Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Solar Energy 114 (2015) 337–348
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Angular optimization of dual booster mirror solar

cookers – Tracking free experiments with three
different aspect ratios
Suhail Zaki Farooqui ⇑
Faculty of Engineering Sciences, National University of Sciences & Technology, Islamabad, PNEC, H.I. Rahamatullah Road, Karachi 75350, Pakistan

Received 30 June 2014; received in revised form 25 December 2014; accepted 24 January 2015

Communicated by: Associate Editor Ruzhu Wang

Abstract

An experimental investigation supported by numerical simulations to determine the performance parameters of dual booster mirror
box type soar cookers having three different length to width ratios, has been carried out in this paper. In addition, the most optimal tilt
angles for each of the two booster mirrors, for each day of the year, have been determined for tracking free operation. The numerical
investigation has been carried out for a 25° latitude location for all days of the year to determine the best power collection capability of a
dual booster mirror solar cooker during 6 h of the most desirable cooking period, ranging from 3 h before to 3 h after the solar noon.
Three solar cookers selected for this investigation have length to width ratios of 1.33, 2.66 and 3.99, respectively. Tracking free experi-
ments are conducted for three days to compare the simultaneous performance of each cooker with proportionate water load. Finally, the
analysis of the experimental results has been carried out, including the determination of the first and second figures of merit, cooking
power, exergy efficiency and the quality factor, in each case. Results indicate that tracking free performance of fully loaded box type
solar cookers with two booster mirrors inclined at appropriate angles, becomes optimal with an aspect ratio of 2.66.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Solar cookers; Box type solar cookers; Tracking free solar cookers; Aspect ratio of solar cookers

1. Introduction costs. However, they suffer from a main disadvantage that

Modern solar cookers have been studied since the 1950’s
to provide an alternate to one of the most fuel consuming
activity on Earth. In the developing countries, this activity
accounts to over one third of the total primary fuel con-
sumption (Muthusivagami et al., 2010; Farooqui,
2014a,b). Box type solar cookers utilizing the green house
effect to acquire the cooking temperatures are so far the
most popular type, due mainly to their simplicity and lower
⇑ Tel.: +92 021 37681668; fax: +92 021 99240112.
E-mail address: drsuzaki@hotmail.com
they require frequent solar tracking in two dimensions.
Typically, the box type solar cooker utilizes a horizontal
double glazed top surface made out of transparent glass.
Food is placed in the box below this surface, under airtight
conditions. A booster mirror, mounted as the lid of the
box, reflects the sun rays into the box. This has to be fre-
quently angularly adjusted as the sun changes its elevation
on the sky. The box as a whole also has to be rotated fre-
quently in the east to west direction as the sun changes its
azimuth. This movement is more inconvenient, especially
when the cooker is loaded. This dual axis tracking require-
ment has become the major impediment in the large scale
adoption of these cookers (Farooqui, 2013a).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.01.030
0038-092X/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
338 S.Z. Farooqui / Solar Energy 114 (2015) 337–348

Nomenclature

B-1 booster mirror – 1 I 000

2 radiation intensity on top glazing after reflection
B-2 booster mirror – 2 from B-2
b angle of B-1 with the horizon Io extraterrestrial solar radiation intensity normal
bopt optimal inclination angle of B-1 to the sun
h angle of B-2 with the horizon Ioh extraterrestrial solar radiation intensity on a
hopt optimal inclination angle of B-2 surface tangent to earth
a instantaneous solar altitude angle Isc solar constant
amax altitude angle at solar noon AM air mass
amin altitude angle at 9:00 and 15:00 h F1 first figure of merit
hZ zenith angle of the sun F2 second figure of merit
u latitude of the test location Ts surface temperature of the sun
x hour angle Tps plate stagnation temperature
d solar declination angle Ta ambient temperature
ts local solar time in hours Tw water temperature
W width of the solar cooker Tav average ambient temperature during experiment
L length of the solar cooker dT difference between water and ambient
W1 projection length of the reflected light from temperature
B-1onto the horizontal surface DTw difference of water temperature between two
W2 projection length of the reflected light from readings
B-2 onto the horizontal surface Hs solar insolation on the horizontal surface
N number of day of the year Hav average horizontal radiation during experiment
M mass of water during experiment s time interval (larger) between two readings
C heat capacity of water Dt time interval (smaller) between two readings
A aperture area of the cooker Twi initial water temperature at the start of an inter-
I solar radiation intensity on horizontal surface val
and top glazing Twf final water temperature at the end of an interval
I0 radiation intensity perpendicular to the sun EXi exergy input to the system
I 001 radiation intensity perpendicular to B-1 Exo exergy absorbed by the system
I 002 radiation intensity perpendicular to B-2 EXloss exergy loss by the system
I 000
1 radiation intensity on top glazing after reflection W exergy efficiency
from B-1

