Sei sulla pagina 1di 14
Desalination 394 (2016) 30 – 43 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Desalination journal homepage:

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal Global optimization of MSF seawater desalination processes

Global optimization of MSF seawater desalination processes

Chandra Sekhar Bandi, R. Uppaluri , Amit Kumar

Chandra Sekhar Bandi, R. Uppaluri ⁎ , Amit Kumar Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of

Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, North Guwahati, Assam 781039, India

HIGHLIGHTS

For MSF-BR and MSF-M processes, DE provided global optimal solutions.

Cost based MSF process ranking is MSF-BR > MSF-M > MSF-OT* (* refers solution with penalty).

For important MSF process parameters, obtained solutions improved by 2.31%, 3.9%, 2.92%, 20.24%, 3.53% and 5.2%.

article info

Article history:

Received 2 February 2016 Received in revised form 5 March 2016 Accepted 6 April 2016 Available online 12 May 2016

Keywords:

Differential evolution algorithm Global optimization Seawater desalination Multi stage ash (MSF) MSF-BR MSF-OT MSF-M SQP Modeling Optimization

abstract

This article addresses the global optimal design of multi-stage ash desalination processes. The mathematical for- mulation accounts for non-linear programming (NLP) based process models that are supplemented with the non-deterministic optimization algorithm. MSF-once through, -simple mixture (MSF-M) and -brine recycle (MSF-BR) process congurations have been evaluated for their optimality. While freshwater production cost has been set as the objective function for minimization, mass, energy and enthalpy balances with relevant sup- plementary equations constitute the equality constraints. Differential evolution algorithm (DE/rand/bin) was adopted to evaluate the global optimal solutions. Further, obtained solutions have been compared with those obtained with MATLAB optimization toolbox solvers such as SQP and MS-SQP. The global optimal solution corre- sponds to a variable value set of [2794.4 m 3 /h, 1.0499, 7.62 m, 3.359 kW/m 2 K, 3.297 kW/m 2 K, 3.042 kW/m 2 K and 22] for decision variables [W M , R H , L T , U B , U R , U j , N R ] in the MSF-BR process to yield an optimal freshwater production cost of 1.0785 $/m 3 . Compared to the literature, the obtained global solution from DE is 2.31% better. Further, inequality constraint resolution has been excellent for DE but not other methods such as MS-SQP, SQP and DE-SQP.

© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Among several technologies viable for potable water production, the desalination of sea and brackish water is an established technol- ogy in several countries including the USA, Persian Gulf and European countries [15,35] . Based on the working energy principle, desalination processes are further classi ed primarily into two clas- ses namely thermal processes that involve phase change due to addi- tion of heat and membrane processes that involve pressure energy. While thermal processes are primarily classi ed into multi-effect evaporation (MEE), MSF and vapor-compression (VC) processes, membrane processes are primarily classi ed into RO and electrodial- ysis (ED) processes. Among various alternate technologies for sea water desalination, MSF processes have the promising features of

Corresponding author. E-mail address: ramgopalu@iitg.ernet.in (R. Uppaluri).

0011-9164/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

large scale operation and ability to deliver good quality potable water (5 50 ppm total dissolved solids). A typical MSF process involves brine heating followed with ash distillation in multiple stages and subsequent heat recovery. Thereby, a MSF process plant has three important sections namely brine heater, heat rejection and heat recovery sections. Design variations in the MSF process systems refer to either once through (OT) or simple mixer (M) or brine recirculation (BR) process con gurations to yield MSF-OT or MSF-M or MSF-BR processes respectively. Among these, while MSF-OT is the simplest in design, it is not as ef cient as the MSF-BR system. The design of efcient MSF processes invariably requires simulation and optimization studies. Several researchers have conducted simula- 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- as et al. [29] , Abdel-Jabbar et al. [28] , Hawaidi and Mujtaba [6] , and Tayyebi and Alishiri [34]. Many of these literatures emphasized upon

C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043

31

stage-to-stage calculations and deployed NewtonRaphson method or tridiagonal matrix (TDM) formulations solved with Thomas algorithm (TA) for evaluation of MSF process performance. Further, optimization studies have also been conducted by several

researchers. These include MSF-OT processes [35,2123]; MSF-M pro- cesses [20] and MSF-BR processes [1,35,6,7,8,9,16,18,24,25,31,32,33]. Considering the minimization of water production cost as objective function, the literature refer to the deployment of either one of the fol- lowing methods: genetic algorithm (GA) [24,32]; sequential quadratic programming (SQP) method [22,23] , deterministic optimization methods built in gPROMS [6,25], generalized reduced gradient (GRG) [1,35,20] and in DICOPT++ [22,23]. Further, MATLAB programming environment has also been used in several engineering applications as a competent modeling tool for simulation and optimization studies

[36,37,38,39].

A critical analysis of the available literatures in optimization studies

refers to the following. Firstly, earlier research works mostly addressed

either MSF-BR or MSF-M or MSF-OT processes for process optimization based insights. Only [35] addressed MSF-OT and MSF-BR process opti-

mization but not the MSF-M process. The authors adopted GRG optimi- zation method which is a local optimization tool. It is well known that GRG might provide local solutions whose quality could not be judged in conjunction with the global optimality. Further, GRG is well known to be non-rigorous and fails to solve problems with larger number of in- equality constraints, as the method needs the satisfaction of all inequal- ity constraints in each iteration. While SQP method foregoes such limitation, the SQP also could not provide insights upon the quality of generated optimal solutions. On the other hand, non-deterministic models such as GA were only investigated for the MSF-BR but not MSF-OT and MSF-M processes. Thus, it is apparent that global optimiza- tion methods have not been applied till date for the comparative assess- ment of MSF-BR, MSF-M and MSF-OT processes. Secondly, a critical issue with respect to alternate optimization methods such as GRG, SQP, and GA, is with respect to the satisfaction of inequality constraints. The traditional approach to couple a penalty function with cost function may or may not yield feasible solutions using GRG and SQP methods, given the fact that these algorithms may require additional ne tuning of optimization algorithm parameters such as maximum number of iterations, maximum function evalua- tions, and penalty parameters, to obtain feasible solutions. Thus, it might be the case that an engineer may have to spend a signicant amount of time in ne tuning these parameters for the deterministic op- timization methods. On the other hand, such insights may not be appli- cable for the non-deterministic optimization methods due to random nature of solution search. Therefore, an important issue that also needs to be addressed is the ability to fetch feasible solutions with sim- ilar penalty function parameters for both deterministic and non- deterministic optimization methods.

A third and essential insight is to visualize upon the sensitivity of

process and operating parameters using global optimization ap- proaches. While such sensitivity analysis might be possible with local optimization methods, they may not provide the most stringent sensi-

tivity analysis. Therefore, the sensitivity analysis conducted with non- deterministic methods needs to be judged with that conducted with de- terministic methods.

In summary, this work addresses three major objectives. The rst ob-

jective refers to comparative assessment of MSF-M, MSF-OT and MSF-BR processes using non-deterministic optimization. The second objective re- fers to the evaluation of inequality constraint resolution ability for both deterministic and non-deterministic methods. The nal objective is to conduct sensitivity analysis of all MSF processes in the light of global and local optimization. Differential evolution (DE) has been chosen as

the global optimization tool as it has not been studied for MSF process op- timization despite being proven effective for other engineering optimiza- tion problems. Thereby, suitable benchmarks are expected to be set for the engineering optimization of MSF processes.

