Accepted Manuscript

Thermal modeling and analysis of single and double effect solar stills: an ex-
perimental validation

Rasool Kalbasi, Ali Akbar Alemrajabi, Masoud Afrand

PII: S1359-4311(17)30786-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.10.012
Reference: ATE 11210

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 5 February 2017

Revised Date: 10 September 2017
Accepted Date: 2 October 2017

Please cite this article as: R. Kalbasi, A. Akbar Alemrajabi, M. Afrand, Thermal modeling and analysis of single
and double effect solar stills: an experimental validation, Applied Thermal Engineering (2017), doi: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.10.012

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Thermal modeling and analysis of single and double effect

solar stills: an experimental validation

Rasool Kalbasi1, Ali Akbar Alemrajabi2, Masoud Afrand1,*

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

* Corresponding author
Email: masoud.afrand@pmc.iaun.ac.ir

Abstract

In this paper, a mathematical model has been formulated to predict the performance of single

and double effect solar still by using modified heat and mass transfer correlations. Two

similar experimental desalination units (single and double effect) were designed to validate

the mathematical model. The production of a solar still is strongly influenced by latent heat

reuse and increase the temperature difference between the water and condensing surface. The

results showed that the separation of condensing surface and solar energy receiving surface

would result in enhancement of 94% for daily production compared to conventional one.

Moreover, by reusing the latent heat the total yield of double effect showed a 70% increase

with respect to a single effect. Increasing the power input from 200 to 500 led to 236%

and 240% production increase for single and double effect, respectively. Furthermore, raising

the water depth from 1 to 3cm resulted in 14% and 26% decrease in the daily production rate

of single and double effect respectively.

Keywords: Desalination; Multi-effect; Thermal modeling; Experimental validation; Solar

still; Passive system

1
1-Introduction

In many parts of the world, desalination has become a reliable source of fresh water. Interest

in solar distillation stems from the fact that there are many parts of the world that are short of

water but have exploitable renewable sources of energy that could be used to drive

desalination processes. Moreover, its low operating and maintenance costs made it an

attractive method in areas remote from the electricity supply grid. Referring to Kumar and

Tiwari [1] and saleh et.al, [2] it is suggested that a solar distillation plant with a capacity less

than 200 kg/day was more economical than other types of desalination plants.

In general solar distillation classifies as passive and active. In the case of active solar feeding

the thermal energy into the basin from external equipment is done to increase the evaporating

surface temperature. If no such external equipment is used then that type of solar still is

known as passive solar still [3]. The efficiency and daily production of a conventional solar

still are low. In best optimized operating conditions, the efficiency and daily production are

about 30-45% and 3-5 L/m2.day [4]. Several attempts have been made to look for ways to

improve its productivity and efficiency. For comprehensive detail of the effective parameters

of a conventional solar still, readers are referred to [5,6,7].

Morad et al [8] investigated experimentally the performance of double slope solar still

integrated with flat-plate solar collector. The results showed that adding of solar collector

would improve the production from 7.8 l/m2·day to 10.06 l/m2·day. In another study [9] the

daily production of a steeped solar still was improved by using reflector and additional

condenser. The production was increased by 165% in comparison to conventional one. El-

Agouz et al [10] used a storage tank and cotton absorber to study the thermal performance of

the stepped solar still. They showed that the production and efficiency were increased by

20% and 43% respectively. Eltawil and Omara [11] constructed a single slope solar

integrated with a flat plate solar collector, solar photovoltaic, solar air collector, spraying unit

2
and external condenser to compare with conventional one. The production of conventional

solar still (CSS) varied from to Depending on the modification, the yield of the

developed solar still (DSS) was increased by 51-148%. The effect of adding nanoparticles

(cuprous and aluminum oxides) into the basin of a conventional solar still was carried out by

Kabeel [12,13]. It should be mentioned that the nanoparticles increase the thermal

conductivity. The improvement in thermal conductivity promotes the convective and mass

transfer coefficient; hence the production will be increased. The results show that the

production will be increased by 88.97% and 93.87% with cuprous and aluminum oxide

nanoparticles respectively in comparison to the conventional solar still.

The basin water depth in conventional solar still affects the daily yield. The Influence of

water depth on internal heat and mass transfer in a passive and active solar still has been

studied by Phadatare [14], Tripathi [15,16] and Tiwari [17]. Tripathi and Tiwari [15,16]

investigated the effect of water depth in passive and active solar distillation system. The

results show that the increase in water depth would result in lower internal convective heat

transfer coefficient due to reduction in water surface temperature.

The triangular solar still was carried out based on experimental effort by Ahsan et al. Results

show that the production is a function of the solar radiation and initial water depth. Decrease

of water depth would result in production incensement. Also they have observed that the

water production is directly proportional to the solar intensity [18]. Ahsan et al. have

constructed a low cost solar still for rural areas and observed that the daily output is strongly

influenced by water depths in the basin [19].