The various box type solar cooker designs have been
extensively investigated and modified continuously since
1980s by a number of authors (Dang, 1985; Vishaya
et al., 1985; Tiwari and Yadav, 1986; Pande and Thanvi,
1987; Nahar, 1990; Nahar, 1992, 2001; Binark and
Turkmen, 1996; Bari, 2000; Narasimha Rao and
Subramanyam, 2000; Algifri and Al-Towaie, 2001;
Tiwari, 2002; Purohit and Negi, 2003; Negi and Purohit,
2005; Mirdha and Dhariwal, 2008; Kumar, 2008). More
recently, good reviews on solar cookers with and without
thermal storage have been presented (Lahkar and
Samdarshi, 2010; Muthusivagami et al., 2010; Panwara
et al., 2012), and a single family solar cooker has been stud-
ied by Mahavar et al. (2012). Other types of cookers have
also been presented by various authors (Farooqui, 2013a,b,
2014a,b, 2015).
In this paper, a numerical and experimental investiga-
tion has been carried out with a focus to eliminate the need
for frequent solar tracking, by using two booster mirrors.
A mechanism has been suggested and applied using com-
puter simulations for 25° latitude test location for deter-
mining the optimal angle of inclination of each booster
mirror, for cooking during 9:00–15:00 h solar time, for
each day of the year. This permits a tracking free operation
for 6 h. Further, the study has experimentally investigated
the impact of using cookers with three different length to
width ratios to eliminate the need to track along the azi-
muth direction. The experimental results are analyzed in
each case for determining the first and second figures of
merit, cooking power, exergy efficiencies and the quality
factor to determine the most optimum aspect ratio of the
cooker.
2. The dual booster mirror solar cooker
Solar radiation enters the solar cooker both directly and
indirectly. Indirect incidence of light is attained through the
booster mirror attached to the solar cooker as its lid. In the
 S.Z. Farooqui / Solar Energy 114 (2015) 337–348 339

