Subscriber access provided by UNIV OSNABRUECK

Article
Optimization of Integrated Water and Multi-Regenerator Membrane Systems
Musah Abass, and Thokozani Majozi
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Just Accepted Manuscript DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03423 Publication Date (Web): 22 Jan 2016
Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on January 26, 2016

Just Accepted

Just Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted
online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical
Society provides Just Accepted as a free service to the research community to expedite the
dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. Just Accepted manuscripts
appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. Just Accepted manuscripts have been
fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all
readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Just Accepted is an optional service offered
to authors. Therefore, the Just Accepted Web site may not include all articles that will be published
in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the Just
Accepted Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor
changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers
and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors
or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these Just Accepted manuscripts.

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research is published by the American

Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036
Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright American Chemical Society.
However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works
produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the
course of their duties.
Page 1 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
Optimization of Integrated Water and Multi-Regenerator Membrane Systems
5
6 Musah Abass and Thokozani Majozi*
7
8
9 School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, University of Witwatersrand, 1 Jan
10
11
Smuts Avenue, Braamfontein, Johannesburg, 2000, South Africa
12
13 Abstract
14
15
Water and energy are key resources in the process industry. The increasing pressure on
16
17 freshwater and energy resources coupled with stringent environmental regulations on effluent
18
19 discharge limits have called for innovative designs for sustainable use of water and energy.
20
21 This can be achieved through process integration techniques that are environmentally benign
22
23
and economically feasible. This work proposes a robust water network superstructure
24 optimisation approach for the synthesis of a multi-regenerator network for simultaneous
25
26 water and energy minimisation. Two types of membrane regenerators are considered for this
27
28 work, namely, electrodialysis and reverse osmosis. In each of the membrane regenerators, a
29
30 detailed design model is developed and incorporated into the water network model. The
31
detailed model presented in this work is compared to the more common blackbox model,
32
33 which uses linear expressions to represent costs of regeneration units. The results show that
34
35 the blackbox model gives inaccurate cost representation as compared to the detailed model
36
37 and also the blackbox model framework does not give insights on optimal design of the
38
39
regeneration units for minimum energy usage. The presence of continuous and integer
40 variables, as well as nonlinear constraints renders the problem mixed integer nonlinear
41
42 programming (MINLP). The developed model is applied to a pulp and paper case study to
43
44 demonstrate its applicability, assuming a single contaminant scenario. The model was solved
45
46 in GAMS using a solver BARON and the results indicate a 43.7% freshwater reduction,
47 50.9% decrease in wastewater generation and 46% savings in total annualised cost.
48
49
50 Keywords: Sustainable, Synthesis, Optimization, Reverse-osmosis, Electrodialysis.
51
52
53 1. Introduction
54
55 Water and energy are important resources for the development and wellbeing of humanity.
56
57 They are key components in the process industry, and great amounts of each resource are
58
59
consumed to produce the other. Process integration is often employed in order to achieve a
60
*
Corresponding author: Tel: +27 11 717 7384; Fax: +27 82 456 1500
Email address: Thokozani.Majozi@wits.ac.za;

1

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 2 of 36

1
2
3
4
holistic water network superstructure for water and energy minimisation. This is done
5 through an integrated water network that is open for direct reuse, recycle, and regeneration
6
7 reuse/recycle for sustainable cost-effective water and energy usage.
8
9 Water pinch techniques and mathematical based optimization techniques are the two main
10
11 approaches used for optimal synthesis of water networks in process industry. Wang and
12 1,2
13 Smith presented the seminal work in water pinch analysis which sets to target the reuse,
14
15 regeneration reuse/recycle of wastewater in order to reduce freshwater consumption. The
1,
16
work of Wang and Smith Wang and Smith 2 has since developed into advanced graphical,
17
18 tabular and heuristic methods for water network synthesis. The insight-based techniques do
19
20 not involve computational algorithms in generating solutions. They do require significant
21
22 problem simplifications and assumptions and are inherently limited to mass transfer based
23
24
operations 3-5.
25
26 Takama, et al. 6 presented a superstructure optimisation approach for water minimisation in a
27
6
28 petrochemical refinery based on a fixed mass load. The work of Takama, et al. was later
29 7-11
30 extended by several other researchers in order to obtain optimal freshwater usage in their
31
32
respective water network superstructure. Notable among them are the work of Quesada
12 10 13
33 Quesada and Grossmann , Karuppiah and Grossmann and Faria and Bagajewicz who
34
35 present algorithms to obtain feasible solution in cases of the more complex nonlinear
36
37 programming (NLP) and mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) problems that are
38
39 in many cases a challenge to solve. Mathematical optimization allows treatment of water
40 network synthesis problems in their full complexity by considering representative cost-
41
6, 14-17
42 functions, multiple contaminants, and various topological constraints . Mathematical
43
44 optimization approaches also have an added advantage of simulating the water network into a
45
46 desired network structure and operational condition 18.
47
48 5
Tan, et al. presented a water network superstructure with a single membrane partitioning
49
50 regenerator which allows for possible reuse/recycle. The work of Tan, et al. 5 considered the
51
52 blackbox approach which uses linear cost functions for the membrane regenerators. This
53 19
54 does not give an accurate cost representation of the water network. Khor, et al. addressed
55
56 the gap on the work of Tan, et al. 5 by developing a detailed model representation for water
57 network regeneration synthesis using a MINLP optimization framework. The work of Khor,
58
19
59 et al. was, however, limited to a single regenerator with a fixed design. In a more recent
60
20
development, Yang, et al. proposed a unifying approach by combining multiple water

