..

'
Solar EMrgy Vol. 43. No. I, pp. 35-44, 1989 Printed in the U.S.A. 0038-092X/89 S3.00 + .00 Copyright C>1989 Maxwell Pergamon Macmillan pic

THE ADVANCED SOLAR POND (ASP): BASIC THEORETICAL ASPECTS *

HILLEL RUBIN and GIORGIO A. BEMPORAD Coastal and Marine Engineering Research Institute (CAMERI) Department of Civil Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel Abstract-This manuscript concerns the possible improvement of the conventional solar pond (CSP) performance by applying a multiselective injection and withdrawal procedure. We apply the term advanced solar pond (ASP), for a solar pond (SP) in which such a procedure is applied. The multiselective injection and withdrawal procedure creates in the SP a stratified thermal layer, namely a flowing layer which is subject to salinity and temperature stratification. This phenomenon is associated with reduction of heat losses into the atmosphere and an increase of the temperature of the fluid layer adjacent to the SP bottom. In the framework of this study transport phenomena in the ASP are analyzed and simulated by applying a simplified mathematical model. The analysis and simulations indicate that the multiselective and withdrawal procedure may significantly improve the performance of the SP.

1. INTRODUCTION

/'"""'0..

The solar pond (SP) is a shallow water body being virtually a trap for solar radiation. The trapped solar radiation is converted into thermal energy which is accumulated in the deep water layers of the SP. The thermal energy can be accumulated due to the stabilizing salinity gradients existing in the SP, which prevent thermal convection in the water body. Proper operation of the SP depends on the ability to withdraw hot water by a selective withdrawal while preserving the density profile of the pond. In the conventional solar pond (CSP) we identify three major fluid layers as shown in Fig. lea): surface layer, barring layer, and thermal layer. The surface layer is completely mixed due to atmospheric effects. The barring layer is comprised of a stagnant fluid; it separates the thermal layer from the surface layer. Heat is accumulated in the thermal layer; this layer is subject to horizontal flow needed in' order to utilize the thermal energy. The thermal layer is almost completely mixed due to the selective withdrawal, injection, and thermal convection. In the advanced solar pond (ASP)[I] there is an additional stratified thermal layer as shown in Fig. l(b). This layer is comprised of several sublayers. Each syblayer is equipped with injection and withdrawal ports. Therefore a multiselective injection and withdrawal characterizes the ASP. By making some basic calculations it was claimed that the ASP overall efficiency can be much higher than that of the CSP[l]. However the anticipated configuration shown in Fig. 1(b) requires adequate facilities that should be developed. The physical rationale for the ASP, as stated by one of the reviewers of this paper, is to create flowing layers in the upper portions of the thermal
*Parts of this study were presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Solar Energy Society, June 20-24, 1988.

layer and lower portions of the barring layer of a CSP, so as to remove heat from the layers, lower their temperature, reduce diffusive losses through the barring layer, and leave more thermal energy for storage and extraction. This study concerns the basic theoretical aspects of the ASP performance. We develop a mathematical approach leading to a numerical model by which the engineering feasibility of the ASP can be evaluated.

2. ABSORPTION

OF THE SOLAR RADIATION

The solar radiation is absorbed in the SP and converted into thermal energy. The heating process can be represented as an effect generated by a line source whose strength is distributed exponentially along the SP depth[2-5]. The strength of the thermal energy source, qT, eventually represents the rate of absorption of the solar energy in the water body. The solar radiation arriving at the bottom of the SP is completely absorbed by the pond bottom, provided that it is completely black. If the pond bottom is insulated the energy absorbed in the bottom leads to heat flux which enters the thermal layer. We apply a steady state simulation of the SP performance by referring to the average annual values of the physical parameters governing the SP operation. It was shown by various studies[6] that steady state simulations based on average values of parameters are quite accurate for calculations referring to long times of operation of the SP. Our calculations of solar radiation refer to the Dead Sea area in Israel, where some CSPs are operational. We consider that the solar radiation energy penetrating the SP surface is 200W m -2. This value is obtained by assuming that half of the daily energy arrives at the SP surface during the middle third of the day, and that the radiation at 2 p.m. of October 21 can represent the strength of the solar radiation of the 35

36

H. RUBIN and Go A. BEMPORAD

Velocity

Salinity temperature
t

Plastic net

---L-

Surface layer
Barring layer

-r

.. .<

Thermal

layer
'f/"

( a)

4 .

