Computational Fluid Dynamics Study of MSF Flash Chambers Su-Components;

i- Vapor Flow through Demister

M. Khamis Mansour*, Hassan E. S. Fath, and El-Samni O.

Mech. Eng. Dept., Alexandria University
(* Corresponding Author; e-mail mdkhamis@gmail.com)

Abstract

Multi Stage Flash (MSF) technology is widely used in salted water desalination. The
enhancement in the thermal performance of this technology is still prospective and
promising. The main purpose of the present study is to highlight the key parameters which
contribute significantly to the improvement in MSF Flash Chamber (FC) efficiency, as the
critical component of MSF unit. In this work, vapor flow through demister is studied. Flow
development in 2D simulation model of a real flash chamber has been investigated using
ANSYS FLUENT 12.1, commercial Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software. The
two equations k-ε turbulence model is used. Prediction of velocity vectors, pressure contours,
phase volume fraction, temperature profile and demister pressure drop are presented. The
significance of the results and the factors affecting the MSF chamber performance are
analyzed. Verification of the results will be presented in this work that simulates a typical
experimental set-up (under construction).

Introduction

In MSF process, vapor forms within the liquid bulk instead of hot surface of tubes and
hot brine flow freely and flash in series of chambers, thus evaporation rate and efficiency of
the system would drastically increase. This concept is the main advantage of MSF over other
thermal evaporation systems, as MED, in which salt formation on the outside surface of the
tubes decreases their thermal conductivity. Figure 1 depicts the flashing process elements
consists of heat input, heat recovery and heat rejection sections.
 Figure 1. Multistage flash desalination with brine circulation

The heat input section drives the flashing process in which brine recycle or feed seawater
is heated up using heating steam to a desired value named top brine temperature (TBT). In
the next two sections the hot brine flashes in the consecutive stages, where the brine recycles
or the feed seawater flowing inside the condenser tubes recovers the latent heat of
evaporation. As "Kelvin-Planck" statement of second law of thermodynamics states: we
always need two heat sources for completing a cycle, here the low temperature source is
cooling seawater which the brine would reject its excess heat to.

Heat recovery and rejection sections are made of successive chambers, where flashing
occurs because of the reduction of the brine saturation temperature. In each stage a small
amount of product water is generated and accumulated; as a result, the stage temperature
decreases from the hot to cold side of the plant. This allows for brine flow across the stages
without the aid pumping power.

The flashed off vapors condense on the tubes of the preheater/condenser units. Their
released latent heat is used to preheat the brine recycle stream. The feed and the cooling
seawater enter the condenser on the cold side of the plant. As this stream leaves the heat
rejection section, the cooling seawater is rejected back to the sea and the feed seawater is
mixed in the brine pool of the last stage in the heat rejection section. Moreover, two streams
are extracted from the last chamber. One is brine blow which is crucial for stabilizing the
salinity of the brine and would be rejected to the sea. And other is the brine recycle which is
then introduced to the last stage in the heat recovery section.

Some further units are included in desalination for pretreatment of the feed and cooling
seawater streams which is limited to simple screening and filtration. Other basic units in the
system include pumping units for the feed seawater and brine recycle. Also, gas-venting
systems operate on flashing stages for removal of non-condensable gases such O2, N2, and
CO2.

Figure 2 shows one stage of MSF flash Chamber overall configuration and its main
components. Flashed water in forms of vapor passes through demister and cools down on
condenser tubes. Distilled water is accumulated in a tray and collected.

Figure 2. MSF Flash Chamber (FC)

In practice, the flow of the flashing vapor inside the flash chamber is not uniform as
expected, this is due to the flashing process itself is not uniform, a larger amount of vapor is
flashed at the beginning of the FC then this amount is decreased along with the FC Width.
Stemming from this fact, the velocity distribution and flow development is totally different
from zone-to-zone causing some flow dead pockets and flow recirculation inside the FC unit.
Those unwanted zones contribute significantly in lowering FC performance. Those issues
will be investigated in this study using Computational Fluid Dynamic CFD technique. The
effect of vapor flow maldistribution, demister porosity, and stage pressure has been addressed
in this study.

