Major Project-II

STUDY OF TUBERCLE WING

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for award of degree of
Bachelors of Technology
In
Mechanical Engineering
Submitted By
RAJENDER

(2K12/ME/135)

RAVI

(2K12/ME/138)

SANDEEP KUMAR (2K12/ME/153)

SHAFIQ AHMED

(2K12/ME/159)

Under the guidance of

DR. R.S MISHRA
Professor & H.O.D
Mechanical Engineering Department

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL, PRODUCTION & INDUSTRIAL AND AUTOMOBILE

ENGINEERING
DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Shahbad Daulatpur, Main Bawana Road, New Delhi, Delhi 110042, India

DECLARATION

I hereby declare the work which is being presented in this dissertation, entitled

SOLAR

DISTILATION towards the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of degree of
Bachelors of Technology, from Delhi Technological University is an authentic record of our own
work carried under the supervision of DR. RADHEY SHYAM MISHRA Professor & H.O.D,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi.
The matter embodied in this dissertation has not been submitted by me for award of any other
degree.
RAJENDER MEENA (2K12/ME/135)
RAVI (2K12/ME/138)
SANDEEP KUMAR (2K12/ME/153)
SHAFIQ AHMED (2K12/ME/159)
B.Tech Mechanical
2012-2016
2

CERTIFICATE

It is certified that RAJENDER MEENA( 2K12/ME/135), RAVI (2K12/ME/138), SANDEEP

KUMAR (2K12/ME/153), SHAFIQ AHMED (2K12/ME/159) , students of B.Tech Mechanical
Engineering, Delhi Technological University, have submitted the dissertation entitled SOLAR
DISTILATION towards the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of degree of
Bachelors of Technology.
They have developed a mathematical model of SOLAR DISTILLATION AND PREPARE
SIMULATION model. Their work is found to be satisfactory and discipline impeccable during the
course of project. Their enthusiasm and attitude towards the project is highly appreciated.

I wish them success in all their endeavors.

-------------------DR. RADHEY SHYAM MISHRA

Professor & H.O.D
3

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Delhi Technological University
Delhi-110042

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Generally, individuals set aims, but more often than not, their conquest are by efforts of not just one
but many determined people. This complete project could be accomplished because of the
contribution of a number of people. We take it as a privilege to appreciate and acknowledge the
efforts of all those who have, directly or indirectly helped us in achieving our aim.
We take a great pride in expressing our unfeigned appreciation and gratitude to our guide DR.
RADHEY SHYAM MISHRA, Professor & H.O.D , Department of Mechanical Engineering, for his
invaluable inspiration, guidance and continuous encouragement through this project work.
RAJENDER MEENA (2K12/ME/135)
RAVI (2K12/ME/138)
4

SANDEEP KUMAR (2K12/ME/153)

SHAFIQ AHMED (2K12/ME/159)

ABSTRACT

In this report, A new and sustainable modification has been introduced into the conventional solar
still considerably increasing its productivity. This enhancement in the solar still productivity is
achieved without forsaking the basic features of the still such as low cost, ease of handling,
sustainability, water quality, material availability, low maintenance and space conservation. The
introduced modification is in the form of a slowly rotating hollow drum within the still cavity that
5

allows the formation of thin water films, which evaporate rapidly. Several environmental and
operational parameters attribute to the optimization of the new still design. Environmental factors
refer primarily to weather conditions such as solar intensity, relative humidity, ambient temperature
and wind speed and direction. Operational variables include drum speed, brine depth in the basin,
cover cooling and other related parameters such as the materials used and the still configuration. The
influence of these parameters is discussed and their impact on productivity is investigated in detailed
order to identify existing correlations and optimize design and operation of the new system. An error
analysis was conducted for all experimental data obtained from this study

Contents
LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................................................7
LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND SYMBOLS...................................................................................8
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................9
1.1

Motivation and Objectives.......................................................................................................9

1.2

Problem Statement..................................................................................................................10

1.3

Expected Outcomes................................................................................................................11

1.4

Organization of the report.......................................................................................................12

2. LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................................14
6

2.1

Experimental Studies...............................................................................................................14

2.3

Recent work.............................................................................................................................15

2.3

Our work..................................................................................................................................16

3. NUMERICAL SIMULATION......................................................................................................17
3.1

Baseline Model......................................................................................................................17

3.2

Grid Generation Procedure...................................................................................................19

3.3

Governing equations of the flow...........................................................................................20

3.4

Turbulence Model.................................................................................................................21

3.4.1

Spalart-Allmaras [5].......................................................................................................21

3.4.2

k- [5]............................................................................................................................22

3.4.3

K- [5]..........................................................................................................................22

3.5

Boundary Conditions...........................................................................................................23

3.6

Computational Method........................................................................................................24

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS...................................................................................................26

4.1

Validation and Grid Independency.......................................................................................26

4.2

CFD Results for Straight Leading Edge and tubercle leading edge-...................................27

5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK....................................................................................33

6. REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................36

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Page

1.1 Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangilae)

1.2 Flipper of humpback whale showing flipper...

10

1.3 Wind turbine blade 12

3.1 Baseline Model ...
3.2 Computational Domain..

19

3.3 Grid Generation

3.4 Boundary Conditions. 24
3.5 Turbulence Model and Solution Method... 25
3.6 Convergence criteria. 25
4.1 Coefficient of lift vs Grid cells.... 26
4.2 Lift coefficient (CL) vs. Angle of Attack ()..