Salinity temperature it

Plastic net

Surface layer
Barring
Stratified layer thermal layer

-..2..-

-r

'.It .. '" ? ~
~ ~ '* ~

Homogeneous thermal layer

(b)
Fig. 1. Distribution of velocity, salinity, temperatUre and density in solar ponds. (a) the conventional solar pond. (b) the advanced solar pond.

'.

middle third of the day. The refraction angle is assumed to be 32.5 degrees.
3. THE FLOW FIELD

The surface layer. This layer is subject to atmospheric effects and the wash flow. Some water quantities evaporate from this layer into the atmosphere. Therefore the flow' rate of the surface layer decreases along the pond as follows
Q(T)

= Q~) - qx

(1)

where Q(T) is the surface flow-rate per unit width; Q~) is the entrance value of Q(T); q is the rate of evaporation from the ASP surface; x is the horizontal coordinate. It should be noted that with regard to some aspects the nonuniform velocity profile of the surface layer should be taken into account. However, in the present study, we mainly concern the differences between the CSP and ASP. For such considerations the assumption of uniform surface flow is acceptable. Some studies[7,8] refer to mixing effects generated by the atmosphere. Such effects cause the surface flow to be assumed for practical purposes as being

almost uniformly distributed. Long experience in the laboratory and field operations showed that the surface of the SP should be protected against wind effects. Such effects include waves and various kinds of currents. Plastic nets, as shown in Figs. l(a) and l(b) were found to be excellent means for the SP surface protection. Eventually in every operational SP such means are utilized. The barring layer. This layer is stagnant. Large salinity gradients existing in this layer insulate the thermal layers from the mixing effects existing in the surface layer. The stratified thermal layer. This layer is subject to horizontal flow, and its salinity gradient avoids the formation of circulating currents of thermohaline convection. Therefore in each sublayer the following condition should be satisfied[9,1O];

. ~ II ! ~: 11 ~. ~ t i "1 ,

- ac ~
ay

(v + D)aTayj ac

v -t K

ap aT ap

(2)
I

where C is salinity; T is temperature; p is density; v is kinematic viscosity; K is heat diffusivity; D is salt ... diffusivity; y is the vertical coordinate. The flow in the stratified thermal layer is carried

. f

r
Theoretical aspects of the ASP 37

,-

out by injection and withdrawal ports creating several sublayers. The total thickness of the stratified thermal layer is given as follows:
M deS)

Re=R
v""

(8)

= i-I 2: dj

(3)

,where Q is the discharge per unit width; v"" is the average kinematic viscosity. Considering laminar flow of the thermal layers an integration of eqn (4) yields the following velocity proflle:
U

where dj is the thickness of each flowing sublayer; M is the number of sublayers. At the injections ports each sublayer has its particular temperature and salinity. However, due to the small thickness of the sublayers, it is expected that, after a short distance, continuous salinity and temperature profiles are established in the stratified thermal layer. The shear stress distribution in the i-th sublayer is given as follows:
T

=-

I
TiBY

J.Lj [

--

y2
(TiB

2dj

TiT)

+ UiB

(9)

where IJ.jis the viscosity of the fluid comprising the i-th sublayer; UiB is the velocity existing at the bottom of the sublayer. By integration of (9) we obtain the following expression for the sublayer flow-rate:
Q(i)

= TiB -

Y(TiB

- T/T)/dj

(4)

.,

where TiBand T,Tare shear stresses at the bottom and top of the sublayer, respectively; Y is a local vertical coordinate, namely Y = 0 at the bottom of the sublayer, and Y = dj at the top of the sublayer. The following conditions should be satisfied at the interfaces existing between the various sublayers:
T,T = T(i+I)B UiT = U(i+I)B

udY

=~

tf (2TiB + T,T) + u;sdj

6IJ.j

(10)

