Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener
Abstract
Salt removal from drainage water is becoming increasingly important for sustainable irrigated arid land agriculture, where inadequate
drainage infrastructure exists. Solar evaporation and concentration systems are currently in development in California for this purpose.
The thermal behavior and evaporation rates of a horizontal shallow basin solar concentrator were modeled for design purposes and
investigated experimentally in order to validate the model. Three dierent evaporation rate models were evaluated and compared. Measured and predicted peak brine temperatures diered by as much as 5 C when using prescribed literature coecients without calibration.
Model prediction was improved by calibration so that peak brine temperature deviated less than 3 C when tested against independent
data sets.
Minimum root mean square error was used to calibrate the mass transfer coecient and absorptance of the collector surface for solar
radiation, which are the main factors aecting the heat transfer associated with the solar concentrator. Calibrated collector surface
absorptance for solar radiation declined while mass transfer coecients were increased from reported literature values. Under calibration, the absorptance of the collector surface was adjusted from 0.8 to 0.61, and mass transfer coecients estimated by Newell et al.
[Newell, T.A., Smith, M.K., Cowie, R.G., Upper, J.M., Cler, C.L., 1994. Characteristics of a solar pond brine reconcentration system.
Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 116 (2), 6973] from 1.36 106(1.9 + 1.065V) to 1.70 106(1.84 + 1.0V) kg m2 s1 mm Hg1,
by Manganaro and Schwartz [Manganaro, J.L., Schwartz, J.C., 1985. Simulation of an evaporative solar salt pond. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development 24, 12451251] from 0.0208(1 + 0.224V) to 0.0233(1 + 0.214V) kg m2 h1 mm
Hg1, and by Alagao et al. [Alagao, F.B., Akbarzadeh, A., Johnson, P.W., 1994. The design, construction, and initial operation of a
closed-cycle, salt-gradient solar pond. Solar Energy 53 (4), 343351] from 2.8 + 3.0V to 3.0 + 3.33V W m2 C1. The calibrated models
were tested using an independent data set. Maximum deviation between measured and predicted brine temperatures diered by less than
3 C. The measured and predicted peak evaporation rates were between 1.2 and 1.4 kg m2 h1.
The calibrated Newell model was used to predict the monthly productivity and daily maximum evaporation rates at Five Points,
California for the year 2004. The productivity from April to September and from March to October was 80.7% and 94.3% of the total
annual productivity, respectively.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Shallow basin solar evaporator; Evaporation rate; Drainage water; Salinity; Energy balance; Mass balance; Solar concentrator; Evaporator
productivity
1. Introduction
0038-092X/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2006.08.007
464
Nomenclature
evaporation surface area, m2
collector area, m2
specic heat of brine in the collector, J kg1 K1
specic heat of collector, J kg1 K1
specic heat of makeup brine, J kg1 K1
salt concentration in bulk solution, kg salt
kg solution1
di
dierence between ith estimated and ith measured values
Esal
saline evaporation, m period1
Fev
volumetric ow rate of water evaporated, m3 s1
Fmu
volumetric ow rate of makeup brine into the
concentrator, m3 s1
hb
specic enthalpy of brine, J kg1
hconv, b-a convection coecient between the air and the
brine, W m2 K1
hfg
latent heat of vaporization of water, J kg1
Gb
beam component of radiation on horizontal surface, W m2
Gd
diuse component of radiation on horizontal
surface, W m2
hconv,c-b convection coecient between the collector and
the brine, 170 W m2 K1
hmu
specic enthalpy of makeup brine, J kg1
hvapor specic enthalpy of vapor, J kg1
kG
transport coecient, kg s1 m2 mm Hg1
l
brine depth, cm
mb
mass of brine in the collector, kg
mc
mass of collector, kg
m_ mu
mass ow rate of makeup brine owing into the
collector, kg s1
evaporation rate, kg s1
m_ ev
n
number of data pairs
nair
index of refraction of air, 1.00
nwater index of refraction of water, 1.33
pa
partial pressure of water in air, mm Hg
pb
brine vapor pressure, mm Hg
psat
saturation water vapor pressure, mbar
p0w
saturation vapor pressure of pure water,
mm Hg
qsolar absorb rate of solar energy absorbed by the brine,
W m2
qconv,c-b rate of convection heat transfer from the collector to the brine, W m2
qrad,b-sky net rate of radiation heat transfer with the lower atmosphere, W m2
A
Ac
cpb
cpc
cpmu
c1
Physical characteristics of shallow solar ponds have previously been described empirically (Bowen, 1926; Penmam,
1948; Bonython, 1958; Ferguson, 1952). Pancharatnam
(1972) improved Fergusons energy balance equation for
a shallow solar pond by considering an additional term
of heat transfer between the water and the bottom surface.