The vaporization heat of water at 30 °C is about 2.4×106 J, if the average solar intensity is

250 W/m2 then during a day (86400 (s)), total received solar energy is 21.6×107 J and daily

output of the conventional solar is lower than 9 L/m2.day due to release of vaporization heat

to ambient [4]. The solar still yield can be improved by utilization of latent heat of

3
condensation [20]. Multiple-effect solar still is a distillation unit which utilizes the latent heat

of vaporization. In double-effect solar still, the latent heat of vaporization released to the

condensing surface can be reutilized to warm the water in the upper basin. E1-Sebaii [21]

studied the thermal performance of a triple-basin solar still. The energy equation for each

element is derived. The equations were solved numerically for a typical day on summer and

winter. The effects of water depth in each stage and wind speed on daily output were studied.

It was observed that the production increases with water depth reduction in each basin. Also,

the results have proved that the daily yield can be increased with the rise of velocity up to a

typical velocity beyond which the improvement in production becomes negligible. In general

the typical velocity value is seasonal dependent so it is appropriate to construct multi-stage

solar stills in windy places.

The thermal performance and daily output of a multi effect solar (2 stages) still were

considered by Karaghouli and Alnaser [22]. Two types of solar stills (insulated- without

insulation) were constructed and studied. The measurements showed that for side insulated

double-basin solar still, production was about 3.91 L/m2.day, whereas in the non-sides

insulation case the daily output was 3.13 L/m2.day. For single effect solar still, daily

production was 2.84 L/m2.day in the insulated side solar still and 2.455 L/m2.day in the case

of no-side insulation. Karimi et al. [23,24] experimentally studied a multi-effect solar still.

The effect of input energy and stages number were investigated. They constructed 4 similar

solar still with different stages from 1 to 4. The results have revealed that the production is

influenced by the stages number. The increase in stage number decreases the production in

each basin. However, the results proved that the production could be improved by increasing

the stage number. For example the increase in stage number from 1 to 4 would raises the

production from to .

4
In this study a mathematical model has been formulated to describe the performance of

double-effect solar still. The model is validated by the result of simulated experiments on a

double effect unit. For the first time, the effect of heat input on the daily production is

investigated .Furthermore, a modified heat and mass transfer relation and the most accurate

correlation are used to estimate the properties of the saturation air in the basin. The results

from the model are in good agreement with the experiments. Furthermore, a modified heat

and mass transfer relation and the most accurate correlation are used to estimate the

properties of the saturation air in the basin. The results from the model are in good agreement

with the experiments.

2-Experimental work

Details of the experimental setup and procedures are reported in [25]. In brief, the system

comprises from two parts as is shown schematically in Fig. 1. The heating section which

resembles a solar collector is comprised of an electric heater that heats up the heat transfer

fluid at a desired rate. The heat input is then naturally transferred to the desalination part

which is a multi-effect evaporation-condensation unit. Heat is transferred from the hot fluid

to saline water and makes it to evaporate. Water vapor is then condensed on the lower surface

of the next effect where heat of condensation of water acts as heat input to the next effect.

Processes in the successive effects are similar to the first effect. The system is perfectly

insulated except on the condenser surface of the upper effect which is exposed to surrounding

air. The condenser surfaces are sloped at 3 .

5
 Fig. 1. Double effect solar still

The system is constructed in such a way that it can be used as a single or multi-effect

desalination plant. The heater power may be adjusted at any desired level. To be realistic in

the experiments, the heat input to the heater followed the trend of sunshine intensity on a

typical sunny day for which the radiation data was taken from [26], and is shown in Fig. 2.

800
Solar radiation (W/m )
2

600

400

200

0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Hour
Fig. 2. Variation of solar radiation [26]

6
 and a digital temperature

indicator having a least count of 0.1°C.

3-Mathematical modeling

To simulate the mathematical model, instantaneous heat balance should be written for various

components of the multi-effect stacked solar still. In order to write the energy balance

equations, the following assumptions have been made.

The heat capacity of the condenser plates and insulating material are negligible.

There is no temperature gradient along the water body and condenser plate.

The inclination of the condenser surface is small.

The system is well insulated such that the losses to the environment are ignorable.

The water level is kept constant, and energy transfer by inlet and outlet liquid masses

are negligible.

In order to simulate the behavior of solar still in various condition, the energy equation must

be written for single and double effect.

3-1- Energy balance equations for single effect solar still

The transient energy balance equations for the water basin and condensing surface per unit

area according to Figs. 3 and 4 can be written as follows:

7
 Fig. 3. Energy balance for water basin (single effect)

Fig. 4. Energy balance for condensation surface (single effect)

Water basin:

(1)

Condensation surface:

(2)

Solving Eq. (2) to obtain Tc

8
 (3)

Substituting Eq. (3) in Eq. (1), gives, after algebraic manipulation,

(4)

The solution of Eq. (4) is given as

(5)

Where A and B are time dependent coefficient, which could be determined by Eq. (6).

