Paper THERMODYNAMICASSESS - OFMED 01 PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/322235022
DYNAMIC SIMULATION AND THERMODYNAMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE HIGH

PERFORMANCE MED-TVC PLANT AT MARAFIQ-YANBU
Conference Paper · January 2018
CITATIONS READS
0 535
1 author:
Ghazi Ozair
Power & Water Utility Company (Marafiq), Yanbu, Saudi Arabia
30 PUBLICATIONS 84 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Assessment of Brine Disposal on Marine Ecology View project
Impact of brine discharge on marine ecology View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ghazi Ozair on 03 January 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DYNAMIC SIMULATION AND THERMODYNAMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE
HIGH PERFORMANCE MED-TVC PLANT AT MARAFIQ-YANBU
Authors: Ghazi Ozair, Khalid Z. Al-Sebaie, Salman A. Al-Zahrany, Hasan Saad Al-Subhi and
Yasir A. Abuayed
Presenter: Ghazi Ozair, M.S.

Power and Water Utility Company for Jubail and Yanbu (Marafiq), PO Box: 30144, Yanbu
Industrial City: 41912, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Email address: mohammedgo@marafiq.com.sa
Abstract
The reference to Multi Effect Desalination (MED) process dates back to 1840. At various stages of
development, this technology was commercialized with vertical, horizontal and submerged tubes until the
year 1960, when Multistage Flash (MSF) process dominated the desalination market as a reliable source
to produce fresh water, particularly in the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC). But later, the developments
of MED associated with the reduction in energy consumption and increase in Gain Output Ratio (GOR)
has once again brought this technology to compete technically and economically with MSF and SWRO
processes. Hence, over the past few years the low temperature MED with Thermal Vapor Compression
(TVC) is considered to be the most efficient thermal desalination option to produce high purity product
water.
From April to May 2013, two MED-TVC units were commissioned for Marafiq in Yanbu-I on the Red
Sea coast of Saudi Arabia with a total installed capacity of 55,200 m 3/d ensuring a sustainable supply of
Potable and Process Waters to the Yanbu Industrial City and the community. This plant is characterized
as substantially energy-efficient with a high Performance Ratio of 20.5 and a GOR of 12.4. The thermal
energy recovered from the Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) provides the lower Specific Power
consumption of only 1.45 kWh/m3, compared to generally 2.0-2.5 kWh/m3, which is a remarkable energy
footprint.
Apart from the overall performance analysis and lessons learnt over more than 3 years of plant operation,
the dynamic simulation and thermodynamic analysis for MED-TVC system at Marafiq (Yanbu-I)
including the heat transfer mechanism, tube-bundles behavior, correlation of evaporation of the seawater
film falling on the horizontal tubes and the vapor condensation inside them, calculation of transferred heat,
etc., was studied in detail and presented in this paper.
The International Desalination Association World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse 2017/Sao Paulo, Brazil
REF: IDAWC17_58010- Ozair
1. Introduction
Globally the majority of currently operating thermal desalination plants are Multistage Flash (MSF) based
desalination systems. However, recently MED process is also getting potential interest due to its known
advantages over MSF, such as higher thermal efficiency, lower Top Brine Temperature (TBT), lower
number of Effects, higher Heat Transfer Coefficient (HTC), lower Capital Expenditure (CAPEX), lower
pumping power requirements, higher operating flexibility, shorter start-up time and above all any tube
leak does not contaminate the distillate because the vapors inside tubes have higher pressure than the
seawater stream outside the tubes. Darwish and El-Dessouky [1] reported that the race for second
generation of seawater desalters was settled between Reverse Osmosis (RO) and MED. From
thermodynamic and heat-transfer point of view, MED process is more efficient than MSF desalination.
Minnich, et al., [2] has reported that MED process requires lower heat-transfer areas than MSF plants.
The pumping power and specific heat transfer area requirements for MED process are ~ 20% and 50%,
respectively, that of MSF process. For having same performance lesser Effects (let’s say 10) are required
in MED compared to almost double or more Stages in MSF. It reduces the capital cost of MED Unit up
to ~ 50% that of MSF Unit.
Morin [3] compared the technical and economic aspects of low temperature MED with the conventional
MSF process and reported that MSF needs ~ 50% of the heat transfer surface area required by MED
process but the later gives ~ 50% higher recovery with ~ 30% lesser electrical energy consumption than
MSF system giving same PR values. MED also reduces Brine Recirculation Pumps’ size and the piping
and pretreatment requirements. As far as economical aspect is concerned Morin compared CAPEX and
Operating Expenditure (OPEX) for the optimized MSF and MED processes as follows: Unit CAPEX/gpd:
For MSF $8.7 at PR = 10, MED: $7.01 at PR = 8; OPEX/kgal: For MSF: $4.2, MED: $3.35 and the Total
cost of water/kgal: For MSF: $7.05, MED: $5.65 [3]. Hess and Morin [4] presented the results of two
studies comparing the cost of water production from different desalination processes and indicated that
the water cost at the distribution point for MED was $1.35/m3 and for RO $1.058/m3. However, as of
today the above comparisons of optimized costs are no more valid because technological advancements
have resulted in improved recovery and development of highly efficient Desalination processes leading to
sharp decrease in the overall costs of these processes. Currently, the electrical power consumption for
MED is half (2~2.5 kWh/m3) of MSF plant (4~5 kWh/m3), not ~ 30% as mentioned above by Morin,
because MED has no big Brine Recycle Pump, which consumes large electrical power.
Rautenbach [5] noted that substantially lower primary energy consumption could be achieved in thermal
desalination processes by MED principle. Horizontal tube MED units can be operated economically with
a very small driving force and can be designed with a high Gain Output Ratio (GOR) even for low TBTs.
Further, Rautenbach, et al., [6] specified that MED process has the potential of competing with MSF with
respect to simplicity and RO with respect to specific energy (or primary energy) consumption. Michels
[7] has highlighted some outstanding features of MED process when combined with Thermal Vapor
Compression (MED-TVC), such as low corrosion and scaling problem due to low temperature operation,
low energy consumption, short delivery time, easy O&M with proven reliability, cost of plant erection,
civil work and ~ 35% cheaper seawater intake system than MSF process, etc.
Generally, the MED process has three possible configurations, which differ in flow directions of heating
steam and evaporating brine: (i) Backward-feed configuration of MED is not appropriate for seawater
applications. (ii) Parallel-feed configuration is the most economical and efficient, if the feed brine is nearly
saturated to start boiling inside the Effects at low TBT designs. (iii) Forward-feed configuration has brine
and heating steam both flowing concurrently from higher temperature to lower temperature Effects, which
increases salt concentration of the evaporated brine from first Effect to the last. This configuration has an
advantage for moving or rejecting brine from the Effects without pumps, but all feed has to be heated to
the boiling temperature to start boiling, meaning that when a portion of heating steam condenses it does
not produce any evaporation in the first or the next Effects. It leads to less vapor generation from heating
steam, which lowers its Performance Ratio (PR) and the most concentrated brine is subjected to the coolest
temperature thereby reducing HTC due to increase in the viscosity. These are some drawbacks of this
configuration. Nevertheless, it reduces the risk of scale formation, and hence these characteristics make
this configuration suitable for high temperature applications.
Unlike MSF system, MED process consists of a complicated heat transfer mechanisms, which make it
difficult to deal with [8]. A very limited number of publications focusing on the Modeling and Simulation
of MED desalination process are available in the literature [9]. Similarly, there has been very little study
on the transient behaviors of MED. Majority of the studies are seen limited only to the steady state and
