Applied Energy 28 (1987) 191-213

Solar Pond Design for Arabian Gulf Conditions

M. A. Hassab, I. A. Tag, I. A. Jassim and F. Y. A1-Juburi
Mechanical Engineering Department, University o(Qatar. Doha (State of Qatar)

SUMMA R Y Collection and storage o f solar energy in salt gradient solar ponds under conditions of high ambient and ground temperatures and all year-round sunny weather are investigated theoretically. A transient model based on measured local environmental conditions (solar insolation, ambh,nt temperature and ground temperature) is developed to predict solar transmission, temperature distribution and salt distribution #~side the ponct fi)r any day oflthe year. In the model the q~'cts of heat dissipation into the ground, bottom reflection, pond dinwnsions, load extraction and variation o[ the pond's physical properties with temperature and concentration are im'estigated. The generated nonlinear coupled O'stem o[ heat and salt concentration equations .lot the composite media, considered to have isothermal boundary com#tions, is solved numerically using the impficit.finite-d(fference scheme. 77w results show that the opthmmt thickness ?['thegradient zone, uneh'r hot climatic conditions, is 1"5 m. Following the first year q[" operation, the pond with a thicker storage zone gives much less temperature fluctuation betweet~ winter and summer seasons and hence a better thermal per['ormance. An energy anaO,sis performed on the pond shows that about 32% ~f incident solar energy Z~lost to the air by evaporation, convection and thermal radiation, 6 % is lost to the ground; 12% is the extracted load attd the remainder ( 5 0 % ) is due to absorption and reflection at the surface o['the pond. For a simih#" pond. operat#tg under co/d climates, air and ground Io.vses are mtu'h higher whih, the use/'ul load is relativeO' lower in compar{son with the corre ~7~omhngfigures/m" hot climates.

NOMENCLATURE Cp
D

Specific heat, kJ/kg K.

Salt diffusion coefficient, m 2 / d a y . 191 Applied Energy 0306-2619/87/$03'50 ~ Elscvier Applied Science Publishers Ltd. England. 1987. Printed in Great Britain

192

M. A. Hassab, L A. Tag, L A. Jassirn, F. Y. AI-Juburi

G k L1 L2 L3 Lb Lg th s q qk

qsi T
t ur

W q 2k P
Subscripts
0

Volumetric radiative heat source, W/m z. Percentage of spectral solar radiation in band k. Thermal conductivity, W/m K. Thickness of upper convective zone, m. Thickness of gradient zone, m. Thickness of lower convective zone, m. Depth of the pond, m. Total depth of the pond including ground layer, m. Salt flux, g/m 2 day. Net radiative heat flux, W / m 2. Spectral radiative heat flux in band k, W / m 2. Incident solar heat flux, W/m 2. Temperature, C. Time, day. Direction cosine of refracted solar beam. Salt salinity, weight percent. Vertical coordinate, m. Yearly thermal efficiency. Daily thermal efficiency. Spectral extinction coefficient in band k, m-~. Solution density, kg/m 3. Initial condition. Refer to upper, gradient and lower zones respectively. Air. Bottom of the pond. Ground. Layer number. Solar band. Storage. Water solution. Refer to inward and outward radiation respectively.

1, 2, 3 a b g i k s w +,

Superscripts
-

INTRODUCTION The concept of a Salt Gradient Solar Pond (SGSP) for simultaneous collection and storage of solar energy has been attractive for some time. 1

