Solar Energy Vol. 62, No. 1, pp.

63–68, 1998
© 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
PII: S0038-092X(97)00074-1 All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
0038-092X/98 $19.00+0.00

PARAMETRIC MODEL OF SOLAR COOKER PERFORMANCE

P. A. FUNK * and D. L. LARSON **

* Mechanical Engineering, Bradley University, Peoria, IL61625, U.S.A.
** Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, U.S.A.

Received 22 November 1996; revised version accepted 26 June 1997

Communicated by BRIAN NORTON

Abstract—This paper presents a model for prediction of the cooking power of a solar cooker based on
three controlled parameters (solar intercept area, overall heat loss coefficient, and absorber plate thermal
conductivity) and three uncontrolled variables (insolation, temperature difference, and load distribution).
The model basis is a fundamental energy balance equation. Coefficients for each term in the model were
determined by regression analysis of experimental data. The model was validated for commercially avail-
able solar cookers of both the box and concentrating types. The valid range of model application includes
most of the feasible design space for family-sized solar cookers. The model can be used to estimate the
cooking capacity of existing box type and concentrating type solar cookers. It can also be used to find
the combinations of intercept area and heat loss coefficient required to cook a given quantity of food in
a given climate. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

NOMENCLATURE intermittent cloud cover, and low ambient tem-

A solar intercept area (m2)
dTi difference in temperature between the cooking vessel
contents and the ambient air (°C )
I insolation in the plane of the aperture ( W/m2)
kT thermal conductivity ( W/m2 °C )
P useful cooking power ( W )
Ru ratio of pot to absorber plate areas (dimensionless)
t absorber plate thickness (m)
U overall heat loss coefficient ( W/°C )
VL wind velocity at 3 m height (m/s)
1. INTRODUCTION
There is a critical need for development of
alternative, appropriate, affordable methods
of cooking for use in developing countries.
Population pressures on remaining forest
resources have resulted in shortages of fuel
available for household use and yielded adverse
environmental effects. Solar cooker use has the
potential to alleviate both problems by reducing
dependence on wood as a cooking fuel.
However, to gain acceptance and motivate use,
there is a need to develop many different solar
cooker designs. Each design needs to be suited
to specific climates, customs and economic
factors. This development requires a good fun-
damental understanding of the relationship
between key design variables and performance.
The most commonly used type of solar cooker
is the box type. Convenient to use, this type is
also the oldest, dating back over two centuries
(de Saussure, 1784). Box type cookers depend
on heat retention. They are slow to heat up,
but work well even where there is diffuse
radiation, convective heat loss caused by wind,
63
peratures ( Telkes, 1959). They are able to keep
food at a biologically safe temperature for up
to 3 h past sunset ( Funk, 1992). Performance
may be enhanced by reflectors, which
change their operation considerably ( Funk and
Larson, 1994).
Concentrating cookers utilize multi-faceted
mirrors, fresnel lenses, or parabolic concentra-
tors to attain higher temperatures (critical for
deep fat frying) (Löf, 1963). Typically, they
heat up quickly but are not well insulated and
require frequent directional adjustment to track
the sun. Because concentrating cookers primar-
ily utilize direct beam radiation, uncontrolled
events that reduce clearness (dust, smog, haze)
drastically reduce their performance ( Khalifa
et al., 1987; Michalsky et al., 1994).
The third solar cooker category is the flat
plate type. These devices use a heat transfer
fluid to carry thermal energy from the point of
collection to the cooking vessel(s). They have
the advantage of being suited to remote collec-
tion, useful for indoor cooking applications,
but are comparatively more expensive to
produce.
Despite the variation in approach (flat plate,
concentrating, and box type) and large variety
of inventions and products, the total potential
design space is largely unexplored (Grupp,
1992). Systematic examination of the design
space requires either extensive testing or models
with broad predictive capability.
Mullick et al. (1987) have proposed methods
64 P. A. Funk and D. L. Larson
for comparative testing of solar cookers, meth-
ods purported to be independent of climatic
variables. Unfortunately, climatic independence