(6)

3-2- Energy balance equations for double effect solar still

As mentioned before, instantaneous heat balance should be written for water basin and

condensation surface. The energy balance diagram for a double effect stacked tray solar still

is shown in he energy equations for various components in terms of heat transfer

coefficients are as follows:

Fig. 5. Double effect distillation unit

9
Water basin in first effect:
(7)
Condensation surface in first Effect:

(8)

Water basin in second effect:

(9)

Condensation surface in second effect:

(10)

Eqs. (8) and (10) can be solved to obtain Condensation surface in first effect and second
effect .

(11)

Substituting Eq (11) in Eqs. (7) and (9), the following expression for tray temperature is

derived.

(12)

where a, b, c, d, g, f are time dependent coefficient that expressed as follows:

(13)

4- Solution procedure

In engineering many problem described by partial differential equation, but the greater

majority may be represented by ordinary differential equations. Eq. (5) and the set of

10
ordinary differential equations (Eq. (12)) are nonlinear first order. It is very difficult to

solve them. So the solution is done in infinitesimal time . Through infinitesimal

time the coefficients are constant and the equation changed from nonlinear to

linear. Hence, the solution of Eqs. (5) and (12) can be expressed as follows:

Single Effect

(14)
Double Effect

where the constant values are:

(15)

Where is the initial temperature of the water at single effect, and are

the initial temperature in the basin at first and second effect of a double effect solar still,

respectively.

5- Heat and mass transfer coefficients

In general, it is required to take in to account the radiation, convection and evaporation heat

transfer in numerical solution. The understanding of these modes of heat transfer is essential

for the performance prediction of any solar still.

5-1- Radiation heat transfer

Based on empirical relation, the coefficient of radiation heat transfer is specified as [26]

11
 (16)

Where and is the Stefan–

Boltzmann constant.

5-2- Convective heat transfer

(17)

Where n and C are constant values which are influenced by flow regime and boundary

condition. Many investigators have focused on these constant. Dunkle proposed the values of

C=0.075 and n=1/3 on the basis of simulation studies for Gr≥3.2×105 [27]. But these

constants has some limitations such as validation for a mean operating temperature range

~50oC, equivalent temperature difference of ~10oC independency of cavity volume. The

amendment for values of n and c has been performed by regression analysis for known hourly

production [28]. The values of C, n for a special case is determined in Appendix A.

At Eq. (17) Ra * is modified dimensionless Rayleigh number, which is defined as Eq. (18)

[29],

(18)

5-3- Evaporative heat transfer

According to heat and mass transfer analogy, the following relation can be acquired [30]:

12
 (19)

With the definition of dimensionless group , , , Eq. (19) can be written as:

(20)

The evaporation rate per unit area of evaporation surface is

(21)

By eliminating from Eqs. (20), (21), and simplify, can be obtained as Eq. (22).

(22)

5-4- Convective heat transfer from condensing cover to atmosphere

Convection heat transfer from condensation surface to ambient can either be under forced or

natural mode. In this study the natural heat transfer coefficient from condensing surface to

ambient is stated as Eq. (23) [31]

(23)

6- Numerical calculations

6-1- Solving the equations

To solve Eq. (14) a computer program has been developed in Matlab software to predict

water basin and condensation temperature of different effect and the corresponding produced

water from each effect. A flow chart of the computer methodology is given in Fig. 6.

13
 Fig. 6. flowcharts of computer methodology for single effect (left) and double effect (right)

6-2- The evaluation of thermo physical and transport properties of humid air

The significance of employing the appropriate thermophysical properties on evaluating the

heat and mass transfer processes in solar still to predict the theoretical prediction is very

important. In this study the following thermophysical properties are derived from [29]

according to Table 1.
14
 Table 1. Thermophysical properties in the analysis of heat and mass transfer processes in solar
distillation systems
Constant values Correlation
A0=1.131439334,
A1=-3.750393331×10-2
A2=5.591559189×10-3
A3 =-6.220459433×10-5
A4 = 1.10581611×10-6
B0 =1.299995662,
B1 = -6.043625845×10-3
B2 =4.697926602×10-5
B3 =-5.760867827 10-7
C0 =1.6857317×10-5
C1 = 9.151853945×10-8
C2 =-2.162762 ×10-9
C3 = 3.4139225×10-11
C4 =-2.644372665×10-13
D0 = 1.088022802,
D1 = -0.01057758092,
D2 = 4.769110559×10-4
D3 =-7.898561559×10-6
D4 = 5.122303796×10-8
E0 = 0.02416826077
E1 = 5.526004579×10-5
E2 =4.631207189×10-7
E3 =- 9.489325324×10-9

7- Results and discussion

Hourly output

The hourly average intensity has been taken from Fig. 2

for numerical computations. As it can be seen, there is a good agreement between the

numerical and experimental values of the hourly production. The coefficient correlations and

root mean square deviations for single and double effect solar still have been shown in the

figures.

