Accepted Manuscript

Title: Simulation of a Forward Feed Multiple Effect

Desalination Plant with Vertical Tube Evaporators

Author: Morteza Sagharichiha Ali Jafarian Mehrdad Asgari

Ramin Kouhikamali

PII: S0255-2701(13)00271-7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.cep.2013.11.008
Reference: CEP 6361

To appear in: Chemical Engineering and Processing

Received date: 17-4-2013

Revised date: 26-7-2013
Accepted date: 15-11-2013

Please cite this article as: M. Sagharichiha, A. Jafarian, M. Asgari, R.

Kouhikamali, Simulation of a Forward Feed Multiple Effect Desalination Plant
with Vertical Tube Evaporators, Chemical Engineering and Processing (2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2013.11.008

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 Simulation of a Forward Feed Multiple
Effect Desalination Plant with Vertical
Tube Evaporators
Morteza Sagharichiha1, Ali Jafarian2*, Mehrdad Asgari3, Ramin Kouhikamali4

t
1,3
Fan niroo Co. Vali-asr St. Vanak square, Negar St. No. 36, Tehran, Iran.

ip
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University,
P.O. Box 14115-143 Tehran, Iran

cr
4
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Guilan,
P.O. Box 3756, Rasht, Iran

us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

*
Corresponding author ,Tel. +98 21 82884918 ; fax: +98 21 82884909
E-mail addresses: m.sagharichiha@ut.ac.ir (Morteza Sagharichiha), Jafarian@modares.ac.ir (Ali Jafarian),
m.asgari@ut.ac.ir (Mehrdad Asgari), kouhikamali@guilan.ut.ac.ir (Ramin Kouhikamali), smsebrahimi@gmail.com
(Mohammad Sadegh Ebrahimi)

Page 1 of 37
 1

Abstract
In recent years, vertical tube falling film evaporators have been widely used in desalination
industries. In this paper mathematical modeling of a multiple effect evaporators (MEE)
system has been carried out for brackish water desalination. The system includes a set of
forward feed vertical tube evaporators with thermal vapor compression (TVC) and a

t
condenser. Modeling has led to calculation of several parameters such as overall heat transfer

ip
coefficients, entrainment ratio and recovery of the process which is restricted by scale
formation. A scaling prediction chemical model has been employed to calculate the allowable

cr
rate of recovery for prevention of scale formation. Physical properties of streams have been

us
assumed as functions of temperature and salinity. A code has been developed for simulation
of the process based on mass and energy balance equations. Results showed maximum
allowable recovery of 74% for the treated brackish water sample with total dissolved solid
an
(TDS) of 14761 ppm is achievable. Dealing with mentioned sample under specified set of
conditions, it was concluded that changing the number of effects from 3 to 8, enhances
M
gained output ratio (GOR) value from 3.8 to 7.5. However, specific heat transfer surface is
increased from 215 to 1052.
Keywords: Forward feed, Falling film, Entrainment ratio, Fouling, Brackish water, Vertical
ed

tube evaporator
pt

1. Introduction
Rapid population growth and industrial development in recent years have led to an increasing
ce

need for fresh water [1]. So many attempts have been made to obtain fresh water from non-
conventional resources. Thermal methods of desalination like Multiple Stage Flash (MSF)
Ac

and Multiple Effect Distillation (MED) are the most prevailing techniques in countries which
possess large amount of seawater resources [2]. Hence, many efforts have been oriented to
modify the performance of these systems during recent years [3-5].
In recent years, a decrease in the amount of water resources along with the legislation of strict
rules on effluent streams of industrial units have led to more emphasis on processes which
have higher recovery, so that the "Zero Liquid Discharge” (ZLD) process came into
existence. ZLD process results in higher fresh water production yet it produces less amount
of brine water [6]. Consequently, researchers currently try to investigate the feasibility of
promoting conventional desalination systems to ZLD processes.

Page 2 of 37
2

Vinshu et al. [7] compared different methods to achieve ZLD process. Sobhani et al. [8] did
an energy analysis for a ZLD process to obtain potable water from inland brackish water.
Heijman et al. [9], by means of an experimental setup, achieved 99% recovery for purifying
inland water in the Netherlands. Bruggen et al. [10] investigated capability of using ZLD
process in the sense of mass balance optimization. Koppol et al. [11] by utilizing a
mathematical modeling studied the possibility of ZLD cycles in single and multiple
contaminant situations, as well as the intricacies of these structures. Farahbod et al. [12]

t
ip
conducted several experiments on a system of forced circulation evaporator and crystallizer
with its primary focus on the section of crystallizer in order to obtain better knowledge of

cr
parameters which affect system performance.
The most important part of thermal ZLD units is the forward feed falling film evaporator.

