Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Desalination
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal
H I G H L I G H T S
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%.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
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
a b s t r a c t
This article addresses the global optimal design of multi-stage ash desalination processes. The mathematical formulation 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 supplementary 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 corresponds 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
and 22] for decision variables [WM, RH, LT, UB, UR, Uj, NR] in the MSF-BR process to yield an optimal freshwater
production cost of 1.0785 $/m3. 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 technology in several countries including the USA, Persian Gulf and
European countries [15,35]. Based on the working energy principle,
desalination processes are further classied primarily into two classes namely thermal processes that involve phase change due to addition of heat and membrane processes that involve pressure energy.
While thermal processes are primarily classied into multi-effect
evaporation (MEE), MSF and vapor-compression (VC) processes,
membrane processes are primarily classied into RO and electrodialysis (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).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.04.012
0011-9164/ 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
31
2. Process congurations
A schematic representation of the MSF-OT, MSF-M and MSF-BR process 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 temperatures below 100 C. As indicated in the gure, the common features
of these process congurations are briey summarized as follows:
The feed seawater (WMF) at temperature TSea, is de-aerated and
chemically treated before being introduced into the condenser/preheater tubes of the last ashing stage in the heat recovery section.
The preheated feed seawater at temperature T2 enters the brine
heater tubes, where the heating steam (WS) 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 (T3).
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 (WMF)
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 (WMD).
32
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 balance equations applied for each stage including the brine heater, recovery 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 literatures, 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 (CP) of
brine solution.
c) The latent heat of vaporization of water () is constant, and independent of temperature.
The non-linear system of algebraic equations involving mass and energy 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
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.
33
Fig. 1 (continued).
where refers to the objective function dened as the sum of annualized 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 evaluated using relevant expressions for direct capital less intake investment
(CDCLIC), intake-outfall cost (CIC) (evaluated as a sum of costs of electrochemical equipment, civil work, electro chlorination, brine disposal cost
and annual plant intake-outfall), direct capital investment cost (CDCC),
indirect capital investment (CICC) and operating and maintenance cost
(COMC) (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:
MSF
3
m
WY
y
$
y
penalty of gx:
Inequality constraints refer to lower bound and upper bound specications for makeup ow rate for MSF-BR (WM), feed ow rate for MSFOT (WMF) and MSF-M (WMSC), tube length (LT), number of recovery
stages (NR), heat transfer coefcients in various sections, brine loading,
brine velocities in various sections, rejected brine concentration values
(CMBD, Clast) and absolute values of various heat transfer coefcients.
The inequality constraint parameters and values have been presented
in Table 2(ab). The penalty function has been evaluated using large
34
Table 1
(a) Parametric and design specications data for cross ow type MSF processes. (b) A
summary of MSF process cost parameter data.
(a)
Variable
a
CMF
CPR
Cpj
Cp
ID
OD
Nj
T1
T3
T6
TD
TS
TSea
WMD
R
j
B
W
Table 2
(a) Summary of lower and upper bound values for the optimal design of MSF processes.