Model validation by comparing numerical results with
experimental data has also been performed (Manganaro
and Schwartz, 1985; Losordo and Piedrahita, 1991; Alagao
et al., 1994; Newell et al., 1994; Gao and Merrick, 1996;
Jacobs et al., 1998). The study described here was conducted to develop a simulation model for design, and
obtain experimental data for model validation.
dt
qev F ev ;
F ev 6 0
2. Mathematical models
Under normal conditions, the feed rate into the concentrator is controlled such that the level of brine is constant. If
water ows into the concentrator from precipitation or
condensation, the makeup ow is reduced or stopped
depending on the magnitude of inux. The solution in
the basin becomes diluted. We model the experimental set
Solar radiation
direct & diffuse
Convection with
ambient air
m_ ev
qev
dxb
dmb
xb
qmu F mu xmu
dt
dt
dxb
xb F ev qmu qev F mu qmu xmu
dt
dxb
xb qev F ev 0
dt
Simplifying gives the equation for the mass fractions of solids in the brine
( F ev
qmu xmu xb qmu qev ; F ev > 0
dxb
m
F evb
9
dt
qev xb ;
F ev 6 0
mb
Brine solution
Convection
brine to basin
465
Basin (collector)
Fig. 1. Horizontal concentrator and components considered in mass and energy balances.
466
Energy is received by the concentrator as direct radiation from the sun and indirectly from the atmosphere. Part
of this energy is reected, part absorbed, and the rest is
transmitted to the collector bottom surface of the concentrator. Some of the energy absorbed by the collector is
transferred to the brine via convective heat transfer, some
is lost to the ambient environment by convection and radiation. The brine in the basin also receives energy from the
make-up solution whose temperature is assumed to be the
same as the ambient air temperature although this is not
necessarily the case in practice especially where brine is
stored in-ground such as in a drainage sump. The brine
loses energy by radiation exchange with the environment
(lower atmosphere), by convection with the air, and by
evaporation of water. The energy balance on the brine is
shown schematically in Fig. 2.
The brine is assumed to be well-mixed with respect to
temperature and composition and brine depth is assumed
to remain constant by make-up solution over the time period. The specic heat of the brine is assumed to be independent of brine concentration, surface dust has no eect, and
the heat transfer is one-dimensional. The overall energy
balance on the brine is
dmb hb
qsolar absorb Ac qconv;c-b Ac qrad;b-sky Ac
dt
qconv;b-a Ac m_ ev hvapor m_ mu hmu
10
cpb
dt
dT b dt
dt
dmb hb
dT b
cpb T b m_ mu m_ ev mb cpb
dt
dt
qsolarabsorb
qrad,b-sky
.
mevhvapor
qconv,b-a
Brine solution
qconv,c-b
Basin (collector)
m mu hmakeup
mb cpb
dT b
qsolar absorb Ac qconv;c-b Ac qrad;b-sky Ac
dt
qconv;b-a Ac m_ ev hvapor cpb T b
m_ mu cpmu T mu cpb T b
11
12
1 rw
1 rwd swd 1 asd swd
1 swd sw 1 asd asd sw
ad
1 rwd
1 rwd swd 1 asd swd
1 swd swd 1 asd asd swd
13
14
;
2 sin2 href hz tan2 href hz
nair
1
sin hz
15
href sin
nwater
The reectance for the diuse radiation is a constant and
is calculated by assuming the incidence angle is 60
(Tsilingiris, 1997, 1998)
"
#
1 sin2 href diff 60 tan2 href diff 60
rwd
;
2 sin2 href diff 60 tan2 href diff 60
nair
1
sin 60
16
href diff sin
nwater
The zenith angle, Gb, and Gd are calculated from Due
and Beckman (1991).
The transmittance of the brine for beam radiation is calculated using the model developed by Tsilingiris (1988,
1998) for pure water
X
5
l
sw s
gi eli l= cos href
17
cos href
i1
The transmittance for diuse radiation reected from
the bottom absorbing surface is treated as beam radiation
with an equivalent incidence angle of 60 (Tsilingiris, 1998)
Wavelength
(lm)
1
2
3
4
5
0.20.60
0.600.75
0.750.90
0.901.20
1.203.00
swd s
l
cos 60
5
X
li (cm1)
gi
0.237
0.193
0.167
0.179
0.224
0.00032
0.0045
0.03
0.35
18
gi eli l= cos 60
18
i1
qconv;c-b hconv;c-b T c T b
19
The heat transfer coecient is based on turbulent convection arising from wind and from the temperature dierence
between the collector surface and the brine (Pancharatnam,
1972). For turbulent convection, the convection coecient
is 170 (W m2 C1) or higher (McAdams, 1954).