27

4.3 Lift coefficient (CL) vs. Angle of Attack ()..

27

4.4 Pressure and Velocity Contours.

28

4.5 Turbulent Kinetic Energy at AoA 100 on various cross sections

30

4.6 Velocity vector for straight and tubercle leading edge

31

18

20

4.7 Positive value of shear stress on the upper surface of straight wing

32

4.8 Positive value of shear stress on the upper surface of tubercle wing..32
5.1 Wind tunnel dimensions.. 35

LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND SYMBOLS

Nomenclature
Ac
Area of cover, m2
As
Area of basin liner, m2
Ass
Area of solar still sides, m2
hcw
Convective heat transfer coefficient from water to cover, W/ m2 /C
hw
Convective heat transfer coefficient from basin liner to water, W/ m2 /C
Convective heat transfer coefficient from bottom insulation to ambient, W/
hcb

m2 /C
Radiative heat transfer coefficient from bottom insulation to ambient, W/

hrb
hrw
hew
h1w
h1g
I(t)
Ki
L
Li
(MC)w
Mew
Pg
Pw
qcw
qrw
qew

m2 /C
Radiative heat transfer coefficient from water to cover, m2 /C
Evaporative heat transfer coefficient from water to cover, m2 /C
Total heat transfer coefficient from water to cover, m2 /C
Total heat transfer coefficient from cover to atmosphere, m2 /C
Total solar radiation W /m2
Thermal conductivity of insulating material, W/m/C
Latent heat of vaporization J/kg
Thickness of insulation m
Heat capacity of water mass in basin, J/m2 /C
Distillate output from still L/m2/day
Partial pressure at cover temperature N/m2
Partial pressure at basin water temperature N/m2
Convective heat transfer from water to cover W/m2
Radiative heat transfer from water to cover W/ m2
Evaporative heat transfer from water to cover W/ m2
9

Overall heat loss from water surface to ambient through top and bottom W/
qloss
qcb
qs
qcg
qrg
Ta
Tg
Tw
Greek
g
w
b
geff
gg
gw
i

m2
Heat transfer from base to ambient by conduction W/m2
Side heat loss to ambient by conduction W/ m2
Convective heat loss from cover to ambient W/ m2
Radiative heat loss from cover to ambient W/ m2
Ambient temperature C
Cover temperature C
Basin water temperature C
Solar flux absorbed by cover
Solar flux absorbed by basin water
Solar flux absorbed by basin
Effective emissivity, dimensionless
Emissivity of cover, dimensionless
Emissivity of water , dimensionless
Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Instantaneous efficiency, %

10

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1

Motivation and Objectives

Our planets 70 % areas is covered by water in which 97% is available in oceans have saline in
nature . fresh water is only 3% of which 2% is available in form of glacier (snow) and rest is
available in form of ground water and rivers The availability of fresh water is decreasing from the
natural resources due to water pollution and the receding level of underground water all over the
world
And despite the amazing amount of technological progress and advancement that the current world
we live in has undergone, one third of our total population still do not have access to clean, safe
drinkable water. Most people are of developing nation because of low income and high price of
modern technology
the absence of sanitary domestic water is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. For children
less than 5 years old, waterborne disease is THE leading cause 4 of death, and at any given moment,
most hospital beds are filled with patients suffering from water-related diseases. Clearly, having
affordable potable water readily available to everyone is an important and pressing issue facing the
world today.
The motivation for this project is the limited availability of clean water resources and the abundance
of impure water available for potential conversion into potable water.
Expected outcome
11

After researching and investigation, we outlined our needs to be the following:

Efficiently produce at 2 gallons of potable water per day minimum
Able to purify water from virtually any source, included the ocean
Relatively inexpensive to remain accessible to a wide range of audiences
Easy to use interface
Intuitive setup and operation
Provide clean useful drinking water without the need for an external energy source
Reasonably compact and portable

1.2

Problem Statement

First we have to analyse basic solar still we shall study different parameters that effect the output
then we shall do some modification in this to increase the output than normal still and the variables
that effect output yield also we have in mind to keep this still cheaper, minimum dependence on
external power source.
1.4

Organization of the report

Chapter 1 includes the introduction of project and humpback back whale flippers. It gives a

brief idea of tubercle wing and its advantages over straight leading edge. It also tells the recent
engineering applications or devices based on tubercle technology.
Chapter 2 is concerned with previous studies on tubercle wing. FE Fish [1] first saw the
tubercle wing on humpback whale in ocean and studied aerodynamic characteristics of the tubercle
wing. After that Kim et al [4] has also investigated tubercle wing by experimentally and numerically
and find the same result.
12

Chapter 3 involves all the procedure of numerical simulation. It shows the baseline cad model
(NACA 00200) and tubercle wing also. It tells the meshing type and gives the whole details of mesh
control parameters which are used. In RANS model SST k- is used as a turbulence model.
Chapter 4 deals with the results of numerical study of the wing. It shows the comparison
aerodynamic behavior of both wings.
Chapter 5 treats with conclusions and chapter 6 shows all the references.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
There are four possible ways of purifying water for drinking purpose:
1. Distillation
2. Filtration
3. Chemical Treatment
4. Irradiative Treatment
Considering the areas where the technology is intended to be used we can rule out few of the above
mentioned methods based on the unavailability of materials or costs. Chemical treatment is not a
stand alone procedure and so is irradiative treatment. Both can act only remove some specific
impurities and hence can only be implemented in coordination with other technologies. This analysis
leaves us with two methods Distillation and Filtration. By weighting the positive and negatives of
both the methods we decided to go by the first one. The most important considerations were that of
complexity, higher maintenance and subsequent costs coupled with need of other sophisticated
supporting equipments.
13

