THERMAL PERFORMANCE OF MULTISTAGE FLASH DISTILLATION PLANTS IN SAUDI ARABIA1

Osman A. Hamed, Mohammad AK. Al-Sofi, Monazir Imam, Ghulam M. Mustafa, Khalid Ba-Mardouf and Hamad Al-Washmi Research & Development Center, Saline Water Conversion Corporation P.O.Box # 8328, Al-Jubail 31951, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ABSTRACT The Saline Water Conversion Corporation (SWCC) of Saudi Arabia is currently producing around 16% of the total worldwide capacity of desalted water [1]. The majority of SWCC desalination plants employ the multistage flash (MSF) distillation process which produce 94% of SWCC's total desalinated water. SWCC various MSF distillers are characterized by a wide range of operating and design conditions. The capacity of operating distillers is ranging between 2.5 to 7.5 MIGD. Some large distillers of rated capacity up to 10 MIGD are under construction in Shoibah and Yanbu. The number of stages of these distillers varies between 16 and 34 while the operating top brine temperature varies between 90oC and 115oC. Design and operating parameters of various SWCC MSF distillers have been collected and effectively utilized to simulate and analyze the thermal performance of these distillers. The thermal performance of each distiller is quantitatively assessed using a computer program which is based on the first and the second law of thermodynamics. A comparative study on energy and exergy analyses is conducted for different MSF plants. This paper also presents a comprehensive micro-thermal analysis to identify the potential for improving plant efficiency. The exergy losses due to irreversibility in different subsystems of each MSF distiller is evaluated. Exergy destruction in brine heater, heat recovery and heat rejection stages and friction in liquid paths are determined. The impact of different design and operating parameters such as top brine temperature and number of stages on the thermal performance of the MSF system is evaluated. Keywords: Multistage flash distillation, Thermodynamics, Exergy and Exergy flux

Presented at the International Desalination Association World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse, The Value of Water in the 21st Century, San Diego, USA, 29 August 3 Sept. 1999.

2413

INTRODUCTION

Accumulated experience obtained from the operation of SWCC plants can be effectively utilized to simulate and analyze the thermal performance of MSF distillers. Steady and unsteady state simulation models are normally used to determine the performance of an operating MSF plant under wide range of process parameters. They also give relevant guidance for process improvement and simulate for short-term changes in the operating conditions. Furthermore, they provide design parameters for new projects of desalination plants.

Most of the thermodynamic analyses performed on MSF desalination plants are based on the first law of thermodynamics [2-12]. Although the first law is an important tool in evaluating the overall performance of desalting plants, such analysis seldom takes into account the quality of energy, which is transferred. Thus, the differentiation between high and low-grade energy are not clearly evident in the majority of such research works. On the other hand, the second law analysis places all the energy interactions on the same basis thus giving relevant guidance on process improvement. In this approach, all losses are calculated in terms of exergy (available energy) which would be a true measure of these irreversible processes. Exergy method gives information on the process details, which are mainly responsible for the energy losses and thus can identify locations where losses of useful energy occur within the process [13]. Reported research work on exergy analysis of the MSF process is limited. An exergy analysis of a simplified once-through multistage flash evaporator was reported [14]. In this analysis, the exergy input / output ratio of the 10 stage MSF system was found to be around 88 which revealed that the distiller experienced a very low exergy efficiency.

A comprehensive study on the second law analysis of recirculation multistage flash desalting plant was reported [15]. The study showed that the major exergy losses occurred in the vapor condensation process, vapor flash process and feed heating process of brine heater. Exergy losses can be reduced by increasing number of stages and gain output ratio or by reducing top brine temperature. A study based on energy and

2414

exergy considerations was conducted to obtain the optimum design parameters for an MSF seawater distillation plant to be coupled to an existing steam power plant in Abu Dhabi [16]. Sulaiman and Ismail reported a simple scheme to evaluate overall exergy losses in Al-Khobar II, Al-Jubail II and Shoibah-I [17]. The study was limited to the design conditions and no actual test data was used in the thermal analysis. The study showed that the three MSF desalting plants were highly irreversible and the exergy losses were directly proportional to the top brine temperature. In this paper, it is intended to evaluate and compare the thermal performance of SWCC commercial MSF plants under a wide range of actual operating conditions using the concepts of the first and second law of thermodynamics.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS

A commercial computer program for MSF process simulation which was developed by El-Sayed [18] is used to analyze the thermal performance of six distillers of varying features representing Al-Jubail, Al-Khobar, Al-Khafji and Jeddah MSF desalination plants. Design characteristics of these distillers are shown in Table 1. Detailed design specifications of SWCC MSF plants were published [19-21]. The program solution flowchart is shown in Figure 1. The program has the capability to predict the physical and the thermodynamic properties of all liquid and vapor streams involved in the process and to simulate the MSF process under various conditions. Concepts of the first and the second law of thermodynamics are used in this simulation study. Performance ratio was used as the first law evaluation criterion while specific exergy losses due to process irreversibility, exergy destruction flux and exergy rational efficiency were used as the second law performance criteria. Field visits were arranged to these plants to collect operating data. For each distiller, the operational data collected include temperature, pressure, flow-rate and salinity of all streams. Frequency of data collection ranged between 1 and 3 weeks.

2415

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Macro Thermal Analysis

For each distiller the variation of performance ratio, specific exergy losses and exergy efficiencies with time were evaluated. The impact of short-term changes in the operating conditions such as TBT, seawater inlet temperature and steam temperature entering the brine heater on the distiller performance was examined. Jeddah MSF Plants

Three distillers representing phases I, II, III of Jeddah plants were selected to analyze their thermal performances. Variation in operating conditions and their effects on system exergy with time for these three distillers are shown in Figure 2. During the period of performance analysis, seawater salinity was within the range of 40,500 to 41,000 ppm while its temperature ranged between 28 to 30 oC. Figure 2 shows that Jeddah II distiller, working at a TBT of 115 oC, yields the highest performance ratio (PR) of around 11.5. This high PR value is expected because of the higher number of stages as well as the operation with a relatively higher TBT compared to other groups. The specific exergy losses of the distiller are relatively low and range between 54 to 60 kJ per kg product, which is reflected in the relatively high rational exergy efficiencies which range between 5.8 and 6.4 percent.

Although Jeddah IV distiller has higher number of stages compared to Jeddah III distiller and is operating with a higher TBT, it yields a lower thermal performance. The unit performance ratio and rational exergy efficiencies are lower than those of Jeddah-III distiller. Decrease in thermal performance is attributed to its low specific condensing area which is 20 % lower than that of the phase III unit. However, both Jeddah III and IV are generating higher exergy losses and hence higher irreversibility compared to Jeddah II which incorporates high number of stages.

2416

Al-Jubail Plant

Figures 3 shows thermal performance of Al-Jubail II plant. The unit was operating mostly at a TBT of 90 oC and after 200 days of operation the unit was shut down for acid cleaning and thereafter TBT was increased to 95 oC. The unit performance ratio during the first 200 days was ranging between 7.7 and 8.4, which is within design performance ratio of 8.01 at 90 oC. During this period, the unit specific exergy losses varied between 57 and 61 kJ/kg and the rational exergy efficiency varied between 5.8 and 6.2 %. After tubes acid cleaning, the thermal performance of the unit improved remarkably. The performance ratio increased to above 9 and the specific exergy losses dropped below 53 kJ/kg which is reflected in an increase of exergy efficiency to 6.6 percent. This can be attributed to the combined effect of acid cleaning and high TBT operation.

Al-Khobar Plant

Figure 4 shows the variation in the thermal performance of Al-Khobar Phase II distiller. The TBT of the monitored distiller was maintained between 84 and 92 oC while the steam temperature varied between 92 and 108 oC. The unit which is a 16 stage distiller was yielding low performance ratio ranging between 6.7 and 7.6 and relatively higher specific exergy losses which varied between 64 to 75 kJ/kg while the rational exergy efficiency varied between 6.7 and 5.6 percent. It is observed that the increase of steam temperature resulted in an increase of the specific exergy losses. This is because the thermal energy supplied to the brine heater has a high exergy value which is eventually dissipated due to phase change. Although the distillers experienced a relatively high specific exergy losses, it was not reflected in the magnitude of rational exergy efficiency. This is due to the fact that the unit was subjected to a make up of relatively high salinity exceeding 50,000 ppm. In other words, the unit was producing a useful product output with a relatively elevated chemical exergy related to the seawater make up.