2. Process congurations

A schematic representation of the MSF-OT, MSF-M and MSF-BR pro- cess congurations is presented in Fig. 1(a)(c). Among these processes, while MSF-OT limits the temperature of the last stage to 3040 °C for winter and summer operations, the ashing operation on several ash stages requires vacuum pressure conditions to achieve operating tem- peratures below 100 °C. As indicated in the gure, the common features of these process congurations are briey summarized as follows:

The feed seawater ( W MF ) at temperature T Sea , is de-aerated and chemically treated before being introduced into the condenser/pre- heater tubes of the last ashing stage in the heat recovery section.

The preheated feed seawater at temperature T 2 enters the brine heater tubes, where the heating steam ( W S ) is condensed on the outside surface of the tubes. Eventually, the seawater reaches the maximum design temperature value also known as the top brine temperature (T 3 ).

The feed seawater nally enters the ashing stages, where a small amount of fresh water vapor is generated by brine ashing in each stage. In each stage, the ashed off vapor condenses on the outside surface of the condenser tubes, where the feed seawater ( W MF ) ows inside the tubes from the cold to the hot side of the plant. Thereby, the heat recovery process enables an increase in the feed seawater temperature. The condensed fresh water vapor outside the condenser tubes accumulates across the stages and forms the distillate product stream (W MD ).

Fig. 1(b) illustrates that the MSF-M process essentially consists of a brine heater, heat recovery section and brine recycle mixing tank. Hence, the MSF-M process con guration facilitates a brine recycle stream to reduce fresh seawater requirements and associated chemical pretreatment costs. This is achieved by mixing part of the blowdown brine stream (W MR ) with the feed stream ( W MSC ), thereby generating a mixed stream (W MF ) with higher salinity than that of the fresh seawa- ter (set as 70,000 ppm for the upper bound according to El-Dessouky et al. [11]. It can be further observed in Fig. 1(c) that the MSF-BR desalination plant has heat rejection, recovery section and brine heater section. The nal reject stream from the heat recovery section is being split into two streams which serve as cooling seawater stream ( W MCW ) and makeup stream (W M ). The makeup stream is further chemically treated and mixed in the brine pool of the last ashing stage in the heat rejec- tion section. The mixed stream is sent to blowdown splitter S 2 from which the brine recycle stream (W MR ) is introduced into the condenser tubes of the last stage in the heat recovery section. The stream after ab- sorbing the latent heat of condensation from ashing vapor in several stages leaves the last stage and enters the brine heater, where its tem- perature is enhanced to saturation temperature (i.e., top brine temper- ature) at the prevalent system pressure.

3. Methodology

Process optimization of alternate MSF con gurations has been targeted by coding a competent simulation model that is supplemented with a non-deterministic optimization algorithm. For comparison pur- poses, deterministic optimization algorithms have also been considered to evaluate upon the efcacy of the non-deterministic optimization al- gorithm. The following sub-sections summarize the simulation and op- timization models.

3.1. Simulation model

The simulation models for MSF-OT and MSF-BR processes were adopted from Helal et al. [3] . For the MSF-M process, the simulation

32

C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043

model was taken from Abduljawad and Ezzeghni [20]. Other than these literatures, a comprehensive account of the models for MSF processes is not apparent elsewhere in other literature. The process simulation model accounts for the mass and energy bal- ance equations applied for each stage including the brine heater, recov- ery and rejection sections. The process models are non-linear in nature and consist only algebraic expressions. Further details of the process models can be obtained from the cited literature and this section briey outlines various important features of the same. As outlined in the liter- atures, the following assumptions are usually applicable for the process models on a theoretical basis [3,10]:

a) Temperature proles of all streams owing within the plant are linear.

b) Each section has a constant value for heat transfer coefcient, heat transfer area, boiling point rise and specic heat capacity (C P ) of brine solution.

c) The latent heat of vaporization of water (λ) is constant, and indepen- dent of temperature.

d) The specic heat capacity of brine solution is a weak function of salt concentration.

e) Distillate product is salt free; non-condensable gases have negligible effect on the heat transfer process.

f) Effect of the boiling point rise and non-equilibrium losses on the stage energy balances is negligible.

g) The average specic heat capacity of brine solution is equal to that of the distillate.

h) The boiling point rise at the exit from the last recovery for MSF is neg- ligible.

i) Heat loss is negligible.

The non-linear system of algebraic equations involving mass and en- ergy balances has been deduced by carrying out overall mass balances across blowdown splitter, rejected sea water splitter (for the MSF-BR process), salt balances across mixer, energy balances across brine heater and condenser, enthalpy balances on the heat recovery section, heat

enthalpy balances on the heat recovery section, heat Fig. 1. Schematic of (a) once-through MSF (MSF-OT),

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

C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 30 – 43 33 Fig. 1 ( continued

Fig. 1 (continued).

rejection section (MSF-BR process), brine heater, mixers and ashing brine. Supplementary expressions for the process model include ex- pressions for distillate product temperature (equilibrium correlation), overall heat transfer coef cients in various process sections, inside lm resistance, average tube side brine temperature and thermal resis- tance. The thermal resistance is accounted as a function of steam-side condensing lm, steam-side fouling, tube metal and brine side fouling resistance components. Table 1(a) summarizes various parametric and design specications required for the process simulation model for cross ow type MSF pro- cesses. Table 1(b) presents the process cost parameter data, which is adopted from Helal et al. [3]. For various process models, the indepen- dent simulation model variables that need to be specied are (W MF , L T , U B , U R and N R ) for MSF-OT; (L T , U B , U R , W MSC , C MSMF and N R ) for MSF- M and ( W M , L T , U B , U R , N R , R H and U j ) for the MSF-BR process. Hence- forth, these variables are treated as independent (decision) variables during process optimization.

3.2. Optimization model

The MSF process simulation model consisting of non-linear set of al- gebraic equations is formulated as a non-linear programming (NLP) op- timization model dened as:

MinOF ¼ ψ Subjected to f ðxÞ¼ 0 g ðx Þ0

where ψ refers to the objective function dened as the sum of annual- ized freshwater production cost and associated penalties. The process simulation model is specied as f(x) = 0 for a specic MSF processes and g(x) refers to the set of inequality constraints. The total annualized freshwater production cost function is evaluat- ed using relevant expressions for direct capital less intake investment (C DCLIC ), intake-outfall cost (C IC ) (evaluated as a sum of costs of electro- chemical equipment, civil work, electro chlorination, brine disposal cost and annual plant intake-outfall), direct capital investment cost (C DCC ), indirect capital investment (C ICC ) and operating and maintenance cost ( C OMC ) (evaluated as a sum of costs of steam, chemical treatment, power, labor and spares costs). Relevant expressions have been adopted from Helal et al. [3]. Thereby, the objective function for MSF is modied and expressed as:

ψ MSF ¼

C

IC

þ C

DCLIC

þ C

ICC

þC

OMC

$

y

 

m

y

3

 
 

W Y

þ ðpenalty of gð xÞÞ:

ð1Þ

Inequality constraints refer to lower bound and upper bound speci- cations for makeup ow rate for MSF-BR (W M ), feed ow rate for MSF- OT ( W MF ) and MSF-M ( W MSC ), tube length ( L T ), number of recovery stages (N R ), heat transfer coefcients in various sections, brine loading, brine velocities in various sections, rejected brine concentration values ( C MBD , C last ) and absolute values of various heat transfer coef cients. The inequality constraint parameters and values have been presented in Table 2(a b). 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 speci cations 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)

Variable

Unit

MSF-OT

MSF-M

MSF-BR

a

0.88

0.88

0.88

C MF

ppm

42,000

42,000

42,000

C PR

kJ/kg K kJ/kg K kJ/kg K

4.18513

4.17658

4.18513

4.18513

4.18513

 

C pj

4.17658

4.17658

C p

4.18513

4.18513

ID

m

0.02199

0.02199

0.02199

 

OD

m

0.024069

0.024069

0.024069

N j

–– °C °C °C °C °C °C m 3 /h °C °C J/kg kg/m kg/m

110

30

114

25

1122

1.4

2346.3

1060

1000

3

3

3

T 1

T 3

34

110

110

T 6

T D

28

30

30

T S

114

114

T Sea

25

25

W MD

1122

1122

α R

1.4

1.4

α j

λ

1.78

2346.3

2346.3

ρ

ρ

B

W

(b)

1060

1000

1060

1000

 

Unit

Value

Current work capacities MSF plant section

m 3 /d

26,928

Reference capacities and ow rates Ref. feed rate for intake calculation Ref. blowdown rate for outfall calculations

m 3 /d m 3 /d

1000

750

MSF plant cost data Capital recovery factor Parameter Φ in xed capital cost term Chemicals Energy (pumping) Spares Labor

 

0.0963

5500

$/m 3 prod $/m 3 prod $/m 3 prod $/m 3 prod

0.024

0.03

0.082

0.1

positive penalty parameters that are set to realize the satisfaction of all inequality constraints.

3.3. Optimization algorithm

Differential evolution (DE) algorithm has been applied for the non- deterministic optimization of NLP process models. Introduced by Storn and Price [30], the DE optimization algorithm is a stochastic population based direct search optimization method that essentially involves the generation of new candidate solutions by combining the parent individ- ual and several other individuals of the same population. This is facilitat- ed by adding the weighted difference between any two population vectors to a third population vector [13]. Further, the parent vector is re- placed with the mutant vector only when the mutant vector provides a better tness value [17]. Thus, DE is an effective, fast, simple, robust, and inherently parallel technique that has few control parameters and needs less effort to tune and adopt optimization parameters. The DE has been applied as a sequence of mutation, cross-over and selection operations for all populations. The maximum number of permitted gen- erations has been set as the termination criteria. The efcacy of the DE algorithm has been evaluated by comparing the results obtained from sequential quadratic programming (SQP) method with and without multi-start (MS) approach. Further, hybrid optimization approach involving the combination of both DE and SQP was also considered. For this case, the solution generated from DE is being provided as an initial guess value for the SQP method. Thus, the optimization methodology involves the application of either one of DE, SQP, MS-SQP and DE-SQP methods. Table 3 (a) summarizes the

(a)

Variable

Unit

MSF-BR

MSF-OT

MSF-M

 
 

Lower

Upper

Lower

Upper

Lower

Upper

W M

m 3 /h m 3 /h m 3 /h m kW/m 2 K kW/m 2 K kW/m 2 K

2000

3000

––

––

W MF

5500

10,000

W MSC

––––

5500

10,500

R H

0.8

2

––

––

L T

7

10

7

15

7

15

N R

18

30

15

50

15

50

U B

2.7

3.7

2.7

3.7

2.7

3.7

U j

2.7

3.7

––

––

U R

2.7

3.7

2.7

3.7

2.7

3.7

(b)

Constraints

Unit

Lower

Upper

Brine loading

m 3 /h m width m/s m/s m/s ppm – – –

 

900

1200

V B

0.9144

1.8288

V j

0.9144

1.8288

V R

0.9144

1.8288

C MBD or C last

80,000

ABS (1 U Bcal / U B ) ABS (1 U jcal / U j ) ABS (1 U Rcal / U R )

0.001

0.001

0.001

parametric settings that were dened for the initialization, propagation and termination strategies of various optimization methods for the MSF optimization problem. Further, it shall be noted that for several methods including SQP, MS-SQP and DE-SQP, initial vector values (independent variables) had to be dened for MSF-OT, MSF-BR and MSF-M processes. Table 3(b) summarizes the initial vector values set for the optimization studies. All simulations were conducted in MATLAB programming envi- ronment. SQP has been implemented from MATLAB optimization tool- box [27,36].

4. Model validation

Model validation precisely refers to the validation of developed code for simulation and optimization models. Since appropriate data has been available only for the MSF-BR system, the simulation model code validation has been carried out using the data provided by Helal et al. [3] . Based on the input simulation variable data set of [2790 m 3 /h (2,790,000 kg/h), 1.0129, 18, 3.26 kW/m 2 K, 3.443 kW/m 2 K, 2.864 kW/m 2 K, 7.62 m] for [W M , R H , N R , U B , U R , U j , and L T ], the obtained results of dependent variables are [101.7 °C, 32.41 °C, 70,178 ppm, 135.5 m 3 /h (135,446 kg/h), 3662.8 m 2 , 2515.5 m 2 , 3355.4 m 2 , 9040 m 3 /h (9,040,000 kg/h)] for variables [T 2 , T BD , C MBD , W S , A B , A R , A j , and W MF ] respectively. Precisely, the same values have been reported in the literature [3] and hence the model code validation is inferred to be successful. The DE algorithm code has been tested for standard optimization model test function such as Rosenbrock Banana Function. For the algo- rithm parameters [F, CR, NG, and NP] speci ed as [0.8, 0.8, 100 and 100], the DE provided optimal solution of [1.000, 1.000] with a standard deviation of 10 6 . The obtained optimal solution is in complete agree- ment with that available as the global optimal solution for Rosenbrook (Banana) function [12]. Hence, the DE algorithm is inferred to be effec- tive for the optimization of alternate MSF process congurations.

5. Results and discussions

5.1. Efcacy of the DE algorithm

Fig. 2 depicts the comparative performance of various optimization methods to obtain optimal solutions for the MSF-M, MSF-OT and MSF-

C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043

35

Table 3 (a) Parameters for various optimization techniques. (b) Initial independent variable set data for MSF processes and alternative optimization methods.