Fig. 1. Dual booster mirror solar cooker having length L and width W.
The booster mirror B-1 is inclined at an angle b, and the booster mirror B-
2 is inclined at an angle h with respect to the horizon, while the solar
altitude angle is a.
Fig. 2. Figure showing the fixed inclination of the two booster mirrors of
the solar cooker for a particular day, while the solar altitude angle a varies
standard box type solar cooker, the size of the booster mir- during 9:00–15:00 h.
ror happens to be the same as that of the base of the cook-
er. The inclination of this mirror needs to be adjusted every
20–30 min to assure maximum transmission of indirect
solar radiation at all times. The demand for this adjustment
may be reduced by using two booster mirrors. In this sec-
tion an analysis of the enhancement in the power collection
capability of the cooker with two booster mirrors is carried
out for 6 h of the most desirable cooking period, that is
starting from 3 h before the solar noon up to 3 h after it.
Fig. 1 shows the schematic of a dual booster mirror
solar cooker. Two mirrors having the same size as the base
of the cooker box are attached to the box length wise on
the opposite sides of the box. In the open configuration,
the first mirror (B-1) makes an angle b with the horizontal
direction, while the second mirror (B-2) makes an angle h.
These predetermined angles are intended to remain con-
stant throughout the cooking exercise, to investigate the
tracking free performance of the three solar cookers with
different aspect ratios.
The instantaneous solar altitude angle a is given by Stine
and Geyer (2001):
Fig. 3. The intensity of solar radiation on the cooker box top surface after
a ¼ sin1 ½sin d sin u þ cos d cos x cos u ðdegreesÞ ð1Þ reflection from the booster mirror B-1.
u is the latitude of the location and x is the hour angle,
defined as:
x ¼ 15ðts  12Þ ðdegreesÞ ð2Þ booster mirror B-2 is inclined at a fixed angle h for a
particular day, as shown in Fig. 2. Width of each booster
where ts is the local solar time in hours, related to the lon- mirror is taken equal to the width W of the cooker box.
gitude of the test location, and d is the declination angle, If ‘I’ be the solar radiation intensity on a horizontal
given to one degree accuracy by Stine and Geyer (2001): surface at a time ‘t’, while the solar altitude is ‘a’, then
d ¼ sin1 ½0:39795 cos½0:98563ðN  173Þ ðdegreesÞ ð3Þ the radiation intensity I0 on a surface held perpendicular
to the sun will be given by:
N is the number of day of the year starting from January 1.
All angles in Eqs. (1)–(3) are measured in degrees. I 0 ¼ I= sin a ð4Þ
The following analysis predicts the impact of the two
booster mirrors on the overall energy contribution to the If the booster mirror B-1 is inclined at an angle b with
cooker box, if the first booster mirror B-1 is inclined at a respect to the horizon, as shown in Fig. 3, then the intensity
fixed angle b, with respect to the horizon, while the other I001 normal to its surface should be:
340 S.Z. Farooqui / Solar Energy 114 (2015) 337–348
I 001 ¼ I 0 sinðp þ a  bÞ
If ‘W’ be the width of the booster mirror and ‘W1’ the
projection length of the reflected light onto the horizontal
surface, then the solar power per unit length received at
the horizontal surface is equal to that of the one reflected
by the mirror, that is:
I 000 00
1 W 1 ¼ I1W
where I 000
1 is the intensity of the radiation reflected from B-1
to the top of the cooker surface. Since the incident solar
radiation makes an angle of (b  a) with the mirror, the
reflected radiation will make an angle of (p + a  2b) with
the horizontal surface of the top glazing of the cooker box.
According to the law of Sine:
W = sinðp þ a  2bÞ ¼ W 1 = sinðp þ a  bÞ
Comparing Eqs. (6) and (7), one obtains:
I 000
1 ¼ I 001 sinðp þ a  2bÞ= sinðp þ a  bÞ
¼ I sinðp þ a  2bÞ= sin a
As the width of the booster mirror is fixed at a value W,
the projection length W1 of the reflected light on the
horizontal surface would be given by:
W 1 ¼ W sinðp þ a  bÞ= sinðp þ a  2bÞ
Similar analysis carried out for the booster mirror B-2,
as shown in Fig. 4, leads to:
I 002 0
¼ I sinða  hÞ
I 000 ¼ I 002 sinð2h  aÞ= sinða  hÞ ¼ I sinð2h  aÞ= sin a
2
and W 2 ¼ W sinða  hÞ= sinð2h  aÞ
The total energy E per unit length of the cooker box
received at the horizontal surface during the time from
9:00 to 12:00 h may be obtained by integrating (I.W + I 000 1
W1 + I 000
2 W2) for all values of a between amin (solar altitude
Fig. 4. The intensity of solar radiation on the cooker box top surface after
reflection from the booster mirror B-2.
ð5Þ angle at 9:00 h) and amax (solar altitude angle at 12:00 h)
for fixed values of h and b, where W1 and W2 as calculated
using Eqs. (9) and (12), respectively, are allowed to have
maximum values equal to W each, the width of the cooker
box.
Z t2
E¼ ðI:W þ I 000 000
1 W 1 þ I 2 W 2 Þdt ðJoulesÞ ð13Þ
ð6Þ t1
3. Optimal tilt angles for the two booster mirrors
For the computation of the most optimal tilt angle for
each of the booster mirrors for 6 h of tracking free opera-
tion, for each day of the year and a particular location, the
maximum energy input to the cooker between 9:00 h and
ð7Þ
15:00 h is determined by computer simulation. The approx-
imate solar radiation intensity on the ground at a particular
location may be assessed by knowing the extraterrestrial
intensity Io on a surface held perpendicular to the sun on
ð8Þ a particular day of the year as Kumar et al. (2012):
I o ¼ I sc ½1 þ 0:033412 cosf2pðN  3Þ=365:25g ð14Þ
2
where Isc = 1367 W/m is the soar constant, and N is the
day number of the year, starting from January 1. The
ð9Þ extraterrestrial radiation intensity on a horizontal surface
is then:
I oh ¼ I o cos hZ ð15Þ
ð10Þ where hZ, the zenith angle of the sun is related to the alti-
ð11Þ tude angle by
ð12Þ hZ ¼ 90  a ðdegreesÞ ð16Þ
When the extraterrestrial beam radiation Ioh reaches the
ground, it gets attenuated to Lahkar and Samdarshi (2010):
I ¼ I oh  0:7AM
0:678
ð17Þ
where the air mass is given by:
1
AM ¼ ½cos hZ þ 0:50572ð96:07995  hZ Þ1:6364  ð18Þ
Subject to clear whether conditions, Eqs. (14)–(18) pre-
dict the solar radiation intensity on a horizontal surface
for any time, day of the year and any location on earth,
excluding the arctic circles.
Using the solar radiation intensities as inferred through
Eqs. (14)–(18) and (8)–(12), for a given value of latitude
and longitude, second and third components of Eq. (13)
may be integrated between amin (altitude angle at 9:00 h)
and amax (altitude angle at 12:00 h) for fixed values of h
and b to determine the total energy collection by each of
the two booster mirrors, corresponding to those particular
values of h and b. Repeating the integration for all possible
values of b between 40° and 110° and of h between 0° and
60° and comparing results, one can obtain the most opti-
mum values of b and h for which the total energy received
at the cooker during the period is a maximum. The results
of these calculations, yielding the most optimal values of b
 S.Z. Farooqui / Solar Energy 114 (2015) 337–348 341

Fixed optimal tilt angles of the two booster mirrors for 4. Experimental results
each day of the year (9:00-15:00 hours)
120
Three solar cookers having aspect ratios of 1.33, 2.66
100 and 3.99, respectively, and each having been mounted with
two booster mirrors, had been prepared for a comparative
Angle (degrees)

80
study, as seen in Fig. 8. Specifications of the three solar
60 cookers have been outlined in Table 3.
40 Energy contribution by the two booster mirrors at fixed
optimal tilt during 9:00 to 15:00 hours for each day of
20 the year
2.50E+00
0
B1 + B2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
2.00E+00

Energy (kWh)
Day of the year
1.50E+00 B-1
Fig. 5. The most optimal tilt angle b of the booster mirror B-1 (top curve)
and h of B-2 (bottom curve), for each day of the year at 25° latitude 1.00E+00
location. B-2