of performance predictions was not verifiable
in replication trials conducted by Funk (1996).
Grupp et al. (1994) reported on comparative
testing of 25 solar cooking devices from eight
countries; test summaries included heat-up
times, stagnation temperatures and tracking
frequency.
A number of computer models have been
developed to predict the performance of
different types of solar cookers. Das et al.
(1994a,b) simulated performance of a solar box
with horizontal glazing, one reflecting mirror,
and aluminum absorber plate and containing
one, two or four vessels. Though the model
used three-dimensional, unsteady-state heat
conduction equations with time dependent radi-
ation, convection, and conduction boundary
conditions, it cannot readily accommodate
other physical parameters. Two other solar box
cooker performance models, the model reported
by Khalifa et al. (1986) and the parametric
model presented by Jubran and Alsaad (1991),
also appear limited to cookers with characteris-
tics similar to the developmental models.
Habeebullah et al. (1995) reported the predic-
tion of cooking temperatures and heat-up rates
for concentrating solar cookers with different
wind speeds and cooking strategies. Application
of this model likewise seems limited to very
similar concentrating cookers.
This paper presents the development of a
general model and related parametric response
surface to describe the solar cooker design space
by predicting cooking power based on the most
influential design parameters. Data was col-
lected across the feasible range of the design
space from tests of solar cookers having five
different levels of three design parameters,
following a central composite experimental
design (Fig. 1). The central composite is the
most efficient experimental design for defining
a possible nonlinear response surface
(Montgomery, 1991), thus minimizing the
number of tests required to define cooking
power response to changes in the three design
parameters. Coefficients associated with each
term in the model’s energy balance equation
were determined by regression analysis.
Previous solar cooker testing and perfor-
mance modeling identified solar input and over-
all heat loss coefficient as the two primary
parameters affecting cooker performance (Funk
and Larson, 1994). These parameters most
clearly distinguish the three types of solar cook-
ers: the box, concentrating and flat plate types.
A third parameter, internal heat transfer effi-
ciency, was included in the evaluation after
analyzing the results of preliminary experi-
ments. In those experiments, the solar concen-
tration varied only slightly and heat loss was
nearly constant. Yet the response of the ovens
tested varied significantly with the thermal con-
ductivity of the absorber plate.
The Hottel–Willier–Bliss equation is com-
monly used for predicting the steady-state,
steady-flow, hourly energy available from a flat
plate collector (Duffie and Beckman, 1991). It
includes coefficients based on experimental data
to compensate for simplifying assumptions (e.g.
the mean plate temperature, which drives heat
loss, is estimated by the fluid inlet temperature).
A similar approach was used in this research to
develop an equation to predict solar cooker
performance. Test data were used to determine
coefficients for an energy balance equation
whose generality was limited by simplifying
assumptions (e.g. heat loss is driven by cooking
vessel and absorber surface temperatures, esti-
mated by temperature of the cooking vessel
contents). The relationship which was devel-
oped, the Funk–Larson equation, estimates
useful cooking power instead of available
energy. Confronted with transient conditions,
instantaneous heat transfer seemed easier to
quantify than energy gains and losses.
2. PROCEDURES
Eighteen solar cookers having five levels of
the three selected design parameters were fabri-
cated, following the central composite experi-
mental design. Three cooking vessels, each
containing 1 kg of water, were placed in each
oven. Thermocouples were used to sense the
temperature at the center of mass of the water.
The average water temperature in each oven
was noted every 6 s, and the 10 observation
average recorded every 1 min by a datalogger.
Figure 2 shows a sectional view of a typical
solar cooker. Figure 3 shows a photograph of
a trial.
Trials were conducted during nine days over
a two month period to observe performance in
various weather conditions. Useful cooking
power was considered to be the sensible heat
gain of the cooking vessel contents only.
Cooking power was calculated by multiplying
 Parametric model of solar cooker performance 65