(b) A summary of inequality constraint parameters for MSF optimization model.
(a)
Unit
ppm
kJ/kgK
kJ/kgK
kJ/kgK
m
m
C
C
C
C
C
C
m3/h
C
C
J/kg
kg/m3
kg/m3
MSF-OT
0.88
42,000
4.18513
4.17658
4.18513
0.02199
0.024069
110
30
114
25
1122
1.4
2346.3
1060
1000
MSF-M
0.88
42,000
4.18513
4.17658
4.18513
0.02199
0.024069
110
30
114
25
1122
1.4
2346.3
1060
1000
MSF-BR
0.88
42,000
4.18513
4.17658
4.18513
0.02199
0.024069
3
34
110
28
30
114
25
1122
1.4
1.78
2346.3
1060
1000
(b)
Unit
Value
m3/d
26,928
m3/d
m3/d
1000
750
$/m prod
$/m3 prod
$/m3 prod
$/m3 prod
0.0963
5500
0.024
0.03
0.082
0.1
MSF-BR
Variable
Unit
WM
WMF
WMSC
RH
LT
NR
UB
Uj
UR
m3/h
m3/h
m3/h
kW/m2 K
kW/m2 K
kW/m2 K
MSF-OT
MSF-M
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
2000
0.8
7
18
2.7
2.7
2.7
3000
2
10
30
3.7
3.7
3.7
5500
7
15
2.7
2.7
10,000
15
50
3.7
3.7
5500
7
15
2.7
2.7
10,500
15
50
3.7
3.7
(b)
Constraints
Unit
Lower
Upper
Brine loading
VB
Vj
VR
CMBD or Clast
ABS(1 UBcal / UB)
ABS(1 Ujcal / Uj)
ABS(1 URcal / UR)
m3/h m width
m/s
m/s
m/s
ppm
900
0.9144
0.9144
0.9144
1200
1.8288
1.8288
1.8288
80,000
0.001
0.001
0.001
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 nondeterministic 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 individual and several other individuals of the same population. This is facilitated by adding the weighted difference between any two population
vectors to a third population vector [13]. Further, the parent vector is replaced 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 generations 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
DE
SQP
MS-SQP
350
400
500
1000
700
1000
0.9
0.9
DE-SQP
500
1000
0.9
0.9
(b)
Optimization MSF-BR
method
[WM, RH, NR, UB, UR, Uj,
LT]
MSF-M
[WMSC, NR, UB, UR, LT]
MSF-OT
[WMF, NR, UB, UR,
LT]
SQP
[9543, 26,
3.4517, 3.6275,
8.12]
[9561, 28,
3.5454,
3.5514.7.65]
[9756, 27,
3.4624,
3.6454.7.69]
[9628, 26,
3.3515, 3.5554,
7.18]
[9643, 28,
3.3217, 3.3275,
7.98]
[9500, 23,
3.4108, 3.7398,
8.62]
MS-SQP
DE-SQP
35
Fig. 2. Bar chart depicting the performance of optimization methods for MSF desalination
processes.
36
Table 4
Optimal independent and dependent variable values for the MSF-BR process and alternate optimization methods.
Independent variables
Dependent variables
Variable
Unit
DE
SQP
MS-SQP*
DE-SQP*
Literature [3]
WM
RH
LT
UB
UR
Uj
NR
T2
TBD
CMBD
WS
AB
AR
Aj
WMF
WMCW
WMBD
AT
Cost
m3/h
m
kW/m2 K
kW/m2 K
kW/m2 K
C
C
ppm
m3/h
m2
m2
m2
m3/h
m3/h
m3/h
m2
$/m3
2794.4
1.0499
7.62
3.359
3.297
3.042
22
102.00
32.35
70,178
130.365
3470.5
3297.1
3044.7
8721.0
5926.6
1672.4
85140.8
1.0785
2809.8
1.0001
7.92
3.362
3.161
3.114
19
102.03
32.38
67,092
139.860
3165.7
3137.9
2992.8
8732.6
6257.5
1353.1
74902.1
1.1000
2617.8
1.0339
7.98
3.7
3.294
3.687
20
102.03
32.34
67,093
129.900
3304.4
2588.7
2868.4
8856.5
6238.8
1495.8
63683.6
1.0852
2784.4
1.0149
7.61
3.254
3.436
2.858
18
101.50
32.34
70,038
135.175
3655.47
2510.47
3348.69
9021.9
6237.5
1662.4
58799.61
1.0843
2790.0
1.0129
7.62
3.260
3.443
2.864
18
101.70
32.41
70,178
135.446
3662.8
2515.5
3355.4
9040.0
6250.0
1668.0
59008.8
1.104
The specic heat transfer area is dened as the ratio of total heat
transfer area to the total amount of fresh water produced i.e.
Specific heat transfer area
total heat transfer area
A
W MD
total amount of fresh water produced
The overall plant recovery is dened as the percentage of total seawater intake that gets converted to the fresh water i.e.
Table 5
Optimal independent and dependent variable values for the MSF-M process and optimization methods.
Independent variables
Dependent variables
Variable
Unit
DE
SQP*
MS-SQP*
DE-SQP*
WMSC
NR
LT
UB
UR
T2
CMF
TBD
CMBD
WS
AB
AR
WMF
WMBD
AT
Cost
m3/h
m
kW/m2 K
kW/m2 K
C
ppm
C
ppm
m3/h
m2
m2
m3/h
m3/h
m2
$/m3
5852.7
26
8.32
3.699
3.671
101.48
70,772
36.52
70,803
147.790
3661.3
1964.7
9727.1
8605.1
54743.5
1.198
5475.1
22
9.99
3.626
3.665
100.28
56,342
37.18
56,399
171.429
3907.2
1992.9
9745.3
8623.3
47751.0
1.2445
5617.8
22
8.15
3.7
3.499
101.42
75,829
36.57
75,905
148.434
3496.5
2700.0
9755.3
8633.3
62896.5
1.22
5784.4
22
9.98
3.625
3.664
100.23
56,314
37.16
56,370
171.343
3905.2
1991.9
9740.4
8618.5
47705.2
1.2135
37
Table 6
Optimal independent and dependent variable values for the MSF-OT process and optimization methods.