Solar pond design,l~r Arabian Gu(/ conditions

193

There have been several analytical and numerical models to predict the thermal performances of these ponds. The first simplified mathematical model was formulated by Weinberger, 2 where an analytical solution of the one-dimensional heat equation for the transient temperature distribution was obtained and based on constant physical properties. In his work, Weinberger treated the pond and the ground underneath it as a simple layer neglecting bottom reflectivity. Rabl and Nielsen 3 extended Weinberger's model to include the storage of energy in the lower convective zone. Their model has been restricted to constant molecular thermal diffusivity, sinusoidal radiation input and ideal ground loss conditions. Akbarzadeh and Ahmadi* utilized Weinberger's model to predict the thermal performance o f a SGSP in the southern part of lran. Hull 5 has used a numerical formulation to check some of the assumptions of the earlier model of Rabl and Nielsen. He stated that the incident solar radiation can be approximated by a single direct fixed-angle term. Analysis for a three-layer pond, with ideal ground heat loss and uniform physical properties under a more realistic representation of climatic conditions and load variations, was considered by Hawlader and Brinkworth. ~ Their results show a strong dependence of the pond temperature on the extinction coefficient for solar radiation and thermal losses for the pond's bottom. In a more detailed study, Atkinson and Harleman v developed a computer model to predict transient salinity and temperature profiles in a SGSP with a non-reflecting bottom, taking into account the wind-mixing effect. Their formulation predicts roughly the depth of the upper convective zone using a separate mixed-layer model which incorporates the wind-mixing algorithm described by Bloss and Harleman. 8 Akbarzadeh e t al. 9 investigated the phenomenon of wind mixing in the top region of solar ponds and proposed the idea of small circular floating rings to reduce the growth of the upper convective zone. More recently, Rubin e t al. 1 presented a one-dimensional basic heat equation, applied to each layer of an insulated SGSP with a non-reflecting bottom. This study gives a comprehensive numerical treatment of SGSPs under hot climatic conditions as occur in the State of Qatar, Arabian Gull'. The model incorporates realistic climatological data, bottom reflectivity, interaction with ground layers, load extraction and dependence of pertinent physical properties on both temperature and salt concentration. It is assumed in the analysis that the growth of the upper convective-zone thickness is totally suppressed by using floating rings as suggested in Ref. 9. Therefore the analysis assumes a solar pond with stationary boundaries. The model predicts temperature and salinity profiles under a variety of pond parameters.

194

M. A. Hassab, 1. A. Tag, I. A. Jassim, F. Y. Al-Juburi

ANALYSIS This analysis was performed to predict the thermal performance of a newlyconstructed SGSP in Doha, State of Qatar in the Arabian Gulf. The pond has a surface area of 1500 m 2 and a total depth of 2.5 m, bounded from below by two ground layers of 1 and 2 m depth as shown in Fig. 1. According to these design parameters, the pond analysis is treated as one-dimensional time dependent for composite media. The environmental conditions (solar insolation, ambient and ground temperatures) for the State of Qatar are correlated by Fourier series to be conveniently used in the analysis of solar transmission and heat conduction inside the pond. In the analysis, it is assumed that the salinity gradient of the gradient zone is sufficiently large to prevent large-scale convection currents in the solar pond. The variation of heat and salt diffusion coefficients due to small-scale convection currents in both upper and lower convective zones is handled in the analysis. From the numerical solution of the transient coupled equations of heat and mass transfers, an energy balance as well as the pond's salt fluxes at the top and the bottom extremities are calculated. In the analysis, the following models are considered.
Weather data

For the State of Qatar in the Arabian Gulf, the weather data are represented by suitable correlations for convenient use in the thermal analysis of the SGSP. Variations in weather data are considered repetitive for successive one-year cycles. Fourier series analysis for solar radiation, ambient temperature and ground temperature are represented as
N

qsi(t) =- ~ Amcs(Wmt - ~m)

m=O N Ta(t) = Z m=O N
B m C O S ( m m t - - ~gm)

(la)

(lb)

T~(t) = ~
m=0

Cmcos (Wmt - 0m)

(lc)

where IV,, = 2rcm/365 and t is the number of days measured from 1 January. Values of the coefficients A,,, Bin, Cm, qJ,,, 49m and 0,, are listed in Table 1.

Solar pond design jbr Arabian Gulf conditions

195

l"altl

nZ.

Z=Lp

qB V L.LZ.

1 o.o.L I
I L.G.L. ]

Z=L9

Tgltl

Fig. 1. The salt-gradient solar pond.

Weather data have been averaged for the nine years 1976--84, generating Fourier series for the three parameters q,~, 7~, and Tg. Figure 2 compares the local daily average weather data with the corresponding correlations based on a five-term series which was found to give the best fit.

