Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 33 (2022) 101925

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

Experimental study and mathematical model development for the

effect of water depth on water production of a modified basin
solar still
Mahmoud S. El-Sebaey a, *, Asko Ellman b, Ahmed Hegazy a, Hitesh Panchal c
a
Mechanical Power Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Menoufia University, Shebin El-Kom, Egypt
b
Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Tampere University, Finland
c
Mechanical Engineering Department, Government Engineering College Patan, Gujarat, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Freshwater is constantly shrinking with the confindness of water resources. Therefore, desali­
Single-slope double-basin still nation of seawater is given great attention. Renewable energy sources also become of high
Basin depth importance to reduce carbon emissions. Thus, this study is concerned with the design, fabrication,
Internal heat transfer coefficient and testing of a new single-slope double-basin solar still as a renewable energy-driven desali­
Freshwater nation system. It differs from the conventional solar stills by having two basins. The experiments
Efficiency
were conducted to compare the performance of both conventional and modified solar stills. As a
design parameter that substantially affects the performance, the still water depth was investi­
gated. A new straightforward, accurate model is developed to predict both systems’ performance
for the design and optimization within a maximum deviation of ±6.6%. The results indicated that
the day’s productivity for the new and conventional stills at 2 cm water depth was 2.855 and
1.785 L/m2 per day, respectively, by an increase of 59.9% with a thermal efficiency improvement
of 61.3%. Also, a rise in the equivalent water depth de from 2 cm to 3 cm reduces the accumulated
productivity by 14.36% and 15.41% for the SSDBSS and SSSS, respectively. Additionally, the
daily thermal efficiency of the SSDBSS and SSSS is 25% and 15.5% for water depth de of 2 cm,
respectively. The maximum values of the total heat transfer coefficient were also evaluated to be
15.4 and 55 W/m2.◦ C for the lower and upper basins of the modified system, respectively, and
30.18 W/m2.◦ C for the conventional system.

Nomenclature

C, n Nusselt number expression unknown constants —

de Equivalent water depth in the basins of the SSDBSS cm
dl Water depth in the lower basin of the SSDBSS cm
ds Water depth in the basin of the SSSS cm
du Water depth in the upper basin of the SSDBSS cm
Gr Grashof number —
hcw Coefficient of heat transfer by convection from water surface to glass cover W/m2.K

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.S. El-Sebaey).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2022.101925
Received 16 January 2022; Received in revised form 3 March 2022; Accepted 7 March 2022
Available online 14 March 2022
2214-157X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M.S. El-Sebaey et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 33 (2022) 101925

hew Coefficient of heat transfer by radiation from water surface to the glass cover W/m2.K
Kv Thermal conductivity of the humid air W/m K
L Latent heat of water vaporization J/kg
Lv Mean distance between the glass cover and water surface M
Nu Nusselt number —
Pg Vapor pressure at the glass surface temperature N/m2
Pw Vapor pressure at the water surface temperature N/m2
Pr Prandtl number —
q̇ew Rate of energy lost from the water surface by evaporation W/m2
R Parameter —
Ra Rayleigh number —
Tg The temperature of the glass cover ◦ C
Tv The temperature of the water vapor ◦ C
Tw Temperature of water ◦ C
Lv Mean distance between the glass cover and water surface M

Abbreviations
SSDBSS Single-Slope Double-Basin Solar Still
SSSS Single-Slope Solar Still
MSF Multi-Stage Flash
MED Multiple Effect Distillation
TVC Thermal Vapor Compression
MD Membrane Distillation
RO Reverse Osmosis
PVC Chloride Vinyl Poly
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund

1. Introduction
A solar still is an important device for using solar energy to turn saltwater water into drinkable water. [1]. It is inexpensive,
cost-effective, and requires less skilled labour to manufacture than other desalination technologies [2]. Because the distillate output
received by the solar still remains lower, therefore it is not an essential device for supplying potable water to industry and households
in large quantities [3].
There have been several attempts by researchers worldwide to improve the distillate yield of the solar still, using a variety of
methods or ideas [4]. Higher water temperature and lower inner glass cover temperature are considered driving forces to enhance the
distillate output of solar still [5]. Researchers have experimented with various methods to raise the temperature of the water in the
solar still. The solar collector is an important device that is used with the solar still to feed hot water to the solar still’s a basin. O.O.
Badran and H.A.Al-Tahaineh [6] conducted a series of tests on a solar still equipped with a flat plate collector at various depths of
water. According to their findings, a flat plate collector coupled with a solar still increased distillate output by 36%. Mevada et al. [7]
tested the performance of solar still with and without using the evacuated tubes and condenser in climate conditions of Gandhinagar,
Gujarat, India. They also conducted exergo economic and exergo environmental analysis of both solar stills systems. Artificial intel­
ligence model and moth-flame optimizer were used to forecast the productivity of a solar distiller, which was integrated with evac­
uated tubes and an external condenser by ammar el sheikh et al. [8]. To determine the influence of flat plate collector coupling on
distillate yield, Badran et al. [9] conducted 24-h experiments with a solar still that used tap water and saltwater, as well as a coupling of
a flat plate collector. They discovered that coupling a flat plate collector to tap water and saline water resulted in 52% and 231%
distillate yields, respectively. A flat plate collector integrated with a solar still was tested in the climate of Madurai, India, by Raja­
seenivsan et al. [10]. A 30% improvement in distillate yield was observed when an integrated flat plate collector was used compared
with conventional solar still, as reported by the researchers. An experimental examination of the performance of a solar water distiller
that uses a circular parabolic absorber has conducted by Samir M. Elshamy et al. [11]. They concluded that the solar distiller with a
circular parabolic absorber had an excellent design and excellent performance and productivity. Morad et al. [12] used a solar still with
a flat plate collector and tested it in Egyptian climate conditions, both with and without cooling effect. They discovered that using a flat
plate collector coupled with glass cover cooling is the most effective technique to improve solar still production. Singh et al. [13]
carried out a performance evaluation of evacuated tubes integrated with solar stills in natural circulation mode [13]. They carried out
the experiments with a constant water depth of 0.03 m. The results of the experiments were utilized to calculate energy and exergy
efficiencies. Panchal et al. [14] had reviewed several papers on using Computational fluid dynamics in solar still. They concluded that
computational fluid dynamics is an excellent tool to predict the performance of the solar still. Shiv Kumar et al. [15] had employed
evacuated tubes coupled with a solar still operating in the forced circulation mode. In addition, they estimated the system’s thermal
performance, validated their predicted results against the experimental data, and received good agreement. The distillate output of a
solar still coupled with evacuated tubes in forced circulation mode was more significant than the natural circulation mode. Shafil et al.