(a)

Parameter

DE

SQP

MS-SQP

 

DE-SQP

NP/no. of starting points NG max/function evaluations DE-step-size, F CR Termination criteria

350

400

500

500

1000

700

1000

1000

0.9

0.9

NG max (DE) or 10 6 (SQP)

0.9

 

0.9

(b)

Optimization

MSF-BR [ W M , R H , N R , U B , U R , U j ,

MSF-M [ W MSC , N R , U B , U R , L T ]

MSF-OT [ W MF , N R , U B , U R ,

method

L

T ]

L

T ]

SQP

[2449, 1.02, 19, 3.5124, 3.1937, 2.9223, 8.51] [2767, 1.17, 18, 3.1673, 3.4619, 3.4454, 8.21]

 

[6168, 21, 3.4599, 3.5266, 7.4, 99.21,

[9543, 26,

3.4517, 3.6275,

69,944]

8.12]

 

[6014, 23, 3.1432, 3.5221, 8.12, 103.23,

[9561, 28,

3.5454,

 

69,021]

3.5514.7.65]

 

[6546, 22, 3.3565, 3.4526, 8.85, 101.45,

[9756, 27,

 

[2439, 1.16,21, 3.3351, 3.2680, 3.5171, 7.12]

3.4624,

 
 

69,584]

3.6454.7.69]

 

[2566, 1.03, 23, 3. 3513, 3.4259,

 

[6059, 25, 3.2452, 3.4411, 7.85, 102.56,

[9628, 26,

3.3515, 3.5554,

3.6637.7.51]

69,885]

7.18]

 

MS-SQP

[2787, 1.07, 21, 3.4673, 3.4119, 3.4454, 7.61] [2790, 1.05, 22, 3.3624, 3.3003, 3.0448, 7.62]

[6356, 25, 3.5232, 3.6221, 8.25, 101.23,

[9643, 28,

3.3217, 3.3275,

69,981]

7.98]

 

DE-SQP

[5857, 25, 3.7, 3.6719, 9.74, 101.48,70,772]

[9500, 23,

3.4108, 3.7398,

 

8.62]

 

BR plant con gurations. It has been evaluated that the optimal fresh water production cost using DE, SQP, MS-SQP and DE-SQP methods are 1.2251, 1.2856, 1.2785 and 1.2534 $/m 3 for MSF-OT, 1.198, 1.2445, 1.22 and 1.2135 $/m 3 for MSF-M and 1.0785, 1.1, 1.0852 and 1.0843 for MSF-BR respectively. Hence, it can be concluded that the DE provides the lowest fresh water production cost for MSF-BR. Based on the obtain- ed results, the optimal cost based ranking is MSF-BR b MSF-M b MSF- OT*. For the MSF-BR plant, the efcacy of various methods for the opti- mization is in the order of DE N SQP N MS-SQP* N DE-SQP*. The solution with asterisk (*) corresponds to solution with penalty (and hence infeasible solution). An infeasible solution for the DE-SQP is due to rounding of solutions generated from DE, which were then supplied to SQP as initial guess. A summary of the important independent and dependent variable values obtained after optimization of MSF-BR, MSF-M and MSF-OT

obtained after optimization of MSF-BR, MSF-M and MSF-OT Fig. 2. Bar chart depicting the performance of

Fig. 2. Bar chart depicting the performance of optimization methods for MSF desalination processes.

using various methods is presented in Tables 4, 5 and 6 respectively. In these methods, optimization methods with asterisk indicate the exis- tence of penalties in the nal solutions obtained and hence these solu- tions cannot be recommended as appropriate design solutions for the respective MSF process congurations. For several cases, U B inequality constraint could not be resolved without penalty. Further, the literature data for MSF-BR has also been presented in

Table 4 to reect upon the comparative optimality of obtained variable values with those presented in the literature. As outlined in Table 4, in comparison with the available literature data for the MSF-BR process, the optimal solution obtained with DE refers to marginal combinations of higher feed ow rate (2794.4 but not 2790.0 m 3 /h), higher specic heat ratio (1.0499 but not 1.0001), lower tube length (7.62 m but not

7.92 m), higher overall heat transfer coefcient in brine heater section

(3.359 kW/m 2 K but not 3.260 kW/m 2 K), lower overall heat transfer coef cient in recovery section (3.297 kW/m 2 K but not 3.443 kW/ m 2 K), higher overall heat transfer coef cient in brine heater (3.042 kW/m 2 K but not 2.864 kW/m 2 K), higher number of recovery stages (22 but not 18), lower steam ow rate (130.365 m 3 /h but not 135.446 m 3 /h), lower feed ow rate, cooling water and cost. It is further interesting to note that the optimal concentration of rejected stream

leaving the heat rejection section is precisely the same for this case and literature data. Compared to the literature reported optimal cost of 1.104 $/m 3 , the DE generated solutions for the MSF-BR process to be 2.31% lower (1.0785 $/m 3 ), MSF-M process to be 7.85% higher (1.198 $/m 3 ) and MSF-OT process to be 9.88% higher (1.2251 $/m 3 ). No relevant data was available in the same literature to compare the solutions obtained for the MSF-M and MSF-OT process congurations. It can be observed that marginal improvement in solutions can be obtain- ed for the MSF-BR plant conguration in comparison with the literature using the DE algorithm. For the MSF-BR process con gurations, solu- tions with penalty were obtained using the DE-SQP method. For the MSF-M process model, only DE provided solutions without penalty. Fur- ther, all optimization methods can be observed to provide solutions with penalty for the MSF-OT congurations. This conveys the efcacy of the DE algorithm to obtain solutions without penalty (feasible solu- tions) for both MSF-BR and MSF-M congurations. Hence, it is impor- tant to envisage that DE has potential to obtain high quality solutions even for the MSF-M process. The best set of optimal decision variable

values are [ W M , R H , L T , U B , U R , U j and N R ] for [2794.4 m 3 /h, 1.0499,

7.62 m, 3.359 kW/m 2 K, 3.297 kW/m 2 K, 3.042 kW/m 2 K and 22].

For the MSF-BR, the optimal variable values corresponded to pro- duction cost, thermal performance, speci c heat transfer area and plant recovery of 1.0785 $/m 3 , 8.61, 0.009 m 2 /h/kg and 0.1287 respec- tively. These corresponded to an improvement of about 2.31, 3.90,

2.92 and 20.24% with respect to those reported in the literature [3]

(1.104 $/m 3 , 8.283, 0.008487 m 2 /h/kg and 0.107 respectively). For the

same case, the optimal feed ow rate and cooling water ow rate were evaluated as 8720 m 3 /h and 5930 m 3 /h respectively, which corre- spond to a reduction of about 3.53% and 5.2% with respect to the best known optimal values in the literature (9040 m 3 /h and 6250 m 3 /h respectively). These results indicate marginal improvement in the optimal solutions obtained and thereby convey the competence and ef cacy of the DE algorithm for desalination process design and analysis.

5.2. Optimality of other dependent variables

Based on thermodynamics, heat transfer and process economics based insights, several dependent variables have been dened to indi- cate upon the optimality of various MSF processes. These refer to specif- ic heat transfer area, specic feed ow rate, specic cooling water rate and overall plant recovery. De nitions and formulae to evaluate the same are presented as follows:

36

C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043

Table 4 Optimal independent and dependent variable values for the MSF-BR process and alternate optimization methods.