Solar transmission inside the pond

Because of the strong dependence of the absorption coefficient of water on wavelength, it is essential to divide the wavelength spectrum into a sufficient number of bands k, each having a uniform but different absorption coefficient. Then the radiation problem is solved for each band and the total quantities are determined readily by superposition, as reported by Cengel

TABLE I
Values of Coctficients in Eqns (la) (lcl
T~qnl
II

0 Solar insolation q,~ Ambient temperature 7. Ground temperature

A,, ~',, B,. 4~., C.,

5"293 0"0 27.270 0'0 30"1 0'0

1'441 157'342

0-167 148-289

0"107 55'080 0'150 70"560 0.133 90"001

0.0072 96.584 0-134 66.174 0'115 89-998

0"058 65-995 0"042 248"288 0"135 39"475

9-174 0.895 1 8 6 " 8 4 5 211-600 5"207 215"213 0"435 216.587

196

M. A. Hassab, L ,4. Tag, L A. Jassim, F. Y. AI-Juburi

SR (kWh/day)
7 -1

6-

>,
I1B "D

1
tO

d~ 3 2
---

tlB

"6 I/I
f-

data fitting

'= m
o

I Jan

I Feb

1 Har

I Apr

I Hay

I Jun

I Jul

I Aug

~ Sep

I Oct

I Nov

I Dec

Honths
Fig. 2(a). Fourier analysis for solar radiation data.

401 35 nd 30
""' d ,.
-4.-

25
20 15

'*

y
- data

10

---

fitting

I
Fig. 2(b).

Jan Feb

Har Apr Hay Jun Jut Honths

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fourier analysis for ambient and ground temperatures.

So&r pond design .tbr Arabian Guff conditions

TABLE 2

197

Percentage of Spectral Solar Radiation Jk and Extinction Coefficient 2k in Four Bands of the Solar Spectrum

Band k
1 2 3 4

Wat~elength range tirol)

0'2 0-6 0.6~)'75 0"75 0"90 0"90 1-20

,Ik (%1
23-7 197 167 17-9

)-k (m - 1)
0'032 0'45 3'00 35"00

and Ozisik. ~ F u r t h e r m o r e , the scattering effect is lumped with the a b s o r p t i o n effect into a single extinction coefficient 2 k, k = 1. . . . . 4. As suggested by Rabl and Nielsen, 3 the solar spectrum is divided into four bands over the wavelength range 0"2-1"2 #m. Accordingly, the percentage o f spectral solar r a d i a t i o n Jk and the c o r r e s p o n d i n g extinction coefficient ":-kin each band are listed in Table 2. It is to be noted that water is o p a q u e to solar r a d i a t i o n with a wavelength greater t h a n 1.2 l~m. The r a d i a t i o n p r o b l e m for a b a n d k can be simplified in the following form:

h~ward radiation u~-~5- + )'kq[ = 0 q[ (z) = (1 - p~,).lkq,~ + Pwq[ (z) Outward radiation
dq[ u~: 2kqk- = 0 13a) (3b)

dq;

(2al

-=0

(2b)

q~(z) = pbq~-(z)

z =- L~,

The solutions for the spectral inward and o u t w a r d radiation heat fluxes are readily given by

( q[(z)/q~i=(1--P,,)

Jk e - ;": ;"~ ) l _ p b P w e 2).kt,,'ur

[4a)

q~(z)/q~ = Put1

Pa) l ---~' '~ O:2;~Lb""r

(4b)

198

M. A. Hassab, I. A. Tag, I. A. Jassim, F. Y. AI-Juburi

The total radiation flux, q = q+ - q-, and the rate of absorption of the solar radiation, dqk/dZ, per unit volume at a depth z, are given by
4

q__:(l__Pa)~Jk(-~kz/ur--pbe A/<(2Lb -- Z)/Ur~ qsi 1 -- PbPw e - 22uLb/Ur /

k-1 4-

(5a)

dz

qsi

~
k=l

Jk

1 -- PbPw e - 2ZkL/.r

(5b)

Because solar radiation is a time-dependent function, the quantities defined by eqns (5) are indirectly time dependent. The net radiation absorbed by the bottom of the pond is obtained from eqn (5a) at z = L b, to give:
4

- PuPw e k=l

2AkLb/Ur;

(6)

The daily radiative heat flux q as well as the local volumetric radiative heat-source d q / d z are calculated, based on the following climatological data for the State of Qatar: The refracted cosine solar angle u r is calculated at 2 p.m. on 21 March, for the Doha latitude (25-5N) as suggested by Rabl and Nielsen. 3 (2) Solar reflectivities on the air side, Pa, and on the water side, Pw, are both equal to 0"05. The variation of solar transmission q(z)/q~ i with depth z is drawn in Fig. 3. In general, and as shown in the figure, for the upper portion of the pond, the rate of attenuation is decreasing sharply as the depth increases. In that layer of the pond, the infra-red part of the solar radiation is fully absorbed within the layer, while the attenuation of the visible part is very small. Thus the transmission in the lower region of the pond will be slightly decreased. As anticipated, the bottom's reflectivity has a significantly negative effect on transmission. This is due to the increasing portion of the energy absorbed by the fluid and that escaped from the surface of the pond.
Heat and mass transfer models

(1)

The models developed in this section are intended to evaluate the timedependent temperature and salinity distributions and the thermal performance of the pond in terms of pond size, local environmental conditions and ground effects.

