Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Experimental investigation of the thermal performance of a box type

solar cooker using a finned cooking vessel
Elumalai Vengadesan, Ramalingam Senthil*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Chennai, India

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

Article history: The box type solar cooker is a user-friendly solar energy harvesting system suitable for domestic cooking
Received 26 November 2020 in tropical countries. The benefit of adding aluminum fins to the lids of the cooking vessels in a solar
Received in revised form cooker is investigated in this experimental study. Four different cylindrical aluminum cooking vessels
1 February 2021
that are un-finned and finned vessels with varying fin lengths of 25 mm, 35 mm, and 45 mm are used to
Accepted 21 February 2021
heat waterdoutdoor experiments are conducted for five days each case. For all four configurations, water
Available online 24 February 2021
is observed to attain a peak temperature of 102
C in a closed system. The maximum temperature range
maintained is between 90
C and 100
C for about two to 3 h during outdoor testing. The attained
Keywords:
Solar energy
thermal efficiency and heat transfer coefficients are 56.03% and 58.54 W/m2
C, respectively, for the
Box cooker 45 mm finned configuration. The boiling point of water is attained in 2 h and 17 min using the cooking
Thermal performance vessel with 45 mm fins. The results of the stagnation and sensible heating tests show that the finned
Fin heat transfer cooking vessels have higher thermal performance than the conventional un-finned vessel due to
Cooking power increased heat transfer surface.
Energy efficiency © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction cheap, effective, and zero-emission solar cooking technology. Solar

The rapid depletion of energy resources is a crucial global
problem because of increased energy use. Domestic applications
that consume power form a major part of the total energy con-
sumption, especially for cooking and water heating applications [1].
Environmental problems like high CO₂ emission and an increase in
ambient temperature are the primary concerns about burning fossil
fuels. Household heating applications are also important causes of
increasing fossil fuel usage and environmental pollution. The ben-
efits of solar cookers are many, but the equipment’s steep cost is the
main drawback. Hence, it is essential to use readily available, low-
cost materials to manufacture sustainable solar cooker systems
[2]dthe thermal efficiency of low-cost solar cookers required for
cooking and other crucial applications in everyday life. Construc-
tional design improvement by reengineering is an essential way of
improving the thermal performance of solar cookers. The devel-
opment of improved and affordable solar cooker models combined
with governmental support in the form of subsidies to encourage
the use of inexhaustible solar energy will help popularize clean,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: senthilr@srmist.edu.in (R. Senthil).
thermal energy can be effectively tapped to meet consumers’
thermal needs in several forms, such as solar water heaters, solar
air heaters, and solar cookers. Solar cookers are an alternative food
cooking technology that plays a vital role in meeting household
energy requirements.
The full potential of sustainable yet straightforward solar
cookers is yet to be tapped as most people prefer fossil fuels and
biomass due to their faster cooking and lower cost. The environ-
mental impact and lifecycle cost can be reduced by 65% and 40%,
respectively, by choosing simple solar cookers. Low-cost solar
cookers such as panel cookers, box cookers, and parabolic cookers
can be easily made using readily available household materials.
Hence, with greater public awareness of the need to tap renewable
energy for more sustainable use of resources, people will opt to
invest in solar cooking over other traditional cooking methods [3].
Box type cookers have moderate efficiency when compared to
parabolic concentrating and panel cookers. Although panel cookers
are inexpensive to build and available at low-cost, they have lower
cooking efficiency performance. Concentrating cookers are rela-
tively expensive but offer high energy efficiency. Various studies are
conducted to improve the thermal performance of the solar box
cooker (SBC).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.02.130
0960-1481/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446

Nomenclature W Tps Uncertainty of absorber temperature at stagnation

W Tps Uncertainty of ambient temperature at stagnation
Dt Time interval (s) WI Uncertainty of solar radiation at stagnation
a, b Constants W Tw1 Uncertainty of initial temperature of the water
Ai Intercepted area of the cooker (m2) W Tw2 Uncertainty of final temperature of the water
Ap Absorber plate area of the cooker (m2) W Ta Uncertainty of average ambient temperature
ASBC Area of the solar box cooker (m2) Wh Uncertainty of heat transfer coefficient
Cp Specific heat of water (J/kg K) WI Uncertainty of average solar radiation
F₁ The first figure of merit (
C m2/W) Wmw Uncertainty of mass
F₂ The second figure of merit WCW Uncertainty of Specific heat of the water
h Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K) Wt Uncertainty of time
I Solar radiation (W/m2) WA Uncertainty of area
ki Thermal conductivity of insulation (W/mK) WP Uncertainty of cooking power
m Mass of the water (kg) xm Distance between the bottom of the tray and the first
Nc Number of the glass cover glass cover (m)
P Cooking power (W)
Ps Standardized cooking power (W) Greek symbols
t Theoretical sensible heating time of water (s) a Absorptance
Tas Ambient temperature (
C) εc Emissivity of glass cover
Tboil Boiling temperature (
C) εp Emissivity of absorber
tboil Theoretical boiling time of the water (s) ho Optical efficiency of the cooker (%)
ti Insulation thickness (m) hth Thermal efficiency of the cooker (%)
Tpm Mean absorber plate temperature (
C) t ̄ Transmittance
Tps Absorber temperature (
C)
Tw1 Initial temperature of water (
C) Abbreviations
̄
Tw2 Final temperature of water (
C) ASAE American Society of Agricultural Engineers
UL Overall heat loss coefficient (W/m K) BIS Bureau of Indian Standards
Vwin Wind velocity (m/s) PCM Phase change material
WF1 Uncertainty of the first Figure of merit SBC Solar box cooker
WF2 Uncertainty of the Second figure of merit TES Thermal energy storage