thermodynamic performance of the process [10]. Contrary to MSF, where in vapors are generated through
flashing due to sudden pressure drop in the next stage [11], the evaporation in MED Effects occurs through
transferring energy between the film of condensing steam on one side of the heat transfer surface and the
evaporation of falling film without boiling on the other side. These two heat transfer mechanisms make
the simulation of MED process a bit difficult. The dynamic simulation may be applied to simulate the
transient behavior of MED, which is significant for the development of optimal control strategy. El-
Dessouky and Assassa [12] carried out a simple analysis for the process assuming a constant heat transfer
area in each Effect, constant physical properties of water with no feed-water heaters and demonstrated the
advantages of MED-TVC system over any other thermal desalination process. Darwish and El-Hadik [13]
presented a Model with basic characteristics, thermodynamic analysis and required heat transfer area for
MED system. This Model was based on following postulates: (a) Equal specific heats for brine, distillate
and feed, (b) Equal latent heat for evaporation in all Effects, (c) Equal temperature drop between the
Effects, and (d) Equal temperature increase across feed heaters and equal amount of vapors generated in
Effects. But, Hanbury [14] used following assumptions: (a) Thermal loads in the 2nd and subsequent
Effects are identical, (b) HTC falls linearly from 2nd to the last Effect, (c) Constant specific heat and latent
heat, and (d) HTC and surface areas are equal for all feed preheaters. And Minnich, et al., [2] employed
following assumptions in their analysis: (a) No feed preheaters, (b) Same feed flow rate for all Effects, (c)
Ignore the contribution of distillate flashing, (d) Constant HTCs, (e) Constant heat transfer area in each
Effect, (f) Negligible vent mass and energy, and (g) Equal temperature losses in all Effects.
However, implementing these assumptions in Modeling and analysis of MED process caused huge
discrepancies between the predictions of the Model and actual data. Appropriate Modeling of MED
process was inevitable to understand the process elements, improve future design and predict the
performance of existing plants over a wider range of operating conditions. Later, Han and Fletcher [15]
developed an experimental correlation to calculate the boiling HTC for thin water film flowing over the
outside of smooth horizontal tubes using Reynolds (Re) and Prandtl (Pr) numbers, heat flux, viscosity,
density and thermal conductivity of the fluid. The above correlation was valid over the ranges: 770 ≤ Re
≤ 7000, 1.3 ≤ Pr 3.6, 30 ≤ Heat Flux ≤ 80 kW/m2 and 49 ≤ T ≤ 127 °C. The maximum deviation for the
equation was ± 10%. A lot of corrections are possible to calculate the HTC of condensation inside a
horizontal tube for a particular flow pattern, but the correlations for all flow patterns are very limited.
However, the correlation proposed by Shah [16] seems to be the most predictive technique for all flow
regimes in horizontal tubes and it is valid over following ranges: 2.8 ≤ Inner tube diameter ≤ 40 mm, 21
≤ Vapor phase Temp. ≤ 355 °C, 0 ≤ Vapor phase Mass fraction ≤1, 0.158 ≤ Heat loss to the surroundings
≤ 16000 kW/m2, 11 ≤ Mass flux ≤ 4000 kg/m2 s, 0.7 ≤ Pressure ≤ 1 bar, 0.0019 ≤ Prandtl Number ≤ 0.82,
350 ≤ Reynolds Number ≤100,000. The average HTC is obtained by linear interpolation between the
values of local HTC at the values of vapor phase mass fraction ranging from 0-1.
El-Nashar and Qamhiyeh [17] developed a mathematical Model for predicting the transient behavior of a
Multi-Effect Stack evaporator and proposed a correlation for the variation of HTC of the tube bundles
based on empirical and in situ data of an operational Plant in Abu Dhabi. Whereas, Aly and Marwan [18]
developed a dynamic Model for the Multi-Effect Evaporation process to study the transient behavior of
the system by forming and simultaneously solving the mass and energy equations for each Effect, which
were mostly the time-dependent Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs). They assumed that the HTC
changes linearly with temperature.
The boiling occurs over the outer surface of the heating tubes, whereas flashing takes place within the
bulk liquid. As the vapors are generated due to flashing, the brine flows to the 2nd Effect, where the
temperature to which the brine cools down is higher than the boiling temperature by non-equilibrium
allowance. This non-equilibrium allowance is a measure of flashing process efficiency. Miyatake, et al.,
[19] derived an equation to correlate the data obtained from the experiments of flashing evaporation in a
pool of pure water, which simulates to the flashing processes inside the evaporators and the flashing boxes.
The condensation temperature of vapors inside the tube bundles of 2nd Effect is less than the boiling
temperature in 1st Effect by the boiling point elevation and the saturation temperature depressions
associated with the pressure loss during vapor flow in the demister, vapor transmission lines and vapor
condensation inside horizontal tubes. Generally, the pressure loss during vapor flow through demister
pads is relatively smaller due to high void fraction of the wire-mesh pads.
For condensation inside horizontal tubes, the gravitational component of pressure drop is equal to 0.
However, the condensers are designed with a small angle of inclination so that the condensate runs out of
the end of tubes at the opposite end to the steam inlet. This makes the flow very stable compared to if the
tubes were just horizontal. It improves venting system efficiency too [20]. There are many correlations
for the void fraction, but the one suggested by Zivi for condensation inside horizontal tubes is frequently
cited in the literature [21]. Hewitt [22] recommended using Friedel correlation [23] when the value of
dynamic viscosity (liquid phase/vapor phase) is less than 1,000. In MED system this ratio ranges from
65.12 at T = 315 K to 19.856 at T = 385 K. The frictional pressure drop is calculated stepwise. The tube
is divided into a number of short lengths over which the conditions change moderately and it is assumed
that the condensation completely takes place inside the tubes. For vapor phase mass fraction in 1 st Effect
= 0, whereas in 2nd Effect vapor phase mass fraction = 1st Effect yield.
Amongst temperature losses corresponding to the pressure drop associated with the vapor flow through
the demister pad and vapor condensation outside the tubes of the preheater, the pressure drop due to the
vapor flow over the preheater tubes can be calculated roughly due to changing velocity and flow pattern
during condensation process [24]. This overall pressure drop associated with vapor condensation process
is the algebraic sum of pressure losses due to vapor flow in the nozzles and headers, static pressure head,
two-phase friction-loss and momentum change. The static head and baffle losses are insignificant in the
condensers. The momentum change or sluggish flow during condensation results in pressure recovery
[25], the magnitude of which is high in vacuum operation. The pressure regain can approach or exceed
the friction loss [26]. As most Effects in MED plants operate under vacuum, it is assumed that the pressure
recovery due to sluggish flow compensates the friction pressure drop component. Hence, net pressure drop
and saturation temperature depression in condensation process can be neglected. The heat transfer between
condensing vapor and seawater in feed preheater of the 2nd Effect can be written in terms of overall HTC,
preheater heat transfer area and the Logarithmic Mean Temperature Difference (LMTD). The preheater
terminal temperature difference and its value has strong impact on the preheater heat transfer area. HTC
inside the tubes is calculated from the empirical formula developed by Wangnick, especially for
desalination plants [27]. Henning, et al., [28] had developed an equation to calculate HTC outside the
tubes during vapor condensation.
2. Salient Design Features of Marafiq-Y1 MED Units
The two MED units with TVC at Marafiq-Y1 have a design rating to produce the guaranteed net product
water output of 1,150 m3/hr each unit at 100% load. The units have a Performance Ratio (PR) of 22.5
kg/1,000 kcal and a Gain Output Ratio (GOR) of 12.4 based on 93 t/h heating steam to the Steam
Transformer at 10.3 barG and 185.3 oC of the Primary Steam at Seawater temperature of 30 oC. Fig.1
represents the overall schematic diagram of MED-TVC unit at Marafiq-Y1 and Table-1 summarizes the
required quality of the product water.
Fig. 1: Overall System Diagram of Marafiq-Y1 MED Unit