5.00E-01

and h for 25° latitude test location, are shown in Fig. 5. 0.00E+00
These values are also tabulated in Tables 1 and 2. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
The energy contribution by each of the two booster mir- Day of the year
rors, having length L = 1.0 m and width W = 0.5 m,
Fig. 6. Individual and collective energy contribution during 9:00–15:00 h
inclined at fixed optimal tilt angles for each day of the year, by the two booster mirrors held at fixed optimal tilt angles at 25° latitude
is shown in Fig. 6. This is to be noted that B-1 contributes location for each day of the year.
more energy during the winter season. Mirror B-2
contributes less than B-1 throughout the year, but it
contributes relatively more during the summer season. The Totla energy contribution by the two booster mirrors and
curve at the top shows the combined energy contributed the direct solar radiation on the top glazing during
9:00 to 15:00 hours for each day of the year
by both the mirrors. The curve shows that this arrangement
with two booster mirrors gives the best monthly performance 5 B1 + B2 + Top Glazing
4.5
close to equinoxes. 4
The first component of Eq. (13) is integrated to 3.5
Energy (kWh)

determine the energy contribution by the direct solar 3

radiation onto the top glazing of the cooker box. This is 2.5
Top Glazing
2
shown in Fig. 7. The top curve shows the total energy 1.5
contribution by all the three sources. It may be noted that 1
the energy contribution by the two booster mirrors in this 0.5
configuration is nearly equal to the one by direct solar 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
radiation on the top glazing, thereby effectively providing
Day of the year
a concentration ratio of nearly two for most part of the
year. No reflective and transmission losses have been taken Fig. 7. Direct radiant energy on the top glazing (bottom curve) of the
into account in this analysis. The reflective losses have been cooker box (0.5 m2), during each day of the year, from 9:00 to 15:00 h, at
estimated elsewhere to be around 16-22%, depending upon 25° latitude location. Top curve shows the total combined energy from the
direct radiation as well as the two booster mirrors.
time of the year (Farooqui, 2013a).

Table 1
Optimal inclination of the booster mirror B-1 corresponding to different days of the year at 25° latitude location for tracking free operation of the solar
cooker from 9:00 to 15:00 h. Only those days have been listed for which the angle required a change by 1°.
N bopt N bopt N bopt N bopt N bopt N bopt
1 81 55 88 94 95 150 102 246 95 284 88
14 82 63 89 101 96 197 101 253 94 292 87
24 83 67 90 107 97 207 100 258 93 297 86
30 84 72 91 113 98 219 99 264 92 302 85
39 85 76 92 121 99 226 98 271 91 308 84
45 86 83 93 128 100 234 97 275 90 317 83
50 87 89 94 140 101 240 96 280 89 323 82
333 81
342 S.Z. Farooqui / Solar Energy 114 (2015) 337–348

Table 2
Optimal inclination of the booster mirror B-2 corresponding to different days of the year at 25° latitude location for tracking free operation of the solar
cooker from 9:00 to 15:00 h.
N hopt N hopt N hopt N hopt N hopt N hopt
1 24 57 33 99 42 157 51 243 42 284 33
7 25 63 34 104 43 190 50 248 41 290 32
14 26 67 35 107 44 202 49 253 40 295 31
24 27 71 36 113 45 207 48 258 39 298 30
30 28 76 37 119 46 215 47 262 38 304 29
36 29 81 38 125 47 222 46 266 37 311 28
43 30 85 39 132 48 228 45 271 36 317 27
49 31 89 40 140 49 234 44 276 35 323 26
52 32 94 41 145 50 240 43 280 34 333 25
340 24

Uni-Trend Group Ltd., China, were used for temperature

measurement, while Apogee SP110 Pyranometer was used
for the measurement of solar radiation intensity. The data
plotted in Fig. 9 indicates the stagnation temperatures
attained in each of the three solar cookers. Curves labeled
‘1’, ‘2’ and ‘3’ show that the maximum temperatures
attained in cooker # 1, 2 and 3 were 134 °C, 156 °C and
169 °C, respectively. The bottom line shows the ambient
temperature during the first experiment. It is clearly evident
that the cooker with greatest aspect ratio outperforms the
others in unloaded tests.
The second experiment was performed the next day,
with full load. Cooker # 1, 2 and 3 were loaded with 2, 4
and 6 equally spaced black coated containers of water,
respectively. Each container contained 800 g of water,
thereby the cookers were loaded with about 7.4 kg of water
per m2 of the aperture area. The results plotted in Fig. 10
indicate that cooker # 2 and 3 give almost similar perfor-
mance under full load and no tracking conditions. The
cooking temperatures of 70 °C were attained by all cookers
Fig. 8. Three solar cookers facing south with different aspect ratios and within 90 min, while the water boiled after 175 min in
dual booster mirrors, inclined at optimum angles for the day. cooker # 2 and 3. Maximum water temperature of 97 °C
was attained in cooker # 1 after 215 min. The experiment
was continued up to 310 min with almost stable tem-
Table 3
Dimensions of the three solar cookers for the comparative study. perature in cooker # 2 and 3, while it dropped down to
91 °C until the end of the experiment in cooker # 1.
Cooker no. Height (cm) Width (cm) Length (cm) Aspect ratio
The third experiment was conducted on April 28, 2014
1 33 45 60 1.33
with full load, to verify the results of the second experi-
2 33 45 120 2.66
3 33 45 180 3.99 ment. This time, the experiment was started 3 h before
solar noon, and was continued up to 3 h after noon. The
results plotted in Fig. 11 indicate that this time also the
Three experiments had been performed with corre- cooking temperatures of 70 °C were attained by all cookers
sponding conditions as outlined in Table 4. All cookers within 90 min, while the water boiled after 190 min in
were set due south, and no tracking was performed during cooker # 2 and 3. Water boiled in cooker # 1 after
any experiment. The second and third tests were continued 235 min. The experiment was continued up to 360 min with
even after the maximum temperature was attained, to almost stable temperature in cooker # 2 and 3, while it
assess the time wise impact of the absence of solar tracking. dropped down to 92 °C until the end of the experiment in
The first experiment was performed without load on any cooker # 1.
cooker. The base plate temperatures of each cooker, the The solar radiation intensity measured during each of
ambient temperature and the solar radiation intensity on the experiments is plotted in Fig. 12.
a horizontal surface were measured and recorded every Results of experiment # 2 and 3 indicate that the perfor-
5 min. Digital thermometers UT33 series, prepared by mance of cooker # 2 and 3 are almost similar under full
 S.Z. Farooqui / Solar Energy 114 (2015) 337–348 343

