Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342


Experimental and numerical analysis of sodium-carbonate salt gradient solar-pond performance under simulated solar-radiation
Huseyin Kurt ¨
a b


, Mehmet Ozkaymak a, A. Korhan Binark


Zonguldak Karaelmas University, Technical Education Faculty, 78200 Karabuk, Turkey Marmara University, Technical Education Faculty, 34722 Kuyubasi-Istanbul, Turkey Available online 13 June 2005

Abstract The objective of this study is to investigate experimentally and theoretically whether sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) salt is suitable for establishing a salinity gradient in a salt-gradient solar-pond (SGSP). For this purpose, a small-scale prismatic solar-pond was constructed. Experiments were conducted in the laboratory under the incident radiation from two halogenlamps acting as a solar simulator. Furthermore, a one-dimensional transient mathematical model that describes the heat and mass transfer behaviour of the SGSP was developed. The differential equations obtained were solved numerically using a finite-difference method. It was found from the experiments that the density gradient, achieved using sodium carbonate salt, can suppress convection from the bottom to the surface of the pond. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Salt-gradient solar-pond; Sodium-carbonate; Indoor experiment; Solar simulator; Transient heat-and-mass transfer model



Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 370 4338200; fax:+90 370 4338204. E-mail address: (H. Kurt). Tel.: +90 216 3365770/666; fax: +90 216 3378987.

0306-2619/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2005.03.001

Kurt et al.H. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 325 Nomenclature a Ca Cp D hc he I I(x) I0 Ir Is J k L N P1 Patm Ps q Qc Qe Qr Qt QU Rh t T T1 TLCZ Ts Tsky TUCZ Vr x XLCZ XNCZ XUCZ _ q b Dt reflection factor of pondÕs surface (Albedo) (%) specific heat of air (J/kg °C) specific heat of the solution (J/kg °C) coefficient of salt diffusion (m2/s) convective heat-transfer coefficient (W/m2 °C) latent heat of evaporation of water (J/kg) solar-radiation intensity (W/m2) solar-radiation intensity at depth x (W/m2) available solar-energy below surface after reflection from pondÕs surface (W/m2) reflected solar-radiation intensity from the pondÕs surface (W/m2) incident solar-radiation intensity at the pondÕs surface (W/m2) diffusion flux (kg/m2s) thermal conductivity of the solution (W/m °C) depth of the pond (m) number of cells in the NCZ partial pressure of water vapor in ambient air (Pa) atmospheric pressure (Pa) vapor pressure of water at the surfaceÕs temperature Ts (Pa) heat flux (W/m2) heat loss by convection (W/m2) heat loss by evaporation (W/m2) heat loss by radiation (W/m2) total heat-losses from the pondÕs surface (W/m2) heat extracted from the storage zone relative humidity (%) time (s) temperature (°C) ambient temperature (°C) LCZ temperature (°C) pondÕs surface temperature (°C) sky temperature (°C) UCZ temperature (°C) wind velocity (m/s) depth (m) thickness of the LCZ (m) thickness of the NCZ (m) thickness of the UCZ (m) internal heat-generation rate (W/m3) fraction of energy absorbed at the pondÕs surface (%) time step (s) .

and the capacity for long-term energy storage is a major attractive feature of a SGSP. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 Dx ew l hg hk q r thickness of layer (m) emissivity of water absorption coefficient (mÀ1) radiation incident-angle over pondÕs surface (°) angle of refraction at the pondÕs surface (°) density of solution (kg/m3) Stefan–Boltzman constant (W/m2 K4) 1. and the lower convective zone (LCZ). It has a shallow. 1. The UCZ is the topmost layer and usually a thin layer of fresh water. the pond acts as a trap for solar radiation. large body of water in which a stable salinity-gradient is artificially established in order to prevent thermal convection induced by the absorption of solar radiation. . The NCZ is just below the UCZ and has linearly increasing salinity gradient downwards. This long-term store provides an alternative for conventional energy-sources [1–3]. The SGSP generally consists of three distinct zones: the upper convective zone (UCZ).326 H. Thus. Introduction A salt-gradient solar-pond (SGSP) is an inexpensive solar-energy collection and storage system for low-temperature heat-sources. non-convective zone (NCZ). as shown in Fig. Kurt et al. Thermal energy is collected and stored in the lower layers of the pond.

