Chem. Eng. Technol. 2007, 30, No.

12, 1633–1641 1633

Jiangang Ji1,2 Research Article

Ruzhu Wang2
Lixin Li1 Simulation and Analysis of a Single-Effect
Hai Ni1
Thermal Vapor-Compression Desalination
1
Shanghai Marine Equipment
Research Institute, Shanghai,
System at Variable Operation Conditions
P. R. China.
2 A mathematical model is developed to analyze a single-effect thermal vapor com-
Institute of Refrigeration
and Cryogenics, Shanghai Jiao pression (TVC) desalination system. The effects of the variation of operation con-
Tong University, Shanghai, ditions such as the intake seawater temperature and the mass flow rate of cooling
P. R. China. water on the system performance are investigated for a specific desalination unit.
The system performance is found to decrease when the intake seawater tempera-
ture is different from the design value. By adjusting the mass flow rate of cooling
water, a better system performance can be obtained when the intake seawater
temperature differs from the design conditions. Decreasing the cooling water flow
rate to values lower than the design value can lead to a better performance when
the intake seawater temperature is lower than the design value, and the system
performance reaches a peak point when the cooling water flow rate decreases to a
definite level. A better performance can also be obtained by increasing the cooling
water flow rate to values higher than design value, when the intake seawater tem-
perature is higher than the design value and the system performance also reaches
a peak point when the cooling water flow rate increases to a definite level.

Keywords: Desalination, Modeling, Simulation, Single effect, Vapor pressure

Received: August 15, 2007; revised: September 27, 2007; accepted: September 28, 2007
DOI: 10.1002/ceat.200700303

1 Introduction Regardless of the rapid development achieved in the produc-

The vapor compression (VC) distillation process is generally
used for small- and medium-scale desalting units. The heat for
evaporating the water comes from the compression of vapor
rather than the direct exchange of heat from steam produced
in a boiler or other heat sources. Two primary methods that
are used to compress vapor to produce enough heat to evapo-
rate the incoming seawater are mechanical vapor compression
(MVC) and thermal vapor compression (TVC). The MVC sys-
tem was developed with the focus on providing desalinated
water to small communities. Originally, the capacity of the
MVC systems was limited to a production rate of 500 m3/day.
However, development in the capacity of the mechanical com-
pressor increased the production rate for the MVC system to a
value close to 3000 m3/day [1, 2]. There are also literature re-
ports [2] that MVC units with a production rate up to
10000 m3/day, are also under development.
– of various cases of waste heat utilization and cogeneration
Correspondence: Dr. J. G. Ji (jiangang704@yahoo.com), Shanghai
Marine Equipment Research Institute, Shanghai, 200031, P. R. China.
tion capacity of MVC systems, their operation face two main
drawbacks. These are the limitation on the compressor capaci-
ty and the mechanical wear of the moving parts of the com-
pressor [3]. The latter disadvantage is eliminated in the ther-
mal vapor compression configuration [4]. The thermal vapor
compression process is used on an industrial scale in the MEE
system. The combined system is particularly attractive due to
its high performance ratio, low number of effects, good flex-
ibility to load variation, simple geometry and absence of mov-
ing parts [5]. The last feature makes the process robust and
considerably minimizes the skill required in maintenance and
stocking of spare parts.
Some research has been carried out to investigate the char-
acteristics and the performance of MEE-TVC. The literature
[6–9] describes the process characteristics of MEE-TVC and
compares its features with other desalination processes. The re-
cent report by Ophir and Lokiec [10] described the design
principles and various considerations concerning advanced
MED processes including MED-TVC, which result in the most
economical desalination system. It also provided an overview
MED plants, which have been operating for many years. Sever-
al studies [11–17] have been conducted to examine how the

© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.cet-journal.com

1634 J. Ji et al.
design parameters affect the system performance for single and
multiple effect TVC systems. El-Dessouky and Ettouney [11]
presented an analysis for single- and multi-effect TVC systems,
which focused on the parameters that affect the product cost.
Darwish and El-Dessouky [12] conducted a study that com-
pared the specific available energy, performance ratio and spe-
cific heat transfer area for MEE, MEE-TVC and MSF. Al-Ju-
wayhel et al. [13] performed an analysis and comparison for
four different types of single effect desalination systems com-
bined with vapor compression heat pumps, which include
thermal (TVC), mechanical (MVC), absorption (ABVC) and
adsorption (ADVC). Hamed et al. [14] conducted and evalu-
ated the performance of TVC and compared it against an ac-
tual plant. The exergy analysis was performed and compared
with conventional MEE and MVC desalination systems. The
results showed that TVC yields the least exergy destruction
among the three systems. Darwish and Al-Najem [15] con-
ducted a parametric analysis using the first and second law of
thermodynamics for single- and multi-effect TVC systems.
Their work showed that the steam ejector and the evaporator
are the main sources of exergy destruction. Choi et al. [16]
tested the thermal performance of four developed MED-TVC
distillers whose capacities are of 1, 2.2, 3.5 and 4.4 migd, by a
steady-state simulation program based on the first and second
law of thermodynamics. The study showed that most of the
specific exergy losses in the MED-TVC desalination system oc-
curred in the TVC and the associated effects. Alasfour et al.
[17] presented an exergy analysis of three different multi-effect
thermal vapor compression desalting system configurations,
which included ME-TVC, ME-TVC with regenerative feed hea-
ters and ME-TVC coupled with a conventional MEE system.
The results also showed that irreversibilities in the steam ejec-
tor and evaporators are the main sources of exergy destruction
in the three configurations.
Modeling, simulation and analysis of the single effect system
forms the basis of the current study of the MEE system and the
MEE combined with vapor compression. The steam ejector is
one of the most important components and its performance is
sensitive to the operation variables for the TVC desalination
system. Generally, the steam ejector attains optimum perfor-
mance at the design conditions and varies considerably while
the operation conditions are different from the design point
values, which further affects the system performance. Most of
the previous studies only focused on how the design operation
variables affected the system performance and adopted many
simplifying assumptions, especially for the steam ejector. It is
rare to find research that conducts the performance analysis
for TVC desalination systems under off-design conditions.
This study focuses on the development of a detailed steady-
state mathematical model for the single effect TVC desalina-
tion process. The performance evaluation and simulation of
the steam ejector is simulated with a subroutine code by the
application of the thermal dynamic method. The model con-
siders the variation of the physical properties of water and
steam, which are calculated using a subroutine program based
on the IAPWS 1997 industrial formulation for water and
steam [18]. The variation of the physical properties of seawater
with temperature and salt concentration, boiling point eleva-
tion and pressure drop in the demister are also considered. As
© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2007, 30, No. 12, 1633–1641
well as conducting the thermal simulation and analysis for de-
sign purposes, the system performance variation is also simu-
lated and analyzed while the operating variables differ from
the expected design conditions, e.g., the temperature of intake
seawater varies with the different operating seasons. Due to
the fact that many studies have been carried out to analyze the
effects of design parameters on the system performance, this
study mainly focuses on the analysis of the effects of the varia-
tion of operation conditions on the system performance for a
specific designed TVC desalination unit.
2 Process Description
The single effect thermal vapor compression seawater desalina-
tion process in its simplest form, is illustrated schematically in
Fig. 1. The main components of the unit are the evaporator,
the steam ejector and the feed heater or the condenser.
A known mass of seawater (Mcw + Mf ) at temperature Tcw,
and salt concentration Sf, is introduced into the tube side of
the condenser where its temperature increases to Tf1). The
cooling water, Mcw, is dumped back to the sea. The feed sea-
water, Mf, is chemically treated and de-aerated before being
pumped to the evaporator where its temperature is raised from
Tf to the boiling temperature, T1. The boiling temperature, T1,
is higher than the saturated temperature corresponding to the
evaporation pressure by the boiling point elevation (BPE) of
the feed seawater. The vapor generated therein, flows through
the demister to remove the entrained brine droplets. The tem-
perature of the vapor departing the demister is lower than T1
due to the temperature depression brought about by the fric-
tional pressure loss in the demister. The vapor flows from the
demister to the condenser, where it splits into two portions:
the first part condenses outside the tubes of the condenser,
while the rest is entrained by the steam ejector, where it is
compressed by motive steam to raise the pressure and temper-
ature and then it is introduced into the evaporator heat side as
the heat source.
Steam Ejector
Motive Steam
Mixed steam
Mp Me Pm,Tm Mp Pp,Tp
Entrained Steam
Me, Pc,Tc
Intake Seawater
Condenser
Mf M Sf ,Tcw
Demister
Feed Water
Mf Sf ,Tf Md, Pv,Tv
Evaporator
Cooling Water Rejected brine Return to boiler Product Water
M Sf ,Tf Mb Sb T1 Mp Md
Figure 1. Single effect thermal vapor compression desalination
system.
–
1) List of symbols at the end of the paper.
http://www.cet-journal.com
Chem. Eng. Technol. 2007, 30, No. 12, 1633–1641 Modeling 1635