Table 4
Test conditions of three experiments, each with three solar cookers.
Date of Angles of the Experiment start Experiment end Number of pots Number of pots Number of pots Water load in
experiment booster mirrors solar time (H:M) solar time (H:M) in cooker # 1 in cooker # 2 in cooker # 3 each pot (gm)
April 22, h = 45°
2014 b = 98° 10:13 12:53 Nil Nil Nil Nil
April 23, h = 45°
2014 b = 98° 09:53 15:03 2 4 6 800
April 28, h = 46°
2014 b = 98° 09:00 15:00 2 4 6 800

Fig. 9. Plot of temperature versus time for three unloaded solar cookers
Fig. 11. Plot of temperature versus time for fully loaded solar cookers on
on April 22, 2014. Curves are labeled according to cooker No. The bottom
April 28, 2014. Curves are labeled according to cooker No. The bottom
curve shows the growth of ambient temperature.
curve shows the ambient temperature, the red curve is for cooker # 1,
green curve for cooker # 2 and the violet curve for cooker #3. (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
120 referred to the web version of this article.)
2
100
1
Temperature (oC)

80
3 greatly simplifies the use of cheap box type solar cookers,
and reduces a major barrier in the large scale deployment
60 of these cookers in the developing as well as the developed
countries.
40

20
0
9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5
Solar me (h)
Fig. 10. Plot of temperature versus time for fully loaded solar cookers on
April 23, 2014. The bottom curve shows the growth of ambient
temperature, the red curve is for cooker # 1, green curve for cooker # 2
and the violet curve for cooker #3. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
load and no tracking conditions. Further, these experi-
ments indicate that the dual booster mirror solar cookers
at optimal angular tilt of the mirrors and having aspect
ratios of at least 2.66 can be reliably used to cook food
without requiring solar tracking. This mechanism therefore
5. First and second figures of merit
14.5 15.5 In order to test the performance of box type solar cook-
ers two figures of merit (FOM) are normally calculated.
These are defined as F1 and F2 (Mullick et al., 1996;
Tiwari, 2002). F1 (measured in m2 K/W) is the ratio of opti-
cal efficiency to the heat loss factor by the bottom absorb-
ing plate and is a measure of the differential temperature
gained by it at a particular level of solar insolation. F2 gives
an indication of heat transfer from the absorbing plate to
the water kept inside the cooker.
Mathematically, they are defined as:
F 1 ¼ ðT ps  T a Þ=H s ð19Þ
where Tps is the plate (tray) stagnation temperature, Hs is
the solar insolation on the horizontal surface and Ta is
the ambient temperature.
344 S.Z. Farooqui / Solar Energy 114 (2015) 337–348

of the aspect ratio. The cooking power clearly depends

upon the aperture area of the solar cooker, as expected.