2
M.S. El-Sebaey et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 33 (2022) 101925

[16] used a unique design of evacuated tubes in conjunction with solar still and thermoelectric modules. Thermoelectric generators
produce enough electricity to power the propeller fan for forced circulation to enhance heat transfer. As a result of their experiments
achieved the maximum distillate output of 1.11 kg/m2/hr as a result of their investigations. Kamran Mohammadi et al. [17] had used a
novel design of the multi-scale heat exchanger with parabolic trough coupled solar still and tested in climate conditions of Iran. They
found that the novel design of heat exchangers found 39.4% highest overall efficiency from experimental work. A heat and mass
transfer of integrated solar still with an underground heat exchanger simplified model was presented by Salman H. Hammadi [18]. For
both the solar still and the underground heat exchanger, the model contains a theoretical study in the transient mode, which is
applicable throughout the year in a warm climatic zone. Three active single slope solar stills have been subjected to a computational
study on the basis of energy and exergy have compared by Joshi and Tiwari [19]. In terms of energy efficiency, the strategy preferred
by them has plenty of space to increase exergy efficiency further. Mahmoud S El-Sebaey et al. [20] had conducted the comparison
between the CFD simulation and Experimental analysis of the double slope solar still. They found good agreement between the CFD
simulation and Experimental results of double slope solar still. Similarly Mahmoud S. El-Sebaey et al. [21] carried out similar study on
the single slope solar still and received good agreement too.

2. Experimental setup
Fig. 1 presents a schematic diagram of the experimental setup for both solar stills studied in the current work, conventional single-
slope solar still (SSSS) and single-slope double-basin solar still (SSDBSS). The SSSS has only one internal body part, while the SSDBSS
comprises two internal body parts, i.e., the lower and upper ones. The lower body part of the SSDBSS has the same shape as the SSSS
body. Both internal bodies are constructed of galvanized iron sheets with a thickness of 0.8 mm. The internal base of each body has the
dimensions of 1000 × 1000 mm. They have rectangular-shaped front and rear sides with heights of 100 and 525 mm, respectively. The
sidewalls are made as trapezoidal shapes with smaller and larger heights of 100 and 525 mm, respectively; these heights allow the
upper edges of the sidewalls to have a slope of 23◦ . The still walls are welded to each other and the still base at the corresponding edges
constituting the cavity of the SSSS and the lower internal body part of the SSDBSS. The base and walls of each still internal body part
are enclosed by a wooden box having the exact shape of both still parts with inner dimensions a little bit greater than the outer di­
mensions of the still bodies to allow inserting the still internal parts inside the wooden boxes. The wooden boxes have a thickness of 50
mm and serve as thermal insulators to diminish heat loss from the still sides and base. Two PVC tubes of diameter 1" (25.4 mm) are
inserted through two holes in the sidewalls of the wooden enclosures and internal still bodies. Both tubes are fixed to the sidewalls of
the inner body sides using adhesive silicone rubber glue; one tube lies at a distance of 60 mm above the base, and the other lies directly
on the base and is used for draining the brine.
The upper internal body part of the SSDBSS is made in the shape of a parallelepiped from 3 mm thickness acrylic sheet where its
base has the dimensions of 1100 × 1195 mm. The walls of the upper internal body part of the SSDBSS are made with a height of 100
mm. The length of the frontal and rear walls is 1000 mm, and the side walls have a length of 1095 mm. The front and rear walls are
fixed vertically to the base using adhesive silicone rubber glue, 50 mm from the lower and upper edges, respectively. The side walls are
made as parallelograms, and they stick to the base, front and rear walls using adhesive silicone rubber glue. It is to be noticed that the
side walls are 50 mm from the base side edges. Ten equally spaced vertical Acrylic strips of 50 mm height and 3 mm thickness were
fitted to the cavity of the upper part parallel to the frontal and rear walls. They are fixed to the base of the cavity and side walls using
adhesive silicone rubber glue and serve to hold saltwater. The upper still internal body part of the SSDBSS was left without coating to
lose its translucence and allow the incident solar radiation to penetrate to the lower part of the still. A wooden box was installed around

Fig. 1. A schematic diagram of the experimental setup of the single and double basin, single slope solar stills.