3]. Solar radiation is transmitted through the UCZ and NCZ and then trapped in the LCZ. Kumar and Kishore [12] constructed a 6000 m2 solar pond for a milk-processing dairy plant to supply process heat. [8.9] conducted an indoor experiment and a numerical analysis of a small-scale SGSP using NaCl salt. it is also called the storage zone. The LCZ is the bottom layer. Since water has a low thermal-conductivity. [2. Because of serving as the solar-energy collection and heat storage medium. This force in counterbalanced by the increase in the density due to the salinity gradient increasing in the downward direction. [7] carried out an indoor experiment and a numerical analysis on a small-scale model of a magnesium-chloride SGSP under a solar simulator. Subhakar and Murthy [13. theoretically and experimentally. with a nearly constant and uniform high density. Heat stored in the LCZ only escapes by conduction. the density decreases due to the temperature gradient producing an upward buoyancy force. instrumented and operated. Kho et al. Banat et al. Kurt et al.14] investigated a saturated solar-pond. the NCZ acts as a transparent insulator. [5] have analyzed practical-scale sodium chloride SGSP performance. so allowing a considerable amount of incident solar radiation being trapped and stored in the form of heat in the LCZ [1–3]. Bozdemir and Kayali [4] investigated the performance of the sodium-chloride SGSP experimentally and theoretically. to gain a better understanding of the mechanism of their operation and applications. under a solar simulator. [15] studied experimentally the temperature and salinity . a gradient of temperature is established. SGSPs have been extensively studied because of their excellent heat collection and storage performances. for industrial process-heating experimentally and numerically. and examined the erosion phenomenon on the NCZ under incident radiation from a solar simulator. [10] studied the design and performance evaluation of a solar pond. Keren et al. Thus convection currents are suppressed and prevent convection heat-loss from the LCZ by the artificially established salinity gradient. Kurt et al. containing sodium chloride salt. Xiang et al. and demonstrated the technical and economic viability of solar-pond technology in India. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 327 It acts as transparent insulation to prevent heat loss due to convection from the LCZ. with established potassium nitrates salt. Tahat et al. laboratory testing and construction and economic analyses. Kanayama et al.H. Leshuk et al. Many experimental solar ponds [13–19] have been constructed. As a result of solar-radiation absorption. and various numerical models [20–30] have been developed for analysing SGSP performance in the literature. The numerical models initially were generally onedimensional (1D) and treated the problem of transient heat conduction and mass diffusion. [6] investigated experimentally the stability of the salinity gradient. [11] investigated experimentally and theoretically the performance of a portable mini solar-pond. Tasdemiroglu [1] reported salt availability and solar pond utilization in Turkey. with magnesium chloride (MgCl2) and potassium nitrate (KNO3) salts. The 1D transient heat-and-mass transfer equations were solved using a finite-difference method to predict the time-dependent temperature and density. In the NCZ. which include analytical and numerical model treatments. There have been considerable theoretical and experimental studies [3–12] on SGSPs.

