Hindawi

Journal of Renewable Energy

Volume 2018, Article ID 9620103, 9 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9620103

Research Article
Design of an Improved Cooking Stove Using High Density
Heated Rocks and Heat Retaining Techniques

Anthony A. Bantu,1 Gilbert Nuwagaba,1 Sarah Kizza,1 and Yonah K. Turinayo 2

1
Department of Engineering and Environment, Uganda Christian University, P.O. Box 4, Mukono, Uganda
2
National Forestry Resources Research Institute (NaFORRI), National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO),
P.O. Box 1752, Kampala, Uganda

Correspondence should be addressed to Yonah K. Turinayo; [email protected]

Received 18 July 2018; Accepted 15 October 2018; Published 28 October 2018

Academic Editor: Jayanta Mondol

Copyright © 2018 Anthony A. Bantu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.

In sub-Saharan Africa, dependence on wood fuel has caused significant depletion of vegetative resources. Whereas there exist
hundreds of improved cooking stoves, many have not reached their maximum potential because their designs are predominantly
focused on either fuel efficiency or reduced smoke. This research designed and fabricated an improved charcoal stove using high
density rocks and heat retaining techniques. The aim was to retain heat and minimise heat losses in cooking devices with a sole
purpose of reducing the amount of fuel used during cooking. The stove design herein incorporates the interaction of physical and
thermal properties of granite rocks with heat loss theories to give a thermal efficient unit. The stove was estimated to cost US$
36 which compared favourably with most of the improved charcoal stoves on international market (US$ 3–50 US$). This study
revealed that, by introducing the new stove design and insulation, the granite rocks depicted high thermal storage properties with
potential for reducing fuel use by over 78% with reference to the open fire stove. The designed granite rock stove therefore paves way
for the use of high density rocks in improved cook stoves to achieve high performance energy efficient systems that can sustainably
put to use vegetative resources.

1. Introduction developing countries [3]. However, several renewable energy

resources including hydroelectricity, solar, and biomass are
Many of the world’s population living in developing countries promoted due to their high availability and responsiveness to
lack access to modern energy services for economic and the environment.
social development. Besides, its existing energy system is In Africa, biomass is a traditional and the most reliable
unsustainable [1]. A large proportion of the households do fuel source of energy used for cooking by over 69% of
not have access to grid electricity. Yet, those relying on the population [4]. However, its increased utilisation by
electricity for cooking experience intermittent power supply. inefficient technologies has raised fears over the long-term
Although liquid petroleum gas burns quite effectively, it forest degradation with loss of environmental services (e.g.,
is expensive and not viable for a common man. More so, watershed protection) and biodiversity [5]. Biomass is quite
there has been persistent escalating fossil oil prices and fuel difficult to burn completely in the most commonly used
crisis which has drawn attention to the need for producing traditional household-sized stoves [6]. Frequent use of stoves
viable alternatives to kerosene and gas for domestic cooking developed by improper combustion designs may result into
[2]. Solar, another potential alternative source of energy, indoor air pollution, impacting negatively on the health
is noticeably location-specific in terms of utilisation. Its of household members, particularly women and children
associated problems are linked to energy storage for use [1]. For instance, Nahar [7] reported that about 2 million
during the period of modest or no sunshine, as well as need annual excess deaths of women and children in developing
for technological artifacts, which are currently scarce in the countries are linked to indoor air pollution, precisely due
2 Journal of Renewable Energy