The total daily outputs for the experimental and numerical model for a single effect system

are 4.86 L/m2.day and 5.07 L/m2.day respectively. The experimental total daily outputs for

the first and second effect of the double effect system are 4.51 L/m2.day and 3.75 L/m2.day

respectively. The corresponding numerical daily outputs are 4.67 L/m2-day and 3.92

L/m2.day respectively. As seen in the figures, error in the predicted values is less than 5%.

15
The low error is due to the fact that in the present model for predicting the daily production,

the coefficients C and n in Eq. (17) can be determined from the experimental results. These

coefficients are related to distillation unit conditions.

Theoretical
Experimental
0.8
Hourly output (Lit/m hr)
2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 26
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 27
3 28
4
Hour
Fig. 7. Variation of hourly output (Single Effect)

Theoretical
Experimental
0.8
Hourly output (Lit/m hr)
2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 26
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 27
3 28
4
Hour
Fig. 8. Variation of hourly output (first basin of double effect)

16
 Theoretical
Experimental
0.8
Hourly output (Lit/m hr)
2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 26
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 27
3 28
4
Hour
Fig. 9. Hourly output (second basin of double effect)

7-2- Variation of glass and water temperature

The variations of experimental and numerical temperature are depicted in Figs. 10, 11 and 12.

As seen, the trend variation of condenser and water surface temperature are similar to the

change of input solar radiation (Fig. 2). The radiation flux (input energy) increases over time

and consequently, raises the water and condensing temperature. However, the temperatures

decrease with less input flux. The water surface in each basin is higher than the condensing

one, since the input energy enters from the lower surface. The water temperature in the

second basin is lower than the first one. This is because that the latent heat of vaporization

which released on the condensing surface provides the required sensible energy to warm the

water in the upper basin.

17
 Glass cover (Theoretical)
80 Glass cover (Experimental)
Water (Theoretical)
70 Water (Experimental)
Temperature ( C)
60
o

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 26
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
Hour
Fig. 10. The variation of condensing surface and water basin temperature (single effect)

100 Glass cover (Theoretical)

Glass cover (Experimental)
90 Water (Theoretical)
Water (Experimental)
80
Temperature ( C)

70
o

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 26
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
Hour
Fig. 11. The variations of water basin and condensing surface temperature (lower basin)

18
 Glass cover (Theoretical)
80 Glass cover (Experimental)
Water (Theoretical)
70 Water (Experimental)
Temperature ( C)
60
o

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 26
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
Hour
Fig. 12. The variations of water basin and condensing surface temperature (upper basin)

7-3- Effect of power input

The amount of input thermal energy intensely affects the daily output. Three various constant

powers were provided by the heaters in order to investigate the effect of power input on the

daily output in single and double effect solar still. Note that the depth of water in all basins is

1cm.

Table 2 represents the amounts of input thermal energy and produced water. Regarding the

presented data in table 2 the amount of produced water is obviously a function of input

thermal energy. for example, an increase of %150 in the input energy from 200 W/m2 to

500W/m2 will lead to %236 and %240 increase in produced water from 4.25 to 14.3 L/m2.day

and from 7 to 23.8 L/m2.day for single and double effect solar still, respectively. However,

production rate dips as the result of increase in the input energy, for example the change of

input energy from 500W/m2 to 800W/m2 (60% increase) leads to %75.22 and %70.5 increase

in final output for single and double effect, respectively.

19
 Table 2. Effect of power input on daily production
Power Input Daily Output

Single effect Double effect

Experimental Theoretical Experimental Theoretical
200 4.25 4.43 7 7.2
500 14.3 15.22 23.8 25.46
800 24.56 27.58 41.4 47.07

7-4- Effect of water depth

As already mentioned, the production, water surface and condensation cover temperature are

a strongly influenced by the water depth. The decrease in water depth would result in faster

rise or reduction in water temperature. In other words, increase and reducing rate of water

temperature is higher for lower water depth. It is due to the more thermal energy storage in

case of higher water depth. In general, the production is strongly affected by the temperature

difference between the water surface and condensing cover. The increase in water depth

would results in water surface temperature reduction. With decreasing in water surface

temperature, total yield dips. In the present simulation the depth of water in the basin changes

from 1 to 3 cm and heat input is 200 W/m2. In case of double effect solar still, increasing the

depth of water in the first effect while it is constant in the second effect will decrease the

production. In the present study, the depth of water in the first effect changes from 1 to 3 cm

while water in second effect holds 1cm depth. As mentioned, the water temperatures in first

and second basin increase by decreasing the water depth. This is attributed to the fact that the

thermal energy storage in water is directionally proportional to water depth. On the other

hand, the decrease in water depth, promotes the evaporation rate and hence, the daily output

will increased. The Effect of water depth on daily production for 200 W/m2 heat input are

summarized in Table 3.