Independent variables
Dependent variables
Variable
Unit
DE*
SQP*
MS-SQP*
DE-SQP*
WMF
LT
UB
UR
NR
T2
TBD
CMBD
WS
AB
AR
WMBD
AT
Cost
m3/h
m
kW/m2 K
kW/m2 K
C
C
ppm
m3/h
m2
m2
m3/h
m2
$/m3
10043.2
10.18
3.7
3.456
23
101.48
31.4
48,035
153.450
3053.3
3530
1672.4
84243.3
1.2251
10061.9
8.0
3.410
3.468
21
103.6
31.39
47,624
153.490
3094.4
4397.0
1353.1
95431.4
1.2856
10072.1
11.8
3.70
3.498
21
103.6
31.4
47,623
158.450
3285.1
3596.9
1495.8
78820.0
1.2785
10056.9
11.79
3.691
3.495
21
103.51
31.37
47584.9
157.363
3249.8
3594.0
1662.4
78663.9
1.2534
Table 7
Optimality of thermodynamic, heat transfer and cost function variable values for MSF desalination processes.
Performance model
TPR
sA, m2/(kg/h)
sF
MSF-OT*
MSF-M
MSF-BR
MSF-BR literature [3]
10.34
7.59
8.61
8.28
0.005867
0.005014
0.008745
0.008497
8.95
8.66
7.77
8.06
sWCW
5.28
5.57
OPR
11.17
11.78
12.87
10.70
38
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].
Fig. 4 panels (e) and (f) respectively illustrate the variation of total
optimal objective function value (inclusive of penalties) and total optimal 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 conguration provided infeasible solutions among the three
different process congurations. Using DE, the optimal water production cost for the MSF-M process is 1.1980 $/m3 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 parameters 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 increased 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 $/m3 respectively for MSF-OT, MSF-M,
MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature processes. From a variation in feed concentration 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 variation 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 effect of feed concentration in inuencing the product ow rates, concentrations 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 proles lowered by 2.232.65% than
those reported in the literature for the variation in feed seawater concentration. 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 solutions 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
W MS
total steam intake fed to plant
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.
varied from 6 to 9, where the DE based optimal costs have been evaluated 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 desalination processes [3]. Fig. 5(c) presents the variation of optimal water
40
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]).
production cost as a function of chemical cost multiplier for MSF processes. 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 $/m3 with increasing chemical
cost multiplier (0.252) for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data. As it is apparent in other sensitivity analyses, the lowest
water production cost trends have been obtained in this work in comparison with the existing data trends of the MSF-BR process in the literature. The freshwater production cost varied linearly with chemical cost
multiplier in the range of 0.252. For such a case, the corresponding
slopes of the trend lines are 0.09, 0.11, 0.071, and 0.072. These slope
values are indicative towards water production cost sensitivity with respect to chemical cost multiplier. Thus the water cost ($/m3) will increase by 9 /m3, 11 /m3, 7.1 /m3, and 7.2 /m3 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 nonlinearly 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 $/m3. A further increase in the chemical
cost multiplier from 0.5 to 2.0 enabled a linear enhancement for the optimal 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
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 variation 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 respect 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 $/m3 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 /m3, 49 /m3, 43 /m3
and 44 /m3 respectively for a unit increase in steam cost for the said sequence of processes. The obtained simulation based trends indicate that
MSF-BR provides the lowest water cost trends which are placed marginally 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 1.43
2.21% 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 $/
m3 for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data [3].
Hence, signicantly higher cost trends can be observed for MSF-OT
and MSF-M processes but not for MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature data.
The obtained cost trends with respect to labor cost multiplier indicate
that the variations are linear with slopes of 0.11, 0.10, 0.10 and 0.10
for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR and MSF-BR literature [3] respectively.