Fig. 1. Central composite experimental design. Each dot represents the relative value of the three cooker parameters used
in a test of cooking power.

Fig. 2. Sectional view of solar cookers. Type K thermocouple wires from each cooking vessel are connected in parallel.

the mass and specific heat capacity of the water
by its temperature gain over 10 min and dividing
by 600 s. Cooking power, wind velocity, insol-
ation, cooker and ambient temperatures, and
controlled parameter levels were recorded at
two times approximately 1 h apart: after the
coldest oven had reached ambient temperature
and before the hottest oven exceeded 95°C.
Data from these trials were then used to
determine a regression model.
Because overall heat transfer coefficients are
difficult to estimate for complex objects, cookers
were tested in a wind tunnel constructed to
provide the equilibrium air temperature and
controlled air velocity conditions needed to
determine overall heat loss. The heat transfer
coefficient values obtained from the wind tunnel
tests are shown in Fig. 4. Heat loss from a
cooker was controlled by adding or removing
the glazing, adding vents, or adding foam
insulation.
3. RESULTS
Solar cooker test data were used to mathe-
matically relate cooker performance to cooker
66 P. A. Funk and D. L. Larson

Fig. 3. Photograph of typical solar cooker trial.

intercept area and insolation, 0.167, is close to

the expected value (the nominal efficiency of a
solar cooker being about 20%). The area–insola-
tion coefficient has the strongest influence on
the response, as indicated by the high F ratio
(the ratio of the mean square for the effect
divided by the mean square for error). The
area–insolation coefficient was also subject to
the most variation. During the course of the
trials, the intercept area of each individual unit
Fig. 4. Heat loss U ( W/°C ) versus wind velocity. The five remained constant, but resulting solar concen-
levels of heat loss tested range from no box at all to a box
insulated with urethane foam. tration went from atypically high to rather low.
While still new, the reflectors had excellent
specular characteristics. As the aluminized
parameters and environmental factors. The polyester film reflectors weathered, wrinkled
mathematical models of cooker performance and collected dust, reflectance was substantially
were then used to create response surfaces which
reduced.
display cooker performance.
The regression coefficient associated with the
3.1. Three-parameter model overall heat loss coefficient is 1.72, the expected
value only 1.0. This difference is attributed to
The three-parameter regression analysis
difficulties in determining the heat loss coeffi-
model developed to predict cooking power is:
cient in a wind tunnel. Both turbulence in the
P ( W ) =24.0+0.167 A I air flow field around the oven and temperature
u i T
F ratio: (686) distribution within the oven were different in
−1.72 U dT+293 ktR. (1) the wind tunnel from out-of-doors conditions.
L
(205) (44) In the wind tunnel, the fluid in the cooking
This equation explained 69% of the variance in vessel, heated with an immersion heater, is the
cooking power response to different values for hottest element. Out-of-doors, the lid of the
the three oven parameters. cooking vessel, heated by the sun, is the hottest
The regression coefficient associated with element. Thus, heat transfer from the lid is
 Parametric model of solar cooker performance 67

greater out-of-doors than predicted by calculat-

ing heat transfer based on the temperature of
the fluid in the cooking vessel.
The regression coefficient associated with
internal heat transfer, 293, is large because the
thermal conductivity times the thickness of an
absorber plate (in meters) is small. Though
statistically significant, this term has the smallest
effect on cooking power prediction as indicated
by the small F ratio.
The regression equation y-intercept constant Fig. 5. Response surface showing cooking power ( W ) as a
allows the equation to better fit data in the function of intercept area-insolation product ( W ) and heat
observed range of values, but has no physical loss coefficient–temperature difference product ( W ) for box
cookers. Squares are observations near the beginning of
significance. In fact, the model is not valid for cooker tests; diamonds are observations taken 1 h later.
small values of insolation.