Adding reflectors at the SBC to increase the solar radiation
incidence. An SBC with four reflectors improved the optical effi-
ciency of the cooker. The figure of merit increased from 0.07 to 0.14.
The maximum temperature increased from 81.3
C to 133.6
C, and
72 min were required to cook rice and 107 min for cooking beans
[4]. An SBC with a booster mirror helps to minimize heat loss and
enhance solar cookers’ thermal performance with faster cooking
time at a higher temperature range [5]. Instead of using a single
booster mirror, a double booster mirror gives higher thermal per-
formance [6]. Multi-shelf-side solar cookers’ cooking performance
was improved three times more than the conventional horizontal
type solar cooker and reduced cooking time [7]. Aluminum and
stainless-steel cooking vessels were tested with reflectors by
Weldu et al. [8]. Aluminum cooking vessels are therefore preferred
over stainless steel, and thermal efficiency increases when adding
reflectors.
The investigation is also done using SBC with thermal energy
storage (TES) to increase the cooker’s productivity [9e11]. TES
system enabled the continuous heating of cooking vessels for more
prolonged durations, even in the late evening hours [12]. The
cooking power and overall efficiency of the hybrid SBC are higher
due to the reduced heat loss coefficient [13,14]. Though there are
many investigations, one of the crucial techniques to enhance the
thermal performance of the SBC is cooking vessel design
improvement. Cooking vessel design is a primary concern for
improving cooking power and reducing cooking time in an SBC.
Two identical cylindrical cooking vessels were tested with the
same volume, both with and without external fins, by Harmim et al.
[15]. The time taken to reach the maximum temperature was
91 min for the finned cooking vessel, whereas it was 103 min for
the conventional vessel. From the initial water temperature of
25
C, the SBC attained 44
C after 17 min. The water attained
boiling temperature 14 min earlier in the finned vessel than the
conventional vessel. Srinivasa Rao et al. [16] experimented with
evaluating the performance difference between the conventional
cooking vessel, cooking vessel with an annular cavity at the center,
and the vessel with an annular cavity added rectangular fins. The
vessel with annular cavity and fins reached a higher temperature by
30
C than the conventional vessel. They also concluded that lugs
significantly affected heat transfer, and the lug’s 9 mm height was
found to give heat convective heat transfer.
Nayak et al. [17] examined the external finned cooking vessel’s
thermal performance in clear and moderate weather conditions.
The finned cooking vessel showed a better temperature reach of
102
C in 3 h with a thermal efficiency of 72% under clear weather
conditions. A solar cooker’s efficiency depends on the cooking
vessel’s material, fin materials, and radiation level. The experiment
was conducted to compare the performance of finned and standard
absorber plates. The stagnation temperature of the box cooker with
the finned absorber was more than the standard absorber plate.
Hence, there was a reduction in water heating time. Stagnation
temperature increased by 7% due to the better heat exchange be-
tween the absorber plate and the finned absorber’s internal air [18].
The finned absorber plate on SBC was investigated and
concluded that the extended surface absorber increased the fluid,
hot space, glass, and container temperature. Lesser heat loss
improved the thermal performance of the SBC [19]. The thermal
performance of the SBC was improved by analyzing the solar
cooker’s geometry, such as cylindrical and rectangular shapes. The
mass of water selected was 0.5 kg, 1 kg, and 1.5 kgs. The thermal
efficiency improved from 12.7% to 36.98% for the cylindrical ge-
ometry and 9.85%e28.25% for the rectangular geometry. The

432
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil
boiling time was reduced from 39.56 min to 14.35 min for the cy-
lindrical vessel and from 43.47 min to 15.77 min for the
rectangular-shaped vessel [20].
The cooking vessel kept on the lugs attained better heat transfer
enhancement than that kept on the floor. The vessel kept on lugs
cooked 20 mine25 min earlier than on the floor due to the hot air
circulation [21]. The cooking vessel with a cylindrical cavity kept on
lugs had an average improvement than the conventional cooking
type due to the heat transfer area. The cylindrical cavity vessel took
half an hour less than the traditional cooking vessel to reach the
maximum temperature [22]. The cooking vessel with depressed
lids provided direct contact between the vessel’s lid and contents,
resulting in a heat transfer improvement of 8.4% [23]. Sagade et al.
[24] developed a new cooking vessel with a glass lid on the top.
They compared it with a conventional vessel. The vessel with the
glass lid had reduced heat loss due to a lesser temperature
difference.
Geddam et al. [25] studied the effect of a finned cooking vessel
with TES. A maximum temperature of 95
C was attained in 90 min,
6 min lesser than the conventional type. Food ingredients were
kept hot for 4 h with the energy released from the discharge of
PCM. Based on the load of 0.8 kg, a maximum temperature of 95
C
was observed in 110 min. Furthermore, the ultimate thermal per-
formance was observed when the load was high. The integration of
PCM in the cooking system reduced the overheating problem and
the overall heat loss coefficient [26]. The inconvenience of the SBC
during off-sunshine hours was reduced by designing a cooking pot
with an electric heater. Food content could be cooked by using solar
radiation and electric heating when there was no radiation [27].
A comprehensive literature survey shows that the investigations
related to fins’ effect are limited compared to other performance
improvements of an SBC. Adding fins to the cooking vessel can
eliminate the need for more reflector and TES integration, which
increases the cost and risk. Also, SBCs have not gained much
popularity owing to their lower thermal performance and high
cost. From the literature, the heat transfer mode inside the box was
also influencing the performance of the SBC. Forced convection
cooking time was reduced by 30.6% when compared to natural
convection [28]. The optimum load level also influences the ther-
mal performance as the cooking time and type of food contents are
considered essential factors [29]. The convection heat transfer in
the air heater and the water heater plays a vital role in improving
low-temperature solar collectors [30,31]. Different thermal per-
formance enhancement methods of SBCs have limitations due to
the higher heat loss, more cooking time, increased cost, and lesser
efficiency.
Improving cooker’s design and use of low-cost materials will
help to improve the efficiency of the SBC from the literature study.
The heat loss should be reduced, and heat transfer between the
vessel and fluid should be increased. These two factors are possible
when using an extended surface at the cooker’s cooking vessel and
absorber plate [19]. If the cooking vessel is fitted with external plate
fins, the resultant shading leads to more time taken to heat the
vessel’s contents. On the other hand, when the fins are in direct
contact with the fluid, the time taken for heat transfer from the fins
to the fluid content is reduced. By keeping this finding, this
experimental work aims to increase the heat transfer rate and
reduce the cooking time by improving the heat transfer area using
fins attached to the vessel’s top cover. The fins dipped in the fluid
for better heat transfer. The fins get directly heated by solar radi-
ation and they quickly transfer heat from the box’s hot zone to the
liquid at a reduced time. However, there are some studies already
available related to the application of fins on the cooking vessel.
Very little work has been done with this design improvement as per
the authors’ knowledge. This research article also highlights using a
433
Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446
solar cooker and its many advantages for easy and comfortable
cooking at a low-cost. Hence, it is hoped that the proposed design
of the SBC will contribute more to society in terms of energy-
saving, no-fuel cost, environmental pollution control, and clean
energy for cooking.
This experimental study on the SBC is comprehensively
described in the following sections. Section 1 deals with the
introduction, improvements undertaken, and the need for this
research work. Section 2 presents information about the experi-
mental methods adopted and the materials used. The thermal
performance parameters to be calculated for the performance
comparison are explained in Section 3. Section 4 details the results
and discussions. This experimental work’s primary conclusions and
suggestions for extending the work further in the future are given
in Section 5.
2. Experimental methods and materials
2.1. Experimental work
A box type solar cooker with outer dimensions of
0.5 m  0.5 m  0.135 m and inner space dimensions of
0.385 m  0.385 m  0.07 m is used to investigate the cooking
vessel designed for use in the current study. Aluminum with
thermal conductivity of 226 W/mK is selected as the material for
both the cooking vessel and fins. Aluminum’s intrinsic good ther-
mal conductivity and the addition of the black coating helps in the
maximum absorption of the radiation impinging on it, converting it
to thermal energy. Four cylindrical-shaped aluminum cooking
vessels are fabricated, and cylindrical aluminum fins of three
different lengths are attached at the top three vessels. A conven-
tional cylindrical aluminum vessel without fins (Configuration I), a
cylindrical aluminum vessel with fin length of 25 mm (Configura-
tion II), 35 mm (Configuration III), and 45 mm (Configuration IV)
are the four configurations considered in this study. The cooking
vessels’ dimensions are 160 mm in diameter and 75 mm in height;
they are fabricated from a 1 mm thick aluminum sheet. Cylindrical
aluminum fins (21 numbers) with 4 mm diameter are attached at
the top of the vessel with the same outside fin length of 15 mm and
different inside lengths of 25 mm, 35 mm, and 45 mm. The fins are
arranged to dip in water inside the vessels for effective heat
transfer. The dimensional details of the four types of cooking ves-
sels are shown in Fig. 1. The fabricated cylindrical aluminum vessel
is shown in Fig. 2. The experiments were conducted in February
2020 on the rooftop of the three-storied solar energy laboratory
building of SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankula-
thur, Chennai, India (Latitude & Longitude: 12
590 7.1900 N
79
580 11.3900 E). The test standards are followed as per the Bureau
of Indian Standards Testing Method (BIS) and the American Society
of Agricultural Engineers Standard (ASAE) [38,39]. The box cooker
is placed in the south-facing direction, and the cooking vessels are
filled with 1.5 L of water and kept inside. Solar radiation, atmo-
spheric temperature, and air velocity are measured using a weather
station. Experimental readings are taken for stagnation condition
on first day, while configuration I, II, III, and IV are observed on
consecutive days. The same order of experiments is conducted four
more times to ensure repeatability. Experiments are also conducted
by keeping all four configurations in the cooker simultaneously to
evaluate the difference in the cooker’s thermal performance.
Thermocouples are placed inside the cooking vessel and the
cooker’s space to observe the water and space temperature varia-
tion. Three thermocouples are placed at an equal distance appro-
priately at the vessel’s center height, and the average temperature
is taken as water temperature. Temperature variations are noted
from 09.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. every day. The average peak solar
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446