2

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 3 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
treatment technologies capable of treating all major contaminants. The work focused on unit
5 specific short cut cost functions in order to gain detailed understanding of trade-offs between
6
7 removal efficiency of treatment units and the cost of the units, as well as the impact on the
8
9 unit design. To date all the work on water and membrane regeneration has been focusing on
10
11 water minimizing and cost functions of the water networks. No effort has been made on the
12 simultaneous synthesis of the membrane regeneration units and water network for water and
13
14 energy minimization.
15
16
17 The membrane technologies adopted in this work involves electrodialysis (ED) and reverses
18
19 osmosis (RO). Electrodialysis, in principle, is based on the electromigration of ions through
20 21-23
21
cation and anion exchange permselective membranes by means of electric current .
22 Industrial applications of electrodialysis include brackish water desalination, boiler feed and
23
24 process water and wastewater treatment 22.
25
26
27 Reverse osmosis (RO) is a pressure driven membrane separation process that selectively
28
29 allows the passage of one or more species through the membrane unit. Industrial applications
30 of the reverse osmosis unit include its use for municipal and industrial water and wastewater
31
32 treatment. It has also gained large industrial favor as partitioning regenerator to enhance
33
24
34 water quality for reuse/recycle . Detailed mathematical model of RO unit that allows for
35
36 process simulation and optimization has been developed by El-Halwagi 25.
37
38
39
The application of membrane systems as regenerators generally requires enormous amount of
40 energy. Most published work, however, uses linear cost functions blackbox representation
41
5, 26, 27
42 for membrane partitioning regenerators . This does not give an accurate cost
43
44 representation of the membrane systems. There is, therefore, a need for a technique that
45
46 would cater for energy minimization through detailed synthesis of membrane regeneration
47 systems in order to obtain optimal variables that affect the operation and economics of the
48
49 regenerator unit.
50
51
52 The main objective of this work is to develop a systematic technique that would
53
54 simultaneously optimize energy and water consumption within a water network
55
56
superstructure. The technique is based on an integrated water and membrane regeneration
57 network superstructure. The membrane regenerators in this representation are ED and RO.
58
59 The choice of regenerators is motivated by the increasing demand and use of membrane
60
technology for water treatment in the process industry and also the varying potential of

3

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 4 of 36

1
2
3
4
different membrane systems to treat specific waste ranges. Detailed synthesis of the
5 membrane regeneration systems is conducted to determine optimal operating conditions for
6
7 efficient energy usage in terms of costs. The detailed model of the regenerators is
8
9 incorporated in the overall water network objective function in order to minimize freshwater
10
11 and energy consumption and also give a true cost representation as compared to the
12 blackbox method. It is also demonstrated that treating the removal ratio as an additional
13
14 degree of freedom allows for better performance of the integrated system. This is contrary to
15
16 what is presented in literature where the removal ratio is generally treated as a parameter.
17
18
19 2. Problem statement
20
21 The problem statement in this work can be stated as follows:
22
23 Given:
24
25
26 (i) A set of water sources, J, with known flowrates and contaminant concentration.
27
28 (ii) A set of water sinks, I, with known flowrates and known maximum allowable
29
30
contaminant concentration.
31 (iii) Membrane regeneration units with the potential for parallel/series connection for
32
33 partial treatment of wastewater from sources for reuse/recycle.
34
35 (iv) A freshwater source, FW, with known concentration and variable and unlimited
36
37 flowrate.
38 (v) A wastewater sink, WW, with maximum allowable contaminant concentration and
39
40 variable and unlimited flowrate.
41
42 Determine:
43
44
45
(i) The minimum freshwater intake, wastewater generation, the energy consumed in the
46 ED and RO units, and the total annualised costs for ED (TACe) and RO (TACr).
47
48 (ii) Optimal water network configuration.
49
50 (iii) Optimum design variables of the regenerators.
51
52
53
3. Model formulation
54
55 Based on the problem statement, water network superstructure in Figure 1 is developed. The
56 19
57
superstructure representation is an extension of the work by Khor, et al. . The
58 superstructure in this work incorporates multiple regenerators which are open for parallel and
59
60 series connection as well as recycle and reuse of both permeate and reject streams from
regenerators. The fixed flowrate approach adopted in this work considers water using

4

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 5 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
processes as sources and sinks that generate or consume a fixed amount of water respectively.
5 Total fixed flowrate is adopted because it presents a general representation of both mass
6
7 transfer and non-mass transfer-based water using operations 27.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 ED
17
18
19
20
RO
21
22
23 Sources Sinks
24 1 1
25
26 2 2
27
28
29
30
J=FW I=WW
31
32
33
34 Figure 1: General water network superstructure with multiple membrane regenerators
35
36 3.1. Mass balances for sources
37
38
39 Figure 2 shows a schematic representation of water sources, j J , water recycle and reuse
40
41 streams within the membrane regeneration units, and water sink i , that receives water from
42
sources, and both permeate and reject stream of the membrane regeneration units.
43
44
Based on Figure 2, the flowrate, Q xj from any source, j, can split into different streams for
45
46
47
48 direct reuse/recycle or for regeneration. The corresponding material balance is shown in
49
50 constraint (1). Where, Q aj ,i , is the flowrate from any particular source, j to sink, i, Q ed
j and
51
52 Q ro
j are flowrates from source to the ED and RO regenerators respectively.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

5

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 6 of 36

1
2
3 Permeate and reject
4 Q de to regenerators
5 Q fe
6 Permeate and reject ee
QFed Q Ped
7 to regenerators Q ED