Thus the water cost ($/m3) will increase by 11 /m3, 10.3 /m3, 10 /
m3, and 10 /m3 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
41
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 $/m3 respectively for MSF-OT, MSF-M, MSF-BR
and MSF-BR literature data [3]. The corresponding slopes of the obtained cost trends are 0.13, 0.11, 0.11 and 0.11. Thus the water cost ($/m3)
will increase by 12.9 /m3, 11.2 /m3, 10.9 /m3, and 10.9 /m3 respectively 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 $/m3 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 /m3,
8.4 /m3, 8.2 /m3, and 8.2 /m3 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 $/m3 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 increasing TBT. Based on these increasing trends, the slopes of the various
plots have been evaluated (5.9 103, 5.6 10 3, 2.5 103, and
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
0.59 /m3, 0.56 /m3, 0.25 /m3, and 0.28 /m3 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 multiplier (43 /m3) N labor cost multiplier (10 /m3) N power cost multiplier
(8.2 /m3) N spares cost multiplier (8.2 /m3) N chemical cost multiplier
(7.1 /m3) N TBT (0.25 /m3) N feed concentration (fairly constant). In
other words, the optimal freshwater production cost for the MSF processes 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
6. Conclusions
Based on the global optimization approach involving differential
evolution algorithm, this work provided signicant insights and inferences with respect to the comparative assessment of alternate MSF processes, non-deterministic/deterministic optimization methods and
pertinent sensitivity analysis. The modeling approach adopted in this
work might refer to design solutions under stringent uncertainty,
given the inability to generate feasible solutions with methods other
than DE. The following conclusions are applicable from the insights deduced in this work.
Firstly, DE has been proven to be effective to generate feasible
optimal design variable values for MSF-BR, MSF-M but not MSF-OT processes. Compared to the literature optimal value, DE provided a reduction of about 2.31% in the optimal freshwater production cost. This is
due to the identication of better optimal decision 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 and 22] for variable set [WM, RH, LT, UB, UR, Uj and NR] respectively where the optimal freshwater production cost corresponds
to 1.0785 $/m3. Secondly, the deterministic optimization algorithms
such as SQP, MS-SQP and DE-SQP could not provide better solution
than the DE. This is primarily due to the dependence of the optimal variable value set and objective function on the initial guess values. Thus,
compared to other optimization methods, DE would provide better initialization 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
the MATLAB based optimization toolbox uses default optimization algorithm 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 constraint resolution appears to be better tackled by DE than any other optimization method. A further resolution of the generated solutions has
also been demonstrated in this work i.e., to alter certain design parameter value for chamber width. Fifthly, the chosen literature might be relatively 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 optimization solutions in conjunction with SQP, MS-SQP and DE-SQP. It is anticipated that DE would be able to provide condence in the solutions
generated with complex and hybrid process congurations involving
MSF process congurations. This will be addressed in subsequent research 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
MEE
MS-SQP
MSF
MSF-BR
MSF-M
MSF-OT
NG
NLP
NP
OF
OPR
ppm
RO
sA
sF
sWCW
SQP
TA
TBT
TDM
TDS
TPR
USA
VC
multi-effect evaporator
multistart-sequential quadratic programming
multi-stage ash
brine recycle (BR) multistage ash system (MSF)
brine-mixing (M) multistage ash system (MSF)
once through (OT) multistage ash system (MSF)
maximum number of generations
non-linear programming
population size
objective function
overall plant recovery
parts per million
reverse osmosis
specic heat transfer area
specic feed ow rate
specic cooling feed ow rate
sequential quadratic programming
Thomas algorithm
top brine temperature
tridiagonal matrix
total dissolved solids
thermal performance
United States of America
vapor-compression
Symbols
a
AB
Aj
AR
AT
CDCC
CDCLIC
CIC
CICC
Clast
CMBD
CMF
CMR
CMSMF
COMC
Cp
CPR
Cpj
ID
LT
M1
Nj
NR
OD
RH
S12
sWCW
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
R
j
B
W
1/100th $ (cent)
average boiling point rise, heat recovery section, C
average boiling point rise, heat rejection section, C
average latent heat of vaporization, kJ/kg
average brine density, kg/m3
average pure water density, kg/m3
objective function (cost), $/m3
43
[6] E.A.M. Hawaidi, I.M. Mujtaba, Simulation and optimization of MSF desalination process for xed freshwater demand: impact of brine heater fouling, Chem. Eng. J. 165
(2010) 545553.
[7] E. Ali, Understanding the operation of industrial MSF plants part II: optimization and
dynamic analysis, Desalination 143 (2002) 7391.