Fig. 1. Two-dimensional view of the cooking vessels: (a) Conventional (Configuration I), (b) Fin length 25 mm (Configuration II), (c) Fin length 35 mm (Configuration III), (d) Fin
length 45 mm (Configuration IV), (e) Top view of the vessel with fins (All the dimensions are in mm).

Fig. 2. Fabricated cooking vessels: (a) Conventional cooking vessel without fins, (b) Finned cooking vessel, (c) Inside view of the finned lids of the vessels.

434
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446

radiation is identified as 997 W/m2 in an average air velocity of

1.85 m/s during the testing. The temperature sensors (RTD PT100)

     
are used to measure water, cooker space, and absorber plate tem- F1 mCp w T  Ta T  Ta
F2 ¼ ln 1  w1  ln 1  w2 (2)
peratures. Continues temperature measurement is done with the Ai D t F1 I F1 I
help data logging system (34970A, Agilent Technologies). Fig. 3
shows single, all four vessels in SBC and thermocouples’ position Sensible heating time and boiling time of water can be found
inside the vessels. theoretically by the following formulas (3) and (4) [33,34],
The experimental setup of the SBC is shown in Fig. 4. The
experiment is conducted in stagnation and sensible heating con- 0 1
ditions for five days. The stagnation test is conducted on the first
 ðT T Þ
day of the experimental test; tests on configuration I, II, III, and IV F1 mcp w B1  w1F1 I a C
t¼ lnB
@
C
A (3)
are conducted on the second, third, fourth, and fifth days, respec- F2 Ai 1  ðTw2 Ta Þ
F1 I
tively. Solar radiation intensity level range of (450 W/m2 to
1000 W/m2), ambient temperature range of (32
Ce43.2
C) and air
velocity range of (1 m/s to 2.5 m/s) are considered [32].
The stagnation test is conducted without a load in the cooker,
  
F1 mcp w ðT  Ta Þ
and the absorber temperature and ambient temperature are tboil ¼ ln 1  boil (4)
recorded. The stagnation test calculates the optical efficiency and F2 Ai F1 I
overall heat loss coefficient. A sensible heat test is conducted with The cooking power of the designed cooker [34] is determined by
water in the vessels by observing the ambient temperature, rising
water temperature, and absorber temperature. Thermal perfor-
mance analysis is conducted to determine the time taken by all four

mcp w ðTw2  Tw1 Þ
types of cooking vessels to reach the designated temperature, and P¼ (5)
their performances are compared with each other. Further, the ef- 600
fect of placing all four configurations simultaneously in the SBC and The standardized cooking power of the cooker is found by
the water temperature variations are noted to study the thermal standard solar radiation of 700 W/m2 [34].
performance enhancement of this finned cooking vessels.

P  700
Ps ¼ (6)
I
2.2. Thermal performance analysis
Thermal efficiency can be determined from

The parameters for testing the thermal performance of the SBC

are the first figure of merit (F1), second figure of merit (F2), cooking

Eout mcp w ðTw2  TW1 Þ
power (P), and thermal efficiency (hth). hth ¼ ¼ (7)
The F₁ is the cooker’s optical efficiency ratio and its overall heat Ein ðatÞIAi Dt
loss coefficient. Higher-grade cookers should have an F₁ value The heat transfer coefficient of the cooker [35] is determined by
greater than 0.12. For lower-grade cookers, it should be greater than
0.11 [8,33]. F₁ is calculated by,
t:Iavg :Ap
ho Tps  Tas h¼  (8)
F1 ¼ ¼ (1) Asbc Tp  Tf
UL I
The F2 is used to evaluate the cooker’s optical efficiency and heat The cooker’s overall heat loss coefficient can be determined by
exchange efficiency [33] by, considering bottom and top heat losses and neglecting the side loss.

Fig. 3. Locations of thermocouples in the cooking vessels: (a) Schematic layout of the position of thermocouples in the cooking vessel, (b) Photographic view of four vessels in the
box solar cooker.

435
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446

Fig. 4. Experimental setup of the SBC.

