Desalination 311 (2013) 173181

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Numerical models of solar distillation device: Present and previous

Amimul Ahsan a, b,, Monzur Imteaz c, Rahul Dev d, Hassan A. Arafat e
a

University Putra Malaysia, Dept. Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Materials Processing and Technology Lab, Institute of Advanced Technology, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
c
Swinburne University of Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences, Hawthorn, Melbourne, VIC 3122, Australia
d
Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Dept. Mechanical Engineering, Allahabad-211004, Uttar Pradesh, India
e
Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, Water and Environmental Engineering Program, PO Box 54224, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
b

H I G H L I G H T S

The present models can predict the daily production ux.

Some earlier developed models are unable to reproduce the observed data well.
Present models have the smallest deviation between calculated and observed values.
The evaporation coefcient was proportional to Tw Tc.
The condensation coefcient was inversely proportional to ea/eo.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 22 June 2012
Received in revised form 19 November 2012
Accepted 20 November 2012
Available online 21 December 2012
Keywords:
Evaporation
Condensation
Water production
Solar still
Modeling
Desalination

a b s t r a c t
In this paper, a detailed comparison of a few numerical models (with and without considering humid air
properties) for the estimation of water production from a solar water distillation device is investigated. An
extensive laboratory production experiments were executed under fteen sets of external conditions to
nd the properties of evaporation and condensation coefcients to incorporate with the present evaporation
and condensation models (two unique and independent theoretical models), respectively. The calculation accuracy of the evaporation ux computed by two evaporation models (present and previous), Dunkle's and
Ueda's model, and of the hourly condensation ux estimated by two condensation models (present and previous) was examined using the eld experimental results. It was found that the previous evaporation and
condensation models using empirical relationships extremely overestimated and underestimated the observed production ux, respectively. The evaporation ux calculated by the conventional models of Dunkle
and Ueda notably underestimated and overestimated the observed values, respectively. Finally, it is revealed
that the present models have the smallest deviation between the calculated and the observed values among
these six models and can predict the daily production ux.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Energy is a signicant cost in the economics of desalinating waters and conventional fossil fuels have been utilized as the main energy source, but recent concerns over greenhouse gas emissions have
promoted global development and implementation of energy minimization strategies and cleaner energy supplies [1]. Moreover, the rejection of specic constituents, such as boron, in seawater by reverse
osmosis membranes has recently become a concern due to stringent
discharge limits [2]. Therefore, solar stills using renewable (solar) energy would be a potential option to save fossil fuels and to keep the environment clean from hazardous materials.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 3 8946 4492; fax: +60 3 8656 7129.
E-mail addresses: ashikcivil@yahoo.com, aahsan@eng.upm.edu.my (A. Ahsan).
0011-9164/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.11.023

Solar stills of different designs have been investigated by many researchers, e.g. single-slope [3], double-slope basin-type [4], weir-type
cascade [5,6], tubular-type [7], wick-type [8], integrated basin solar
still with a sandy heat reservoir [9], and tilted wick-type with at
plate bottom reector [10]. The performance of solar still can be improved using a hybrid photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) system [1113],
ash evaporation [14], a hybrid heat pump compression system [15]
and a reciprocating spray feeding system [16]. Eldalil [17] presented
a new concept of active vibratory solar still with an average daily efciency of about 60%. Complicated system is generally costly and may
require regular monitoring with skilled personnel, which makes a
complicated system unsuitable for remote and coastal areas.
To predict the distilled water output, i.e. production, most of the
numerical models of basin-type still have the evaporative mass and
heat transfer correlations using the temperature and vapor pressure
on the water surface and still cover without noting the presence of

174

A. Ahsan et al. / Desalination 311 (2013) 173181

intermediate medium, i.e. humid air. A few examples of numerical

models on different designs include a tube-type networked solar still
[37], an inverted absorber solar still [18], a basin-type solar still [19], a
portable active solar still [20], a tilted wick-type solar still [8], a hemispherical solar still [21,22] and a concentric tubular still [23].
Indeed, in the mentioned studies, the humid air was assumed to
be saturated to simplify the calculation of evaporation (e.g. [24]).
Ahsan and Fukuhara, Nagai et al., and Ahsan et al. [2527] found
that the relative humidity of humid air is denitely not saturated in
the daytime for both basin-type still and Tubular Solar Still (TSS).
Therefore, the incorporation of the humid air properties in numerical
modeling of solar stills is needed to predict not only the evaporation
but also the condensation. A few studies regarding this issue are,
however, found in literature. For instance, Tsilingiris [28] investigated
the effect of humid air thermo-physical properties seen as a saturated
binary mixture of water vapor and dry air on heat and mass transfer
transport processes in a basin-type solar still based on linear mixing
theory. Ahsan and Fukuhara [25] reported a detailed model that
takes into account the intermediate humid air properties based on
heat and mass balance theory as well.
The aim of the present investigation is to present a detailed comparison of six numerical models (with and without considering
humid air properties) for the estimation of water production from a
solar still. In addition, the evaporation and condensation coefcients
for two present models (evaporation and condensation models, respectively) are obtained from careful laboratory measurements by
varying the solar simulator heat ux and the ambient temperature.
The calculation accuracy of the evaporation models (present and previous), condensation models (present and previous), Dunkle's and
Ueda's model (for evaporation) is examined by using the eld experimental results carried out in Japan and Oman. Consequently, the numerical deviations between the calculated and the observed values of
these six models were then calculated to nd the best predictor.

