Pergamon

PII: SO360-5442(96)00040-O

Energy Vol. 21, No. IO, pp. 939-946, 1996 Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0360.5442/96 $15.00 + 0.00

PARAMETRIC

STUDY OF A SOLAR POND FOR NORTHERN JORDAN

K. AL-JAMAL+ and S. KHASHAN
of Science and Technology,
1995)

Mechanical

Engineering

Department,

Jordan University
(Received 31 August

Irbid, Jordan

Abstract-A mathematical model is developed to determine the various parameters affecting the performance of a salt-gradient solar pond (SGSP). We use the finite difference method for solution. Monthly average meteorological data for the Irbid region are used. Our results indicate that the thickness of the non-convection zone (NCZ) has a significant effect on the storage-zone temperature. The optimum value of this thickness is found to be one meter. Storage-temperature fluctuations due to weather changes may be minimized by increasing the thickness of the storage zone. This result may also be achieved by assuming that the rate of heat extraction is proportional to the intensity of the incoming solar radiation. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

A salt-gradient solar pond (SGSP) is an excellent design for solar energy collection, as well as for long term energy storage. The SGSP is an attractive facility for seasonal storage and may provide users with energy for an entire year. Theoretical and experimental studies on SGSP were performed during the last two decades with encouraging results. -9 The aim of our investigation is to determine design parameters of an SGSP for long-term storage. A numerical method was used because an analytical approach requires many simplifications. - One of the simplifications made is to assume that the temperature of the upper convective zone (UCZ) equals the ambient temperature. This assumption eliminates convective heat exchange and evaporation losses. A finite difference method was applied by Atkinson and Harleman to investigate the effect of wind speed, which is site-specific and cannot be totally eliminated because of wave generation in the UCZ even at low wind speeds. The effects of storage-zone thickness and of extracted heat energy on the storage temperature are discussed. The optimum storage-zone thickness for maintaining the required stability in each zone has been determined and associated surface losses were estimated numerically. Many investigators have neglected these losses. ,

SGSP CALCULATION

PARAMETERS

Design parameters An SGSP consists of three zones (see Fig. 1): the upper convective zone (UCZ) with low salt concentration, the non-convection zone (NCZ) with linearly increasing salt concentration downwards, and the lower convective zone (LCZ) (storage zone) with nearly saturated saline water. The SGSP is assumed to have a large surface area with negligible side-wall heat losses. Stability criteria The SGSP is stable against convective heat transfer if the density gradient of the salt concentration in the NCZ is greater than the negative density gradient produced by the temperature gradient, i.e. (dp/dS) (as/az)
I=- - (t3pldT) (fmdZ),

(la)

tAuthor

for correspondence. 939

940

K. AI-Jamal and S. Khashan

ucz

-G ....t
c

dZ NCZ ____________________-----------------

zz , .. ...

LCZ

z3 .... c ....

Fig. 1. Schematic of the SGSP; Z, = UCZ thickness, Z, = NCZ thickness, Z3 = LCZ thickness.

(apI

> (a,lp)

(anaz),

(lb)

where p and S are the density and salt concentration of the salt water, respectively, Z is the vertical axis (positive downward), and (Y,and p are the thermal and salt expansion coefficients, respectively, which are defined by (Y,= - (l/p) (ap/aT) and p = (l/p) (+/6 S). If AT is the temperature difference between two points at different depths, the minimum required concentration difference ( AS),i" for static stability between these two points is (AS), , = LU, AT/p. (2)

In spite of being statically stable, the pond is susceptible to an oscillation disturbance that propagates vertically, grows with time and leads to hydrodynamic instability. The dynamic stability criterion is
GS/tiZ > - [(Pr + l)/(Pr + ~,)](a,/~)(~T/8Z),

(3)

where Pr = v/KT is the Prandtl number, TV = KS/K, is the inverse Lewis number, [(Pr + l)/(Pr + T,)] is called the dynamic instability factor, v = kinematic viscosity, K,y= coefficient of salt diffusivity, and K7. = coefficient of thermal diffusivity. Equation (3) may be rewritten as (AS), = [(Pr + l)/(Pr + rV>](~,/P> AT. The density p is a function of the salt concentration and temperature of the saline water.
Weather parameters

(4)

Weather data are given in Table 1 and are based on meteorological findings from the Yarmouk University site. Hourly solar radiation (H) used in SGSP performance calculation is based on the model given by Hawalder and Brinkworth * as H = /3'Hs( 1 - F) exp[ p(Z - G)/cos @.I, (5)

where H is the part of solar radiation that penetrates a thin layer 6, H, = Z/24 (where I is defined in Table 1), F measures the radiation absorbed within 6, p is the coefficient of transmission (= 1.O reflective losses), 0,. the refractive angle, and p the extinction coefficient which is used to describe the absorbance of radiation for the range of optical depth * 6 = 0.06 m and F = 0.4.
Properties of salt water

The thermal conductivity (k) in W/m-K and the specific heat capacity (C) in kJ/kg-K of the NaCl solution are functions of the water temperature and salt concentration and are given by I3
k=

0.5553 - 0.0008 133 S + 0.0008( T - 20),

(6)

Parametric Table

study of a solar pond for northern Jordan

941

1. Meteorological
ation,

data for Irbid; Tamb = average daily ambient temperature, I = total daily solar radiaverage daily wind speed, e = total daily evaporation rate.

