Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Desalination
H I G H L I G H T S
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This article addresses the global optimal design of multi-stage ash desalination processes. The mathematical for-
Received 2 February 2016 mulation accounts for non-linear programming (NLP) based process models that are supplemented with the
Received in revised form 5 March 2016 non-deterministic optimization algorithm. MSF-once through, -simple mixture (MSF-M) and -brine recycle
Accepted 6 April 2016
(MSF-BR) process congurations have been evaluated for their optimality. While freshwater production cost
Available online 12 May 2016
has been set as the objective function for minimization, mass, energy and enthalpy balances with relevant sup-
Keywords:
plementary equations constitute the equality constraints. Differential evolution algorithm (DE/rand/bin) was
Differential evolution algorithm adopted to evaluate the global optimal solutions. Further, obtained solutions have been compared with those
Global optimization obtained with MATLAB optimization toolbox solvers such as SQP and MS-SQP. The global optimal solution corre-
Seawater desalination sponds to a variable value set of [2794.4 m3/h, 1.0499, 7.62 m, 3.359 kW/m2 K, 3.297 kW/m2 K, 3.042 kW/m2 K
Multi stage ash (MSF) and 22] for decision variables [WM, RH, LT, UB, UR, Uj, NR] in the MSF-BR process to yield an optimal freshwater
MSF-BR production cost of 1.0785 $/m3. Compared to the literature, the obtained global solution from DE is 2.31% better.
MSF-OT Further, inequality constraint resolution has been excellent for DE but not other methods such as MS-SQP, SQP
MSF-M
and DE-SQP.
SQP
2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Modeling
Optimization
1. Introduction large scale operation and ability to deliver good quality potable
water (550 ppm total dissolved solids).
Among several technologies viable for potable water production, A typical MSF process involves brine heating followed with ash
the desalination of sea and brackish water is an established technol- distillation in multiple stages and subsequent heat recovery. Thereby,
ogy in several countries including the USA, Persian Gulf and a MSF process plant has three important sections namely brine heater,
European countries [15,35]. Based on the working energy principle, heat rejection and heat recovery sections. Design variations in the
desalination processes are further classied primarily into two clas- MSF process systems refer to either once through (OT) or simple
ses namely thermal processes that involve phase change due to addi- mixer (M) or brine recirculation (BR) process congurations to yield
tion of heat and membrane processes that involve pressure energy. MSF-OT or MSF-M or MSF-BR processes respectively. Among these,
While thermal processes are primarily classied into multi-effect while MSF-OT is the simplest in design, it is not as efcient as the
evaporation (MEE), MSF and vapor-compression (VC) processes, MSF-BR system.
membrane processes are primarily classied into RO and electrodial- The design of efcient MSF processes invariably requires simulation
ysis (ED) processes. Among various alternate technologies for sea and optimization studies. Several researchers have conducted simula-
water desalination, MSF processes have the promising features of tion studies to obtain insights upon the process performance of MSF
processes. These have been contributed by Mandil and Abdel Ghafour
[19], Helal et al. [2], Al-Mutaz and Soliman [14], Rossol et al. [26], Thom-
Corresponding author. as et al. [29], Abdel-Jabbar et al. [28], Hawaidi and Mujtaba [6], and
E-mail address: ramgopalu@iitg.ernet.in (R. Uppaluri). Tayyebi and Alishiri [34]. Many of these literatures emphasized upon
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.04.012
0011-9164/ 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043 31
model was taken from Abduljawad and Ezzeghni [20]. Other than these d) The specic heat capacity of brine solution is a weak function of salt
literatures, a comprehensive account of the models for MSF processes is concentration.
not apparent elsewhere in other literature. e) Distillate product is salt free; non-condensable gases have negligible
The process simulation model accounts for the mass and energy bal- effect on the heat transfer process.
ance equations applied for each stage including the brine heater, recov- f) Effect of the boiling point rise and non-equilibrium losses on the stage
ery and rejection sections. The process models are non-linear in nature energy balances is negligible.
and consist only algebraic expressions. Further details of the process g) The average specic heat capacity of brine solution is equal to that of
models can be obtained from the cited literature and this section briey the distillate.
outlines various important features of the same. As outlined in the liter- h) The boiling point rise at the exit from the last recovery for MSF is neg-
atures, the following assumptions are usually applicable for the process ligible.
models on a theoretical basis [3,10]: i) Heat loss is negligible.
a) Temperature proles of all streams owing within the plant are linear.
b) Each section has a constant value for heat transfer coefcient, heat The non-linear system of algebraic equations involving mass and en-
transfer area, boiling point rise and specic heat capacity (CP) of ergy balances has been deduced by carrying out overall mass balances
brine solution. across blowdown splitter, rejected sea water splitter (for the MSF-BR
c) The latent heat of vaporization of water () is constant, and indepen- process), salt balances across mixer, energy balances across brine heater
dent of temperature. and condenser, enthalpy balances on the heat recovery section, heat
Fig. 1. Schematic of (a) once-through MSF (MSF-OT), (b) brine-mixing MSF (MSF-M), and (c) brine recycle MSF (MSF-BR) seawater desalination processes.