rectangular black trough inside the tubular cover. The frame can restrain the deformation of a polythene lm (0.15 mm in thickness)
used as a tubular cover. The length and outside diameter of the TSS
were 0.52 and 0.13 m, respectively. The trough is 0.49 m in length
and 0.1 m in width. The solar radiant heat after transmitting through
the cover is mostly absorbed by the saline water in the trough. The
rest is absorbed by the cover and the trough. Thus, the saline water
is heated up and evaporated. The water vapor density of the humid
air increases with the evaporation from the water surface and then
the water vapor is condensed on the inner surface of the cover, releasing its latent heat of evaporation. Finally, the condensed water naturally trickles down toward the bottom of the cover due to gravity
and is stored in a collector.
3. Evaporation and condensation models
3.1. Dunkle's model (for basin-type still)
Dunkle [29] rst proposed a theoretical relation for the convective
heat transfer coefcient, hcw, and a semi-empirical relation for the
evaporative heat ux, qew, given by Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively.
Malik et al. [24] clearly presented these relations (Eqs. (1)(3)) in details using the SI units and noted that the best representation of the
massheat transfer phenomena was obtained if hem / hcw = 0.016273.
Dunkle studied a basin-type solar still but the humid air properties
were not considered in his relations. However, these are still being
used as noted by Murugavel et al. and Dev and Tiwari [18,30], although objections have been raised sporadically about the predictive
accuracy of the fundamental Dunkle's model [31].
"

hcw

#1
3
evw evc T w

0:884 T w T c

268:9  103 evw
3

qew hem evw evc 16:273  10

2. Tubular Solar Still: Production principal
The production principle of potable water using a TSS is illustrated
in Fig. 1. The TSS is comprised of a frame, a tubular cover and a

hcw evw evc

The evaporation mass ux, me (kg/m 2s), is then dened as

me qew =hfg 16:273  10

hcw evw evc =hfg :

3.2. Ueda's model (for evaporation in general)

Ueda [32] proposed a theoretical relation for calculating the evaporation from water surface in a plate. This relation can be applied to the
evaporation from the water surface in a trough inside a solar still to calculate me. This relation can be expressed with or without considering
the humid air properties, as presented in Eqs. (5) and (4), respectively.

me 0:21K o

1
Ag 3
evw evc
Dv

1
Ag 3
evw evha
Dv




where, A  1:
s

me 0:21K o

3.3. Previous models (for TSS without air humidity consideration)

Fig. 1. Potable water production principle in a TSS. (1 = evaporation, 2 = condensation,

and 3 = production).

Islam [33] rst developed two empirical equations for the TSS
without considering the humid air properties. One for evaporation
mass transfer coefcient, hew (m/s), to calculate me and another for
condensation mass transfer coefcient, hcdha (m/s), to calculate the
condensation ux, mc (kg/m 2s), given by Eqs. (6) and (7), respectively. Since these equations do not have theoretical backgrounds,

A. Ahsan et al. / Desalination 311 (2013) 173181

i.e. equations are empirical ones; it is still unknown whether these

two equations can be used, when the trough size (width or length)
is changed.
hew 5:86  10

hcdha 1:55  10

6:50  10

1:97  10

T w T c

T w T c

6
7

3.4. Present models (for TSS with air humidity consideration)

The present evaporation and condensation models (two unique
and independent theoretical models) were developed for a TSS considering the humid air properties into account based on the evaporation from the water surface and on the condensation on the inner
surface of the tubular cover, respectively.
a) Evaporation model Ahsan and Fukuhara [34] developed a modied diffusion equation to calculate the local
evaporation mass ux, mx, from the water
surface in a trough inside a TSS, which is
expressed as:
mx K m

evw evha
t

where, Km = vKo. v is inuenced by not

only the strength of buoyancy (of vapor)
but also the instability of the humid air on
the water surface, because the bottom
boundary temperature of the humid air, Tw,
is higher than the upper boundary temperature, Tc. The evaporative mass transfer was
generalized by empirical equations using a
dimensional analysis and correlating experimental results. Assuming that the evaporation is induced by natural convection, the
relation between t and x is characterized
using a local Grashof number, Gr, and the
Schmidt number, Sc.
x
mx x
f GrSc

t v K o evw evha
n
zGrSc

q_ s

c l T ha T c

12
0

T c
where, c = 12 and 1 TTha T
: 1 might
ha
c
be affected by the thermal resistance at the
interface and 2 may be inuenced by the
wettability of the cover material. q_ s can
also be expressed using the local heat transfer coefcient of a liquid lm, hl, in the form

q_ s hl T ha T c

13

hl and ml are dened as

hl

c l
and ml hl T ha T c =hfg :