3
M.S. El-Sebaey et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 33 (2022) 101925

the front, rear, and sidewalls of the upper part for easy assembly and installation of the SSDBSS.
Ten tubes with 10 mm diameter were inserted through holes in one side of both the wooden box and upper still body of the SSDBSS.
They are fixed to the inner surface, using adhesive silicone rubber glue at a distance of 40 mm from the lower edge of each
compartment. These tubes are fitted with valves for allowing saltwater to flow into the compartments of the upper still internal body
part and prevent the air from the stream outside this still part. Similar ten tubes are fitted to the other sidewall but at the lowest
position of each compartment for draining the brine. The top still body part, along with the wooden box, was set on the sidewalls of the
lower part. To prevent any air penetration inside the lower still body part of the SSDBSS to the surroundings, the borders of the
separating surface between the upper and lower parts of the still are sealed using adhesive silicone rubber glue. The base of the upper
part acts as a condensing surface for the lower part. All surfaces of the wooden enclosures were painted with soft polymer polyester
putty 351 to seal them against air and water.
The top of the condensing covers of both the SSSS and the upper internal body part of the SSDBSS was made of transparent window
glass with a thickness of 3 mm. They are fixed on the still upper edges of the wooden enclosure and still internal bodies using adhesive
silicone rubber glue.
For collecting the distillate from each of the SSSS and the lower still part of the SSDBSS, a 1" (25.4 mm) diameter half PVC tube,
with a length equal to the internal length of the frontal still side, is fixed 5 mm below the upper edge of the frontal still side using
adhesive silicone rubber glue. This half tube extends from one lateral side of the still to the other and tilted 10◦ to the horizontal. A 1"
(25.4 mm) diameter complete tube is inserted through a hole in the wooden enclosure along with the still body. It is fixed to the
internal surface of the still frontal side, at the lower terminal of the collecting tube, using adhesive silicone rubber glue. This tube is
connected to a vertical tube of 1′′ diameter through an elbow and conveys the distillate to the collecting tank. The same system collects
the distillate from the upper internal still body.
Fig. 2 exhibits a photograph of the experimental setup. The solar radiation passes through the top glass covers to the stills, where
the black bases absorb most of this radiation. Water starts heating up, and the air moisture inside the stills increases due to water
evaporation. The bases radiate infra-red radiation reflected in the stills by the transparent covers to be trapped inside the still. Heated
water vapor condenses on the internal surfaces of the cooler condensing covers. Condensed water goes down the inclined condensing
covers to inside the collection trough, fixed at the lower edge of the covers to collect the freshwater. The distillate is collected and
continuously drained through a plastic tube and stored in external measuring jars. Holes in the SSSS and lower part of SSDBSS back
walls are provided for the water inlet to keep the heights of the water in the basins invariable. Other holes in the side walls allow
inserting the thermocouples for measuring the temperatures of the inner condensing covers, water vapor, water, and the base of the
basins. Also, two holes in the base of the basins are fitted for brine exit and a transparent U tube manometer to ensure that the basin’s
saltwater height remains constant.
The orientation of the solar stills was to the south to receive the largest possible solar radiation during the experiments. The stills
basins were cleaned regularly to evade the deposition of salts.

3. Experimental procedure
The current experimental investigation has been performed using two manufactured solar still models in the laboratory of solar
energy of Menoufia University (latitude of 30.5◦ N and longitude 31.01◦ E), Egypt. Experiments for predicting the performances of the
stills were carried out during June and July 2018. Each test started at the local time of 07:00 and continued until 20:00. The
comparative performances of the two constructed solar stills were analyzed for a constant amount of saline water at the start of the test
at 20, 30, 40, and 50 L for escaping the effect of water depth on freshwater productivity. The experimental tests were done over ten
days for every water depth. In the course of testing the stills, on switching over from one water volume to another, the solar stills were
left idle, at least for one day, to attain steady-state conditions before starting the experiment for the following water depth.

Fig. 2. A photograph of the experimental setup.

4
M.S. El-Sebaey et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 33 (2022) 101925

4. Experimental uncertainty
Some uncertainties may stem from instrument selection, calibration, environment, and reading. The instruments’ measured un­
certainty values are considered plus or minus (±) half the smallest scale division. For each solar still, the following parameters were
measured each hour: the global solar radiation, ambient air temperature, and distillate yield, besides the temperatures of inner glass
cover surface, vapor, water, and the basin. On measuring these parameters the uncertainties, which may occur, are presented in
Table 1.

5. Evaluation of distillate output

The following thermodynamic analysis is carried out for SSSS. This analysis is valid for the modified solar still SSDBSS, which will
be clarified later in this section.
The hourly distillate output per meter square of the solar still can be assessed by:
q̇ew × 3600
Ṁ w = (1)
L

where q̇ew is the rate of water evaporation heat and L is the latent heat of water vaporization.
The hourly productivity rate can also be expressed as [20]:
( )
hew Tw − Tg × 3600
Ṁ w = (2)
L

where Tw and Tg are the temperatures of water surface and glass cover, respectively, and hew is the coefficient of heat transfer by
evaporation. This coefficient is defined by [22]:
( )
Pw − Pg
hew = 16.273 × 10− 3 hcw (3)
Tw − Tg

The latent heat of water evaporation can be approximated by the following relation [23]:
[ ( )]
L = 31.615 × 105 1 − 7.6166 × 10− 4 Tw (4)

where, Tw is measured in Kelvin.