8 Q ge
9 Q Re d
10 Permeate and reject
Qdr to regenerators
11
12 Permeate and reject Q fr
to regenerators Q Fro Q Pr o
13 Q er RO
14
15 Q gr
16 Q1ed QRro Q ids
17 Q1ro Q ies
18 Q Jed
Q i fs
19 Sources Q1x Q Jro
Q 1a, i Q igs
20 1 Sink
Q iz
21 i
22
23 QJx Q Ja , i
24 J=FW
25
26
27
28
29 Figure 2: Schematic representations of a water source
30
31
32 Q xj = Q aj ,i + Q ro ed
j + Qj j J (1)
33 iI
34
35 It should be noted that the wastewater sink, WW, is considered as the final sink.
36
37
3.2. Mass and concentration balances for regeneration units
38
39
40 Flow and load balances are conducted for all streams entering the regenerator units. The
41
42 streams from sources, permeate and reject streams of both regenerators, are open to
43
44 reuse/recycle depending on the component concentration limits of the regeneration units.
45
46 Constraints (2) and (3) are water balances around the mixer preceding the ED and RO units
47
48 respectively. Where Q Fro and Q Fed are the total flowrates into the ED and RO units
49
50 respectively. Here Q dr and Q er , is permeate and reject flowrates from the ED unit into the RO
51
52 unit. Whereas, Q fr and Q gr , are permeate and reject flowrates from the RO unit into the RO
53
54 unit.
55
56
57 ro dr er fr gr Fro
58
Qj + Q + Q + Q + Q = Q (2)
jJ
59
60

6

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 7 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
ed de ee fe ge Fed
4 Qj + Q + Q + Q + Q = Q (3)
5 jJ
6
7
8
9 Similarly, Q de and Q ee , and Q fe and Q ge are flowrates from permeate and reject streams of
10
11 ED and RO units into the ED unit.
12
13
14
Based on the varying tolerance of contaminants of the ED and RO units, a contaminant
15 balance for the regenerator feed is conducted based on the maximum contaminant each
16
17 regenerator can take. Hence the corresponding contaminant balance around the mixer of each
18
19 regenerator unit is represented by constraints (4) and (5) for ED and RO respectively.
20
ed x de Ped
21
Qj Cj + Q C + Q eeC Red + Q feC Pro + Q geC Rro
22
23 CUe
jJ (4)
Fed
24 Q
25 ro x dr Ped
26 Qj C j + Q C + Q er C Red + Q fr C Pro + Q gr C Rro
27 CUr
j J (5)
Fro
28 Q
29
30
31 It should be noted that, C Ue and C Ur are the maximum allowable contaminant into the ED
32
33 and RO units respectively. C xj is the concentration from any source j. Whereas C Ped and
34
35 C Re d , and C Pr o and C Rro are concentrations of contaminants for both permeate and reject
36
37 stream of ED and RO units.
38
39 3.3. Mass and concentration balances for permeate and reject streams
40
41
42 Based on Figure 2, water balances for permeate and reject streams of the ED unit are
43
44 represented in constraints (6) and (7). The flowrates from permeate and reject streams into
45
46 sinks are represented by Qids and Qies .
47
48
49 Q Ped = Qids + Q dr + Q de (6)
50 iI
51 Q Re d = Qies + Q er + Q ee (7)
52 iI
53
54 Similarly, the water balances for permeate and reject streams of the RO unit are represented
55
56 by constraints (8) and (9). Where Qi fs and Qigs are permeate and reject flowrates into sinks.
57
58
59
60
Q Pr o = Qi fs + Q fr + Q fe (8)
iI

7

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 8 of 36

1
2
3
4 Q Rro = Qigs + Q gr + Q ge
iI
5 (9)
6
7
8 3.4. Mass and concentration balances for sinks
9
10
11
12 The water balances into a particular sink is represented by constraint (10). The parameter Qiz
13 is the maximum flowrate into a particular sink i.
14
15
a ds es fs gs z
16 Q j ,i + Qi + Qi + Qi + Qi = Qi (10)
17 jJ
18
19 It should be noted, however, that the last source represents the freshwater source, FW. The
20
21 maximum load into any sink, i, should not exceed the maximum allowable contaminant
22
23 concentrations CiU , into that sink. This constraint is expressed by constraint (11).
24
25
26
27
a ds Ped
Q j ,i C j + Qi C + Qies C Red + Qi fs C Pro + Qigs C Rro
jJ
28 CiU (11)
29 Qiz
30
31
32 3.5. Electrodialysis membrane regeneration unit
33
34 This section presents a detailed mechanistic model of a single stage electrodialysis
35
36 regeneration unit based on the work of Tsiakis and Papageorgiou 23. A single stage ED unit is
37
38 considered to demonstrate the interaction between the water network and the regeneration
39
40 unit and also to enhance simplicity of the formulation.
41
42
43
44 Q FedC Fed Q d C Fed Q d C Ped Q ped C Ped
45
46 Qm Qr
47
48 r
c fc
49 Q C Q c Cc Q RedC Red
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 Q crC cr
57
58
59
60 Figure 3: Schematic of a single stage ED plant

8

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 9 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
In order to formulate the model for the regeneration unit, assumptions are made to describe
5 the feed solution properties, hardware dimensions and operating conditions (Lee et al., 2002).
6
7
8 The assumptions are:
9
10
11
(i) The diluate and concentrate cells are geometrically similar with identical flow
12 patterns.
13
14 (ii) The flowrate in the diluate and concentrate compartments are equal and uniform
15
16 Qd = Qc .
17
18 (iii) The fluid considered is Newtonian, i.e. the viscosity remains constant.
19
20 (iv) The unit is operated in a co-current flow.
21
22 (v) During operation the current should not exceed the limiting current density
23
(vi) Water transport across the membrane is negligible compared to the flowrate in the
24
25 diluate and concentrate streams.
26
27 (vii) Membrane thickness is negligible.
28
29 (viii) The concentration of the salt species is calculated using molar equivalents.
30
31 From the diagram Q d is the diluate flowrate, Q c is the concentrate stream flowrate, Q cr is the
32
33 concentrate stream recycle flowrate, Q m is the flowrate from the feed stream that mixed with
34
35 the concentrate stream to balance the flowrates. Whereas, C fc is the feed concentration for
36
37 the concentrate stream.
38
39 Physical parameters and necessary variables are incorporated to obtain an MINLP model.
40
41 The total annualised cost TACe , comprises of the electric current through the ED unit, stack
42
43
design considerations, desalination energy requirement, pumping energy requirement and
44 material balances and is formulated based on the following constraints.
45
46
47 3.5.1 Electric Current
48
49
50 The required electrical power through an ED unit is based on Faradays law which relates to
51
52
the driving force that is required to transfer electrons from one stream to another in the ED
53
54
unit as related in Lee, et al. 28. It also relates to the degree of desalination C , the flowrate of
55 the diluate stream and the number of cell pairs N in the stack as represented in constraint (12).
56
57 is the current utilisation, F is the faradays constant which is required for the total current
58
59 required to drive electrons from one stream to the other. The electrochemical valences of the
60
ionic contaminants are represented by z.