to exposure to carbon monoxide and the volatiles (benzene metals and because of this, its design life costs are mini-
and formaldehyde) liberated in the form of smoke [8]. Such mal.
exposures lead to acute respiratory infections, low birth
weights, lung cancer, chronic obstructive lung diseases, and 2.1.3. Granite Rocks. Rocks are considered an attractive stor-
eyes problems [9]. Thus, faster technological development age material for thermal-energy storage at high temperatures
is vital in advancing charcoal stove and its environmental due to their thermal physical and mechanical properties [11,
performance. 12]. The rock selected was granite because of its high density,
Although charcoal is believed to be an affordable, avail- good thermal properties, and ready local availability.
able, and the most convenient fuel source for households, its
use in inefficient stoves would produce significant amounts 2.2. Designing and Construction of the Stove. In order to come
of indoor air pollution and make it unsustainable. Therefore, up with the desired stove design and its desired performance,
continual technology development will suppress charcoal’s proper reflection into factors such as fuel type, calorific value,
detriments and enhance its efficient utilisation while reducing air flow rate, insulation, local resources, stove power output,
significantly environmental impact. safety consideration, reactor cross-sectional area, diameter,
This work therefore aims at developing a more efficient and height are of great importance. In the present study,
and safe charcoal burning stove that can reduce fuel con- the size of the combustion chamber and the amount of fuel
sumption rates and indoor air pollution. Even though a lot required to accomplish the cooking task were evaluated fol-
has been done to promote “improved cook stoves” in the lowing work done by Kiwana [16] and Maxwell [17], as well as
developing countries, little has been emphasised on quality reasonable assumptions depicted in Table 1. Fuel (carbonised
combustion during their design and development [10]. This is agrowaste briquettes and charcoal) for experimental design
attributed to limited scientific information on design features was selected based on its local availability within Kampala
and materials of stove construction. In sub-Saharan Africa district.
however a number of stove models are designed and fabri- The combustion chamber dimensions were based on the
cated by local artisans using locally available materials such Kenyan ceramic jiko stove because of its prominence on the
as mud, clay, dry grass, ant-hill soil, and clay bricks. But Ugandan local market and availability of dimensional data.
no attempts have been made on high density rocks such as The jiko stove has a basal internal diameter of 160mm and
granite. fire box depth of 100 mm [17]. A combustion chamber
This paper deals with the development of a charcoal stove with an internal diameter of 120mm and height 100mm was
prototype from locally available materials including granite fabricated. Thus, taking the combustion chamber (inner
rock, stainless steel, and the glass wool. It describes the design chamber) as the focal point, the outer chamber (concentric
features, thermodynamic performance, and thermophysical to the combustion chamber) was fabricated at an internal
properties of the granite rock used in thermal-energy storage diameter of 170 using granite rock, glass wool, and stainless
(TES) system fabrication. According to previous studies on steel at 23mm, 48mm, and 1.0mm thick, respectively.
thermophysical properties of granite rock, a suitable TES sys-
tem should have high values of thermal conductivity, specific 2.3. Testing of Thermal Properties of Granite Rock and
heat capacity, material density, and low values of porosity [11– the Improved Cook Stove
13]. High thermal storage efficiencies are as a result of high
values of thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity, and 2.3.1. Specific Gravity Test of Granite Rock. Granite rocks used
density. High density and specific heat capacity values lead were sampled from the East African granite dealers, Kampala
to a large volumetric heat capacity hence permitting compact district-Uganda. These rocks were obtained by randomly
storage in the systems, whereas low values of porosity indicate selecting representative samples from the cut debris stock
large bulk density and uniaxial compressive strength [14, 15]. piles. By hand picking, samples were collected at random
points from the stock piles of different rock sizes. Specific
2. Materials and Methods gravity test was conducted according to AASHTO [18] to
determine the density of granite for the different rock masses.
2.1. Construction Materials Initially, the density of the hand crashed 14/10mm granite
rock sample was calculated using (1), where M1 is mass of gas
2.1.1. Fiber Glass. A section of the stove wall was made from jar and plate, M2 is mass of gas jar, plate, and aggregates, M3
glass wool because this material is a poor conductor of heat is mass of gas jar, plate, aggregates, and water, and M4 is mass
due to its low thermal conductivity and thus will prevent heat of gas jar, plate, and water.
loss by conduction. Through saving as much heat as possible,
the fuel combustion efficiency of the stove is improved; it (𝑀2 − 𝑀1)
𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑔𝑎𝑟V𝑖𝑡𝑦 = (1)
means saving even much more fuel. In addition, the fiber glass (𝑀4 − 𝑀1) − (𝑀3 − 𝑀2)
material is locally available.
Given 1 g/cm3 as the density of water, this implies that it
2.1.2. Stainless Steel. Stainless steel was chosen as a material buoys up anything within it by 1 gram per cubic centimetre
because of its availability on the local market. Technically, it of displacement. Because of this, the weight in air minus the
undergoes allowable deformation and is resistant to corrosion weight in water is equal to the volume of the rock sample in
in high temperatures. Steel has a longer service life than most cm3 .
Journal of Renewable Energy 3

Table 1: Thermal design assumptions for the cooking stove.