Solar pond design/'or Arabian Gulf conditions

199

1.00i-

0.80

~0.60
E
elID ,4-L m t/1

.~

....

------

RB= RB= RB= RB=

0.0 0.1 0.15 0.3

0.~0 - ~ ..~.~,-'-. ~. ~ ~..-&_. --

"6

0.20 -

) 0.00

0.00

0.20

0./,0

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

Oepth,Z (m)
Fig. 3. Transmission of solar radiation through the pond layers for different values of the bottom's reflectivity.

Because the lateral dimensions of the solar pond are sufficiently large with respect to its depth, the analysis can be treated as one-dimensional, in the vertical direction :. The models consider temperature and salt variations in both the upper and the lower convective zones, in addition to the strong variation in the gradient zone. The effect of the ground beneath the pond is also considered in the heat-transfer model.

Heat-tramJbr model
The conservation of energy equation governing the time-dependent temperature distribution for each layer i of the pond. including the ground underneath it, is piCpi ~ T i

? / CTi\ Ct - :z ~ki ? f )

dq
d:

17)

Equations (7) are subjected to the following external boundary conditions at the water surface and lower ground surface:

T= T,,(t) T= T,(t)

at z = 0 at : = L~

(Sa) (Sb)

200

M. A. Hassab, L A. Tag, L A. Jassim, F. Y. AI-Juburi

and to the following conditions at the interfaces expressed as:

Ti = Ti+

"]
a t g ~--- 2 i

(9a) (9b)

ki ~3Ti = ki + c3T i + 1 c3z 1 c~ z

Equations (9b) are applicable to all interfaces except that at the bottom of the pond. Taking into account the amount of solar radiation absorbed at the bottom, eqns (9b) become
ki 1

0T~_I
Oz

k0T~
"~ z

= qb -- qL

at z = L b

(9c)

The initial condition for eqns (7) is taken as

T~= T o

art=0

where i refers to layer number, the terms d q / d z and qb are given by eqns (5b) and (6) respectively, and k~ is the effective thermal conductivity which assumes high values in both lower and upper convective zones.
Mass transfer model

The transient salt-transfer equations together with the external boundary conditions are ?~ ~z Di atz=0 atz=L b (10) (lla) (llb)

W = W~ W = W2 and the initial condition at t = 0 is

W=
W=

W1
W 2 -- W 1
W 1 --+Z 2 -- Z 1 (Z--Zl)

O<z <z 1
z 1 ~z < c2

{12)

W=

W2

z2 <_.z < L b

Boundary conditions above are based on the assumption of continuous surface wash and salt replenishment at the bottom. These processes maintain uniform concentrations at these boundaries. At the interfaces of pond layers, continuity of concentration and salt flux must be satisfied.
N u m e r i c a l solution

To avoid the complexity of satisfying the boundary conditions at the

Solar pond design .for Arabian Gulf conditions

201

interfaces expressed by eqns (9a) and (9b), a lumped energy balance is applied at each layer. Implicit finite-differencing for the heat transfer equation gives ([gCp)j_ 1/2
J

2At

T~

q- (jOCp)j+ 1:2

2At
, e{ Tj n

1 - (Az) 2 [kj+,/2(Tj"+, - T;) - kj

T~._,)] + Gj

(13l

which is written in the form

T i = T~(t)

for j = 1

aiT~_ 1 +bjT~+cjT]+ l =dj

T i = T~(t)

for j = 2,3 ..... N - - 1 for ./= N

(14)