C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043 33
Fig. 1 (continued).
rejection section (MSF-BR process), brine heater, mixers and ashing where refers to the objective function dened as the sum of annual-
brine. Supplementary expressions for the process model include ex- ized freshwater production cost and associated penalties. The process
pressions for distillate product temperature (equilibrium correlation), simulation model is specied as f(x) = 0 for a specic MSF processes
overall heat transfer coefcients in various process sections, inside and g(x) refers to the set of inequality constraints.
lm resistance, average tube side brine temperature and thermal resis- The total annualized freshwater production cost function is evaluat-
tance. The thermal resistance is accounted as a function of steam-side ed using relevant expressions for direct capital less intake investment
condensing lm, steam-side fouling, tube metal and brine side fouling (CDCLIC), intake-outfall cost (CIC) (evaluated as a sum of costs of electro-
resistance components. chemical equipment, civil work, electro chlorination, brine disposal cost
Table 1(a) summarizes various parametric and design specications and annual plant intake-outfall), direct capital investment cost (CDCC),
required for the process simulation model for cross ow type MSF pro- indirect capital investment (CICC) and operating and maintenance cost
cesses. Table 1(b) presents the process cost parameter data, which is (COMC) (evaluated as a sum of costs of steam, chemical treatment,
adopted from Helal et al. [3]. For various process models, the indepen- power, labor and spares costs). Relevant expressions have been adopted
dent simulation model variables that need to be specied are (WMF, LT, from Helal et al. [3]. Thereby, the objective function for MSF is modied
UB, UR and NR) for MSF-OT; (LT , UB , UR , WMSC , CMSMF and NR) for MSF- and expressed as:
M and (WM , LT , UB , UR , NR , RH and Uj) for the MSF-BR process. Hence-
forth, these variables are treated as independent (decision) variables $
C IC C DCLIC C ICC C OMC
during process optimization. y
MSF 3 penalty of gx: 1
m
WY
3.2. Optimization model y
The MSF process simulation model consisting of non-linear set of al- Inequality constraints refer to lower bound and upper bound speci-
gebraic equations is formulated as a non-linear programming (NLP) op- cations for makeup ow rate for MSF-BR (WM), feed ow rate for MSF-
timization model dened as: OT (WMF) and MSF-M (WMSC), tube length (LT), number of recovery
stages (NR), heat transfer coefcients in various sections, brine loading,
Min OF brine velocities in various sections, rejected brine concentration values
Subjected to (CMBD, Clast) and absolute values of various heat transfer coefcients.
f x 0 The inequality constraint parameters and values have been presented
gx0 in Table 2(ab). The penalty function has been evaluated using large
34 C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043
Table 1 Table 2
(a) Parametric and design specications data for cross ow type MSF processes. (b) A (a) Summary of lower and upper bound values for the optimal design of MSF processes.
summary of MSF process cost parameter data. (b) A summary of inequality constraint parameters for MSF optimization model.
(a) (a)
positive penalty parameters that are set to realize the satisfaction of all Model validation precisely refers to the validation of developed code
inequality constraints. for simulation and optimization models. Since appropriate data has
been available only for the MSF-BR system, the simulation model code
3.3. Optimization algorithm validation has been carried out using the data provided by Helal et al.
[3]. Based on the input simulation variable data set of [2790 m3/h
Differential evolution (DE) algorithm has been applied for the non- (2,790,000 kg/h), 1.0129, 18, 3.26 kW/m2 K, 3.443 kW/m2 K,
deterministic optimization of NLP process models. Introduced by Storn 2.864 kW/m2 K, 7.62 m] for [WM, RH, NR, UB, UR, Uj, and LT], the obtained
and Price [30], the DE optimization algorithm is a stochastic population results of dependent variables are [101.7 C, 32.41 C, 70,178 ppm,
based direct search optimization method that essentially involves the 135.5 m3/h (135,446 kg/h), 3662.8 m2, 2515.5 m2, 3355.4 m2,
generation of new candidate solutions by combining the parent individ- 9040 m3/h (9,040,000 kg/h)] for variables [T2, TBD, CMBD, WS, AB, AR, Aj,
ual and several other individuals of the same population. This is facilitat- and WMF] respectively. Precisely, the same values have been reported
ed by adding the weighted difference between any two population in the literature [3] and hence the model code validation is inferred to
vectors to a third population vector [13]. Further, the parent vector is re- be successful.