BASIC SOLAR STILL

STUDY THE SOLAR RADIATION EFFECT

A solar still operates sing the basic principles of evaporation and condensation. The impure saline
water into solar still and suns ray penetrate a glass surface causing the water to heat up through the
greenhouse effect and consequently, evaporate. When the water evaporated inside the solar still, it
leaves all contaminants and microbes behind the basin. The evaporated and now purified water
condenses on the underside of the glass and runs into a collection through and then into an enclosed
container. In this method the salts and microbes that were present in the original feed water to solar
still, are left behind. Additional water fed into solar still flushes out concentrated waste from the
basin of solar still to avoid excessive salt deposition in the basin.
Mathematical modeling
Performance of solar still based on productivity, efficiency as well as internal heat and mass transfer
coefficient. Hence performance directly proportional to internal heat transfer coefficient and distillate
output from solar still. Internal heat and mass transfer coefficient in the solar still based on three
parameters called convection, radiation and evaporation, hence there are three heat transfer
coefficient called convective heat transfer coefficient, radiative heat transfer coefficient and
evaporative heat transfer coefficient.
Convective heat transfer
Action of buoyancy force due to density difference of humid air due to temperature difference is the
major reason behind the convective heat transfer coefficient in solar still.
14

The convective heat transfer coefficient of water surface to condensing glass cover is given by:
qcw = hcw (Tw Tg )

(1)

Heat transfer coefficient hcw can be calculate by following equation

Hcw = .884[(Tw Tg ) + (Pw - Pg )(Tw +273)]
(268.9 x 103 Pw)1/3

Radiative heat transfer

Solar energy is responsible for the formation of pure water from the solar still. Radiative heat transfer
is also responsible through solar energy. Rate of radiative heat transfer from water surface to
condensing cover is given by:
hrw=effect [(Tw + 273)2 + ( Tg+ 273)2]
here
=5.669108W /m2 K4
effect =((1/g) +(1/w) -1)-1
=w =g =.9

2.3 Evaporative heat transfer

When solar energy is incident inside the solar still, water evaporates and converted into steam. Hence,
evaporative heat transfer is given by following equation
qew = hew (Tw Tg )
Evaporative heat transfer coefficient is given by
hew = 16.27 x 10-3 x hcw x (Pw - Pg )/(Tw - Tg )

Total heat transfer coefficient from water surface to condensing cover is given by following equation
h1w = hcw +hrw +hew
15

Energy balance
When solar energy is incident inside the basin water, heat transfer mechanism starts. Figure2 Shows
the energy flow in single slope single basin solar still. Energy balance equation can be written with
following assumption
1. There is no vapor leakage in solar still
2. It is an air tight basin, hence no heat loss.
3. Heat capacity of cover and absorbing material, insulation is negligible.
4. There is no temperature gradient across the basin water and glass cover of solar still.
5. Water level inside the basin maintained at constant level.
6. Only film type condensation is occurs in place of drop type condensation.
Energy balance for glass cover
g 'I(t) + (qrw + qcw + qew ) = qrg + qeg

(10)

Energy balance for basin water

b 'I(t) + q = (MC)Tw /dt + qw + qew + q cw

(11)

Energy balance for basin

b 'I(t) = qw + qcb + qs(Ass/As)

Heat transfer coefficients

h1g = 5.7 + 3.8V

(13)

Hourly yield of solar still is given by:

mew = (qew /L)3600

(14)

Efficiency of solar still is given by

= qew / I(t)

(15)
16

FIG 2
SUMMERY OF PAST WORK
EFFECT OF TILT ANGLE OR SLOPE OF GLASS COVER
A.J.N. Khalifa[10] studied literature on relation between cover tilt angle and productivity of simple
solar stills in various seasons for relation between optimum tilt angle and latitude angle and
concluded that, cove tilt angle should be larger in winter and smaller in summer, increasing tilt angle
would increase productivity and maximum productivity achieved by using cover tilt angle close to
the latitude of place
RECENT WORK

2.1

Experimental Studies

Khalifa etal[ ] study water depth and One of the most important of the operational parameters that
has received a considerable attention in the literature is the brine depth. A good number of the
investigations on the effect of brine depth are cited in this study. For each of these studies, a
correlation was developed from the data reported by each study. A concluding correlation from all
brine depth data was developed. The correlation showed a decreasing trend in the productivity with
the increase in the brine depth. An experimental study was subsequently conducted to verify this
trend by an experimental investigation on a solar still that was constructed and tested with five
different brine depths, namely 1, 4, 6, 8 and 10 cm. The present study validated the decreasing trend
in productivity with the increase of brine depth and showed that the still productivity could be
influenced by the brine depth by up to 48%.
17

Regression lines were fitted to the data collected from the different investigators by means of a least
square method. A power regression in the form y = (d)n was chosen so that no output is found at zero
depth. Table 2 shows
the correlations created using the results of each individual study and the concluding correlation of
brine depth from
all data, which is given below:
Y= 3.259(d)-19; R2= 0.129

(1)

where y is the productivity in l/m2 day, d is the brine depth in cm and R2 is the correlation coefficient.
It is clear that the shallower the basin layer, the higher the productivity. A thin layer of water attains
higher temperatures as compared to a deep layer because of its lower capacity. Eq. (1) may be used
for a crude estimate of the productivity at different brine depths under the following wide range
conditions:
1) Single and double slope basin-type solar still with cover tilt angle between 10 and 35, brine
depth between 0.5 and 30 cm.
2) Latitude angles between 20 and 35N.
3) Solar radiation between 8 and 30 MJ/m2 day.