20
 Table 3. Effect of water depth on daily production for a typical daily radiation
Water Depth Daily Output
(cm)
Single effect Double effect
Experimental Theoretical Experimental Theoretical
1 4.25 4.43 7 7.2
2 3.96 4.14 5.95 6.21
3 3.63 3.706 5.15 5.3

7-5- Solar Still with Arbitrary Stage

In this section, numerical study of an indirectly heated solar still with multiple basins have

been carried out to investigate the effect of vaporization heat reuse from lower basins. The

numerical study has focused on the optimization of the basins number. Similar to previous

approaches, the water surface temperature and condensing cover temperature in each basin

have been obtained from Eq. (24):

(24)

For the last basin, the mentioned temperatures have been acquired from Eq. (25):

(25)

Where superscripts (n) and (m) denote to basin and the last basin, respectively. The daily

production in each basin is acquired from Eq. (26)

(26)

The daily production in each stage has been summarized in Table 4 and Fig. 13. It is

apperceive that the increase in the effect number would result in higher daily production. The

multi-effect production may be a competition between the latent heat reuse and available

21
input energy in each basin. Hence, there is an optimized stage. This result is in accordance

with the result reported by Fernandez and Chargoy [32], Suneja and Tiwari [33] and karimi et

al. [23]. The simulation of an indirectly heated multi-basin solar still was conducted with an

initial water temperature of 15°C, the environment temperature and water depth in each basin

were 15 C and 1 cm respectively. The power input was kept constant at 200 W/m2.

Table 4. Effect of increasing stage on daily output

Number basin Percent increase
of compared to the
First Second Third Forth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth Total Yield
Stages conventional one

1 4.43 4.43 -

2 3.93 3.27 7.2 62.52%

3 3.84 3.11 2.41 9.36 111.3%

4 3.76 2.98 2.2 1.95 10.89 145.82%

5 3.7 2.9 2.07 1.75 1.47 11.89 168.39%

6 3.68 2.84 2.01 1.66 1.32 1.06 12.57 183.74%

7 3.67 2.83 1.99 1.62 1.26 0.95 0.711 13.036 194.26%

8 3.66 2.82 1.98 1.61 1.25 0.93 0.668 0.407 13.325 200.79%

9 3.65 2.82 1.97 1.6 1.23 0.92 0.667 0.395 0.31 13.572 206.36%

10 3.65 2.81 1.97 1.59 1.22 0.91 0.665 0.392 0.29 0.175 13.692 209%

14
Total production (Lit/m day)

12
2

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of basins

Fig. 13. Effect of increasing stage on daily output

22
8- Conclusion

In this study, the experimental and numerical investigations on single and double effect solar

desalination systems are reported. The effect of some parameters such as water depth, input

radiation intensity and stages number were discussed. The following conclusions are drawn

from this study:

1. The amount of water evaporation depends on the water temperature and the difference

between the temperatures of water and condenser surface. The amount of water

produced, increases with increase of those.

2. Increasing the power input from 200 to 500 (That is 150% increase) results in

236%, 240% increasing in the production rate of single and double effect respectively.

3. The depth of water body has effect on daily output, but as the depth of water body

increases, the system will need more time to reach the steady state conditions.

Increasing the water depth from 1 to 3cm results in 14%, 26% decreases in the

production rate of single and double effect respectively.

4. The yield from multi effect indirectly solar still is effectively affected by the stages

number. The increase in number of stages would result in higher reuse of latent heat.

On the other, the available input energy in upper basin is reduced. In other hand, the

multi-effect production may be a competition between the latent heat reuse and

available input energy in each basin. Hence, there is an optimized stage beyond in

which the production is not improved.

Nomenclature
Symbols
Specific heat of humid air
Convective heat transfer coefficient (water surface to condensing surface)

Evaporative heat transfer coefficient (water surface to condensing surface)

23
 Radiation heat transfer coefficient (water surface to condensing surface)

Latent heat of vaporization

Mass transfer coefficient
Total heat loss coefficient from water surface to condensing surface
H Basin height (m)
Thermal conductivity of humid air
g Gravity acceleration
L Characteristic length (m)
Le Lewis Number
M molecular weight - mass (kg)
Nu Nuselt Number
P Pressure
Pressure vapor at condensing temperature
Pressure vapor at water temperature
Pr Prandtl number
Q Power
Universal gas constant
Modified Rayleigh Number
Sh Sherwood number
Sc Schmidt number
Temperature
Initial water temperature (single effect)
Initial water temperature in first basin of a double effect
Initial water temperature in second basin of a double effect
Greeks
volumetric expansion coefficient
Emissivity
Root of characteristic equation
Density of water vapor at the condensation surface
Density of water vapor at the water surface
Dynamic viscosity of humid air
Subscript
a ambient
v vapor
c condensation surface
sat saturation
w water

Appendix A

24
As mentioned, coefficients C and n in equation (17) can be determined experimentally

according to Tiwari theory [28]. By combining Eqs. (21) and (22) and substituting hc

from Eq. (17) we have:

(A-1)

By using the least square method and constructing the line, coefficients

a and b can be determined from below equations

(A-2)

(A-3)
For example, C and n values for a single effect solar still have been calculated that presented

in Table A-1.