placed with the mutant vector only when the mutant vector provides a The DE algorithm code has been tested for standard optimization
better tness value [17]. Thus, DE is an effective, fast, simple, robust, and model test function such as Rosenbrock Banana Function. For the algo-
inherently parallel technique that has few control parameters and rithm parameters [F, CR, NG, and NP] specied as [0.8, 0.8, 100 and
needs less effort to tune and adopt optimization parameters. The DE 100], the DE provided optimal solution of [1.000, 1.000] with a standard
has been applied as a sequence of mutation, cross-over and selection deviation of 106. The obtained optimal solution is in complete agree-
operations for all populations. The maximum number of permitted gen- ment with that available as the global optimal solution for Rosenbrook
erations has been set as the termination criteria. (Banana) function [12]. Hence, the DE algorithm is inferred to be effec-
The efcacy of the DE algorithm has been evaluated by comparing tive for the optimization of alternate MSF process congurations.
the results obtained from sequential quadratic programming (SQP)
method with and without multi-start (MS) approach. Further, hybrid 5. Results and discussions
optimization approach involving the combination of both DE and SQP
was also considered. For this case, the solution generated from DE is 5.1. Efcacy of the DE algorithm
being provided as an initial guess value for the SQP method. Thus, the
optimization methodology involves the application of either one of Fig. 2 depicts the comparative performance of various optimization
DE, SQP, MS-SQP and DE-SQP methods. Table 3(a) summarizes the methods to obtain optimal solutions for the MSF-M, MSF-OT and MSF-
C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043 35
Table 4
Optimal independent and dependent variable values for the MSF-BR process and alternate optimization methods.
The specic heat transfer area is dened as the ratio of total heat The overall plant recovery is dened as the percentage of total sea-
transfer area to the total amount of fresh water produced i.e. water intake that gets converted to the fresh water i.e.
Specific cooling water flow rate Fig. 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) presents the pie charts that depict the per-
total cooling water flow rate of plant W MCW centage cost contributions of ICM, DCLIC, ICC, FCC and OMC to the total
: 4
total amount of fresh water produced W MD cost for MSF processes. For the literature data, the pie chart depicting
Table 5
Optimal independent and dependent variable values for the MSF-M process and optimization methods.
Table 6
Optimal independent and dependent variable values for the MSF-OT process and optimization methods.
the cost contributions of these components is presented in Fig. 3(d). and above which solutions were found to exclusively cluster around
From Fig. 3(c) and (d), for the MSF-BR process conguration, it can be the global optimal domain. For all cases of NP, a critical value of NG =
observed that DCLIC is 2% lower for the DE based optimal solution in 200 has been evaluated to be relevant to yield optimal solutions without
comparison with that reported in the literature. For the same case, the penalty. Further, above an NG value of 800, almost all solutions
DE based optimal solution indicated the DCLIC, ICC, OMC and optimal remained fairly constant, thus indicating that the solutions generated
water production cost to be 5.44, 0.70, 22.40 M$/y and 1.0785 $/m3 re- are very close to the global optimal domain. Further, for few cases of
spectively. Compared to the literature data [3], these values correspond NP and generation size where few best solutions were obtained, addi-
to a reduction of 12.71, 7.29, 3.22 and 2.31% respectively. Further, with tional investigations were carried out to evaluate upon the solution
respect to the literature data, it can be also analyzed that the areas of quality in the context of the global optimal domain. For this purpose,
heat rejection and brine heater sections are respectively marginally standard deviations were evaluated for the obtained solutions. The
lower and marginally higher for the heat recovery section for the standard deviation of the solutions obtained for a population and gener-
MSF-BR process conguration. ation size of 270 and 800 respectively is 105 for the best 100 solutions.
For this case, the lowest optimal solution of 1.0785 $/m3 has been ob-
tained. However, for the case of the population and generation size of
5.4. Optimality of DE algorithm parameters 100 and 500 respectively, a standard deviation of 103 was obtained
for the best 100 solutions. The achievement of lower standard deviation
The effect of DE algorithm parameters (F and CR) on the solution for lower combinations of NG and NP in comparison with the higher
quality was investigated. According to Storn and Price [30], among F combinations of NG and NP is expected, given the fact that higher NG
and CR, DE is much more sensitive to F. For optimal DE algorithm perfor- and NP combinations facilitate better search of the solution space. A
mance, they further suggested that F, CR and NP can be set as F [0, 2], similar explanation could be provided for the results indicated in
CR [0, 1] and NP = 10 D, where D is dimensionally of the problem. Fig. 4(c)(f) for MSF-M and MSF-OT processes. Thus, the optimal DE al-
Typically, F and CR are specied as 0.9 and 0.8 respectively for engineer- gorithm parameter combinations for MSF-BR refer to F, CR, NG and NP
ing optimization problems. Thereby, algorithm optimality is critically values of 0.9, 0.8, 800 and 270 respectively.