3.2. Two-parameter model data points from validation trials. The squares
indicate typical observations made near the
A simplified regression model was then devel-
beginning of cooker tests, with 900 W/m2 insol-
oped which contained only two variables. The
ation and 5°C temperature difference between
term with the least significance (ktR) was
the fluid inside the cooking vessel and the
dropped from the above model, leaving just the
outside air. The diamonds are representative of
two terms that pertain to the energy conserva-
observations from later in the tests, after insol-
tion equation (A I and U dT ). The simplified
iT L ation has reached 1000 W/m2 and the temper-
model is:
ature difference 50°C.
P ( W ) =40.3+0.164 A I −1.62 U dT. Figure 6 indicates negative cooking power is
u i T L
F ratio: (589) (163) expected with two of the small concentrating
(2) cookers (the panel cookers) as denoted by the
diamonds located in the upper left-hand quad-
This model had a correlation coefficient of
rant. This does not imply that the cookers are
0.65, almost as high as the three-parameter
losing power; but simply that they would fail
model coefficient. However, the two-parameter
to reach a temperature 50°C greater than
model was substantially less accurate in predic-
ambient.
ting the cooking power of actual cookers during
Response surfaces are presented for only box
the validation trials. The missing term, absorber
and concentrating type solar cookers. There is
conductivity–plate area ratio, was important in
no corresponding surface for flat plate cookers,
the validation trials because some of the solar
because the model was not suitable for predic-
cookers tested did not have an absorber plate,
ting their performance. Where heat is collected
while others had very large absorber plates.
in one location and transferred by a fluid to
3.3. Response surfaces
Response surfaces relating cooking power to
solar input (intercept area×insolation) and
cooker heat loss (heat loss coefficient×
temperature difference) were developed from
the prediction equations. The surface in Fig. 5
is representative of the cooking power response
of most box cookers, while Fig. 6 shows the
surface representative of the response of most
concentrating and panel cookers, where there is
no absorber plate. Comparison of these figures
indicates an absorber plate slightly increased Fig. 6. Response surface showing cooking power ( W ) as a
the solar radiation converted to thermal energy function of the intercept area–insolation product ( W ) and
and made available to the cooking vessel the heat loss coefficient–temperature difference product ( W )
for concentrating cookers having no absorber plate. Squares
contents. are observations near the beginning of cooker tests;
The diamonds and squares in the figures are diamonds are observations taken 1 h later.
68 P. A. Funk and D. L. Larson
cooking vessels at another location, the heat
loss from the collector is not related to the
temperature of the cooking vessel contents.
Additionally, these cookers may have substan-
tial thermal inertia, and the model assumes
thermal inertia to be negligible.
3.4. Validation
The three-parameter cooking power predic-
tion model was validated by comparing observa-
tions from tests of 18 solar ovens with model
performance predictions. Since the correlation
coefficient (R2) for the model is 0.69, the model
was considered invalid for cookers for which
the ratio of predicted to observed cooking
power was less than 0.69 or greater than its
reciprocal, 1.45. The model was judged to ade-
quately predict the thermal performance of all
the tested box type cookers based on this cri-
teria. However, cooking power was not accu-
rately predicted for flat plate cookers nor for
the panel cooker subclass of concentrating
cookers. The failure to predict performance of
the panel cookers is attributed to difficulties in
quantifying intercept area. Two key modeling
assumptions, negligible internal thermal capaci-
tance and dependence of heat loss on cooking
vessel temperature, were invalid for the flat
plate cooker.
The range of conditions applicable to model
application may also be limited. Thermal inertia
and clearness index were not examined over a
broad enough range during the trials to con-
clude whether either parameter is inherently
significant. In future research, it is recom-
mended that these parameters be examined.
4. CONCLUSIONS
This research was conducted to develop a
general model for predicting solar cooker per-
formance. The three-parameter model that was
developed was found to be useful for predicting
thermal performance for two of the three iden-
tified classes of solar cookers, the box type and
most of the concentrating types. Prediction of
performance of flat plate cookers probably
requires inclusion of thermal inertia and sepa-
rate collector heat loss terms. More investiga-
tion is required to define the intercept area of
panel cookers. Though lacking the years of
refinement reflected in the Hottel–Willier–Bliss
equation, the model developed in this research
provides a basis for the systematic understand-
ing of solar cooker thermal performance.
REFERENCES
Das T. C. T., Karmakar S. and Rao D. P. (1994a) Solar
box-cooker 1. Modeling. Solar Energy 52(3), 265–272.
Das T. C. T., Karmakar S. and Rao D. P. (1994b) Solar
box-cooker 2. Analysis and simulation. Solar Energy
52(3), 273–282.
de Saussure H. (1784) A letter to the editors. Le Journal de
Paris 108, 475–478.
Duffie J. A. and Beckman W. A. (1991) Solar Engineering
of Thermal Processes. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Funk P. A. (1992) Analysis of solar box cooker for mass
production in East Africa. M.S. Thesis, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Funk P. A. (1996) Parametric model of a solar cooker for
international development. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Uni-
versity of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Funk P. A. and Larson D. L. (1994) Design features influ-
encing thermal performance of solar box cookers. Int.
Meet. Am. Soc. Agricultural Engineers, Atlanta, GA,
Paper No. 946546.
Grupp M. (1992) Advanced solar box and flat plate collec-
tor cookers. In Proc. World Conf. on Solar Cooking, E.
Pejack ( Ed.), Stockton, CA, pp. 87–95.
Grupp M., Merkle T. and Owen-Jones M. (1994) Second
Int. Solar Cooker Test, Synopsis. European Committee
for Solar Cooker Research (ECSCR), Route d’Olmet,
F-34700 Lodève, France.
Habeebullah M. B., Khalifa A. M. and Olwi I. (1995) The
oven receiver: an approach toward the revival of concen-
trating solar cookers. Solar Energy 54, 4, 227–237.
Jubran B. A. and Alsaad M. A. (1991) Parametric study of
a box-type solar cooker. Energy Conserv. Manage 32,
3, 223–234.
Khalifa A. M. A., Taha M. M. and Akyurt M. (1986) On
prediction of solar cooker performance and cooking in
Pyrex pots. Solar Wind Technol 3, 1, 13–19.
Khalifa A. M. A., Taha M. M. and Akyurt M. (1987)
Design, simulation, and testing of a new concentrating
type solar cooker. Solar Energy 38, 2, 79–88.
Löf G. O. G. (1963) Recent investigations in the use of
solar energy for cooking. Solar Energy 7, 3, 125–133.
Michalsky J. J., Perez R., Seals R. and Ineichen P. (1994)
Degradation of solar concentrator performance in the
aftermath of Mount Pinatubo. Solar Energy 52, 2,
205–213.
Montgomery D. C. (1991) Design and Analysis of Experi-
ments. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Mullick S. C., Kandpal T. C. and Saxena A. K. (1987)
Thermal test procedure for box-type solar cookers. Solar
Energy 39, 4, 353–360.
Telkes M. (1959) Solar cooking ovens. Solar Energy 3,
1, 1–10.