"
#1=3
e M v Rv T w T ha vw vha gD2v T w T c
2Rg T ha

10
h 2
i1=3
Rv T w T ha gDv T w T c
where,
hew e Mv2R
:

g T ha
After substituting the physical constants
(Mv, Rv, Rg and g) into Eq. (10), e can be
given as
"
#1=3
0:935me T ha
D2v T w T c
:

T w T ha vw vha

11
Supposedly, e would be inuenced by the
convection (air ow) due to the instability
of the humid air inside the TSS. The temperature difference, Tw Tc, might be one of the

14

Finally, mc was theoretically formulated based

on a lm-wise condensation theory by taking
the humid air properties into account as
follows:
mc hcdha vha vc
"
#
3 3
3 1=4
3=4 gl l vha l a T ha T a
0:996c
l Dh3fg

15
where, hcdha 0:9963=4
c

me hew vw vha

parameters that represent the degree of instability of the humid air over the water surface. Since Tw is generally higher than Tc, the
humid air may become unstable as the temperature difference Tw Tc (>0) increases.
Based on this idea, a relationship between
e and Tw Tc could be obtained rather
than treated as a constant.
b) Condensation model Ahsan and Fukuhara [35] proposed a modied equation to calculate the apparent heat
ux for the whole area of the tubular cover,
q_ s , as follows:

Finally, me was theoretically derived through

dimensional analysis taking into account the
humid air properties as follows:

175

3 3
3
gl l vha l a T ha T a
l Dh3fg vha vc 4

1=4

and

a=Tha Tc /Tha Ta =0.375. After substituting the constants (a and g) into Eq. (15), c
can be formed as
c

4=3
1:24mc

"
#
3
3 1=3
l l vha l T ha T a
:
l Dh3fg
16

It is inferred that c would be affected by the

thermal resistance due to the presence of a
dry air in the humid air since the humid air
inside the TSS was denitely not saturated.
Based on this concept, a relationship between c and the dry air pressure fraction,
ea/eo (= partial dry air pressure / total atmospheric pressure) would be developed rather than treated as a constant. Fig. 2 shows a
representative element of a condensate
ow inside the TSS.
4. Laboratory production experiments
Distillate production experiments using TSS were executed in the
laboratory to nd the properties of e and c in Eqs. (11) and (16),

A. Ahsan et al. / Desalination 311 (2013) 173181

Humid air

( R- ) d

Angular
( ) dir.

Liquid
film

( )

Velocity profile
+ d

0.3

e = 0.029+0.0113( Tw-Tc)
8

10

12

14

16

Temperature difference, T w -Tc (C)

Fig. 3. Relation between evaporation coefcient, e, and temperature difference, Tw Tc.

6. Condensation coefcient

respectively. The equipment consisted of a TSS, a solar simulator, a

pyranometer (EKO, 1% error), a data logger (MCS, 2% error), two
thermo-hygrometers (VIASALA, b2% error) and an electric balance
(METTLER TOREDO, readability: 0.01 g) connected to a computer. The
solar simulator had 12 infrared lamps (125 W) arranged in six rows of
two lights each. The production experiments were conducted under fteen sets of external surroundings by changing the ambient air temperature, Ta, (27, 32, 36, 42 and 46 C) and the radiation ux, Rs, (500, 800
and 1200 W/m 2).
The production experiments of TSS were carried out in a thermostatic room to keep steady external surroundings (a constant temperature
and relative humidity) at the University of Fukui, Japan. In these experiments, the temperatures of water surface, Tw, humid air, Tha, tubular
cover, Tc, and Ta the relative humidity of humid air, RHha, and of ambient
air, RHa, and Rs were measured by nine thermocouples, two thermohygrometers and a pyranometer, respectively. The measurements of
all these parameters were performed at the center of the TSS.
A thermocouple and a thermo-hygrometer were set at 50 mm
below the top of the tubular cover to measure Tha and RHha. Five thermocouples were stuck at eight different points at the same interval
along the circumference of the tubular cover surface. The average of
the output from these points on the inner surface was adopted as
the value of Tc. A thermocouple was placed at half of the water
depth to measure Tw. The time variation of the production from the
TSS was automatically obtained using a computer connected to an
electric balance. A thermocouple and a thermo-hygrometer were
placed inside the room to measure Ta and RHa, respectively. All the
data were automatically recorded into a data logger and a computer
at one-minute intervals. The duration of each experiment was 8 h.
5. Evaporation coefcient
Fig. 3 shows a relation between e and Tw Tc by using the data of
the above mentioned laboratory production experiments. The e calculated by Eq. (11) is proportional to Tw Tc and can be expressed as
17

Substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (10), meh (kg/m 2h) is given by
meh

0.1

ds=Rd
Cover
+ d

Fig. 2. Representative element of a condensate ow.

e 0:029 0:0113T w T c

0.2

"
#1=3
T w T ha vw vha f111:71 43:53T w T c g D2v T w T c
18
T ha

Once the four parameters (Tw, Tha, Tc and RHha) are observed, meh
can be obtained by Eq. (18).

It was observed that RHha varied from 68 to 81% in the steady state
condition during the production experiments under fteen sets of external surroundings, i.e. the presence of dry air in the humid air was
rmly established. Fig. 4 shows a relation between c and ea/eo by
using the data of the above mentioned laboratory production experiments. The c computed by Eq. (16) is inversely proportional to ea/eo
and the regression can be given as
c 0:001710:00112

ea
eo

19

where, eea 1 eevha and evha = f(Tha, RHha). Substituting Eq. (19) into
o
o
Eq. (15), mch (kg/m2h) is dened as
mch

#

 "
3
3 1=4
ea 3=4 l l vha l T ha T a
75:7349:6
:
eo
l Dh3fg

20

If the four parameters (Tha, Tc, Ta and RHha) are measured, mch can
be calculated by Eq. (20). Fig. 5 shows the calculation accuracy of meh
calculated by the evaporation model (using Eq. (18)) and of mch calculated by the condensation model (using Eq. (20)), respectively.
The calculated meh or mch and observed mph of laboratory production
experiments are chosen as the vertical and horizontal axes, respectively. It is seen that there is no signicant difference in calculation
accuracy between these two models. Note that the applicability ranges
of these two correlations (i.e. Eqs. (17) and (19)) based on the experimental set-up and observation could be expressed as 1070 C for

[10-4] 15
Condensation coefficient, c

r=R
r=R-

Axial ( x) dir.
dx=1
r

Evaporation coefficient, e

176

12

c =0.00171-0.00112( ea /eo)

9
6
3
0
0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Dry air pressure fraction, ea /eo

Fig. 4. Relation between condensation coefcient, c, and dry air pressure fraction, ea/eo.

Calculated hourly flux, mch/meh (kg/m2/hr)

A. Ahsan et al. / Desalination 311 (2013) 173181

1.2

8. Evaporation and condensation uxes

Evaporation model
Condensation model

1.0

8.1. Present models of TSS

Fig. 6(a) and (b) shows the comparison of the calculated evaporation and condensation uxes using the present (evaporation and condensation) models with the observed production ux in Fukui and
Muscat, respectively. The hourly evaporation and condensation uxes
were computed by Eqs. (18) and (20), respectively. The time variations of the calculated uxes have a good agreement with the observed ones.

0.8
0.6

0.4

177

1
8.2. Previous models of TSS

0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Observed hourly production flux

mph (kg/m2/hr)
Fig. 5. Comparison of the calculated hourly evaporation ux, meh, and hourly condensation ux, mch, with observed hourly production ux, mph of laboratory production
experiments.

temperatures, 40100% for the relative humidity, and 0.51.5 m for the
length and 0.10.2 m for the diameter of the TSS.

7. Field experiments in Japan and Oman

The length and outside diameter of the two identical TSSs were
1.2 m and 0.18 m, respectively. The rectangular trough was 1.09 m
in length and 0.13 m in width. These two identical TSSs were rst
installed in Fukui and then in Muscat to investigate the production
performance. Two typical one-day observation data, from Fukui on
July 5, 2008 and from Muscat on July 13, 2008 are presented here to
verify the calculation accuracy of the present evaporation and condensation models, and to compare the calculated results with some
earlier developed models. From these eld observations, it was
found that RHha varied from 50 to 65% between 8:00 and 17:00 h,
which is remarkably below 100% in the daytime, i.e. the humid air
was denitely not saturated.