investigated for the optimality of NG and NP. Signicant tradeoffs For the MSF-OT process conguration, Fig. 4 panels (c) and
exist for the optimality of NG and NP. A very low value of NG and NP (d) respectively depict the variation of optimal total objection function
may terminate the algorithm before it could reach the global optimal value and optimal total penalty value with NP and generation size. The
and a very high value of NG and NP may take signicantly a long time obtained trends are similar to those obtained for MSF-BR case and the
to achieve all solutions very close to the global optimal solution. Solu- solutions converged to optimal value for all populations (NPs) for a gen-
tion clustering phenomena are typically addressed as the criteria to eration size of 800. The results reported for the MSF-OT system refer to
set optimal values of NP and NG. In this work, NP is varied from 25 to the existence of penalties for few constraints and the reported values
340 and NG is varied from 50 to 2000 for the optimization of MSF indicate solutions with lowest penalties. A careful analysis of the opti-
processes. mization results for MSF-OT indicated that brine velocity constraint
Fig. 4 panels (a) and (b) respectively summarize the variation of was the violated beyond the specied upper bound value (6 ft/s). Even-
total optimal objective function value (including penalty) and total tually, with higher brine velocity, the inequality constraint presented as
penalty function value with population size (NP = 35 to 340) and gen- abs1 UUBcal 0:001 did not get satised, as UBcal is a function of brine
B
eration size. As shown, signicant penalties existed for lower combina-
density, which is in turn a function of brine velocity. The penalties for
tions of NG and NP for the MSF-BR process. Solutions without penalty
the MSF-OT have been successfully eliminated by targeting the follow-
have been achieved using a critical specication of NG and NP, over
ing alterations in the parametric and design specications:
a) The brine velocity is xed as 6 ft/s for heat recovery section and the
Table 7 inequality constraint has been specied to have a constraint param-
Optimality of thermodynamic, heat transfer and cost function variable values for MSF de-
eter value of 102 but not 103. For such a scenario, the minimal
salination processes.
fresh production cost has been evaluated using the DE algorithm as
Performance model TPR sA, m2/(kg/h) sF sWCW OPR 1.1249 $/m3.
MSF-OT* 10.34 0.005867 8.95 11.17 b) The brine velocity is xed as 6 ft/s and the brine heater width is re-
MSF-M 7.59 0.005014 8.66 11.78 duced to 30 ft from 35 ft. No additional changes have been carried
MSF-BR 8.61 0.008745 7.77 5.28 12.87 out for the abovementioned inequality constraint specication. For
MSF-BR literature [3] 8.28 0.008497 8.06 5.57 10.70
such a scenario, solutions without penalty were obtained for the
38 C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043
Fig. 3. Pie-charts representing the cost contributions of various cost functions to optimal freshwater production cost; (a) MSF-OT, (b) MSF-M, (c) MSF-BR and (d) MSF-BR literature
data [3].
MSF-OT system to indicate the optimal fresh water production cost with feed concentration up to 40,000 ppm is due to the insignicant ef-
of 1.1154 $/m3. fect of feed concentration in inuencing the product ow rates, concen-
trations and temperature. This might not be the case for reverse osmosis
process where feed concentration will have a signicant effect on the
Fig. 4 panels (e) and (f) respectively illustrate the variation of total water production cost. Above 40,000 ppm, the feed concentration can
optimal objective function value (inclusive of penalties) and total opti- be observed to have a signicant effect on the water production cost.
mal penalty function values for various cases of NP and generation The DE based optimal cost proles lowered by 2.232.65% than
values. The obtained trends are similar to those presented for MSF-BR those reported in the literature for the variation in feed seawater con-
case. Also, it can be observed that for MSF-M, solutions without penalty centration. In comparison with the literature data, it can be observed
(feasible solutions) have been obtained using the DE algorithm. The that the lowest cost trends have been obtained for the MSF-BR process.
MSF-OT conguration provided infeasible solutions among the three This once again conrms the efcacy of DE to obtain high quality solu-
different process congurations. Using DE, the optimal water produc- tions for MSF process optimization.
tion cost for the MSF-M process is 1.1980 $/m3 respectively.
5.5.2. Thermal performance
5.5. Sensitivity analysis The thermal performance is dened as the ratio of total amount of
fresh water produced to total steam intake of the MSF process:
5.5.1. Effect of feed concentration
Sensitivity analysis involves the evaluation the optimal freshwater Thermal performance 6
production cost critical dependence on with various operating parame-
total amount of fresh water produced W MD
ters of the MSF process. Typically, feed concentration is varied from :
total steam intake fed to plant W MS
20,00050,000 ppm for MSF processes [3]. Varying feed concentration
in this range, the optimal freshwater production cost was evaluated
using DE for MSF processes. Fig. 5(a) summarizes the results obtained In general, the thermal performance ratio varies from 6 to 12 for the
for the feed concentration effect on optimal fresh water production MSF desalination system and below 1 for the single stage ash desalina-
cost. It can be observed that the optimal water production cost in- tion system [10]. Similarly, the top brine temperature (TBT) is varied
creased from 1.2125 to 1.2455, from 1.1876 to 1.2132, from 1.0656 to from 90 to 100 C for a variation in total number and thermodynamic
1.1051 and from 1.09 to 1.13 $/m3 respectively for MSF-OT, MSF-M, loss range of 1829 and 0.52 C [10].
MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature processes. From a variation in feed con- The variation of thermal performance with TBT for MSF processes is
centration 20,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm, the optimal water production presented in Fig. 5(b). For a variation in TBT from 90 to 110 C, the ther-
cost varied from 1.0656 to 1.0708 for the MSF-BR process which afrms mal performance ratio varied from 6.66 to 7.31, from 6.75 to 7.59, from
that the cost remained fairly constant. From 40,00050,000 ppm varia- 7.26 to 8.61 and from 7.02 to 8.28 for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and
tion in feed concentration, water product cost increased linearly from MSF-BR literature data. It can be observed that the thermal performance
1.0708 to 1.1051 for the MSF-BR process. The slope of the graph is is marginally sensitive with TBT for MSF-OT and MSF-M processes but
about 3.433 10 6. The insensitivity of the water production cost not MSF-BR. Further, it can be observed that the thermal performance
C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043 39
Fig. 4. Effect of DE algorithm parameters (NG and NP) on the solution optimality for various MSF processes (a) total optimal objective function value for MSF-BR, (b) total penalty
function value for MSF-BR, (c) total optimal objective function value for MSF-M, (d) total penalty function value for MSF-M, (e) total optimal objective function value for MSF-OT and
(f) total penalty function value for MSF-OT.
increased linearly with increasing TBT and the corresponding slope varied from 6 to 9, where the DE based optimal costs have been evalu-
values are 3.2 102, 4.0 102, 6.7 102, and 6.4 102 respec- ated to be 3.423.99% lower than those reported in the literature.
tively for the said process sequence. Also, in comparison with the liter-
ature data, it is apparent from the gure that the highest thermal 5.5.3. Chemical cost multiplier
performance values were obtained for the MSF-BR process using the Typically, cost multipliers are varied from 0.25 to 2 for MSF desalina-
DE algorithm. The thermal performance of the MSF system has been tion processes [3]. Fig. 5(c) presents the variation of optimal water
40 C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043
Fig. 5. Sensitivity of MSF processes with respect to various process and operating parameters; (a) feed concentration, (b) TBT on TPR, (c) chemical cost multiplier, (d) steam cost multiplier.
(e) Labor cost multiplier, (f) power cost multiplier, (g) spares cost multiplier, (h) TBT on cost (+[3]).
C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043 41
production cost as a function of chemical cost multiplier for MSF pro- cost multiplier from 0.2 to 2.0, the DE based optimal cost is 1.572.2%
cesses. It can be observed that the water production cost increased better than that reported in the literature.
non-linearly from 1.1345 to 1.2958, from 1.0866 to 1.12798, from
1.0015 to 1.1365 and from 1.022 to 1.161 $/m3 with increasing chemical 5.5.6. Power cost multiplier
cost multiplier (0.252) for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR liter- For a variation in power cost multiplier from 0.25 to 2.0,
ature data. As it is apparent in other sensitivity analyses, the lowest Fig. 5(f) presents the variation of optimal water production cost trends
water production cost trends have been obtained in this work in com- for various MSF desalination processes. The observed trends are similar
parison with the existing data trends of the MSF-BR process in the liter- to those obtained for labor cost multiplier. As shown, for a variation in
ature. The freshwater production cost varied linearly with chemical cost power cost multiplier from 0.25 to 2.0, the minimal water cost varied
multiplier in the range of 0.252. For such a case, the corresponding from 1.1286 to 1.3589, from 1.1139 to 1.3101, from 0.9915 to 1.1921
slopes of the trend lines are 0.09, 0.11, 0.071, and 0.072. These slope and from 1.02 to 1.213 $/m3 respectively for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR
values are indicative towards water production cost sensitivity with re- and MSF-BR literature data [3]. The corresponding slopes of the obtain-
spect to chemical cost multiplier. Thus the water cost ($/m3) will in- ed cost trends are 0.13, 0.11, 0.11 and 0.11. Thus the water cost ($/m3)
crease by 9 /m3, 11 /m3, 7.1 /m3, and 7.2 /m3 respectively for a will increase by 12.9 /m3, 11.2 /m3, 10.9 /m3, and 10.9 /m3 respec-
unit increase in chemical cost multiplier for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR tively for a unit increase in labor cost multiplier for the said sequence
and MSF-BR literature data [3]. For a variation in the cost multiplier of processes. The lowest cost trend corresponds to that obtained with
from 0.25 to 0.5, the corresponding optimal water cost varied non- MSF-BR and the DE algorithm in this work. For a variation in power
linearly from 1.1348 to 1.1752, from 1.0866 to 1.1271, from 1.0015 to cost multiplier from 0.2 to 2.0, the DE based optimal cost is 1.72
1.0495 and from 1.022 to 1.076 $/m3. A further increase in the chemical 2.79% better than that reported in the literature.