us
Kumar et al. [13] solved a system of nonlinear simultaneous equations for an MEE system
with MATLAB software and investigated the effect of various feeding sequences of multiple
an
effect evaporators. Gautami and Khanam [14] optimized multiple effect falling film
evaporators and found the best configuration, according to various operating conditions. Zhao
et al. [15] investigated the influence of some operating variables on the performance of
M
multiple effect falling film evaporators. However, scarcity of research projects investigating
energy efficient multiple effect vertical falling film evaporators is seriously felt.
ed

Although many studies have been carried out to simulate multiple effect forward feed falling
film evaporators, only a few number of them have focused on analyzing vertical tube
evaporators for desalinating brackish water. In this paper, a scaling prediction chemical
pt

model has been applied to predict maximum allowable concentration of brine, which
specifies the maximum recovery of the plant. Besides, a code has been developed by
ce

MATLAB to simulate the behavior of multiple effect falling film evaporators.

2. Process Description
Ac

A process flow diagram for a forward feed n-effect MEE plant is shown in Fig. 1. The system
consists of a number of evaporators, a condenser and a thermocompressor. Main Feed stream
is fed into the sump of first effect. Recycle flow (R1) is entrained from the sump and is
injected into tube side. Vapor stream V0 is directed to the shell side of the first effect and R1
turns into a liquid stream which does not leave the effect and a vapor stream (V1). V1 is used
as the heat source of the second effect, D1 is condensed stream, and W1 is concentrated brine
which is used as the feed of the second effect.
A part of produced steam in the first effect is entrained by Thermocompressor (Vplus in Fig.1).

Page 3 of 37
 3

3. Mathematical models
In this section mass and energy balance equations for various components are proposed. The
most important assumptions which are considered in this mathematical modeling are as
following:

t
 This modeling does not considers start up and shut down, so parameters do not

ip
depend on time and the process is assumed steady state [16]

cr
 Sample brine analysis specifies feed water ions and their concentrations; hence, the
feed concentration is known.

us
 The concentration of salt in distillate stream is negligible so distillate product is
assumed salt free [3].
an
 Since all effects follow almost the same structural design, temperature difference
between effects is taken identical [17].
 The outer side walls of evaporators and condenser are insulated; therefore, heat losses
M
to the surrounding are assumed to be negligible [16].
 The thermocompressor is located on the first effect. Putting thermocompressor on the
ed

first effect leads to minimum compression ratio; as a result, the entrainment ratio
becomes maximum [18], which is economically beneficent. Compression ratio is the
ratio of discharge steam pressure to that of suction steam. The entrainment ratio is the
pt

ratio of suction steam flow rate to motive steam flow rate.

ce

3.1 Heat and Mass balance around one evaporator

A schematic diagram of falling film evaporator is shown in Fig. 2. Eqs. (1-5) represent the
Ac

mass and energy balance for one evaporator.

Wi 1  Wi  Vi (1)

Di 1  Vi 1  Di (2)

Wi 1 x Wi 1  Wi xWi (3)

Vi 1 H Vi 1  Di 1 H Di 1  Wi 1 H Wi 1  Vi H Vi  Di H Di  Wi H Wi (4)

Vi 1Vi 1  U i Ai Ti (5)

Overall heat transfer coefficient is calculated by Eq. (6).

Page 4 of 37
4

1 d o / d i  d o lnd o / d i  1
   Rf  (6)
U hi 2k w ho
Boiling point elevation (BPE) value is a function of temperature and concentration of brine. It is
estimated by Eq.7. [19]:
BPE  ax  bx 2  cx 3 (7)

a  8.325  10 2  1.883  10 4 T  4.02  10 6 T 2

b  7.625  10  4  9.02  10 5 T  5.2  10 7 T 2

t
c  1.522  10  4  3  10 6 T  3  10 8 T 2

ip
Eq. (8) shows the relationship between the effluent brine temperature and produced vapor

cr
temperature.
TVout  Tb  BPE  T friction (8)

us
3.2 Heat and Mass balance around a sump
A scheme of sump is shown in Fig. 3. Liquid brine stream (Li) which is produced from
an
recycle stream is seen in this figure. Mass and energy balance for the sump is as following
Eqs. (9-14):
M
Ri  Li  Vi (9)

Ri   iWi 1 (10)

M i  Li  Wi 1
ed

(11)

M i x M i  Wi 1 xWi 1  Li x Li (12)