Observed production

Fig. 7(a) and (b) shows the comparison of the calculated evaporation and condensation uxes using the previous models (empirical
Eqs. (6) and (7), respectively) with the observed ones in Fukui and
Muscat, respectively. It is revealed that the previous evaporation and
condensation models extremely overestimated and underestimated
the observed values, respectively.
8.3. Models of Dunkle and Ueda
Fig. 8(a) and (b) shows the comparison of the calculated evaporation ux using the models of Dunkle and Ueda with the observed values
in Fukui and Muscat, respectively. The evaporation ux was computed
by Eq. (3) for Dunkle's model and by Eq. (5) for Ueda's model. It is revealed that the calculated proles considerably differ from the observed
values. The evaporation ux calculated by the models of Dunkle and
Ueda notably underestimated and overestimated the observed values,
respectively. Certainly, the conventional approach cannot calculate the
condensation ux. Hence, it is concluded that the conventional approach
based on the evaporation phenomenon developed for a basin-type still
or for a plate might not be useful to predict precisely the hourly production ux of TSS.
9. Accuracy of present and previous models
Fig. 9(a) and (b) shows the calculation accuracy of the evaporation
ux obtained by two evaporation models (present and previous),
Dunkle's and Ueda's model, and of the hourly condensation ux calculated by two condensation models (present and previous) for the

Calculated evaporation
1.0

Hourly flux (kg/m2/hr)

Hourly flux (kg/m2/hr)

1.0

Calculated condensation

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

0.0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time of day (hr)

(a) July 5, 2008 in Fukui, Japan

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time of day (hr)

(b) July 13, 2008 in Muscat, Oman

Fig. 6. Comparison of the hourly calculated evaporation and condensation uxes using the present models with observed production ux. (a) July 5, 2008 in Fukui, Japan and (b) July 13,
2008 in Muscat, Oman.

178

A. Ahsan et al. / Desalination 311 (2013) 173181

Observed production

1.4

Hourly flux (kg/m2/hr)

Hourly flux (kg/m2/hr)

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

Calculated condensation
(by previous model)

Calculated evaporation
(by previous model)

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time of day (hr)

Time of day (hr)

(a) July 5, 2008 in Fukui, Japan

(b) July 13, 2008 in Muscat, Oman

Fig. 7. Comparison of hourly calculated evaporation and condensation uxes using previous models with observed production ux. (a) July 5, 2008 in Fukui, Japan and (b) July 13,
2008 in Muscat, Oman.

TSS in Fukui and Muscat, respectively. The calculated evaporation or

condensation ux and the observed ux are chosen as the vertical
and horizontal axes, respectively.
Ueda's model overestimates the observed production ux and the
deviation from the observed ux is smaller than the results of the previous evaporation model. The deviation of the previous evaporation
model is the largest among these six models. Using the coefcient
Ko related to the molecular diffusion might be the reason for such
overestimation.
In contrast, Dunkle's model underestimates the observed production ux and the deviation from the observed ux is larger than that
of the previous condensation model. This deviation is the second largest
among these six models. The reason might be attributed to neglecting
the presence of intermediate medium, i.e. humid air between the
water surface and the cover.
The calculation accuracy of these six models was quantitatively
evaluated by the root mean squared deviation, (kg/m 2h). That is,
v
u N

2
u1 X
t
mphi mehi :
N i1

21

Observed production

Note that meh = mch in Eq. (21) when for condensation would be
calculated. Table 1 shows values for each model. The present evaporation model has the smallest among these six models and for
the present condensation model is higher than that of the present
evaporation model. Furthermore, it is seen that the difference in between the present and previous models is extremely high in both
cases of evaporation and condensation.
The values for both Ueda's and Dunkle's model are much higher
than those for the present models and quantitatively their values
are about 2.5 and 3 times (on average) those of the present models,
respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that the calculation accuracy of the production ux is certainly improved by the present
models.
A better estimation of the hourly evaporation ux of TSS could be
found using Ueda's model when Ko is replaced with Km (= vKo) and
v is 0.7 in Eq. (5) as follows:


me 0:147K o

Calculated evaporation
(by Dunkle's model)

22

Calculated evaporation
(by Ueda's model)

1.4

Hourly flux (kg/m2/hr)

1.4

Hourly flux (kg/m2/hr)

1
Ag 3
evw evha :
Dv

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

0.0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time of day (hr)

(a) July 5, 2008 in Fukui, Japan

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Time of day (hr)

(b) July 13, 2008 in Muscat, Oman

Fig. 8. Comparison of hourly calculated evaporation ux using the models of Dunkle and Ueda with observed production ux. (a) July 5, 2008 in Fukui, Japan and (b) July 13, 2008 in
Muscat, Oman.

A. Ahsan et al. / Desalination 311 (2013) 173181

1.4

1.4

Evaporation (previous)
Condensation (previous)
Dunkle's model

Calculated hourly flux, meh/mch (kg/m /hr)

Calculated hourly flux, meh/mch (kg/m2/hr)

Evaporation (present)
Condensation (present)
Ueda's model

179

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6

0.4

0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6

0.4

0.2
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Observed hourly production flux

2
mph (kg/m /hr)

Observed hourly production flux

2
mph (kg/m /hr)

(a) July 5, 2008 in Fukui, Japan

(b) July13, 2008in Muscat, Oman

Fig. 9. Comparison of calculated hourly evaporation ux, meh, and hourly condensation ux, mch, with observed hourly production ux, mph of eld experiments. (a) July 5, 2008 in
Fukui, Japan and (b) July 13, 2008 in Muscat, Oman.