Previous studies on flow through porous can be divided into two main areas:
Experimental work and numerical simulation. Following are some of the related work done in
the past: El-Dessouky [1] conducted a comprehensive excremental study to measure the
performance of wire mesh mist eliminator. The demister performance was evaluated by
droplet separation efficiency, vapor pressure drop of wet demister, and flooding and loading
velocities. These variables were measured as a function of vapor velocity (0.98 – 7.5 m/s),
packing density (80.317 – 208.16 kg/m3), pad thickness (100 – 200 cm), wire diameter (0.2 –
0.32 mm), and diameter of captured droplets (1-5 mm). Within the experimental range used,
the following conclusions are made:
- The separation increases with the increase of the droplet size and the vapor
velocity.
- The specific pressure drop for the dry demister is low and varies linearly with the
gas velocity.

- The specific pressure drop for the wet demister increases linearly up to the loading
point, thereafter, the rate on increase is higher. Beyond the flooding point,
significant increase occurs in the specific pressure drop, even with the slightest
increase in the vapor velocity.

- The flooding and loading velocities increase at lower packing density and larger
wire diameters.

Rahimi [2] predicated pressure drop in a mist pad by CFD using Fluent and compared the
numerical result with the available experimental data and empirical model of El-Dessouky
[1]. The CFD simulations predict excellently the wire mesh mist eliminator pressure drop
under inlet velocity with a maximum deviation of 14 % from the Frashband's refinery data
and 21% from empirical formula. The efficiency of the demister is at highest at the gas inlet
velocity of 6 m/s. This deviation is because of carrying out of liquids from the demister pad at
higher inlet velocity by gas and these liquids close holes of demister and cause more pressure
drop which is accounted for by the El-Dessouky's [1]. He mentioned in his paper: "It is good
to insist that CFD simulation for demister pad causes difficulty because of tiny diameter of
wire mesh and it is do hard to simulate because of limitation of computing and in some cases
complex structure of wire meshes." J. Zhao [3] conducted a numerical simulation of a
demister vane with various geometries and operating conditions in order to study the
separation efficiency using Fluent 6.1. The results show that not only the vane spacing and
flue gas velocity, but also vane height (including height of curve and upright region) and vane
turning angles, play an important role in influencing the separation efficiency. Wang Y [4]
investigated the collection efficiency of two wave-plate demisters by numerically simulating
the flow field and droplets motion and a comparison is carried out of the numerical
predictions with the experimental results of Phillips and Deakin [5]. Results shows that large
discrepancies exist between numerically predicted and measured collection efficiencies over
a range of droplet sizes. Galletti [6] used CFD to develop Eulerian/Lagrangian models of two
wave-plate mist eliminators, both equipped with drainage channels. The models are assessed
through comparison with comprehensive experimental data on removal efficiencies and
pressure drops. Pressure drops have been analyzed and resulted to be in satisfactory
agreement with the few measurements available. Helsor and Svendsen [7] measured dry
pressure drop over seven different wire mesh demisters experimentally. The porosity of the
wire mesh demisters used in this study ranged from 93.4% to 98.5%. The pressure drops
could be fitted to a Hazen-Dupuit-Darcy type equation with good agreement for all systems
tested. Average values of the specific permeability, K, and the form drag factor, C, have
been calculated for each mesh.
The objective of this study to address the vapor flow development through demister
(porous object) in flash chamber of MSF desalination plant via CFD. The effect on design
key parameters has been investigated in this study as follows:

- Effect of vapor mass flux distribution at FC inlet section

- Effect of Demister porosity (0.95, 0.75, 0.5, and o.15)
- Effect of stage pressure (specific volume). Stage 1 , 10 , 20

CFD simulation setup and Solution technique

Amongst a few methods of solving the set of governing equations, the finite
approaches was chosen as the commercial CFD software package, ANSYS FLUENT, which
is based on the finite volume approach, was available. ANSYS FLUENT uses a control-
volume-based technique to convert a general scalar transport equation to an algebraic
equation that can be solved numerically. This control volume technique consists of
integrating the transport equation about each control volume, yielding a discrete equation that
 expresses the conservation law on a control-volume basis. The transport equations are
represented by mass, momentum, and energy equations. ANSYS FLUENT uses a control-
volume-based technique to convert a general scalar transport equation to an algebraic
equation that can be solved numerically. This control volume technique consists of
integrating the transport equation about each control volume, yielding a discrete equation that
expresses the conservation law on a control-volume basis. The discretized equations, along
with the initial and boundary conditions, were solved using the pressure-based segregated
solution method to obtain a numerical solution. Using the segregated solver, the conservation
of mass and momentum were solved iteratively and a pressure-correction equation was used
to ensure the conservation of momentum and conservation of mass. The k –ε model was used
to treat turbulence phenomena in this study. The following assumptions are adopted in the
numerical model:
a. Two dimensions flow
b. Steady-state
c. Newtonian flow
d. Incompressible flow
e. Turbulent flow using k-  model
f. Isothermal flow