Li H Li  Di 1 H Di 1  Wi 1 H Wi 1  Ri H Ri  Di 1 H M i  Wi H Wi (13)
pt

Di H Di  Vi 1 Hf Vi 1  Di 1 H M i (14)
ce

Salinity of Li is greater than feed streams of each effect since it has been concentrated within
evaporator tubes. Recycle streams (Ri) are entrained from the mixture of concentrated
Ac

streams which comes out the evaporator tubes and pours into sump and feed stream.
3.3 The overall heat transfer coefficients
A MATLAB code has been developed to calculate the overall heat transfer coefficients. The
overall heat transfer coefficients in evaporators are given by Eq. (6). Heat transfer
coefficients hi and ho are calculated by means of empirical relations. Many correlations have
been proposed for calculating heat transfer coefficients [20-24]. A vertical evaporator
experiences condensation outside vertical tubes and evaporation inside them. The flow
regimes are very important to calculate the evaporation and condensation heat transfer
coefficients [25]. Heat transfer coefficients are found for a wide range of Reynolds numbers.

Page 5 of 37
 5

Here Kandlikar correlation [23] has been selected for evaporation inside tubes. Chun and
Seban [22] correlation was also chosen among several correlations for condensation outside a
vertical tube (see Appendix).

3.4 Entrainment ratio of the thermocompressor

Entrainment ratio is one of the most debatable parameters in designing an MEE-TVC
process. There are three main methods to find the entrainment ratio, i.e., analytical solutions,

t
numerical solutions and experimental correlations.

ip
Different codes were written to evaluate analytical solutions and experimental correlations

cr
[18, 26-30]. Power correlation was preferred as it is simple and gives almost accurate
answers.

us
Power [18] presented a correlation which calculates the reverse of entrainment ratio based on
suction, discharge and motive pressure.

P 1.19  Pm 
0.015
 PCF 
an
Ra  0.296 c1.04     (15)
Ps  Ps   TCF 
M
PCF  3  10 7 Pm2  0.0009Pm  1.6101

ed

TCF  3  10 8 Ts2  0.0006Ts  1.0047

Eq.15 is valid for the specific following ranges:

pt

10  C  Ts  500  C
100 kPa  Pm  3500kPa
ce

1.81  Cr  6
Ra  4
Ac

3.5 Scaling
Scaling on heat transfer surfaces is one of the most serious problems with evaporators.
Scaling causes severe reduction of heat transfer coefficient and thereby affects the heat
transfer efficiency. Fouling on the inner surface of pipes also causes pressure drop in the
flow. A MATLAB code has also been developed which can predict the sequence of
formation of scales on the heat transfer surfaces. The governing equations of scale formation
model are as follows [31]:

Page 6 of 37
6

1
I
2
 Ci Z i (16)

0.5  Z i 
2
I
log   (17)
1 I

IAP
SI  log (18)
K sp

t
ip
Where Ion Activity product (IAP) is a function of the activity coefficient (γ) and Ksp is the
solubility coefficient.

cr
If SI < 0  minerals dissolve
If SI = 0  minerals equilibrium with solution

us
If SI > 0  minerals precipitates

Tables 1 and 2 show the plant operating conditions and the feed water analysis (a sample
an
treated brackish water) which has been employed for the parametric study. Water analysis is
used to determine maximum allowable salinity of brine according to a sample of treated
M
brackish water, which reveals the maximum total recovery of the MEE system. Using the
chemical model, the allowable recovery percentage of 74%, was obtained.
ed

A simplified computational algorithm is shown in Fig. 4. This algorithm simply depicts the
procedure of calculations.
pt

4. Results and discussion

Darwish and Abdulrahim [32] investigated the effect of different feeding sequences on
ce

variety of parameters of a multiple-effect boiling (MEB) desalting system. To validate the

proposed model in our work, the GOR value has been compared with that of a forward feed
Ac

MEB system [32] as illustrated in Fig. 5.

The results have also been validated with that reported by Manenti et al. [33]. They simulated
a heat integrated geothermal desalination plant which contains a forward feed MED system.
To compare the results with that reported by Manenti et al. [33], the process flow diagram of
Manenti was reproduced and the code was updated by following changes:
 Entrainment ratio was tending to zero, so the effect of thermocompressor was
eliminated.