Consequently, is reduced to 0.09 from 0.27 for Japan and to 0.09

from 0.25 for Oman (Table 2). Similarly, it is found that a better representation of the calculated evaporation ux of TSS by Dunkle's
model can be obtained if the value of hem / hcw is taken 40 10 3 instead of 16.273 10 3 in Eq. (2) as follows:
qew 40  10

hcw evw evc :

23

Accordingly, can be found as 0.09 instead of 0.34 for Japan and as

0.06 instead of 0.30 for Oman (Table 2). Note that the actual theoretical value of hem / hcw was 13.0 10 3 derived from a mass-heat transfer analogy by Cooper and Malik et al. [24,36].

using the eld experimental results carried out in Japan and Oman.
The previous evaporation and condensation models extremely
overestimated and underestimated the observed production ux, respectively. The deviations between the present and previous models
were awfully high in both cases of evaporation and condensation. The
evaporation ux calculated by the conventional models of Dunkle and
Ueda notably underestimated and overestimated the observed values,
respectively. The deviations for both Ueda's and Dunkle's model were
about 2.5 and 3 times of the present models, respectively. Finally, it is
revealed that the present models have the smallest deviation among
these six models. It is, therefore, concluded that the present evaporation
and condensation models are the most reliable tool for predicting the
daily production of the Tubular Solar Still.

10. Conclusions
This paper described a detailed comparison of several numerical
models for the estimation of water production from a solar water distillation device. It was observed from the laboratory production experiments that the evaporation coefcient was proportional to the
temperature difference between the water surface and the cover. In
addition, the condensation coefcient was inversely proportional to
the dry air pressure fraction. The calculation accuracy of the evaporation ux obtained by two evaporation models (present and previous),
Dunkle's and Ueda's model, and of the condensation ux calculated
by two condensation models (present and previous) was examined

Nomenclature
a
temperature difference fraction ()
D
diameter of TSS (m)
Dv
molecular diffusion coefcient of water vapor (m 2/s)
e
partial air/vapor pressure in humid air (Pa)
g
gravitational acceleration (9.807 m/s 2)
Gr
Grashof number ()
h
heat/mass transfer coefcient (W/m 2K or m/s)
hfg
latent heat of vaporization (J/kg)
Km
dispersion coefcient of water vapor (kg/msPa)
Ko
diffusion coefcient of water vapor (kg/msPa)
m
evaporation/condensation/production ux (kg/m 2s)
Mv
molecular weight of water vapor (18.016 kg/kmol)
N
number of data points ()

Table 1
Calculation accuracy of the present and previous models.
Root mean squared deviation, (kg/m2/h)

Model

Evaporation

Condensation

Dunkle (meh)
Ueda (meh)
Previous (meh)
Present (meh)
Previous (mch)
Present (mch)

July 5, 2008 in Japan

July 13, 2008 in Oman

0.34
0.25
0.37
0.09
0.33
0.14

0.30
0.27
0.72
0.08
0.28
0.13

Table 2
Calculation accuracy of the modied models of Dunkle and Ueda.
Model

Root mean squared deviation, (kg/m2/h)

July 5, 2008 in Japan July 13, 2008 in Oman

Evaporation Modied Dunkle

(meh)
Modied Ueda (meh)

0.09

0.06

0.09

0.09

180

qew
q_ s
Rg
Rs
Rv
RH
Sc
T
x
v
t
()

A. Ahsan et al. / Desalination 311 (2013) 173181

evaporative heat ux from water surface to humid air (W/m2)

apparent heat ux (W/m 2)
universal gas constant (8315 J/kmolK)
solar radiation ux (W/m 2)
specic gas constant of water vapor (461.5 J/kgK)
relative humidity (%)
Schmidt number ()
temperature (K)
characteristic dimension, i.e. diameter/transverse distance
from the edge of trough (m)
evaporativity ()
effective boundary layer thickness of vapor pressure (m)
condensate lm thickness at angle (m)
volumetric thermal expansion coefcient (1/K)
coefcient ()
thermal conductivity (W/mK)
dynamic viscosity (kg/ms)
kinematic viscosity (m 2/s)
density of humid air (kg/m 3)
azimuthal angle (radians)
root mean squared deviation (kg/m 2h)

Appendix A
Grashof and Schmidt numbers
The local Grashof and Schmidt numbers can be formed [32] as
Gr