Table A-1. C and n values for a single effect solar still

Water basin Condensation Output
Stage temperature surface temperature

1 20.1 16.3 0.01 13.79 1.4

2 32 20.5 0.07 14.71 1.88
3 46.1 27.5 0.235 15.21 1.96
4 53.6 33.3 0.475 15.30 2.25
5 57.8 37.2 0.625 15.35 2.27
6 59.7 38.6 0.715 15.39 2.29
7 60.1 38.9 0.72 15.43 2.25
8 58.2 36.4 0.695 15.44 2.29
9 54.5 34.5 0.57 15.46 2.23
10 44.3 26.6 0.365 15.17 2.52
11 34.2 23.1 0.195 14.75 2.75
12 26.5 18.7 0.085 14.46 2.61
13 22.9 16.5 0.045 14.28 2.35
14 20.8 15.9 0.025 14.04 2.10
15 19.3 15.5 0.015 13.81 1.90
16 18.4 15.4 0.01 13.58 1.77
17 17.7 15.2 0.005 13.41 1.28

25
References

[1] Kumar, S ,Tiwari G., Life cycle cost analysis of single slope hybrid (pv/t) active solar
still. Applied Energy 2009 ; 86(10): 1995–2004.

[2] Saleh A, Qudeiri J, Al-Nimr M. Performance investigation of a salt gradient solar pond
coupled with desalination facility near the dead sea, Energy, 2011; 36(2):922–31

[3] A.K. Soteris, Seawater desalination using renewable energy sources, Progress in Energy
and Combustion Science, vol. 1, pp. 242–281, 2005.

[4] A. E. Kabeel and S. A. El-Agouz, Review of researches and developments on solar stills,
Desalination, Vol. 276, pp. 1–12, 2011

[5] Abujazar MSS, Fatihah S, Rakmi A, ShahromShahrom M. The effects of design

parameters on productivity performance of a solar still for seawater desalination: a review.
Desalination 2016; 385:178–93

[6] Sharshir S, Yang N, Peng G, Kabeel A. Factors affecting solar stills productivity and
improvement techniques: a detailed review. Appl Therm Eng 2016;100:267–84

[7] Chandrashekara M, Avadhesh Yadav, Water desalination system using solar heat: A
review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017) 1308–1330

[8] M.M. Morad, Hend A.M. El-Maghawry, Kamal I.Wasfy, Improving the double slope
solar still performance by using flat-plate solar collector and cooling glass cover,
Desalination 373 (2015) 1–9

[9] Y.A.F. El-Samadony, A.S. Abdullah, Z.M. Omara, Experimental study of stepped solar
still integrated with reflectors and external condenser, Exp. Heat Transfer 28 (2015) 392–404,

[10] S.A. El-Agouz, Experimental investigation of stepped solar still with continuous water
circulation, Energy Convers. Manag. 86 (2014) 186–193.

[11 ] M.A. Eltawil, Z.M. Omara, Enhancing the solar still performance using solar
photovoltaic, flat plate collector and hot air, Desalination 349 (2014) 1–9.

[12] A.E. Kabeel, Z.M. Omara, F.A. Essa, Enhancement of modified solar still integrated
with external condenser using nanofluids: an experimental approach, Energy Convers.
Manag. 78 (2014) 493–498.

[13] A.E. Kabeel, Z.M. Omara, F.A. Essa, Improving the performance of solar still by using
nanofluids and providing vacuum, Energy Convers. Manag. 86 (2014) 268–274.

[14] M. K. Phadatare and S. K. Verma, Influence of water depth on internal heat and mass
transfer in a plastic solar still, Desalination, vol. 217, pp. 267–275, 2007

[15] R. Tripathi and G. N. Tiwari, Effect of water depth on internal heat and mass transfer
for active solar distillation, Desalination, vol. 173, pp. 187-200, 2005.

26
[16] R. Tripathi and G.N. Tiwari, Thermal modeling of passive and active solar stills for
different depths of water by using the concept of solar fraction, Solar Energy, vol. 80, pp.
956–967, 2006

[17] A.K. Tiwari and G.N. Tiwari, Effect of water depths on heat and mass transfer in a
passive solar still: in summer climatic condition, Desalination, vol. 195, pp. 78–94, 2006.

[18] Ahsan A, Imteaz M, Thomas U, Azmi M, Rahman A, Daud NN. Parameters affecting
the performance of a low cost solar still, Applied Energy 2014; 114: 924–30.