Page 7 of 37
 7

 Recycle flow to feed flow ratio (α) was set to 1; thus the effect of recycle flows was
ignored.
Fig. 6 shows these changes graphically and summary of validation results is shown in Table.
3
Table 4 shows a sample input process data of simulation of a three effect system and results
are reported in Table 5. As it can be seen, 29 ton/h steam is required for recovering 113.4
ton/h water from 151.2 ton/h the brackish water. The concentration of brine increases when

t
ip
the brine proceed through the effects; hence the risk of scaling increases. Top brine
temperature is assumed 70 °C. Since the thermocompressor is located on the first effect, the

cr
total product and the heat transfer surface of the first effect should be greater than the others.
In fact, the parameters which depend on the mass flow rate of streams are influenced by the

us
thermocompressor position.

an
4.1 GOR value and the amount of motive steam versus number of effects
Gain output ratio is the ratio of the product to motive steam flow rate. Higher GOR value
shows that the plant functions more economically. The relation between number of effects
M
and GOR value and the motive steam consumption is illustrated in Fig. 7. It shows that the
variation of number of effects from 3 to 8 leads to an increase in GOR value. Indeed, for a
ed

certain amount of product, increasing the number of effects brings about decreasing the
amount of motive steam consumption. Moreover, less energy and consequently, less amount
of motive steam is needed. In conclusion, for a certain amount of product, the more the
pt

number of effects the higher the GOR value (figures 7-13 have been plotted under the
conditions stated in Table 4).
ce

Variation of the specific heat transfer surface versus the number of effects is illustrated in
Fig. 8. More number of effects leads to higher specific heat transfer surface. The reason is
Ac

that, for a certain amount of distillate product, a specific amount of heat load is required.
Increasing the number of effects results in decreasing both the heat load and the temperature
difference of each effect. Hence, the value of the heat transfer surface remains almost
constant in each effect according to Eq. (5). In summary, increasing the number of effects by
one, adds almost the surface of one effect to the total required heat transfer surface.
Fig. 9 reveals the salinity of brine stream of each effect in a six-effect plant with mentioned
conditions (salinity of feed equal to 14.76 g/l and the total recovery of 74%). The plant is
forward feed; therefore, salinity of brine stream increases when it passes through each effect
(Fig. 9), although the amount of produced vapor is almost the same. As the salinity of brine

Page 8 of 37
8

increases, the probability of scaling formation increases. The maximum allowable amount of
evaporation or the maximum total recovery was specified beforehand by means of scaling
analysis.

4.2 Driving steam influence

Heat source of the first effect is called “driving steam” in this paper. The best pressure of the
driving steam is the one that brings the most GOR value. Here, the variation of specific heat

t
transfer surface and GOR value versus driving steam pressure is investigated.

ip
Eq.5 shows that the specific heat transfer surface decreases by increasing the driving steam
pressure. As shown in Fig. 10 (a), the temperature difference between effects increases as

cr
well. Since, the amount of heat energy that should be transferred is almost constant, the total

us
heat transfer surface will be decreased as Fig. 10 (b) displays. Fig. 10 (b) shows the influence
of the number of effects on specific heat transfer surface.
Variation of GOR value as a function of driving steam pressure for different numbers of
an
effects is illustrated in Fig. 11. This figure demonstrates that the GOR value decreases
smoothly with increasing the pressure of driving steam. It means that the GOR value is not
M
greatly dependent on the driving steam pressure.
4.3 The effect of feed temperature
Feed temperature is also a vital parameter in an MEE system and is important for different
ed

reasons. The more feed temperature rises the more solubility falls off typically. A reduction
in solubility increases the probability of scale formation, and limits the allowable recovery of
pt

each effect. Besides, feed temperature seriously affects the specific heat transfer surface and
energy consumption.
ce

Fig. 12 shows the variation of specific heat transfer surface versus feed temperature.
According to the figure, when the feed temperature rises, the specific heat transfer surface
Ac

increases. In fact, when the feed temperature rises up, the total temperature difference and as
a result the temperature difference of each effect reduces so that the heat transfer surface of
each effect increases.
The variation of GOR value versus feed temperature is reported in Fig. 13 for different
number of effects. When the temperature of feed increases, the GOR value increases as well.
In an MEE system, less amount of vapor is required at higher feed temperatures, which in
turn reduces the motive steam consumption. Furthermore, the GOR value increases.

Page 9 of 37
 9

5. Conclusion
A mathematical modeling of multiple effect evaporators (MEE) systems considering all
constrains and plant specifications, has been developed in the present work. The influence of
the entrainment ratio, scaling and overall heat transfer coefficient as the most significant
factors which directly affect the process was taken into consideration. The total recovery of
the system was specified according to the maximum allowable concentration which was
determined by a scaling prediction chemical model. A code was developed to simulate the

t
ip
process, which has the capability of solving nonlinear equations of an MEE system with
vertical falling film evaporators.

cr
Acknowledgment

us
The writers want to appreciate the FanNiroo Co. and AvinPalyeshNiroo Co. which provided
the opportunity for studying this issue.
Nomenclature
F Feed (kg/s)
an
V Vapor flow rate (kg/s)
M
L Liquid flow rate (outlet of tubes) (kg/s)
W Outlet brine flow rate (kg/s)
ed