V=

Month Jan 9.0 9.9 12.2 16.2 20.4 23.7 My 25.0 25.4 23.9 20.1 15.4 10.6

I (kWhr/m*) 3.22 3.89 4.94 5.86 6.98 7.61 7.63 7.13 6.17 4.94 3.17 3.07

V (m/s) 3.81 3.81 3.91 3.86 3.70 4.63 5.14 4.63 3.65 2.83 3.03 3.45

(mm/day) 3.1 3.6 4.4 6.1 8.3 9.6 8.8 8.4 7.7 7.0 5.6 3.5

Feb Mar Apr May

A% Sept Ott Nov

DCC

C = 4180 - 4.396 S p + 0.0048 s2p2, where S is the salt concentration in each 6 of SGSP-water. ENERGY BALANCEFOR THE POND Since the temperatures within both the UCZ and LCZ are uniform, the governing equation is

(7)

aTiat=(klpC)(a2i"/aZ2) - (akqazyac,

(8)

where T is the temperature at depth Z (see Fig. l), t the time, and Hz the net radiative solar energy at depth Z and is given by H, = (Hi): + (Hr)z, where Hiis the transmitted solar radiation from the SGSPsurface and H, the reflected radiation from the bottom of the pond. Both the incident radiation at the surface and the reflected radiation from the bottom are transmitted through the water in the pond and suffer exponential decays as follows:

(Hi)? = Hs (1 -F)

exp[-p(Z

- S)/cos@],

(9)

(H,), = Hs (1 - F) ( 1 - a) exp [-p(D - G)/cos&]

exp[where ~.L(D- Z)/cos&], (10)

F,p, f?,, and S are defined in the nomenclature.

6'HJdZ is then calculated from

aH?/az = [Hs( 1 - F)pk0se,) (exp[- p(Z - syc0se,l +

( 1 - a) exp[-p( Substituting Eqn. (11) in Eqn. (8) yields 20 -

s)k0se,l exp(pzkose,)).

(11)

anat= (kipc) (aWaz2)+ {Hs(1 -F)pi(pcc0se,))

x x
Solution of the preceding

{ exp[-p(Z exp

syc0se,] + (1 -

a) exp[-

~(20 -

tqk0se,l (12)

(Gic0se,)].
requires an initial condition and two boundary conditions.

equation

The

942

K. Al-Jamal and S. Khashan

initial condition is that the initial temperature equals the ambient temperature at the time of initiating pond operation. The first boundary condition is specified at Z = 0 (pond surface) and the second at Z = Z, + Z, + Z3 (pond bottom). For both boundary conditions, an energy balance was applied at each pond depth. The first boundary condition is
qcondrZ, -

%ss+ Hs- Hz, = PC& (aTslat),

(13)

is the rate of conductive heat transfer at Z = Z, from NCZ, gloss= qr + qc + qe is heat whereqcond.2, transfer from the pond surface by infrared radiation to the sky (qr), convection (qc) and evaporation (q.), H, is the net solar radiation energy received at Z = 0, Hz, the net solar radiation penetrating the UCZ, and T, is the temperature at Z = 0. The second boundary condition is

Hz2- qcond,Z2 - qg- qu = PC

z, w,m

(14)

where Hz2 is the net solar radiation penetrating the NCZ, q_d,Z2 the rate of conduction of energy to NCZ from LCZ, qg the rate of energy loss to the ground from LCZ, qu the extracted load from LCZ, and Ts,, the uniform temperature in the LCZ. A numerical formulation is used to solve the governing equations using a backward, implicit, finite-difference method. Stability is verified for each calculation step.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The LCZ-temperature

T, has been calculated for various conditions.

Constant pond-layer thickness The reference pond is assumed to have Z, = 0.1 m, Z, = 1.0 m, and Zs = 1.5 m. The absorption coefficient at the pond bottom is 0.85. Total monthly heat extraction of 14.4 kWhr/m2 was begun in June. The calculation was performed for the data in Table 1. Beginning in March, TsPand T, as well as Tambare shown in Fig. 2 as functions of the month of the year for two years. Warm-up lasts from March to May of the first year. Ts, shows a continuous rise between March and September. During

20

2 3

10 11

0'

Ml M
A

S
0

N
ID

JI F

1 MI A

I M( J

I
NI

JI A

Sl 0

Month

of the Year

JIF

Fig. 2. Storage zone (curve l), pond surface (curve 3), and daily average ambient (curve 2) temperatures as functions of the month of the year.