Each MED unit consists of nine Effects (4 top Effects covered by TVC and remaining 5 bottom Effects),
1 Seawater Heater, 1 Final Condenser internally equipped in the evaporator, 3 sets of feed water Pre-
heater, 2 Thermo Vapor Compressors with De-superheating unit, 1 Steam Transformer, 2 Condensate
Return Pumps, 2 Brine Blowdown Pumps, 2 Product Water Pumps with automatic dumping control
devices, 2 Condensate Extraction Pumps with automatic dumping control devices, 2 Seawater Booster
Pumps, Vacuum System (Hogging Ejector with Silencer, 1st Stage Ejector, 2nd Stage Ejector, Inter-
condenser and After-condenser - all 1 x 100%), 5 Chemical Dosing Systems and Acid Cleaning System.
The tubes in Final Condensers and Preheaters are made of Titanium whereas the tubes evaporators are
that of Aluminum-Brass. The purpose of TVC is to reduce the number of Effects. As a result, the overall
heat transfer area is decreased for the same desired distillate flow rate.
2.1 Overall Performance of Marafiq-Y1 MED Units
Recently a comprehensive study was carried out to assess the overall Plant Performance of Marafiq-Y1
MED Units after 3.5 years of operation. The real operational data were compared to the Performance Test
and guaranteed Design data. Also the findings of Major Inspection and Periodical Overhaul during 2016
are presented below.
2.1.1 Heat Transfer Coefficient (HTC) and Fouling Factor (FF)
Through careful scrutiny, it has been observed that higher FF were selected for the Evaporators and Steam
Transformers of Marafiq-Y1 MED units. The conservative selection of higher FF than required
consequently results in designing Heat Exchangers with larger surface areas than mathematically required.
The design values of HTC and FF for the Evaporators and the Steam Transformers in clean and fouled
conditions at 100% and 50% loads are mentioned in Table-2.
Over 3.5 years of operation all values of HTC and FF of Marafiq-Y1 MED Units still show outstanding
performance. Fig. 2-5 represent the HTC and FF for the Evaporators and the Steam Transformers during
Performance Test.
Fig. 2: Evap. HTC (W/m2.oC) Fig. 3: Evap. Fouling Factor FF (m2.oC/W)
3,500 0.00009
3,450 0.000085
0.00008
3,400
0.000075
3,350 0.00007
3,300 Day- Day- Day- Day- Day- Day- Day-
Day-1 Day-2 Day-3 Day-4 Day-5 Day-6 Day-7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MED-10 MED-11 MED-10 MED-11
Fig. 4: Steam Transformer HTC (W/m2.oC) Fig. 5: Steam Transformer FF (m2.oC/W)

3,000 0.0003
2,000 0.0002
1,000 0.0001
0 0
Day-1 Day-2 Day-3 Day-4 Day-5 Day-6 Day-7 Day-1 Day-2 Day-3 Day-4 Day-5 Day-6 Day-7
2.1.2 Plant Availability and Utilization Factors (Percent)

The overall record of average Plant Availability Factor (%) and Plant Utilization Factor (%) of Marafiq-
Y1 MED Units for a complete year shows highly satisfactory Plant Performance with minimal decline,
which is attributed to the excellent O&M strategy prevailing at Marafiq-Y1. During the year 2016, the
overall Plant Availability Factors for MED Units # 10 and 11 were 100 % and the overall average
Utilization Factors for MED Unit #10 was 86.055% (Min. 72.4855%, Max. 93.7898%) and 85.876%
(Min. 74.478%, Max. 93.065%) for Unit # 11, as represented in Fig. 6-7.
Fig. 6: Availability Factor (%), 2016 Fig. 7: Utilization Factor (%), 2016
150 100
80
100 60
50 40
20
0 0
17-May-16
1-Apr-16
24-Apr-16
9-Mar-16
9-Jun-16
17-Nov-16
23-Jan-16
15-Feb-16
17-Aug-16
9-Sep-16
10-Dec-16
2-Oct-16
25-Oct-16
2-Jul-16
25-Jul-16
17-May-16
9-Jun-16
17-Nov-16
17-Aug-16
1-Apr-16
24-Apr-16
9-Mar-16
23-Jan-16
15-Feb-16
9-Sep-16
10-Dec-16
2-Oct-16
25-Oct-16
2-Jul-16
25-Jul-16
2.1.3 Specific Heat Consumption, Performance Ratio (PR), Gain Output Ratio (GOR) and Power
Consumption
The overall record of Average Specific Heat Consumptions of Marafiq-Y1 MED Units # 10 and 11 during
the year 2016 were 1656.2 kJ/kg and 164.6 kJ/kg, respectively, whereas these values during Performance
Test were 165.985 kJ/kg (Min. 165.1 kJ/kg, Max. 167 kJ/kg) and 164.485 kJ/kg (Min. 164.2 kJ/kg, Max.
165 kJ/kg). Marafiq-Y1 MED Units are based on a dual-purpose philosophy, i.e., simultaneous production
of power and water in the premises of a single facility to reduce the energy consumption compared to a
single-purpose Plant. MED Units exploit the sensible energy recovered from the exhaust gases of Gas
Turbine Generators (GTGs), utilizing Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG), which generate Low
Pressure Steam feeding to a common Steam Header. The GTG-HRSG application in the power and water
cogeneration system increases the thermal cycle efficiency and minimizes fuel consumption [47].
The PR of MED Units # 10 and 11 during Performance Test were 25.221 (Min. 25.07, Max. 25.36) and
25.454 (Min. 25.37, Max. 25.49), respectively. During the year 2016, the average PR remained slightly
lower than these values, but within the specified design range, which is completely satisfactory.
The Average GOR of MED Units # 10 and 11 during the year 2016 were 10.889 (Min. 9.213, Max. 11.973)
and 11.192 (Min. 9.094, Max. 12.115), respectively, whereas these values during the Performance Test
were 13.704 (Min. 13.62, Max. 13.87) and 13.848 (Min. 13.8, Max. 13.87), respectively.
Fig. 8-12 show Unit-wise Spec. Heat Consumption, PR, GOR and Power Consumptions during the
Performance Test and the year 2016.
Fig.8: Sp. Heat Consumption (kJ/kg) Fig. 9: Performance Ratio

168 25.6
166 25.4
25.2
164
25
162
24.8
Day-1 Day-2 Day-3 Day-4 Day-5 Day-6 Day-7
MED-10 MED-11
MED-10 MED-11
Fig.10: Gain Output Ratio Fig. 11: Power Consump. (kW)

14 1,700
1,600
13.8
1,500
13.6 1,400
13.4 1,300
Day-1 Day-2 Day-3 Day-4 Day-5 Day-6 Day-7 Day-1 Day-2 Day-3 Day-4 Day-5 Day-6 Day-7
Fig. 12: Gain Output Ratio During 2016 Fig. 13: Product Water pH
15 8.8
10 8.6
5
8.4
0
8.2
16-Jun-16
3-Mar-16
24-Mar-16
14-Apr-16
5-May-16
26-May-16
10-Nov-16
21-Jan-16
18-Aug-16
1-Dec-16
11-Feb-16
8-Sep-16
29-Sep-16
22-Dec-16
20-Oct-16
7-Jul-16
28-Jul-16
8
MED-10 MED-11
MED-10 MED-11
2.1.4 Product Water Quality