R Recycle flow rate (kg/s)

D Distillate flow rate (kg/s)
pt

M content of the sump (kg/s)

x Concentration (g/l)
ce

H Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
Hf Enthalpy of saturated liquid (kJ/kg)
Ac

 Latent heat (kJ/kg)

U Overall heat transfer coefficient (kW/m2K)
A Heat transfer surface (m2)
T Temperature (°C)
Ts Saturated temperature of suction steam (°C)
ΔT Temperature difference of an effect (°C)
hi Heat transfer coefficient (inside the tubes) (W/m2K)
ho Heat transfer coefficient (outside the tubes) (W/m2K)

Page 10 of 37
10

Rf Fouling resistance (m2K/W)

kw Thermal conductivity of a tube wall (W/mK)
di Inner diameter of tubes (m)
do Outer diameter of tubes (m)
Tb Brine temperature (°C)
TVout Product temperature (°C)

t
ΔTfriction Temperature drop caused by friction (°C)

ip
BPE Boiling point elevation (°C)
α Recycle/ Feed ratio of the

cr
Re Reynolds number

us
Ra Reverse of entrainment ratio
Pc Discharge pressure of thermocompressor (kPa)
Pm Motive pressure of thermocompressor (kPa)
Ps
an
Suction pressure of thermocompressor (kPa)
Cr Compression ratio (Pc/Ps)
M
Ksp Solubility Product Constant
Cj Concentration of the (mmol/l)
ed

Zj Charge number of the

γ activity coefficient
I Ionic strength
pt

IAP ion activity product

Subscript
ce

i Effect indicator (except hi)

j Ion indicator
Ac

Appendix Correlations of the heat transfer coefficients

The heat transfer coefficient of two phase flow inside a vertical tube, hi, is calculated by
Kandlikar [23] empirical relation.

hi  Max [ htp NB , htpCB ] A (1)

where htpNB and htpCB are the heat transfer coefficient of nucleate and convective boiling area
respectively and can be obtained from the following correlation

Page 11 of 37
 11

htp
 [C1Co C2  C3 Bo C4 ] A (2)
hl

hl is transfer coefficient of a liquid stream which is given by Dittus-Boelter correlation [34]

kl
hl  0.023 Re l0.8 Prl0.4 A (3)
D

t
where kl and D are thermal conductivity of stream and tube diameter.

ip
Co is called the convection number and is calculated by Eq. A (4)

cr
0.8 0.1
1   v 
Co    1   A (4)
x   l 

us
where v and l are the density of vapor and liquid stream and x is the quality of vapor.

Bo is called the boiling number and is given by Eq. A (5)

an
q 
M
Bo  A (5)
Ghlv

where q is the heat flux, G is the mass flux and hiv is the latent heat.
ed

Constants of Eq. A (2) are shown in Table A(1).

pt

The heat transfer coefficient of condensation of vapor on the outside surface of smooth
vertical tube, ho, is developed by Chun and Seban correlation [22].
ce

For Rel < Rec, Re l  Re c  5900 Prl1.06

Ac

1
  l2  3
 0.22
h  kl   0.821 Rel A (7)
 g 

where l is the kinematic viscosity of liquid stream.

For Re l  Re c  5900 Prl1.06

1
 2  3
h  kl  l 
0.4
0.0038 Rel Prl0.65 A (8)
 g 

Page 12 of 37
12

It should be noted that the Rel in these correlations is given by the following equation

G 1  x D
Re l  A (9)
l

where l is the viscosity of liquid.

References

t
[1] R. Kouhikamali , A.S. Kojidi, M. Asgari, F. Alamolhoda, The effect of condensation and

ip
evaporation pressure drop on specific heat transfer area and energy consumption in MED-

cr
TVC plants, Desalination and Water Treatment, 46 (2012) 68-74.

[2] R.K. Kamali, S. Mohebinia, Experience of design and optimization of multi-effects

us
desalination systems in Iran, Desalination, 222 (2008) 639-45.

[3] M.H. Khademi, M.R. Rahimpour, A. Jahanmiri, Simulation and optimization of a six-
an
effect evaporator in a desalination process, Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process
Intensification, 48 (2009) 339-47.
M
[4] R.K. Kamali, A. Abbassi, S.A. Sadough Vanini, M. Saffar Avval, Thermodynamic design
and parametric study of MED-TVC, Desalination, 222 (2008) 596-604.
ed

[5] R.K. Kamali, A. Abbassi, S.A. Sadough Vanini, A simulation model and parametric study
of MED-TVC process, Desalination, 235 (2009) 340-51.
pt

[6] C. Deng, X. Feng, J. Bai, Graphically based analysis of water system with zero liquid
discharge, chemical engineering research and design, 86 (2008) 165–171
ce

[7] G. Vishnu, S. Palanisamy, K. Joseph, Assessment of fieldscale zero liquid discharge

treatment systems for recovery of water and salt from textile effluents, Journal of Cleaner
Ac

Production, 16 (2008) 1081-89.