2417

Al-Khafji Plant

Figure 5 shows the thermal performance of Al-Khafji distiller. Although the distiller is operating with a low TBT around 87 oC, it was operating at relatively high performance ratio. The performance ratio ranged between 8.8 and 9.4 which is 10 to 20 % higher than the design value. This could be attributed to the high specific condensing area of the distiller which is 3.84 m2/m3/day. The distiller specific exergy losses ranged between 51 and 61 kJ/kg. During the first 80 days of testing, the specific exergy losses was decreasing despite the constant values of TBT and steam temperature. This could be attributed to the increase of the seawater temperature during that period and which is directly reflected into a decrease of the flash range. The increase of specific exergy losses after 80 days is mainly due to increase of the steam temperature which led to an increase of exergy losses in the brine heater.

Micro-Thermal Analysis

It is essential to determine the distribution of the overall exergy losses among the various subsystems of the MSF distiller and identify locations where losses of useful exergy occur within the process. Subsystems which are responsible for exergy losses include brine heater, heat recovery section, heat rejection section, leaving streams and the ejector system. The magnitude of the exergy losses in each subsystem is calculated for each investigated distiller and shown in Figure 6. It shows that specific exergy losses are mainly dependent upon steam and top brine temperatures, number of stages and specific condensing area. Al-Khobar distiller was presented by two bar charts where in both cases all the operating parameters are kept constant except the temperature of steam entering the brine heater. Increase of steam temperature from 95oC to 105oC resulted in 30% increase of exergy losses in the brine heater while exergy losses in the other subsystems were largely unchanged. The influence of steam temperature on the overall exergy destruction is thus very significant. Al-Jubail and Al-Khafji distillers are characterized by relatively low specific exergy losses and this can be attributed to their

2418

large specific condensing areas. Although Jeddah II is operating at a high TBT, it is having low exergy destruction because of its large number of flash stages which resulted in moderate temperature drop in each stage. Conversely, Jeddah III and IV are both showing high specific exergy losses and this is due to the high TBT operation and low condensing areas.

For all distillers major exergy destruction has occurred in heat recovery section which accounts for more than 50 percent. The specific exergy losses in the brine heater, heat rejection and losses through leaving streams are much lower than those of the recovery section. The recovery section represents the largest part of the distiller and its condensing area is several times higher than that of both the rejection section and brine heater. Thus the high exergy losses in the recovery section is primarily due to its large condensing area. To make a rational comparison between the irreversibility associated with the recovery section to that associated with the brine heater and rejection section, it was essential to determine the exergy destruction flux (exergy per unit condensing area) for each subsystem. Figure 7 shows that the recovery section in most cases is exhibiting the lowest exergy destruction flux. The only exceptions are Jeddah III and IV, which are having comparable values of exergy flux in the recovery and brine heater. This is because both units are operating at high TBT and are having less number of stages compared to Jeddah II, which is also operating at a high TBT. Increase of TBT; while number of stages are not proportionally increased; causes an increase of both condenser and flashing exergy losses due to increase of temperature drop per stage.

CONCLUSIONS

1.

Thermodynamic analysis of MSF distillers representing Jeddah, Al-Jubail, AlKhobar and Al-Khafji desalination plant showed that all the examined distillers are having performance ratios equal to or higher than the design values.

2.

Specific exergy losses of distillers are found varying between 54 and 77 kJ/kg distillate. These losses are much higher than that necessary for an ideal reversible process which is only 7.2 kJ/kg distillate[22]. The rational exergy efficiency of the examined distillers ranged between 4.3 to 6.7 percent.

2419

3.

Distillers which were generating high exergy losses are Jeddah III and IV and both are operating at high TBT and of relatively low number of stages. Al-Khobar distiller, which is also of limited number of stages and subjected to seawater of high salinity exhibited high exergy destruction.

4.

Al-Jubail, Al-Khafji and Jeddah II distillers demonstrated comparable exergy destruction. The first two plants are characterized by large specific condensing area while the third is having more number of stages.

5.

Subsystems exergy analysis revealed that the brine heater in most cases is responsible for the highest exergy destruction flux. Brine heater exergy losses are highly influenced by steam temperature, and its associated exergy contents.

6.

Overall exergy losses due to irreversibilities in different subsystems can be reduced by increasing the number of stages and specific condensing area and by decreasing heating steam temperature.