No- Material Parameter Units Values Reference

Fuel (carbonised agro-waste
1 Calorific value MJ/kg 21.7 Kiwana, 2016
briquettes)
2 Charcoal Calorific value MJ/kg 29.8 Kiwana, 2016
3 Water Density g/ltr 1000 Global Alliance for
4 Water Specific heat capacity J/g.K 4.186 Clean Cookstoves, 2014
5 Granite rock Thermal conductivity W.m−1 . K−1 2.68 Eppelbaum, 2014
6 Air Thermal conductivity W.m−1 . K−1 0.02 Lienhard IV, 2000
7 Stainless steel Thermal conductivity W.m−1 . K−1 16 Young, 1992
8 Glass wool Thermal conductivity W.m−1 . K−1 0.04 Young, 1992
9 Flame Theoretical Maximum temperature K 2123 Yusuf, 2011
10 Cook stove Theoretical thermal efficiency % 35
11 Cook stove Energy loss % 65

2.3.2. Water Absorption Test. In line with AASHTO [18], Table 2: Summary of laboratory test results for specific gravity
the water absorption test was conducted to determine the and water absorption tests (see Figure S1–S3 in the Supplementary
amount of water absorbed under specified conditions. This Materials for comprehensive analysis).
is mainly due to the effect water usually has on heat transfer
Water
in rocks through conduction. The data obtained therefore Sample Test Identification Specific
Absorption
helped shed light on the performance of the granite rock gravity
(%)
in humid environments. During the experiment, the granite 14/10 mm Hand crushed aggregates 2.72 0.42
rocks were hand crushed to 14/10mm aggregates before the
test could be carried out. Water absorption was expressed as
increase in weight percent based on (2), whereby A is weight
of oven dry sample in air and B is weight of saturated surface
dry sample in air 3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Classification of Granite Rock. As presented in Table 2,
(𝐵 − 𝐴) the specific gravity of the granite rock was found to be 2.72,
% 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = [ ] × 100 (2)
𝐴 implying that the rock was of high density.
Given the fact that there was little (0.42%) water absorbed
2.3.3. Thermal Test of Granite Rock. After lining the granite by the rock (Table 2), negligible amount of heat would be
rock chamber with stainless steel, charcoal fuel was ignited required to drive it off. Therefore, the moisture content of
within the combustion chamber. The maximum temperature the rock would not have any significant effect on its heat
reaching the granite rock (423 K) was attained after 41 retention properties. This makes it a suitable material for the
minutes on average and this was recorded. stove construction.
Samples of the rock were as well heated between room The effect of temperature on the physical properties of the
temperature (297.8 K) and 567 K in an oven to determine their rock was also evaluated based on the practical experience of
ability to withstand heat without disintegrating. The rocks constructed stove operations and oven tests. From the oven
were heated and observations made for change in weight for test experiment, the granite rock recorded an initial temper-
the granite material under test. This was done at time intervals ature of 297.8 K and mass of 401.65g. There was a gradual
of 20 minutes for 120 minutes with increasing temperature decrease in mass with increasing temperature over time
in the oven. Also the changes in the physical structure of the (Figure 1, see Figure S4 in the Supplementary Materials for
rock were noted. comprehensive analysis).
After 120 minutes of oven heating, the granite rock
2.3.4. Water Boiling Test (WBT). WBT assessed the overall recorded a constant mass of 401.21g at constant temperature
performance of a cookstove via three phases which consisted of 567 K, indicating maximum moisture loss from the rock.
of (1) bringing water to a boil from a cold start; (2) bringing Despite the slight change in colour (dusty pale white) of the
water to a boil when the stove is hot; and, (3) maintaining rock, there was no visible fracture observed. Similarly, the
the water at simmering temperatures. In WBT experiment, maximum temperature reaching the granite rock in the
water was heated to boiling point; the time taken to boil constructed stove was recorded as 423 K (after 41 minutes of
a given quantity of water, specific firewood consumption operation) at minimum moisture content (Figure 1) and no
besides evaluating thermal efficiency at both high and low sign of fracture. This implies that the granite rock would be
energy input was done. The test was conducted in accordance able to perform in the stove without disintegrating after
with Volunteers in Technical Assistance [19]. successive cooking times.
4 Journal of Renewable Energy

401.7 623 Therefore, the fuel chamber needs to be designed to hold 147g
401.6 573 of charcoal.
Mass of the rock (g)