I
I I I
II
f~
It J

(5)

According to various studies [1 1-13] we may assume that if the thermal layers are subject to a continuous laminar velocity profile then the following condition is satisfied:
TMT = -ttTw

The homogeneous thermal layer. This layer is subject to horizontal flow and thermal convection stemming from heat absorption by the black bottom of the pond. In our calculations we consider that the flow is basically laminar. However the effect of thermal convection which enhances momentum transfer in the fluid layer is represented by an increased effective viscosity . The shear stress and velocity distribution in the homogeneous thermal layer are given respectively as follows:
T = Tw

- Y(Tw - TIB)/do
y2 2do (Tw - TIB)]

(11) (12)

tt ==0.62

(6)
U

where Twis the shear stress at the bottom of the SP; - TMT is the shear stress at the top of the stratified thermal layer; tt is a coefficient. The thickness of each flowing sublayer depends on its flow-rate Q(i) and its density gradient as follows[I4]:

[ TwY= J.Ltff

where do is the homogeneous layer thickness; IJ.tff is the effective viscosity. By integrating (12) over the thickness of the homogeneous thermal layer we ob- . tain the following expression for its flow-rate: Q(O) = ..!
fl-tff

~=K ~
Lj

O.27
p(i)

( )
gO.sLl's

Lj

(7)

(iJp/iJY)j

d~
3

Tw

+ TIB-

d~
6

(13)

t
-'if;; .;:~

rIi'

;1' ~~ ~ '"

where pm is the average density of the sublayer fluid; Lj is the buoyancy characteristic length; K is a constant; g is the gravitational acceleration. Some other expressions for dj were suggested for laminar as well as inertial buoyant layers[I5,I6]. However, all these expressions provide similar results in the range of Reynolds numbers about 1000 which is of our interest with regard to the SP. According to various experimental studies[ 17] performed in Reynolds numbers of approximately 1000

The thickness of the homogeneous therma1layer should be controlled artifically by various means, like temporary increase of the flow-rate of the stratified thermal layer. In our calculations we assume that do has a given value. By applying eqns (4)-(13) we determine the distribution of shear stresses and velocities in the thermal layers as shown in the Appendix.
4. THE TEMPERATURE FIELD

it is obtained that K

==

0.2.

.~
,~

Reynolds number of the thermal layers flow can be defined by various expressions. Here we adopt the following definition:

We assume that, in each elementary fluid volume of the water body, heat convection is the dominant transport mechanism in the horizontal direction, and molecular heat diffusion is the dominant transport mechanism in the vertical direction. In order to con-

38

H. RUBIN and G. A. BEMPORAD

sider effects of thennal convection on heat transfer in the homogeneous thennal layer, it is possible to assume that heat diffusivity is increased by the thermal convection[ 18]. Calculations indicate that heat transfer from the pond bottom into the homogeneous layer increases heat diffusivity in several orders of magnitude. Therefore we may assume that with regard to heat transfer this layer is eventually fully mixed. The barring layer is stagnant. Thus in this layer only molecular diffusion of heat takes place. Due to comparatively large temperature gradients in the vertical direction and small temperature gradients in the horizontal direction we ignore heat diffusion in the latter direction. Mixing effects in the surface layer and intimate contact with the atmosphere cause its temperature to be unifonnly distributed in the vertical and horizontal directions. Fonnulating the assumptions represented in the preceding paragraph we obtain the following expressions for the surface, barring, stratified thennal and homogeneous thennal layers, respectively:
T(T) = canst

( )
ay

aC(T

y-h

= - Q(T)acm
D ax a2c -=0 ayZ

+ q eT)

. D

(18)

(19)

"ac a2c vax=ayZ

(20)