2420

Table 1. Design Parameters of the Examined MSF Distillers

Plant No. of stages Heat Heat Parameter Recovery Rejection Phase II Phase III Phase IV Al-Jubail Al-Khobar Al-Khafji Phase II Phase II Phase II 31 14 21 19 13 19 3 2 3 3 3 3

Total 34 16 24 22 16 22

Production m3/day 10,800 22,000 22,000 24,000 21,500 11,600

TBT , oC 115 108 108 90 90 87.8

GOR 9.5 6.9 7.0 7.8 6.5 9.5

Jeddah

2421

START

INPUT DATA Number of stages, temperature, flow and concentration of boundary streams, top brine temperature (TBT), terminal temperature difference (TTD), pressure rise in pumps and pressure drop in heat input, recovery and rejection stages. Initialize stage brine temperatures Initialize makeup and brine recycle flow rates.

Seawater Properties

STAGE-TO-STAGE CALCULATION Computation for mass and energy balances Calculate temperature, flow rate and salinity of brine and Vapor in each stage. Calculate total distillate, recycle and makeup flows Calculate the difference between the calculated and targeted blowdown concentrations (DIFF CONC) NO

Adjustment of makeup and brine recycle flows

ABS (DIFF CONC) 0.02

YES Calculate number of recovery and rejection stages Determine pressure drop per stage for recovery and rejection Seawater Properties THERMAL CALCULATION Perform thermal calculations for determination of HTC, GOR and PR. EXERGY CALCULATION Calculate the thermo-mechanical and chemical exergy for flashing brine, distillate vapor, condensate and heated brine in each stage. Determine exergy input for recycle, makeup, distillate product, blowdown, and cooling water pumps EXERGY ACCOUNTING Calculate exergy destruction in brine heater, recovery and rejection section, wasted in leaving streams, friction in liquid paths and useful chemical exergy of the product. Specific exergy losses, Exergetic Efficiency,

Total exergy losses , and Distillate production

= Useful chemical exergy output Thermomechanical exergy input

STOP

Figure 1. Mathematical Models and Computation Flow Chart

2422

120 115 TBT(c) 110 105 100 80 Flash Range(c)-2

TBT(c)-2

TBT(c)-3

TBT(c)-4

Flash Range(c)

Flash Range(c)-3

F. R. Temp.(c)-4

75 70 65 60 14 PR. Plant-2 PR. Plant-3 PR. Plant-4

P.R. (kg/2326kJ)

12 10 8 6 90 Sp. Exergy losses-2 Sp. Exergy Losses-3 Sp. Exergy Losses-4

Sp. Exergy Losses(KJ/Kg)

80 70 60 50 7 Exergy Eff.-2 Exergy Eff.-3 Exergy Eff.-4

Exergy Efficiency

6.4 5.8 5.2 4.6 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Days Figure 2. Operational Performance of Jeddah II, III & IV Plants

2423

120 100

Acid Cleaning
SW Temp Steam Temp TBT Flash Range

Temperature ( C )
Specific Exergy Losses, (kJ/kg)

80 60 40 20 0 9.5

P.R. (kg/2326kJ)
Exergy Efficiency

9 8.5 8 7.5 7 70

65

60

55

50

45 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

Days Figure 3.

Acid Cleaning

Operation Performance of Al-Jubail Plant Unit # 8

2424

120 100

Temperature ( C)

80

SW Temp. Steam Temp.

TBT Flash Range

60 40 20 0 7.6

P.R. (kg/2326 kJ)

7.4 7.2 7 6.8 6.6

Sp. Exergy Losses, (kJ/kg)

Exergy Efficiency

80 76 72 68 64 60 7 6.6 6.2 5.8 5.4 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Days Figure 4. Operation Performance of Al-Khobar Phase II Plant

2425

120 100

Temperature ( c)

80 60 40 20 0 10.2

SW Temp(c) Steam Temp(c)

TBT(c) Flash Range(c)

P. R. (kg/2326kJ) Specific Exergy losses(kJ/kg) Exergy Efficiency

9.8 9.4 9 8.6 8.2 64 60 56 52 48 44 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Days Figure 5. Operational Performance of Al-Khafji Plant

2426

90 80

Sp. Exergy Losses (kJ/kg )

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Destruction in Brine Heater Wasted in Ejector Wasted in Leaving Streams Destruction In Rejection Destruction in Recovery

Plant
Unit No. Steam Temp.(oC) TBT, oC No. of Stages PR Ad/Md, (m2/m3/day)