 

Variable

Unit

DE

SQP

MS-SQP*

DE-SQP*

Literature [3]

Independent variables

W M

C MBD

m 3 /h m kW/m 2 K kW/m 2 K kW/m 2 K °C °C ppm m 3 /h m m m

2

2

2

2794.4

2809.8

2617.8

2784.4

2790.0

R H

1.0499

1.0001

1.0339

1.0149

1.0129

L T

7.62

7.92

7.98

7.61

7.62

U B

3.359

3.362

3.7

3.254

3.260

U R

3.297

3.161

3.294

3.436

3.443

U j

3.042

3.114

3.687

2.858

2.864

N R

22

19

20

18

18

Dependent variables

T 2

102.00

102.03

102.03

101.50

101.70

T BD

32.35

32.38

32.34

32.34

32.41

 

70,178

67,092

67,093

70,038

70,178

 

W S

130.365

139.860

129.900

135.175

135.446

A

 

3470.5

3165.7

3304.4

3655.47

3662.8

B

A

3297.1

3137.9

2588.7

2510.47

2515.5

R

A j

3044.7

2992.8

2868.4

3348.69

3355.4

 

W MF

m 3 /h

8721.0

8732.6

8856.5

9021.9

9040.0

 

W MCW

5926.6

6257.5

6238.8

6237.5

6250.0

 

W MBD

m 3 /h m 3 /h m 2 $/m 3

1672.4

1353.1

1495.8

1662.4

1668.0

 

A T

85140.8

74902.1

63683.6

58799.61

59008.8

Cost

1.0785

1.1000

1.0852

1.0843

1.104

The speci c heat transfer area is de ned as the ratio of total heat transfer area to the total amount of fresh water produced i.e.

Specific heat transfer area

¼

total heat transfer area

total amount of fresh water produced ¼ A

W MD :

ð2Þ

The specic ow rate is expressed as the ratio of total seawater fed to plant to the total amount of fresh water produced i.e.

Specific feed flow rate

¼

total seawater intake fed to plant

total amount of fresh water produced ¼ W MF

W MD

:

ð3Þ

The speci c cooling water ow rate is de ned as the ratio of total cooling water ow rate of the plant to the total amount of fresh water produced i.e.

Specific cooling water flow rate

¼

total cooling water flow rate of plant

total amount of fresh water produced ¼ W MCW

W MD

:

ð4Þ

The overall plant recovery is dened as the percentage of total sea- water intake that gets converted to the fresh water i.e.

Overall plant recovery

¼ total amount of fresh water produced

total seawater intake fed to plant

100 ¼ W MD 100 :

W MF

ð5Þ

Along with thermal performance, Table 7 summarizes the optimal dependent variable values for various MSF processes. The thermal per- formance values of MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data are evaluated to be 10.3457, 7.5918, 8.6066 and 8.2837 respective- ly. Fresh water production cost is lowest for MSF-BR plant (1.0785 $/ m 3 ) and the corresponding water recovery is highest (12.28). For these dependent variables, the DE approach used in this work provided better results than those reported in literature [3] using the NewtonRaphson method (1.10 $/m 3 and 10.7 respectively). The speci c feed ow rate value is also the lowest for MSF-BR case (7.77) and this indi- cates lower processing cost involved with the feed pre-treatment plant.

5.3. Contributions of various cost functions

Fig. 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) presents the pie charts that depict the per- centage cost contributions of ICM, DCLIC, ICC, FCC and OMC to the total 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.

 

Variable

Unit

DE

SQP*

MS-SQP*

DE-SQP*

Independent variables

W MSC

C MBD

W MF

W MBD

m 3 /h m kW/m 2 K kW/m 2 K °C ppm °C ppm m 3 /h m m m 3 /h m 3 /h m 2 $/m 3

2

2

5852.7

5475.1

5617.8

5784.4

 

N R

26

22

22

22

L T

8.32

9.99

8.15

9.98

U B

3.699

3.626

3.7

3.625

U R

3.671

3.665

3.499

3.664

T 2

101.48

100.28

101.42

100.23

C MF

70,772

56,342

75,829

56,314

Dependent variables

T BD

36.52

37.18

36.57

37.16

 

70,803

56,399

75,905

56,370

 

W S

147.790

171.429

148.434

171.343

A

 

3661.3

3907.2

3496.5

3905.2

B

A

1964.7

1992.9

2700.0

1991.9

R

 

9727.1

9745.3

9755.3

9740.4

8605.1

8623.3

8633.3

8618.5

 

A T

54743.5

47751.0

62896.5

47705.2

Cost

1.198

1.2445

1.22

1.2135

C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043

37

Table 6 Optimal independent and dependent variable values for the MSF-OT process and optimization methods.

 

Variable

Unit

DE*

SQP*

MS-SQP*

DE-SQP*

Independent variables

W MF

C MBD

W MBD

m 3 /h m kW/m 2 K kW/m 2 K °C °C ppm m 3 /h m m m 3 /h m 2 $/m 3

2

2

10043.2

10061.9

10072.1

10056.9

 

L T

10.18

8.0

11.8

11.79

U B

3.7

3.410

3.70

3.691

U R

3.456

3.468

3.498

3.495

N R

23

21

21

21

Dependent variables

T 2

101.48

103.6

103.6

103.51

T BD

31.4

31.39

31.4

31.37

 

48,035

47,624

47,623

47584.9

 

W S

153.450

153.490

158.450

157.363

A

 

3053.3

3094.4

3285.1

3249.8

B

A

3530

4397.0

3596.9

3594.0

R

 

1672.4

1353.1

1495.8

1662.4

 

A T

84243.3

95431.4

78820.0

78663.9

Cost

1.2251

1.2856

1.2785

1.2534

the cost contributions of these components is presented in Fig. 3 (d). From Fig. 3(c) and (d), for the MSF-BR process conguration, it can be observed that DCLIC is 2% lower for the DE based optimal solution in comparison with that reported in the literature. For the same case, the DE based optimal solution indicated the DCLIC, ICC, OMC and optimal water production cost to be 5.44, 0.70, 22.40 M$/y and 1.0785 $/m 3 re- spectively. Compared to the literature data [3], these values correspond to a reduction of 12.71, 7.29, 3.22 and 2.31% respectively. Further, with respect to the literature data, it can be also analyzed that the areas of heat rejection and brine heater sections are respectively marginally lower and marginally higher for the heat recovery section for the MSF-BR process conguration.

5.4. Optimality of DE algorithm parameters

The effect of DE algorithm parameters (F and CR) on the solution quality was investigated. According to Storn and Price [30] , among F and CR, DE is much more sensitive to F. For optimal DE algorithm perfor- mance, they further suggested that F, CR and NP can be set as F [0,2], CR [0, 1] and NP = 10 D , where D is dimensionally of the problem. Typically, F and CR are specied as 0.9 and 0.8 respectively for engineer- ing optimization problems. Thereby, algorithm optimality is critically investigated for the optimality of NG and NP. Signi cant tradeoffs exist for the optimality of NG and NP. A very low value of NG and NP may terminate the algorithm before it could reach the global optimal and a very high value of NG and NP may take signicantly a long time to achieve all solutions very close to the global optimal solution. Solu- tion clustering phenomena are typically addressed as the criteria to set optimal values of NP and NG. In this work, NP is varied from 25 to 340 and NG is varied from 50 to 2000 for the optimization of MSF processes. Fig. 4 panels (a) and (b) respectively summarize the variation of total optimal objective function value (including penalty) and total penalty function value with population size (NP = 35 to 340) and gen- eration size. As shown, signicant penalties existed for lower combina- tions of NG and NP for the MSF-BR process. Solutions without penalty have been achieved using a critical speci cation of NG and NP, over

Table 7 Optimality of thermodynamic, heat transfer and cost function variable values for MSF de- salination processes.