401.5 Since 100% efficiency is not practical for improved cook

Temperature (K)
523
401.4 stoves, the decision to use charcoal as a fuel for the stove
473
401.3 design was based on a more practical 35% efficiency target.
423 It was observed that more briquettes would be required
401.2
401.1 373 to achieve the same cooking task as charcoal. Therefore,
401 323 charcoal was a preferred choice of fuel.
400.9 273
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 3.3. Design of the Stove Prototype. The convective and con-
Time (minutes) ductive heat transfer through the stove wall were calculated
mass (g) using Fourier’s heat relation (see (9)).
Temperature (K)
(𝑇1 − 𝑇2)
𝑄 = 𝐾𝐴 (9)
Figure 1: Relationship between mass of granite rock and tempera- 𝑋
ture with time.
where Q is heat flow rate (W/m2 ), A is total cross-sectional
area of conducting surface (m2 ), X is thickness of specimen
3.2. Choice of Fuel for Experimental Design. For the improved (m), and T is temperature (K).
stove design, solid fuels were evaluated. The selection to According to Baldwin [22], use of Fourier’s heat equation
evaluate carbonised agrowaste briquettes and charcoal fuels for examination of heat transfer across a stove wall generates
was taken based on local availability within Kampala district. values that are too large. This is because the heat transferred
Based on (3), we need to transmit 1,538,355J of energy into and out of an object depends not only on the conductivity
to a pan to boil 4.9-liter of water (≈ 4900g) from room to and from the surfaces but also on the conductivity within
temperature (298 K) to 373 K (at sea level) given its specific the object itself, dirt, or oxide layers and air at the surface of
heat capacity of 4.186 J/g.K [20, 21]. the material.
Thus, (9) is arranged using the thermal resistance concept
𝐻 = 𝑚𝑐𝜃 (3) as shown in
𝐴 (𝑇1 − 𝑇2)
where H is the heat required, m is the mass of substance, and 𝑄= (10)
𝜃 is the temperature difference. 1/ℎ1 + 𝑥/𝐾 + 1/ℎ1
where h is the convective heat transfer obtained from
(4.186 J/g.𝐾) x 4900g x (373 𝐾-298 𝐾)
(4) 󳵻𝑇 𝑏
= 1, 538, 355J of energy to water ℎ = 𝐴( )∗ (11)
𝐿
At 100% efficiency whereby all the fuel is transferred to the
water, we would require A and b are constants depending on geometry and
flow conditions.
1538355
= 70.89 g of briquettes (5) L denotes length.
21700
For vertical cylinders, h = 1.31 (1358)1/3 [23]
Assuming a thermal efficiency of 35%, and energy loss of 65%,
2025g of briquette fuel would be required to boil 4.9 liters of = 14.51 W/m2 K (12)
water as shown below.
Given the height (179mm) and the diameter (375mm),
70.89 Figure 2, the surface area of stove was estimated as 0.32 m2
= 2025 g of briquettes (6)
0.35 following (13).
Therefore, the fuel chamber needs to be designed to hold at 𝐴 = 𝜋𝑟 (2ℎ + 𝑟)
least 2025g of briquettes.
Similarly, 51.6g of charcoal with average calorific value = 3.14 ∗ 187.5 (2 ∗ 179 + 187.5) (13)
= 29.8 MJ/Kg = 29800J/g [16] would generate 1,538,355J of
energy required to boil 4.9 liters of water (see (3)) if fuel = 321165.125 mm2 or 0.32m2
conversion efficiency was 100%.
This value was used for only stainless steel since granite and
1538355 fiber glass do not cover the bottom of the stove, whereas, for
= 51.6 g of charcoal (7) granite and fiber glass, the surface area was estimated using
29800
For a thermal efficiency of 35%, 147g of charcoal fuel is 𝐴 = 2𝜋𝑟ℎ
therefore required, as shown below:
= 2 ∗ 3.14 ∗ 187.5 ∗ 179 (14)
51.6
= 147 g of charcoal (8) = 210772.5mm2 or 0.21m2
0.35
Journal of Renewable Energy 5

R 17 cm
39.0
R 33 cm
3.
R 39 cm 3.00
50

10.00
4. 2.00
40 17.0 2.30

Figure 2: Plan and front elevation drawings of the designed stove (all dimensions in cm).

Taking theoretical maximum temperature = 2123 K [23] and

based on reasonable assumptions, thermal conductivity of
granite, Kg = 2.68 W/mK [24]; fiber glass, Kf = 0.04 W/mK
[25]; and stainless steel, Ks = 16 W/mK [25], total resistance
was estimated as 9.768 K.W−1 (see (15))

1 𝐿𝑠 𝐿𝑓 𝐿𝑔
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 = +3 + +
ℎ1𝐴 𝐾𝑠𝐴 𝐾𝑓𝐴 𝐾𝑔𝐴
1
+
ℎ2𝐴
1 0.0015
= +3∗
14.51 ∗ 0.32 16 ∗ 0.32
0.078 0.023
+ + (15)
0.04 ∗ 0.21 2.68 ∗ 0.21
1 Figure 3: The stove made from granite rock.
+
14.51 ∗ 0.32
= 0.215 + 8.79 ∗ 10−4 + 9.296 Thus, the losses through the stove wall were workable for the
+ 0.041 + 0.215 stove design.