Tiwari etal[4] study thermal models of all types of solar collector-integrated active solar stills are
developed based on basic energy balance equations in terms of inner and outer glass temperatures. In
this paper, hourly yield, hourly exergy efficiency, and hourly overall thermal efficiency of active
solar stills are evaluated for 0.05m water depth.
the objectives of the present studies are:
(i) To evaluate theoretical yield from the different active solar stills integrated with FPC,
concentrating collector, ETC with and without heat pipe.
(ii) To compare hourly values of exergy and overall thermal efficiency of passive and active solar
stills.
Total daily yield from active solar still integrated with evacuated tube collector with heat pipe is
4.24kgm2day1, maximum among all other types of active solar still
.
18

A new modification has been introduced to the conventional solar still to enhance its productivity.
The modification consists of a light weight, black finished, slowly-rotating drum, which leads to a
sustainable, cost-effective, and low-tech amendment. Compared to other studies where the
enhancement in productivity is less than 100 % in most cases, often ranging between 30-40%, the
new solar still with the drum yielded an average enhancement of 250%.. In this paper, three different
cover geometries of the modified still are studied and the effect of cover design on the performance
of the still in terms of measured temperatures and productivity is considered. These designs are as
follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

Triangular or doublesloped cover [T].

Curved cover [C].
Single-sloped cover [S].
a base or control solar still [B] that has a double-sloped cover but does not include the
rotating drum is studied in parallel for comparison.

Impact of geometry on still performance

Figure 2 shows the average cumulative volume in liters as it varies with time during typical days in
August for each of the four systems. Similar results are also obtained for other months (data not
shown). No particular cover gave the best performance in all cases and the results varied from
month to month as the particular inclination of the cover and the location of the sun directly affected
the amount of solar heat absorbed. For example, in the month of September, the average
improvement varied from 141 to 145 to 166% for the curved, triangular and single-sloped systems
relative to the control (p-value <0.05). In the month of May, the improvement reached 190% for the
triangular system (p-value <0.05).

Fig .water productivity of the modified still and without modified controlled drum
19

Impact of water temperature in the still on productivity

An analysis of the experimental data set for the measured temperatures of the brine water, air within
the system and cover temperatures allowed the correlation of these temperatures with the still
performance for the different cover geometries. Figure 3 shows the variation in the basin
temperatures and in the cover temperature difference i.e. difference between inner and outer cover
temperatures. Analysis of the temperature data allowed a better understanding of how the drum
impacts the system and which among the different locations i.e. water, air within still cavity or cover,
has the highest effect on the still productivity. The temperatures for the control still tended to be in
the lowest to the low medium range in all cases and hence the advantage of the drum was evident in
raising the temperatures within the still cavity as well as in the basin water. This increase in
temperatures had a direct impact in improving the productivity of the still and it was examined which
of the three temperatures i.e. water, system or difference in cover temperatures, contributed most to
this enhancement. As an example, during the month of June, the curved still, which gave the highest
yield among all stills, showed the lowest difference in cover temperature during off-shine hours
whereas it's the highest in the morning. Moreover, the curved still shows the highest temperature for
the still cavity and for the basin water. This direct correlation between temperatures and yield,
however, was not general for all months.

Fig water tmperture varies over a month of four solar still

20

Fig Cover temperature difference over a month of four solar still

Table 1 summarizes the impact of each of the measured temperatures on
productivity throughout the experimental period for the different cover designs. For the water
temperature, during the 4 months period ranging from May to August, the temperature of the water in
th basin was highest for the curved still (53-54C), which showed the highest productivity during this
period. As for the system temperature, the highest recorded temperature varied from month to month
among the stills. In May, the highest system temperature was for the single-sloped still but this did
not correspond with the still having the highest productivity.
Similarly, in August and September, the highest system temperature was for the triangular still,
which did not show the highest productivity. In June, the system temperature was highest for the
curved still followed by the triangular then the single-sloped still in the morning hours.