[8] R. Sobhani, M. Abahusayn, C.J. Gabelich, D. Rosso, Energy Footprint analysis of

brackish groundwater desalination with zero liquid discharge in inland areas of the Arabian
Peninsula, Desalination, 291 106-16.

[9] S.G.J. Heijman, H. Guo, S. Li, J.C. van Dijk, L.P. Wessels, Zero liquid discharge:
Heading for 99% recovery in nanofiltration and reverse osmosis, Desalination, 236 (2009)
357-62.

Page 13 of 37
 13

[10] B. Van der Bruggen, L. Braeken, The challenge of zero discharge: from water balance to
regeneration, Desalination, 188 (2006) 177-83.

[11] A.P.R. Koppol, M.J. Bagajewicz, B.J. Dericks, M.J. Savelski, On zero water discharge
solutions in the process industry, Advances in Environmental Research, 8 (2004) 151-71.

[12] F. Farahbod, D. Mowla, M.R. Jafari Nasr, M. Soltanieh, Experimental study of forced
circulation evaporator in zero discharge desalination process, Desalination, 285 (2012) 352-

t
ip
58.

[13] D. Kumar, V. Kumar and V. P. Singh, To Study the Parametric Effects on Optimality of

cr
Various Feeding Sequences of a Multi-effect Evaporators in Paper Industry using
Mathematical Modeling and Simulation with MATLAB, International Journal of Chemical

us
and Biological Engineering, 3 (2010) 129-136

an
[14] G. Gautami and S. Khanam, Selection of optimum configuration for multiple effect
evaporator system, Desalination, 288 (2012) 16–23
M
[15] D. Zhao, J. Xue, S. Li, H. Sun, Q-D. Zhang, Theoretical analyses of thermal and
economical aspects of multi-effect distillation desalination dealing with high-salinity
wastewater, Desalination, 273 (2011) 292–298
ed

[16] H. T. E1-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney, Multiple-effect evaporation desalination systems:

thermal analysis, Desalination 125 (1999) 259-276
pt

[17] S. A. Kalogirou, Seawater desalination using renewable energy sources, Progress in

ce

Energy and Combustion Science 31 (2005) 242–281

[18] B. R. Power, Steam Jet Ejectors for Process Industries, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994
Ac

[19] H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney, Chapter 4 - Multiple Effect Evaporation, in:
Fundamentals of Salt Water Desalination, Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, 2002, pp. 147-
208.

[20] N. M. DeGuzman, J. C. Chato, Evaporative Heat Transfer Characteristics in a Vertical

Channel with Obstructions, 1st ed. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, 1997

Page 14 of 37
14

[21] D. Papini, A. Cammi, Modelling of Heat Transfer Phenomena for Vertical and
Horizontal Configurations of In-Pool Condensers and Comparison with Experimental
Findings, Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations, (2010)

[22] K.R. Chun, R.A. Seban, Heat Transfer to Evaporating Liquid Films, Journal of Heat
Transfer, 93 (1971) 391-96.

[23] S.G. Kandlikar, A General Correlation for Saturated Two-Phase Flow Boiling Heat

t
ip
Transfer Inside Horizontal and Vertical Tubes, Journal of Heat Transfer, 112 (1990) 219-28.

[24] J.C. Chen, Correlation for Boiling Heat Transfer to Saturated Fluids in Convective Flow,

cr
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development, 5 (1966) 322-29.

us
[25] J. Uche, J. Artal, L. Serra, Comparison of heat transfer coefficient correlations for
thermal desalination units, Desalination, 152 (2003) 195-200.
an
[26] H. El-Dessouky, H. Ettouney, H. Al-Fulaij, F. Mandani, Multistage flash desalination
M
combined with thermal vapor compression, Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process
Intensification, 39 (2000) 343-56.
ed

[27] H. El-Dessouky, H. Ettouney, I. Alatiqi, G. Al-Nuwaibit, Evaluation of steam jet

ejectors, Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification, 41 (2002) 551-61.
pt

[28] N.H. Aly, A. Karameldin, M.M. Shamloul, Modelling and simulation of steam jet
ejectors, Desalination, 123 (1999) 1-8.
ce

[29] Anwar Bin Amer (2011). New Trend in the Development of ME-TVC Desalination
System, Desalination, Trends and Technologies, Michael Schorr (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-
Ac