Based on Eqs. [1–3], it can be derived that:
( )
q̇ew = 16.273 × 10− 3 hcw Pw − Pg (5)

The heat transfer coefficient by convection (hcw ) from the water to glass cover can be identified based on measured values of
distillate output (Ṁw ) as well as temperatures at the water surface (Tw) and glass cover (Tg). This is calculated by finding out constants
n and C involved in the equations representing Nusselt, Rayleigh, Grasshof, and Prandtl numbers (Nu, Ra, Gr, and Pr), [24]:

Nu = C[Ra]n (6)

hcw Lν
Nu = = C[Ra]n = C[Gr.Pr]n (7)
kν

kν
hcw = C[Gr.Pr]n (8)
Lν
Substituting hcw from Eq [8]. into Eq. [5], the rate of evaporative heat transfer from the water to the transparent cover is calculated
by:

3 kν
( )
q̇ew = 16.273 × 10− C[Gr.Pr]n Pw − Pg (9)
Lν
′
gβLν3 ρ2 ΔT
Gr = (10)
μ2

Table 1
Uncertainties of the measured parameters.

Device Parameter Range Uncertainty

2
Eppley Pyranometer Solar Radiation 0: 2000 W/m ±10 W/m2
Digital Reader Chromel-Alumel Thermocouple (Type-K) Temperature 0 : 100 ◦ C ±0.05 ◦ C
Mercury Thermometer Temperature 0: 100 ◦ C ±0.5 ◦ C
Graduated Jar Water Volume Productivity 0: 50 ml ±0.5 ml

5
M.S. El-Sebaey et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 33 (2022) 101925

The effective temperature difference ΔT is calculated by:

′

( )
Pw − Pg (Tw + 273)
(11)
′
ΔT = Tw − Tg +
268.9 × 103 − Pw

μC P
Pr = (12)
Kν

It can be concluded from Eqs [1,9]. that the hourly distillate output (Ṁw ) can be expressed as:

3 kν
( ) 3600
Ṁ w = 16.273 × 10− C[Gr.Pr]n Pw − Pg × (13)
Lν L
Introducing a new parameter (R) which is constant in the steady-state condition and given by:

3 kν
( ) 3600
R = 16.273 × 10− Pw − Pg (14)
Lν L

It follows that Ṁw is expressed as a function of R, Gr and Pr numbers by:

Ṁ w = RC[Gr.Pr]n (15)

Ṁ w
= C[Gr.Pr]n (16)
R
The logarithm of the two sides of Eq [16]. leads to a linear equation [25]:
y = mx + Co (17)
The unknown parameters C and n in Eq [16]. are determined by regression analysis using experimental data of distillate output
(Ṁw ) as well as temperatures of water surface (Tw) and glass cover (Tg), where
( )
Ṁ w
y = ln , · CO = ln C, · x = ln(GrPr)and · m = n
R
With the aid of linear regression analysis, the coefficients m and CO of Eq [17]. can be calculated as:
∑ ∑ ∑
N( xy) − ( x)( y)
m= ∑ 2 ∑ 2 (18)
N( x ) − ( x)
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
( y)( x2 ) − ( x)( xy)
CO = ∑ 2 ∑ 2 (19)
N( x ) − ( x)

where N is the number of experiments for the steady condition.

The values of C and n are then given as:
C = exp(CO ) · and · n = m (20)
All the analysis is given by Eqs [1–20]. can be applied to each body part of the SSDBSS. Considering the lower part, the only change
is that the temperature Tub replaces the temperature Tg of the glass cover on the upper internal part base. As for the upper inner body
part of the SSDBSS, the water surface is considered one flat surface with the sum of all surface areas in all compartments of the upper
basin with an average temperature Tuw. This area exchanges heat with the glass cover via radiation and convection.

6. Internal heat transfer

The heat exchange from the evaporating water surface to the condensing glass cover represents the internal heat transfer inside the
solar still. It is governed by heat transfer coefficients of radiation, convection, and evaporation. Hence, the sum of all these coefficients
leads to the total heat transfer coefficient (ui) from the evaporative surface to condensing surface:

ui = hcw + hrw + hew (21)

where hrw is the heat transfer coefficient by radiation.

The heat transfer coefficient by radiation is given by the following relation [22]:
[ ( )4 ]
εeff σ (Tw + 273)4 − Tg + 273
hrw = ( ) (22)
Tw − Tg

where εeff is the effective emittance between the water surface and glass cover and σ is the Stephan-Boltzman constant, which is equal
to 5.67 × 10− 8 W/m2. K4.

6
M.S. El-Sebaey et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 33 (2022) 101925

The εeff among the water and the glass surfaces can be calculated by:
[ ]− 1
1 1
εeff = + − 1 (23)
εw εg

where εw and εg are the emittance of water surface and glass cover, respectively, and they have the values of εw = 0.96 and εg = 0.88,
[24].

7. Thermal efficiency

The daily thermal distillation efficiency, (ηd), was determined by summing the hourly outcome (Ṁw ), multiplied by the latent water
heat (L), and divided by the average solar radiation over the day I(t) over the whole base area (A) of the still [26]:
∑
Ṁ × L
ηd = ∑ w × 100 (24)
I(t) × A

