Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Kumarest 96

    Uploaded by

    adnan bin sultan
    7 views6 pages

    Original Title

    kumarest96

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views6 pages

    Kumarest 96

    Uploaded by

    adnan bin sultan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 6
    ESTIMATION OF CONVECTIVE MASS TRANSFER IN SOLAR DISTILLATION SYSTEMS, SANJAY KUMAR and G. N. TIWARI" Centre of Energy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India (Received 28 August 1995; revised version accepted 4 July 1936) (Communicated by Peter Cooper) ‘Absfract—In this article # Ubermal model has been developed to determine the convective mass transfer for different Grashof Number range in solar distillation process, The model is based on simple regression analysis. Based on the experimental data obtained from the rigorous outdoor experimentation on ppassive and active distilation systems for summer climatic conditions, the values of C and 1 have bbeen calculated. The modified values of C and n for Nu=C(GrPri’, ate proposed as C=0.0322, na04ll4 for 1.794x10° 3.2 x 10°, However, this relation has the following limitations. (i) It is only valid for a mean operating temperature range of 120°F (50°C) and equivalent temperature difference of 30°F (approx. ~1°C) (Baum and Bairamov, 1964; Cooper, 1970, 1973; Rheinlander, 1982). (ii) It is independent of cavity volume, ie, the average distance between the condensing and evaporating surfaces. (iii) It holds good for heat flow upwards in horizon- tally enclosed air space Jakob, 1949; Cooper, 1970). Clark also developed a model for a higher- ‘operating temperature range (255°C) in simu- lated conditions for small inclination of the condensing surface (Clark, 1990). He found that values of coefficients for convective mass transfer reduce to half that of Dunkle. This is based on the fact that the rate of evaporation is equal to the rate of condensation in an ideal condition. This condition is achieved by using a fan across the condensing cover which is not a practicable solution for solar distillation systems, operating in the field conditions. Later, ‘Tiwari and Lawrence (1991) attempted to incor- porate the effect of inclination of the condensing surface taking the same values of C and n as proposed by Dunkle, Further, Adhikari er al (1990, 1991, 1995) tried to modify the values, of these coefficients in simulated conditions. Here, the authors have presented the modified values of C and » obtained from the outdoor experimental data. This model has been devel- oped by using simple regression analysis. These values of Cand m have again been used to find the theoretical distillate output. It is observed that there is a reasonable agreement within an accuracy of 12% between experimental observa- tions and theoretical results calculated by modi- fied values of C and » for summer climatic conditions. 2, THERMAL MODEL Heat transfer occurs across the humid ait inside the enclosure of the distillation unit by free convection which is caused by the action of buoyancy force caused by density variation in the humid air. Density variation is caused by a temperature gradient in the finid. Hence, the rate of heat transfer from the water surface to the glass cover (qa.) by convection can be estimated by Gow = hed Tw = Ts) ay 459 490 where Ay is found from the relation Nun“ Gr Pye 2) ke where HagX Grn SBA 8) e wG Pr he @ and arar.-ny+| a 268.9x10°—P, 6) (Malik er ai, 1982). Ti is seen from eqn (2) that the value of hoy depends upon the values of two constants, namely Cand n. Iris observed from the different values of C and » for a particular range of Grashof Number given by various authors that the percentage deviation between the theoretical and experimental distillate output remains within a reasonable percentage of accuracy for indoor simulated conditions only, whereas for ‘outdoor conditions the deviation increases sig- nificantly, Hence, there is a need to modify the values of C and » in eqn (2). The modification for values of C and n has been carried out by regression analysis using experimental distillate output (44), basin water temperature (T,,) and glass temperature (T,). Evaporative heat transfer rate (g.) is given by uw =0.016273(Py— Py) fey (6) (Malik et af., 1982). Using eqn (2), eqn (6) can be rewritten as ou =0.016273(Py— Py): (keldy)- C(Ray* a) where Ra=Gr-Pr. Also, Gon * 3600 a eqn (8) can be rewritten using eqn (7) My, =0.01627H( Py — Pg) (kg/d): (3600/L) “C(Ray Therefore My: (8) o M/R=C(Rayt (10) S. Kumar and G. N. Tiwari where R= 0.16273(Py,— Py) (kei) (3600/2) ay For field conditions, the values of Ty and 7, vary significantly because of variations in climatic conditions and correspondingly At, and Ra also vary. 3, EXPERIMENTAL SET UP, OBSERVATIONS AND UNCERTAINTY 3.1. Experimental set up and observations A cross-sectional view of a single slope pas- sive solar still made of fibre-reinforced plastic (FRP) is shown in Fig. 1(a). The bottom sur- face of the still was painted black by mixing a special black dye with resin for better absorptiv- ity. A window glass of 3mm thickness was placed at an inclination (f) of 15° over the FRP still Figure 1(b) shows the schematic dia- gram of an active solar still coupled with a flat plate collector (FPC). The area of the still and FPC was taken as I and 2 m? respectively. The collector was kept inclined at an angle of 45” to the horizontal. The hot water from the collector was pumped into the still basin to raise the evaporative surface temperature. The pump was kept