9

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 10 of 36

1
2
3
4 Q d FC z
I= (12)
5 N
6
7
8 The degree of desalination is measured by the concentration difference between the diluate
9
10 and concentrate streams across the ED unit as defined by the mass balance in constraint (13).
11
12
13 C = C Fed C Ped = C c C fc (13)
14
15
16 The limiting current density is determined by the mass transfer coefficient for the transport of
17
ions across the membrane surface. This is difficult to determine theoretically, since it is a
18
19 function of solution flow velocity, concentration and stack and spacer configuration Lee, et
20
21 al. 28. Therefore, the limiting current density is determined experimentally for a certain flow
22
23 velocity, concentration and stack configuration as shown in constrain (14).
24
25 LCD
I prac = a LCDC d ( u )b (14)
26
27
28
29 A safety factor, , within the range of 0.7 to 0.9, is used to adjust the practical limiting
30 current density which is dependent on the flow pattern. Constants a and b are determined by
31
32 measuring the limiting current density under different flow conditions.
33
34
35 3.5.2 Stack design considerations
36
37
38 Efficient operation of an ED unit is dependent on the membrane area for a given feed
39 23
40 solution, current density, number of cell pairs as well as the production rate . Spacers are
41 used to enhance mixing and attain uniform flow through the ED unit and also to separate and
42
43 support the membranes. However, they reduce the volume of available cell, hence decreasing
44
45 the flowrate. A safety factor, , is included to cater for the corrections as shown in constraint
46
47 (15). Here is the cell thickness, w is the diluate cell width and v is the linear flow velocity.
48
49
50 Q Ped = N w v (15)
51
52
53
54 Membrane area is one of the design characteristics that determine the rate of desalination
55
56 within an ED unit. The rate of desalination increases with the exposure of feed water on the
57 membrane area. The presence of spacers reduces the available area for current due to shadow
58
59 effect. As a result the practically required membrane area is larger than the theoretically
60

10

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 11 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
required area. A correction factor, , is introduced to account for this effect as can be seen in
5
6
constraint (16).
7
8 C c C Fed AC C Ped Ped
9 ln C Ped C fc + C Q z F
A =
10
11 Ped d
(16)
12 C C AC prac
13 C c + 1 + I
14
15
16 From constraint (16), the parameter AC is the area resistance of the anion and cation
17
18 exchange membranes, is the equivalent electrical conductivity of the solution.
19
20
21 3.5.3 Energy requirement
22
23 The energy required for the operation of an ED system is made of two components. The
24
25 energy required for the transfer of ions from the solution across membrane material and the
26
27 energy required for pumping the feed solution through the ED unit. The rate of consumption
28
29 of either form of energy is dependent, among other factors, on the concentration of feed
30
31
solution and the available membrane area to the feed solution.
32
33 Direct energy required in an ED unit is dependent on the voltage and current applied across
34
35 the unit. The voltage drop across an ED unit is a result of resistance and potentials due to
36 29
solutions of different salt concentration . The resistance is as a result of friction between
37
38 ions with membrane matrix and water molecules. There is also energy loss due to electrode
39
40 processes in the terminal compartments, although the energy loss due to resistance is much
41 23
42 greater . It is, therefore, advisable to use membranes with low electrical resistance.
43
Membranes should be closely arranged in order to reduce energy losses due to resistance of
44
29
45 the cell pair unit as a result of salt transfer . Based on Ohms law, the voltage U, applied
46
47 across an ED unit is shown in constraint (17).
48
49
50 C c C Fed
51 Ped ln
C N Q z F

C Ped C fc + AC
52 U= (17)
53 A C
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

11

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 12 of 36

1
2
3
4 The voltage across an ED unit is, therefore, related to the total power, PER , required to
5
6 produce a product capacity, Q Ped . The specific energy required for desalination is
7
8 represented by constraint (18).
9
10
Pow
11 E spec = (18)
12 Q Ped
13
14
15 The pumping energy is the energy consumed in pumping the feed water into the ED unit.
16
17 Since the membrane compartment is arranged in a rectangular form, the flows through the
18
19 diluate and concentrate streams are considered to be passing through a rectangular channel.
20
21 The geometry of the pipe is considered to be that of rectangular channel with a pressure drop
22 P , considered to be of a laminar flow as represented by constraint (19), which is a modified
23
24 Hagen-Poisuille equation for this type of geometry. The symbol is the viscosity of water, d
25
26 is the diameter of the rectangular channel of the ED unit, L is the process path length of the
27
28 ED unit.
29
30 12 v L
31 P = (19)
32 d2
33
34
35
The pumping energy is, therefore, calculated based on the pressure drop as shown in
36
constraint (20). Here is a conversion factor available in literature, p is the pumping
37
38
39 efficiency23.
40
41 P
42 E pump = (20)
p
43
44
45
46
47 3.5.4 Material balances
48
49
50 Material balances are conducted around the ED unit in Figure 6 in order to conserve mass by
51
52 accounting for materials entering, leaving or mixing within the unit as shown in constraints
53
54 (21) to (25).
55
56
57 Q Fed = Q Ped + Q Re d (21)
58
59
60
Q Fed = Q d + Q m (22)