cost multiplier from 0.5 to 2.0 enabled a linear enhancement for the op-
timal water cost from 1.1752 to 1.2958, from 1.1271 to 1.2798, from
1.0495 to 1.1365 and from 1.076 to 1.161 $/m3 for the said sequence 5.5.7. Spares cost multiplier
of processes. Compared to the literature, the obtained optimal cost is Fig. 5(g) illustrates the variation of minimal water production cost as
22.46% better for variation in the chemical cost multiplier. a function of spares cost multiplier for alternate MSF processes. As
shown, for the variation in spares cost multiplier from 0.25 to 2.0, the
minimal water cost varied from 1.1456 to 1.3102, from 1.1348 to
5.5.4. Steam cost multiplier 1.2823, from 1.0203 to 1.1628 and from 1.0375 to 1.1825 $/m3 for
For the steam cost multiplier sensitivity analysis, the steam cost was MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data [3]. The cost trends
varied from 0.00104 to 0.00832 $/kg of steam (corresponding to a vari- are similar to those obtained for labor and power cost multipliers. The
ation of steam cost multiplier from 0.25 to 2.0) at a constant TBT value of slopes of the linearized trends are 0.09, 0.08, 0.08 and 0.08 respectively
110 C [3]. The obtained sensitivity analysis based cost trends with re- for the said sequence of processes. Thereby, the sensitivity of the spares
spect to steam cost multiplier are presented in Fig. 5(d). As shown, for cost multiplier has been evaluated in terms of an increase by 9.2 /m3,
a variation in steam cost multiplier from 0.25 to 2.0, the minimal 8.4 /m3, 8.2 /m3, and 8.2 /m3 respectively for a unit increase in
water cost varied from 0.8656 to 1.7123, from 0.8202 to 1.687, from labor cost multiplier for the said sequence of processes. For a variation
0.7284 to 1.4876 and from 0.739 to 1.5212 $/m3 for MSF-OT, MSF-M, in spares cost multiplier, the DE based optimal cost is 1.66% lower
MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data [3]. The obtained cost trends with than that reported in the literature.
respect to steam multiplier indicate a linear variation in water cost
with steam multiplier. Such a trend is expected, given the fact that the
5.5.8. Effect of top brine temperature
MSF is a thermal process and its performance is a strong function of
Fig. 5(h) presents the variation of optimal water production cost
steam as a heat source for ash operation. The sensitivity parameters
with variation in top brine temperature for various cases. As shown,
can be obtained from the slope of the obtained data trends. These values
for a variation in TBT from 90 to 110 C, the costs varied linearly from
have been evaluated correspondingly as 0.48, 0.49, 0.43 and 0.44. Thus,
1.1051 to 1.2251 and from 1.0845 to 1.1980 $/m3 for MSF-OT and
the water cost can be evaluated to increase by 48 /m3, 49 /m3, 43 /m3
MSF-M processes. However, for the MSF-BR processes (reported in
and 44 /m3 respectively for a unit increase in steam cost for the said se-
this work and in literature), up to a temperature of 100 C, the optimal
quence of processes. The obtained simulation based trends indicate that
water production cost was not at all affected with variation in TBT.
MSF-BR provides the lowest water cost trends which are placed margin-
Above 100 C, the optimal water production cost increased with in-
ally below the cost trends reported in the literature [3]. For a variation in
creasing TBT. Based on these increasing trends, the slopes of the various
steam cost multiplier from 0.2 to 2.0, the DE based optimal cost is 1.43
plots have been evaluated (5.9 103, 5.6 10 3, 2.5 103, and
2.21% lower than that reported in the literature.
2.8 103 respectively for the said sequence of processes). Thus, for a
unit increase in top brine temperature, the water cost will increase by
5.5.5. Labor cost multiplier 0.59 /m3, 0.56 /m3, 0.25 /m3, and 0.28 /m3 for the said sequence
Fig. 5(e) shows that the optimal water production cost evaluated for of processes. Overall, the lowest data trends have been obtained for
MSF processes is sensitive with respect to labor cost multiplier for all the MSF-BR and DE algorithm case. For a variation in TBT from 95 to
processes. As shown, for a variation in labor cost multiplier from 0.25 110 C, the DE based optimal cost is 1.66% lower than that reported in
to 2.0, the minimal water cost varied from 1.1395 to 1.3396, from the literature.
1.209 to 1.3008, from 1.0014 to 1.1813 and from 1.0239 to 1.2001 $/ In summary, the DE based sensitivity analysis of MSF-BR enables
m3 for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data [3]. one to infer that the slope based ranking of various process and
Hence, signicantly higher cost trends can be observed for MSF-OT operating parameters is as per the following order: steam cost multipli-
and MSF-M processes but not for MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data. er (43 /m3) N labor cost multiplier (10 /m3) N power cost multiplier
The obtained cost trends with respect to labor cost multiplier indicate (8.2 /m3) N spares cost multiplier (8.2 /m3) N chemical cost multiplier
that the variations are linear with slopes of 0.11, 0.10, 0.10 and 0.10 (7.1 /m3) N TBT (0.25 /m3) N feed concentration (fairly constant). In
for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature [3] respectively. other words, the optimal freshwater production cost for the MSF process-
Thus the water cost ($/m3) will increase by 11 /m3, 10.3 /m3, 10 / es is highly sensitive to steam cost multiplier, marginally sensitive with all
m3, and 10 /m3 respectively for a unit increase in labor cost multiplier other process parameters but not feed concentration and TBT. Since the
for the said sequence of processes. The lowest data trends refer to the MSF process is highly energy intensive, the highest sensitivity of the
data obtained with DE for the MSF-BR process. For a variation in labor MSF-BR process optimal cost with steam multiplier is expected.