Performance model

TPR

sA, m 2 /(kg/h)

sF

sW CW

OPR

MSF-OT* MSF-M MSF-BR MSF-BR literature [3]

10.34

0.005867

8.95

11.17

7.59

0.005014

8.66

11.78

8.61

0.008745

7.77

5.28

12.87

8.28

0.008497

8.06

5.57

10.70

and above which solutions were found to exclusively cluster around the global optimal domain. For all cases of NP, a critical value of NG =

200 has been evaluated to be relevant to yield optimal solutions without

penalty. Further, above an NG value of 800, almost all solutions remained fairly constant, thus indicating that the solutions generated are very close to the global optimal domain. Further, for few cases of NP and generation size where few best solutions were obtained, addi- tional investigations were carried out to evaluate upon the solution

quality in the context of the global optimal domain. For this purpose, standard deviations were evaluated for the obtained solutions. The standard deviation of the solutions obtained for a population and gener- ation size of 270 and 800 respectively is 10 5 for the best 100 solutions. For this case, the lowest optimal solution of 1.0785 $/m 3 has been ob- tained. However, for the case of the population and generation size of

100 and 500 respectively, a standard deviation of 10 3 was obtained

for the best 100 solutions. The achievement of lower standard deviation for lower combinations of NG and NP in comparison with the higher combinations of NG and NP is expected, given the fact that higher NG and NP combinations facilitate better search of the solution space. A similar explanation could be provided for the results indicated in Fig. 4(c)(f) for MSF-M and MSF-OT processes. Thus, the optimal DE al- gorithm parameter combinations for MSF-BR refer to F, CR, NG and NP values of 0.9, 0.8, 800 and 270 respectively. For the MSF-OT process con guration, Fig. 4 panels (c) and (d) respectively depict the variation of optimal total objection function value and optimal total penalty value with NP and generation size. The obtained trends are similar to those obtained for MSF-BR case and the solutions converged to optimal value for all populations (NPs) for a gen- eration size of 800. The results reported for the MSF-OT system refer to the existence of penalties for few constraints and the reported values indicate solutions with lowest penalties. A careful analysis of the opti- mization results for MSF-OT indicated that brine velocity constraint was the violated beyond the specied upper bound value (6 ft/s). Even- tually, with higher brine velocity, the inequality constraint presented as

abs ð1U Bcal Þ0 : 001 did not get satised, as U Bcal is a function of brine

U

B

density, which is in turn a function of brine velocity. The penalties for the MSF-OT have been successfully eliminated by targeting the follow- ing alterations in the parametric and design specications:

a) The brine velocity is xed as 6 ft/s for heat recovery section and the inequality constraint has been specied to have a constraint param- eter value of 10 2 but not 10 3 . For such a scenario, the minimal fresh production cost has been evaluated using the DE algorithm as 1.1249 $/m 3 .

b) The brine velocity is xed as 6 ft/s and the brine heater width is re- duced to 30 ft from 35 ft. No additional changes have been carried out for the abovementioned inequality constraint specication. For such a scenario, solutions without penalty were obtained for the

38

C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043

38 C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 30 – 43 Fig. 3. Pie-charts representing

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 of 1.1154 $/m 3 .

Fig. 4 panels (e) and (f) respectively illustrate the variation of total optimal objective function value (inclusive of penalties) and total opti- mal penalty function values for various cases of NP and generation values. The obtained trends are similar to those presented for MSF-BR case. Also, it can be observed that for MSF-M, solutions without penalty (feasible solutions) have been obtained using the DE algorithm. The MSF-OT con guration provided infeasible solutions among the three different process congurations. Using DE, the optimal water produc- tion cost for the MSF-M process is 1.1980 $/m 3 respectively.

5.5. Sensitivity analysis

5.5.1. Effect of feed concentration Sensitivity analysis involves the evaluation the optimal freshwater production cost critical dependence on with various operating parame- ters of the MSF process. Typically, feed concentration is varied from 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 for the feed concentration effect on optimal fresh water production cost. It can be observed that the optimal water production cost in- creased from 1.2125 to 1.2455, from 1.1876 to 1.2132, from 1.0656 to 1.1051 and from 1.09 to 1.13 $/m 3 respectively for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature processes. From a variation in feed con- centration 20,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm, the optimal water production cost varied from 1.0656 to 1.0708 for the MSF-BR process which afrms that the cost remained fairly constant. From 40,00050,000 ppm varia- tion in feed concentration, water product cost increased linearly from 1.0708 to 1.1051 for the MSF-BR process. The slope of the graph is about 3.433 × 10 6 . The insensitivity of the water production cost

with feed concentration up to 40,000 ppm is due to the insignicant ef- 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 water production cost. Above 40,000 ppm, the feed concentration can be observed to have a signicant effect on the water production cost. The DE based optimal cost pro les lowered by 2.23 2.65% than those reported in the literature for the variation in feed seawater con- centration. In comparison with the literature data, it can be observed that the lowest cost trends have been obtained for the MSF-BR process. This once again conrms the efcacy of DE to obtain high quality solu- tions for MSF process optimization.

5.5.2. Thermal performance The thermal performance is dened as the ratio of total amount of fresh water produced to total steam intake of the MSF process:

Thermal performance

¼ total amount of fresh water produced

total steam intake fed to plant

W MD

¼

W MS

:

ð6Þ

In general, the thermal performance ratio varies from 6 to 12 for the MSF desalination system and below 1 for the single stage ash desalina- tion system [10]. Similarly, the top brine temperature (TBT) is varied from 90 to 100 °C for a variation in total number and thermodynamic loss range of 1829 and 0.52 °C [10]. The variation of thermal performance with TBT for MSF processes is presented in Fig. 5(b). For a variation in TBT from 90 to 110 °C, the ther- mal performance ratio varied from 6.66 to 7.31, from 6.75 to 7.59, from 7.26 to 8.61 and from 7.02 to 8.28 for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data. It can be observed that the thermal performance is marginally sensitive with TBT for MSF-OT and MSF-M processes but not MSF-BR. Further, it can be observed that the thermal performance

C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043

39

C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 30 – 43 39 Fig. 4. Effect of

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 values are 3.2 × 10 2 , 4.0 × 10 2 , 6.7 × 10 2 , and 6.4 × 10 2 respec- tively for the said process sequence. Also, in comparison with the liter- ature data, it is apparent from the gure that the highest thermal performance values were obtained for the MSF-BR process using the DE algorithm. The thermal performance of the MSF system has been

varied from 6 to 9, where the DE based optimal costs have been evalu- ated to be 3.423.99% lower than those reported in the literature.