12

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 13 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
5
Q d = Q Ped + Q r (23)
6
7
8 Q c = Q m + Q cr (24)
9
10
11
12
Q Re d = Q c + Q r Q cr (25)
13
14
15 Corresponding load balances are conducted across the ED unit in order to obtain the species
16
17 balance in the streams and to demonstrate that the amount of contaminants removed from the
18
19 diluate stream equals the amount of contaminants accumulated in the concentrate stream, for
20 the case where Qc=Qd.
21
22
23
24 Q Fed C Fed = Q Ped C Ped + Q Re d C Re d (26)
25
26
27 Q r C Ped + Q c C c = Q cr C cr + Q Re d C Re d (27)
28
29
30
31 Q mC Fed + Q cr C cr = Q c C fc (28)
32
33
34
35
Q d C Fed + Q c C fc = Q d C Ped + Q c C c (29)
36
37
38 The liquid recovery rate, r, is the amount of product water that is directed to the recycle
39
40 concentrate stream in order to reduce its salinity and is shown in constraint (30). It is required
41
42
in order to avoid water transport due to osmosis across the membranes 23.
43
44
45
46 Q Ped
r= (30)
47 Qd
48
49
50
51 The purge concentrate is replaced by an amount of the less concentrated feed, and is
52
53
represented by the mixing ratio, m, in constraint (31).
54
55 Qd
56 m = Fed (31)
57 Q
58
59
60

13

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 14 of 36

1
2
3
4
Based on the formulation and physical design of the ED unit it is assumed that both the
5 diluate and concentrate maintain a constant flowrate. This is done in order to avoid strain on
6
7 the membrane material.
8
9
10 The cost function of the ED regeneration unit which is expressed as the TACe comprises of
11
12 the capital and operational costs. The capital cost consists of the costs associated with the
13 purchase of pumping equipment, and the establishment of the plant. The operating cost is the
14
15 costs incurred due to day to day running of the plant over a specified time. It is associated
16
17 with the electrical energy costs due to pumping of feed water into the system and
18
19 desalination. Both costs are incorporated into a single function called TACe which is
20
21 synthesised to obtain optimal design parameters as shown in constraint (32). Here K mb is the
22
23 capital cost of membrane, t max is the maximum equipment life, AOT is the annual operating
24
25 time of the plant, K el represents the cost of the electrical power.
26
27
K mb A
28
29
TAC e =
t max
[
+ AOT K el Q Ped E Pump + E spec ] (32)
30
31
32
33 3.6. Reverse osmosis membrane regenerator formulation
34
35 Figure 4 is a schematic representation of a reverse osmosis membrane regeneration unit based
36
25 19
37 on the works of El-Halwagi and Khor, et al. . Detailed synthesis of the membrane
38
39 regeneration unit is conducted to obtain optimal design parameters based on number of
40
41 membrane modules, feed flowrates and energy required for pumping. In industrial
42 applications, reverse-osmosis networks (RON) are used for the separation processes. A RON
43
44 comprises of multiple RO modules, pumps, and turbines to form a system. The task of this
45
46 section is to formulate a mathematical model of a hollow-fibre RON based on El-Halwagi 25.
47
48 The formulated model is synthesised based on the pumps, reverse-osmosis modules and
49
energy recovery turbines from the high pressure reject side 19
50
51
52
53 Q FroC Fro P F Reject
54 RO unit
55
Feed Turbine
56 Permeate
57
58 Pump Q Pr o Q Rro
59 C Pr o C Rro
60 PP PR

14

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 15 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
5
6 Figure 4: Schematic of a reverse osmosis unit
7
8
9 In modelling a RON there are two main considerations, such as, membrane transport
10
11
equations and the hydrodynamic modelling of the RON modules. The membrane equations
12 have to do with water permeation and solute flux taking place at the membrane surface.
13
14 Hydrodynamic modelling deals with microscopic transport of various species along with the
15
16 momentum and energy associated with it. The separation efficiency of a RON is dependent
17
18 on the influent solute concentration, pressure and water flowrate 20.
19
20 3.61 Membrane transport equations
21
22
23 Transport equations are used to predict the flux of water and solute based on the work of
24
25 Dandavati, et al. 30 and Evangelista 31. Both the water and solute flux equations are valid for
26
27 all reverse osmosis module configurations. The solute flux, N solute , relates to the transport of
28
29 solute by diffusion due to the transport of water across the membrane phase and is given by
30
D
31 constraint (33). Where 2 M the solute is flux constant and C s is the average concentration
32 K
33
34 on the feed side of the RO unit.
35
36
D
37 N solute = 2 M C S (33)
38
39
K
40
41 Water flux relates to rate at which water permeates through RO unit. It is directly related to
42
43 the temperature and pressure as well as RO module dimensions and water properties as
44
45 shown in constraint (34). Here AP is the water permeability constant, P is the pressure drop
46
47 across the unit, F is the osmotic pressure on the feed side of the RO unit, and is a
48
49 constant that represents the design features of the hollow fibre module.
50
51
F
52 N water = AP P Fro CS (34)
53 C
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