Parametric study of a solar pond for northern Jordan

943

the fall and winter seasons, heat losses from the pond exceeded the absorbed energy and T,, was reduced. The highest Ts, of 92C occurred in September and the minimum temperature of 51C in January. The yearly average rr,, was 71C, which exceeded the yearly average of Tamb by 54C. It is evident that both TY and energy supply vary substantially with the seasons. T, = 8C in February and 19C in August, as shown in Fig. 2. Annual variations of energy components in the storage zone are shown in Fig. 3. Maximum solar energy (HH) utilization occurred in June and July and led to substantial stored energy. The HH can not cover the energy demand from December to February. This demand is met, in part, by stored heat. The total monthly average qn is - 10 kWhr/m2; the maximum qK is - 14 kWhr/m2 during September. Conduction heat loss is transferred from the storage zone to the NCZ from mid-August to March of the following year with a maximum of about 5 kWhr/m2 during December. There is heat gain from the NCZ in the storage zone during the remainder of the year. The heat loss or gain by conduction qLC from the storage zone upwards or downwards to the NCZ depends on the temperature gradient at the interface between the zones. This boundary-temperature gradient is approximately zero in March, negative in June, and positive in September (see Fig. 4), which serves to explain the variations of the qLc at the interface between the storage zone and the NCZ. Figure 4 shows the pond-temperature distribution for March, June, and September of the second year. The upper convective and storage zones are isothermal and the temperature profiles within the NCZ are non-linear. These features have the positive effect of reducing the temperature gradient at the interface between the storage zone and the NCZ.
Effect of pond-layer thickness on TsP

T, is plotted in Fig. 5 as a function of the month of the year for Z, = 0.01, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 m. The maximum TFp is obtained at Z, = 0.01 m when Z, = 1.0 m and Z, = 1.5 m. The difference between the T,,, maxima for Z, between 0.01 and 0.3 m is about 34C. The annual average 7 ,,, decreases with increasing Z,, as shown in Fig. 6, where the annual average T, is plotted as a function of NCZ thickness. For all Z,, the maxima of the annual average T, occur at Z, = lm, in agreement with Ref. 8. Proper selection of Z, is important for the design of an SGSP. The storage-zone thickness depends on application of the SGSP. The highest T, is achieved at Z3 = 0.5 m (see Fig. 7). For long-term energy storage, Z, must be greater than 0.5 m when the maximum T,,,at Z, = 2.5 m is 87C i.e. about 27C less than that for Z, = 0.5 m.

=3
40

30

20

10

-10

Month

of the Year

Fig. 3. The total monthly energy gain or loss from the storage zone as a function of the month of the year. Curve I = solar energy gain, curve 2 = monthly stored energy within the LCZ, curve 3 = energy loss to the ground, curve 4 = conduction heat from or to the LCZ.

K. Al-Jamal and S. Khashan

90 2
80 -

3
70 -

3020 10 0 0 I I 0.2 I I 0.4

I,,

0.6

I, 0.8
Depth

1
Z (m)

I 1.2

I 1.4

I 1.6

I 1.8

I 2

Fig. 4. The temperature

distribution within the solar pond as a function of pond depth during March (curve I), June (curve 2). and September (curve 3) of the second year.

140 130 120 110

100 90
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 I MI I MI I J

JI A

Sl

NI

Jj

MI

M J

J A

S 0

N ID

J IF

0 D Month of

F A the Year

Fig. 5. Storage-zone temperature as a function of the month of the year for a pond with Z, = I .O m, Z, = 1.5 m, and different Z, [Z, = 0.01 m (curve I), Z, = 0.1 m (curve 2). Z, = 0.2 m (curve 3), and Z, = 0.3 m (curve 4)].

2, is the major parameter affecting dynamic stability of the NCZ because of temperature and salinity gradients. We need to verify stability in order to determine Z, and 5. The pond is ultimately stable for all NCZ thicknesses of 1 m or less, irrespective of changes in the other zone thicknesses. If Z, increases to 1.4 m, Z3 must be 5 1 m. Any further increase in Z, may make the pond unstable.

Parametric study of a solar pond for northern Jordan

100

945

1
90 -

80 -

t a i fi f

70 -

80-

50 -

40-

30

1 0.5

I 0.7

I1 0.9

t 1.1 NC2

I 1.3

I 1.5

I@ 1.7 (m)

II 1.9

11 2.1

11 2.3

11 2.5

Thlckncsr

Fig. 6. The average annual storage temperature as a function of the NCZ thickness Z, for ZS = 1.5 m and different Z, [Z, = 0.0 m (curve l), Z, = 0.1 m (curve 2). Z, = 0.2 m (curve 3), and Z, = 0.3 m (curve 4)].

110. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 I 1 JULY SE MAY I I 1 MAR. 1 JULY MAY JAN. Month of the Yccr I NOV. I NOV. J!N. .

I MAR.

Fig. 7. The storage temperature as a function of the month of the year for Z, = 0.2 m, Z, = I .O m and different Z, [Z, = 0.5 m (curve I ), Z, = I.0 m (curve 2). Z, = 1.5 m (curve 3). Z, = 2.0 m (curve 4). and 2, = 2.5 m (curve S)].

Effect of extracted heat on TY,, T,,, depends on the extracted load, as shown in Table 2. The highest TV,,is achieved at low heat extraction with minimal fluctuations in TV,,when the extracted load is 10% of the annual average solar radiation, the maximum TV,,is greater than when the extracted heat load equals 10% of the monthly

946

K. Al-Jamal and S. Khashan

Table 2. The influence of heat-extraction rate qw on ry,,,.
Qw

(W/m*) 0.0 20.0 0. K,n..vg 0. lHmon.svg.

max 114.40 97.45 88.60 83.0

Storage-zone temperature C min mean 72.80 55.96 47.22 52.70 100.20 81.61 71.90 72.40

fluctuation 41.60 41.49 41.38 30.30

average solar radiation. The extracted heat in the second case is not constant and depends on the available solar energy reaching the solar pond. At constant extracted heat, the Tsp fluctuation is around 41SC, whereas it drops to 30.3C when the load is varied. For both cases, the mean Tsp remains around 72C. Heat extraction at constant rate results in an excess of energy collected during the hot season and a marked fluctuation in Tsp. In order to avoid this fluctuation, the extracted load should be proportional to the monthly average of solar radiation to achieve good pond performance. A higher thermal efficiency may then be achieved at variable load than for constant extracted heat, since the thermal efficiency is defined as the extracted heat divided by the incident solar radiation reaching the SGSP.
REFERENCES 1. S. Abughres, M. Mashena, and K. Agha, Modeling the Performance of Solar Ponds, Center for Solar Energy Studies, Tripolis, Libya (1989). 2. N. Chepumity and S. Savage, Sol. Energy 17, 203 (1975). 3. J. Hull, Sun-World 2, 1000 (1980). 4. A. Akbarzadeh and G. Ahamadi, Sol. Energy 24, 143 (1980). 5. 2. Panahi, J. C. Batty, and J. P. Riley, Transactions of the ASME, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 105, 363 (1983). 6. T. A. Newell, Transactions of the ASME, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 105, 363 (1983). 7. P. Vadasz, D. Weiner, and Y. Zvirin, Transactions of the ASME, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 105, 348 (1983). 8. A. Akbarzadeh, R. Macdonald, and Y. Wang, Sol. Energy 31, 337 (1983). 9. J. Atkinson and D. Harleman, Sol. Energy 31, 243 (1983). 10. K. Meyer, J. Sol. Energy Eng. 105, 341 ( 1983). 11. S. A. Khashan, Computer Simulation of a Solar Pond, MS Thesis, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Mech. Eng. Dept. Irbid, Jordan (1993). 12. M. Hawalder and B. Brinkworth, Sol. Energy 27, 195 (1981). 13. R. Perry and C. Chillon, Chemical Engineering Handbook, 5th edn., McGraw-Hill, New York (1973).
NOMENCLATURE

C = Specific heat of brine

D = Depth of the solar pond = Z, + Z,

q,Y = Total heat stored in the storage zone qz = Heat conducted at depth Z

+ Z, e = Rate of water evaporation from the pond surface F = Constant = 0.4 I = Total daily solar radiation Hi = Transmitted solar radiation through the pond H, = Reflected radiation from the bottom H,$= Incident insolation at the pond surface H_ = Radiative energy reaching depth Z k = Thermal conductivity of brine K, = Coefficient of salt diffusivity K7 = Coefficient of thermal diffusivity Pr = Prandtl number qk = Heat loss from LCZ to NCZ by conduction qL, = Heat extracted from the storage zone

S = Salt concentration (salinity) T = Temperature Tamb = Ambient temperature T, = Surface temperature Tvp= Storage-zone temperature V= Wind speed Z= Coordinate (positive downward) Z, = Thickness of UCZ Z, = Thickness of NCZ Z3 = Thickness of LCZ (Y = Bottom reflectivity cu,= Thermal expansion coefficient /3 = Salt-expansion coefficient 13, = Angle of refraction 0, = Incident angle (solar zenith angle) 8 = Constant = 0.06 m p = Brine density v = Kinematic viscosity of brine p = Extinction coefficient