5.5.3. Chemical cost multiplier Typically, cost multipliers are varied from 0.25 to 2 for MSF desalina- tion processes [3] . Fig. 5 (c) presents the variation of optimal water

40

C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043

40 C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 30 – 43 Fig. 5. Sensitivity of

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- cesses. It can be observed that the water production cost increased 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 $/m 3 with increasing chemical

cost multiplier (0.252) for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR liter- ature data. As it is apparent in other sensitivity analyses, the lowest

water production cost trends have been obtained in this work in com- parison with the existing data trends of the MSF-BR process in the liter- ature. The freshwater production cost varied linearly with chemical cost multiplier in the range of 0.25 2. For such a case, the corresponding slopes of the trend lines are 0.09, 0.11, 0.071, and 0.072. These slope values are indicative towards water production cost sensitivity with re- spect to chemical cost multiplier. Thus the water cost ($/m 3 ) will in- crease by 9 ¢/m 3 , 11 ¢/m 3 , 7.1 ¢/m 3 , and 7.2 ¢/m 3 respectively for a unit increase in chemical cost multiplier for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data [3] . For a variation in the cost multiplier from 0.25 to 0.5, the corresponding optimal water cost varied non- linearly from 1.1348 to 1.1752, from 1.0866 to 1.1271, from 1.0015 to

1.0495 and from 1.022 to 1.076 $/m 3 . A further increase in the chemical

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 $/m 3 for the said sequence

of processes. Compared to the literature, the obtained optimal cost is

22.46% better for variation in the chemical cost multiplier.

5.5.4. Steam cost multiplier

For the steam cost multiplier sensitivity analysis, the steam cost was varied from 0.00104 to 0.00832 $/kg of steam (corresponding to a vari- ation of steam cost multiplier from 0.25 to 2.0) at a constant TBT value of 110 °C [3]. The obtained sensitivity analysis based cost trends with re- spect to steam cost multiplier are presented in Fig. 5(d). As shown, for

a variation in steam cost multiplier from 0.25 to 2.0, the minimal

water cost varied from 0.8656 to 1.7123, from 0.8202 to 1.687, from

0.7284 to 1.4876 and from 0.739 to 1.5212 $/m 3 for MSF-OT, MSF-M,

MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data [3]. The obtained cost trends with respect to steam multiplier indicate a linear variation in water cost with steam multiplier. Such a trend is expected, given the fact that the MSF is a thermal process and its performance is a strong function of steam as a heat source for ash operation. The sensitivity parameters can be obtained from the slope of the obtained data trends. These values have been evaluated correspondingly as 0.48, 0.49, 0.43 and 0.44. Thus, the water cost can be evaluated to increase by 48 ¢/m 3 , 49 ¢/m 3 , 43 ¢/m 3 and 44 ¢/m 3 respectively for a unit increase in steam cost for the said se- quence of processes. The obtained simulation based trends indicate that MSF-BR provides the lowest water cost trends which are placed margin- ally below the cost trends reported in the literature [3]. For a variation in steam cost multiplier from 0.2 to 2.0, the DE based optimal cost is 1.432.21% lower than that reported in the literature.

5.5.5. Labor cost multiplier

Fig. 5(e) shows that the optimal water production cost evaluated for MSF processes is sensitive with respect to labor cost multiplier for all processes. As shown, for a variation in labor cost multiplier from 0.25 to 2.0, the minimal water cost varied from 1.1395 to 1.3396, from 1.209 to 1.3008, from 1.0014 to 1.1813 and from 1.0239 to 1.2001 $/

m 3 for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data [3] .

Hence, signi cantly higher cost trends can be observed for MSF-OT and MSF-M processes but not for MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data. The obtained cost trends with respect to labor cost multiplier indicate that the variations are linear with slopes of 0.11, 0.10, 0.10 and 0.10

for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature [3] respectively. Thus the water cost ($/m 3 ) will increase by 11 ¢/m 3 , 10.3 ¢/m 3 , 10 ¢/

m 3 , and 10 ¢/m 3 respectively for a unit increase in labor cost multiplier

for the said sequence of processes. The lowest data trends refer to the

data obtained with DE for the MSF-BR process. For a variation in labor

cost multiplier from 0.2 to 2.0, the DE based optimal cost is 1.572.2% better than that reported in the literature.

5.5.6. Power cost multiplier

For a variation in power cost multiplier from 0.25 to 2.0, Fig. 5(f) presents the variation of optimal water production cost trends for various MSF desalination processes. The observed trends are similar to those obtained for labor cost multiplier. As shown, for a variation in power cost multiplier from 0.25 to 2.0, the minimal water cost varied from 1.1286 to 1.3589, from 1.1139 to 1.3101, from 0.9915 to 1.1921 and from 1.02 to 1.213 $/m 3 respectively for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data [3]. The corresponding slopes of the obtain- ed cost trends are 0.13, 0.11, 0.11 and 0.11. Thus the water cost ($/m 3 ) will increase by 12.9 ¢/m 3 , 11.2 ¢/m 3 , 10.9 ¢/m 3 , and 10.9 ¢/m 3 respec- tively for a unit increase in labor cost multiplier for the said sequence of processes. The lowest cost trend corresponds to that obtained with MSF-BR and the DE algorithm in this work. For a variation in power cost multiplier from 0.2 to 2.0, the DE based optimal cost is 1.72 2.79% better than that reported in the literature.

5.5.7. Spares cost multiplier

Fig. 5(g) illustrates the variation of minimal water production cost as

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 1.2823, from 1.0203 to 1.1628 and from 1.0375 to 1.1825 $/m 3 for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data [3]. The cost trends are similar to those obtained for labor and power cost multipliers. The slopes of the linearized trends are 0.09, 0.08, 0.08 and 0.08 respectively for the said sequence of processes. Thereby, the sensitivity of the spares cost multiplier has been evaluated in terms of an increase by 9.2 ¢/m 3 ,

8.4 ¢/m 3 , 8.2 ¢/m 3 , and 8.2 ¢/m 3 respectively for a unit increase in

labor cost multiplier for the said sequence of processes. For a variation in spares cost multiplier, the DE based optimal cost is 1.66% lower

than that reported in the literature.

5.5.8. Effect of top brine temperature

Fig. 5 (h) presents the variation of optimal water production cost with variation in top brine temperature for various cases. As shown, for a variation in TBT from 90 to 110 °C, the costs varied linearly from 1.1051 to 1.2251 and from 1.0845 to 1.1980 $/m 3 for MSF-OT and MSF-M processes. However, for the MSF-BR processes (reported in this work and in literature), up to a temperature of 100 °C, the optimal water production cost was not at all affected with variation in TBT. Above 100 °C, the optimal water production cost increased with in- creasing TBT. Based on these increasing trends, the slopes of the various

plots have been evaluated (5.9 × 10 3 , 5.6 × 10 3 , 2.5 × 10 3 , and

2.8 × 10 3 respectively for the said sequence of processes). Thus, for a

unit increase in top brine temperature, the water cost will increase by 0.59 ¢/m 3 , 0.56 ¢/m 3 , 0.25 ¢/m 3 , and 0.28 ¢/m 3 for the said sequence

of processes. Overall, the lowest data trends have been obtained for the MSF-BR and DE algorithm case. For a variation in TBT from 95 to 110 °C, the DE based optimal cost is 1.66% lower than that reported in the literature. In summary, the DE based sensitivity analysis of MSF-BR enables one to infer that the slope based ranking of various process and

operating parameters is as per the following order: steam cost multipli- er (43 ¢/m 3 ) N labor cost multiplier (10 ¢/m 3 ) N power cost multiplier (8.2 ¢/m 3 ) N spares cost multiplier (8.2 ¢/m 3 ) N chemical cost multiplier (7.1 ¢/m 3 ) N TBT (0.25 ¢/m 3 ) N feed concentration (fairly constant). In other words, the optimal freshwater production cost for the MSF process-

es is highly sensitive to steam cost multiplier, marginally sensitive with all

other process parameters but not feed concentration and TBT. Since the MSF process is highly energy intensive, the highest sensitivity of the MSF-BR process optimal cost with steam multiplier is expected.