[22] studied the performance of heat collection and storage of a SGSP based on similar methods to analyse and calculate the flat-plate solar-collector performance. like magnesium chloride (MgCl2). Fig. and the stability of the SGSP. as well as Murthy and Pandey [17] have evaluated experimentally the performances of solar ponds using fertilizer salt under simulated conditions. satisfy the stability criterion and hence are considered suitable for a solar pond. for this purpose. 2. Hawlader et al. sodium nitrate (NaNO3). and analysis of a solar-pond floor heating system.328 H. [26] developed a computer simulation model. Jubran et al. [20] investigated numerically the transient behaviours of the thermal and salinity fields. [19] measured the spectral transmittances of magnesium chloride (MgCl2). Husain et al. which simulates the transient behaviour of the pond using a finite-difference method. Because of various processes occurring in and out of . [25] developed a 1D transient mathematical-model for predicting the thermal performance of the SGSP and the obtained results from the model are compared with those from an experimental study. [18] experimentally investigated the performance of small-scale solar pond of natural brine. The mathematical model is based upon energy and mass balances over a horizontal fluid layer in the vertical direction. E1-Refaee et al. [24] studied the estimation of radiation flux in solar ponds and proposed a simple empirical formulation. potassium nitrate (KNO3) and sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) saltsolutions under a solar simulator. Solar ponds normally employ sodium-chloride salt (NaCl). [21] developed a three-dimensional finite-volume method for modelling the convective layers in the solar pond. for a closed-cycle SGSP. Hongfei et al. fertilizer salts as urea (NH2CO Æ NH2). Mansour et al. Hence. Alkhalaileh et al. [27] solved the basic energy-equation numerically and studied the pondÕs behaviour. Kurt et al. After reviewing the literature. 2 shows the configuration of the pond under consideration. sodium sulphate (Na2SO4). / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 profiles in the pond in which a salinity gradient is established using carnalite salt. Antonopoulos and Rogdakis [28] developed simple correlations that express the maximum useful-heat received from a SGSP throughout the year. A mathematical model for the SGSP A model of transient behaviours of the heat and mass transfers in a SGSP was developed. ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3). Various salts. Hassairi et al. it is seen that establishing the SGSPÕs densitygradient with sodium carbonate salt has not been tested. Angeli and Leonardi [23] developed a 1D transient mathematical model for investigating the salt diffusion and stability of the density gradient in a solar pond. a small-scale pond in laboratory conditions was constructed for the experimental work and also a 1D mathematical model for the SGSPs heat and mass transfer was developed. Lund et al. sodium nitrate (NaNO3). potassium nitrate (KNO3). Alagao [30] developed a 1D simulation model. Pawar and Chapgaon [16]. Subhakar and Murthy [29] described a 1D simulation procedure for a saturated solar-pond.

due to all the sides of the pond being well insulated. The NCZ is divided into five equal finite cells.  Due to the presence of convection. 2. the UCZ and LCZ are considered as a single cell. to be considered negligible.  The bottom surface is blackened in order to maximize the radiation absorption.  The physical properties of the salt solution like density. the pond. Therefore. Salt-gradient solar-pond model configuration for heat flux. Therefore. Heat loss only occurs from the pondÕs surface due to convection. the temperature and salinity distributions within the pond are 1D. do not vary with temperature and salinity. and which have thicknesses of XUCZ and XLCZ. which are the LCZ. NCZ. The total depth of the pond is L. the operation of the pond is usually complicated. Therefore. the temperatures of the UCZ and LCZ are likely to be uniform. evaporation and radiation. each of size Dx. Therefore. some assumptions were made for simplifying the analysis as follows:  The temperature variation along the y-direction is considered small enough so that it is negligible. Kurt et al.H. so that the convection currents can be considered negligible and remain as such during the period of operation. . specific heat. and UCZ.  The pond has three distinct zones. thermal conductivity and salt diffusivity. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 329 Fig. and the coordinates of the zone boundaries are fixed. Conservation of energy and mass apply for each cell.  Heat losses through the pondÕs sidewalls are considered small enough. the radiation energy reaching the LCZ is completely absorbed by the solution and the bottom of the pond.  The pond is artificially stabilized by a density gradient.