8. Results and discussion

The solar radiation and ambient temperature variations were measured during 14.6.2018, as shown in Fig. 3. It is observed from the
figure that the solar intensity increased gradually with the local daytime from sunrise, reaching an extreme value of 946 W/m2 at
12:00, and then it decreased till sunset. The ambient air temperature attained its maximum value around 14:00 that may be referred to
as the thermal inertia of the ambient air mass.
To be able to compare the performance of the two studied still configurations, the amount of the saltwater to be desalinated in each
still at the start of operation was kept equal. For the SSSS, the whole saltwater amount was held in the still basin, while in the case of
SSDBSS, half this amount was contained in the lower still basin, and the other half amount was poured equally into the compartments
of the upper basin. Hence, the depth ds of the saltwater in the SSSS was double the depth dl of the saltwater in the lower basin of the
SSDBSS. For the sake of comparison, an equivalent depth de is introduced, which is the depth of saltwater if the whole amount of
saltwater is contained inside the lower basin of SSDBSS. The variation of the measured basin, water, vapor, and glass cover tem­
peratures for the SSSS and SSDBSS with day time for water depth ds and de of 2 cm are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively.
It is seen from Figs. 4 and 5 that the water temperature is higher than that of both the temperatures of vapor and the condensing
surface, whereas it is lower than the basin temperature. Also, it can be noticed that the water temperature rises gradually with time and
reaches a maximal value in the afternoon period between 13:00 and 14:00. This is because of increasing the absorbed solar intensity
that surpasses the losses to the surrounding atmosphere. After 14:00, the solar radiation intensity (Fig. 3) and the water temperature
decrease accordingly. This is ascribed to the losses from the still cover to the surroundings, which become higher than the absorbed
solar radiation. In the morning, the difference in the temperature of the water surface and the condensing surface is relatively small
because of the low solar radiation intensity that affects little yield productivity. Also, it can be noted that the temperature of the water
attains higher values faster than the condensing cover; this can be referred to as the more thermal heat capacity of water compared to
that of the glass cover. Fig. 4 exposes that the maximum temperature of the water is 77.4 ◦ C in the case of SSSS. Fig. 5 suggests clearly

Fig. 3. Variations of solar radiation and dry bulb temperature during 14.06.2018.

7
M.S. El-Sebaey et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 33 (2022) 101925

Fig. 4. Hourly variations of the basin, water, vapor, and condensing cover temperatures for SSSS with daytime at water depth ds of 2 cm.

Fig. 5. Hourly variations of the basin, water, vapor, and condensing cover temperatures for SSDBSS with day time at equivalent water depth de of 2 cm.

that in the status of the SSDBSS, the maximum water temperature reaches the value of 85.6 ◦ C and 74.4 ◦ C in the lower basin and upper
basin, respectively. The purpose of the variation among the values of the temperature of the SSDBSS and the SSSS is to divide the
saltwater into two basins, which reduces the water thermal capacity and shrinkage of the air gaps volume of the SSDBSS.
In the distillation process, the values of internal heat transfer coefficients are essential in evaluating system performance. Fig. 6
explains the hourly difference of the coefficients of the internal heat transfer inside the still, namely evaporation (hew), heat transfer
coefficient (these coefficient is calculated using Eq. (3), depending on measured values of hourly productivity, water, and condensing
cover temperatures). The coefficients namely evaporation (hew), convection (hcw), and radiation (hrw) are obtained for water depth ds/
equivalent water depth de of 2 cm for both tested solar still configurations.
It has been demonstrated that the mass transfer rate of evaporation is mightily affected by the heat transfer coefficient of evap­
oration, and it rises when the heat transfer coefficient of evaporation is raised. This can be attributed to the fact that the solar still
output is relative to the evaporation mass transfer rate of water, which depends on the values of the evaporation heat transfer and the
variation among temperatures of water and condensing cover surface. This can be seen from the corresponding amounts of heat
transfer coefficient by evaporation (hew) shown in Fig. 6 and the still productivity that will be illustrated in Fig. 7.
Fig. 6 suggests that the highest values of hew along the day are in the upper basin of the SSDBSS due to the extreme received solar
energy, and hence the maximum outcome is obtained. On the other hand, it is noted that the value of hew is relatively low in the lower

8
M.S. El-Sebaey et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 33 (2022) 101925

Fig. 6. Hourly variation of heat transfer coefficient by evaporation (hew) for the SSSS with saltwater depth ds of 2 cm and the SSDBSS with equivalent depth de of 2 cm.

Fig. 7. Hourly variations of experimental and theoretical accumulated freshwater for the SSSS with saltwater depth ds of 2 cm and the SSDBSS with equivalent depth
de of 2 cm.

basin of the SSDBSS (Fig. 6) that leading to lower hourly productivity, as will be displayed in Fig. 10. However, the lower basin has the
maximum water temperature and the temperature variation among the water and condensing surface, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6, and as
will be exhibited in Fig. 10. This is because the still output results from the heat transfer coefficient by evaporation and the temperature
variation, and if any of these two values are low, the output will be low too (Eq. (2)).
The heat transfer coefficient by convection has the lowest value along the test period for the two solar stills. Furthermore, the heat
transfer coefficient by evaporation throughout the day represents the highest value compared to the heat transfer by radiation and

Table 2
The empirical correlations proposed for depicting heat transfer for the SSSS and SSDBSS with different saltwater depths ds/de.

Type Water Depth ds/Equivalent Water Depth de Empirical Correlations C n R2 Ranges (Gr.Pr)

SSSS 2 cm Nu = C[GrPr] n
0.97199 0.12181 0.98 2.7 × 106–4.0 × 107
3 cm 0.82407 0.11501 0.99 1.8 × 106–4.3 × 107
4 cm 0.79917 0.10822 0.98 8.5 × 105–4.3 × 107
5 cm 0.78682 0.11119 0.97 5.4 × 105–4.1 × 107
SSDBSS Lower Basin 2 cm 0.85303 0.05766 0.97 6.5 × 105–5.9 × 107
3 cm 0.85889 0.05134 0.98 1.6 × 106–5.9 × 107
4 cm 0.85566 0.04333 0.97 1.2 × 106–5.9 × 107
5 cm 0.82515 0.03641 0.98 6.1 × 105–6.2 × 107
SSDBSS Upper Basin 2 cm 1.01078 0.14993 0.98 3.9 × 104–6.5 × 105
3 cm 1.0180 0.05134 0.99 4.4 × 104–6.6 × 105
4 cm 1.03521 0.12559 0.98 3.3 × 104–7.0 × 105
5 cm 0.99528 0.11823 0.99 1.5 × 104–8.2 × 105

9
M.S. El-Sebaey et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 33 (2022) 101925

convection for the two tested solar still configurations.