[19] A. Ahsan, M. Imteaz, U.A. Thomas, M. Azmi, A. Rahman, N.N.N. Daud, Parameters
affecting the performance of a low cost solar still, Appl. Energy 114 (2014) 924–930

[20] Shatat M, Worall M, Riffat S. Opportunities for solar water desalination worldwide:
review.Sustain Cities Soc 2013; 9:67–80.

[21] A.A. E1-Sebaii, Thermal performance of a triple-basin solar still, Desalination, vol. 174,
pp. 23-37, 2005.

[22] A.A. Al-Karaghouli and W.E. Alnaser, Experimental comparative study of the
performances of single and double basin solar-stills, Applied Energy, vol. 77, pp. 317–325,
2004.

[23] M.R. Karimi Estahbanati, Mehrzad Feilizadeh, Khosrow Jafarpur, Mansoor Feilizadeh
,Mohammad Reza Rahimpour, Experimental investigation of a multi-effect active solar still:
The effect of the number of stages, Applied Energy 137 (2015) 46–55.

[24] M. Feilizadeh, M.R. Karimi Estahbanati, A Seddigh Ardekani, S.M.E Zakeri, K.

Jafarpur, Effects of amount and mode of input energy on the performance of a multi-stage
solar still: An experimental study, Desalination 375 (2015) 108–115.

[25] R. Kalbasi and M. Nasr Esfahani, Multi-Effect Passive Desalination System, An

Experimental Approach, World Applied Sciences Journal, vol. 10, pp. 1264-1271, 2010.

[26] G.N. Tiwari, A.K. Tiwari, Solar Distillation Practice for Water Desalination Systems,
Anshan Publishers; first edition, 2008.

[27] R.V. Dunkle, Solar water distillation; the roof type still and a multiple effect diffusion
still, international developments in heat transfer ASME. In: Proceedings of international heat
transfer part V, University of Colorado, pp. 895-902, 1961.

[28] K. Sanjay and G.N. Tiwari, estimation of convective mass transfer in solar distillation
systems, Solar Energy, vol. 57, pp, 459-464, 1996.

[29] P.T. Tsilingiris, The influence of binary mixture thermophysical properties in the
analysis of heat and mass transfer processes in solar distillation systems, Solar Energy, vol.
181, pp. 1482–1491, 2007.

27
[30] H. Zheng, Z. Xiaoyan, Z. Jing and Wu. Yuyuan, A group of improved heat and mass

transfer correlations in solar stills, Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 43, pp. 2469–

2478, 2002.

[31] Incropera, F., Dewitt. D., Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer, Seventh Edition,

JOHN WILEY & SONS, 2011.

[32] J. Fernandez and N. Chargoy, Muli-stage, Indirectly heated solar still, Solar Energy, vol.

44, 215-223, 1990

[33] S. Suneja and G.N. Tiwari, Optimization of number of effects for higher yield from an
inverted absorber solar still using the Runge-Kutta method, Desalination, vol. 120, pp. 197-
209, 1998

Figure Captions
Fig. 1. Double effect solar still
Fig. 2. Variation of solar radiation [26]

28
Fig. 3. Energy balance for water basin (single effect)
Fig. 4. Energy balance for condensation surface (single effect)
Fig. 5. Double effect distillation unit
Fig. 6. flowcharts of computer methodology for single effect (left) and double effect (right)
Fig. 7. Variation of hourly output (Single Effect)
Fig. 8. Variation of hourly output (first basin of double effect)
Fig. 9. Hourly output (second basin of double effect)
Fig. 10. The variation of condensing surface and water basin temperature (single effect)
Fig. 11. The variations of water basin and condensing surface temperature (lower basin)
Fig. 12. The variations of water basin and condensing surface temperature (upper basin)
Fig. 13. Effect of increasing stage on daily output

Table Captions
Table 1. Thermophysical properties in the analysis of heat and mass transfer processes in solar
distillation systems

29
Table 2. Effect of power input on daily production
Table 3. Effect of water depth on daily production for a typical daily radiation
Table 4. Effect of increasing stage on daily output
Table A-1. C and n values for a single effect solar still

Figures

30
 Fig. 1. Double effect solar still

800
Solar radiation (W/m )
2

600

400

200

0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Hour
Fig. 2. Variation of solar radiation [26]

31
 Fig. 3. Energy balance for water basin (single effect)

Fig. 4. Energy balance for condensation surface (single effect)

32
Fig. 5. Double effect distillation unit

33
Fig. 6. flowcharts of computer methodology for single effect (left) and double effect (right)

34
 Theoretical
Experimental
Hourly output (Lit/m hr) 0.8
2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 26
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 27
3 28
4
Hour
Fig. 7. Variation of hourly output (Single Effect)

Theoretical
Experimental
0.8
Hourly output (Lit/m hr)
2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 26
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 27
3 28
4
Hour
Fig. 8. Variation of hourly output (first basin of double effect)

35
 Theoretical
Experimental
Hourly output (Lit/m hr) 0.8
2

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
1 26
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 27
3 28
4
Hour
Fig. 9. Hourly output (second basin of double effect)