Radiation attenuation in the pond is calculated as an exponential decay. The first boundary-condition is obtained from energy balance over the UCZ as . tÞ oT ðx.5 and l = 0. in the solution. Heat-transfer model Under the prescribed assumptions.330 H. tÞ Dx. a = 3–10%. internal heat-generation term. of the radiation. ð5Þ where I(x) is the solar-radiation intensity at depth x. b = 0. þ q ¼ qC p ox ox ot ð1Þ ð2Þ ð3Þ _ where q. is absorbed within a depth d (=5 mm) from the surface of the pond and. and where l is the attenuation or extinction coefficient. ð4Þ ox where I(x) is the solar energy radiation intensity at depth x. a is the reflectance of solar radiation at the surface. For both boundary-conditions. b represents the long-wave fraction of Is which is absorbed very close to the surface. The thermal process in the SGSP can be treated as a 1D unsteady-conduction problem with heat generation in to the proposed mathematical model. then oT ðx. The solution of this equation requires an initial and two boundary conditions. The initial condition is the initial pond-temperature. The extinction coefficient normally depends on the wavelength of the radiation. Is is the incident solar-radiation intensity at the pondÕs surface. ot       dqx dIðxÞ oT ðx. which is a time and depth dependent function.7 were used. application of the energy balance for a small layer in the NCZ. It is assumed that a fraction. which represents the absorption rate of the solar radiation per unit volume at a depth x from the pondÕs surface. an energy balance was applied at each pond depth. Kurt et al. It is given by oIðxÞ _ q¼À . tÞ Dx ¼ qC p Dx. tÞ _ k . The first boundary-condition is specified at x = L1 (UCZ–NCZ interface) and the second boundary-condition is specified at x = L2 (NCZ–LCZ interface). the remaining radiation is absorbed within a depth d from the surface of the pond and the remaining radiation follows an exponential decay. qx À q x þ Dx þ IðxÞ À IðxÞ þ dx ot dx ½ðqx Þi À ðqxþDx Þi Š þ ½ðI x Þi À ðI xþDx Þi Š ¼ qC p and   o oT ðx. following a simplified equation of BeerÕs Law IðxÞ ¼ ð1 À aÞð1 À bÞI s eÀlx for x > 0. b. For the present tests. A single extinction coefficient is used to describe the absorption of radiation. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 3. which equals the ambient temperature at the time of initiating the pondÕs operation.

tÞ.   oT ðx.

tÞ . oT ðx.

k þ Ijx¼0 À Ijx¼L1 À Qt ¼ qC p ð6Þ . xUCZ .

ox x¼L1 ot .

/ Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 331 where Qt is the heat loss from the pondÕs surface by convection. The second boundary condition is obtained from an energy balance over the LCZ as given by .H. Kurt et al. evaporation and radiation.

  oT ðx. tÞ.

tÞ . oT ðx.

xLCZ . Àk þ Ijx¼L2 À Ijx¼L3 ¼ qC p ð7Þ .

15Þ . The convective heat-loss is given by Qc ¼ hc ðT y À T 1 Þ. Thus. The evaporative heat loss can be expressed as follows: Qe ¼ he hc ðP s À P 1 Þ .55 þ 0. evaporation and radiation.403 À T s þ 230 ð12Þ and P1 is the partial pressure of water vapour in the ambient air obtained at the ambient temperature   3885 P 1 ¼ Rh exp 18.15Þ À ðT sky þ 273. ox x¼L2 ot 4.25 T sky ¼ T 1 þ ð0. ð15Þ . ð13Þ T 1 þ 230 Heat loss due to radiation from the pondÕs surface to the sky can be calculated from the following expression:   4 4 Qr ¼ ew r ðT s þ 273.3. 1.6C a P atm ð11Þ where Ps is the vapour pressure evaluated at the surface temperature   3885 P s ¼ exp 18.403 À . which depends on the velocity of wind.8V r . ð14Þ The sky temperature is estimated as follows: pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0.7 þ 3. Heat-loss calculation The model solar-pond is assumed to be well insulated: heat loss from the pondÕs surface occurs due to convection. ð10Þ The heat loss due to evaporation is proportional to the wind-induced convective heat-transfer coefficient hc and the difference between the vapour pressure of the free surface and the partial pressure of the water vapour in the atmosphere.20]: Qt ¼ Qc þ Qe þ Qr . is given by hc ¼ 5. ð9Þ ð8Þ where hc is the wind convection heat-transfer coefficient. the total heatloss can be calculated as follows [2.704ð P 1 ÞÞ .