2 atures of the absorber plate and water. Temperature sensors are

used to measure the temperature. Table 1 shows the accuracy of all
6
6 2:8
 þ 0:825ðxm Þ0:21 the measurements.
UL ¼ 6 
41 1 An uncertainty analysis is done to validate the experimental
εp 1
Nc 0:025 þεc results [36,37]. The cooker’s uncertainties of performances are
3 (9) calculated using Eqs. 12 and 13 [38,39].
 7
0:2 ki "
7
þ aVwin b  0:5 Nc 0:95  1 7 Tpm  Ta þ 2  2   #1=2
5 ti WTps WTas WðIÞ 2
WF1 ¼ F1 þ þ (12)
Tps  Tas Tps  Tas I

where, a and b are constants that are calculated by the following 2      312
equations. vF2 Wmw 2 vF2 WCw 2 vF2 WF1 2
6 þ þ 7
6 vmw F2 vCw F2 vF1 F2 7
a ¼ ½0:6  0:05ðNc  1Þ 6 7
(10) 6  2  2  2 7
6 7
6 þ vF2 Wt þ
vF2 WA
þ
vF2 WTw1 7
WF2 ¼ F2 6
6 vt F2 vA F2 vTw1 F2 7
7
b ¼ ½1:1  0:10ðNc  1Þ (11) 6 7
6 0 12 7
6  2  2 7
6 vF2 WTw2 vF2 W I vF WT a A 7
4þ þ þ@ 2 5
vTw2 F2 vI F2 vT a F2
2.3. Measurements and uncertainty (13)

A weather station (AT Delta-T Make, WS-GP2 Model), including The expanded form of the terms is as follows.
sensors for measuring solar radiation, wind speed, wind direction,
vF2 Wmw Wmw
relative humidity, and air temperature, is used at the test site. All ¼ (14)
the measurements are recorded using the inbuilt Delta Link data vMw F2 mW
logger. Agilent data logger (34970A) is used to record the temper-
vF2 WCw WCw
¼ (15)
Table 1 vCw F2 Cw
Uncertainty of measured parameters.

Parameter Range Least count vF2 WA W

¼  A (16)
Solar radiation intensity 0e4000 W/m2 ±20 W/m2 vA F2 A
Mass of water 0e2 L ±0.01 L
Wind speed 0e25 m/s ±0.01 m/s
Temperature 50-300
C ±0.05
C vF2 Wt Wt
0e3 m2 ±0.001 m2
¼  (17)
Area vt F2 t

436
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446

2 3
6      7
vF2 WF1 WF1 6
6
TW1  T a  F1 I  TW2  T a  TW2  T a  F1 I  TW1  T a 7
7
¼ 6    

 7þ1 (18)
vF1 F2 F1 6 F1 I TW1 Ta 7
4 F1 I  TW1  T a  F1 I  TW2  T a  ln   5
F1 I TW2 T a

2 3
6 7
vF2 WT a 66 WT ðTW1  TW2 Þ 7
¼ 6  
a


 7
7 (19)
vT a F2 6 F1 I TW1 Ta 7
4 F1 I  TW1  T a  F1 I  TW2  T a  ln   5
F1 I TW2 T a

2 2  2   31=2
2 3 WTps WTw2 WAsbc 2
6 þ þ 7
6 7 6 Tps  Tas Tw2  Tw1 Asbc 7
6 7 Wh ¼ h6
6      
7
7
vF2 WTw1 6
6 WTw1 7
7 4 WI 2
WA 2
Wt 2 5
¼6   7 (20) þ þ þ
vTw1 F2 6  7 I A t
6 F1 I TW1 T a 7
4 F1 I  TW1  T a  ln   5
(25)
F1 I TW2 T a
Uncertainty analysis of all thermal performance parameters is
2 3 evaluated by considering water’s specific heat capacity as 0.08%
[40]. Table 2 shows the uncertainty for various thermal perfor-
6 7
6 7 mance parameters. The difference in the four different configura-
vF2 WTw2 6
6 WTw2 7
7 tions’ thermal performance uncertainties is minimal, as mentioned
¼6   7 (21)
vTw2 F2 6  7 in Table 2. The first and second figures of merit have uncertainties
6 F1 I TW1 T a 7
4 F1 I  TW2  T a  ln   5 of ±2.56% and ±4.56%, respectively. Uncertainties of thermal effi-
F1 I TW2 T a ciency for configurations I, II, III, and IV are ±2.4, ±2.4, ±2.41, and
±2.43, respectively. Uncertainty analysis is done to find the de-

2 3
h   i
6W ðT 7
vF2 W I 6 I W1  Ta Þ  F1 I  ðTW2  Ta Þ  ðTW2  Ta Þ  F1 I  ðTW1  Ta Þ 7
¼6 " "
## 7 (22)
vI F2 64   F1 IðTW1 Ta Þ
7
5
I F1 I  ðTW1  Ta Þ  F1 I  ðTW2  Ta Þ  ln

F1 IðTW2 Ta Þ

viations of the obtained experimental results from the calculated

results.
The determined uncertainties of the performance parameters lie
in the acceptable range and are on par with those observed in the
literature [9,19]. The tests are conducted to heat 1.5 L of water from
2   2  2 31=2
Wmw 2 WTw2 WTi
6 þ þ 7
6 mw Tw2  Tw1 Tw2  Tw1 7
Whth ¼ hth 6
6      
7
7
Table 2
4 WI 2 WA 2 Wt 2 5 The uncertainties of different performance parameters of SBC configurations.
þ þ þ
I A t Parameters Percentage of uncertainty (%)

(23) Stagnation Sensible heating of water

I II III IV

The first figure of merit (F₁) ±2.56 e e e e

" 2  2  2 #1=2 The second figure of merit (F₂) e ±4.56 ±4.56 ±4.56 ±4.56
Wmw WTw2 WTw1 Thermal efficiency (hth) ±2.4 ±2.4 ±2.41 ±2.43
WP ¼ P
e
þ þ (24) Cooking power (P) ±2.3 ±2.31 ±2.31 ±2.33
mw Tw2  Tw1 Tw2  Tw1 e
Heat transfer coefficient (h) e ±2.4 ±2.41 ±2.41 ±2.43
Heat loss coefficient (UL) e ±3.4 ±3.43 ±3.33 ±3.11