= 9.768 K.W−1 3.4. Features of the Stove. The stove (Figure 3) consists of
a combustion chamber (inner retort) constructed using a
Hence the energy lost by the stove would be 186.12W based 2.0mm thick stainless-steel material.
on The combustion chamber is designed to receive solid
biomass fuel (charcoal) and enhance complete combustion
󳵻𝑇 of combustible gas released during charcoal burning pro-
𝑄= (16) cess. The combustion chamber is imbedded in a cylinder
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒
(outer retort) constructed using granite rock and glass wool
Using room temperature of 305K (Figure 4). The combustion chamber and outer retort are
designed in a way that a 30mm gap is left in between to
2123 − 305 provide a free movement of air and enhance resistance to heat
=
9.768 transfer to the inner wall of the outer retort. This minimises
heat loss given the low thermal conductivity (1.6 W.m-1. K-
1818
= 1) of the granite rock and air (0.02 to 0.05 W.m-1. K-1),
9.768 (17)
compared with stainless steel (16 to 64 W.m-1. K-1) used
𝑄 = 186.12 W in the construction of the combustion chamber [26]. This
leads to large amount of heat from the burning charcoal to
𝑄 = 186.12 ∗ 3600 = 670032𝐽 concentrate at the bottom of the cooking pan, thus increasing
thermal efficiency.
Yet, it has been found that the stove would release a total of
1,538,355J of energy to water at 100% efficiency (see (3)). This 3.5. Thermal Performance of the Stove. Indicators including
implies that more than half (1,538,355 – 670,032 = 868,323J) thermal efficiency, water boiling rate, specific fuel consump-
of the energy produced by the charcoal fuel goes to the water. tion, fire power, and fuel use reduction were used to evaluate
6 Journal of Renewable Energy

Stove Lining
Support (Stainless steel)
Combustion Chamber

Granite Rock Air Inlet Perforations

Air gap
Glass Wool
Stove Handle
Air Inlet Gate Air Inlet Controller

Figure 4: Major components of the stove.

the performance of the designed stove. Data used in the The thermal efficiency, a measure of the fraction of heat
evaluation (Table 3) were generated by WBT experiment produced by the fuel that made it directly to the water in the
using a recommended protocol [19]. pot [20, 21], was calculated using

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝑂V𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = ∗ 100%
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑
𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 + 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑓𝑜𝑟 V𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
ℎ𝑐 = 𝑋 100% (18)
𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑎 𝑔𝑖V𝑒𝑛 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙
𝑀𝑤𝐶𝑤󳵻𝑇 + 𝑀𝑤Vℎ
= ∗ 100%
𝐹𝑐𝑚𝐿𝐻𝑉

where Mw is mass of water in sauce pan, Cw is specific The water boiling rate for the 2nd test run was calculated as
heat capacity of water, 󳵻T is local boiling temperature-initial
temperature of water (K), Fcm is fuel consumed (moist) 43
= ∗ 1000
(g), LHV is net calorific value (J/g), Mwv is mass of water 2775 (21)
vaporised (g), and h is specific enthalpy of vaporisation (J/g). = 15.50 min/ltr
For example, for the 2nd test run, the thermal efficiency was
calculated as Specific fuel consumption measures the amount of fuel
2875 ∗ 4.186 ∗ (96.8 − 24.5) + 100 ∗ 2260 required to boil (or simmer) 1 liter of water. It is calculated
= ∗ 100% (see (22)) by the equivalent dry fuel used minus the energy
125 ∗ 29800 (19)
in the remaining charcoal, divided by the liters of water
= 29.4% remaining at the end of the test [20, 21].
While thermal efficiency is a well-known measure of stove 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 (𝑔)
performance, better indicator may be sought especially dur- = ∗ 1000 (22)
ing the low power phase of the water boiling test. This is 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖V𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑑 (𝑔)
because a stove that is very slow to boil may have a very good The specific fuel consumption for the 2nd test was obtained
looking thermal efficiency since large amount of water was using (24) as
evaporated. However, the fuel used per water remaining may
be too high since so much water was evaporated and so much 125
time was taken while bringing the pot to a boil [20, 21]. With = ∗ 1000
2775 (23)
respect to this, indicators such as specific consumption, water
boiling rate, fire power, and fuel use reduction were calculated = 45.05 g/liter water boiled
as well.
Fire power: a useful measure of the stove’s heat output was
The water boiling rate was obtained the following equa-
also calculated following (24).
tion:
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 (𝑚𝑖𝑛) 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 (𝑔) ∗ 𝐿𝐻𝑉 (𝐽/𝑔)
= ∗ 1000 (20) = (24)
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖V𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑑 (𝑔) 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 (min) ∗ 60
Journal of Renewable Energy 7

Table 3: Data from WBT (see Figure S5 in the Supplementary Materials for comprehensive analysis).