(19) into Eq. tÞ ¼ . 0 6 x < L1 . 6. For both boundary-conditions. ox ot oqðx.   o oqðx. and the mass transfer takes place as a result of molecular diffusion. L2 < x 6 L3 . as follows: q ¼ q1 .332 H. the total mass of the system in the control volume is constant. tÞ D . tÞ oqðx. The density gradient could develop by molecular diffusion. ð24Þ . Dx. as follows: D oqðx. tÞ oqðx. ox ð17Þ À ð18Þ By FickÕs law of diffusion. Kurt et al. ð21Þ ð22Þ The first boundary-condition is specified at x = L1 (UCZ–NCZ interface) and the second at x = L2 (NCZ–LCZ interface). tÞ ¼ X LCZ . Based upon these assumptions. The mass-transfer processes are independent of the thermal processes. can be obtained. (18) and assuming a constant D. A mass balance at the UCZ gives the first boundary condition. ¼ ot Dx oJ oqðx. ð23Þ A mass balance at the LCZ gives the second boundary-condition. tÞ ðJ x À J xþDx Þ ¼ Dx. ox ot x ¼ L2 . the following equation. t > 0. tÞ . Convective mass-transfer occurs in the LCZ and UCZ and diffusive mass-transfer in the NCZ. tÞ . 1D mass diffusion in the x-direction for a differential volume-element of thickness. is given as follows:   oqðx. as illustrated in Fig. ð16Þ ot À   ðJ jxþDx À J jx Þ oqðx. ox ot x ¼ L1 . / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 5. In this model. as follows: ÀD oqðx. ð20Þ ¼ ox ox ot The solution of the mass diffusion equation needs an initial condition and two boundary conditions. the diffusion flux J is related to the density gradient by J ¼ ÀD ð19Þ Substituting from Eq. Mass-transfer model There are several physical processes occurring in the operation of a solar pond. q ¼ q2 . The initial condition is specified by a linear density-gradient of the form. tÞ ¼ X UCZ . a mass balance was applied at each point. tÞ oqðx. t > 0.

Equation (24) is of exactly the same form as the 1D unsteady heat-conduction equation: the same mathematical techniques are applicable for its solution. Kurt et al. A layer increment of 5 cm and a time step of 1 h were used in the model. while the outside was insulated with 20 mm thick glass–wool and 30 mm thick styrofoam to reduce the rate of heat loss. 6. 2 and 3. Inside of the pond was painted black to ensure absorption of the radiation. . 220–230 V. adjustable on the vertical axis above the pondÕs surface. 3. This pond was constructed from 1.5 A and 25. Experimental study Experiments were carried out under the laboratory conditions using a scale solarpond of dimensions 60 · 50 cm2 and 60 cm deep as shown in Fig.5 mm galvanized metal sheet. The corresponding radiant-flux intensity is 750 W/m2. The method used in generating solutions to the 1D temperature and density finite-difference equations is explicit because unknown nodal variables for a new time are calculated using the known values of the parameters at a previous time. The equations obtained from the heat and mass transfers are solved numerically to determine the temperature and density profiles within the pond. The pond was subjected to a simulator solar-radiation spectrum close to that of solar radiation. A finite-difference form of the differential equation is derived by integration over the control volume surrounding the typical node i. A low-cost solar simulator.000 ml Philips halogen lamps. as shown in the grid of Figs. 4. which has 2 · 1000 W. The simulator was installed 35 cm above the pondÕs surface. was designed. A Fortran computerprogram has been developed for the aforementioned reasons.H. The incident radiation intensity was measured with a Solar-130 type pyranometer of accuracy ±1. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 333 Fig. The stability criterion of explicit formulation is Dt < qCp(Dx)2/2k.5 W/m2. Salt-gradient solar-pond model configuration for mass transfer. 6.

Next. Density profiles were taken twice a day while the pond was subjected to radiation. Flexible plastic tubes. The pond was filled layer by layer. respectively. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 Fig.3 °C.2 ml. Cross-section of experimental solar pond. Subsequently. The density of the withdrawn solution was determined by measuring the mass of a given volume to an accuracy of ±10À4 g.334 H. Kurt et al. the NCZ was established by painstakingly pouring slowly a decreasingly less-concentrated solution from a floating plastic can. . The temperatures were measured by chromel–alumel (K-type) thermojunctions. with an accuracy of ±0. The thicknesses the UCZ. Lastly. attached 10 cm apart. fixed at 8 points on a vertical side wall of the pond. the UCZ is filled with fresh water on top of the NCZ in the same way as the NCZ. The NCZ is formed of five layers. NCZ and LCZ are 10. the pond was subjected to solar simulator radiation. 25 and 25 cm. and at regular intervals while cooling. starting with the layer of highest concentrated solution to fill the LCZ. The volume was measured with a 10 ml pycnometer to an accuracy of ±0. acted as sampling vents at the other sidewall of the pond. 4. Density profiles were determined by analyzing the densities of small samples extracted from the solar pond at the same level as the thermojunctions. The pond remained covered for three days to allow molecular diffusion of the salt to take place and to achieve a linear salt-gradient. The thermojunctions are spaced 10 cm apart from top to bottom of the pond: they provide a clear temperature profile by connecting the thermocouples to a digital multimeter (Mastech MY-64 type). Then the pond was covered by a non-transparent plastic sheet to prevent radiation from heating up the solution.