The demister has been modeled as a porous media in the CFD model. There are many
types of demisters such as wire mesh which is used in this study. The performance of wire
mesh eliminators depends on many design variables such as wire diameter, packing density,
pad thickness and material of construction. The following table shows those physical
parameters for the case-study of this work:

Height (m) Wire diameter (mm) Packing density (kg/m3) Surface area (m2/m3) Porosity (%)
0.15 0.27 186.9 345 98

In order to simulate the demister using ANSYS FLUENT, porous jump option is used.
The thin porous medium has a finite thickness over which the pressure change is defined as a
combination of Darcy's law and an additional inertial loss term:
 1 
P     C 2  2 m [1]
 2 
Where  is the laminar fluid viscosity,  is the permeability of the medium, C2 is the
pressure-jump coefficient, is the velocity normal to the porous face, and m is the
thickness of the medium. Appropriate values for  and C 2 can be calculated using the
techniques described as follows:

D2  3 3.5 1   
 & C2  [2]
150 1    2
D 3

Where the D is the mean mesh hole diameter, and  is the void fraction (porosity), defined as
the volume of voids divided by the volume of the packed bed region.

Reference Case

The FC unit of Sidi Krir MSF has been selected as the case study in this work. Sidi Krir
MSF plant consists of twenty units with a production capacity of 1847 ton/hour of desalinated
water. The first stage FC in the plant is taken as the base case study; Figure (3) shows the
internal of Sidei Krir plant and FC internals. The simulation dimension and configuration of
this unit is shown in Figure (4).

Figure (3) Sidi Krir MSF plant & Flash Chamber

 Figure (4) Flash chamber size

The operating conditions of this unit as follows

- The stage pressure is 1.013 bars

- The flashed vapor is 12.5 ton/hr for the full domain with width of 7 m, so the mass
flux is 0.396 kg/m2.s

Mesh Generation

Two meshes were generated for the calculations and the grid independence test. The
coarse grid consisted of 21,900 cells with a maximum volume of 2.5x10-5, and the fine grid
consists of 350,400 cells with a maximum volume of 6.25 x 10-6. The grids were generated
by meshing all faces using regular quadrilateral mesh elements and meshing the volume.
 Figure (5) Mesh size

Both solution-adaptive refinement and boundary-adaptive refinement were used in the

calculation with the coarse grid in order to get a reasonable solution. Due to the limit space,
only the result of the grid independence test for FC case is presented in this work. Figure 6
shows the difference in the local vapor velocity at the demister location for different mesh
sizes. As it is noticed, from this figure that the curves are almost coincident after 87,600 as a
number of cells.
 7

Velocity Magnitude (m/s)

4
Coarse mesh (21,900 cells)
Meduim mesh (87,600 cells)
Fine mesh (350,400 cells)
3

0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Position (m)

Figure 6. Mesh independent

As the flow was wall dominated, the mesh extended into the viscous sub layer; such
+
that y is equal to the range of 1 to 5 in the wall bounded mesh points so that enhanced wall
functions could be used with the K-ε model. Figure (7) illustrates the values of Yplus with
respect to the wall position.

4
Demister

FC walls
Yplus

0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Position (m)

Figure 7. Yplus distribution

Model Setup

The locations of the boundary conditions are illustrated in Figure (8). The second
order upwind is used for the continuity and momentums spatial discretization.