15

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 16 of 36

1
2
3
4
3.6.2 Average shell side concentration
5
6 The average concentration on the shell side of the membrane is the average of the feed and
7
8 rejects concentration as represented in constraint (35).
9
10
11 C Fro + C Rro
CS = (35)
12
13
2
14
15
16
17 3.6.3 Trans-membrane pressure
18
19
20
The pressure drop across the membrane is the difference in pressure between the feed side
21 and the permeate side of the membrane unit. It is the driving force for membrane
22
23 performance and product water production. The pressure difference across a RON increases
24
25 with increasing flux across the membrane which is represented by constraint (36). Here PF ,
26
27 PR and PP are the feed, retentate and permeate pressures of the RO unit respectively.
28
29
( PF + PR )
30 P = PP (36)
31 2
32
33
34 The pressure on the shell side Pshell , of the RO hollow-fibre module is represented by the
35
36 pressure difference between the feed side and the reject side of the RO unit.
37
38
39
40
Pshell = PF PR (37)
41
42
43 Substituting the shell side pressure drop into the pressure drop across the reverse osmosis unit
44
45 gives rise to the feed pressure applied to the RON.
46
47
P
48 PF = P + shell + PP (38)
49 2
50
51
52
53
54 3.6.4 Power across the RON
55
56 The power of turbine and pump across RON is represented by constraints (39) and (40)
57
58 respectively. Here Patm is the atmospheric pressure and is the density of water.
59
60

16

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 17 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4 Q Rro [PR Patm ]
5 Pow( turb ) = (39)
6
7
8
Q Fro [PF Patm ]
9 Pow( pump ) = (40)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 3.6.5 Average concentration on the feed side
17
18
19 The osmotic pressure on the feed side of RON is a function of the contaminant concentration
20 25
. In this formulation the osmotic pressure on the permeate side is neglected since the
21
22 concentration is assumed to be significantly lower. The osmotic pressure on the retentate side
23
24 RO is adopted from the formulation of Saif, et al. 32 and is shown in constraint (41).
25
26
27 ro = OS C Fro (41)
28
29
30 The osmotic pressure coefficient OS , ranges between osmotic pressure on the feed side and
31
32 average solute concentration on the feed side. The average concentration on the feed side is
33
34 reformulated based on the concentration on the permeate side as adopted from Khor, et al. 19.
35
36 The pressures across the membrane material and membrane area are important parameters
37
38
that determine the performance of the RON. Here S C is the solute permeability coefficient.
39
40 C Pr o AP [P ro ]
41 C Fro = (42)
42 SC
43
44
45 3.6.6 Permeate flowrate
46
32
47 The permeate flowrate, described by Saif, et al. is related to the pressure drop across the
48
49 membrane, the osmotic pressure on the reject side and the number of modules present in the
50
51
RON according to constraint (43). The parameter S m is the membrane area per module.
52
53
54 Q Pro = N m Sm AP [P ro ] (43)
55
56
57 Constraint (43) is then reformulated based on the average solute concentration on the feed
58
59 side to cater for the number of RO modules in the RON.
60

17

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 18 of 36

1
2
3
4 Q Pr o
Nm = (44)
5
6
[
AP Sm P OS C Fro ]
7
8
9 The cost function of the RON comprises of variables and physical parameters of the reverse
10 osmosis membrane unit. It consists of the annualised fixed capital cost of turbine, pump,
11
12 membrane modules as well as the operating costs for pump and pretreatment of chemicals.
13
14 The operating revenue through energy recovery by the turbine at the retentate side is also
15
16 incorporated to supplement the cost of energy usage.
17
TAC r = K mod N m + K pump (Pow( pump ) ) + K tur b (Pow( tur b ) )
18 0.65 0.43

19
20 Pow( pump ) K elec AOT
21 + + Q Fro K chemicals AOT (45)
22 pump
23
24 Pow( tur b )tur b K chemicals AOT
25
26
27
28
29 3.7 Model constraints
30
31 Bounds are set on the flowrates which are used with the binary variables to force constraints
32
33 to be active or inactive. This is done to reject flowrates that are uneconomically small that
34
35 could add unnecessary costs to the plant. The lower bounds are set at flowrates below which
36
37 uneconomical inter pipping connections are eliminated and the capacity of the pipe
38 determines the upper bound. In order to achieve this, constraint (47) is introduced using a list
39
40 B. Elements of B, are flowrates that defines the respective units within the superstructure.
41
42
43
44
45
Let B = {a, ro,ed , ds, dr, de, es, er, ee, fs, fr , fe, gs, gr, ge} (46)
46
47
48
49 Based on constraint (46), constraints (47) (50) is introduced, which satisfy all possible
50
51 bounds for minimum or maximum flowrates that can be used to govern the existence of
52
53 piping interconnections within the water network superstructure. It can also be used to control
54 the structural features of the design.
55
56
57 Q bLj ,i Y jb,i Q bj ,i Q bU b
j ,i Y j ,i b B j J i I (47)
58
59 Q bLj Y jb Q bj Q bU b
j Yj
b B j J (48)
60

18

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 19 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4 QibLYi b Qib QibU Yi b b B i I (49)
5
6 QbLY b Qb QbU Y b b B (50)
7

8
9
10 3.8 The objective function
11
12 Constraint (52) represents the objective function which minimises the overall annualised cost
13
14 of the water network. This includes freshwater cost, wastewater treatment cost and annualised
15
16 regeneration cost, as well as capital and operating costs of piping interconnections. The costs
17
18 related to piping are accounted for by specifying an approximate length of pipe, the material
19 of construction and linear velocities through the pipes.
20
21
22 The piping cost K bj ,i which is a function of the Manhattan distance between any units
23
24
represented by constraint (51) is introduced to simplify the presentation of the objective
25
26 function.
27
28
29
30 pQ bj ,i
31 K bj ,i = D bj ,i + qY jb,i (51)
32
3600 v