The Product Water pH of MED Units # 10 and 11 during Performance Test were 8.567 (Min. 8.38, Max.
8.77) and 8.548 (Min. 8.47, Max. 8.6), whereas the Product Water Conductivity remained 5.884 (Min.
5.58, Max. 6.1) and 4.755 (Min. 4.39, Max. 6.22), respectively, as shown in Fig. 13-14. While comparing
these Product Water quality parameters with the data of pH and Conductivity during 2016, no much
deviation is observed. The Average Conductivity of MED Units # 10 and 11 throughout the year 2016
remained 6.874 (Min. 3.2, Max. 12.7) and 5.21 (Min. 3.1, Max. 10), respectively, as represented in Fig.
15.
Fig. 14: Product Water Cond. (μS/cm) Fig. 15: Product Water Cond., 2016 (μS/cm)
8 15
6 10
5
4
0
23-Apr-16
19-Jun-16
4-Apr-16
12-May-16
31-May-16
15-Aug-16
18-Nov-16
7-Dec-16
26-Dec-16
19-Jan-16
7-Feb-16
26-Feb-16
16-Mar-16
3-Sep-16
22-Sep-16
11-Oct-16
30-Oct-16
8-Jul-16
27-Jul-16
2
0
The reasons for excellent thermal and quality performances are attributed to following design and O&M
conditions:
 Effective control of alkaline scale deposition and corrosion
 Exceptional selection of conservative design HTC and Fouling Factor (FF)
 Self-administered O&M strategy
 Venturing into latest technologies
 Development of experience-based design concepts.
3. MED Physical Inspection & Periodic Overhaul
MED Units # 10 and 11 were shut down for 10 days each to carryout Major Physical Inspection and
Periodical Overhaul after 3.5 years of operation. All major components of the Units, viz., Evaporator
Effects, Steam Transformer, etc., were opened and inspected. The observations are summarized below:
3.1 Tubes Condition
It was observed that the first and last columns of each tube bundle array (total 6 numbers of tube bundles
in 1-4 Effects) were mostly affected. The tubes in Evaporator Effects # 3 were generally attacked by low
level of pitting-corrosion. It looked as if the tubes of first and last columns of each tube bundle in this
Effect had just started getting the signs of corrosion attack. But all the tubes in the extreme columns
between the cells in Effect # 4 were observed with comparatively little higher magnitude of pitting and
even some through holes (Fig. 19, 20, 22, 23) were observed, which would lead to steam passage/leakages.
Only the first and last tube columns could be inspected physically because the internal condition of tubes
inside the tube-bundles, which are covered by the bottom and side tubes, could not be examined because
it was not feasible from tube ends and hence the photographs could capture the condition of only visible
tubes.
3.2 Evaporators Condition
The Floors of the Effects were found with sporadic generalized pitting. No sign of localized pitting could
be seen. The side walls were found generally covered with dried, thick but loose salt deposits, which is
normal. After removing salt deposits from several places, no pitting could be found. The Demisters were
slightly fouled. The condition of internal roof could not be accessed for inspection due to demisters.
However, externally no symptom of corrosion could be found, which would be visible only when there is
very serious issue of roof-corrosion. Data Analysis of operational parameters indicates minimum or no
accumulation of non-condensable corrosive gases inside the evaporator Effects.
3.3 Steam Transformer & Vacuum System
Some corrosion was observed in the shell of Steam Transformer of MED # 10. The tubes of Condenser
Heater were seen with some deposition of corrosion particles, but it is expected to be a carryover because
its tube material is Titanium, which is not expected to be corroded easily. Manual cleaning and water jet
flushing was done. The venting pipes externally looked healthy. The TVC was seen with corrosion marks
on the supports, but nozzle seemed to be normal. The Vacuum System Second Stage Condenser was
observed corroded, as shown in Fig. 16. The overall condition of MED # 11 was better than MED # 10.
Fig. 16: 2nd Stage Condenser Fig. 17: Effect # 3 Tubes
Fig. 18: Effect # 4 Tubes Fig. 19: Effect # 4 Tubes