437
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil
Fig. 5. Temperature with solar irradiance for stagnation condition.
ambient conditions to boiling point as per the solar thermal col-
lectors’ test standards. The thermal performance improvement of
the SBC with fins on the cooking vessel lids is reported in the
following section.
3. Results and discussion
Outdoor experiments are conducted on clear weather condi-
tions by considering the solar radiation intensity level, ambient
temperature, and wind velocity [32]. Stagnation and sensible heat
tests are conducted, and the thermal performances of different
cooking vessels are tested for a specific period.
3.1. Stagnation test
A stagnation test is conducted to find the cooker’s thermal
performance in terms of the F1, which can be found using the
cooker’s optical efficiency and heat loss coefficient. The experiment
was conducted on February 17, 2020, from 09.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.
The modified formula (Eq. (1)) is used by referring to the maximum
absorber plate temperature of 138
C when the ambient tempera-
ture is 40
C, and solar radiation is 828 W/m2 at 1.30 p.m. The F1 is
calculated as 0.1202
C m2/W, which comes under the grade-A solar
cooker, as per the BIS and ASAE standards. Maximum solar radia-
tion of 952 W/m2 is observed at 12.15 p.m. Fig. 5 shows that the
absorber and ambient temperature variations depend on solar ra-
diation and local time. It is noted that maximum ambient and
absorber plate temperatures of 40
C and 138
C are obtained when
the local time is 1.30 p.m.
3.2. Sensible heat test
3.2.1. Conventional aluminum cooking vessel configuration I
The experiment is conducted for five days to examine the per-
formance of different configurations of cooking vessels. The 15-min
interval readings are plotted in a graph to compare the cooking
vessel’s performance with the fins’ application. The conventional
aluminum cooking vessel without extended fins is filled with 1.5 kg
of water and placed on the box type solar cooker. Thermocouples
are placed inside the vessel, hot space, and absorber plate to
observe the variation of water, hot space, and plate temperatures.
438
Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446
The water’s average temperature is calculated based on three
temperature sensors, and the difference in temperature at different
points in each vessel ranges from 0.5
C to 2
C. A higher temper-
ature difference among thermocouples is mainly observed for the
un-finned cooking vessel, while the finned vessels showed a min-
imal temperature difference. The experiment was conducted on
February 18, 2020, and ambient temperature, air velocity, and solar
irradiance levels were observed from 09.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. All
four configurations are tested under the same environmental
conditions, with only variations in the solar irradiance level.
The temperature variations of water and ambient temperatures
are shown in Fig. 6. From the experimental observation, it is seen
that the maximum temperature of the water is 102
C at noon. The
maximum temperature ranges from 90
C to 102
C and is observed
from 11.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m., after which the water temperature
reduced with lower solar irradiance. Thermal performance is
calculated from 10.30 a.m. to 11.45 a.m. with an average ambient
temperature and irradiance of 40.05
C and 907 W/m2. The F₂ was
calculated using the initial and final temperatures of 58.3
C and
98
C for 15 min. The value of F₂ is 0.4654 for the studied experi-
mental conditions, which is lower for the grade-A cooker based on
BIS standards. The theoretically calculated amount of boiling time is
2 h and 45 min. The heat loss coefficient is calculated from 24.74 W/
m2
C to 44.2 W/m2
C based on ambient temperature and wind
velocity, and the overall heat loss coefficient is 6.04 W/m2
C.
Cooking power and standardized cooking power is 65.85 W and
55.66 W, respectively, with a thermal efficiency of 49.66%. The
selected aluminum cylindrical cooking vessels can produce a water
temperature of 102
C, which is enough to cook all types of food
grains. Typically, a water temperature range of 90
C to 95
C is
required for cooking all food grains.
The investigation is conducted with water as a load. The per-
formance is determined by considering the time required for the
water to reach boiling temperature. It is noted that water boiling
temperature is reached between 11.45 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. due to
the right weather conditions. The SBC is equipped with a reflective
mirror to increase the absorber’s intercept area. Hence, the con-
ventional aluminum vessel could reach the maximum temperature
of 102
C, and the maximum temperature range required to cook
the food ingredients is maintained for around 3 h for the traditional
configurations. The heat transfer coefficient is calculated for the
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446

Fig. 6. Temperature variations with solar irradiance for the conventional vessel.

increased solar radiation from the morning when the temperature
difference between the absorber plate and water is more, the lesser
the heat transfer coefficient. A maximum heat transfer coefficient is
determined at the minimum temperature difference. Here, the
cooker’s design and material are the two essential factors that
decide the cooking ability of the SBC Aluminum has desirable
thermal conductivity property and is hence preferred over copper
material for many low-temperature applications.
3.2.2. Aluminum cylindrical finned cooking vessel configuration II
Heat transfer between the cooking vessel and water is the pri-
mary consideration for higher water temperatures in selected
aluminum containers. The finned cooking vessel is chosen to
improve the convective heat transfer coefficient. The effect of fin
length on heat transfer is shown in this experimental study con-
ducted on February 19, 2020. Water and ambient temperature
variations are shown in Fig. 7. The maximum temperature of
102.8
C is attained at 12.30 p.m., and the temperature range of
90
C to 102.8
C is maintained from 11.30 a.m. to 3.45 p.m. The F₂ is
0.5105 for the average radiation of 904.47 W/m2 and an ambient
temperature of 38.83
C, when using an A-grade cooker as per BIS
standards. Initial and final temperatures are taken as 60.1
C and
101
C, respectively, from 10.30 a.m. to 11.45 a.m. The time taken for
water to attain boiling temperature is theoretically calculated as 2 h

Fig. 7. Temperature variations with solar irradiance for fin length of 25 mm.

439
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil
Fig. 8. Temperature variations with solar irradiance for fin length of 35 mm.
and 31 min. The heat transfer coefficient range is from 26.59 W/
m2
C to 47.85 W/m2
C, and the overall heat loss coefficient is
5.96 W/m2
C. The cooking power and standardized cooking power
are calculated as 66.99 W and 56.20 W, with the thermal efficiency
of 51.31%, which is higher than the conventional cooking vessel. It
indicates that the addition of fins to the cooking vessel impacts the
heat transfer coefficient and thermal efficiency. The experimental
results show that the addition of fins significantly improves the
cooker’s heat transfer. Heat absorbed by the fins is directly trans-
ferred to the water due to the provided fins’ geometry.
3.2.3. Aluminum cylindrical finned cooking vessel configuration III
Experiments using the finned vessel with a fin length of 35 mm
were conducted on February 20, 2020, with average solar radiation
and an ambient temperature of 903.63 W/m2 and 37.27
C,
respectively. Fig. 8 shows the variations of water and ambient
temperature with solar radiation. The maximum temperature of
104.2
C is observed at 12.45 p.m., and the F₂ value is calculated as
0.5398. This value is A-grade as per the standard for the initial and
final temperatures of 60
C and 101.8
C, respectively. Theoretical
boiling time to attain the water boiling temperature is computed as
2 h and 23 min from 10.30 a.m. to 11.45 a.m. A maximum tem-
perature range of 97
C to 100
C is maintained from 11.45 a.m. to
3.45 p.m. The heat transfer coefficient is calculated from 25.84 W/
m2
C to 54.63 W/m2
C. The chosen vessel’s thermal efficiency is
calculated as 52.49% for the cooking and standardized cooking
power of 70.45 W and 59.63 W, respectively. The length of the fins
provided affects the thermal performance of the cooker.
3.2.4. Aluminum cylindrical finned cooking vessel configuration IV
The fins’ length is taken as 45 mm, and the cooking vessels were
tested on February 21, 2020. Fig. 9 shows temperature variations of
water and ambient with respective solar irradiance. The maximum
temperature of 105.2
C is observed at 12.15 p.m., and the tem-
perature range of 89
C to 100
C is maintained from 11.15 a.m. to
3.45 p.m. for the maximum radiation of 971 W/m2. The initial and
final water temperatures are taken as 59.5
C and 103.5
C at an
average ambient temperature and solar radiation of 38.40
C and
891.01 W/m2, respectively. The calculated value of F₂ is 0.5802,
which is a fair value for the box cooker as per the BIS standards.
440
Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446
The heat transfer coefficient lies between 26.05 W/m2
C and
58.54 W/m2
C, and the overall heat loss coefficient is 5.84 W/m2
C,
which is lower compared to other configurations. Cooking power
and standardized cooking power are calculated as 73.69 W and
63.06 W, respectively, with a thermal efficiency of 56.03%, which is
higher than the cooker with conventional and other finned cooking
vessels. The time taken for water to reach boiling temperature is
theoretically calculated as 2 h and 17 min.
The results reveal that all four configurations could attain the
water boiling temperature in 3 h, and boiling time is reduced
significantly when modified cooking vessels are used. For the
maximum irradiance of 997 W/m2, the maximum temperature
ranges from 98
C to 102
C and is reached from 11.45 a.m. to 12.00
p.m. The temperature difference at three-point also very lesser in
finned vessel compared to an un-finned vessel.
The boiling time is reached before noon due to the right weather
conditions. Solar irradiance variation from 09.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.
for all five days is represented in Fig. 10. The conventional
aluminum vessel has a maximum heat transfer coefficient of
44.2 W/m2
C, which is enough to reach the water boiling temper-
ature. Though the boiling is attained, the time requirement is
higher, which is the major drawback of the solar energy cooking
systems. The cooking time is reduced with the incorporation of
cylindrical aluminum fins on the vessels. Aluminum fins are ar-
ranged to dip into the water in the vessel, thereby increasing heat
transfer to the vessel’s contents. The resulted water temperature for
all four configurations is compared in Fig. 11.
The heat transfer area between the water and vessel is a sig-
nificant factor in increasing the system’s heat transfer coefficient.
Finned aluminum vessels have higher heat transfer coefficients
than the first configuration due to the increased heat transfer and
direct heat transfer from fins to the water. The heat transfer coef-
ficient at a reasonable heating time from 09.15 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. is
higher than the afternoon cooking hours. The maximum and
minimum heat transfer coefficients are 58.54 W/m2
C and 5.84 W/
m2
C, respectively, for the fourth configuration. The differences in
heat transfer coefficient between fourth and first, second, and third
configurations are 14.34 W/m2
C, 10.69 W/m2
C, and 3.91 W/m2
C,
respectively.
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446