3 
gx s 

2  s 

A1

Sc

:
D

A2

Diffusion coefcient
The coefcients, Ko and Dv can be expressed by the following
equations, respectively [32] as
Ko

Dv Mv
Rg T ha

Dv 0:241  10
Subscripts
1
temperature correction coefcient (b1)
2
area fraction (b1) = net area of the liquid lm / whole area
of the tubular cover
a
partial dry air pressure in humid air/ambient air
c
condensation/cover
ch
hourly condensation
cdha
condensation mass transfer coefcient from humid air to
cover
cw
convective heat transfer coefcient from water surface to
cover
e
evaporation
eh
hourly evaporation
em
equivalent mass transfer coefcient from water surface to
cover
ew
evaporative mass transfer coefcient from water surface to
humid air
ha
humid air
l
saturated condensate liquid lm/local coefcient
o
total pressure in humid air (101,325 Pa)
p
production
ph
hourly production
s
saturated/water surface
v
water vapor/vapor pressure
vha
partial pressure of water vapor in humid air
vw
saturated water vapor pressure
w
water

Acknowledgments
The support provided by the University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
under Research University Grant Scheme (RUGS), 05-05-10-1063RU,
and 9199672 is acknowledged. The authors gratefully acknowledge
Prof. T. Fukuhara, Dr. Shaul Islam, Dr. Saiful Islam, Dr. S. M.
Moniruzzaman, Engr. Keiichi Waki, Dr. Hiroaki Terasaki, Dr. Akihiro
Fujimoto, Dr. Yasuo Kita and Engr. Fumio Asano for their kind cooperation. Special thanks to Dr. Rashid Al Maamari, Dr. Kazuo Okamura and
Mr. Mark Sueyoshi for their continued support. The support provided
by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, Japan; Shimizu Corporation, Japan and Japan Cooperation Center, Petroleum (JCCP), Japan
is also acknowledged.

A3


T ha 1:75
:
288

A4

Although Ko is a function of Tha, the change of Ko in the range of ordinary Tha is small. For example, Ko = 1.93 10 10 kg/msPa for
Tha = 40 C and 2.07 10 10 kg/msPa for Tha = 70 C.
References
[1] A. Subramani, M. Badruzzaman, J. Oppenheimer, J.G. Jacangelo, Energy minimization strategies and renewable energy utilization for desalination: a review, Water
Res. 45 (2011) 19071920.
[2] L.F. Greenlee, D.F. Lawler, B.D. Freeman, B. Marrot, P. Moulin, Reverse osmosis desalination: water sources, technology, and today's challenges, Water Res. 43
(2009) 23172348.
[3] M. Feilizadeh, M. Soltanieh, K. Jafarpur, M.R.K. Estahbanati, A new radiation
model for a single-slope solar still, Desalination 262 (13) (2010) 166173.
[4] K.K. Murugavel, K. Srithar, Performance study on basin type double slope solar
still with different wick materials and minimum mass of water, Renew. Energy
36 (2) (2011) 612620.
[5] F.F. Tabrizi, M. Dashtban, H. Moghaddam, K. Razzaghi, Effect of water ow rate on
internal heat and mass transfer and daily productivity of a weir-type cascade
solar still, Desalination 260 (13) (2010) 239247.
[6] F.F. Tabrizi, M. Dashtban, H. Moghaddam, Experimental investigation of a
weir-type cascade solar still with built-in latent heat thermal energy storage system, Desalination 260 (13) (2010) 248253.
[7] A. Ahsan, M. Imteaz, A. Rahman, B. Yusuf, T. Fukuhara, Design, fabrication and performance analysis of an improved solar still, Desalination 292 (2012) 105112.
[8] J.T. Mahdi, B.E. Smith, A.O. Sharif, An experimental wick-type solar still system:
design and construction, Desalination 267 (23) (2011) 233238.
[9] F.F. Tabrizi, A.Z. Sharak, Experimental study of an integrated basin solar still with
a sandy heat reservoir, Desalination 253 (13) (2010) 195199.
[10] H. Tanaka, Tilted wick solar still with at plate bottom reector, Desalination 273
(23) (2011) 405413.
[11] R. Dev, G.N. Tiwari, Characteristic equation of a hybrid (PV-T) active solar still,
Desalination 254 (13) (2010) 126137.
[12] S. Kumar, G.N. Tiwari, M.K. Gaur, Development of empirical relation to evaluate
the heat transfer coefcients and fractional energy in basin type hybrid (PV/T) active solar still, Desalination 250 (1) (2010) 214221.
[13] S. Kumar, A. Tiwari, Design, fabrication and performance of a hybrid photovoltaic/
thermal (PV/T) active solar still, Energy Convers. Manag. 51 (6) (2010) 12191229.
[14] A.M. El-Zahaby, A.E. Kabeel, A.I. Bakry, S.A. El-agouz, O.M. Hawam, Augmentation of
solar still performance using ash evaporation, Desalination 257 (13) (2010) 5865.
[15] K. Hidouri, R.B. Slama, S. Gabsi, Hybrid solar still by heat pump compression, Desalination 250 (1) (2010) 444449.
[16] A.M. El-Zahaby, A.E. Kabeel, A.I. Bakry, S.A. El-Agouz, O.M. Hawam, Enhancement
of solar still performance using a reciprocating spray feeding systeman experimental approach, Desalination 267 (23) (2011) 209216.
[17] K.M.S. Eldalil, Improving the performance of solar still using vibratory harmonic
effect, Desalination 251 (13) (2010) 311.
[18] R. Dev, G.N. Tiwari, Characteristic equation of the inverted absorber solar still, Desalination 269 (13) (2011) 6777.
[19] N. Setoodeh, R. Rahimi, A. Ameri, Modeling and determination of heat transfer coefcient in a basin solar still using CFD, Desalination 268 (13) (2011) 103110.
[20] J.A. Esfahani, N. Rahbar, M. Lavvaf, Utilization of thermoelectric cooling in a portable active solar stillan experimental study on winter days, Desalination 269
(13) (2011) 198205.