33
34
35
36
The subscripts j and i represents interconnections between any sources and sinks respectively.
37
Similarly, K bj , K ib and K b in constraint (52), are costs for interpipping connections from
38
39
40 source to regenerators, permeate and reject streams of regenerators to sinks and permeate and
41
42
reject streams into regeneration units. Where Y jb,i , Y jb , Yib and Y b are the binary variables for
43
44 existence of piping connections respectively.
45
46
47
48
49
(
K FW FW + K WW WW AOT + TACe + TAC r + )
50 K + a b
51 j ,i Kj
52 Obj = min jJ iI b{ro ,ed }, jJ (52)
53 AF b b
54
55 Ki + K
56 b{ds ,es , fs , gs },i I b B \ {ro ,ed ,a ,ds ,es , fs , gs}
57
58
59
60

19

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 20 of 36

1
2
3
4 A 1-norm Manhattan distance, D bj ,i , D bj , Dib and D b is considered for all piping
5
6 interconnections. All pipes are assumed to be of the same material properties and as a result
7
8 the carbon steel pipes parameters of p and q are adopted for the piping costs. v is the stream
9 flow velocity and AF is the annualisation factor adopted from Chew, et al. 18 which is used to
10
11 annualise the piping cost. The resulting mathematical model is an MINLP. The nonlinear
12
13 terms are due to the presence of bilinear terms in mass balance equations and power terms in
14
15 the cost functions of regeneration units. The MINLP model was solved using GAMS 24.2
16
using the general purpose global optimisation solver BARON.
17
18
19
20
21
22 4. Illustrative Example
23
24
25 The developed mathematical model is applied to a pulp and paper case study adopted from
26 18
Chew, et al. . The choice of the case study is motivated by the high amount of ionic
27
28 components produced by the pulp and paper industry. More so, the pulp and paper industry
29
30 involves miscible phase networks which consist of aqueous systems where streams lose their
31
32 identities through the mixing process hence the case study is suitable for a fixed flowrate
33
34
method adopted for this work.
35
36 Table 1: Basic data for water sources and sinks
37
38
39 Sources, j Sinks, i
40
41 j Flowrate Concentration i Flowrate Max. concentration
42
43 (ton/h) (mg/L) (ton/h) (mg/L)
44
1 2.07 89.4 1 3.26 34.0
45
46 2 0.34 272 2 0.34 84.0
47
48 3 0.024 18.3 3 1.34 50.0
49
50 4 7.22 36.0 4 7.22 6.3
51
52
FW 0 WW 600
53
54
55
56 Table 1 shows the basic data for the plant water network which comprises of five water
57
58
sources including the freshwater source, and five water sinks including the wastewater sink.
59 Tables 2 and 3 show process data for ED and RO unit, whereas Table 4 shows the economic
60
data for detailed design of both regeneration units.

20

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 21 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
5
6 Table 2: Input data parameters into the ED unit.
7
8 Parameter Value
9
10 Current utilization, 0.9
11
12 Cell width, w 0.42 m
13
14
Equivalent conductance, 10.5 m2/kep
15 Faradays constant, F 9.65x107 As/keq
16
17
18
19 Electrochemical valence, z 1
20
21 Constant for limiting current density, aLCD 25000
22 LCD
23
Constant for limiting current density, b 0.5
24 Membrane resistance, AC 0.0007 m2
25
26 Volume factor, 0.8
27
28 Velocity in pipes, v 1 m/s
29
30 Shadow factor, 0.7
31
32 Maximum equipment life, tmax 5 years
33 Safety factor, 0.7
34
35 Pump efficiency, 0.7
36
37 Liquid recovery, LRe 0.7
38
39 Conversion factor, Ktr 27.2
40
41 Electric power costs, Kel 0.12 $/kWh
mb
42 Membrane and capital costs, K 150 $/m2
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

21

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 22 of 36

1
2
3
4
5
6 Table 3: Input data parameters into the RO unit
7
8 Parameter Value
9
10 Shell side pressure drop, Pshell 0.4 atm
11
12 Osmotic pressure coefficient, OS 4.083x10-4 atm
13 Solute permeability coefficient, SC 1.82x10-8 m/s
14
15 Water viscosity, 9.84x10-4 kg/(m.s)
16
17 Water permeability coefficient, AP 5.573x10-8 m/(s.atm)
18
19 Permeate pressure, Pp 1 atm
20
21
Atmospheric pressure, Patm 1 atm
22 Design parameter, 0.694
23
24 Pump efficiency, pump 0.7
25
26 Turbine efficiency, turb 0.7
27
28 Membrane area per module, Sm 180 m2
29 Liquid recovery, LRr 0.7
30
31 Cost coefficient for pump, Kpump 6.5 $/(year.W0.65)
32
33 Cost coefficient for turbine, Kturb 18.4 $/(year.W0.43)
34
35
36
Unit cost of HFRO membrane module Kmod 2300 $/year
37
38
39
40 Table 4: Economic data for case study.
41
42 Parameter Value
43
44 Annual operating time, AOT 8760 h
45
46 Cost of electricity, Kel 0.12 $/kWh
47
Unit cost of pretreatment of chemicals, Kchem 3x10-5 $/kg
48
49 Annualization factor, AF 0.23
50
FW
51 Unit cost of freshwater, K 0.001 $/kg
52
53 Unit cost of effluent treatment, KWW 0.001 $/kg
54
55
Parameter for carbon steel piping, p 7200
56 Parameter for carbon steel piping, q 2500
57
58
59
60