The radiative heat transfer depends fundamentally on water temperatures and condensing surface. This mode of heat transfer
dominates at the lower basin of the SSDBSS during the whole sunshine period due to the relatively large values of saltwater surface
temperature. This is why the amounts of hrw high for the lower basin of the SSDBSS compared with the upper basin and the SSSS. It can
also be inferred that the extreme amounts of the total heat transfer coefficient (ui) -calculated using Eq. 21- were 15.4 and 55 W/m2.◦ C
for the lower and upper basin of the SSDBSS, respectively and 30.18 W/m2.◦ C for the SSSS.
The solar still performance can be estimated accurately when rigorous expressions are utilized for determining the heat transfer
coefficients. The proposing empirical correlations for the two tested solar stills with different tested water depths ds/equivalent water
depths de are shown in Table 2. The values of the constants C and n and the range of parameter (Gr.Pr) are also presented. The worth of
the empirical correlations is featured by the potential of determining the heat transfer coefficient hcw (Eq. (8)) with good accuracy. The
empirical correlations proposed could be utilized to forecast the freshwater productivities (Eq. (2)) for the two tested solar stills with
acceptable accuracy by determining the evaporative heat transfer coefficient hew (Eq. (3)).
The hourly changes of the experimental and theoretical accumulated freshwater per unit area of the SSSS with saltwater depth ds of
2 cm and for the SSDBSS with equivalent depth de of 2 cm are shown in Fig. 7. The theoretical (predicted) productivity (Eq. (2)) is
determined by utilizing the constants C and n of the proposed empirical correlations shown in Table 2 to calculate the coefficient of
convection heat transfer hcw (Eq. (8)) and the coefficient of evaporation heat transfer hew (Eq. (3)) based on the measured temperatures
of water, acrylic and glass covers. Fig. 7 displays the same trend as in Figs. 4 and 5; there is a rise in the accumulated freshwater output
through the morning of the day until it gets a peak value at 14:00 where the maximum irradiation of the sun occurs, and then a
decrease is noticed due to the continuous diminution of solar radiation until it reaches zero at sunset. At a higher basin water tem­
perature, more water evaporates, and the mass of water contained in the air of the still becomes higher. Hence, the maximum output
occurs at the maximum measured temperature of saltwater at 14:00. Also, it can be seen from Fig. 7 that there are acceptable
agreements among the experimental results and theoretical outcomes for both tested solar stills (SSSS-SSDBSS), the maximal difference
amounts to about 5%. Besides, it is clear from Fig. 7 that in the case of SSSS, the maximum theoretical and experimental hourly outputs
amount to 291 and 281 ml/m2.hr, respectively, and they occur at 14:00. As to the SSDBSS, the upper basin’s maximum hourly
theoretical and experimental productivity are 328 and 320. The lower basins are 127 and 120 ml/m2 hr, respectively, coming about at
14:00.
Figs. 8 and 9 show the daily experimental and theoretical accumulated productivity rates of freshwater from 07:00 to 20:00 for the
two tested solar still configurations for 2 cm, 3 cm, 4 cm, and 5 cm water depths ds/equivalent water depths de. Figs. 8 and 9 show
clearly that the accumulated productivity rate depends on water depth ds/de in both solar still configurations. The accumulated
productivity of freshwater increases with decreasing water depth ds/de. This increase is because of the growth in the water temperature
inside the basin, which results in greater evaporation and condensation distillate output. The value of accumulated output water of the
SSDBSS is higher than that of the SSSS for different water depths ds/equivalent water depths de. Also, the results indicate that the daily
experimental and theoretical accumulated productivities of the SSDBSS are 2855 ml/m2 and 2965 ml/m2 for an equivalent water
depth de of 2 cm, respectively. As to the SSSS, these values are 1785 and 1870 ml/m2 at water depth ds of 2 cm, respectively.
Table 3 summarizes the theoretical (predicted) and daily experimental accumulated productivities comparison of the two tested
still configurations for different water depths ds/equivalent water depths de. It can be noticed from Table 3 that the predicted and
experimental accumulated outcomes are almost equal for all tested water depths ds/equivalent water depths de for the two tested solar
stills. The deviations between the experimental and predicted productivities were within 6.6%, which shows acceptable agreement
between the experimental results and predicted outcomes. Also, it can be noticed from Table 3 that a rise in the equivalent water depth
de from 2 cm to 3 cm reduces the accumulated productivity by 14.36% for the SSDBSS. In contrast, a decrease of 25.64% and 32.22%
are observed as de increases from 2 cm to 4 cm and from 2 cm to 5 cm, respectively. On the other hand, for the SSSS, a decrease in
accumulated productivity by 15.41%, 27.17%, and 33.33% are recorded as the water depth ds increases from 2 cm to 3 cm, 2 cm–4 cm,
and from 2 cm to 5 cm, respectively.
Table 4 presents the percentage increase in accumulated outcome for the day of the SSDBSS compared with the SSSS at different
tested water depths ds/equivalent water depths de. Table 4 suggests that the raise ratio in the experimental and theoretical daily
accumulated outcome of the SSDBSS over that of the SSSS is almost the same. This percentage increase is slightly raised with water ds/
equivalent water depth de.
The solar still efficiency signifies the capability of the still in desalinating saltwater. It can be practiced as a parameter that should
be maximized to find the optimal still design. Fig. 10 displays the experimental thermal efficiency of the day for the two tested solar
still configurations for water depths ds/equivalent water depths de of 2 cm, 3 cm, 4 cm, and 5 cm. From Fig. 10, it can be seen that the
daily efficiency is diminished as the water depth in the basin ds/equivalent water depth de is increased for the two tested solar stills.
The cause behind this is the decrease in the still daily productivity with increasing ds/de (as shown in Figs. 8 and 9). Additionally, it is
evident from Fig. 10 that the daily thermal efficiency of the SSDBSS is always greater than that of the SSSS for equal ds and de; e.g., it is
25% for equivalent water depth de of 2 cm in case of SSDBSS, whereas it is 15.5% for water depth ds of 2 cm in case of SSSS.