( )

aco

= - Q(O) aco
D ax

(21)

ay y-do

where eT) is the surface layer salinity; Co is the homogeneous thennal layer salinity; D is salt diffusivity; h is the distance between the SP bottom and the interface existing between the surface and barring layers. The expressions represented by eqns (18)-(21) are employed hereafter in the development of the numerical model which is able to simulate salinity transfer in the ASP.
6. THE NUMERICAL MODEL

(14)

tiT -+-ayZ

qT

0 qT

(15)

KpCp (16)

" aT a2T --=-+K ax

(0)aTo

ayZ
do

KpCp

1
0

qTdy

Expressions (14)-(21) are subject to initial conditions, which are physically the conditions existing at the SP entrance. Expressions (15)-(16) and (19)(20) are parabolic differential equations. In order to solve these equations we apply an implicit finite difference numerical model which utilizes variable mesh size in the vertical direction. Applying such an approach for (15) and (16) we obtain the following set . of linear equations:
_..,.(m+1)

pCpQ

ax

+ J<f)

- (KpCp ay )Y-do

aT

(17)

lJ-1
+

where T(T) is the surface layer temperature; Cp is the specific heat; To is the homogeneous layer temperature; K is heat diffusivity; J}B) is heat flux from the SP bottom. Expressions (14)-(17) are employed hereafter in order to develop a numerical model of heat transfer in the ASP.

(ilYj + ilYj-l)ilYj_, 2

(m+1) + TJ

-"
i

Kjilx

(ilYj

ilYj-l)ilYj

(ilYj

+ ilYj-l)ilYj-1

- ..,.(m+ I) 1 '+1
J

2 +
ilYj-l)ilYj

[ (ilYj

]
(22)

= T;m) .-!i.. + qTj

5. TIlE SALINITY FIELD

KjPCp

With regard to convection and diffusion dominance we utilize the same assumption applied in the preceding section with regard to heat transfer. We also assume that the homogeneous thennal layer is fully mixed with regard to salinity distribution. Vertical molecular diffusion is the only salinity transfer mechanism considered in the stagnant barring layer. Due to the vertical salinity diffusion process, the salinity of the homogeneous thennal layer decreases along the SP, and the salinity of the surface layer increases along the SP. Fonnulating the assumptions represented in the preceding paragraph we obtain the following expressions for the surface, barring, stratified thennal and homogeneous thennal layers respectively: .

where m is a superscript referring to the longitudinal position of the nodal point; j is a subscript referring to the vertical position of the nodal point. Expressions (14) and (17) represent boundary conditions of the numerical grid being expressed respectively as follows ~m) = T(T) atj = N T~m+l) (23)

- -[Q
Kilx

<O). 1
ilYI ]

1
Tjm+I)ilYI (24)

= Tdm) Q(O) + (<p )y=do Kilx PKCpQ(O) where <Pis the intensity of the solar radiation.

Theoretical aspects of the ASP

39

Expressions (22)-(24) in conjunction with given initial conditions, representing the temperature profile at the SP entrance, yield the development of the temperature profile along the SP. Applying the variable mesh size for the finite difference approximation of (19) and (20) we obtain the following set of linear equations:
~

- c)-1
+

~m+ I)

[ (~Yj + ~Yj-I)~Yj-1 ]
2

+ Cj(m+ I)
2

U. -L

[ DJu

+ ] (~Yj + I1Yj-I)~Yj (I1Yj+ I1Yj-I)~Yj-1

2

(m+1) - Cj+1

[ (~Yj + I1Yj-I)~Yj]

Cj(mJ-L

u.

Dlu

~~

Expressions (18) and (21) represent boundary conditions of the numerical grid being expressed respectively as follows:
(m+l)CN-I

1
~YN-I

. (m+IJ +C N -

[ I1YN-1

+-

(7)(mJ

DNtu

--

q
DN ]

Q(7)(mJ ='C(mJN DNtu

(26) 1

c~m+1)

1 [ D,ju ~YI]
Q(OJ

+ c\m+IJ-

I1YI

-c(mJ- 0 D,ju

Q(OJ

~n

where N is the number of nodal points in the vertical direction. As a subscript N refers to the interface between the surface and barring layers. Expressions (25)-(27) in conjunction with a given salinity profile at the SP entrance yield the development of the salinity profile along the ASP.
7. SIMULATION OF THE ADVANCED SOLAR POND PERFORMANCE

1!~.

f.".