6. Exergy efficiency and quality factor

Exergy provides a measure of the potential of a given

device to extract heat from its surroundings, as the device
moves closer to the equilibrium with its surroundings.
The exergy becomes zero as the system reaches an equilib-
rium state with its environment (Petela, 2003, 2010). The
exergy input to the solar cooker, same as the exergy of
solar radiation, can be calculated using available solar
radiation flux (IADt) as Kumar et al. (2012):
"  4     #
o Ta 1 4 Ta
Fig. 12. Solar radiation intensity measured over the horizontal surface, EXi ¼ I ADt 1 þ  ð22Þ
during each of the three experiments. Curves are labeled according to Ts 3 3 Ts
experiment number.
where Ta is the ambient temperature, Ts is the surface tem-
perature of the sun, Iis the instantaneous solar radiation
intensity perpendicular to the collector, A is the aperture
Table 5 area of the solar cooker/collector and Dt is the time inter-
Calculation of the first figure of merit for the three cookers during
val. The exergy output of the system is expressible through
Experiment # 1 and Experiment # 4.
Petela (2003):
Cooker no. Tas (°C) Tps (°C) Hs (W/m2) F1 (m2 K/W)  
1 38.5 134 925 0.1032
T wf
Exo ¼ Eout  M  C  T a ln ð23Þ
2 38.5 158 925 0.1292 T wi
3 38.5 169 925 0.1411
where Twi and Twf are respectively the initial and the final
temperatures of the material inside the solar cooker, while
F 1 ðM  CÞw ½1  ðT wi  T av Þ=ðF 1  H av Þ M is the mass of material and C its heat capacity.
F2 ¼ ln ð20Þ The exergy efficiency is thus given by:
As ½1  ðT wf  T av Þ=ðF 1  H av Þ
MC½ðT wf T wi ÞT a lnðT wf =T wi Þ
Dt
where A is the aperture area of the cooker box, (M.C)w is W¼ 4
ð24Þ
I  ½1 þ 13 ðT a =T s Þ  43 ðT a =T s ÞA
the product of the mass of the water and its heat capacity,
s is the time interval during which water was heated from while the exergy loss coefficient from the system is given by:
temperature Twi to Twf, Hav and Tav, respectively are the
EX loss ¼ ðExi  Exo Þ=ðA  Dt  dT ÞðW=m2 KÞ ð25Þ
average horizontal radiation and average ambient tem-
perature, during the experiment. Eq. (19) is applied without where dT is the difference between the water and the
any load on the solar cooker while Eq. (20) is applied with ambient temperature.
full load. A graph plotted between output exergy power and the
Cooking power of a cooker is expressed as Funk (2000): temperature difference between water and the ambient
air, and fitting the data with a second order polynomial
P ¼ ðM  CÞw ½DT w =Dt ð21Þ may be used to extract the peak value of exergy from the
fitted curve (Kumar et al., 2012). The curve also provides
where DTw is the temperature difference of water obtained the temperature difference gap, as the difference of tem-
in time Dt. perature difference values corresponding to the half exergy
For the unloaded and untracked box type solar cookers power points. The exergy lost during the test may also be
described in this paper, data were collected on April 22. plotted against the temperature difference so as to estimate
The results are summarized in Table 5. the overall heat loss coefficient of the cooker.
For the fully loaded and untracked cookers, data were The exergy input power to each of the three cookers, as
collected on April 23 and April 28, 2014. For analysis, data derived from Eq. (22) using the measured data for April
are used for the water temperatures between 60 and 90 °C, 23rd experiment is shown in Fig. 13. It may be inferred
for each of the cookers. The results are summarized in from Fig. 7 that the two booster mirrors at optimal tilt,
Tables 6 and 7. contribute 80% more power to the solar cooker on the
From the results in Tables 5–7, it may be concluded that 113th day of the year as the direct radiation onto the top
in the untracked case, the first figure of merit F1 increases glazing does. Taking into account the reflective (17%)
non-linearly with the aspect ratio of the cooker, while the and transmission (10%) losses, the measured solar radia-
second figure of merit F2 remains relatively independent tion intensity is multiplied by a factor of 1.3 to extract
 S.Z. Farooqui / Solar Energy 114 (2015) 337–348 345

Table 6
Calculation of the second figure of merit and the cooking power for the three cookers for Experiment # 2.
Cooker no. Aperture area (m2) Twi (°C) Twf (°C) Tav (°C) Hav (W/m2) Duration s (Seconds) (M.C)w (J/K) F2 P (W)
1 0.2194 60 90 37.4 953.2 6300 6720 0.309 30.5
2 0.4326 60 90 37.13 961.33 4200 13,440 0.3355 89.6
3 0.6441 60 90 37.03 957.33 4200 20,160 0.3139 134.4

Table 7
Calculation of the second figure of merit and the cooking power for the three cookers for Experiment # 3.
Cooker no. Aperture area (m2) Twi (°C) Twf (°C) Tav (°C) Hav (W/m2) Duration s (Seconds) (M.C)w (J/K) F2 P (W)
1 0.2194 60 90 37.83 970.00 6300 6720 0.2983 32
2 0.4326 60 90 37.57 958.05 5400 13,440 0.2609 74.7
3 0.6441 60 90 37.25 943.24 5100 20,160 0.2742 118.6

Fig. 15. Efficiency of the exergy output power by each of the three solar
cookers on April 23, 2014, during the test period. Curves are labeled
according to the cooker No.
Fig. 13. Exergy input power to each of the three solar cookers on April
23, 2014, during the test period. Curves are labeled according to the
cooker No.

