of Eq. (29) and by using linear
coefficient is evaluated from Eq. (24) using the values of obtained C regression analysis, the constants C and n evaluated for our CFD data
and n. The evaporative heat transfer coefficient in the system and to be equal to 2.054 and 0.166. For experimental data of Tabrizi et al.
condensed water rate are obtained from Eqs. (16) and (19). [6] these values would be 2.056 and 0.159 respectively.

Fig. 11. Variation of convective heat transfer coefficient (hcw) with day hour. Fig. 12. Variation of evaporative heat transfer.
 N. Setoodeh et al. / Desalination 268 (2011) 103–110 109

Convective and evaporative heat transfer coefficients based on

Dunkle's correlation and Kumar and Tiwari model were calculated. C
and n values determined according to Kumar and Tiwari model for
CFD models were 2.054 and 0.166 and for experimental data were
2.056 and 0.159 respectively. By using new heat transfer coefficients
evaluated for experimental data in CFD simulations, the rate of fresh
water production did not change significantly, but it influenced on
water temperature results and reduced its error in comparison with
previous simulation results.
Predicted results by CFD show that computational fluid dynamics
is a powerful tool for design, parameter analysis and difficulties
removal in solar still construction.

Symbols
Aw Evaporative surface area, m2
C Unknown constant in Nusselt number expression
Cp Specific heat, J/kg°C
d Characteristic dimension of condensing cover, m
DAG Diffusion coefficient of A in gas phase, m/s2
Fig. 13. Comparison of water temperature for experimental data and CFD simulations
DAL Diffusion coefficient of A in liquid phase, m/s2
using heat transfer coefficients evaluated from Kumar and Tiwari model. Gr Grashof number, Dimensionless
hcw Convective heat transfer coefficient from water to glass,
W/m2°C
The value of hcw based on calculated C and n is determined from hew Evaporative heat transfer coefficient from water to glass,
Eq. (24). Dunkle [8] has made some assumptions for deriving his W/m2°C
correlation. The results with good accuracy are obtained for normal hfg Latent heat of vaporization of water, J/kg
temperature range, 17 °C, and 50 °C temperature difference between h Specific enthalpy, J/kg
glass surface and water. C and n values are 0.075 and 0.33 in Dunkle's hL, total Total heat transfer coefficient of Liquid phase, W/m2 °C
correlation; whereas in Kumar and Tiwari model C and n are calculated hrw Radiative heat transfer coefficient from water to glass, W/m2 °C
based upon experimental data. Hence, hcw calculated from Kumar and k Thermal conductivity, W/m°C
Tiwari model is more realistic and free from shortcomings of Dunkle's MGL Interphase momentum transfer, kg/m2s2
correlation. Also evaporative heat transfer coefficient is dependent to •
mew Distillate output, kg
convective heat transfer coefficient and is expressed by Eq. (27). n Unknown constant in Nusselt number expression
Convective and evaporative heat transfer coefficients obtained from Nu Nusselt number, Dimensionless
CFD simulation results and experimental data by using mentioned P Pressure, N/m2
model, and also hcw and hew from Dunkle's relation (Eq. (13) and (16)), Pg Partial saturated vapor pressure at glass temperature, N/m2
for two sets of data (CFD and experimental) are presented in Figs. 11 Pw Partial saturated vapor pressure at water temperature, N/m2
and 12. It is obvious that the CFD prediction and experimental results Pr Prandtl number, Dimensionless
are agreeable. The trend of variations in heat transfer coefficients is QLG Energy transfer between liquid and gas phases, W/m3
similar to temperature variation figure; because both hcw and hew are q Flux of enthalpy, W/m2
dependent to water and glass temperatures. •
qcw Rate of convective heat transfer within still from water to
We used new heat transfer coefficients by using mentioned model glass, W/m2
for experimental data in our simulations. We evaluated new results •
qew Rate of evaporative heat transfer within still from water to
from CFD simulations. Results for the rate of fresh water production glass, W/m2
were not so different from results in Fig. 4 and the difference was r Volume fraction, dimensionless
negligible; but it influenced on the water temperature results and SLG rate of interphase mass transfer, kg/m3s
reduced the gap between the experimental and the CFD data. The t Time, s
comparison between new CFD and experimental data of water T Temperature, °C
temperature for heat transfer coefficients obtained from Kumar and V Velocity vector, m/s
Tiwari model is shown in Fig. 13. By this method results improved to XA Mass fraction of A in liquid phase
some extent in comparison with experimental data. The average YA Mass fraction of A in gas phase
water temperature error reduces to 9.98%.

Greek
β Expansion factor, 1/°C
6. Conclusions
σ Stephan Boltzman, W/m2°C4
ε Emissivity
In this work, evaporation and condensation processes that are
occurring in solar stills were simulated. A two-phase three-dimensional μ Viscosity, kg/ms
ρ Density, kg/m3
model using CFD were developed. The model was conducted for water-
mixture (air and water vapor) system with the aim of CFX 11 software
package. Experimental data within 14 h simulated as 14 steps of 1 h Subscripts
period. Due to solar radiation, water vaporized and model was able to G Gas
show condensed water droplets on the glass. Droplets that slipped g Glass
downward to the downcomer are also observable. Accumulated water L Liquid
amount on downcomer were compared with the water quantity v Vapor
produced in experimental setup. They were in good agreement. w Water
110 N. Setoodeh et al. / Desalination 268 (2011) 103–110
References
[1] S. Kalogirou, Survey of solar desalination systems and system selection, Energy 22
(1997) 69–81.
[2] D. Mowla, G. Karimi, Mathematical modeling of solar stills in Iran, Solar Energy 55
(5) (1995) 389–393.
[3] A.A. El-Sebaii, A.A. Al-Ghamdi, F.S. Al-Hazmi, Adel S. Faidah, Thermal performance
of a single basin solar still with PCM as a storage medium, Applied Energy 86
(2009) 1187–1195.
[4] A.M. Radhwan, Transient performance of stepped solar still with built-in latent
heat thermal energy storage, Desalination 171 (2004) 61–76.
[5] M.I. Ahmed, M. Hrairi, A.F. Ismail, On the characteristics of multistage evacuated
solar distillation, Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 1471–1478.
[6] F. Farshchi Tabrizi, A. Zolfaghari Sharak, Experimental study of an integrated basin
solar still with a sandy heat reservoir, Desalination 253 (2009) 195–199.
[7] CFX User Manual, ANSYS, Inc. Modeling, CFX 11.0: Solver.
[8] R.V. Dunkle, Solar water distillation, the roof and a multiple effect diffusion still,
International Developments in Heat Transfer, ASME, Proc. International Heat
Transfer, Part V, University of Colorado, 1961 895 pp.
[9] G.N. Tiwari, Solar energy. Fundamentals, designs, modeling and application, CRC
press, 2002, pp. 279–309.
[10] A.K. Tiwari, G.N. Tiwari, Effect of water depths on heat and mass transfer in a
passive solar still: in summer climatic condition, Desalination 195 (2006) 78–94.
[11] S. Kumar, G.N. Tiwari, Estimation of convective mass transfer in solar distillation
system, Solar Energy 57 (1996) 459–464.