Full inspection of the invisible tubes to identify failure along the whole tube length, tube holes filling,
grinding, finishing, failure root cause analysis, corrosion cleaning and passivation were included in the
scope of Major Overhaul. Eddy current and thickness measurements of all important components, like
Final Condenser, Steam Transformer shell, Pre-heater, Condensate Heater Shell, Steam line bends, etc.,
were also conducted.
4. Methodology of Simulation
Usually, thermodynamic design indicates the steady amount of input streams of an Effect (viz., feed water
and steam) and the variables of output streams, i.e., brine, vapor and distillate. The aim of this Paper was
to propose a procedure for predicting the dynamic behavior of a MED unit that necessitates the simulation
of transient behavior of an Effect. Since most of the published papers focus on MED’s steady state
operation, the proposed Model was developed and applied to predict the dynamic response of MED units
at Marafiq-Y1, and in order to validate developed Model, the dynamic response was compared with the
data of steady state operation. For numerical dynamic simulation, Partial Differential Equations (PDEs)
governing time-varied boundary conditions inside and outside tube-bundles were mathematically derived
using five simplifying assumptions, and the practical application that of was verified afterwards. The time-
varied boundary conditions include sub-cooled feed seawater, which is sent to the Effect to be sprayed
over the first row tubes of the bundle and pure steam entering the tubes. The simplifying assumptions used
were as follows:
 The influence of instabilities due to turbulence and vapor shear stress on the liquid film is not
considered because the Reynolds Number of falling-film on the horizontal tubes is generally less
than 1800 [29] and does not lie in turbulent region [30, 31].
 The falling-film is uniformly distributed throughout the length of each row of the tube-bundle.
 Uniform liquid distribution of seawater feed is attained on the top row of tubes in the tube-bundle.
 All columns of the tube-bundle behave alike. So, just one column can be simulated and then
multiplied by the number of columns [32, 33].
 The pressure drop inside the tubes was also not considered because it is negligible for the flow of
water vapors [34].
4.1 Physical Model
The tube-bundle in any Effect consists of long horizontal tubes, which are mounted in staggered array,
where the steam flow is condensed inside the tubes and the falling-film evaporated outside; that is why
some investigators have also termed MED a Horizontal Tube Evaporator [30]. The tube bundle is a typical
one-shell-pass Heat Exchanger, wherein the number of tubes typically varies in a wide range to suit the
design production rate. Seawater is fed through spray nozzles at the top of the tube-bundle and falls from
one tube to another as a saturated falling-film, which is very thin compared to the tube diameter. The film
evaporates over the outer surface of the tubes and vapors are generated in the shell-side. The heating steam
condenses inside the tubes and releases latent heat to warm up the seawater sprayed outside the tubes and
thus seawater attains saturation temperature, as shown in Fig. 24-27.
Fig. 24: Schematic Diagram of Horizontal Tube Fig. 25: Schematic Diagram of Vapor Generation from
Bundles (R: Longitudinal Section, L: Cross Section) Tube ‘N’ at the Cross Section ‘x’ for Time ‘t’
Fig. 27: Recommended Column Flow (0.05 < Liquid
Fig. 26: Sectional View of MED Process Loading < 0.23 kg/sec.m) for Thin Film Boiling &
Smooth Vapor Passing
The falling-film evaporation over a tube-bundle occurs in two sequential phases: (a) Sensible heating to
preheat the feed water up to saturation temperature of the corresponding Effect, and (b) Latent heating to
evaporate a portion of the falling-film.
The variation in film thickness and mean falling-film velocity, which is significantly larger than the
velocity component tangential to the wall, actually govern the evaporation rate per unit surface of the tube.
4.2 Mathematical Model
Mathematical Modeling of MED process was carried out to determine the effects of important design and
operating variables on the cost of producing distillate. The Model was used to solve a large number of
highly nonlinear equations describing MED process. Any numerical procedure to solve these highly
nonlinear equations, such as Newton-Raphson, etc., is very tiresome because it needs linearization and/or
differentiation of a large number of nonlinear relationships. However, the modified fixed-point iteration
procedure developed by El-Dessouky and Bingulac [35], though simple but convergent algorithm,
according to which the whole algorithm consisted of some calculation and logical blocks, was tried. El-
Dessouky, et al., [9] had utilized this algorithm by using L-A-S Computer Aided Language [36].
The Model considered variation in thermodynamic losses from one Effect to the other, dependence of
physical properties of water on salinity and temperature, influence of non-condensable gases on HTC in
the evaporators and feed preheaters, impact of vapor leaks in the venting system, etc. It is known that
adequate ejection and efficient venting system significantly minimizes the impairing effects of non-
condensable gases on the condensation HTC. It prevents blanketing of non-condensable gases due to
accumulation in the evaporators and minimizes the effect on HTC. A decrease of < 5% occurs in HTC for
a non-condensable gas concentration of 10% in the venting stream. Standiford [37] modeled the effect of
non-condensable gases as an additional fouling resistance with a value of 6.5 ·10-5 m2.°C/W, which is then
multiplied by the volume % of the gases. In water desalination plants, the volumetric concentration of
non-condensable gases is about 4% [38]. Let the concentration of non-condensable gases be < 4% by
weight, correction factors were developed considering the influence of dripping condensate and the
presence of non-condensable gases on the condensation HTC [39]. Correlations were also developed
relating HTC in preheaters and evaporators to boiling temperature. The design correlations were
developed describing variations in thermal performance, specific heat transfer area and specific cooling
water flow rate in terms of number of Effects and TBT.
The unknown parameters required to be calculated are condensation rate, steam quality distribution inside
tubes, flow rate of the falling-film, flow of enthalpy on the tube-bundles and the amount of vapor
production in transient conditions. It was assumed that mass flow rate and quality inside tubes and mass
of the vapors were initially zero and the falling-film on the surface of tube-bundle was in steady state.
During all transient operations, feeding seawater and motive steam should be adequately balanced to
achieve appropriate performance. Any excess seawater feed may delay vapor generation, whereas
insufficient feed may result in excessive evaporation thereby inducing elevated concentrations and
simultaneously increasing the potential risk of fouling tube surfaces [40]. The functional behavior implies
that flow rate starts from an initial amount at plant start-up and reaches normal steady-state quantity in a
given period.
4.3 Governing Equations
The governing equations were derived for flow rate of falling-film outside the tubes and the condensing
vapors inside. The governing equations included first order Partial Differentials, but since the nature of
falling-film outside and condensation inside tubes is moving forward, second order Partial Differentials
and backward schemes were applied for both spatial and time discretization. Linearization of non-linear
terms was also conducted to achieve better convergence and all these methods were applied in the general
form of PDEs [41].
The heat flux from condensing stream inside to the outside of the tubes combines both streams. The nature
of motion of falling-film is a gravity-driven hydraulic flow. Hence, the pressure gradient does not affect
and since the film falls under gravitational force, the computational field was divided into following zones
for simulating motion and evaporation of the falling-film:
 Impinging falling-film having characteristics almost similar to the film leaving upper row.
 Flow leaving beneath tubes: Its characteristic was considered almost similar to the previous zone.
 Inter-tube falling-film from one tube to the next under gravity: Bernoulli’s equation for
incompressible flow was considered for approximation of such gravitational falling.
 Half tube perimeter of the tube wall, the transport equations of which were derived.
The approximation considered for the last zone was found to be the most important whereas the remaining
zones had very less impact on the results. Since the film is very thin compared to the tube radius [42], the
circumferential perimeter of the tube wall may be considered like a vertical wall.
To determine mass flow rate of the vapor and its quality during condensation inside tubes, one-
dimensional mass and energy equations were used and a state equation was employed to calculate vapor
density vs. quality. The pressure drop throughout the tube length was neglected and to calculate void-
fraction applied the relation proposed by Zivi [21].
Thermo-physical properties of seawater, such as density, specific heat capacity, thermal conductivity,
saturated enthalpy of fluid, etc., vary not only with temperature but also with the amount of salinity [43].
Using experimental data of El-Dessouky, et al. [43], rigorous exercise was conducted to calculate thermo-
physical properties of water vs. temperature and salinity. Following correction curves were obtained for
Distillate Production vs. Steam Main Header Pressure and Seawater Temp., respectively, based on Product
water temperature below 40 oC:
Fig. 28: Distillate Production vs. Steam Main Header Fig. 29: Distillate Production vs. Seawater Temp.
Pressure
Also used the correlation proposed by Kocamustafaoğulları and Chen [30] to estimate the convective heat
transfer of the evaporating falling-film over the tube surface and applied the correlation proposed by Jaster
and Kosky for calculating the convective overall HTC during condensation [21].
Nusselt postulated the film thickness through balancing the terms of diffusive and gravitational forces [44]