in the “off” position during non-sunshine hours to avoid heat losses caused by reverse flow, ‘To perform the experiment with a minimum storage effect, the basin of the solar still was filled with 2em of water. The average spacing (dj) between the water surface and the glass cover was kept as 0.155 m. The outputs from the passive and active stills were measured every hour during daylight for 30 days in the months of May and June, 1995. The outputs during non-sunshine hours were collected daily in the morning before the commencement of the ‘experiment. It was observed that only 510% yields were obtained during non-sunshine hours for both the passive and the active distillation systems. This justifies the minimum heat storage capacity in the basin water. The experiment was conducted at IIT Delhi. In the active solar distillation system, the water flow over the glass. cover was kept uniform and constant with the help of a regulator and a constant-head tank provided at the height of about 1 m from the level of the still, The water and glass temper- atures were measured with calibrated cop- per-constantan thermocouples and a digital Estimation of convective mass transfer in solar distillation systems “1 @) TOP VIEW. GLASS COVER —_ RUBBER GASKET. DISTILLATE, DRAIN NIPPLE SECTION Y-Y SECTION X-X (ey FLOAT VALVE, overr.ow SOLAR RADIATION = @ [14 powers @= MAIN TANK. rrowine water" = INLET vi GLASS COVER pis tiLLaTE OUTPUT AUXILIARY TANK. (OVER FLOW OUTLET > (CHANNEL {-FRP SOLAR STILL. SOLAR RADIATION SS BASIN LINER Fnvxrriate COLLECTOR INSULATED PIPE Fig. 1. (2) Cross-sectional view of a single slope passive solar still. (b) Single slope active soler still coupled with FPC. 462 8, Kumar and G. N. Tiwari ‘Table 1. Experimental observations of a typical day for a single slope passive solar still Seri Time Water Glass Ambient Distillate (hy) temp. CC) temp. CC) temp. CC) output (ml) 1 1000 458 408 8 130) 2 100 508 4S » 22 a 1200 556 an 2 360 4 1300 46 473 25 320 3 1490 523 455 2 Bs 6 $300 eB at ais 200 7 1600 4 366 a 100 ‘Table 2. Experimental observations of a typical day for a single slope active solar still Seria no. Gus Ambient Distt (hy temp. (CC) temp. °C) output (ml). ' 100 a8 375 8 a0 2 Wo 38 423 4 330 3 108 462 45 310 4 300 $97 463 4% 970 8 1400586 aa ps oo é 1300568 435 4“ 710 7 1600581 389 a 650 meter. Experimental observations for a typical % error= hot day for both cases, ic. passive and active stills, are shown in Tables I and 2, respectively. 3.2. Experimental uncertainty The experimental method used is an indirect approach for estimating the convective heat transfer coefficient based on the mass of distil- late collected from the still. This indireet method will certainly have a considerable degree of experimental uncertainty in the estimation of convective heat transfer coefficients. An esti- mate of internal and external uncertainty (Nakra and Choudhary, 1985) has been carried ‘out separately for passive and active solar stills. For this, data of a particular measurement for a umber of days have been taken and an estimate of individual uncertainties of the sample values has becn calculated by taking the square root of the sum of each sample standard deviation divided by the square root of the ‘umber of samples. Estimate of internal uncer- tainty (Up: lott ort NE (Nakra and Choudhary, 1985). The total uncer- tainty (internal and external) for passive and active stills has been calculated as 25 and 19%, respectively. ‘Also, the results will be influenced by a ther- mal storage effect. The percentage error caused by thermal storage can be calculated as follows: us. 2) distillate output during non-sunshine hours distillate output during daylight hours x 100 ‘The errors for passive and active stills have been estimated as 8 and 5%, respectively. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Software has been developed to calculate the values of C and n based on the experimental data, namely basin water temperature, glass temperature and distillate output, It is observed that when the solar intensity is quite low, 7-9a.m., the output is reduced and there are ficulties in accurately measuring outputs of the order of 10-15 ml. This low distillate output also causes inconsistency in the computation of Cand n. Therefore, certain observations in the morning and in the evening when distillate ‘output was found to be extremely low have not been taken into account. It is interesting to note that we get very consistent values of C= 0.0322 and n=0.411 for each set of six or more num- bers of observations for the Grashof range of 1.794 x 10° to 5.724 x 10” in the case of a pa: solar still and C=0.0538 and n=0.383 for a Grashof range of 5.498 x 10 to 9.128 x L0° in the case of an active solar still, Tables 3 and 4 show the computed values of convective heat transfer coefficients (gy), evaporative heat transfer coefficients (h,..), evaporative transfer Estimation of convective mass transfer in solar distillation systems 463 ‘Table 3. Computed values of hey. Hewy dee and present deviation between experimental and theoretical distillate output for ‘iodified values of C and m for 2 passive solar still Peroent deviation Serial Experimental Theoretical etween wo. ‘istlate dstilate ey sh Que exp. and theoretical output (ml) ‘output (ml) (Wink) (Win?K) (Wim?) output i 150 7 236 169 45 =r} 2 232 24 248 27 15436 t 3 360 336 296 ost 35325 12 4 30 a2 28 381 2os07 53 3 285, 382 26 ne 1664 5 é 20 ie 259 217 tas 7 100 ” 235 iat 50.28 Modified values of C=0,0322; n=0.4114, Grashot Range: 1.794% 10" 10%

    You might also like