The coefficients appearing in eqns (14) are given in Appendix 1. Finite-difference representations for the different zones and boundary conditions result in a set of algebraic equations which form a tridiagonal banded matrix. Following the procedure outlined for the solution of the heat-transfer equation, the finite-difference formulae for W are given as: Wj= W1
e"i ~ "" , + . [ i"W ~ " + g j W ; + , j =hi

for./= 1 f o r / = "~ 3, . . . . N 3
z. n

(151

I4"~= W 2

for ,i = N.~

where the coefficients ej,.[)., & and ha are given in Appendix 2. The parameters n and n - 1 in the above formulae refer to the current (t = n At) and previous (t = ( n - l)At) time steps respectively. The above system of algebraic equations, defined by eqns (14) and (15), is solved by G a u s s - J o r d a n elimination. The numerical solution is unconditionally stable for any value of the time step At. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this section, we discuss the effects of solar pond parameters, defined by thickness of pond layers, bottom reflectivity and extracted thermal load, on temperature, salinity and salt flux inside the pond. In our discussion, the following solar pond parameters (base case) are taken: Polld Initial brine and soil temperatures Thickness of upper convective zone (UCZ), L1 =25C = 03 m

202

M. A. Hassab, I. A. Tag, I. A. Jassim, F. Y. Al-Juburi

Thickness of gradient zone (GZ), L 2 Thickness o f lower convective zone (LCZ), L 3 Surface reflectivities, P a = P w Bottom reflectivity T o p and b o t t o m salinities respectively (%) Thermal load (extracted after 75 days from starting date of operation, 1 April) Operation period

= l'0m =0.4m = 0-05 =0"3 = 4 and 20 = 25 W / m 2 = 24 months

Heat and mass transfer coefficients in different pond layers: (1)UCZ: k I = 30k D 1 = 30D (2)GZ: k2 = k D2= D (3)LCZ:
k3 = D 3 =

10k 10D

where k and D are molecular thermal conductivity and mass diffusivity respectively. Although the pond was designed with 2.5m depth, it is operated under a total depth of 1.7 m.
Ground

U p p e r layer: L=lm k = 0"5 W / m K C o = 0"840 kJ/kg K p = 1520 kg/m 3

Effect of U C Z thickness, L 1

Lower layer: L=2m k = 1.14W/m K

C o = 1.1 kJ/kg K

p = 2000 kg/m 3

Figure 4 shows the variation of temperature in the storage zone versus days of the year for three selected values o f L 1 = 0"3, 0"6, and 0"9 m. F o r the base case, the temperature varies periodically throughout the year, with a maximum of 90C in August and a minimum of 55C in February. There is a 2-month time lag between the variations of temperature in the storage zone and the solar insolation incident on the pond's surface. As the thickness L 1 increases from 0-3 to 0-9 m, the temperatures decrease by a maximum of 10C. Generally speaking, growing of the U C Z because of wind effects will not seriously affect the performance of the pond, provided that all other parameters remain unchanged.
Effect of GZ thickness, L 2

Figure 5 illustrates the variation of the storage zone temperature for four selected values of L 2 = 0"8, 1, 1.2 and 1-5 m. The temperature increases

Solar pond design./'or Arabian Gull conditions

203

90

,f
70 6O
50

P
E ~J

~0
30 20100
l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I
- -

LI= 0.3 m LI: 0.6 m LI: 0.9 m

AMJ
Storage

J ASO

NDJ

F MAMJ Months

J A S O ND J F H A M

Fig. 4.

zone temperature

versus time for different values of the upper convective zone thickness, l,~.

100 -

80

cl

t-J

6o,,i-. m

Q,. p-

S
- - - - - L2= 150 ca

20-

I I

I I

1 I

I I

I I

I I

0
Fig. 5.

AMJ

JASONDJFMAMJ Months

JASOND

JFMAM

S t o r a g e z o n e t e m p e r a t u r e ,~ersus time for

different v a l u e s o f G Z t h i c k n e s s , I.~.

204

9op
80
70 6060

M. A. Hassab, L A. Tag, L A. Jassim, F. Y. Al-Juburi

et-J

I-.

~;
30

--L3= 40 cm - - - - L3==80 cm - - - L3= 120 cm . . . . L3= 200 cm

10 0
I
I ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I i I i I i I i i i i I I

AM

J J AS

0 NO

J F MAtq Months

J J ASO

NO

J FM

AM

Fig. 6. Storage zone temperatureversus time for differentvalues of the lower convective zone thickness, L3. monotonically with L 2 : a s L 2 increases from 0.8 to 1.5 m, the temperature increases by about 16C. The reason for this increase in temperature is attributed to the decrease of thermal conductance defined by k / L 2, which is related linearly to surface heat losses. However, during the heating-up (i.e. storage) periods, the least thickness, L 2 = 0"8 m, shows the largest increase in temperature in comparison with all other values up to a maximum of 80C. As time progresses, the temperature levels off because of the associated increase in surface heat losses resulting from the low thermal resistance. Further increase in time causes a sharp decrease in temperature as a result of much less stored energy.
Effect of storage zone thickness, L 3