9. Conclusions
The present work is concerned with designing, fabricating, and testing new solar still configuration, namely single slope double
basin solar still (SSDBSS) for desalinating saltwater. For judging the quality of this configuration, its performance was compared with
that of conventional solar still (SSSS). Therefore a still of the latter type was also fabricated and tested. For a reasonable comparison of
the performances of the two tested still configurations, the amount of saltwater to be distilled was taken to be the same for the two

10
M.S. El-Sebaey et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 33 (2022) 101925

Fig. 8. Experimental and theoretical daily accumulated productivity for SSSS solar still model at different water depths ds.

Fig. 9. Experimental and theoretical daily accumulated productivity for the SSDBSS solar still model at different equivalent water depths de.

configurations. Thus, a new parameter was introduced in the case of the SSDBSS that is the equivalent water depth. It is half the water
depth in the case of the SSSS. Besides the experimental work, a robust analytical model for predicting the performances of both stills
was developed. The analysis of the outcomes gained in this work led to draw the following conclusions:
1. The productivity of both solar stills depends mainly on the value of solar irradiation. Its increase causes the water temperature to
rise, and the total internal coefficient of heat transfer increases.
2. The SSDBSS configuration has better freshwater productivity than conventional SSSS configuration at all tested water depths. The
experimental daily accumulated productivity rate for SSDBSS configuration is 59.9% higher than the conventional SSSS config­
uration at 2 cm water depth for the test circumstances.
3. The developed model can accurately predict the performance of SSSS and SSDBSS systems within a deviation of ±6.6%.

11
M.S. El-Sebaey et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 33 (2022) 101925

Fig. 10. Daily thermal efficiency for two tested solar still configurations at different water depths/equivalent water depths.

Table 3
Comparison of the theoretical and experimental accumulated productivities for the two tested solar stills at different water depths ds/equivalent water depths de.

Water Depth ds/Equivalent Water Depth de (cm) Type Accumulated Productivity (ml/m2.day) Deviation (%)

Exp. Theo.

2 SSSS 1785 1870 4.8

SSDBSS 2855 2965 3.9
3 SSSS 1510 1565 3.6
SSDBSS 2445 2558 4.6
4 SSSS 1300 1375 5.8
SSDBSS 2123 2233 5.2
5 SSSS 1190 1245 4.6
SSDBSS 1935 2063 6.6

Table 4
Percentage increase of the theoretical and experimental daily accumulated productivities for the two tested solar still at different water depths.

Water Depth/Equivalent Water Depth (cm) Percentage Increase in Accumulated Productivity for SSDBSS Compared to SSSS, (%)

Exp. Theo.

2 59.9 58.6
3 61.9 63.5
4 63.3 62.4
5 62.6 65.7

4. An increase in the water depth ds/de from 2 cm to 3 cm reduces the accumulated productivity by 14.36% for the SSDBSS. In
contrast, in the case of SSSS, a decrease of 25.64% and 32.22% are observed as the water depth ds/de increases from 2 cm to 4 cm
and from 2 cm to 5 cm, respectively.
5. The experimental thermal daily efficiency of the SSDBSS configuration was 25% at an equivalent water depth of 2 cm, while it is
15.5% for the conventional SSSS configuration at the same water depth (about 61.3% of improvement).

10. Future studies

Based on the experience gained during this work, it is suggested that more work in the following areas can be done:
1. Studying the effect of hot water tank, external and internal reflectors, internal condenser on the performance of SSDBSS.
2. Parametric analysis of the single slope double basin solar still can be done to enhance its productivity and efficiency with the aid of
CFD simulation.

Author statement
Conceptualization, methodology and investigation: Mahmoud S. El-Sebaey, Asko Ellman, Ahmed Hegazy, Hitesh Panchal.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to

12
M.S. El-Sebaey et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 33 (2022) 101925

influence the work reported in this paper.