311-8, InTech, DOI: 10.5772/14799. Available from:

http://www.intechopen.com/books/desalination-trends-and-technologies/new-trend-in-the-
development-of-me-tvc-desalination-system

[30] R. K. McGovern, K. V. Bulusu, M. A. Antar . J. H. Lienhard, One -dimensional Model

of an Optimal Ejector and Parametric Study of Ejector Efficiency, Proceedings of ECOS
2012 - The 25th International Conference on Efficiency, Cost, Optimization, Simulation and
Environmental Impact of Energy Systems, June 26-29, 2012, Perugia, Italy

Page 15 of 37
 15

[31] F. Hajbi, H. Hammi, R. Solimando, A. M’nif, Evaporation of a reverse osmosis

discharge studied by Pitzer model and solubility phase diagrams, Fluid Phase Equilibria, 307
(2011) 126-34.

[32] M.A. Darwish, H.K. Abdulrahim, Feed water arrangements in a multi-effect desalting
system, Desalination, 228 (2008) 30-54

[33] F. Manenti, M. Masi, G. Santucci, G. Manenti, Parametric simulation and economic

t
ip
assessment of a heat integrated geothermal desalination plant, Desalination 317 (2013) 193–
205

cr
[34] F. W. Dittus and L. Ml K. Boelter, Heat Tra&r in Automobile Radiators ofthe Tubular
Type, Publications in Engineering, Vol. 2, p, 443, University of California, Berkeley (1930).

us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 16 of 37
16

Figure captions

Fig. 1. Scheme of multiple effect evaporators plant

Fig. 2. Scheme of an evaporator

Fig. 3. Scheme of a sump

t
ip
Fig. 4. Solution algorithm

cr
Fig. 5. Comparison of presented GOR values with Darwish [32] GOR values

Fig. 6. Reproduced process flow diagram of Menanti [33] for validating the simulation code

us
Fig. 7. GOR value and motive steam flow rate versus number of effects

an
Fig. 8. Specific heat transfer surface as a function of effect number

Fig. 9. Salinity of outlet brine of each effect for a six-effect plant

M
Fig. 10. Temperature difference as a function of deriving steam pressure, (b) Specific heat
transfer surface as a function of deriving steam pressure.
ed

Fig. 11. Effect of deriving steam pressure on GOR values

Fig. 12. Effect of feed temperature on specific heat transfer surface

pt

Fig. 13. GOR values versus feed temperature

ce
Ac

Page 17 of 37
 17

Table captions

Table 1. The design data of the process.

Table 2. Ions and their concentration in the sample treated brackish water

Table 3. Result of present work in comparison with the work by Manenti et al. [33]

t
ip
Table 4. A Sample input of simulation code

cr
Table 5. Results of the sample input

Table A1. Constants of Kandlikar [23] correlation

us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 18 of 37
18

Vplus
R1
Feed Product
(Distillate)
Effect 1 R2 R3 Rn
Vm V0
Thermo-Compressor

Condenser
Effect 2 Effect 3 Effect n

t
V2 V3 Vn-1 Vn
V1

ip
D1 D2 D3 Dn-1 Dn

cr
Separator
W1 Separator
W2 Separator
W3 Wn-1 Separator

us
R1 R2 R3 Rn
Brine
Pump Pump Pump
Pump Feed

an
Fig. 1. Scheme of multiple effect evaporators plant
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 19 of 37
 19

Ri

Evaporator
Vi-1 Vi

t
ip
Di-1 Di

cr
us
Wi-1 Separator

Wi

Ri
an
M
Pump

Fig. 2. Scheme of an evaporator

ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 20 of 37
20

Li

Wi-1 Sump
Di-1 Di-1

t
Ri Wi

ip
Energy

cr
Stream

Fig. 3. Scheme of a sump

us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 21 of 37
 21

Fix required data : number of effects , feed properties ,

fresh steam properties , evaporator specifications

Determine total recovery by means of Pitzer model and find the

amount of product

Guess overall heat transfer coefficients

t
ip
Calculate flow rate and salinity of all other streams

cr
Guess temperature differences and calculate

us
temperature of effects , then calculate BPE by
means of temperature and salinity of streams

an
calculate temperature
differences again . Does it Yes
change?
M
No
Calculate enthalpy of streams and solve mass and
ed

energy balance equations to obtain vapor streams

Replace old values

Are the vapor streams
pt

No of vapor streams
differences less than error ?
with new ones
ce

Yes

Calculate condenser parameters

Ac

Design effects and condenser, then obtain

overall heat transfer coefficients

Replace old values of

overall heat transfer No Are the overall heat transfer coefficients
coefficients with new differences less than error ?
ones