Fig. 14. Exergy output power by each of the three solar cookers on April
23, 2014, during the test period. Curves are labeled according to the
cooker No.
the exergy input power. The exergy output power and
exergy efficiency obtained through Eqs. (23) and (24),
respectively, with least squares fit are shown in Figs. 14
and 15, respectively.
The exergy loss data (EXi – Exo) plotted in Figs. 16–18,
for each of the cookers on April 23, 2014, versus the tem-
perature difference dT, are fitted with least squares linear
Fig. 16. Least squares fit to the exergy loss data for cooker # 1, on April
23, 2014.
curves. Slope of these curves divided by the aperture area
of the cooker provides the heat loss coefficient (W/K m2)
of the cooker. Further division by the amount of water
gives the specific heat loss coefficient (W/K kg m2). The
ratio of peak exergy gained to the exergy lost at that instant
maybe considered as the quality factor of a solar cooker
(Kumar et al., 2012).
The graphs plotted between output exergy power and
the temperature difference between water and the ambient
346 S.Z. Farooqui / Solar Energy 114 (2015) 337–348
Fig. 17. Least squares fit to the exergy loss data for cooker # 2, on April
23, 2014.
Fig. 18. Least squares fit to the exergy loss data for cooker # 3, on April
23, 2014.
Fig. 19. Second order polynomial fit to the exergy output power versus
the temperature difference for cooker # 1.
air, with data fitted to a second order polynomial has been
shown in Figs. 19–21 respectively, for the three experi-
ments. The fit has been used to extract the peak value of
exergy and the temperature difference gap corresponding
to half exergy power points.
Table 8 shows the calculated values of the various
exergy based performance measuring parameters for the
three solar cookers.
Fig. 20. Second order polynomial fit to the exergy output power versus
the temperature difference for cooker # 2.
Fig. 21. Second order polynomial fit to the exergy output power versus
the temperature difference for cooker # 3.
From the above table it may be concluded that the speci-
fic heat loss coefficient decreases with increasing aspect
ratio of the soar cooker, while the peak exergy gain and
the exergy lost at peak exergy gain, increase. The specific
heat loss coefficient, which indicates the heat loss per unit
mass of water in the solar cooker at peak exergy gain,
decreases from a value of 2.825 W/K kg m2 for the cooker
with aspect ratio of 1.33 to 0.238 W/K kg m2 for the cook-
er with aspect ratio of 3.99. The maximum exergy gain
increases from 17.227 W for cooker # 1 to 48.39 W for
cooker # 2 and to 74.13 for cooker # 3. One important out-
come is that the quality factor also increases with the
increasing aspect ratio. However, while the quality factor
improves by 21.5% in case of cooker # 2 as compared to
cooker # 1, it improves further by only 7.5% for cooker
# 3. The temperature difference at peak power (average
30.6 K) and the temperature difference gap at half peak
power (average 41.56 K) are found to be almost indepen-
dent of the aspect ratio. However, the product of tem-
perature difference gap at half peak power and the peak
power, have a strong dependence on the aspect ratio, show-
ing an increase by 181% in case of cooker # 2 compared to
cooker # 1, and 51.2% further with cooker # 3.
 S.Z. Farooqui / Solar Energy 114 (2015) 337–348 347

Table 8
Calculation of the various exergy based performance measuring parameters for the three solar cookers.
Cooker no. 1 2 3
Slope of exergy loss curve (W/K) 0.811 0.577 0.735
Aperture area (m2) 0.1794 0.4326 0.6441
Heat loss coefficient (W/K m2) 4.52 1.334 1.141
Specific heat loss coefficient (W/K kg m2) 2.825 0.417 0.238
Peak exergy gain (W) 17.227 48.39 74.13
Exergy lost at peak exergy gain (W) 163.42 377.90 538.02
Quality factor 0.1054 0.1281 0.1378
Temperature difference at peak power (K) 29.30 31.64 31.00
Temperature difference gap at half power (K) 41.72 41.76 41.22
Product of temperature difference gap at half power to peak power (W K) 718.71 2020.77 3055.63