2.3.3. Convection from brine to ambient air
The rate of convective heat transfer from the brine to the
air depends on the temperature dierence between the brine
and the air as well as the wind speed. The eect of wind
speed is modeled as a linear dependence over the range
of wind speeds of interest (Due and Beckman, 1991)
qconv;b-a hconv;b-a T b T a W m2
20
21
467
mulated equations for an evaporative solar salt pond system. In their study, evaporation rate was expressed as
follows:
re 0:0416Cpb pa 1 0:224V
pb
p0w 1
0:7c1
1:8T 545:4
0
pw 31:82 exp 17:42
1:8T 0:6
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
32
468
()bGb
()dGd
Brine solution
qconv,c-b
Basin (collector)
mc cpc
dT c
sab Gb sad Gd hconv;c-b T c T b Ac
dt
33
asd sw 1 rw
1 rwd swd 1 asd sw
34
35
dT b
ab Gb ad Gd Ac hconv;c-b Ac
dt
h
i
er T b 273:15 T sky 273:15 Ac
4
hconv;b-a T b T a Ac k G Ac pb pa
hvapor cpb T b m_ mu cpmu T mu cpb T b
36
Collector:
mc cpc
(Campbell Scientic, Logan, Utah). Horizontal solar radiation was measured with a LiCor LI-200SA pyranometer
(LI-COR, Lincoln, Nebraska). All sensors were located
adjacent to the experimental collector system on the
white-surfaced roof of a three-story oce building in
Davis, California. Data were collected and recorded on
an electronic datalogger (Model CR21X, Campbell Scientic, Logan, Utah). The experiment was performed from
06/22 to 6/28/2003.
Density data for brine as a function of both temperature
and salt concentration were obtained from the literature.
Several data sets are compared in Fig. 4. For the results
reported here, density data (Table 2) for sodium sulfate
solutions were used (Sohnel and Novotny, 1985).
dT c
sab Gb sad Gd hconv;c-b T c T b Ac
dt
37
469
Table 2
Density of sodium sulfate solutions (Sohnel and Novotny, 1985)
100 C
95 C
90 C
85 C
80 C
75 C
70 C
65 C
60 C
55 C
50 C
45 C
40 C
35 C
30 C
25 C
20 C
15 C
10 C
5 C
0 C
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
26%
28%
958
962
965
969
972
975
978
981
983
986
988
990
992
994
996
997
998
999
1000
1000
1000
976
979
983
986
989
992
995
998
1001
1003
1006
1008
1010
1012
1014
1015
1017
1018
1019
1019
1019
994
997
1000
1003
1007
1010
1013
1015
1018
1021
1023
1025
1028
1030
1032
1033
1035
1036
1037
1038
1038
1011
1015
1018
1021
1024
1027
1030
1033
1036
1038
1041
1043
1046
1048
1050
1052
1054
1055
1056
1057
1030
1033
1036
1039
1042
1045
1048
1051
1054
1056
1059
1062
1064
1066
1068
1071
1072
1074
1075
1048
1051
1054
1057
1060
1063
1066
1069
1072
1075
1078
1080
1083
1085
1087
1089
1091
1093
1067
1070
1073
1076
1079
1082
1085
1088
1091
1094
1096
1099
1102
1104
1107
1109
1111
1086
1089
1092
1095
1098
1101
1104
1107
1110
1113
1116
1118
1121
1124
1126
1128
1131
1105
1108
1111
1114
1117
1120
1123
1126
1129
1132
1135
1138
1141
1143
1146
1148
1151
1125
1128
1131
1134
1137
1140
1143
1146
1149
1152
1155
1158
1161
1164
1166
1169
1145
1148
1151
1154
1157
1160
1163
1166
1170
1173
1176
1179
1181
1184
1187
1190
1165
1168
1171
1175
1178
1181
1184
1187
1190
1193
1196
1199
1202
1205
1208
1186
1189
1192
1195
1199
1202
1205
1208
1211
1215
1218
1221
1224
1227
1229
1207
1210
1213
1217
1220
1223
1227
1230
1233
1236
1239
1242
1246
1249
1251
1228
1232
1235
1238
1242
1245
1249
1252
1255
1258
1262
1265
1268
1271
1274
30%
32%
1261
1264
1268
1271
1274
1278
1281
1284
1287
1290
1294
1310
1314
1317
Brine tank
LC
Concentrated
brine
Makeup brine
Horizontal
concentrator
Data logger
470
Table 3
Uncertainty (kg m2 h1) in maximum daily evaporation rate for 7 days
Day
a
RH relative humidity.