Figure 6 shows that ponds with large L 3 cannot reach maximum storage capacity during their first year of operation: the application of the load started after 75 days. On the other hand, ponds with small L 3 reach a steady state during their first year of operation Even though ponds with a large value of L 3 did not achieve their maximum storage temperature during the heating-up period, they maintained a much higher temperature during the winter period. Following the first year of operation, ponds with large values of L3

Solar pond des~gn fi)r Arabian GMf conditions

1.8 --

205

1.6--

E
0 0 t-t

E
0 ,a; i.J ttD

1./,1.2-1.00.8060./,-0.20.0
Fig.

after /,/,9 days

',,,,after 6/,/,days~ X, (WINTER) "~

10

20

30

Temperature, C

/,0

50

60

70

80
1. 2
=

9O
I Ill.

7.

T e m p e r a t u r e profiles in the s u m m e r and winter seasons for

approach their m a x i m u m storage capacities and thus demonstrate much better overall performances. For the particular case of L 3 = 2 m , the temperature varies between a m a x i m u m of 85:C and a minimum of 7OC.

Pond temperature profile

Figures 7 and 8 show the temperature distribution inside the pond for L 2 = 1 and 2 m respectively for mid-summer and mid-winter periods. As expected, for both the upper and lower convective zones, the variation in temperature is negligible while steep variations (with non-linear profiles) dominate the gradient zone. In mid-summer, the temperature difference across the gradient zone with k 2 = 1-5 m exceeds 5 5 C , while in mid-winter it does not exceed 45' C. For a pond with L z = 1 m, the maximum and minimum temperature differences are roughly 47 and 33:'C. The non-linear temperature profile caused by the solar absorption will have a significant impact on the pond's stability, as will be discussed in a follow-up study.

Effect of bottom reflectivity

The effect of bottom reflectivity caused by the precipitation of dirt, sand, stilt, etc., on the thermal performance characterized by the storage zone temperature is presented in Fig. 9.

206
2.2--

M. A. Hassab, I. A. Tag, I. A. Jassim, F. Y. Al-Juburi

2.(]1.8E E
O

L
"~" ~ ~ ' ~ after ~49 days

1.61.I,1.21.0-

e-tD r'~

0.i~0.60.40.20.(
I I , I

Wt,Ea ~ (6/,TRrs , Nd e I atf ) y

10

20

30

z,O

50

60

70

80

90

Temperature,C

Fig. 8.

T e m p e r a t u r e profiles in the s u m m e r and winter seasons for L 2 ~ 1.5 m.

120, 100 -

60

4O
.... .....

20-

RB RB RB RB

= = = --

0.0 0.1 0.15 0.3

0 Fig. 9.

= i

I I I I

Mn s ot h

Effects of bottom reflectivity on the storage zone temperature.

Solar pond designJot Arabian Gul[ conditions

120 --

207

100 "
Q~,,--J

8o

///

/
E 6O

"\\

---

/
O . L

"\
= 0.0 Wire i
'

/,

4.0

\. \,,_./
. . . .

X.//
O,L = 10 W/ml: aL 25 W/m_ I Q.L /,.0 Wlm2
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I

20

AMJJ
Fig. 10.

ASONDJ

FMAMJJ MONTHS

ASONDJ

F MAM

Effects o f extracted thermal load on the storage zone temperature for L~ -- 0.3 m.

For a clear black liner (i.e. with p = 0), the pond shows the highest temperature in the storage zone. When p is increased From 0 to 0-3, the temperature drop did not exceed 20C all year round.
Effect of extracted thermal load, qL

Figure l0 shows the operation of the pond under different extracted loads. It" the pond is to be utilized for higher temperature (70-90cC) applications (e.g. power generation, desalination or refrigeration), 10 W/m 2 is the m a x i m u m load to be extracted. Conversely for ponds operating for low temperature (40- 70::C) applications, as in space heating, the pond can supply a load of up to 40 W / m 2.
Salt flux

Figures 11 and 12 show the salt flux consumed daily a! both the bottom and the top of the gradient zone for the base and for the cases of L 2 = 0-8 and 1'5 m respectively. For the base case, the pond consumes more salt in the summer months than in the winter months. For example, the salt flux (MS) at the bottom of the pond equals 50 g/m 2 day in mid-summer and drops to 35 g / m 2 day in mid-winter. As L 2 increases, MS values decrease by a factor inversely proportional to L2.