References
[1] F.A. Essa, Z.M. Omara, A.S. Abdullah, S. Shanmugan, Hitesh Panchal, A.E. Kabeel, Ravishankar Sathyamurthy, Wissam H. Alawee, A. Muthu Manokar, Ammar
H. Elsheikh, Wall-suspended trays inside stepped distiller with Al2O3/paraffin wax mixture and vapor suction: experimental implementation, J. Energy Storage
32 (2020), 102008.
[2] Hitesh Panchal, Nikunj Patel, Hemin Thakkar, Various techniques for improvement in distillate output from active solar still: a review, 2017, Int. J. Ambient
Energy 38 (2) (2017) 209–222.
[3] R. Sathyamurthy, A.E. Kabeel, E.-S. El-Agouz, et al., Experimental investigation on the effect of MgO and TiO2 nanoparticles in stepped solar still, Int. J. Energy
Res. 43 (2019) 3295–3305.
[4] R. Sathyamurthy, A.E. Kabeel, E.-S. El-Agouz, et al., Experimental investigation on the effect of MgO and TiO2 nanoparticles in stepped solar still, Int. J. Energy
Res. 43 (2019) 3295–3305.
[5] H. Panchal, A. Awasthi, Theoretical modeling and experimental analysis of solar still integrated with evacuated tubes, Heat Mass Tran. 53 (2017) 1943–1955.
[6] O.O. Badran, H.A. Al-Tahaineh, The effect of coupling a flat-plate collector on the solar still productivity, Desalination 183 (1–3) (2005) 137–142.
[7] Dinesh Mevada, Hitesh Panchal, Kishor Kumar Sadasivuni, Investigation on evacuated tubes coupled solar still with condenser and fins: experimental, exergo-
economic and exergo-environment analysis, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 27 (2021), 101217.
[8] Ammar H. Elsheikh, Hitesh Panchal, Mahmoud Ahmadein, Ahmed O. Mosleh, Kishor Kumar Sadasivuni, Naser A. Alsaleh, Productivity forecasting of solar
distiller integrated with evacuated tubes and external condenser using artificial intelligence model and moth-flame optimizer, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 28 (2021),
101671.
[9] Ali A. Badran, Ihmad A. Al-Hallaq, Imad A. Eyal Salman, Mohammad Z. Odat, A solar still augmented with a flat-plate collector, Desalination 172 (3) (2005)
227–234.
[10] T. Rajaseenivasan, P. Nelson Raja, K. Srithar, An experimental investigation on a solar still with an integrated flat plate collector, Desalination 347 (2014)
131–137.
[11] Samir M. Elshamy, Emad M.S. El-Said, Hitesh Panchal, Hamed R. El-Tahan, Performance assessment of a solar water distiller using circular parabolic absorber:
an experimental investigation, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 28 (2021), 101508.
[12] M.M. Morad, Hend A.M. El-Maghawry, Kamal I. Wasfy, Improving the double slope solar still performance by using flat-plate solar collector and cooling glass
cover, Desalination 373 (2015) 1–9.
[13] Ragh Vendra Singh, Shiv Kumar, M.M. Hasan, M. Emran Khan, G.N. Tiwari, Performance of a solar still integrated with evacuated tube collector in natural
mode, Desalination 318 (2013) 25–33.
[14] Hitesh Panchal, Petkar Rajan, Chandrakant Sonawane, Kishor Kumar Sadasivuni, Hagar Alm El Din Mohamad, Pradeep Boka, Use of computational fluid
dynamics for solar desalination system: a review, Int. J. Ambient Energy (2021), https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2021.1965019.
[15] Shiv Kumar, Aseem Dubey, G.N. Tiwari, A solar still augmented with an evacuated tube collector in forced mode, Desalination 347 (2014) 15–24.
[16] Mohammad Behshad Shafii, Mojtaba Shahmohamadi, Meysam Faegh, Hani Sadrhosseini, Examination of a novel solar still equipped with evacuated tube
collectors and thermoelectric modules, Desalination 382 (2016) 21–27.
[17] Kamran Mohammadi, Hamed Taghvaei, Ebrahim Goshtasbi Rad, Experimental investigation of a double slope active solar still: effect of a new heat exchanger
design performance, Appl. Therm. Eng. 180 (2020), 115875.
[18] Salman H. Hammadi, Integrated solar still with an underground heat exchanger for clean water production, J. King Saud Univ. Eng. Sci. 32 (5) (2020) 339–345.
[19] Poonam Joshi, G.N. Tiwari, Energy matrices, exergo-economic and enviro-economic analysis of an active single slope solar still integrated with a heat
exchanger: a comparative study, Desalination 443 (2018) 85–98.
[20] Mahmoud S. El-Sebaey, Hegazy Ahmed, Asko Ellman, Tarek Ghonim, Experimental and CFD study on single slope double basin solar still, Eng. Res. J. Facul.
Eng. Menoufia Univ. Part 1 44 (1) (2021) 21–32.
[21] Mahmoud S. El-Sebaey, Asko Ellman, Hegazy Ahmed, Tarek Ghonim, Experimental analysis and CFD modeling for conventional basin-type solar still, Energies
13 (2020) 5374.
[22] Mahmoud S. El-Sebaey, A. Ellman, A. Hegazy, T. Ghonim, An experimental investigation on productivity and performance of an improved design of basin type
solar still, in: 21th International Conference on Desalination and Renewable Energy (ICDRE 2019), Copenhagen, Denmark, 11-12 June, 2019.
[23] N. Rahbar, J.A. Esfahani, Estimation of convective heat transfer coefficient in a single-slope solar still: a numerical study, Desalination Water Treat. 50 (2012)
387–396.
[24] O. Badran, M.M. Abu-khader, Evaluating thermal performance of a single slope solar still, Heat Mass Tran. 43 (2007) 985–995.
[25] M.K. Phadatare, S.K. Verma, Influence of water depth on internal heat and mass transfer in a plastic solar still, Desalination 217 (2007) 267–275.
[26] V. Velmurugan, C.K. Deenadayalan, H. Vinod, K. Srithar, Desalination of effluent using fin type solar still, Energy 43 (2008) 1719–1727.

13