0.18
5 104
0.27
0.14
5 104
0.27
0.12
5 104
0.27
0.14
5 104
0.27
0.18
6 104
0.27
0.22
5 104
0.27
0.14
7 104
0.27
471
Table 4
Mean and range of measured and predicted peak evaporation rate over a 7 day sampling period
Day
2
1
h )
Predicted
Experiment
RMSE1
n
1X
d2
n i1 i
Mean
Min.
Max.
Mean
Min.
Max.
!1=2
39
The smaller the RMSE1, the better the model t. A drawback of this statistic is that a few large errors in the sum can
produce a signicant increase in RMSE1. According to
Stone (1993), another measure using the relative root mean
square normalized deviation can be applied
!1=2
n 2
1X
di
40
RMSE2
n i1 Y i
1.11
0.93
1.29
1.31
1.04
1.58
1.17
1.03
1.31
1.45
1.18
1.72
1.17
1.05
1.29
1.38
1.11
1.64
1.19
1.05
1.33
1.41
1.14
1.68
1.27
1.09
1.45
1.52
1.25
1.79
1.27
1.05
1.49
1.40
1.13
1.65
1.31
1.17
1.45
1.64
1.37
1.90
the temperature of the makeup brine (Table 5). Daily maximum heat convection between the air and the brine varies
between 80 and 120 W m2 or about 15% of total heat loss.
Maximum long-wave radiation is between 120 and
180 W m2 and accounts for about 20% of total heat transferred from the solar concentrator which is approximately
1000 W m2 at maximum evaporation (Fig. 9). Evaporation accounts for more than 60% of the total heat loss during this time. The absorptance of the collector is the most
important factor for this analysis relative to the energy
input to the system by solar radiation. The evaporative mass transfer coecient and the absorptance of the
Table 5
Initial model assumptions
asd
k
e
hconv,b-a
hconv,c-b
cpb
Tmu
a
b
c
d
0.8a
1.35623 106 (1.9 + 1.065V)b
0.95a
2.8 + 3.0Va
170c
Same as sea waterd
Same as air temperature
472
4
collector temperature
brine temperature
RMSE 01
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Absorptance
Table 6
Calibrated model coecients
Original value
Calibrated value
0.8
0.61
6
1.36 10
2 1
1 b
mm Hg )
1.70 106
(1.84 + 1.0V)
0.0233(1 + 0.214V)
3.0 + 3.33V
Table 7
Relative errors for Tb and m_ ev before and after model calibration (number of data points shown in parentheses)
Tb
m_ ev
Original
Calibrated
Original
Calibrated
Newell
RMSE1
RMSE2
R-square
2.53 (336)
0.08 (336)
0.9834 (336)
1.43 (336)
0.06 (336)
0.9837 (336)
0.20 (336)
0.67 (148)
0.7598 (148)
0.19 (168)
0.66 (73)
0.7735 (148)
Manganaro
RMSE1
RMSE2
R-square
2.29 (336)
0.10 (336)
0.9844 (336)
2.18 (336)
0.08 (336)
0.9847 (336)
0.19 (336)
0.73 (148)
0.7804 (148)
0.18 (168)
0.69 (73)
0.7883 (148)
Alagao
RMSE1
RMSE2
R-square
2.16 (336)
0.08 (336)
0.9709 (336)
2.56 (336)
0.09 (336)
0.9688 (336)
0.21 (336)
0.68 (148)
0.7395 (148)
0.19 (168)
0.66 (73)
0.7572 (148)
473
Table 8
Relative errors for Tb and m_ ev with the calibrated model run on the
validation data (number of data points shown in parentheses)
Tb
m_ ev
Newell
RMSE1
RMSE2
R-square
1.48 (288)
0.04 (288)
0.9846 (288)
0.17 (288)
0.89 (129)
0.7690 (129)
Manganaro
RMSE1
RMSE2
R-square
1.34 (288)
0.04 (288)
0.9904 (288)
0.16 (288)
0.85 (129)
0.8049 (129)
Alagao
RMSE1
RMSE2
R-square
2.25 (288)
0.06 (288)
0.9722 (288)
0.17 (288)
0.82 (129)
0.7444 (129)
Fig. 13. Measured and predicted brine temperature from the calibrated
models. Lines are 1:1.