42 C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043
T5 temperature of brine stream leaving last stage in the heat [6] E.A.M. Hawaidi, I.M. Mujtaba, Simulation and optimization of MSF desalination pro-
cess for xed freshwater demand: impact of brine heater fouling, Chem. Eng. J. 165
rejection section of the MSF-BR process, C (2010) 545553.
T6 temperature of recycle stream in the MSF-BR process, C [7] E. Ali, Understanding the operation of industrial MSF plants part II: optimization and
TBD temperature of reject stream in the MSF-BR process, C dynamic analysis, Desalination 143 (2002) 7391.
[8] F. Mjallia, N. Abdel-Jabbar, H. Qiblawey, H. Ettouney, Neural and genetic based tech-
TD temperature of distillate product stream in the MSF process, niques for solving the MSF model as opposed to conventional numerical methods,
C 17th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering. ESCAPE17,
TS steam temperature, C 2007.
[9] H. El-Dessouky, S. Bingulac, Solving equations simulating the steady-state behavior
TSea seawater temperature/feed temperature, C
of the multi-stage ash desalination process, Desalination 107 (1996) 171193.
UB overall heat transfer coefcient in brine heater, kW/m2 K [10] H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney, Fundamentals of Salt Water Desalination, Elsevier
Uj overall heat transfer coefcient in the rejection section, Science, USA, 2002.
[11] H. El-Dessouky, I. Alatiqi, H. Ettouney, Process synthesis: the multi-stage ash desa-
kW/m2 K
lination system, Desalination 115 (1998) 155179.
UR overall heat transfer coefcient in recovery section, kW/m2 K [12] H.H. Rosenbrock, An automatic method for nding the greatest or least value of a
UBcal calculated overall heat transfer coefcient in brine heater, function, Comput. J. 3 (1960) (17518).
kW/m2 K [13] H.I. Shaheen, G.I. Rashed, S.J. Cheng, Optimal location and parameter setting of UPFC
for enhancing power system security based on differential evolution algorithm, Int.
Ujcal calculated overall heat transfer coefcient in the rejection J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 33 (2011) 94105.
section, kW/m2 K [14] I.S. Al-Mutaz, M.A. Soliman, Simulation of MSF desalination plantsDesalination 74
URcal calculated overall heat transfer coefcient in recovery section, (1989) 317326.
[15] IDA, The 19th IDA Worldwide Desalting Plant Inventory, International desalination
kW/m2 K association, Topseld, MA, USA, 2006.
VB brine velocity in brine heater, m/s [16] J.H. Beamer, D.J. Wilde, The simulation and optimization of a single effect multi-
Vj brine velocity in the rejection section, m/s stage ash desalination plant, Desalination 9 (1971) 259275.
[17] J.M. Ramirez, J.M. Gonzalez, T.O. Ruben, An investigation about the impact of the
VR brine velocity in recovery section, m/s optimal reactive power dispatch solved by DE, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 33
Wlast ow rate of ashing brine stream leaving the last stage of the (2011) 236244.
heat rejection section in the MSF-M and MSF processes, m3/h [18] K.A. Al-shayji, S. Al-wadyei, A. Elkamel, Modelling and optimization of a multistage
ash desalination process, Eng. Optim. 37 (2005) 591607.
WM ow rate of makeup stream in the MSF process, m3/h [19] M.A. Mandil, E.E. Abdel Ghafour, Optimization of multi-stage ash evaporation
WMBD ow rate of rejected stream in the MSF process, m3/h plants, Chem. Eng. Sci. 25 (1970) 611621.
WMCW ow rate of reject coolant stream in the MSF process, m3/h [20] M. Abduljawad, U. Ezzeghni, Optimization of Tajoura MSF desalination plant, Desa-
lination 254 (2010) 2328.
WMD ow rate of total potable water product stream in the MSF
[21] M.C. Marcovecchio, S.F. Mussati, N.J. Scenna, P.A. Aguirre, in: M. Schorr (Ed.),
process, m3/h Optimization of Hybrid Desalination Processes Including Multi Stage Flash and
WMF feed ow rate in the MSF process, m3/h Reverse Osmosis Systems 2011, pp. 312334, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/15048
WMSC feed ow rate of seawater (before mixing) of MSF-M, m3/h (CC BY-NC-SA).