~i~: ~'

Theoretically the numerical model developed in this study can be applied for any velocity distribution stemming from different injection procedures. However only a procedure forming the smooth and continuous laminar profile avoids the Kelvin-Helmholtz type of instability[18] generating circulating currents and mixing phenomena between the moving sublayers. Therefore we refer here to smooth laminar velocity profiles. Practically the value of the Reynolds number depends on the availability of thermal energy and the temperature of its exploitation stemming from the strength of solar radiation and the size of the SP. For long SP the Reynolds number should be high enough to allow appropriate use of the accumulated thermal energy. We apply here several examples referring to
Re

~~

= 500.

However

the reference

to higher Reynolds

number does not change the basic implications of this study.

Figure 2 shows the velocity profile for thermal layer discharge of 0.5 litlseclm in which Reynolds number is 500. This profIle of velocities is associated with the development of temperature and salinity profiles as shown respectively in Figs. 3 and 4. In these figures the profiles referring to entrance represent the initial conditions of the numerical model. Figures 3 provide some information about the possible advantages of the ASP with regard to the CSP. It is assumed that the surface layer temperature is almost identical to the atmospheric temperature. Therefore, heat losses into the atmosphere depend on the temperature gradients existing in the barring layer. We have also to consider that some solar radiation is obsorbed in the barring layer. Most of it is lost into the atmosphere. As a result of the phenomena discussed in the preceding sentences, by increasing the average temperature of the thermal layer existing in a CSP we cause an increased heat loss into the atmosphere. We apply Fig. 3, and compare the performance of a CSP and an ASP, whose Reynolds number and total thickness of the thermal layers are identical. If the fluid adjacent to the SP bottom is subject to the same temperature in both ponds, then the temperature existing in the interface between the thermal layers and the barring layer is higher in the CSP than in the ASP. Therefore identical temperature existing at the bottom of both ponds leads to larger heat losses in the CSP than in the ASP. There are various manners to calculate the efficiency of the SP performance[ 19]. Here we represent this parameter as the ratio between the thermal energy gained in the thermal layers and the energy of the solar radiation which penetrates the SP surface. The thermal energy gained in the thermal layers is equal to the difference between the heat flux convected at the pond exit and this flux convected at the pond entrance. In the particular examples represented by Fig. 3(a) and Fig. 3(b) we referred to bottom entrance temperature of 80C in a CSP and an ASP, and surface temperature of 35C. The figures indicate that the exit, bottom temperatures for the CSP and ASP are 85C~ and 94C, respectively. The net energy output of the CSP and ASP are 15.7kW 1m and 21. 7kW 1m, respectively. These energy outputs are obtained with efficiencies of 8 and 11 percent, respectively. Following the-suggestion of one of the reviewers of this manuscript, we performed simulation with CSP subject to the same initial and boundary conditions as those of Fig. 3, whose thermal layer thickness is 25 cm. The output temperature was 88C and the efficiency was 14 percent. This phenomenon is typical to the CSP operation, where significant increase in efficiency can be obtained provided that low output temperature and small heat storage are acceptable. However the general outcome of all simulations was that with the ASP it is possible to obtain significant increase in the combination of the main basic parameters of the SP utilization: output temperature, efficiency and heat storage. With regard to salinity transfer there are some dif-

40

H. RUBIN and G. A. BEMPORAD

1.2

,.'

',.<, '.W

E -

., ..

.. E

1.01

Om <Entrance)

,g

----..-.-...-

200m
600m

,
t 1
!
1

-.-.- 400m

t v, ;!