Tests (n = 4)
s/n Parameters
1 2 3 4 mean stdev
1 Mass of water boiled (g) 2925 2875 2850 2800 2862.5 52.0
Specific heat capacity of
2 4.186 4.186 4.186 4.186 4.186 0
water (J/g.K)
Water boiling
3 369.8 369.8 369.8 369.8 369.8 0
temperature (K)
Initial water temperature
4 297.7 297.5 294.8 296.2 296.55 1.34
before test (K)
5 Water vaporised (g) 100 100 75 100 93.75 12.5
Latent heat of
6 2260 2260 2260 2260 2260 0
veporisation (J/g)
7 Fuel consumed (g) 150 125 100 145 130 23
Lower Heating Value of
8 29800 29800 29800 29800 29800 0
char (LHV), J/g
Effective mass of water
9 2825 2775 2775 2700 2768.8 51.54
boiled (g)
Time to boiling water
10 42.00 43.00 39.00 40.00 41.00 1.83
(min)
11 Fuel consumed (g) 150 125 100 145 130 22.73

Table 4: Summary of results on thermal performance of the stove.

Performance Unit of Tests (n = 4)

S/n index measure 1 2 3 4 MEAN STDEV
Thermal
1 % 24.8 29.4 35.7 25.2 28.8 5.1
efficiency
Water boiling
2 min/ltr 14.9 15.5 14.1 14.8 14.8 0.6
rate
Specific fuel g/liter water
3 53.1 45.0 36.0 53.7 47.0 8.3
consumption boiled
4 Fire power kW 1.77 1.44 1.27 1.80 1.57 0.26
Fuel Use
5 % 76.1 79.7 83.8 75.8 78.8 3.7
Reduction

The fire power for the 1st test run was calculated as follows: Given the specific fuel consumption of 222 g/liter water boiled
for the 3-stone stove (Kris De Decker, 2015), the fuel use
150 ∗ 29800 reduction attained by the developed improved cook stove was
=
42 ∗ 60 (25) estimated using
= 1773.8 W

𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (3 − 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑜V𝑒) − 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

= ∗ 100% (26)
𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (3 − 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑜V𝑒)

For instance, fuel use reduction in the 1st test run was Table 4 shows a summary of results on stove performances.
calculated as It was found that, after 4 test runs of the water boiling test,
the designed improved stove had a mean thermal efficiency
222 − 53.1 of 28.8%. This means that 28.8% of the total energy produced
= ∗ 100% by the fuel is used to boil water in the pot.
222 (27) Comparisons (Figure 5) were made with locally exist-
= 76.1% ing stoves such as the Lorena stove, brick stove, Envirofit
8 Journal of Renewable Energy

Table 5: Comparisons between the cost of the granite rock stove and conventional stoves.
Stove Cook stove technologies
Performance Traditional Improved Traditional Improved
The Granite Propane
wood wood- charcoal- charcoal- Kerosene Electric Source
Rock Stove (LPG)
burning burning burning burning
Capital Cost Jeuland
36 5 – 50 3–6 3 – 50 10 – 60 60 – 120 100 – 500
(US$) and
Efficiency, %, Pattanayak
(MJ useful 2012
energy/MJ 28.8 7 - 15 13 - 40 18 - 21 15 - 37 40 - 50 50 - 60
produced
Heat)
Thermal efficiency (%)