[8] F. Mjallia, N. Abdel-Jabbar, H. Qiblawey, H. Ettouney, Neural and genetic based techniques for solving the MSF model as opposed to conventional numerical methods,
17th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering. ESCAPE17,
2007.
[9] H. El-Dessouky, S. Bingulac, Solving equations simulating the steady-state behavior
of the multi-stage ash desalination process, Desalination 107 (1996) 171193.
[10] H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney, Fundamentals of Salt Water Desalination, Elsevier
Science, USA, 2002.
[11] H. El-Dessouky, I. Alatiqi, H. Ettouney, Process synthesis: the multi-stage ash desalination system, Desalination 115 (1998) 155179.
[12] H.H. Rosenbrock, An automatic method for nding the greatest or least value of a
function, Comput. J. 3 (1960) (17518).
[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.
J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 33 (2011) 94105.
[14] I.S. Al-Mutaz, M.A. Soliman, Simulation of MSF desalination plantsDesalination 74
(1989) 317326.
[15] IDA, The 19th IDA Worldwide Desalting Plant Inventory, International desalination
association, Topseld, MA, USA, 2006.
[16] J.H. Beamer, D.J. Wilde, The simulation and optimization of a single effect multistage ash desalination plant, Desalination 9 (1971) 259275.
[17] J.M. Ramirez, J.M. Gonzalez, T.O. Ruben, An investigation about the impact of the
optimal reactive power dispatch solved by DE, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 33
(2011) 236244.
[18] K.A. Al-shayji, S. Al-wadyei, A. Elkamel, Modelling and optimization of a multistage
ash desalination process, Eng. Optim. 37 (2005) 591607.
[19] M.A. Mandil, E.E. Abdel Ghafour, Optimization of multi-stage ash evaporation
plants, Chem. Eng. Sci. 25 (1970) 611621.
[20] M. Abduljawad, U. Ezzeghni, Optimization of Tajoura MSF desalination plant, Desalination 254 (2010) 2328.
[21] M.C. Marcovecchio, S.F. Mussati, N.J. Scenna, P.A. Aguirre, in: M. Schorr (Ed.),
Optimization of Hybrid Desalination Processes Including Multi Stage Flash and
Reverse Osmosis Systems 2011, pp. 312334, http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/15048
(CC BY-NC-SA).
[22] M.C. Marcovecchio, P.A. Aguirre, N.J. Scenna, Global optimal design of reverse osmosis networks for seawater desalination: modelling and algorithm, Desalination 184
(2005) 259271.
[23] M.G. Marcovecchio, S.F. Mussati, P.A. Aguirre, N.J. Scenna, Optimization of hybrid desalination processes including multi stage ash and reverse osmosis systems,
Desalination 182 (2005) 111122.
[24] M.H.K. Manesh, H. Janalizadeh, A.M.B. Marigorta, M. Amidpour, M.H. Hamedi, Optimal design of integrated total site utility-multistage ash desalination plant, Desalin.
Water Treat. 52 (2014) 12871298.
[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.
[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 capacity MSF brine circulation plants, Desalination 204 (2007) 501514.
[29] P.J. Thomas, S. Bhattacharyya, A. Petra, G.P. Rao, Steady state and dynamic simulation of multi-stage ash desalination plants: a case study, Comput. Chem. Eng. 22
(1998) 15151529.
[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
1995, pp. 15.
[31] S.A. Abdul-Wahab, J. Abdo, Optimization of multistage ash desalination process by
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 optimization of multi-stage ash desalination plant, Desalin. Water Treat. 1 (2009)
86106.
[33] S. Mussati, P. Aguirre, N.J. Scenna, Optimal MSF plant design, Desalination 138
(2001) 341347.
[34] S. Tayyebi, M. Alishiri, The control of MSF desalination plants based on inverse
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.
[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.
[37] M. Valipour, M.E. Banihabib, S.M.R. Behbahani, Monthly inow forecasting using
autoregressive articial neural network, J. Appl. Sci. 12 (20) (2012) 21392147.
[38] M. Valipour, M.E. Banihabib, S.M.R., Comparison of the ARMA, ARIMA, and the
autoregressive articial neural network models in forecasting the monthly inow
of Dez dam reservoir, J. Hydrol. 476 (2013) 433441.
[39] M. Valipour, A.A. Montazar, Optimize of all effective inltration parameters in
furrow irrigation using visual basic and genetic algorithm programming, Aust. J.
Basic Appl. Sci. 6 (6) (2012) 132.