Ol ...
E 0.6. 0 It
Q)

800m'
JOOOm(Exit)

\,
t:'

u c c

0.4

----

CI)

i
1

0.2

!
0.0

:3

Velocity,

(mm/sec)

-,,\1 . " ,

Fig. 2. Velocitydistribution in the solar pond, Re = 500. is injected into the second sublayer and so on as shown schematically in Fig. 5. The flow of the lowest sublayer can be either transferred into the heat exchanger of the heat utilizing system, or injected into the homogeneous thermal layer (Fig. 5). However in such a case the interface existing between the stratified and homogeneous thermal layers may represent a location of discontinuity in the velocity profile as shown in Fig. 5. Therefore this interface may be subject to Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. Then it is eventually represented by a thin mixing layer. The schematics of the figure suggest that the heat exchangers system withdraws hot water from the homogeneous thermal layer, and diverts water of comparatively low temperature into the top of the stratified thermal layer. However Fig. 5 also shows some of the practical difficulties associated with the ASP. The ASP requires a lot of piping and pumping, inlets and outlets arranged laterally to induce laterally uniform flow and minimize mixing. All these topics have been beyond the scope of this study. However some other positive issues of the ASP should also be considered. The high temperature'of the homogeneous thermal layer enables its salinity to be very high, provided' that salts like magnesium chloride are utilized. Therefore the surface layer salinity can also be higher than the salinity of that layer in the CSP. The increased salinity of the surface layer decreases the rate of evaporation from the SP surface. This phenome-

ferences between the development of the salinity profile along the CSP and ASP as indicated by Fig. 4. However these differences have a minor effect on the SP performance. It should be noted that the significant difference between the increase of salinity of the surface layer and decrease of salinity of the thermal layer stems from water evaporation. 8. DISCUSSION The simulations represented in the preceding section demonstrate some possible advantages of the ASP. Such advantages can be summarized as an increase of the pond bottom temperature, an increase of the SP efficiency and an increase in the heat storage. However in the preceding section we only considered a single design procedure of the ASP, in which the stratified thermal layer is created on account of the upper portion of the homogeneous thermal layer of the CSP. However various other design and utilization procedures are also attractive. It is possible to expand the stratified thermal layer on account of the barring layer. In such a manner we increase the amount of solar radiation which can be utilized. We also increase the heat storage of the SP in such a manner. A very attractive procedure suggests a very thick stratified thermal layer being comprised of several sublayers. The flow-rates of all sublayers are identical. The flow-rate withdrawn from the first sublayer

f
.. 't!

j ~ * j ,

I I

Theoretical aspects of the ASP

41

1.2

Om (Entrance)

----

200m

E
eo
CD
CI)

-.-.-

400 m 600 m 800 m 1000 m (Exit)

1.0 0.8

-..-..-

-...----

ave. ~radient 80CYm

t=

at

E 0.6 o
1

g 0.4 1 2 en
Q

0.2

0.0 20 (a)

100

-..
E
E o o
CD

1.2

o m(Entrance)

--1.0
-.-.-

200m 400m
600m 800m

-..-..-

.IJ...

.c:

CI)

0.8

E 0.6

en Q

~ c: 0.4 o
0.2

0.0 20
(b)

80

90

100

Fig. 3. Temperature prof1le development along the solar pond, Re = 500. (a) in the conventional solar pond. (b) in the advanced solar pond.

42

H. RUBIN and G. A. BEMPORAD

1.2

Om

(Entrance)

1.0 E -..
m
lE
Q)

200m -.-.400m 600m 800m

-..---...-

E o 0.8
Q)

---0.6

1000 m (Exit)

.c.

lL. 0.4

e
0 c 0

en
a (a)

0.2
0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Concentration .,(0/0)
1.2 .

Om (Entrance) 200m

1.0. E -.. I
E I

----.-.-

400m
600 m

-..-..-..--

m
Q)

0.81

800m
1000 m (Exit)

r- ---0.4

-{:. 0.6

E
LL Q)

e
. a

c 0

0.2

0.0 (b)

10

30 20 Concentration., (0/0)

40

50

Fig. 4. Salinity profile development along the solar pond, Re = 500. (a) in the conventional solar pond. (b) in the advanced solar pond.