Exit section
Demister section

Inlet section

Figure 8. Model Boundary conditions

Results & Discussion

In order to simulate the real FC unit, the mass flow rate distribution has been proposed as
a non-uniform distribution. The largest vapor flashing will be occurred at the beginning of the
FC then the flow rate will reduced gradually upon the end of the FC which has almost zero
vapor flashing. Figure 9 illustrates the vapor velocity contours; as expected at the inlet
section the vapor velocity is higher than that at the exit section causing approximately dead
pockets at the corners. Those pockets are clarified in Figure 8 by the blue color zones which
refer to re-circulated/reversed flow in those zones which in turn produces an increase in FC
internal pressure and of course, this will degrade the performance of the flashing process.
 Figure.9 Velocity distribution & Vector distribution of the case study

Figure.10 Pressure distribution & Stream function distribution of the case study

Figure 10 shows the pressure profile along the FC unit, as it is noticed from this figure
that the main pressure drop in the FC unit is found at the demister section. The pressure drop
at the clean condition for the demister is around 20 Pa. The distribution of mass flow rate
along the FC is displayed in Figure 10.
 Three different proposed mass flow rate distributions are presented in Figure 11. The
three different distributions are so-called stepped, uniform, and linear mass flow rate. As it is
shown in Figure 12 that the uniform mass flow rate distribution is considered the best
distribution trend in terms of the number of dead pockets; however, it suffers from higher
velocity at the demister zone creates a larger expected pressure drop at this condition. The
vector distributions for the three different proposed mass flow rate are illustrated in Figure
13.
1
Stepped mass flux
0.9
Linear mass flux
Uniform mass flux
0.8

0.7
Mass flux kg/m2.S

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Inlet section distance (m)

Figure 11. mass flux different distributions

 stepped mass flow rate uniform mass flow rate linear mass flow rate

Figure.12 velocity distribution

stepped mass flow rate uniform mass flow rate linear mass

Figure.13 vector distribution

The effect of demister porosity has been addressed in this section, the three different values of
porosity at 0.98, 0.55, and 0.15 present three different conditions of the demister operating case. As a
result of salt accumulation on the mesh holes of the demister, this accumulation causes a kind of partial
blockage in the demister mesh. As it is noticed from Figure 14 the less porosity in the demister mesh the
higher significant pressure drop in the vapor flow development. Figure 15 is prepared to show the effect
of the demister porosity on the increase in the demister pressure drop from the cleaning condition. The
pressure drop at the new condition for the demister is 20 Pa while the pressure is increased as a decrease
in the mesh porosity, in turn to an increase in vapor pressure drop could reach to 12.17 kPa. The effect of
demister porosity on the velocity distribution is shown in Figure 16.

porosity of 0.98 porosity of 0.55 porosity of 0.15

Figure.14 pressure distribution

0.6 90
Pressure drop profile Pressure drop profile

80
0.5
70
Pressure drop (KPa)

Pressure drop (KPa)

0.4 60

50
0.3
40
0.2 30

20
0.1
10
0
0
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
Porosity 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1
Porosity

High demister porosity Low demister porosity

Figure 15. The effect of porosity on the demister pressure drop

 porosity at 0.98 porosity at 0.55 porosity at 0.15

Figure.16 velocity distribution

first stage Middle stage last stage

Figure.17 pressure distribution

The effect of stage pressure on the velocity and pressure distribution has been
investigated in this section; three different stages (first, middle, and last stage) have been
selected in this study with different pressure values of 1.013, 0.327, and 0.065 bars,
respectively. The pressure distribution is illustrated in Figure 17 while Figures 18 and 19
describe the effect of stage pressure on the vapor velocity profile. As it can be deduced from
Figure 18, as the vapor passes through the lower stage pressure, this dictates the vapor
velocity to be higher at this stage. It is explained by the decrease in flashing pressure causes
the vapor specific volume to be higher and hence the vapor velocity will be increased at the
same mass flow rate. It can be seen from Figure 19 that the more drop in stage pressure the
more accelerating flow velocity.

first stage Middle stage last stage

Figure.18 velocity distribution

first stage Middle stage last stage

Figure.19 vector distribution

Result Validation
Following data are obtained from the CFD simulation conducted for uniform mass flux
case:
Average pressure drop of demister, ΔP = 101325 Pa – 101279 Pa = 46 Pa
Average vapor velocity at demister inlet = 2.15 m/s

It should be noted that the calculated pressure from the CFD analysis is based on single
phase vapor flow i.e. its dryness fraction is unity. And hence, the present model calculates the
dry pressure drop for the flow across demister. The experimental correlations which are
selected from the open literature survey are in H. Fath [8] and El-Dessouky [1]. And both
predict the wet pressure drop in the demister (wire mesh type).
1.9  1  X     V 2  t
The first correlation is ΔP =
0.0002
Where,
 is vapor density in Kg/m3
V is specific vapor flow in m/s
t is demister thickness in m
X is the average vapor dryness fraction