Fig. 9. Temperature variations with solar irradiance for fin length of 45 mm.

In contrast, the difference in heat transfer coefficient between
the third and second configurations is 6.78 W/m2
C, which in-
dicates that the addition of fins and increment in fin length from
25 mm to 45 mm have a significant effect on the heat transfer
characteristics. The second, third, and fourth configurations’ overall
heat loss coefficient is reduced by 0.08 W/m2
C, 0.11 W/m2
C, and
0.2 W/m2
C, respectively, compared to the first configuration.
Fig. 12 shows the comparison of thermal performance parameters
between the four different configurations.
Water temperature increases by absorbing heat from the heat-
ing space and absorber plate. Hence, a higher coefficient is
observed for the lower temperature difference. Lower heat transfer
coefficient occurs when the temperature difference is 33
C, 30
C,
28.9
C, and 30.5
C, respectively, for first, second, third, and fourth
configurations. A higher heat transfer coefficient is observed when
the temperature difference is 13
C, 16.1
C, 14.6
C, and 13.2
C,
respectively, for the first, second, third, and fourth configurations.
Heat transfer coefficient variations depend on the temperature
difference between the water and absorber plate (TpeTf), as shown
in Fig. 13. Solar radiation, intercepted area, and the cooker’s total
area also influence each vessel’s heat transfer coefficient, as
explained through Eq. (8). Hence, a lower temperature difference
shows that a better heat transfer rate results in the cooker’s higher
thermal performance.

Fig. 10. Solar radiation observed during the experiment for five days.

441
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446

Fig. 11. Comparison of water temperature for four different configurations over local time.

Fig. 12. Comparison of thermal performance parameters of the four different configurations.

The fourth configuration’s thermal efficiency is higher by 6.37%
than the first configuration compared to the other two vessels.
Cooking time is found reduced by 14 min when comparing the
second and first configurations. Time saved between third and
second vessels is 8 min, whereas 6 min is obtained between the
fourth and third configurations. The fourth configuration has about
29 min earlier cooking time than the first configuration due to
increased heat transfer surface. Boiling time is reduced by 28 min,
22 min, and 14 min by fourth, third, and second configurations,
respectively, compared to the conventional design. The addition of
fins has more advantages in heat transfer and heat loss coefficient,
thermal efficiency, and fewer cooking hours. Heat transfer surface
and its thermal conductivity are the major roles to increase the heat
transfer from vessel to the water. Adding fins improves the heat
transfer surface area, and fins are directly dipped in various posi-
tions. Hence, the temperature variation in different points in a
vessel is minimal. Almost uniform water temperature is maintained
in the vessel. It can be understood that increasing fin length has a
significant effect on water temperature from the results.
From water temperature observations as shown in Fig. 14, we
can understand that the temperature variations are followed the
same trend as we discussed earlier, even though all four vessels are
placed in the SBC at the same time. The experiments are conducted
at an average solar irradiance of 906.5 W/m2 and an ambient

442
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil
Fig. 13. Heat transfer coefficient variations of the four different configurations.
Fig. 14. Water temperature variations when all four configurations are placed at the same time.
temperature of about 37.865
C. The peak radiation and ambient
temperature during the experiment are 957.9 W/m2 and 41
C. The
maximum temperatures in configuration I, II, III, and IV are 89.7
C,
91.2
C, 92.4
C, and 94.6
C, respectively. Temperature range of
80
C to 89.7
C is maintained from 12.15 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. for
configuration I. Temperature range of 80
C to 91.2
C is maintained
from 12.00 p.m. to 2.45 p.m. for the configuration II, whereas 80
C
to 92.4
C is maintained from 11.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. for configu-
ration III. For configuration IV, 80
C to 94.6
C is maintained from
11.30 a.m. to 3.45 p.m., which shows that the earlier water heating
is achieved when aluminum fins are added to the vessels. SBC with
configurations II, III, and IV reached the temperature level of 80
C
earlier by approximately 15 min, 45 min, and 45 min, respectively,
when compared to configuration I. Hence the additional fins in-
crease the temperature as well as decrease the time to reach the
cooking temperature.
443
Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446
The maximum temperature and time required to reach the
required temperature level follow similar trends when the specific
and all four vessels are placed in the SBC. The temperature of the
water can still be increased if all four vessels are the finned vessel.
Even though the temperature is slightly less if four vessels are
placed, more selective foods can be cooked at the observed tem-
perature. Nevertheless, the time difference between the finned
vessels is 6e14 min, which shows that the heat loss coefficient is
low. This experimental investigation shows the advantages of
adding cylindrical aluminum fins to the cooking vessel in heat
transfer and heat loss coefficient, thermal efficiency, and cooking
power. It shows an increased fin length of 45 mm is considered a
better option to cook within a shorter time. The present SBC design
results are significantly on par with those available in the literature,
as per Table 3.
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446

Table 3
The comparison of the SBC’s experimental results with the literature.