3 Process Modeling with


A ˆ …6:71 ‡ 6:34
10 2 T ‡ 9:74
10 5 T 2 †
10 3
3.1 Overall Mass and Salt Balances (8)
B ˆ …22:238 ‡ 9:59
10 3 T ‡ 9:42
10 5 T 2 †
10 8

Eqs. (1) and (2) describe the overall mass and salt balances: The above equation is valid for the values of S from 20–
160 g/kg and of T from 20–180 °C.
Mf = Md + Mb (1) The dimensions of the required heat transfer surface area in
the evaporator, Ae, are obtained from:
Mb = Md [Sf/(Sb – Sf )] (2) Qe
Ae ˆ (9)
Ue …Tm T1 †
where M is the mass flow rate and S is the salt concentration of
the seawater. The subscripts f, d and b denote the feed water, where Tm is the condensation temperature of the steam in the
product water and brine. heat side, Ue is the overall heat transfer coefficient and can be
obtained from the correlation developed by El-Dessouky et al.
[20, 21]:
3.2 Evaporator
Ue = 1969.5 + 12.057 T1 – 8.5989 · 10–2 T12 + 2.565 · 10–4 T13
The heating vapor flowing from the steam ejector and ad- (10)
mitted into the evaporator, (Mp + Me), is used to raise the
temperature of the feed seawater, Mf, from the inlet tempera- The correlation in Eq. (10) applies to a specific range of de-
ture, Tf, to the boiling temperature, T1. In addition, it supplies sign and operating parameters, which include steam velocity,
the latent heat required to evaporate the specified mass of va- concentration, temperature and physical properties. In addi-
por, Md. Therefore: tion, the correlations are dependent on the tube material, di-
Z T1 mensions, arrangement and thermal load. Further details of
Qe ˆ …Mp ‡ Me †…hm ″ ′
hm † ˆ Mf Cp dT ‡ Md …hv″ hv′ † correlations for a range of the above parameters can be found
Tf in the literature [21].
(3)
where Qe is the thermal load of the evaporator and h is the
specific enthalpy and can be attained by a subroutine program 3.3 Condenser
for calculating the physical properties of the water and steam.
The subscripts m and v denote the condensation side (mixed The heat transfer between the condensing vapor and the feed
heating steam) and evaporation side of the evaporator, and water in the condenser can be written in terms of an overall
superscripts ″ and ′ denote the vapor state and liquid state, re- heat transfer coefficient, Uc, condenser heat transfer area, Ac,
spectively. Cp is the specific heat at constant pressure of the and the logarithmic mean temperature difference, (LMTD)c.
seawater and is given by [19]: Thus:
Z
Cp = (A +B T +C T2 + D T3) · 10–3 (4) Tf
Qc ˆ …Mf ‡ Mcw † Cp dT ˆ Mc …hc″ hc′ †
Tcw
The variables A, B, C and D are evaluated as a function of
the water salinity, S, as follows [19]: ˆ …Md Me †…hc″ hc′ † ˆ U c Ac …LMTD†c …11†
8
>
> A ˆ 4206:8 6:6197S ‡ 1:2288
10 2 S2 where subscript cw denotes the cooling water. Mc is the mass
<
B ˆ 1:1262 ‡ 5:4178
10 2 S 2:2719
10 4 S2 flow rate of the condensation vapor in the condenser. The fac-
…5†
> C ˆ 1:2026
10 2 5:3566
10 4 S ‡ 1:8906
10 6 S2
> tor (LMTD)c is defined as:
:
D ˆ 6:8777
10 7 ‡ 1:517
10 6 S 4:4268
10 9 S2
Tf Tcw
…LMTD†c ˆ (12)
These equations are valid over the following ranges: 0 ≤ S ≤ ln‰…Tc Tcw †=…Tc Tf †Š
160 g/kg, 0 ≤ T ≤ 180 °C. The boiling temperature, T1, is high- where Tc is the condensation temperature of the condensing
er than the saturation temperature, Tv, which corresponds to vapor in the condenser. The overall heat transfer coefficient of
the pressure in the evaporator vapor space due to boiling point the condenser, Uc, can be obtained from the correlation devel-
elevation, BPE, Thus: oped by El-Dessouky et al. [20, 21]:

T1 = Tv + BPE (6) Uc = 1719.4 + 3.2063 Tv + 1.5971 · 10–2 Tv2 – 1.9918 · 10–4 Tv3
(13)
The boiling point elevation of seawater is a function of the
temperature and salinity and is usually calculated from the fol- As mentioned above, the details of the valid range of the
lowing empirical formula [19]: above correlation can be found in the literature [21].

BPE = S (A + BS) (7)

© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.cet-journal.com

1636 J. Ji et al. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2007, 30, No. 12, 1633–1641

3.4 Demister 3.5.1 Overall Mass Balance

The pressure loss while the vapor generated from evaporator is The overall mass balance is given by Eq. (16):
flowing through the demister can be given by the following
correlation [11]: Mp + Me = Mm = (1 + u) Mp (16)

DPde = 9.583 · 10–2 qde1.597 Vde0.7197 Lde1.388 (14) where M is the mass flow rate and the subscripts p, e and m
define the motive steam, the entrained steam and mixed steam
where qde, Vde and Lde denote the demister pad density, vapor (compression steam). u is the entrainment ratio of the ejector
velocity in the demister and thickness of the demister pad, and is defined as:
respectively. The correlation is valid over the following
Me
parameter ranges: 1 ≤ Vde ≤ 9 m/s, 310 ≤ qde ≤ 470 kg/m3, and uˆ (17)
100 ≤ Lde ≤ 200 mm. Therefore, the temperature loss with va- Mp
por flow, DTde, can be obtained according to the correspond-
ing saturated pressure difference. Therefore, the relation be-
3.5.2 Primary Flow Through the Nozzle
tween the condensation temperature in the condenser and the
boiling temperature can be written as:
 Taking into account the energy losses, the real velocity is given
pc ˆ pv Dpde by:
(15)
Tc ˆ T1 BPE DTde q
Vp1 ˆ u1 2…hp hp1s † ‡ Vp2 (18)

3.5 Steam Ejector The real enthalpy at the nozzle exit is:

The most important and critical step in modeling the TVC de- hp1 = hp + (Vp2 – Vp12)/2 (19)
salination system is the evaluation of the performance of the
steam ejector. The main data required for analyzing the steam The motive steam reaches the choking condition at the
ejector is the determination of the mass of entrained vapor per throat of nozzle, namely the flow velocity is equal to the local
unit mass of motive vapor, u, given the pressure of the motive sonic velocity, and one obtains:
s


steam, suction pressure and discharge pressure (compression q dp
pressure). The typical ejector consists of four parts, i.e., nozzle, Vp ˆ u1 2…hp hp † ‡ Vp2 ˆ ap ˆ v (20)
dv s
suction chamber, mixing chamber and diffuser, as shown in
Fig. 2. Applying the continuity equation, one obtains:
The main methods available in the literature to simulate the
performance of a steam ejector include empirical correlation Mp = Vp fp/vp = Vp1 fp1/vp1 = Vp* fp*/vp* (21)
and chart [11, 22], the gas dynamic method [23], the thermal
dynamic method [24–26] and CFD [27]. The empirical corre-
lation and chart is the simplest method but is not adaptable to
off-design conditions. The gas dynamic method is based on 3.5.3 Entrained Flow from Inlet to Entrance of Mixing
the ideal gas assumption and does not include the impact of Chamber (Section 2-2, Fig. 2)
the real gas property variations under the two-phase region in
the thermal vapor compression desalination application. The The entrained flow does not mix with the primary flow before
general thermal dynamic method simplifies the mixing pro- the entrance of the mixing chamber, and therefore, the state of
cess, which affects the simulation accuracy. The CFD method the entrained flow at section 2-2 can be obtained through the
is more accurate than the other methods, but the simulation following equations:
process is more complicated and is difficult to couple with the 8 p
system simulation. Therefore, the modified thermal dynamic < Ve2 ˆ u2 2…he he2s † ‡ Ve2
method, which improves the mixing process compared to the h ˆ he ‡ …Ve2 Ve2 2 †=2 (22)
: e2
gas dynamic method, is adopted here. The mathematical mod- Me ˆ Ve fe =ve ˆ Ve2 fe2 =ve2
el is described in detail as follows. The following assumptions
are made for the simulation of the model:
I. The flow inside the ejector is steady and one-dimensional 3.5.4 Mixing of Two Stream in the Mixing Chamber (from
and all of the process is adiabatic. Section 2-2 to Section 3-3, Fig. 2)
II. After emission from the nozzle, the motive steam fans out
without mixing with the entrained steam, and the two Assuming two streams start to mix with different pressure and
streams start to mix at the entrance of the mixing chamber. velocity as two coaxial flows from the entrance of mixing
III. To account for non-ideal processes, the effects of frictional chamber, the mixture reaches equal pressure and uniform ve-
and mixing losses are taken into account by introducing locity at the mixing chamber exit. A momentum balance rela-
some coefficients into the isentropic relations. tion can be derived, as follows:

© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.cet-journal.com

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2007, 30, No. 12, 1633–1641 Modeling 1637

pp2 ˆ pp1 hp2 ˆ hp1
u3 Mp (Vp2 + u Ve2) – Mp (1 + u) V3 = (27)
fe2 ˆ f3 fp2 ˆ f3 fp1
(p3 – pp2) fp2 + (p3 – pe2) fe2 (23)
and therefore, the maximum limited flow rate of the secondary
Similarly, an energy balance relation can be derived as: flow and the maximum entrainment ratio when choke I occurs
can be written as:
(hp2 + Vp22/2) + u (he2 + Ve22/2 ) = (1 + u) (h3 + V32/2) (24) 
…Me †I ˆ Ve2 fe2 =ve2 ˆ ae fe2 =ve
(28)
…u†I ˆ …Me †I =Mp
Applying the continuity relation, the following equation can
be obtained, Eq. (25): Choke II denotes the entrained flow reaching a critical value
at some piont (section y-y) in the mixing chamber. In this case,
Vp2 fp2/vp2 = Ve2 fe2/ve2 = V3 f3/v3 (25) the entrained flow reaches a critical level and the primary flow
expands until the pressure is equal to the secondary flow.
Therefore, the following relations can be obtained:
8
< Vey ˆ ae
3.5.5 Mixed Flow Through Diffuser
ppy ˆ pey ˆ pe (29)
:f ‡ f ˆ f
py ey 3
The mixed flow passes through the diffuser and converts the
kinetic energy into pressure energy. By applying the energy Thus, the flow parameters of the primary and secondary
balance and continuity relations, the following equations can flow can be obtained through the same procedures as the two
be obtained: streams expand as mentioned above. Therefore, the maximum
limiting flow rate of the secondary flow and the maximum en-
8
< hm ˆ hp 3‡ gd …V32 Vms 2 †=2


trainment ratio when choke II occurs can be written as:
V ˆ 2…h3 hm † ‡ V32 (26) 
: m …Me †II ˆ Vey fey =vey
V3 f3 =v3 ˆ Vm fm =vm …u†II ˆ …Me †II =Mp
(30)

3.5.6 Limited Entrainment Ratio due to Choking Condition
In a one-dimensional analysis, three possible chokings can oc-
cur [22, 28]. Choke I, the choking of the entrained flow at the
entrance of mixing chamber; choke II, the choking of the en-
trained flow at some point (section y-y, shown in Fig. 2) in the
mixing chamber, and choke III, the choking of the mixed flow
at the inlet to the diffuser. Choke I denotes the entrained steam
reaching a critical value at the entrance of the mixing chamber
where the two streams just start to mix. Assuming the flow pa-
rameters and flow passage area of the primary flow at the en-
trance of the mixing chamber are the same as at the nozzle
exit:
When the mixed flow reaches critical levels, choke III occurs.
Considering the ejector configuration, this is most likely to
happen at the mixing chamber exit, i.e., the throat of the diffu-
ser. The mixed flow parameters in this condition can be ob-
tained through the reverse procedure of the mixed flow in the
diffuser mentioned above by applying the velocity of the mixed
flow equal to the local sonic velocity for the given back pres-
sure of the diffuser exit. Therefore, the maximum limited flow
rate of the mixed flow and the maximum entrainment ratio
when choke III occurs can be obtained from:

…Mm †III ˆ am f3 =vm
(31)
…u†III ˆ …Mm †III =Mp 1

suction chamber mixing chamber diffuser

2 y 3 m

Ve2
nozzle Vp2
Pm Tm Vm
M p Pp Tp V p V3
f p* fp1 fp2 f3
motive steam 1 discharge compressed
throat vapor to evaporator

e 2 y 3 m

Me Te Ve
entrained steam

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of steam ejector.

© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.cet-journal.com

1638 J. Ji et al. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2007, 30, No. 12, 1633–1641

The corresponding computer simulation program is devel- where PR is the performance ratio, which is defined as the
oped according to the above mathematical model and verified amount of product water per unit mass of motive steam.
by comparison with the experimental results presented in the
literature [22]. The simulation program can then be coupled
into the system performance simulation model as a subrou- 3.7 Solution Procedure
tine.
The solution procedures for the simulation of the above model
are shown in Fig. 3. A subroutine code for calculating the
3.6 System Performance Variables properties of water and water vapor are embedded in the sim-
ulation program.
The main variable affect on the cost of product water is de-
fined as:
Md
4 Results and Discussion
PR ˆ (32)
Mp The effect of variations of the operation conditions on the sys-
tem performance for a TVC desalination plant designed at a
specific condition has been investigated. Here,
Input given design parameters
M f , M cw , Tcw , p p , T p , f p* , f p1 , f p 2 , f pm , Ae , Ac , S f , ρ de , L de
the simulation example at design is:
– Product fresh water mass flow rate,
Md = 50 t/day;
Define ϕ 1 , ϕ 2 , ϕ 3 , η d , V de – Boiling temperature, T1 = 50 °C;
– Intake seawater temperature, Tcw = 25 °C;
– Intake seawater salinity, Sf = 35 g/kg;
Calculate M p from Eqs. 18-21 – Salinity of rejected brine, Sb = 60 g/kg;
– Feed water temperature, Tf = T1 – 5;
– Compression ratio of ejector, Cr = 1.85;
Assume Tv
– Vapor velocity in demister, Vde = 6 m/s;
Pv at saturation of Tv – Thickness of demister, Lde = 100 mm;
Calculate T1 , p c , Tc from Eqs.6-8 and 14-15 – Density of demister, qde = 375 kg/m3.
The following set of specifications can be
obtained under the design condition:
Calculate Qc , M c from Eqs.11-13 – System performance ratio, PR = 1.926;
– Heat transfer area of condenser, Ac = 30 m2;
Assume M d – Heat transfer area of evaporator,
Ae = 49.2 m2;
– Mass flow rate of cooling seawater,
Calculate Qe , Tm , M m from Eqs. 3,9-10
Mcw = 26.572 t/h;
M d = M d + dM
– Mass flow rate of feed seawater, Mf = 5 t/h;
Calculate M d (new) from M d = M m − M p + M c – Diameters of main cross-section of ejector,
dp* = 22.2 mm, dp1 = 62.6 mm and d3 =
No 174 mm.
M d (new)= M d ? The effects of intake seawater temperature
on the product fresh water mass flow rate and
Yes system performance ratio, are shown in Figs. 4
Calculate u from u = ( M d − M c ) / M p and 5. It can be seen that the product fresh
water mass flow rate and performance ratio de-
Tv = Tv + dT
crease when the temperature of the intake sea-
Calculate u (new) from Eqs. 16-31 water is different from the design value. This is
because the ejector gains the best performance
only at the design condition. Any increase or
No
u (new)= u ? decrease in the intake seawater temperature re-
sults in a lower or higher boiling temperature
Yes than the design value, shown in Fig. 6, and
leads to the decrease of the ejector perfor-
Calculate PR from Eq.32
mance, shown in Fig. 7.
The variations of product fresh water mass
Output PR and M d flow rate and performance ratio with changes
in cooling seawater flow rate when the intake
Figure 3. Solution procedure of simulation. seawater temperature is different from the de-

© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.cet-journal.com

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2007, 30, No. 12, 1633–1641 Modeling 1639

55 52

50
48

45
44
Md / t/d

Md / t/d
40
40
35 Design point Design mass flow
T cw=20 ºC
36 T cw=10 ºC
30

25 32
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28
Tcw / ºC (a) Mcw / t/hr

Figure 4. Effect of intake seawater temperature on the product 50

fresh water mass flow rate.
48

2 T cw=30 ºC

Md / t/d
46 T cw=33 ºC
1.8
Design mass flow
44
1.6
PR

Design point
1.4 42
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
1.2 (b) Mcw / t/hr