5. Model application
Fig. 11. Measured and predicted brine temperature from the uncalibrated
models. Lines are 1:1.
Parameter calibration of the shallow basin brine concentration model improved the predictions of peak temperatures and evaporation rates by as much as 10%
21
40
93
164
195
214
213
219
179
52
22
122
12
0.12
33
0.26
110
0.54
220
0.87
250
0.93
280
0.99
282
1.01
285
1.02
227
0.91
150
0.67
48
0.34
16
0.16
May
April
March
February
January
1
Productivity (kg m mo )
Daily peak evaporation rate
(kg m2 h1)
ETo (mm mo1)
December
November
October
6. Conclusions
2
Month
Fig. 15. Measured and predicted evaporation rate from the calibrated
models. Lines are 1:1.
Table 9
Predicted monthly productivity and daily maximum evaporation rate at Five Points, CA
June
July
August
September
1913
0.66 (annual
avg)
1534
Total
474
Productivity (kg m )
Percent (%)
Total
April to September
March to October
1913
100
1544
80.7
1804
94.3
475
Cervinka, V., Diener, J., Erickson, J., Finch, C., Martin, M., Menezes, F.,
Peters, D., Shelton, J., 1999. Integrated system for agricultural
drainage management on irrigated farmland. Bureau of Reclamation,
US Department of the Intrior, Final Research Report, 4-FG-20-11920.
Coleman, H.W., Glenn Steele Jr., W., 1989. Experimentation and
Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Due, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 1991. Solar Engineering of Thermal
Processes, second ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Ferguson, J., 1952. The rate of natural evaporation from shallow ponds.
Australian Journal of Scientic Research 5, 315330.
Gao, J., Merrick, N.P., 1996. Simulation of temperature and salinity in a
fully mixed pond. Environmental Software 11 (13), 173178.
Jacobs, A.F.G., Heusinkveld, B.G., Lucassen, D.C., 1998. Temperature
variation in a class A evaporation pan. Journal of Hydrology 206, 75
83.
Losordo, T.M., Piedrahita, R.H., 1991. Modeling temperature variation
and thermal stratication in shallow aquaculture ponds. Ecological
Modeling 54, 189226.
Manganaro, J.L., Schwartz, J.C., 1985. Simulation of an evaporative solar
salt pond. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Process Design and
Development 24, 12451251.
McAdams, W.H., 1954. Heat Transmission, third ed. McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Meyer, A.F., 1915. Computing run-o from rainfall and other physical
data. Transactions of ASCE 79, 10561224.
Newell, T.A., Smith, M.K., Cowie, R.G., Upper, J.M., Cler, C.L., 1994.
Characteristics of a solar pond brine reconcentration system. Journal
of Solar Energy Engineering 116 (2), 6973.
Pancharatnam, S., 1972. Transient behavior of a solar pond and
prediction of evaporation rates. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Process Design and Development 11 (2), 287292.
Penmam, H.L., 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and
grass. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A,
Mathematical and Physical Sciences 193 (1032), 120145.
Reindl, D.T., Beckman, W.A., Due, J.A., 1990. Diuse fraction
correlations. Solar Energy 45 (1), 17.
Rohwer, C., 1931. Evaporation from free water surfaces. US Department
Agricultural Technical Bulletin 271, 96.
Sartori, E., 1996. Solar still versus solar evaporator: a comparative study
between their thermal behaviors. Solar Energy 56 (2), 199206.
Sohnel, O., Novotny, P., 1985. Densities of aqueous solutions of inorganic
substancesPhysical Sciences Data, vol. 22. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Stone, R.J., 1993. Improved statistical procedure for the evaluation of
solar radiation estimation models. Solar Energy 51 (4), 289291.
Tsilingiris, P.T., 1988. An accurate upper estimate for the transmission of
solar radiation in salt gradient ponds. Solar Energy 40 (1), 4148.
Tsilingiris, P.T., 1997. Design, analysis and performance of low-cost
plastic lm large solar water heating systems. Solar Energy 60 (5), 245
256.
Tsilingiris, P.T., 1998. On optical performance and directional characteristics of plastic lm liquid layer solar water heaters. Solar energy 63 (5),
293302.