Reference Method of improvement Thermal efficiency Heat transfer coefficient (W/ Cooking power (%) (W) Heat loss coefficient (W/
(%) m2
C) m2
C)

[1] SBC with PCM infused tubes 53.81 56.78 68.81 4.51
[8] Aluminum vessel and reflector 37.24 e e e
[13] SBC with trapezoidal duct and copper balls 45.11 34.51 60.20 6.01
[14] Hybrid SBC with photovoltaic panel 38 e e e
[9] SBC with tubes filled with paraffin wax 53.81 e 68.81 5.11
[29] Box cooker with bayburt stone 35.3 e e e
[19] SBC with finned absorber 30 25.4 e e
[41] Novel SBC for a single family e 30.1 30 e
[42] Box solar cooker with reflecting panels 27 e 65 e
Present Finned aluminum cooking vessel 56.03 58.54 73.69 5.84
study

Fig. 15. Error analysis for different thermal performance parameters.

Fig. 15 shows the error bar diagram of the thermal performance
parameters for better understanding. The significance of error
values is within the limit due to the calibrated instruments and
accurate measurements.
The cooking vessel’s finned configuration shows a significant
improvement in cooking performance than the conventional
design. Hence, this contribution could be useful to the SBC users
with considerably less cooking time. For handling the hot cooking
vessels, handles could be provided at opposite sides of each vessel’s
outer surface. Since the vessel and fins are made of aluminum, it
can be suitable for cooking. People still prefer aluminum vessels for
cooking due to their lightweight and higher thermal conductivity. It
is believed that the cooking vessel’s proposed design could be
beneficial to society due to its faster rate of cooking. Furthermore,
improved designs of SBC could expand social acceptance of solar
cooking and a healthier environment by reducing conventional fuel
consumption.
4. Conclusions
The effect of adding fins to the cooking vessel for the box type
solar cooker is investigated experimentally in the weather condi-
tions of Chennai, South India. Standard testing conditions (BIS and
ASAE) such as stagnation and sensible heating tests are followed in
this experimental study. Aluminum cooking vessels with three
different fin lengths are fabricated for real-time testing. The sig-
nificant findings are provided below.
 The stagnation conditions test shows that the F₁ is 0.1202, with a
maximum absorber plate temperature of 138
C.
 A maximum water temperature of 102
C is observed for all four
vessels. A maximum temperature range of 90
Ce100
C is
observed to be maintained from 11.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m.
 The maximum thermal efficiency of 56.03% is achieved with a
finned cooking vessel, with a fin length of 45 mm. It is noted to
be 6.37%, 4.72%, and 3.54% higher when compared to the first,
second, and third configurations.
 The maximum heat transfer coefficient of 58.54 W/m2
C and
cooking power of 73.69 W are obtained for a fin length of
45 mm.
 The heat transfer coefficient is maximum when the difference
between the absorber plate’s temperatures and water is
minimum.
 A higher contact area between the water and fins leads to more
heat transfer and the solar cooker’s better thermal performance.
 For the 45 mm finned configuration, the boiling water temper-
ature is attained 28, 14, and 6 min earlier than the un-finned,
25 mm, and 35 mm finned configurations.