5 1079.6 1068. So.3 1068.3 1081 1108 LCZ 25 Table 3 The distributions of salinity and density in the pond zones for the third experiment Pond zone UCZ NCZ Pond zone thickness (cm) 10 25 5 5 5 5 5 Salinity (%) 0 3 5 5 7 7 12 Density (kg/m3) 998 1042 1063 1063 1079.6 1052. it is seen that achieving the SGSP density-gradient with sodium-carbonate salt has not previously been tested.8 1052. Kurt et al.6 1052.8 1052. the distributions of salinity and density of sodium carbonate solutions Table 1 The distributions of salinity and density in the pond zones for the first experiment Pond zone UCZ NCZ Pond zone thickness (cm) 10 25 5 5 5 5 5 Salinity (%) 0 2 4 4 6 6 8 Density (kg/m3) 998 1036.H. Results and discussion After reviewing the literature. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 335 7. four experiments with the solar pond having different ranges of density gradient have been conducted.6 1068.3 1081 LCZ 25 Table 2 The distributions of salinity and density in the pond zones for the second experiment Pond zone UCZ NCZ Pond zone thickness (cm) 10 25 5 5 5 5 5 Salinity (%) 0 2 4 4 6 8 10 Density (kg/m3) 998 1036. In Tables 1–4.5 1120 LCZ 25 .

Figs. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 Table 4 The distributions of salinity and density in the pond zones for the fourth experiment Pond zone UCZ NCZ Pond zone thickness (cm) 10 25 5 5 5 5 5 Salinity (%) 0 3 5 8 10 12 16 Density (kg/m3) 998 1042 1063 1081 1108 1120 1157 LCZ 25 that filled the pond are seen. 7 and 8 show the density and temperature profiles for the second experiment. In Fig. A higher salinity range cannot be achieved because thin crystal solid layers. . respectively. 5. the temperature profile has tended to the SGSP temperature profile. 12% for third experiment and 16% for last experiment. a stable density-gradient was formed as a result of salt diffusion from the bottom to the surface. As seen from the tables. when a comparison has made between the first and fourth dayÕs experimental results. 5 and 6. Fig. then it starts to turn to a shape like the SGSP density profile after the first day. However. Kurt et al. then form at the base of the pond. In the first experiment. Density profile in experiment 1. The density and temperature profiles as functions of the pondÕs depth are shown in Figs. 5. 10% for second experiment.336 H. the salinity difference between the surface and the bottom of the pond amount to 8% for first experiment. the density gradient with a 10% of salinity range cannot be enough to suppress convection currents that occur as a result of the radiation absorption in the LCZ. the density profile initially looks like stair steps. 6. The temperature profile after the pond is subjected to the solar simulator radiation for a day is illustrated in Fig. After the fourth day.

Temperature profile in experiment 2. 6. Density profile in experiment 2.H. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 337 Fig. 8. Temperature profile in experiment 1. 7. Kurt et al. Fig. Fig. .

Kurt et al. Temperature profile in experiment 3. at least a 12% salinity range to establish a worthwhile density gradient between the pondÕs bottom and surface is needed to store heat in the SGSP containing a sodium-carbonate solution. 10. the temperature difference was measured between the pondÕs bottom and its surface as 10 °C. The experiment ceased at the seventh day due to the storage temperature remaining unchanged. . 9. which shows a similar characteristic as with the SGSP was kept for a long time. Density profile in experiment 3. 9 and 10. Fig. The density gradient with 12% salinity range prevented convection from the bottom to the surface. It is more stable than the first and second density profiles and more suitable for a SGSP.338 H. From the results. Fig. The pondÕs temperature-profile during the cooling period. A similar situation was observed in the fourth experiment. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 The density and temperature profiles provided from the third experiment are given in Figs. After seven daysÕ observations. A salinity range with a 12% density gradient is enough to store the radiation absorbed in the form of heat at the LCZ.