42

C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043

6. Conclusions

MEE

multi-effect evaporator

MS-SQP

multistart-sequential quadratic programming

Based on the global optimization approach involving differential

MSF

multi-stage ash

evolution

algorithm, this work provided signicant insights and infer-

MSF-BR

brine recycle (BR) multistage ash system (MSF)

ences with respect to the comparative assessment of alternate MSF pro-

MSF-M

brine-mixing (M) multistage ash system (MSF)

cesses, non-deterministic/deterministic optimization methods and

MSF-OT

once through (OT) multistage ash system (MSF)

pertinent

sensitivity analysis. The modeling approach adopted in this

NG

maximum number of generations

work might refer to design solutions under stringent uncertainty,

NLP

non-linear programming

given the inability to generate feasible solutions with methods other

NP

population size

than DE. The following conclusions are applicable from the insights de-

OF

objective function

duced in this work.

OPR

overall plant recovery

Firstly, DE has been proven to be effective to generate feasible

ppm

parts per million

optimal design variable values for MSF-BR, MSF-M but not MSF-OT pro-

RO

reverse osmosis

cesses. Compared to the literature optimal value, DE provided a reduc-

sA

specic heat transfer area

tion of about 2.31% in the optimal freshwater production cost. This is

sF

specic feed ow rate

due to the identication of better optimal decision variable value set

sW CW

specic cooling feed ow rate

of [2794.4 m 3 /h, 1.0499, 7.62 m, 3.359 kW/m 2 K, 3.297 kW/m 2 K,

SQP

sequential quadratic programming

3.042 kW/m 2 K and 22] for variable set [W M , R H , L T , U B , U R , U j and N R ] re-

TA

Thomas algorithm

spectively

where the optimal freshwater production cost corresponds

TBT

top brine temperature

to 1.0785 $/m 3 . Secondly, the deterministic optimization algorithms

TDM

tridiagonal matrix

such as SQP, MS-SQP and DE-SQP could not provide better solution

TDS

total dissolved solids

than the DE. This is primarily due to the dependence of the optimal var-

TPR

thermal performance

iable value set and objective function on the initial guess values. Thus,

USA

United States of America

compared

to other optimization methods, DE would provide better ini-

VC

vapor-compression

tialization

strategies and is expected to serve better for problems with

greater complexity in terms of decision variables. Another important insight that has been deduced in this work is that

Symbols

the MATLAB based optimization toolbox uses default optimization algo- rithm parameters and they cannot be as such used for MSF optimization

problems studied in this work. Thirdly, the sensitivity analysis afrmed

that DE based analysis provided 1.413.99% better proles than those available in the literature. While such improvement could be regarded to be optimal, it is important to note that the freshwater production cost related improvement is signicant, given the fact that optimization studies that allow even 1% reduction in water production cost could turn out in terms of a huge amount of savings. Fourthly, inequality con- straint resolution appears to be better tackled by DE than any other op- timization method. A further resolution of the generated solutions has also been demonstrated in this work i.e., to alter certain design param- eter value for chamber width. Fifthly, the chosen literature might be rel- atively old in the existing state-of-the-art, but the trends obtained in this work appear to be generic to afrm upon the efcacy of DE as the most versatile optimization method to yield feasible solutions under strong conditions of uncertainty. In summary, it is inferred that DE

based optimization is highly effective to obtain feasible global optimiza- tion solutions in conjunction with SQP, MS-SQP and DE-SQP. It is antic- ipated that DE would be able to provide con dence in the solutions generated with complex and hybrid process congurations involving MSF process con gurations. This will be addressed in subsequent re- search articles.

Nomenclature

Abbreviations

CR

cross over ratio

DE

differential evolution

ED

electrodialysis

F

mutation factor

DICOPT++ DIscrete and Continuous OPTimizer

GA

Genetic algorithm

GAMS

general algebraic modeling system

GOR

gained output ratio

GRG

generalized reduced gradient

ID

inside diameter of condenser tubes, m

IDA

International Desalination Association

a coef cient to account for using average latent heat of vaporization A B heat transfer area of brine heater, m 2

A j

A

A T total heat transfer area of the MSF process, m 2 C DCC direct capital investment, $ C DCLIC direct capital less intake investment, $ C IC annual plant intake-outfall cost, $ C ICC indirect capital investment, $/y C last concentration of brine stream from last stage of the heat re-

jection section, ppm C MBD concentration of reject stream leaving the heat rejection sec- tion, ppm C MF feed (seawater) concentration, ppm C MR concentration of recycle stream (from splitter to heat recov- ery section), ppm C MSMF concentration of feed stream to the MSF-M process, ppm C OMC operating and maintenance cost, $/y C p heat capacity, kJ/kg K C PR avg. specic heat capacity, recovery section, kJ/kg K C pj avg. specic heat capacity, rejection section, kJ/kg K ID inside diameter of condenser tubes, m L T tube length, m M 1 mixer 1 N j number of rejection stages N R number of stages in heat recovery stages OD outside diameter of condenser tubes, m R H specic heat ratio (W MR C pR /W MF C pj ) S 1 2 splitter 12 respectively sW CW specic cooling water ow rate T 1 temperature of reject coolant stream in the MSF-BR process, °C T 2 temperature of brine stream entering the brine heater in the MSF process, °C T 3 top brine temperature, o C T 4 temperature of brine stream leaving last stage in the heat recovery section of the MSF-BR process, °C

heat transfer area of the rejection section, m 2 heat transfer area of recovery section, m 2

R

C.S. Bandi et al. / Desalination 394 (2016) 3043

43

T 5 temperature of brine stream leaving last stage in the heat rejection section of the MSF-BR process, °C T 6 temperature of recycle stream in the MSF-BR process, °C T BD temperature of reject stream in the MSF-BR process, °C T D temperature of distillate product stream in the MSF process, °C T S steam temperature, °C T Sea seawater temperature/feed temperature, °C U B overall heat transfer coefcient in brine heater, kW/m 2 K U j overall heat transfer coef cient in the rejection section, kW/m 2 K U R overall heat transfer coefcient in recovery section, kW/m 2 K U Bcal calculated overall heat transfer coef cient in brine heater, kW/m 2 K U jcal calculated overall heat transfer coef cient in the rejection

section, kW/m 2 K U Rcal calculated overall heat transfer coefcient in recovery section, kW/m 2 K V B brine velocity in brine heater, m/s V j brine velocity in the rejection section, m/s V R brine velocity in recovery section, m/s

ow rate of ashing brine stream leaving the last stage of the heat rejection section in the MSF-M and MSF processes, m 3 /h

W last

W M ow rate of makeup stream in the MSF process, m 3 /h W MBD ow rate of rejected stream in the MSF process, m 3 /h