Table 1. Impact of temperatures on the water productivity of the stills (C: curved; S: single-sloped; T:
triangular)

21

In July, this trend also continued and became more pronounced whereby the temperature in the
curved still was considerably higher than that in the triangular still, which was in turn significantly
higher than that in the single-sloped still.
A notable trend during the month of May was the highest temperature recorded for the single-sloped
still in the morning. Starting from noon and through all off-shine hours, the triangular still had the
highest temperature though the temperatures in the 3 stills had close values. By noting the system
temperature effect on productivity, it can be
deduced that the morning hours have the greatest contribution.
Statistical analysis of temperature data
Among all measured temperatures at the four different locations in the solar stills, the highest water
temperature in the basin generally corresponded to a higher productivity. The temperature of the air
in the still cavity apparently did not correlate with productivity as significantly as the water
temperature since as can be observed from Table 1, systems having higher inside-air temperatures are
not necessarily performing the best. Similarly, a higher difference between inside and outside cover
temperatures did not correspond with a higher productivity. The relatively short distance between the
major evaporating surface i.e. the drum and the condensing surface i.e. the still cover partly explains
this result. Therefore, other factors related to the particular geometry of the system seemed to play
more significant roles in terms of performance than those expected in conventional solar stills. In
order to confirm these observations that are based on a preliminary analysis of temperature results, a
statistical software (STATA) was used to determine the significance of the correlation between water
temperature and the productivity of the studied systems. It was found that the water temperature
significantly correlates with the productivity of the single-sloped,
curved and control stills (R2 = 0.7, 0.9 and 0.7, respectively) but not for the triangular still. Similar
analysis for the effects of the system temperature interestingly showed even stronger correlations for
the same stills (R2 = 0.8, 0.94, 0.85 for the single-sloped, curved and control, respectively). The
correlations between the difference in cover temperature and the still productivity, on the other hand,
was relatively weak confirming the above observations.

Sensitivity analysis
Figure 4 shows the theoretical results, based on a simulation model of the system, for the effects of
22

various important variables relating to the temperatures of the stills. A matlab program was
developed in order to build this model and was used to develop important correlations by varying the
values for the parameters of interest. These correlations are less obvious to note in the experimental
data due to the difficulty of fixing all parameters and varying only the one of concern particularly
those related to weather conditions such as solar radiation, humidity and ambient temperature. Using
the theoretical model, on the other hand, different scenarios could be studied separately.
For the outputs shown in Figure 4, the initial water level is taken to be 2.5 cm and the drum speed is
4 rpm except for Figure 4a, which plots the effect of varying the drum speed on cover temperature
Tg. In Figure 4a, it can be noted that keeping all other parameters constant, while decreasing the
drum speed results in a lower cover temperature. This is expected since a more rapid rotation of the
drum, which is designed to maintain a high temperature and which is at a close distance to the still
cover, causes its high temperature to raise the cover temperature by
convection.

Fig4(a) effect of drum speed on cover temperature

Figure 4b shows the effect of water temperature Tw on productivity. A 20% increase (or decrease) in
the water temperature accumulates to a 5% increase (or decrease) in the still yield over a period of 24
hours.

23

Fig4(b) effect of initial water temperature on productivity

A 20% increase (or decrease) in solar radiation also results in a 5% increase (or decrease) in the
water temperature (Figure 4c).

Fig4(c) effect of solar radiation on water temperature

24

On the other hand, the initial cover temperature Tg0 i.e. at the beginning of the experiment has a
minimal effect on productivity (Figure 4d) but the variation of the cover temperature as time
proceeds does impact the water productivity of the stills.

Fig 4(d) effect of initial cover temperature on productivity

Conclusions
The results of this paper have focused on comparing different cover shapes of the enhanced solar still
and the factors influencing temperature variation at different locations in the stills. Single-sloped,
double-sloped and curvedcover systems were studied in addition to a control double-sloped still
without the modification i.e. the drum
Among the measured temperatures at four different locations in the stills i.e. air in the still, water in
the basin and inner and outer cover temperatures, in general the highest air in the system and water
temperature in the basin corresponded to a higher productivity with very few exceptions.
Higher temperature differences between inside and outside cover did not correspond with a higher
productivity and it could be noted that a lower water or system temperature did not imply a lower
performance, which was especially true for the single-sloped system. This was mainly due to the
short distance between the high-temperature rotating drum and the still cover.
No particular cover design performed best for all considered months yet all of the new systems
gave a higher yield than that of the control. The average percent improvement varies between 200300%. For system temperature effects on productivity, it could be concluded that the morning hours
have the greatest contribution. Since the drum overshadows the water surface, the water in the
25

enhanced still basin acquires its temperature not from the direct rays of the sun as is the case with the
conventional still but rather from the ambient conditions prevailing inside the still, with continuous
mixing due to drum rotation that picks up heat as it rotates. These conditions are hence impacted by
interrelating parameters that may be operational,
geometrical or related to weather conditions that are difficult to control and that require further
studies.
Future improvement of the system involves focusing on the off-shine hours and minimizing the
cooling effect of the drum that might be occurring at night. Experimental studies of the proposed
system over longer time periods can give insights on the reasons behind a best performing cover
design for a specific month that was observed over the period of this study. Thermo-optical studies of
the condensing covers and experimenting with other cover materials can also help in further
improving the proposed design.