Glass cover (Theoretical)

80 Glass cover (Experimental)
Water (Theoretical)
70 Water (Experimental)
Temperature ( C)

60
o

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 26
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
Hour
Fig. 10. The variation of condensing surface and water basin temperature (single effect)

36
 100 Glass cover (Theoretical)
Glass cover (Experimental)
90 Water (Theoretical)
Water (Experimental)
80
Temperature ( C)

70
o

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 26
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
Hour
Fig. 11. The variations of water basin and condensing surface temperature (lower basin)

Glass cover (Theoretical)

80 Glass cover (Experimental)
Water (Theoretical)
70 Water (Experimental)
Temperature ( C)

60
o

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 26
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
Hour
Fig. 12. The variations of water basin and condensing surface temperature (upper basin)

37
 14

Total production (Lit/m day) 12

2

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of basins

Fig. 13. Effect of increasing stage on daily output

38
Tables
Table 1. Thermophysical properties in the analysis of heat and mass transfer processes in solar
distillation systems
Constant values Correlation
A0=1.131439334,
A1=-3.750393331×10-2
A2=5.591559189×10-3
A3 =-6.220459433×10-5
A4 = 1.10581611×10-6
B0 =1.299995662,
B1 = -6.043625845×10-3
B2 =4.697926602×10-5
B3 =-5.760867827 10-7
C0 =1.6857317×10-5
C1 = 9.151853945×10-8
C2 =-2.162762 ×10-9
C3 = 3.4139225×10-11
C4 =-2.644372665×10-13
D0 = 1.088022802,
D1 = -0.01057758092,
D2 = 4.769110559×10-4
D3 =-7.898561559×10-6
D4 = 5.122303796×10-8
E0 = 0.02416826077
E1 = 5.526004579×10-5
E2 =4.631207189×10-7
E3 =- 9.489325324×10-9

Table 2. Effect of power input on daily production

Power Input Daily Output

Single effect Double effect

Experimental Theoretical Experimental Theoretical
200 4.25 4.43 7 7.2
500 14.3 15.22 23.8 25.46
800 24.56 27.58 41.4 47.07

Table 3. Effect of water depth on daily production for a typical daily radiation
Water Depth Daily Output
(cm)
Single effect Double effect
Experimental Theoretical Experimental Theoretical
1 4.25 4.43 7 7.2
2 3.96 4.14 5.95 6.21
3 3.63 3.706 5.15 5.3

39
 Table 4. Effect of increasing stage on daily output
Number basin Percent increase
of compared to the
First Second Third Forth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth Ninth Tenth Total Yield
Stages conventional one

1 4.43 4.43 -

2 3.93 3.27 7.2 62.52%

3 3.84 3.11 2.41 9.36 111.3%

4 3.76 2.98 2.2 1.95 10.89 145.82%

5 3.7 2.9 2.07 1.75 1.47 11.89 168.39%

6 3.68 2.84 2.01 1.66 1.32 1.06 12.57 183.74%

7 3.67 2.83 1.99 1.62 1.26 0.95 0.711 13.036 194.26%

8 3.66 2.82 1.98 1.61 1.25 0.93 0.668 0.407 13.325 200.79%

9 3.65 2.82 1.97 1.6 1.23 0.92 0.667 0.395 0.31 13.572 206.36%

10 3.65 2.81 1.97 1.59 1.22 0.91 0.665 0.392 0.29 0.175 13.692 209%

Table A-1. C and n values for a single effect solar still

Water basin Condensation Output
Stage temperature surface temperature

1 20.1 16.3 0.01 13.79 1.4

2 32 20.5 0.07 14.71 1.88
3 46.1 27.5 0.235 15.21 1.96
4 53.6 33.3 0.475 15.30 2.25
5 57.8 37.2 0.625 15.35 2.27
6 59.7 38.6 0.715 15.39 2.29
7 60.1 38.9 0.72 15.43 2.25
8 58.2 36.4 0.695 15.44 2.29
9 54.5 34.5 0.57 15.46 2.23
10 44.3 26.6 0.365 15.17 2.52
11 34.2 23.1 0.195 14.75 2.75
12 26.5 18.7 0.085 14.46 2.61
13 22.9 16.5 0.045 14.28 2.35
14 20.8 15.9 0.025 14.04 2.10
15 19.3 15.5 0.015 13.81 1.90
16 18.4 15.4 0.01 13.58 1.77
17 17.7 15.2 0.005 13.41 1.28

40
 Highlights

Formulating a mathematical model to predict performance of single and double effect

solar still.

Designing two similar experimental desalination units to validate the mathematical model.

Separating condensing surface from solar energy receiving surface increased daily

production.

By reusing latent heat, total yield of double effect became more than that of a single effect.

Raising water depth from 1 to 3cm resulted in 14% and 26% decrease in the daily

production.

41