444
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil
The sensible heating test shows that the finned cooking vessel
has better thermal performance than the conventional un-finned
vessel. However, the reverse effect will affect the cooker’s ther-
mal performance when solar irradiance and ambient temperature
are lower. The incorporation of TES materials into the absorber
could help reduce heat loss during insufficient radiation. The re-
ported results help the practical design of solar cookers to improve
domestic cooking applications’ efficiency. SBCs with improved
thermal performance have immense potential to be deployed on a
large scale in the domestic sector across the globe.
Funding information
This research work received no specific grant from any funding
agency.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Elumalai Vengadesan: Conceptualization, Formal analysis,
Methodology, Investigation, Writing e original draft, Draft-writing.
Ramalingam Senthil: Supervision, Data curation, Data visualiza-
tion, Data, Validation, Writing e review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the SRM Institute of Science and
Technology, Kattankulathur Campus, Chennai, for supplying the
required research facility.
References
[1] M. Aramesh, M. Ghalebani, A. Kasaeian, H. Zamani, G. Lorenzini, O. Mahian,
S. Wongwises, A review of recent advances in solar cooking technology,
Renew. Energy 140 (2019) 419e435, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2019.03.021.
[2] U.C. Arunachala, A. Kundapur, Cost-effective solar cookers: a global review,
Sol. Energy 207 (2020) 903e916, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2020.07.026.
[3] J.M.F. Mendoza, A. Gallego-Schmid, X.C.S. Rivera, J. Rieradevall, A. Azapagic,
Sustainability assessment of home-made solar cookers for use in developed
countries, Sci. Total Environ. 648 (2019) 184e196, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2018.08.125.
[4] Z. Guidaraa, M. Souissia, A. Morgensternc, A. Maaleja, Thermal performance of
a solar box cooker with outer reflectors: numerical study and experimental
investigation, Sol. Energy 158 (2017) 347e359, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2017.09.054.
[5] G. Coccia, G.D. Nicola, M. Pierantozzi, S. Tomassetti, A. Aquilanti, Design,
manufacturing, and test of a high concentration ratio solar box cooker with
multiple reflectors, Sol. Energy 155 (2017) 781e792, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2017.07.020.
[6] S.Z. Farooqui, Angular optimization of dual booster mirror solar cookers e
tracking free experiments with three different aspect ratios, Sol. Energy 114
(2015) 337e348, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.01.030.
[7] M. Singh, V.P. Sethi, On the design, modelling and analysis of multi-shelf in-
clined solar cooker cum-dryer, Sol. Energy 162 (2018) 620e636, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.045.
[8] A. Weldu, L. Zhao, S. Deng, N. Muluget, Y. Zhang, X. Nie, W. Xu, Performance
evaluation on solar box cooker with reflector tracking at optimal angle under
Bahir Dar climate, Sol. Energy 180 (2019) 664e677, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2019.01.071.
[9] A. Saxena, E. Cuce, G.N. Tiwari, A. Kumar, Design and thermal performance
investigation of a box cooker with flexible solar collector tubes: an experi-
mental research, Energy 206 (2020) 118144, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.energy.2020.118144.
[10] G. Coccia, A. Aquilanti, S. Tomassetti, G. Comodi, G.D. Nicola, Design, realiza-
tion, and tests of a portable solar box cooker coupled with an erythritol-based
PSBC thermal energy storage, Sol. Energy 201 (2020) 530e540, https://
445
Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.03.031.
[11] P.M. Cuce, Box type solar cookers with sensible thermal energy storage me-
dium: a comparative experimental investigation and thermodynamic anal-
ysis, Sol. Energy 166 (2018) 432e444, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2018.03.077.
[12] A.A.M. Omara, A.A.A. Abuelnuor, H.A. Mohammed, D. Habibi, O. Younis,
Improving solar cooker performance using phase change materials: a
comprehensive review, Sol. Energy 207 (2020) 539e563, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2020.07.015.
[13] A. Saxena, N. Agarwal, Performance characteristics of a new hybrid solar
cooker with air duct, Sol. Energy 159 (2018) 628e637, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2017.11.043.
[14] S.B. Joshi, A.R. Jani, Design, development and testing of a small scale hybrid
solar cooker, Sol. Energy 122 (2015) 148e155, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2015.08.025.
[15] A. Harmim, M. Boukar, M. Amar, Experimental study of a double exposure
solar cooker with finned cooking vessel, Sol. Energy 82 (2008) 287e289,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2007.10.008.
[16] K.V.N. Srinivasa Rao, J.B. Mohana Rao, P.K. Kumar, Thermal performance of a
central annular cavity vessel with fins of a box-type solar cooker, Int. J. Sus-
tain. Eng. 5 (2) (2012) 91e96, https://doi.org/10.1080/
19397038.2011.582968.
[17] J. Nayak, S.S. Sahoo, R.K. Swain, A. Mishra, S. Thomas, Thermal performance
analysis of a box type solar cooker with finned pot: an experimental approach,
Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering 435 (2018) 575e582, https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-10-4286-7_57.
[18] A. Harmim, M. Belhamel, M. Boukar, M. Amar, Experimental investigation of a
box type solar cooker with a finned absorber plate, Energy 35 (2010)
3799e3802, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.05.032.
[19] E. Cuce, P.M. Cuce, Theoretical investigation of hot box solar cookers having
conventional and finned absorber plates, Int. J. Low Carbon Technol. 10 (3)
(2013) 238e245, https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctt052.
[20] H. Kurt, E. Deniz, Z. Recebli, An investigation into the effects of box geometries
on the thermal performance of solar cookers, Int. J. Green Energy 5 (6) (2008)
508e519, https://doi.org/10.1080/15435070802498473.
[21] N. Rao, S. Subramanyam, Solar cookersdpart-IIdcooking vessel with central
annular cavity, Sol. Energy 78 (2005) 19e22, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2004.07.007.
[22] A.R. Reddy, A.V.N. Rao, Prediction and experimental verification of perfor-
mance of box type solar cooker e Part I. Cooking vessel with central cylin-
drical cavity, Energy Convers. Manag. 48 (2007) 2034e2043, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2007.06.020.
[23] A.R. Reddy, A.V.N. Rao, Prediction and experimental verification of perfor-
mance of box type solar cooker. Part II: cooking vessel with depressed lid,
Energy Convers. Manag. 49 (2008) 240e246, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2007.06.020.
[24] A.A. Sagade, S.K. Samdarshi, P.J. Lahkar, N.A. Sagade, Experimental determi-
nation of the thermal performance of a solar box cooker with a modified
cooking pot, Renew. Energy 150 (2020) 1001e1009, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2019.11.114.
[25] S. Geddam, G.K. Dinesh, T. Sivasankar, Determination of thermal performance
of a box type solar cooker, Sol. Energy 113 (2015) 324e331, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2015.01.014.
[26] P.K. Kajumba, D. Okello, K. Nyeinga, O.J. Nydal, Experimental investigation of a
cooking unit integrated with thermal energy storage system, J. Energy Storage
32 (2020) 101949, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101949.
[27] S. Mahavar, N. Sengar, P. Dashora, Analytical model for electric back-up power
estimation of solar box type cookers, Energy 134 (2017) 871e881, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.06.060.
[28] R. Misra, T.K. Aseri, Thermal performance enhancement of box type solar
cooker: a new approach, Int. J. Sustain. Energy 31 (2012) 107e118, https://
doi.org/10.1080/1478646X.2011.552978.
[29] S. Mahavar, P. Rajawat, R.C. Punia, N. Sengar, P. Dashora, Evaluating the op-
timum load range for box type solar cookers, Renew. Energy 74 (2015)
187e194, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.08.003.
[30] E. Vengadesan, R. Senthil, A review on recent development of thermal per-
formance enhancement methods of flat plate solar water heater, Sol. Energy
206 (2020) 935e961, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.06.059.
[31] E. Vengadesan, R. Senthil, A review on recent developments in thermal per-
formance enhancement methods of flat plate solar air collector, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 134 (2020) 110315, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2020.110315.
[32] P.A. Funk, Evaluating the international standard procedure for testing solar
cookers and reporting performance, Sol. Energy 68 (1) (2000) 1e7, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(99)00059-6.
[33] S.C. Mullick, T.C. Kandpal, A.K. Saxena, Thermal test procedure for box type
solar cookers, Sol. Energy 39 (4) (1987) 353e360, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0038-092X(87)80021-X.
[34] V.P. Sethi, D.S. Pal, K. Sumathy, Performance evaluation and solar radiation
capture of optimally inclined box type solar cooker with parallelepiped
cooking vessel design, Energy Convers. Manag. 81 (2014) 231e241, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.02.041.
[35] H.P. Garg, J. Prakash, Solar Energy - Fundamentals and Applications, Tata
McGraw Hill, 2009.
[36] S. Kline, F. McClintock, Describing uncertainties in single-sample experiments,
E. Vengadesan and R. Senthil
Mech. Eng. 75 (1) (1953) 3e8, https://doi.org/10.1016/0894-1777(88)90043-
X.
[37] R.J. Moffat, Describing the uncertainties in experimental results, Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 1 (1) (1988) 3e17, https://doi.org/10.1016/0894-1777(88)90043-X.
[38] I. Purohit, P. Purohit, Instrumentation error analysis of a box type solar cooker,
Energy Convers. Manag. 50 (2009) 365e375, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enconman.2008.09.030.
[39] B.C. Anilkumar, R. Maniyeri, S. Anish, Design, fabrication and performance
assessment of a solar cooker with optimum composition of heat storage
materials, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-
446
Renewable Energy 171 (2021) 431e446
020-11024-3.
[40] D. Proctor, A generalized method for testing all classes of solar collector-I
attainable accuracy, Sol. Energy 32 (3) (1984) 377e386, https://doi.org/
10.1016/0038-092X(84)90282-2.
[41] S. Mahavar, N. Sengar, P. Rajawat, M. Verma, P. Dashora, Design development
and performance studies of a novel single family solar cooker, Renew. Energy
47 (2012) 67e76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.04.013.
[42] S.M. Ebersviller, J.J. Jetter, Evaluation of performance of household solar
cookers, Sol. Energy 208 (2020) 166e172, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2020.07.056.