but as the falling-film is very thin compared to tube radius [42], the circumferential perimeter of the tube
wall can be mapped as a vertical wall. The Nusselt's analogy disregarding advection term predicts
symmetrical film thickness whereas asymmetry is observed in the experiments, which is due to separation
of film flow from the tube wall, and demonstrates a sharp decrease in δ (up to θ = 90°) and a further
smooth increase.
The falling-film thickness on vertical and circumferential walls were solved considering Nusselt’s analogy
and Hou, et al.’s experiments [42]. The results of circumferential walls were closer to the experiments.
However, for the sake of simplicity further simulations were conducted on vertical walls too.
4.4 Transient Behavior of the Tube-Bundles
The transient behavior of tube-bundles with respect to Marafiq-Y1 MED Units was examined using
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code. Table-2 represents thermodynamic and thermo-hydraulic
characteristics of the tube-bundles in an Effect of Marafiq-Y1 MED Units. For numerical simulation,
appropriate time step and spatial grid size were selected and the grid independency was examined for steps
of all independent parameters to attain acceptable results. The inputs for transient simulation, such as the
durations of feeding steam and seawater until achieving their respective steady rates under full load
operation and real duration of dynamic simulation for which the transient effects disappear and final
steady-state condition is achieved, and the amount of grid independent parameters of numerical
simulation, viz., grid independent time step, grid independent longitudinal spatial step and the grid
independent circumferential spatial step, were identified and used.
𝜕𝛽𝜌 1 𝜕𝑀𝑠
+ =0
𝜕𝑡 𝐴𝑖 𝜕𝑥
𝜕𝛽𝜌ℎ 1 𝜕𝑀𝑠 ℎ 𝛽𝑞′ 𝑄(𝑥,𝑁,𝑡)
+𝐴 =− ; 𝑞′ ≡
𝜕𝑡 𝑖 𝜕𝑥 𝐴𝑖 ∆𝑥
1 1
𝜌= =
𝑣 𝑣𝑓+ 𝑋𝑣𝑓𝑔
Where,
h: Convective HTC (kW m-2 K-1); β: Occupied fraction (inside Ms: Mass flow rate of steam inside tube
Enthalpy (kJ kg-1) tube) (kg s-1)
t: Time (s) ρ: Density (kg m-3) X: Vapor quality
x: Stream-wise spatial coordinate Ai: Internal cross section of q': Convective heat transfer/longitudinal
inside tube (m) tube (m2) tube length (kW m-1)
Q: Convective heat transfer (kW) N: Tube number ν: Kinematic viscosity (m2 s-1)
fg: Saturated vapor relative to f: Falling film, saturated liquid δ: Falling film thickness (mm)
saturated liquid condition
Since the amount of distillate leaving the end of tubes is time dependent, the tube outlet distillate was
searched to consider time step independency.
4.4.1 Transient Behavior of the Tube-Bundles during MED Start-up
The investigation of the mechanism of vapors generation and the amount of vapors produced over the
tube-bundles during Unit’s startup was a practical approach of the simulation. It demonstrated the transient
behavior of the boundary variables to that of the tube-bundles in the Effect. The feed water was considered
in steady state and the motive steam increased gradually. After a specified duration, quantity of the motive
steam approached its normal steady state and the generation of vapors followed the trend of steam feeding
and also approached normal steady state exactly after the calculated time. However, the distillate was a
bit delayed to reach the end of tube and took almost the same time that of the motive steam took in
approaching to its normal steady state. During initial steps of the startup, the steam condenses quickly
inside the tubes and form a sub-cooled layer of liquid in front of the moving steam causing the liquid hold-
up, and hence the condensate velocity dominates the tube-bundle response. The contours of vapor
generation over the tube-bundles show no vapor generation zones and highest evaporation zones at
different times of the Unit startup. No vapor generation zone represents the initial phase of startup, but as
the time passes and the motive steam gradually moves inside the tubes toward the end, vapor generation
rate increases to achieve normal steady state.
4.4.2 Transient Behavior of the Tube-Bundles in Steady State
Al-Shammiri and Safar examined the steady state response of the tube-bundles by employing the
developed transient CFD code to study an individual case with typical characteristics of the MED Unit
[45]. Table-2 represents thermodynamic parameters of an Effect of the MED Unit and thermo-hydraulic
properties of its tube-bundle. Al-Shammiri and Safar evaluated the transient Model and its dynamic
response after 1200 seconds by comparing with the results of steady state operation from a verified
thermodynamic design code based on the commercial data and found the predicted transient code results
almost approaching to the steady state normal operation data [45]. Nevertheless, the method is not perfect
and could be considered as a first approximation to verify the dynamic simulation.
4.5 Falling-Film on the Tube Walls in Steady State
As the falling film is very thin (~ 0.5 mm) compared to the tube radius, the circumferential perimeter of
the tube wall is assumed to be a vertical wall. When calculating the approaching steady state falling film
thickness without vapor generation over the tube perimeter, assuming it a vertical wall, the transient terms
of conservation equations disappear. Since no vapor generation is assumed, the film flow rate over the
tube and the vertical wall will turn out to be constant and the equations for mass and momentum can be
expressed as follows:
𝑑𝛬 𝛤
𝑑𝑦
= 0 → 𝛬 = 𝜌𝑓 = cte
𝑑𝛿 40 𝑣𝑓 40 ∆𝜌𝑔
= −𝐹 + 𝑆𝛿 3 , 𝐹≡ , 𝑆≡
𝑑𝑦 23 𝛬 69 𝛬2 𝜌𝑓
Where,
do: Tube outer diameter θ: Circumferential angle Re: Falling film Reynolds number
(4Γ/μf)
δo: Film thickness at upper boundary S: The source term coefficient F: The viscous term coefficient of
(mm) of momentum equation (ms-1) momentum equation (m s-1)
p: Characteristic parameter y: tangential coordinate of Λ: The half of falling film volumetric
falling film flow on tube wall flow rate per length of tube, (Γ/ρf), (m3
(m) m−1 s−1)
r: Reference parameter d: tube diameter (m)
The momentum equation can be evolved using integration by part and also through iterative procedure.
𝑓(𝛿) = 𝑦 + 𝑓(𝛿0 )
√3 2𝛿
𝑓(𝛿) = {−2 ln(𝛿 − 𝛿𝑝 ) + ln(𝛿 2 + 𝛿𝛿𝑝 + 𝛿𝑝2 ) + 2√3 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛 [ ( + 1)]}/6𝑆𝛿𝑝2
3 𝛿𝑝
1/3
Where, 𝛿𝑝 ≡ (𝐹𝑆) and 𝛿0 is the film thickness at the upper boundary.
The tangential momentum equation on the tube circumferential wall is obtained by replacing ɡ with ɡ sin
θ, as represented below:
𝑑𝛿
= −𝐹 + 𝛿 3 𝑆 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜃) ⌊𝜃 = 𝑦/𝑟
𝑑𝑦
The above equation is nonlinear and can be solved according to Nusselt’s analogy, which disregards
advection term and predicts film thickness symmetrically by balancing the diffusive and gravitational
forces as follows:
𝐹 1/3
𝜃 = −𝐹 + 𝑆 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜃 𝛿 3 → 𝛿𝑁𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑡 = ( sin 𝜃)
𝑆
Thus, specifying film thickness symmetrically, asymmetry might exist demonstrating sharp decrease in
𝛿 (up to 𝜃 = 90°) and further smooth increase, which should be due to the separation of film flow from
the tube wall. If the results on tube circumferential walls are nearer due to solution simplicity, further
simulations is required based on vertical walls.
Azimibavil and Dehkordi [46] have produced Fig. 30 according to Nusselt [44] and Hou, et al. [42]
representing falling film thickness (δ mm) vs. circumferential angle (θo) of a horizontal tube having do =
25 mm and Re = 574.
Fig. 30: Curve of Falling Film Thickness vs. Circumferential Angle of a Horizontal Tube
4.6 Transient Behavior of the Effect to any Unexpected Interruption
Any interruption occurring in a thermal MED Unit operating in steady state disturbs the plant performance.
Two such cases were studied, viz., (a) Sudden cutoff/reduction in the steam supply, and (b) Sudden
decrease in the feed flow aggravating the potential of tube fouling due to oversaturation.
The transient behavior of the Effect to sudden cut-off/reduction of steam by half for a specified duration
was studied to estimate the time required by MED Unit for resuming vapor generation and achieving
steady state when the steam supply is normalized. High energy content of the condensing steam inside
tubes over concentrates the already decreased feed flow to half of the nominal value thus causing the brine
to enter into a higher fouling risk zone.
5. Conclusions
 Titanium tubes in Final Condensers and Preheaters, and Aluminum-Brass tubes in the evaporators
make the Plant more reliable.
 Lower Specific Power consumption of only 1.45 kWh/m3, compared to generally 2.0-2.5 kWh/m3,
is remarkable energy footprint for Marafiq-Y1 MED Units.
 The design represents a game-changing advancement in terms of the highest Performance Ratio
of 20.5 and GOR of 12.4.
 Low Concentration Ratio of 1.4 makes the MED UNits less susceptible to scaling.
 The Performance results indicate that Marafiq-Y1 MED units are sufficiently overdesigned with
respect to GOR, PR, etc.
 The dynamic simulation of Marafiq-Y1 MED units was carried out by deriving and solving Partial
Differential Equations governing the inside and outside behavior of the tube-bundles considering
some simplifying assumptions.
 The initial and time-varied boundary conditions were mathematically applied to the governing
equations.
 Thermal PR is almost independent of TBT, but linked to the number of Effects.
 The HTC and FF values over these years of operation are within acceptable tolerance.
 The HTC in the evaporators and the preheaters augmented with boiling temperature and the HTC
in evaporators are higher than that in preheaters at same boiling temperature.
 The effect of TBT on specific Heat Transfer Area is more pronounced with higher number of
Effects.
 The dynamic study indicates that if any process interruption occurs during steady state operation
(say for ‘x’ minutes), the system will require ~ 2.75 × ‘x’ minutes to return to its steady operation.
6. Tables
Table-1: Product Water Quality Specifications
S. No. Parameter Unit Value
1. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) ppm Max. 10
2. Conductivity μS/cm Max. 15
3. pH -- 6.0 - 7.0
4. Copper (Cu) ppm 0.02 - 0.1
5. Chloride (Cl) ppm <8
6. Iron (Fe) ppm < 0.02
Table-2: Thermodynamic and Thermo-Hydraulic Design Data of Marafiq-Y1 MED Units