1 Figure 8. Effect of mass flow rate of cooling seawater on the

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 product fresh water mass flow rate; (a) Intake seawater tempera-
Tcw / ºC ture lower than design value; (b) Intake seawater temperature
Figure 5. Effect of intake seawater temperature on the system higher than design value.
performance ratio.
2

60
1.8
55

50
PR

1.6
Tcw=20 ºC
T1 / ºC

Design mass flow

45
Tcw=10 ºC
Design point
40 1.4

35

1.2
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28

Tcw / ºC
(a) Mcw / t/hr

Figure 6. The boiling temperature varies with the intake sea- 1.9
water temperature.
1.85

1 1.8
Tcw=30 ºC
0.9
Tcw=33 ºC
PR

0.8 1.75

0.7 Design mass flow

Design point 1.7
0.6
u

0.5
1.65
0.4
0.3
1.6
0.2 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
0.1 (b) Mcw / t/hr
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Tcw / ºC Figure 9. Effect of mass flow rate of cooling seawater on the sys-
tem performance ratio; (a) Intake seawater temperature lower
Figure 7. The entrainment ratio of ejector varies with the intake than design value; (b) Intake seawater temperature higher than
seawater temperature. design value.

© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.cet-journal.com

1640 J. Ji et al. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2007, 30, No. 12, 1633–1641

sign value, are demonstrated in Figs. 8 and 9. As shown, the h [J/kg] specific enthalpy
decrease of cooling seawater flow rate (lower than the design L [m] thickness
value) results in an increase of product fresh water mass flow M [kg/s] mass flow rate
rate and performance ratio when the temperature of the intake p [Pa] pressure
seawater is lower than design value. The product fresh water PR [–] performance ratio
mass flow rate and performance ratio reach the peak point Dp [Pa] pressure loss
when the mass flow rate of cooling seawater decreases to a def- Qc [W] heat load of condenser
inite level. When this level is exceeded, the product fresh water Qe [W] heat load of evaporator and
mass flow rate and performance ratio decrease with decreases condenser
of the cooling seawater flow rate. In contrast, increasing the S [g/kg] salinity of seawater
cooling seawater flow rate (higher than the design value) re- T [°C] temperature
sults in an increase of the product fresh water mass flow rate T1 [°C] boiling temperature
and performance ratio when the temperature of the intake sea- Tc [°C] condensation temperature of
water is higher than the design value. Similarly, the product condenser
fresh water mass flow rate and performance ratio reach the Tv [°C] saturation evaporation
peak point when the mass flow rate of the cooling seawater in- temperature of evaporator
creases to a definite level. When this level is exceeded, the DT [°C] temperature decrease caused by
product fresh water mass flow rate and performance ratio de- pressure loss
crease with increases of the cooling seawater mass flow rate. u [–] entrainment ratio of steam
ejector
Uc [W/m2 °C] overall heat transfer coefficient
5 Conclusions of condenser
Ue [W/m2 °C] overall heat transfer coefficient
The present study introduces a theoretical model to analyze a of evaporator and condenser
single-effect vapor compression desalination unit. The effects v [m3/kg] specific volume
of the variations of operating condition on the system perfor- V [m/s] velocity
mance are investigated and analyzed. The following conclu-
sions are made in the light of the results and discussion pre- Greek symbols
sented in the previous sections.
u1 [–] velocity coefficient of motive
For a TVC desalination plant designed at a specific condi-
steam
tion, the product fresh water mass flow rate and performance
u2 [–] loss coefficient of mixing
ratio both decrease when the temperature of the intake sea-
u3 [–] velocity coefficient of entrained
water differs from the design value. When the intake seawater
flow
temperature is different from the design condition, a better
q [kg/m3] density
system performance can be obtained by adjusting the flow rate
gd [–] diffuser efficiency
of the cooling seawater. Decreasing the cooling water flow rate
(lower than the design value) can lead to better performance Subscripts
when the intake seawater temperature is lower than the design
value, and the system performance reaches peak point when 0 nozzle inlet
the cooling water flow rate decreases to a definite level. A bet- 1 nozzle exit
ter performance can be obtained by increasing the cooling 2 entrance of the mixing chamber
water flow rate (higher than the design value) when the intake 3 exit of the mixing chamber
seawater temperature is higher than the design value and it b brine
reaches peak point when the cooling water flow rate increases cw cooling seawater
to a definite level. de demister
d product water
e entrained steam
Symbols used f feed seawater
m mixed steam
a [m/s] local sonic velocity p motive steam
Ac [m2] heat transfer area of condenser s isentropic process
Ae [m2] heat transfer area of evaporator y location of choking for the entrained flow
BPE [°C] boiling temperature elevation of * critical condition
seawater I, II, III choke I, choke II and choke III
Cp [kJ/kg °C] specific heat at constant pressure
of the seawater Superscripts
Cr [–] compression ratio, (pm/pc) ″ vapor state
f [m2] cross-section area of ejector ′ liquid state
section

© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.cet-journal.com

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2007, 30, No. 12, 1633–1641 Modeling 1641

Reference [16] H.-S. Choi, T.-J. Lee, Y.-G. Kim, S.-L. Song, Desalination
2005, 182, 239.
[1] Z. Zimerman, Desalination 1996, 96, 51. [17] F. N. Alasfour, M. A. Darwish, A. O. Bin Amer, Desalination
[2] G. Kronenberg, F. Lokiec, Desalination 2001, 136, 189. 2005, 174, 39.
[3] H. Aly Narmine, A. K. El-Fiqi, Desalination 2003, 158, 143. [18] Release on the IAPWS Industrial Formulation 1997 for the
[4] H. T. El-Dessouky, Symp. on Desalination of Seawater with Thermal-dynamic Properties of Water and Steam, , The Inter-
Nuclear Energy, Taejon, China, May 1997. national Association for the Properties of Water and Steam,
[5] H. T. El-Dessouky, H. M. Ettouney, F. AL-Juwayhel, Trans Erlangen 1997, (http://www.iapws.org).
IChemE 2000, 78 (A), 662. [19] H. E. Homig, FICHTNER-Handbook, Vulkan-Verlag, Essen
[6] O. J. Morin, Desalination 1993, 9, 69. 1978.
[7] C. Temstet, G. Canton, J. Laborie, A. Durante, Desalination [20] H. T. El-Dessouky, I. Alatiqi, S. Bingulac, H. M. Ettouney,
1996, 105, 109. Chem. Eng. Technol. 1998, 21 (5), 437.
[8] C. Temstet, J. Laborie, IDA World Congress on Desalination [21] H. M. Ettouney, H. T. El-Dessouky, Y. Al-Roumi, Int. J. En-
and Water Science, Abu Dhabi, November 1995. ergy Res. 1999, 23, 431.
[9] T. Michels, Desalination 1993, 93, 111. [22] B. R. Power, Steam Jet Ejectors for Process Industries,
[10] A. Ophir, F. Lokiec, Desalination 2005, 182, 181. McGraw-Hill, New York 1994.
[11] H. T. El-Dessouky, H. M. Ettouney, Heat Transfer Eng. 1999, [23] E. R. Solokov, N. M. Zinger, Jet Devices, Scientific Publishers,
20 (2), 52. Peking 1977 (in Chinese, Translated by Q. Y. Huang).
[12] M. A. Darwish, H. T. El-Dessouky, Appl. Therm. Eng. 1996, [24] H. A. Narmine, A. Karameldin, M. M. Shamloul, Desalina-
18, 523. tion 1999, 123, 1.
[13] F. Al-Juwayhel, H. T. El-Dessouky, H. M Ettouney, Desalina- [25] H. T. El-Dessouky, H. M. Ettouney, I. Alatiqi, G. Al-Nuwai-
tion 1997, 114, 253. bit, Chem. Eng. Process. 2002, 41, 551.
[14] O. A. Hamed, A. M. Zamamiri, S. Aly, N. Lior, Energy Con- [26] B. J. Huang, J. M. Chang, C. P. Wang,V. A. Petrenko, Int. J.
version Manage. 1996, 37, 379. Refrigeration 1999, 22, 354.
[15] N. M. Al-Najem, M. A. Darwish, F. A. Youssef, Desalination [27] I. S. Park, S. M. Park, J. S. Ha, Desalination 2005, 182, 199.
1997, 110, 223. [28] S. K. Chou, P. R. Yang, C. Yap, Int. J. Refrigeration 2001, 24,
486.

© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim http://www.cet-journal.com