In order to approach the idea of using this correlation to predict the dry pressure drop, the
dryness fraction should be taken as 0.999. Doing so, the average calculated pressure drop
through the demister from this correlation is of 41.24 Pa i.e. the deviation will be around
+10% between the CFD work and this experimental correlation.
The second correlation is P  3.882 p 
0.376
 (V ) 0.813  (d w ) 1.56  t

Where,
 p is packing density (80.317 – 208.16 kg/m3)
V is vapor velocity (0.98 – 7.5 m/s)
d w is the wire diameter (0.2 – 0.32 mm)
t is the demister thickness in m

The calculated pressure drop produced by this correlation (using the same geometrical and
operating parameters for the present study) will be 60 Pa. The estimated deviation is of
+23.3%. The explanation of this relatively big deviation between both results is the empirical
correlation was proposed for a wet demister while the present study does not.
Conclusion
Numerical study for the vapor flow inside the FC has been presented in this study aiming
to shed the light on the underlying key parameters which have significant influence on the FC
aerodynamic behavior/performance. Those parameters are represented by vapor mass flux
profile, demister porosity, and stage pressure.

The effect of each parameter has been addressed in this work. The uniform mass flow rate
distribution is considered the best distribution trend in terms of the number of dead pockets;
however, it suffers from higher velocity at the demister zone creates a larger expected
pressure drop at this condition. The less porosity in the demister mesh the higher significant
pressure drop in the vapor flow development. The pressure drop at the new condition for the
demister is 20 Pa while the pressure is increased as a decrease in the mesh porosity, in turn to
an increase in vapor pressure drop could reach to 12.17 kPa.

It may be concluded that the lower stage pressure the higher vapor velocity as it is
expected and this stimulates the vapor to accommodate more mist droplets during the vapor
flow. The reduction in stage pressure from 1.013 bars "first stage pressure" to 0.065 bars
"last stage pressure" will cause the vapor velocity to be increased about 18 times the vapor
velocity In the first stage, hence attention should be paid regarding the construction design
for the last stage to be large to decelerate the vapor velocity, and this what is happened in the
practice.

The tracing of the moist droplets at vapor fraction of 0.75 has been also studied in this
research, the controllable parameter in moist movement through the FC is the vapor local
velocity, and moist droplets pursue the vapor velocity and trapped/circulated in the
corners/low vapor velocities. Further study has been intended to investigate the effect of this
moist movement on the demister separation efficiency in the future work.

Hence, form this study, it may concluded that the modifications in the present design of
the FC and effective remedies for the problems coupled with the key design parameters can
be leaded successfully in the improvement in the FC performance.
 Reference

1- R. Rahimi, and D. Abbaspour, Determination of pressure drop in wire mesh mist

eliminator by CFD, Chem. Eng. Process. 47 (2008) 1504-1508.
2- J. Zhao, B. Jin,and Z. Zhong, Study of the separation efficiency of a demister vane
with response surface methodology, J. Hazard. Mater. 147 (2007) 363–369.
3- H.T. El-Dessouky, Performance of wire mesh mist eliminator, Chem. Eng. Process.
39 (2000) 129–139.
4- Y. Wang, and P.W. James, 1999, Assessment of an Eddy interaction model and its
refinements using predictions of droplet deposition in a wave-plate demister. Trans.
IChem E Part A: Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 77: 692 – 697.
5- Galletti, Ch., Brunazzi, E., and Tognotti, L., 2008. A numerical model for gas flow
and droplet motion in wave-plate mist eliminators with drainage channels. Chem.
Eng. Sci., 63: 5639–5652.
6- Helsor and Svendsen, 2007. Experimental characterization of pressure drop in dry
demisters at low and elevated pressures. Trans IChem E, Part A, Vol 85 (A3) 377–
385.
7- E.E. Ludwig, Applied Process Design for Chemical and Petrochemical Plants, vol. 2,
Gulf Publishing Co., Huston, 1977.
8- H.E.S. Fath, Improving the performance of MSF desalination plants, Proceedings of
IDA Int. Conf., San Diego, USA, 1999.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to acknowledge the finical support from the GERF in
collaboration with Technical University of Munchen (TUM).

View publication stats