[22] M.C. Marcovecchio, P.A. Aguirre, N.J. Scenna, Global optimal design of reverse osmo-
WMSMF feed ow rate of MSF-M, m3/h sis networks for seawater desalination: modelling and algorithm, Desalination 184
WMR ow rate of recycle stream in MSF-M and MSF-BR processes, (2005) 259271.
m3/h [23] M.G. Marcovecchio, S.F. Mussati, P.A. Aguirre, N.J. Scenna, Optimization of hybrid de-
salination processes including multi stage ash and reverse osmosis systems,
WMRWBD ow rate of brine stream leaving mixer M1 and entering split- Desalination 182 (2005) 111122.
ter S2 in the MSF-BR process, m3/h [24] M.H.K. Manesh, H. Janalizadeh, A.M.B. Marigorta, M. Amidpour, M.H. Hamedi, Opti-
WS ow rate of steam fed to brine heater, m3/h mal design of integrated total site utility-multistage ash desalination plant, Desalin.
Water Treat. 52 (2014) 12871298.
WY yearly capacity, m3/y [25] M.J. Tanvir, I.M. Mujtaba, Optimisation of design and operation of MSF desalination
process using MINLP technique in gPROMS, Desalination 222 (2008) 419430.
Greek symbols [26] M. Rossol, A. Beltramim, M. Mazzotti, M. Morbidelli, Modeling multistage ash
desalination plants, Desalination 108 (1996) 365374.
[27] MATLAB and Optimization Toolbox Release, 2013The MathWorks, Inc., Natick,
Massachusetts, United States, 2013.
[28] N.M. Abdel-Jabbar, H.M. Qiblawey, F.S. Mjalli, H. Ettouney, Simulation of large capac-
ity MSF brine circulation plants, Desalination 204 (2007) 501514.
1/100th $ (cent)
[29] P.J. Thomas, S. Bhattacharyya, A. Petra, G.P. Rao, Steady state and dynamic simula-
R average boiling point rise, heat recovery section, C tion of multi-stage ash desalination plants: a case study, Comput. Chem. Eng. 22
j average boiling point rise, heat rejection section, C (1998) 15151529.
average latent heat of vaporization, kJ/kg [30] R. Storn, K. Price, Differential evolutiona simple and efcient adaptive scheme for
global optimization over continuous spaces, ICSI Technical Report, No. TR-95-012
B average brine density, kg/m3 1995, pp. 15.
W average pure water density, kg/m3 [31] S.A. Abdul-Wahab, J. Abdo, Optimization of multistage ash desalination process by
objective function (cost), $/m3 using a two-level factorial design, Appl. Therm. Eng. 27 (2007) 413421.
[32] S.G.N. Kumar, A.K. Mahendra, A. Sanyal, G. Gouthaman, Genetic algorithm-based op-
timization of multi-stage ash desalination plant, Desalin. Water Treat. 1 (2009)
Appendix A. Supplementary data 86106.
[33] S. Mussati, P. Aguirre, N.J. Scenna, Optimal MSF plant design, Desalination 138
(2001) 341347.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. [34] S. Tayyebi, M. Alishiri, The control of MSF desalination plants based on inverse
doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.04.012. model control by neural network, Desalination 333 (1) (2014) 92100 (15).
[35] T.E. Hinkebein, M.K. Price, Progress with the desalination and water purication
technologies US roadmap, Desalination 182 (2005) 1928.
References
[36] M. Valipour, Determining possible optimal values of required ow, nozzle diameter,
and wetted area for linear traveling laterals, Int. J. Eng. 1 (1) (2012) 3743.
[1] A.K. Coleman, Optimization of a single effect, multi-stage ash distillation desalina-
[37] M. Valipour, M.E. Banihabib, S.M.R. Behbahani, Monthly inow forecasting using
tion system, Desalination 9 (1971) 315331.
autoregressive articial neural network, J. Appl. Sci. 12 (20) (2012) 21392147.
[2] A.M. Helal, M.S. Medani, M.A. Soliman, J.R. Flower, A tridiagonal matrix model for
[38] M. Valipour, M.E. Banihabib, S.M.R., Comparison of the ARMA, ARIMA, and the
multi-stage ash desalination plants, Comput. Chem. Eng. 10 (1986) 327342.
autoregressive articial neural network models in forecasting the monthly inow
[3] A.M. Helal, A.M. El-Nashar, E. Al-Katheeri, S. Al-Malek, Optimal design of hybrid RO/
of Dez dam reservoir, J. Hydrol. 476 (2013) 433441.
MSF desalination plants part I: modeling and algorithms, Desalination 154 (2003)
[39] M. Valipour, A.A. Montazar, Optimize of all effective inltration parameters in
4366.
furrow irrigation using visual basic and genetic algorithm programming, Aust. J.
[4] A.M. Helal, A.M. El-Nashar, E. Al-Katheeri, S. Al-Malek, Optimal design of hybrid RO/
Basic Appl. Sci. 6 (6) (2012) 132.
MSF desalination plants part II: results and discussion, Desalination 160 (2004)
1327.
[5] A.M. Helal, A.M. El-Nashar, E. Al-Katheeri, S. Al-Malek, Optimal design of hybrid RO/
MSF desalination plants part III: sensitivity analysis, Desalination 169 (2004) 4360.