2.3

Recent work

2.3

Our work
We have investigated different design of solar still and studied their mathematical models and

also we investigate different parameters that affect output yield. Like we studied simple solar still
and double solar still active solar still,modified still still integrated with flat plate collector and still
with evacuate vaccum tubes and we can we chose one of them that is fesiable,low cost and give
maximum yield and deeply investigate that model .
We deeply studied our final selected model of Modified solar still with rotating .first we investigate
the effect of covered geometry on productivity different covered gemoteries was single slope
triangular and curved with modified solar still and non modified simple triangular covered
geometery

we found no one give maximum output for all season. in summer may and june

triangular give maximum in july single slope give maximum and august curved have highest yield .
But curved still is best and give highest in average or for maximum of time
We investigate the effect of drum speed on productivity and effect of solar radiation on eater
temperature and water depth and found that for max. output speed shoud be less than .5 rpm and
water depth shoud be 5cm high intensity solar radiation give high yield
26

In this semester we investigate the mathematical model and compare experimental results
with our mathematical model and analyse the error.
Experimental setup
The water basin for the experimental solar still (DIMENSION ), giving a (area)squared meter of
surface area) was constructed of ALUMINIUMSHEET )1 mm thickness and Fig.. The modified solar
still with the rotating drum. coated with black fiberglass material while the cover was made of plexiglass. A mill-finished Aluminum sheet (DIMENSION) was wrapped to form the drum. The drum
dimensions were 0.6 m in diameter and 1.4 m length and its thickness was 1 mm. Any sustainable,
heat-absorbing and locally available material could be used for the drum. A low-carbon steel shaft
(20 mm diameter 1.7 m length) was mounted on 20 mm ball-bearings and used to install the drum
inside the still. Aluminum channels for water collection were used to collect the distillate. Outlets
with ball-type valves were connected to these channels for distillate collection and other outlets were
also installed at the bottom of the basin for brine discharge.
Theoretical background
In order to predict the evaporation rate from the drum surface, separate models were introduced and
then merged together to include(i) temperature variation of the water in the basin taking into account the drum rotation
(ii) evaporation from both the basin and drum surface; and
(iii) temporal and spatial variation in the water film thickness around the drum circumference.
In this section, a brief theoretical background of the governing equations is presented.
MAHEMATICAL MODEL
The convective heat transfer coefficient, hc [W/m2/K], is given by the Nusselt Nu number, defined as
the ratio of convective to conductive heat transfer across a boundary.
The Nusselt number is related to the Grashof Gr and Prandtl Pr numbers by the coefficients C and n
as follows:
Nu = (hcL/K)(gr.pr)n
27

where L is the characteristic length scale of convection [m] and k the thermal conductivity [W/m/K].
The semiempirical relations developed by Dunkle (1961) are commonly used to estimate these
coefficients and the convective heat transfer coefficient hc and evaporation output rate mew are given
by:
hc = .844 (T`)1/3
= .884[(Tw Tg ) + (Pw - Pg )(Tw +273)/ (268.9 x 103 Pw)]1/3
mew = .016273( hc /hfg )(Pw - Pg )

Tw and Tg in the above equations are the water and cover temperatures [K], pw and pg stand for the
partial vapor pressure [N/m2] at evaporation (water) and condensation (cover) surface temperatures
and hfg [J/kg] is the latent heat of vaporization.
Using Dunkles approach, the parameters C and n in the Nusselt number equation are 0.075 and 1/3,
respectively.
In addition to Dunkles method, two approaches were applied in this study and results compared for
each case. The first method was that proposed by Kumar and Tiwari (1996), who used the linear
regression method to determine C and n coefficients for different Grashof number ranges as follows:
Mew /Rg = C(Ra)n = C(Gr.Pr)n
Rg = 0.016273(Pw Pg )(K/d) (3600/ hfg )

where Rg is a regression coefficient defined by Eq. (5), Ra is Rayleigh number and d the
characteristic space between the evaporation and condensation surfaces [m]. The other empirical
method was proposed by Hongfei et al. (2002), who used empirical relations with a modified
Rayleigh number, taking into account the existence of a large amount of water vapor within the solar
still cavity:

hg = 0.26Ra.26(K/d)
where Ra is the modified Rayleigh number, q the density [kg/m3], g the gravitational acceleration
[m/s2], b the expansion factor, T0 is as defined in Eq. (2) and D the thermal diffusivity [m2/s].
28

MODEL DEVLOPMENT
Heat and mass transfer processes within the still basically occured due to four mechanisms:
evaporation, radiation, conduction (for the drum) and convection. The initial conditions were
strongly dependent on the actual weather conditions that prevailed at the beginning of the
experiment. The temperature of the air inside the drum was used as a calibration parameter and
explicit schemes were used to calculate other parameters, namely the temperature of the drum, water
in the basin and cover as well as the thickness of the water film along each drum element and later on
used to determine the productivity of the still using Eq. (3). Fig. 3
summarizes the model algorithm while Fig. 4 describes the major mechanisms for the heat transfer
processes. As shown in Fig. 4, different parameters had to be taken into account when writing the
governing heat balance equations. These parameters included convective, radiative, evaporative and
conductive heat transfer coefficients as well as view factors that depended on the relative location of
the drum element being considered. These considerations are illustrated in detail in the following
subsections.
Once built, the developed model was calibrated and validated against real experimental data and
used to study the effects of important parameters as discussed in the next sections.
3.1. Governing equations
The total heat transfer coefficient between two surfaces is the summation of individual coefficients
representing radiation, evaporation and convection. Heat balance equations were written for the
cover, drum and water in the basin and solved iteratively. For the drum, an additional heat transfer
rate qcdai [W/m2] had to be included to account for convection between the drum surface and the air
inside the drum, which is at a temperature Tai [K] fig 4