40.0
35.0 36. Based on its water boiling test results, 78.8% fuel use
30.0
25.0 reduction was achieved over the baseline open fire stove. This
20.0
15.0
10.0
was attributed to the thermal retention storage properties
5.0
0.0
of the granite rock. The granite rock, besides glass wool,
Designed
prototype
Lorena
stove
3-stone
stove
Molded
1-pot
Trench
fire
Brick
stove
Kenya Envirofit
ceramic super
metal
stove
significantly contributed to the reduction on estimated heat
stove Jiko stove saver
premium
(about 670kJ) that would be lost through the stove wall.
charcoal
stove This enhanced its thermal efficiency. Based on compar-
Types of stoves isons with performance standards and properties of the
Figure 5: Comparisons between thermal efficiencies % of different
conventional stoves, the designed granite rock stove is a
stoves. substantial improvement technology and can thus lessen the
pressure put on forestry resources. However, further studies
including carbon and particulate matter (PM) emissions are
recommended for future design improvements to suit public
supersaver premium stove, molded 1-pot stove, Kenya health standards. Studies on use of other forms of fuel such as
ceramic jiko stove, metal stove, trench fire, and the traditional
briquettes and wood chippings could as well be conducted to
3-stone stove. Previous studies [27, 28] show that the above-
establish fuel alternatives to charcoal.
mentioned stoves had thermal efficiency values of 14%, 17%,
35.7%, 16%, 24.5%, 21%, 13%, and 9%, respectively.
With a thermal efficiency of 28.8%, the designed proto- Data Availability
type stove achieves tier 2 in the IWA tiers of performance The data underlying the findings of this research can be
[29]. This shows a substantial improvement over the baseline accessed on either the Uganda Christian University, Hamu-
traditional 3-stone stove. Mukasa Library online catalogue, or other online sources.
The online sources among others include (i) https://www
3.6. Cost of the Granite Rock Cooking Stove versus Conven- .safefuelandenergy.org/files/517-1.pdf, (ii) https://www.unn
tional Stoves. Every household cooking system incurs differ- .edu.ng/publications/files/images/USMAN,%20OJONIMI%
ent costs and benefits depending on diverse energy technolo- 20YUSUF.pdf, (iii) https://www.amazon.com/How-make-
gies employed. These costs are related to the capital cost of -Kenyan-ceramic-jiko/dp/B0007C8G84, and (iv) https://
a newly developed stove and/or design modifications, cost www.pciaonline.org/testing.
of fuels required, cost of stove distribution or marketing,
money, and time spent for regular stove operation and Disclosure
maintenance [30]. In this study, the capital cost of the granite
rock stove was estimated at US$36 and compared favourably The authors received no form of financing in the research and
with conventional charcoal burning stoves (US$3–US$50) in publication of this work. All financing directed for this project
accordance with Jeuland and Pattanayak [30] (Table 5). work was of their own resourcing.
Given the fact that the granite rock stove depicts a rela-
tively high thermal efficiency (28.8%) and fuel use reduction Conflicts of Interest
(78.8%) (Table 4), there is a higher likelihood for it to operate
under reduced cost, making it cheaper than the conventional The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest
stoves. regarding the publication of this paper.

4. Conclusions Acknowledgments
The improved cooking stove was designed and fabricated The authors appreciate the intellectual input from all per-
using locally available materials including granite rocks, sons at the Department of Engineering and Environment,
stainless steel, and glass wool and was estimated to cost US$ Uganda Christian University; their guidance helped to focus
Journal of Renewable Energy 9