Performance Ratio (PR) kg/1,000kcal 22.5
Gain Output Ratio (GOR) -- 12.4
o
Operating Temperature range C 40.5 ~ 66.0
 1st Effect Brine Temp. (TBT) at 100% & 50% loads o
C 66.0 / 56.0
 9th Effect Brine Temp. o
C 40.5
Operating Design Capacity range % 50-100
Steam Transformer for Secondary Steam Yes/No Yes
Max. Product Water TDS at all loads mg/l 10
Seawater Salinity range g/l 41.4 ~ 46.4
o
Seawater Temperature range C 22 ~ 30
Seawater Pressure range bar 0.25 ~ 1.5
Seawater Consumption m3/h 5,700
Net Product Water production at 100% load m3/d 27,600
Gross Product Water production m3/d 27,800
Max. Product Water Temperature °C 40
Net Steam Consumption t/h 98.0
Primary Steam to Steam Transformer from Main Steam Header t/h 93
 Pressure bar (g) 10.3
 Temperature °C 185.3
Steam to Ejectors of Vacuum System from additional Steam header t/h 5
Heating Steam to First Effect t/h 201.3
Net Boiling Point Elevation & Other Losses at 100% & 50% loads °C 6.53 / 6.0
Condensate t/h 93
 Temperature °C 115
 Conductivity μS/cm 10
Concentration Factor -- 1.4
Specific Power Consumption kWh/m3 1.45
Max. Salinity in 1st Evaporator Effect g/l 58
Evaporator Heat Transfer Area m2 96,113
Steam Transformer Heat Transfer Area m2 3,519
Evaporator Heat Transfer Coefficient (Clean Condition) W/m2.oC 4,780
Evaporator Heat Transfer Coefficient (Fouled Condition) W/m2.oC 3,234
Steam Transformer Heat Transfer Coefficient (Clean Condition) W/m2.oC 4,016
Steam Transformer HTC (Fouled Condition) at 100% & 50% loads W/m2.oC 2,681/2,674
Evaporator Fouling Factor m2.oC/W 0.000100
Steam Transformer Fouling Factor at 100% load m2.oC/W 0.000124
Steam Transformer Fouling Factor at 50% load m2.oC/W 0.000125
Brine Blowdown m3/h 2,875
Feed Makeup m3/h 4,025
7. References
[1] Darwish M.A. and El-Dessouky, H.T., (1996), Applied Thermal Engineering, 18, p. 523-537.
[2] Minnich, K., Tonner, J. and Neu, D., (1995), A Comparison of Heat Transfer Requirement & Evaporator Cost for MED-
TC & MSF, Proc. of IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Sciences, Abu Dhabi, Nov., vol. III, p. 233-257.
[3] Morin, O.J., (1993), Desalination, 93, p. 69-109.
[4] Hess, G. and Morin, O.J., (1992), Desalination, 87, p. 55-68.
[5] Rautenbach, R., (1993), Desalination, 93, p. 1-13.
[6] Rautenbach, R., Widua, J. and Schafer, S., (1995), Reflections on Desalination Processes for the 21st Century, Proc. of IDA
World Congress on Desalination and Water Sciences, Abu Dhabi, Nov., vol. I, p. 117-136.
[7] Michels, T., (1993), Desalination, 93, p. 111-118.
[8] Ophir, A. and Weinberg, J., (1997), MED (Multi-Effect Distillation) Desalination Plants - A Solution to the Water Problem
in the Middle East, IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Science, Madrid, Oct.
[9] El-Dessouky, H., Alatiqi, I., Bingulac S. and Ettouney, H., (1998), Steady-State Analysis of the Multiple Effect Evaporation
Desalination Process, Chem. Eng. Technol. 21, 5, p. 437-451.
[10] Bin Amer, A.O., (2009), Development & Optimization of ME-TVC Desalination System, Desalination, 249(3)1315-1331.
[11] Awerbuch, L., (2007), Dual Purpose Power Desalination/Hybrid Systems/Energy & Economics, IDA Desalination
Seminar, Cairo, Egypt, Sept.
[12] El-Dessouky, H.T. and Assassa, G.R., (1985), Desalination, 55, p. 145-168.
[13] Darwish, M.A. and El-Hadik, A.A., (1986), Desalination, 60, p. 251-265.
[14] Hanbury, W.T., (1995), An Analytical Simulation of Multiple Effect Distillation Plant, Proc. of IDA World Congress on
Desalination and Water Sciences, Abu Dhabi, Nov., vol. IV, p. 375-382.
[15] Han, J. and Fletcher, L., (1985), Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., 24, p. 570-597.
[16] Shah, M.M., (1978), Heat Transfer, Pressure Drop, Visual Observations, Test Data for Ammonia Evaporating Inside
Tubes, ASHRAE Trans., vol. 84, Part-II.
[17] El-Nashar, A.M. and Qamhiyeh, A., (1995), Simulation of the Performance of MES Evaporators under Unsteady State
Operating Conditions, Desalination, 79(1)65-83.
[18] Aly, N.H. and Marwan, M.A., (1997), Dynamic Response of Multi-Effect Evaporators, Desalination, 114(2)189-196.
[19] Miyatake, O., Murakami, K., Kawata, Y. and Fujii, (1973), Heat Transfer, Japan. Res. 2, p. 89-100.
[20] Whalley, P.B., (1987), Boiling-Condensation & Gas-Liquid Flow, Oxford Science Publications.
[21] Zivi, S.M., (1964), Estimation of Steady-State Steam Void-Fraction by Means of the Principle of Minimum Entropy
Production, J. Heat Transf. 86(2)247-252.
[22] Hewitt, G.F., (1982), Gas-Liquid, Handbook of Multiphase Systems, Hemisphere Publishing, NY.
[23] Friedel, L., (1979), New Friction Pressure Drop Correlations for Upward, Horizontal & Downward Two-Phase Pipe Flow,
Proc. of HTFS Symposium, Oxford.
[24] Sinnott, R.K., (1996), Coluson & Richardson's Chemical Engineering, vol. 6, 2nd Ed., Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
[25] Marto, P.J., (1991), Heat Transfer in Condensers, Boilers, Evaporators & Condensers, (S. Kakac, Ed.), John Wiley, NY.
[26] Muller, A.C., (1991), Condensers, Hemisphere Handbook of Heat Exchanger Design, (G.F. Hewitt, Ed.) Hemisphere, NY.
[27] Wangnick, K., (1995), How Incorrectly Determined Physical & Constructional Properties in the Seawater & Brine
Regimes Influence the Design & Size of an MSF Desalination Plant - Stimulus for Further Thoughts, Proc. of IDA World
Congress on Desalination & Water Science, Abu Dhabi, Nov., vol. II, p. 201-218.
[28] Hennig, S. and Wangnick, K., (1995), Comparison of Different Equations for the Calculation of Heat Transfer Coefficients
in MSF Multi-Stage Flash Evaporators, Proc. of IDA World Congress on Desalination & Water Sciences, Abu Dhabi,
Nov., vol. III, p. 515-524.
[29] El-Dessouky, H.T. and Ettouney, H.M., (2002), Fundamentals of Salt Water Desalination, Elsevier.
[30] Kocamustafaoğulları, G. and Chen, I.Y., (1989), Horizontal Tube Evaporators: Part-I Theoretically Based Correlations,
International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, 16(4)487-499.
[31] Thome, J.R., (2009), Wolverine Engineering Data Book III, Wolverine Tube, Inc., Lausanne, Switzerland.
[32] kamali, R.K., Noori, S.M.A. Rahim Abadi and Hassani, M., (2014), Numerical Investigation of Falling Film Evaporation
of Multi-Effect Desalination Plant, Appl. Therm. Eng., 70(1)477-485.
[33] Habert, M., (2009), Falling Film Evaporation on a Tube Bundle with Plain & Enhanced Tubes, Ph.D. Thesis.
[34] Ould, M.B. Didi, Kattan, N. and Thome, J.R., (2002), Prediction of Two-Phase Pressure Gradients of Refrigerants in
Horizontal Tubes, Int. J. Refrig. 25(7)935-947.
[35] El-Dessouky, H.T. and Bingulac, S., (1997), Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics & Engineering, 141, p. 95-115.
[36] Bingulac, S. and Van Landingham, H.F., (1993), Algorithms for Computer Aided Design of Multivariable Control
Systems, Marcel Dekker, NY.
[37] Standiford, F.C., (1984), Evaporators & Evaporation, Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing & Design (Meketta, Ed.) vol.
20, Marcel Dekker, Inc., NY.
[38] Progress Report, (1970), Office of Saline Water (OSW), US Department of the Interior (DoI), Distillation Digest, R&D,
Rep. No. 538, March.
[39] Progress Report, (1967), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), US DoI, R&D, Rep. No. 315, Dec.
[40] Hajbi, F., Hammi, H., Solimando, R. and M’nif, A., (2011), Evaporation of a Reverse Osmosis Discharge Studied by
Pitzer Model & Solubility Phase Diagrams, Fluid Phase Equilib., 307(2),126-134.
[41] Patankar, S., (1980), Numerical Heat Transfer & Fluid Flow, CRC Press.
[42] Hou, H., Qincheng, B., Hong, M. and Gang, W., (2012), Distribution Characteristics of Falling Film Thickness Around a
Horizontal Tube, Desalination, 285, 393-398.
[43] El-Dessouky, H.T., Ettouney, H.T. and Mandani, F., (2000), Performance of Parallel Feed Multiple Effect Evaporation
System for Seawater Desalination, Appl. Therm. Eng., 20,1673-1706, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-4311(99)00098-8.
[44] Nusselt, W., (1916), Die Oberflächenkondensation des Wasserdampfes, Z. Ver. Dtsch Ing 60(3)541-575.
[45] Al-Shammiri, M. and Safar, M., (1999), Multi-Effect Distillation Plants: State of the Art, Desalination, 126(1)45-59.
[46] Azimibavil, A.S. and Dehkordi, J., (2016), Dynamic Simulation of a Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) Process,
Desalination, 392, 91-101.
[47] Ozair G., Al-Subhi, H., Abuayed, Y.A. and Al-Bareed, A.A.M, (2015), Three Decades of Operational Experience of Acid
Treated Multistage Flash (MSF) Desalination Plants, Proc. of IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse, San
Diego, USA.
[48] Kalbasi, R. and Esfahani, M.N., (2010), Multi-Effect Passive Desalination System - An Experimental Approach, World
Applied Sciences Journal 10(10):1264-1271, ISSN 1818-4952.
[49] Ophir, A. and Gendel, A., (2007), Steam Driven Large Multi Effect MVC (SD MVC) Desalination Process for Lower
Energy Consumption & Desalination Costs, Desalination, 205, p. 224-230.
[50] Kamali, R.K. and Mohebinia, S., (2008), Experience of Design & Optimization of Multi-Effect Desalination System in
Iran, Desalination, 222, p. 639-645.
[51] Kamali, R.K., Abbassi, A. and Sadough, S.A., (2006), A Simulation Model & Parametric Study of MED-TVC Process,
Proc. of EDS Inter. Conf., EuroMed, p. 203.
[52] El-Dessouky, H.T. and Ettouney, H.M., (1999), Multiple Effect Evaporation Desalination Systems: Thermal Analysis,
Desalination, 125, p. 259-276.
[53] Parken, W.H., Fletcher, L.S., Sernas, V. and Han, J.C., (1990), Heat Transfer Through Falling Film Evaporation & Boiling
on Horizontal Tubes, J. Heat Trans., ASME, 112.
[54] Al-Najem, N.M., Darwish, M.A. and Youssef, F.A., (1997), Thermo Vapor Compression Desalters: Energy & Availability
Analysis of Single & Multi-Effect Systems, Desalination, 110, p. 223-238.
[55] Lokiec, F. and Ophir, A., (2007), The Mechanical Vapor Compression: 38 Years of Experience, Proc. of IDA World
Congress, Maspalomas, Gran Canaria, Spain, Oct., 21-26.
[56] Matz, R. and Zimerman, Z., (1985), Low Temperature Vapor Compression & Multi-Effect Distillation of Seawater: Effects
of Design on Operations & Economics, Desalination, 52, p. 201-216.
[57] Ophir, A. and Gendel, A., (2007), Latest Developments in MED & MVC Thermal Desalination Processes, Proc. of IDA
World Congress, Maspalomas, Gran Canaria, Spain, Oct., 21-26.
[58] Ophir, A. and Lokiec, F., (2005), Advanced MED Process for Most Economical Seawater Desalination, Desalination, 182,
p. 187-198.
[59] MEDA, Multiple Effect Desalination Analysis Model, Computer Program Report, Fachbereich Produktionstechnik of the
Technical University of Bremen, Germany.
[60] Michaels, T., (1992), Recent Achievement of Low Temperature Multiple Effect Desalination in Western Areas of Abu
Dhabi, Desalination 92 Proc., Arabian Gulf Regional Water Desalination Symposium, Nov. 15-17, Al-Ain, UAE.
[61] Zimerman, Z., (1994) Development of Large Capacity High Efficiency Mechanical Vapor Compression (MVC) Units,
Desalination, 96, p. 51-58.
[62] Rifert, V.G., Sadrak, A.I., Trkoz, Ya.E. and Podberensy, V.A., (1991), Heat Exchanger Intensification at Condensation
Inside Tubes of Film Type Evaporators of Desalination Installations, Desalination, 81.
[63] Yu, W., France, D.M. Wambsganss, M.W. and Hull, J.R., (2002) Two-Phase Pressure Drop, Boiling Heat Transfer, &
Critical Heat Flux to Water in a Small Diameter Horizontal Tube, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 28, p. 927-941.
View publication stats