11 shows a stable density-gradient. 12. 11. Kurt et al. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 339 Fig. The model storage temperature was higher than the measured storage temperature due to the temperature values measured in the NCZ and UCZ being larger than the corresponding temperatures provided from the model. Fig. The simulator spectrum has a bias towards the long-wavelength (infrared) radiation compared with that of the Sun. The temperature profile remained unchanged after the sixth day and a 12 °C temperature difference ensued on the seventh day (see Fig. The results are qualitatively in good agreement. . 12). The long wavelength range of Fig. Density profile in experiment 4. Temperature profile in experiment 4.H. but a small difference was seen quantitatively due to the physics of the solar pond. The comparisons of density and temperature profiles for the fourth experiment with the results of the model are shown in Figs. 13 and 14. This is a result of solar simulator radiation being used as the energy source in the experiments.

a temperature-gradient similar to that of SGSP in the pond was not obtained. 14. simulator radiation is mostly absorbed by the UCZ. However. and the temperature rise of the UCZ occurs quickly. The comparison of model and experiment density profiles. 13. a slow conversion to a temperature gradient similar to the SGSP . Four different density-gradients with sodium-carbonate solution were initially established in the pond with salinity ranges of 8%. 12% and 16%. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 Fig. 10%. 8. only small part of the simulator radiation is transmitted to the LCZ. Conclusions Sodium-carbonate salt has been used in the establishment of salinity gradients in the SGSP. In the first experiment.340 H. Fig. The comparison of model-experiment temperature profiles. Kurt et al. so that the temperature rise of the LCZ occurs slowly. On the contrary.

Maeda Y. Performance of a portable mini solar-pond. In order to verify the validity of the experimental results.51(4):255–70.65(4):237–49. Int J Sol Energ 1991.46(6):353–9. second Trabzon international energy and environment symposium. Binark AK. [8] Xiang YL. Murthy SS. Differential equations constituting the model were solved using a finite-difference method. Renew Energ 2001. Bemporad GA. was developed. Atkinson J. Baba H. this difference became 12 °C. Appl Energ 2000. Kanayama K. p. [11] Tahat MA. The results are in harmony. [4] Bozdemir S. Resour Conser ß 1987.66(4):299–310. It is seen that experimental and numerical results were well correlated. J Environ Sci 1987. 187–91. Ho JC. Experiment and analysis of practical-scale solar-pond stabilized with a salt gradient. based on energy and mass balances. Zaworski RJ. . Baba H. References ˘ [1] Tas demiroglu E. Theoretical and experimental comparison of conventional and advanced solar-pond performance. but small differences between the surface and bottom of the pond in the model became higher than the experimental temperature differences.7(3):387–97. In the third experiment. Trabzon. India. Construction and operation experience of a 6000 m2 solar-pond at Kutch. Kishore VVN. [6] Leshuk JP. Binark AK.20:371–87. [2] Kurt H. a 1D time-dependent mathematical model for heat-and-mass transfers. Halici F. Kurt et al. Experiments on a magnesium-chloride saturated solar-pond. If a suitable density-gradient with sodium-carbonate salt is established. Priven M.21:237–44. In: TIEES-98. Inaba H. temperature differences were observed between the bottom and the surface of the pond of around 10 °C. a considerable amount of the incident solar radiation can be trapped and stored as heat energy in the LCZ over a long time-period. [13] Subhaker D.H. Baba H. [12] Kumar A. Fukuda T. Rubin H. Renew Energ 1991. [5] Kanayama K. Halici F. Kodah ZH. Sol Energy 1999. Sol Energy 1978. Harling OK. Probert SD. In fourth experiment. Solar-pond stability experiment. Mathematical modelling of solar ponds and comparison with experimental data. [7] Keren Y. Styris DL. Spectral calculation of thermal performance of a solar pond and comparison of the results with experiments. Kayah R. Design and performance evaluation of a solar pond for industrial process-heating.41:939–51. Experimental study about erosion in a salt-gradient solar-pond. Sol Energy 1993. Energ Convers Manage 2000.15:215–28.10:83–101. Mathematical modelling of salt-gradient solar-pond as a solar energy store. Salt availability in Turkey and its potential use in solar ponds. The numerical results were compared with the experimental results. 1998. Hawlader MNA. Kanayama K. a density gradient with a salinity range of 12% between the bottom and surface of the pond is necessary. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 341 temperature-gradient was observed in the second experiment. The solar simulator radiation that is used as the energy source in the experiments causes this dissimilarity the between model and experiment profiles. [9] Xiang YL. Wijeysundera NE. In order to be able to store heat in the SGSP with sodium carbonate solution. Al-Tahaineh H. [3] Kurt H.1(5–6):655–60. Renew Energ 2000. Sol Energy 1993.23(2):207–17. [10] Kho TH. Solar-pond conception: experimental and theoretical studies.