Fig. 5 depicts the elemental discretization of the cylindrical drum and the movement of each element
with time. The terms Tdafter and Tdbefore refer to the temperatures of adjacent elements, which are used
in determining the conduction terms. The transient energy equation for a drum element can be
written as:
d/dt(mal . Cp-al .Td + mw . Cp-w .Td)
= tr . I(t) hd. (Td - Tg ) k((Td Td before) /tk al ) k((Td after - Td) /tk al ) -Hcdai(Td - Tai )
Where
29

mal is the mass of Aluminum used in the drum element [kg/m2],

tkal is the thickness of the Aluminum used in the drum element [m],
k is the thermal conductivity [W/m/K],
Cp_al the specifc heat of Aluminum [J/kg/K],
Td is the temperature of the drum element under consideration [K],
mw the mass of water film along this element [kg],
tr is the transmissivity
Cp w the specific heat of water [J/kg/K].
The terms before and after refer to the two longitudinal elements of the drum that are in direct
contact with the element under consideration
The convective head transfer coefficient between the drum and the inside air is given by:
= .884[(Tai Tdi ) + (Pai - Pdi )(Tai +273)/ (268.9 x 102 Pai)]1/3
Similarly, the convective coefficient between the drum and the still cover is
= .884[(Tg Tdi ) + (Pg - Pdi )(Tg +273)/ (268.9 x 102 Pg]1/3
The radiative and evaporative heat transfer coefficients are, respectively, given by:
hrgdi=effect [(Tw + 273)2 + ( Tg+ 273)2]. [(Tw + 273) + ( Tg+ 273)]
Hegdi = .016263hcgdi (Pg - Pgdi )
Similar equations were written for other locations along the drum surface as well as for the still cover
and the water in the basin. In order to properly account for the radiation exchange between the
involved surfaces in the modeled system, the view factor Fij, defined as the fraction of radiation
leaving surface i and intercepted by surface j, was also taken into account for all surfaces under
consideration.
The cover was treated as one surface for which the heat balance is:
mg . Cpg . dTg / dt = ag . I . Ag - qgw . Agw - qga . Aga - qgd . Agd
30

where
mg refers to the mass of cover [kg],
Cpg the heat capacity of the cover [J/kg/K],
Tg the cover temperature [K],
Ag the cover area [m2],
ag the cover absorptance,
I the solar radiation [W/m2],
qwg the heat transfer between the brine water surface and the cover [W/m2],
Agw the exposed area of the brine water surface i.e. excluding the drum diameter [m2],
qga the heat transfer between the cover and the ambient [W/m2]
Aga the area of the cover exposed to the ambient,
qgd the heat transfer between the cover and the drum [W/m2] and
Agd the area of the cover that interacts with the drum [m2].
The heat transfer qgd between the cover and each element i of the n drum elements of width dx and
length Ld [m] each is given by

qgd =

dx
i=0

.hdg .(Tdi - Tgi .) Ld

The above governing equations were solved iteratively using RungeKutta method to analytically
solve for the productivity of the still. The time step used was 1 s as this value gave a reasonable
calculation time and the use of smaller time steps hardly affected the results but notably increased the
calculation time.
ASSUMPTION

The transient energy equation for each elemental strip of the discretized drum was written assuming
the following points:

Equilibrium between the aluminum drum temperature and the water film temperature.
Uniform water film thickness along each elemental strip.
Uniform temperature exists along each elemental strip
31

. For elements entering the brine water, a value for the heat transfer coefficient between the
water and an aluminum plate simulating each element was assumed based on values reported
in the literature (50 W/m2/C).
System discretization

In developing the simulation model for the modified solar still, both the still cover and the water in
the basin were each treated as one entity with a uniform temperature distribution throughout,
whereas the drum was discretized into longitudinal elements for which a governing balance equation
was written based on the location of these elements as the drum rotated. Four sections were
distinguished along the circumference of the drum for receiving a different amount of solar radiation
depending on the particular location at a certain time, as shown in Fig. 4. For a given time increment
dt [s], the length of the incremental distance dx [m] was calculated as:
dx =

2 Rdt
60 N

(10)

where
R is the radius of the drum [m] and
Nd is the rotational speed of the drum [rpm].
The number of discretized elements was obtained by dividing the perimeter of the drum by the
incremental distance dx given by Eq. (10). The number of iterations for one cycle of the drum was
obtained by dividing the time needed to complete one cycle by the time increment dt. For the same
hour in a given day, a minimal deviation in temperature occured from one element to the next but the
change in temperature became more evident from one hour to the next and in all cases, the
temperature of the first drum element leaving the water surface was equal to the temperature of the
water in the basin.

Initial and boundary conditions

The initial conditions needed to start up the simulation included the initial temperatures for the drum
Td, cover Tg and water in the basin Tw. Knowing the geometrical and operational data, weather
32

conditions and initial temperatures at time zero Td 0 Tg 0, and Tw 0, the heat balance equations were
used to determine the first estimates for Td, Tg and Tw in the next time step:

Knowing the initial conditions Td 0, Tg 0, and Tw 0, Td1 at the next time step was calculated using Eq.
(8) where the initial temperatures Tdbefore and Tdafter were assumed to be equal to the initial drum
temperature.
Knowing Td1, Tg0, and Tw0, Tw1, which the temperature of the water in the solar still basin at the next
time step, was calculated using the heat balance equation written for the water in the basin.
Knowing Td1, Tg0, and Tw1, Tg1 was calculated using the heat balance Eq. (9) for the solar still cover.
The relevant drum balance equation was written for each element depending on its location (Fig. 4).
As for the models boundary conditions, the brine water temperature was considered to be equal to
the temperature of the first drum element leaving the water. When the temperatures of all consequent
elements were calculated, the temperature of the water was recalculated based on conduction
between the last drum element entering the water and the water temperature from the previous time
step.
RESULT
Comparison of model results with experimental values
The heat transfer equations were built into the model as described above and the model was validated
for a number of days based on experimental data. Fig. 6 presents our model results compared with
actual experimental data. These model results are the ones obtained as an output of the calibrated
model that was built using the equations presented in the previous section. The recorded weather
conditions for this data set were as follows: maximum solar radiation 914 W/m2, maximum diffuse
radiation 773 W/m2, maximum ambient temperature 28.7 C, minimum ambient temperature 24.7 C
and maximum wind speed 0.63 m/s. The initial conditions in terms of the initial temperatures of the
cover, drum and water were found to be of the most important factors affecting the output results of
the model and their closeness to actual experimental results. For this reason, a calibration was
performed to obtain reliable initial values for these temperatures that were tested experimentally by
measuring the temperatures after a steadystate condition of the system was obtained. Our numerical
model was generally able to capture the productivity pattern for the solar still; however, a number of
33

differences could be noted between the analytical output and experimental values. The discrepancy
between theoretical and e xperimental results was largely attributed to the simplifying assumptions
that were introduced to allow for a less complex and time-consuming simulation.
Moreover, the methods available to calculate the heat transfer coefficients had their own limitations,
which further contributed to this discrepancy.
Effect of heat transfer coefficient

Calculation of the overall thermal efficiency

To calculate the thermal efficiency of the solar still under study with and without the rotating drum,
the following equation is used for the still efficiency by integrating the instantaneous efficiency
(Singh et al., 1995):

cwg
(TwTg)
h()
.
Ic (t)

where

= efficiency,
Tw and Tg are the temperatures of the evaporative and condensation surfaces respectively
hcwg = convective heat transfer coefficient between the condensig and evaporating surfaces
Ic(t) = captured solar radiation.
In order to calculate the overall thermal efficiency for the particular design used in this study
including the rotating drum, the water temperature is replaced by the drum temperature, which forms
the main evaporative surface of the still. From Eq. (17), the overall thermal efficiency of the
modified still with the rotating drum varied between 32% and 35%. For the control still without the
rotating drum, the efficiency was around 25% where an average value of the temperature of the still
cover was used for Tg in Eq. (17) whereas the convective heat transfer coefficient was based on the
cover and not the drum. In order to calculate the overall thermal efficiency of the modified solar still

34

taking into account the energy used for the motor rotation, the efficiency of the solar panels used to
supply the motor had to be included.
The efficiency equation is therefore modified as follows:

cwg
(TwTg)
h()
. Ic ( t )+ Ip(t)

where the total consumed solar radiation is the solar energy used by the solar still plus the solar
energy used by the motor. The solar energy used by the energy Ic(t) was supplied by the solar panels
Ip(t). The electrical energy of the motor was therefore converted in terms of solar energy using the
efficiency of the solar panels that is in the range of 12% and multiplying this value by the average
daily solar radiation. Based on these values, the overall efficiency incorporating the energy
consumed by the drum was found to vary between 28% and 31%

35

6. REFERENCES

1. Watts P, Fish FE., 2001, The influence of passive, leading edge tubercles on wing performance.
Proceedings of the 12th international symposium on unmanned untethered submersible
technology, Durham, New Hampshire.
2. Mark W. Lohry, David Clifton and Luigi Martinelli, 2012, Characterization and design of
tubercle Leading-Edge wing. Seventh international conference on Computational Fluid
Dynamics, Big Island, Hawaii.
3. Miklosovic DS, Murray MM, Howle LE, Fish FE., 2004, Leading-edge tubercles delay stall on
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) flippers; Journal of Physics of Fluids, Vol. 16, pp. L
39-42.
4. H.S. Yoon, P.A. Hung, J.H. Jung, M.C. Kim, 2011, Effect of the wavy leading edge on
hydrodynamic characteristics for flow around low aspect ratio wing. Journal of Computers &
fluids, Vol. 49, pp. 276-289.
5. Douvi C. Eleni, Tasvalos I. Athanasios and Margaris P. Dionissios, 2012, Evaluation of the
Turbulence models for the simulaton of the flow over the NACA 0012 airfoil, Journal of
Mechanical Engineering Research Vol. 4(3), pp. 100-111.
6. G.M. Hasan Shahariar, Mohammad Rashedul Hasa, Mohammad Mashud , 2014 Numerical
Analysis and Comparison on Aerodynamics Characteristics of NACA 0012 & NACA 4412.
International Conference on Mechanical, Industry and Energy Engineering, Khulana,
Bangladesh.
7. The Tubercle Humpback Whale Flipper [Online Sources] [cited October 2014]
URL: http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/05/14/icb.icr016.full
8. NACA Airfoil [Online Source] [cited October 2014]
36

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACA_airfoil
9. Mimicking Humpback Whale Flippers May Improve Airplane Wing Design [Online
[cited November 2015]

Source]

URL: http://pratt.duke.edu/news/mimicking-humpback-whale-flippers-

may-improve-airplane-wing-design

10. Bumpy whale fins set to spark a revolution in aerodynamics [Online source] [Cited
November 2015]

URL: http://www.gizmag.com/bumpy-whale-fins-set-to-spark-a-revolution-

in-aerodynamics/9020/

37