,
Theoretical aspects of the ASP 43

"

'V

--:r

--c-

From heat exchange rs

) .
..

Additional salt

I,
if <,
k

Fig.5.

A schematic of an advanced solar pond in which the withdrawn flow-rate of a particular sublayer is injected into the adjacent lower sublayer.

, ,

~ It.

non is associated with an increase in the surface layer temperature; namely it reduces the temperature gradient existing in the barring layer, and thereby it reduces heat losses into the atmosphere. The present study covered only some basic aspects of the ASP performance. Some more careful studies accompanied with experimental investigations should be performed before any pilot plant of such a SP is designed. However very important practical issues should be taken into account like piping, mixing system, settlement and solution of salts, etc. All such subjects should be dealt before a cost effective ASP can be envisioned.

NOMENCLATURE

9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

"

,
I'"

There is a possibility to improve the performance of the CSP by applying a multi-injection-withdrawal procedure. Such a procedure creates in the SP an additional stratified thermal layer. The SP with such a layer is termed an ASP. The basic aspects of the ASP operation are analyzed in this paper by applying a simplified mathematical model considering major transport phenomena in the solar pond. This model leads to analytical calculations of the momentum transfer and numerical simulations of heat and salinity transfer in the SP. Such simulations indicate that the ASP advantages are implied by higher bottom temperatures and higher efficiency. Furthermore the ASP suggests a variety of procedures for its utilization, some of them are discussed in this paper. The positive theoretical results of this study with regard to the ASP operation suggest the performance of some laboratory studies relevant to this subject.

C salinity, dimensionless Co salinity of the homogeneous thennal layer, dimensionless c:n salinity of the surface layer, dimensionless Cp specific heat, Jkg"' e"' d, thickness of the i-th thennal sublayer, m do thickness of the homogeneous thennal layer, m D mass diffusivity, m2s"' g gravitational acceleration, ms-2 h distance between the pond bottom and the surface layer, m JT diffusive heat flux, Wm-2 J'f) diffusive heat flux at the solar pond bottom, Wm"2 K coefficient, dimen$ionless L, characteristic buoyancy length of the i-th sublayer, m q rate of evaporation, ms"1 qT strength of the heat source, Wm-3 Q volumetric flow-rate per unit width, m2s-' (to flow-rate of the i-th sublayer, m2s"' . Q(T) flow-rate of the surface layer, m2s"1 Q?;> entrance flow-rate of the surface layer, m2s"1 Q'OI flow-rate of the homogeneous thermal layer, m2s"' Re Reynolds number of the thennal layers fow, dimensionless T temperature, e T(T) temperature of the surface layer, e To temperature of the homogeneous thermal layer, e U flow velocity, ms"1 U/B flow velocity at the bottom of the i-th sublayer, ms"' U,T flow velocity at the top of the i-th sublayer, ms-I x horizontal coordinate, m y vertical coordinate, m Y local vertical coordinate, m a ratio between shear stresses, dimensionless K heat diffusivity, m2s.1 1.1.viscosity, Pas 1.1..//effective viscosity, Pas v kinematic viscosity, m2s-' v... average kinematic viscosity, m2s-1 p density, kg/m-3