Yes

Finish

Fig. 4. Solution algorithm

Page 22 of 37
22

t
ip
cr
us
Fig. 5. Comparison of presented GOR values with Darwish [32] GOR values
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 23 of 37
 23

Vplus
R1
Ve
Effect 1 R2 R3
Vm V0
Thermo-Compressor

Effect 2 Effect 3
V1 V2 V3

t
D3
D1 D2

ip
W1 W2 W3
Separator
Separator Separator

cr
R2 R3

us
R1 Feed
Pump Pump
Pump Condenser Seawater

an
Fig. 6. Reproduced process flow diagram of Menanti [33] for validating the simulation code
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 24 of 37
24

t
ip
cr
us
an
Fig. 7. The GOR value and motive steam flow rate versus number of effects
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 25 of 37
 25

t
ip
cr
us
Fig. 8. Specific heat transfer surface as a function of effect number

an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 26 of 37
26

t
ip
cr
us
Fig. 9. Salinity of outlet brine of each effect for a six-effect plant
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 27 of 37
 27

t
ip
cr
us
(a)
an
M
ed
pt
ce

(b)
Ac

Fig. 10. (a) Temperature difference as a function of deriving steam pressure, (b) Specific heat transfer
surface as a function of deriving steam pressure.

Page 28 of 37
28

t
ip
cr
us
Fig. 11. Effect of deriving steam pressure on GOR values

an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 29 of 37
 29

t
ip
cr
us
Fig. 12. Effect of feed temperature on specific heat transfer surface

an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 30 of 37
30

t
ip
cr
us
Fig. 13. GOR values versus feed temperature

an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 31 of 37
 31

Table 1
The design data of the process.

Parameters value
The mass of wastewater, ton/h 151.2
Number of effects 3
pH 7.56

t
ip
Temperature of seawater ,°C 25
Feed impurity concentration, ppm 14761

cr
The diameter of the evaporator heat exchange tube, mm 25
Temperature of deriving steam, °C 70

us
Pressure of motive steam, bar 23
Product water mass, ton/h 113.4
Feed water temperature, °C
Thermal conductivity, W/(m.K)
an 45
180
Tubes length, m 9
M
Effects temperature difference, °C 6
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 32 of 37
32

Table 2
Ions and their concentration in the sample treated brackish water

Na+ Ca2+ Mg2+ K+ Cl- SO42-

3781.9 mg/l 304.6 mg/l 826.6 mg/l 58.6 mg/l 6256.3 mg/l 3321.6 mg/l

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 33 of 37
 33

Table 3

Result of present work in comparison with the work by Manenti et al. [33]

Present Manenti Present Manenti Present Manenti

work et al. work et al. work et al.
V0 V1 V2
6.12 7 4.57 5.77 3.77 3.27

t
Flow rate (kg/s)

ip
Temperature (°C) 123.87 123.87 111.59 112.84 99.18 102.3
V3 W1 W2

cr
Flow rate (kg/s) 4.38 3.67 20.43 19.23 16.67 15.96
Temperature (°C) 86.57 86.57 112.62 112.84 100.34 102.3

us
W3 Feed Seawater
Flow rate (kg/s) 12.29 12.29 25 25 25 25
Temperature (°C) 87.93 86.57 81.68 an 81.68 22 22
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 34 of 37
34

Table 4

A Sample input of simulation code

Inputs
Feed flow 151.2 ton/h
Feed temperature 45 °C

t
14.761 g/l

ip
Feed impurity concentration
Boiler pressure 2317.8 kPa

cr
Plant recovery 74 %

us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 35 of 37
 35

Table 5

Results of the sample input

Outputs

Motive steam flow rate 29.08 ton/h

t
ip
Effect 1 Effect 2 Effect 3
Brine flow rate (effect outlet) 93.49 67.39 39.31 ton/h

cr
Pressure 31.2 23.0 16.7 kPa
Steam temperature 70 63.2 56.2 °C

us
Boling point elevation 0.3441 0.4665 0.8004 °C
Recycle flow concentration 23.87 33.11 56.77 g/l
outlet flow of tubes concentration 29.11 40.38 69.23 g/l
Heat transfer surface
an
3914 1302 1479 m2
Recovery 38.17 27.91 41.67 %
M
Ratio of recycle flow to feed 2.12 1.55 2.31 -
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 36 of 37
36

Table A1
Constants of Kandlikar [23]correlation

Constant htpCB htpNB

C1 1.1360 0.6683

C2 -0.9 -0.2

t
C3 667.2 1058.0

ip
C4 0.7 0.7

cr
us
an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Page 37 of 37