A. Ahsan et al. / Desalination 311 (2013) 173181

[21] T. Arunkumar, R. Jayaprakash, D. Denkenberger, A. Ahsan, M.S. Okundamiya, S.
Kumar, H. Tanaka, H.S. Aybar, An experimental study on a hemispherical solar
still, Desalination 286 (2012) 342348.
[22] T. Arunkumar, K. Vinothkumar, A. Ahsan, R. Jayaprakash, S. Kumar, Experimental
study on various solar still designs, ISRN Renew. Energy 569381 (2012) 110.
[23] T.R. Arunkumar, R. Jayaprakash, A. Ahsan, D. Denkenberger, M.S. Okundamiya. Effect of water and air ow on concentric tubular solar water desalting system.
Appl. Energy in press.
[24] M.A.S. Malik, G.N. Tiwari, A. Kumar, M.S. Sodha, Solar Distillation: a Practical
Study of a Wide Range of Stills and Their Optimum Design, Construction and Performance, Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, 1982. (1113).
[25] A. Ahsan, T. Fukuhara, Mass and heat transfer model of tubular solar still, Sol. Energy 84 (7) (2010) 11471156.
[26] A. Ahsan, K.M.S. Islam, T. Fukuhara, A.H. Ghazali, Experimental study on evaporation, condensation and production of a new tubular solar still, Desalination 260
(13) (2010) 172179.
[27] N. Nagai, M. Takeuchi, S. Masuda, J. Yamagata, T. Fukuhara, Y. Takano, Heat transfer modeling and eld test on basin-type solar distillation device, in: Proc. of IDA
World Congress, Manama, Bahrain, 2002, (March 813, BAH03-072).
[28] P.T. Tsilingiris, The inuence of binary mixture thermophysical properties in the
analysis of heat and mass transfer processes in solar distillation, Sol. Energy 81
(2007) 14821491.

181

[29] R.V. Dunkle, Solar water distillation: the roof type still and a multiple effect diffusion still, in: Proceedings of the International Heat Transfer Conference, ASME,
USA, 1961, pp. 895902.
[30] K.K. Murugavel, S. Sivakumar, J.R. Ahamed, Kn.K.S.K. Chockalingam, K. Srithar,
Single basin double slope solar still with minimum basin depth and energy storing materials, Appl. Energy 87 (2010) 514523.
[31] J.A. Clark, The steady-state performance of a solar still, Sol. Energy 44 (1) (1990)
4349.
[32] M. Ueda, Humidity and Evaporation, in: Corona publishing, Japan, 2000, pp. 83101.
[33] K.M.S. Islam, Heat and vapor transfer in tubular solar still and its production performance. PhD thesis, Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Fukui, Japan. 2006, pp. 3352.
[34] A. Ahsan, T. Fukuhara, Evaporative mass transfer in tubular solar still, J. Hydrosci.
Hydraul. Eng. 26 (2) (2008) 1525, (JSCE).
[35] A. Ahsan, T. Fukuhara, Condensation mass transfer in unsaturated humid air inside Tubular Solar Still, J. Hydrosci. Hydraul. Eng. 28 (1) (2010) 3142, (JSCE).
[36] P.I. Cooper, Digital simulation of transient solar still processes, Sol. Energy 12
(1969) 313331.
[37] K. Murase, H. Tobataa, M. Ishikawaa, S. Toyama, Experimental and numerical
analysis of a tube-type networked solar still for desert technology, Desalination
190 (2006) 137146.