Sol Energy 2004. Correlations for the yearly or seasonally optimum salt-gradient solar-pond in Greece.43:779–90. Sol Energy 1996. Nasser NG. El-Temtamy. Sol Energy 1993. Galanis N. Lianying Z.28(3):455–66.18(1–2):1–14. Keinonen RS. Experimental verification.28(5):769–802.43:2009–17. Leonardi E. Zurigat Y. [17] Murthy GRR. Saturated solar ponds: 3. Yuyuan W.4(2):265–9. Patil PS. Chibani S. Brinkworth BJ. Rogdakis ED. [24] Husain M. Sol Energy 1994. [25] E1-Refaee MM. Renew Energ 1994. [15] Banat FA. Modelling and simulation of solar-pond floorheating system. [29] Subhakar D. Mathematical model of the thermal-utilization coefficient of a salt-gradient solar-pond.27:195–204. [20] Mansour RB. Numerical modelling of convective layers in solar ponds. Carnalite salt-gradient solar-ponds: an experimental study. Simulation of the transient behaviour of a closed-cycle salt-gradient solar-pond.47(1):1–10. Chapgaon AN. Murthy SS. Atieh KA. Int J Therm Sci 2004. Hua J. Jubran BA. Nguyen CT. [16] Pawar SH. Al-Marafie AM. Kurt et al. Renew Energ 2003. [28] Antonopoulos KA.50(3):275–82. Al-Hiddabi S. An analysis of the non-convecting solar pond.77(3):339–45. Numerical simulation of the performance of the Kuwait experimental salt-gradient solar-pond. Int J Heat Mass Trans A 2004. A one-dimensional numerical study of the salt diffusion in a salinity-gradient solar-pond. El-Sayed SE. Natural-brine solar-pond: an experimental study. Comparative performance evaluation of a fertiliser solar-pond under simulated conditions. Energ Convers Manage 2002. Energ Sources 1993.50(5):417–24. Renew Energ 2003. Sol Energy 1995. Al-Hinai H.342 H. Murthy SS. Sol Energy 1981.33(3-4):237–40. Safi MJ. Fertilizer solar-ponds as a clean source of energy: some observations from small-scale experiments. Patil SR. / Applied Energy 83 (2006) 324–342 [14] Subhaker D. Saturated solar-ponds: 1. Numerical study of transient heat-and-mass transfers and stability in a salt-gradient solar-pond. Computer simulation of salt-gradient solar-pondÕs thermal behaviour. Sol Energy 1993. Pandey KP.70:45–50. Samdarshi SK. Sol Energy 1984. [18] Hassairi M. Renew Energ 1999. Al-Abdali H. . [30] Alagao FB. [23] Angeli C. [21] Jubran BA.53(6):469–72.55(6):537–42. Sol Energy 2001. [22] Hongfei Z. Radiation–transmission measurements for solar ponds. [26] Alkhalaileh MT. [19] Lund PD.15:145–8. [27] Hawlader MNA. Simulation procedure.56(3):245–60.