208

M. A. Hassab, L A. Tag, I. A. Jassim, F. Y. AI-Juburi

60SO at bottom of GZ

\ 4O
X

3O
at top of GZ

~ 2O ~ 10
0
Fig. 11.
m

III AMJ

I II I II I l l f i l l I I I II I I [ J ASOND JFMAMJ JASONDJFMAM Months

JJ

Daily salt flux at the top and the b o t t o m o f the p o n d versus time for the base case.

60-

5O 4O

/
I/
/ I 1 1
----

~L2= 0.Sin L2=. m 15

//
/

...,o
bottom
\ J

3o

g_
20 -tA~

"-

top

"~

10
AMJ J AS O N D J F MAMJ Months J ASON D J FMAM

Fig. 12.

Daily salt flux at the top and the b o t t o m of the p o n d versus time for L 2 = 0-8 and 1.5m.

Solar pond design ,Ira" Arahian Gu[l conditions

209

1.8

--

1.6E E" 1 . ~ 0 ..I--

"6 1.21.0-to ,4,--

~: 0 . 8 ---0.~-

O,J

~ 0 . 6 - -

Iffm'ally (APRIL)
SUMMER WINTER \,"I

-.-

il
I I l

0.2-0.0
0.00
I

0.05

0.11 Satinify (% weight)

0.17

0.23

Fig. 13. Salinity profiles during the summer and winter seasons for the base case.

A rather interesting p h e n o m e n o n is the difference in MS values entering and leaving the pond. This positive difference will cause an accumulation of salt in the gradient zone, as shown in Fig. 13 which presents the salinity profiles for the two extreme weather conditions, together with the initial profile. The figure shows that the salinity variation in the convective zone is very small compared with that in the gradient zone. Clearly the increase of the salinity in the pond's upper and mid regions is much higher than the decrease in the lower region. This explains the reason for salt accurnulation in the gradient zone.
Energy balance in solar pond

Figure 14 shows the distribution of energy rates in the solar pond. Tile energy q~ incident on the surface of the pond is balanced by: (1) (2) energy qr reflected and absorbed near the surli~ce; energy qa lost to the air by convection, evaporation and long-wave radiation; (3) energy qg transmitted by conduction into the ground, underneath the pond; 14) energy q~ stored (positive or negativel in pond brine layers; and (5) thermal load qL extracted from the p o n d at a uniform rate.

210

M. A. Hassab, 1. A. Tag, 1. A. Jassirn, F. Y. Al-Juburi

300ewI

E 250200 ~-

qs[

OJ X

~-

150-

100
i'm

,,
-

/
~

\
" ~ '

500

qs

0-50
Fig. 14.

~..-___~

~ m I I I I I I t I I I I [ [ I t I 1 I ~ AM J J A SO N DJ F MA M J J A SO N 13J FM AM

Months
Energy balance for the solar pond as a Function of time for the base case.

Thus, the heat balance at any day of the year is expressed as q~i = qr + q, + qg + q~ + qL Typical values for the various months of the year are given in Table 3. As presented in this table, the greatest loss of energy is due to the infra-red absorption of solar radiation near the surface of the pond, followed by energy loss to surrounding air. Ground loss represents a very small amount. The most interesting point is the one regarding energy storage: the pond starts to store energy from the beginning of the spring season (March) up to the middle of the summer season (August) and gives it up from August to February, as is clearly shown in Fig. 14. The percentage energy loss
TABLE 3
Energy Balance in Solar Pond
i q (W/m-)