this research. The authors also appreciate the personnel at [14] F. G. Bell, Engineering in rock masses, Elsevier, 2013.
National Forestry Resources Research Institute (NaFORRI), [15] W. E. Lee, Ceramic microstructures: property control by process-
National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO), for ing, Springer Science & Business Media, 1994.
allowing them to use their facilities and equipment to carry [16] D. Kiwana, “fuel perfomance of feacal sludge briquettes in
out the water boiling test which helped them describe the Kampala, Uganda. Centre for Research in Energy and Energy
thermal performance of the designed stove. Conservation, 2016”.
[17] K. L. C. Maxwell, “How to make the Kenyan ceramic jiko.
Supplementary Materials Nairobi: Ministry of energy, 1983”.
[18] AASHTO, “Standard Method of Test for Specific Gravity and
Figure S1: certificate of analysis for specific gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate T84/85,” American Association
water absorption tests carried out. Figure S2: water absorp- of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2014.
tion results for granite rock aggregates. Figure S3: spe- [19] Volunteers in Technical Assistance, “esting the Efficiency of
cific gravity results for granite rock aggregates. Figure S4: Wood-burning Cookstoves: Provisional International Stan-
thermal test results. Figure S5: water boiling test results. dards. The partnership for clean indoor air, 1985”.
(Supplementary Materials) [20] Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, “Handbook for Biomass
Cookstove Research, Design and Development: A practical
guide to implement recent advances, 2014”.
References [21] Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, “The water boiling
[1] K. R. Smith, “Fuel combustion, air pollution exposure, and test 4.2.3 cookstoves emissions and efficiency in a controlled
health: the situation in developing countries,” Annual Review of labaratory setting, 2014”.
Environment and Resources, vol. 18, pp. 529–566, 1993. [22] S. F. Baldwin, “Biomass Stoves: Engineering Design, Develop-
[2] A. Olorunsola, “The development and performance evaluation ment, and Dissemmination ., Virginia, Volunteers in Technical
of a briquette burning stove,” Nigerian J. Renewable Energy, vol. Assistance, 1987”.
7, no. 1, pp. 91–95, 1999. [23] U. O. Yusuf, “Experimental perfomance evaluation of charcoal
[3] B. O. Bolaji, “The Use of Sawdust as an Alternative Source of stove. Department of mechanical engineering-University of
Energy for Domestic Cooking and as a Means of Reducing Nigeria, 2011”.
Deforestation,” Global Journal of Environmental Sciences, vol. 4, [24] L. Eppelbaum, I. Kutasov, and A. Pilchin, “Thermal Properties
no. 1, pp. 73–76, 2005. of Rocks and Density of Fluids,” in Applied Geothermics, Lecture
[4] J. S. Sawin, “Renewables 2017 Global Status Report,” 2013, http:// Notes in Earth System Sciences, pp. 99–149, Springer, Berlin,
www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/GSR2017 Ful. Germany, 2014.
[5] ESMAP., “Introducing Energy-efficient Clean Technologies in [25] H. D. Young, Physics, vol. 1, Addison-Wesly Publishing Com-
the Brick Sector of Bangladesh. Washington DC: Energy Sector pany & Inc, 18th edition, 1992.
Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), 2011”. [26] J. H. IV. Lienhard, A Heat Transfer Textbook, Cambridge,
[6] WEO, “Energy for Cooking in Developing Countries, 2006,” Mass, U.S.A, 3rd edition, http://www.mie.uth.gr/labs/ltte/grk/
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/ pubs/ahtt.pdf.
cooking.pdf. [27] Envirofit, “Smart cooking technology for better living. 2016
[7] M. K. M. Nahar, “Indoor Air Pollutants and Respiratory product catalogue, 2016”.
Problems among Dhaka City Dwellers,” Archives of Community [28] M. J. Turinayo, “Performance characterization of improved
Medicine and Public Health, pp. 32–36, 2016. wood cooking stoves for monitoring household energy inter-
[8] N. R. P. Bruce, “ndoor air pollution in developing countries: ventions in Uganda. Kampala: National Forestry Resources
a major environment and public challenge,” 2000, Bulletin of Research Institute (NaFORRI), 2011”.
the World Health Organization: https://www.peertechz.com/ [29] ISO/TMBG Technical Management Board- groups, “IWA
articles/indoor-air. 11:2012 Guidelines for Evaluating Cook stove Perfomance. ISO,
[9] J. K. Kaoma, “Efficiency and emission characteristics of two 2012”.
Zambia cookstoves using charcoal and coal briquettes. Stock- [30] M. A. Jeuland and S. K. Pattanayak, “Benefits and costs of
holm Environment Institute, 1994”. improved cookstoves: Assessing the implications of variability
[10] O. Adria, “Residential Cooking Stoves and Ovens. Good Prac- in health, forest and climate impacts,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 2,
tice Technology: Rocket Stove. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Article ID e30338, 2012.
Environment and Energy, 2014”.
[11] V. Becattini, “Determination of specific heat capacity of rocks
by DSC before and after high temperature thermal recycling.
Zurich: Deprtment of earth sciences, 2017”.
[12] V. Becattini, T. Motmans, A. Zappone, C. Madonna, A. Hasel-
bacher, and A. Steinfeld, “Experimental investigation of the
thermal and mechanical stability of rocks for high-temperature
thermal-energy storage,” Applied Energy, vol. 203, pp. 373–389,
2017.
[13] S. Khare, M. Dell’Amico, C. Knight, and S. McGarry, “Selection
of materials for high temperature sensible energy storage,” Solar
Energy Materials & Solar Cells, vol. 115, pp. 114–122, 2013.
Journal of Journal of International Journal of

Rotating
Solar Energy Energy Machinery

The Scientific Advances in

Hindawi
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Hindawi
Condensed Matter Physics
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www.hindawi.com
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

International Journal of

Aerospace
Engineering
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018
Advances in
Tribology
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Submit your manuscripts at

www.hindawi.com

International Journal of
Antennas and Advances in
Propagation High Energy Physics
Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Journal of
Renewable Energy

Engineering Photoenergy
Journal of International Journal of
Active and Passive
Shock and Vibration Electronic Components
Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Advances in Advances in Journal of Science and Technology of International Journal of

Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi
Power Electronics
Hindawi
Combustion
Hindawi
Nuclear Installations
Hindawi
Optics
Hindawi
www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018