44 p(Q T Tw TiS TiT c/I

H. RUBIN and G. A. BEMPORAD

8. J. F. Atkinson and D. R. F. Harleman, A wind mixed layer model for solar ponds, Solar Energy 31, 243 (1983). 9. G. Veronis, On finite amplitude instability in thermohaline convection, J. Marine Res. 23, 1 (1965). 10. D. A. Nield, The thermohaline Rayleigh-Jeffreys .problem, J. Fluid Mech. 29, 545 (1967). 11. A. T. Ippen and D. R. F. Harleman, Steady state characteristics of subsurface flow, U.S. Nat. Bur. of StanAcknowledgment-This research was supported by the dards, Cire. 521, Symp. on Gravity Waves, 79 (1951). Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, Israel. 12. J. P. Raymond, Etude des courants d'eau boueuse dans les retenues, 4th Congress on Large Dams, New Delhi, Trans. vol. 4, R48 (1951). REFERENCES 13. K. Lofquist, Flow and stress near interface between stratified liquids, The Physics of Fluids 3, 158 (1960). 1. A. Ozdor, Methodof trappingand utilizing solar heat, 14. P. Gariel, Recherches experimentales sue l'ecoulement U.S. patent No. 4,462,389 (1984). de couches superposees de fluides de densites differentes, La Houille Blanche 4, 56 (1949). 2. H. Weinberger, The physics of the solar pond, Solar Energy 8, 45 (1964). 15. G. A. Lawrence, Selective withdrawals through a point 3. R. A. Tybout, A recursive alternate to Weinberger's sink, 2nd International Symposium on Stratified Flows, model of the solar pond, Solar Energy 11, 109 (1966). Trondheirn, Norway, 411, (1980). 4. A. Rabl and C. F. Nielsen, Solar pond for space heat16. J. Imberger, Selective withdrawals: a review, 2nd Ining, Solar Energy 17, 1 (1975). ternational Symposium on Stratified Flows, Tron5. H. Rubin, B. A. Benedict and S. Bachu, Modeling the dheirn, Norway, 411 (1980). performance of a solar pond as a source of thermal 17. O. Levin and C. Elata, Selective flow of density stratenergy, Solar Energy 32, 771 (1984). ified fluid, Tech. Report No. 5/133/62, Dept. of Civil 6. V. Joshi and V. V. N. Kishore, Applicability of steady Eng., Technion, Haifa, Israel (1962). state equations for solar pond thermal performance pre- . 18. S. Chandrasekhar, Hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic dictions, Solar Energy 11, 821 (1986). stability, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, London (1961). 7. J. R. Hull, Computer simulation of solar pond thermal 19. C. F. Kooi, The steady state salt gradient solar pond, behavior, Solar Energy 25, 33 (1980). Solar Energy 23, 37 (1979). average density of the i-th sublayer, kg/m-J shear stress, Pa shear stress at the solar pond bottom, Pa shear stress at the bottom of the i-th sublayer, Pa shear stress at the top of the i-th sublayer, Pa energy of the solar radiation, Wm-2

APPENDIX: CALCULATION OF THE THERMAL LAYERS PHYSICAL PARAMETERS

According to eqns (5)-(13) we obtain for each sublayer of the stratified thermal layer and the homogeneous thermal layer the following expressions:

~ dJ-, ~ L.J +) J-O ( 2ILJ 21LJ-'

+-T{/+'}8

TJS

+() 3 ILl 21L,_,

.

d,

d,_,

T;a

+
(A.4)

d, d, +31L1 61L,
T;a

T(I+I}8

U(l-UT

=-

Q(o)
d,

d,

(A. 1)
At-I

61L1

Q(Q =-

d,

O:s I:SM

-1

UiT

=-

d,
T;a

21-4

21L,

d,

T(I+I}8

U(I-UT

(A.2) (A.3)
ther-

J-O

L.J -+2ILJ d",

dJ

dJ-,

21LJ-'

)TJB+-+(
Q(/o()

d",

d"'-I

3ILAt

21L"'-1

)T",s+
(A.5)

1'08 = 'Tw; TMB = -aT...

-a--rOB = 61L",

d",

where the subscript

=0

refers to the homogeneous

mal layer. The expressions represented in (A.I)-(A.3) are employed in order to obtain a set of M + 1 linear equations. From them one equation refers to the homogeneous thermal layer (i 0) and M equations refer to the various sublayers

of the stratified thermal layer. The M + 1 equations are representedas follows:

The set of equations represented by (A.4) and (A.5) is associated with eqn (7) to provide relationships between the shear stress distribution, the partial flow-rates, thicknesses of the various sub layers of the stratified thermal layer and the density gradients existing in these sublayers. If we also refer to a continuous laminar velocity profile then values of the sub layers thicknesses and flow-rates are directly connected.