March
241"3 123-5 62-3 127 178 25.0

June
277"5 144-5 82-0 15-5 10.5 25.0

Sept.
211.8 99.8 79-2 8-8 -- 13-2 25.0

Dec.
148.8 70.6 59"0 2"8 16"2 25-0

q~i

qr
qa

q~ q,
qL

Solar pond des(,~nfor Arabian Gu(/ conditions

211

indicates that 50% of the total energy is lost at the surface, about 30% is due to surface evaporation, convection and long-wave radiation, and about 6%, is lost to the ground. The thermal performance of the pond can be expressed by the daily thermal efficiency qL r/aq~(t) As shown in Fig. 14, ~ld is inversely proportional to q~(t), attaining a maximum in December and a minimum in June. The average value of the pond thermal efficiency q is defined as

q----~qL//::~q,i(l)
t--I t 1

365

3(~5

This value is estimated to be about 12% fi)r the base case. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study, based on a stabilized solar pond, can be stated briefly as: (1) Precipitation of sand and dirt on the bottom of the pond, simulated by high reflectivity, causes significant reductions of the pond's energy storage capacity. (2) Optimum depth of a large-scale SGSP operating under hot climatic conditions is found to be 4-1 m, made up of 0-6m upper convective zone, 1-5 m gradient zone and 2 m lower convective zone. (3) Under the optimum design parameters of st stable pond, a temperature range of 7 0 - 9 0 C can be maintained easily with an estimated 12% yearly average thermal efficiency. (4) For dry warm soil, the ground heat loss is very small.relative to the total energy input. Neglecting this amount will not significantly affect the pond's performance. (5) Salt consumption for a pond in the Gulf area is relatively higher than that for a similar-sized pond operating in cold climates.

REFERENCES 1. Tabor, H., Large-area solar collectors for power production, Solar Ener:Zy.7 ~4) (1963), 189 93.

212

M. A. Hassab, L A. Tag, I. A. Jassim, F. Y. AI-Juburi

2. Weinberger, Z., The physics of solar ponds, Solar Energy, 8 (1964), 45-56. 3. Rabl, A. and Nielsen, C. E., Solar ponds for space heating, Solar Energy, 17 (1) (1975), 1 12. 4. Akbarzadeh, A. and Ahmadi, G., Computer simulation of the performance of a solar pond in the southern part of Iran, Solar Energy, 32 (1980), 143 51. 5. Hull, J. R., Computer simulation of solar pond thermal behavior, Solar Energy, 25 (1980), 33-40. 6. Hawlader, M. N. A. and Brinkworth, B. J., An analysis of the non-convecting solar pond, Solar Energy, 27 (3) (1981), 195-204. 7. Atkinson, J. F. and Harleman, D. R. F., A wind-mixed layer model for solar ponds, Solar Energy, 31 (3) (1983), 243-59. 8. Bloss, S. and Harleman, D. R. F., Effect of wind induced mixing on the seasonal thermocline in lakes and reservoirs, 2nd Int. Symp. on &ratified Flows, Trondheim, Norway, 1980. 9. Akbarzadeh, A., MacDonald, R. W. G. and Wang, Y. E., Reduction of surface mixing in solar ponds by floating rings, Solar Energy, 31 (4) (1983), 377 80. 10. Rubin, H., Benedict, B. A. and Bachu, S., Modeling the performance of a solar pond as a source of thermal energy, Solar Energy, 32 (1984), 771-8. 11. Cengel, Y. A. and Ozisik, M. N., Solar radiation absorption in solar ponds, Solar Energy, 33 (6) (1984), 581-91.

A P P E N D I X 1: C O E F F I C I E N T S F O R EQNS (14)

aj = 2rj bj = - [ ( 1 + A j)+ 2r~(1 + B ) ] cj = 2rjAj

d~ = - ( 1 + A ) T ~ - ~ + 2ejGj where Gj rj. dqi dz At
( A z ) 2 o~j_ 1/2

(A1)

At
e j -- ( [ C p ) j _ 1/2

(pCp)j+ ~/2 A~ - (pCp)j_ 1/2

k j + 1/2

k j _ 1/2 ~j 1/2 - - ( p C p ) j - 1/2

Solar pond des(enfor Arabian GMf conditions

213

Finite differencing the equation at the b o t t o m interface (N3) given by eqn (9c) yields the same expressions for the coefficients a~, h.~.and cj as given by eqns (A1). The new expression for the coefficient dN3 is
dN3=--(I+AN3)T~3 l-k2

-v -I'Z~'- {N3

{A2)

A P P E N D I X 2: C O E F F I C I E N T S F O R EQNS (15)
Cj = Rj

l} = - [ 1 + Xj~l + Ri!]
sea = x~n,~

h i = - - ~/l/an- 1

where
Ri _ Dj_ 1,'2 At
(Az) 2

Xj-

Dj+ 1/2 Dj 1.'2