Paper THERMODYNAMICASSESS - OFMED 01 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper THERMODYNAMICASSESS - OFMED 01 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

DYNAMIC SIMULATION AND THERMODYNAMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE HIGH

Conference Paper · January 2018

Assessment of Brine Disposal on Marine Ecology View project

Impact of brine discharge on marine ecology View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Presenter: Ghazi Ozair, M.S.

Fig. 1: Overall System Diagram of Marafiq-Y1 MED Unit

MED-10 MED-11 MED-10 MED-11

Fig. 4: Steam Transformer HTC (W/m2.oC) Fig. 5: Steam Transformer FF (m2.oC/W)

MED-10 MED-11 MED-10 MED-11

2.1.2 Plant Availability and Utilization Factors (Percent)

MED-10 MED-11 MED-10 MED-11

Fig.8: Sp. Heat Consumption (kJ/kg) Fig. 9: Performance Ratio

Fig.10: Gain Output Ratio Fig. 11: Power Consump. (kW)

MED-10 MED-11 MED-10 MED-11

2.1.4 Product Water Quality

MED-10 MED-11 MED-10 MED-11

Fig. 16: 2nd Stage Condenser Fig. 17: Effect # 3 Tubes

Fig. 18: Effect # 4 Tubes Fig. 19: Effect # 4 Tubes

Fig. 20: Effect # 4 Tubes Fig. 21: Effect # 4 Tubes

Fig. 22: Effect # 4 Tubes Fig. 23: Effect # 4 Tubes

Table-2: Thermodynamic and Thermo-Hydraulic Design Data of Marafiq-Y1 MED Units

View publication stats

You might also like