7. Conclusions
This paper presents the results of computational opti-
mization of the angular orientation of two booster mirrors
of box type solar cookers, for tracking free operation. The
optimum angles of the two booster mirrors have been
evaluated and tabulated for 25° latitude test location, for
each day of the year. Results of three experiments, each
with three solar cookers having different aspect ratios
(1.33, 2.66 and 3.99), have been reported. One experiment
is conducted without any load, while the others are con-
ducted with full load. Test results confirm that with the
optimized tilt of the two booster mirrors and an aspect
ratio of at least 2.66, box type cookers can be made to
faithfully operate for at least 6 h a day without requiring
solar tracking. A number of performance measuring para-
meters, including cooking power, first and second figures of
merit, peak exergy power, quality factor and product of
peak exergy power to temperature difference gap at half
peak power have been evaluated for each solar cooker
and results are compared. The bottom line is that the solar
cooker with an aspect ratio of 2.66 is found to be optimum
in view of its performance, size, weight, cost and particular-
ly ease of handling. Up to four dishes can be easily cooked
in this cooker, at one time. These are significant conclu-
sions in as far as the penetrability of these cookers is con-
cerned, particularly in the developing countries.
Requirement of regular solar tracking is one of the major
hurdles in the large scale adoption of these cookers, which
may be circumvented by using cookers with aspect ratios of
at least 2.66 and with two booster mirrors inclined at
optimum angles.
Acknowledgment
This work is sponsored by the Higher Education Com-
mission of Pakistan under Grant No. 20-1568/R&D/09/
2023.
References
Algifri, A.H., Al-Towaie, H.A., 2001. Efficient orientation impacts of box
type solar cooker on the cooker performance. Sol. Energy 70, 165–170.
Bari, S., 2000. Optimum slope angle and orientation of solar collectors for
different periods of possible utilization. Energy Convers. Manage. 41,
855–860.
Binark, A.K., Turkmen, N., 1996. Modelling of a hot box solar cooker.
Energy Convers. Manage. 37, 303–310.
Dang, A., 1985. An analytical study of a solar cooker augmented with a
booster mirror using PCM as storage. Energy Convers. Manage. 25,
255–261.
Farooqui, S.Z., 2013a. A gravity based tracking system for box type solar
cookers. Sol. Energy 92, 62–68.
Farooqui, S.Z., 2013b. A vacuum tube based improved solar cooker. Sust.
Energy Technol. Assess. 3, 33–39.
Farooqui, S.Z., 2014a. Prospects of renewable’s penetration in the energy
mix of Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 693–700.
Farooqui, S.Z., 2014b. A review of vacuum tube based solar cookers with
the experimental determination of energy and exergy efficiencies of a
single vacuum tube based prototype. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31,
439–445.
Farooqui, S.Z., 2015. Impact of load variation on the energy and exergy
efficiencies of a single vacuum tube based solar cooker. Renew. Energy
77, 152–158.
Funk, P.A., 2000. Evaluating the international standard procedure for
testing solar cookers and reporting performance. Sol. Energy 68,
1–7.
Kumar, S., 2008. Estimation of design parameters for thermal perfor-
mance evaluation of box type solar cooker. Renew. Energy 30, 1117–
1126.
Kumar, N., Vishwanath, G., Gupta, A., 2012. An exergy based unified test
protocol for solar cookers of different geometries. Renew. Energy 44,
457–462.
Lahkar, P.J., Samdarshi, S.K., 2010. A review of the thermal performance
parameters of box type solar cookers and identification of their
correlations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (6), 1615–1621.
Mahavar, S., Sengar, N., Rajawat, P., Verma, M., Dashora, P., 2012.
Design development and performance studies of a novel single family
solar cooker. Renew. Energy 47, 67–76.
Mirdha, U.S., Dhariwal, S.R., 2008. Design optimization of solar cooker.
Renew. Energy 33 (3), 530–544.
Mullick, S.C., Kandpal, T.C., Subodh, K., 1996. Testing of box type solar
cookers: second figure of merit – F2 and its variation with load and
number of pots. Sol. Energy, 409–413.
Muthusivagami, R.M., Velraj, R., Sethumadhavan, R., 2010. Solar
cookers with and without thermal storage – a review. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 14 (2), 691–701.
Nahar, N.M., 1990. Performance and testing of an improved hot box solar
cooker. Energy Convers. Manage. 30, 9–16.
Nahar, N.M., 1992. Performance studies of a large size non-tracking solar
cooker. Renew. Energy 2, 421–430.
Nahar, N.M., 2001. Design development and testing of a double reflector
hot box solar cooker with a transparent insulation material. Renew.
Energy 22, 167–179.
348 S.Z. Farooqui / Solar Energy 114 (2015) 337–348
Narasimha Rao, A.V., Subramanyam, S., 2000. Experimental study of
energy contribution by plane booster mirrors. In: Proceedings of 24th
National Renewable Energy Convention, Mumbai, India, pp. 20–25.
Negi, B.S., Purohit, I., 2005. Experimental investigation of a box type
solar cooker employing a non-tracking concentrator. Energy Convers.
Manage. 46, 577–604.
Pande, P.C., Thanvi, K.P., 1987. Design and development of a solar
cooker for maximum energy capture in stationary mode. Energy
Convers. Manage. 27, 117–120.
Panwara, N.L., Kaushika, S.C., Kotharib, S., 2012. State of the art of
solar cooking: an overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16, 3776–
3785.
Petela, R., 2003. Exergy of undiluted thermal radiation. Sol. Energy 74,
469–488.
Petela, R., 2010. Engineering Thermodynamics of Thermal Radiation for
Solar Power Utilization. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Purohit, I., Negi, B.S., 2003. Thermal performance analysis of a box type
solar cooker employing non-tracking planer reflectors. In: Proceedings
of 26th National Renewable Energy Convention of Solar Energy
Society of India, Coimbatore, India, pp. 163–70.
Stine, W.B., Geyer, M., 2001. Power from the Sun, J.T. Lyle Center for
Regenerative Studies. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Tiwari, G.N., 2002. Solar Energy: Fundamentals, Design, Modeling and
Applications. Alpha Science International.
Tiwari, G.N., Yadav, Y.P., 1986. A new solar cooker design. Energy
Convers. Manage. 26, 41–42.
Vishaya, J.S., Tripathi, T.C., Singh, D., Bhawalkar, R.H., Hedge, M.S.,
1985. A hot box solar cooker: performance analysis and testing.
Energy Convers. Manage. 25, 373–379.
Further reading
Stackhouse, P.W., Whitlock, C.H., 2010. Surface meteorology and solar
energy – a renewable energy resource web site (release 6.0). <http://
eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/sse/register.cgi>.