Al-Khobar Al-Khobar Al-Jubail Al-Khafji Jeddah 2 Jeddah 3 Jeddah 4

2 105 90 16 6.8 2.85 2 95 90 16 7.1 2.85 8 95 90.6 22 8.1 3.56 1 94 87 22 9.2 3.84 5 120 115 34 11.2 1.646 10 112 108 16 7.6 2.25 19 114 110 24 8.7 1.7

Figure 6. Comparison of Breakdown of Exergy Destruction

0.6

Exergy Destruction Flux ( kW/m )

0.5

Recovery Section Rejection Section Brine Heater

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 Al-Khobar Al-Jubail II Al-Khafji Jeddah II Jeddah III Jeddah IV

Figure 7. Breakdown of Exergy Flux Among Major Subsystems

2427

REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Wangnick Consulting & GMBH, (1998). IDA worldwide desalting plants inventory report 15. Burley, M.J.(1967). Analytical comparison of the multistage flash and long tube vertical distillation, Desalination, 2, 81-88. Darwish, M. A. and El-Hadik, A. A.(1986). The multieffect boiling desalting system and its comparison with the multistage flash system, Desalination, 60, 251-265. El-Dessoukey, H., shaban, H. I. and Al-Ramadan, H. (1995). Steady state analysis of multistage flash desalination process, Desalination, 103, 271-287. Hamed, O. A. and Aly, S., (1991). processes, Desalination, 80, 1-14. Simulation and design of MSF desalination

Hussain, A., Woldai, A., Al-Radif, A., Kesou, A., Borsani, R., Sultan, H. and Deshpandey, P.B. (1994), Modelling and simulation of a multistage flash (MSF) desalination plant, Desalination,97, 555-586. Honburg, C.D. and Walson, B.M.(1993), Operational Optimization of MSF Systems, Desalination, 92, 331-351. Tanios, B.Z.(1984). Marginal operation field of existing MSF distillation plants, Desalination, 51, 201-212. Darwish, M. A.,(1991). Thermal analysis of multistage flash desalting systems, Desalination, 59-79.

7. 8. 9.

10. Helal, A.M., Medani, M.S. and Soliman, M.A.(1986). A Tridiagonal matrix model for multistage flash desalination plants, Computers and Chemical Engineering, 10, (4), 327-342. 11. Rasso, M., Beltramini, A., Mazzotti, M and Morbidelli, M. (1996). Modelling multistage flash desalination plants, Desalination,108, 335-364. 12. El-Dessoukey, H., Shaban, H. I. and Al-Ramadan, H. (1995). Steady state analysis of multistage flash desalination process, Desalination,103, 253-279. 13. El-Sayed, Y.M. (1992). Advances in the methodologies of optimal thermal design, Proceedings of Desal 92 Arabian Gulf Regional Water Desalination Symposium, AlAin, Unites Arab Emirates, 2, 555-595. 14. Koot, L.W. (1968). Exergy losses in a flash evaporator, Desalination, 5, 331-348. 15. Darwish, M. A., Al-Najem, N. M. and Al-Ahmed, M. S.(1993). Second law analysis of recirculating multistage flash desalting system, Desalination, 89, 289-309. 16. El-Nasher, A.M.(1994). An MSF evaporator for the UANW 9 and 10 power stations. Design consideration based on energy and exergy, Desalination, 107, 253-279. 17. Sulaiman, F.A. and Ismail, B. (1995). Exergy analysis of major recirculating multistage flash desalting plants in Saudi Arabia, Desalination, 103, 265-270. 18. El-Sayed, Y.M. (1998). Design and simulation software, Advanced Energy Systems, Fremont, CA, USA.

2428

19. Al-Sofi, M. AK., Al-Hussain M. A. and Al-Zahrani S. G. (1987). Additive scale control optimization and operation modes, Desalination, 66, 11-32. 20. Al-Mudaiheen, A. M., Al-Sofi, M. AK., Al-Omran, A. A. and Al-Jardan, A. A. (1986). Practical experience in operating multistage flash MSF evaporators, Topics in Desalination, Saline Water Conversion Corporation. 21. Nada, N. (1986). Operating experience of MSF units in Saudi Arabia, Topics in Desalination, Saline Water Conversion Corporation. 22. Spiegler, K. S. (1983). Thermal analysis, Desalination, 44, 3-16.

2429