22

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 23 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
The case study was applied to three different scenarios in order to ascertain the benefits of
5 incorporating detailed network of the membrane regeneration units in the constraints of the
6
7 water network.
8
9
10 (i) Scenario 1 considered a model of the water network without regeneration.
11
(ii) Scenario 2 considered a model of water network with regeneration units based on the
12
13 blackbox approach.
14
15 (iii) Scenario 3 considered detailed synthesis of the regeneration units incorporated into
16
17 the overall water network objective function.
18
19 For scenario 2 and 3, the optimisation was conducted for both fixed and variable removal
20 ratios. For comparison, in both cases the removal ratio had a fixed value of 0.7.
21
22
23 The optimal results for all scenarios are presented in Table 5. The results showed a reduction
24
25 in freshwater consumption, wastewater generation as well as the total annualised water
26
27
network cost as compared to the scenario without regenerations. The results of scenario 3 are
28 displayed in Figures 8 and 9 respectively. Scenario 3 showed significant reduction in water
29
30 network cost as well as freshwater consumption and wastewater reduction as compared to the
31
32 direct water network model without regeneration. However, there was an increase in the total
33
34 water network cost compared to the scenario 2. This is as a result of scenario 3 being a true
35 representation of the total water network as it incorporates a detailed design of the membrane
36
37 regeneration units and gives an accurate expression of the regeneration cost compared to the
38
39 linear cost function of scenario 2 which uses the blackbox method. Apart from presenting
40
41 accurate cost of water regeneration units, the detailed model presented in this work also gives
42
optimal design configurations of the membrane regeneration units for minimum energy
43
44 usage.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

23

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 24 of 36

1
2
3
4
Table 5: Optimal results of water network based on the case study
5
6
7 Scenario1 Scenario 2 Scenario3
8
9
Fixed RR Variable RR Fixed RR Variable RR
10 Freshwater use 18.30 11.42 9.83 11.64 10.3
11
12 (ton/h)
13
14 % of freshwater 37.5 46.3 36.4 43.7
15
16 savings
17
Wastewater 15.79 8.89 7.3 9.11 7.75
18
19 generated (ton/h)
20
21 % of wastewater 43.7 53.7 42.3 50.9
22
23 saved
24
25
Total cost of 1170000 597000 508000 634000 626000
26 water network($)
27
28 CPU time (s) 0.06 687.50 2764.20 865 16709.78
29
30
31 From the results in Table 5 it is evident that variable removal ratio in scenario 3 presents the
32
33 optimal configuration, since the model is allowed to choose the performance parameters of
34
35 the membrane regenerators. The results also show that incorporating multiple membrane
36
37 regenerators with different performance and inlet and outlet contaminant limits in a water
38
network can lead to an optimal use of freshwater. The inlet contaminant limits were set at
39
40 different levels in order to give membrane regenerators varying options for contaminant
41
42 treatment. The model that incorporates variable removal ratio in scenario 3 proved to be the
43
44 optimal result for the case study as represented in Figure 9. The configuration showed
45
46
regeneration reuse, regeneration recycle within the water network between the regenerators.
47 This resulted in 43.7 % reduction in freshwater consumption, 50.9% reduction in wastewater
48
49 generation and 46 % savings in the total annualised water network cost as compared to
50
51 scenario 1. Tables 6 and 7 show the design results of the ED and RO units, respectively. In
52
53 particular, the optimum removal ratios for both units are different from the fixed removal
54
ratio of 0.7. The results also show the detailed design parameters that could be used in
55
56 designing the optimum units in terms of energy and water use. The statistics of the model for
57
58 all the cases are shown in Table 8.
59
60

24

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 25 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Table 6: Optimal design results for electrodialysis unit in scenario 2
10
11
12
Variable Value
13
14 N 50
15
16 A (m2) 54.4
17
18 L (m) 0.8
19
20 I (A) 12.5
21
v (m/s) 0.01
22
23 U (V) 30.2
24
25 Espec (J/s) 0.02
26
27 Epump (J/s) 0.004
28
29
P (kPa) 16.3
30 QFed (t/h) 1.03
31
32 RRe 0.8
33
34
35
36
37 Table 7: Optimal design results for reverse-osmosis unit in scenario 2.
38
39 Variable Value
40
41 Nm 10
42
43 PF (kPa) 5.73x105
44
45 PR (kPa) 5.33x105
46
47
Pshell (kPa) 4.52x105
48 ro(kPa) 1.63
49
50 Pturb (J/s) 3615.97
51
52 Ppump (J/s) 301.66
53
54 QFro (t//h) 0.72
55 RRr 0.65
56
57
58
59
60

25

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 26 of 36

1
2
3
4
Table 8: Model characteristics for all cases
5
6 Scenario1 Scenario2 Scenario3
7
8 Fixed Variable Fixed RR Variable
9
10 RR RR RR
11
No. of constraints 31 232 232 276 276
12
13 No. of continuous variables 68 185 187 222 224
14
15 No. of discrete variables 25 67 67 69 69
16
17 Tolerance 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
18
19
20
21 Table 8 shows characteristics of all the models associated with this work. It can be seen that
22
23 the number of integer and binary variables increases with the detail model. This makes the
24
25 model highly nonlinear as a result it becomes a mixed integer nonlinear programming
26
27 (MINLP). MINLP models are inherently difficult to solve hence the CPU time for the
28 detailed model is high compared to the base model and blackbox models as can be seen in
29
30 Table 6.
31
32
33 0.62
1 1
34
35 1.45
2 0.34 0.02 2
36 0 . 34
37 2 . 62
38 3 4x10-3 3
39 1.34
40 4 7.22 7.22 4
41
42 6.78
43 FW WW
44
45 Figure 5: Optimum water network configuration for scenario 1
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

26

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 27 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
5 6x10-3
6 0.04
7 0.34
8 ED
9
10
11

0.
12

3 0
RO
13 0.3
1
36
0.

14

0.3
2
15
0.4

0
0.
0.06

1
16 1 1

2
17 0.01
18 2 1.3 2
19 8
0 . 33 2.88
20 0.024
21 3 3
22 0 . 04 1.32
23 4 7.22 4
24
6.76
25
FW WW
26
27
Figure 6: Optimum water network configuration for scenario 2 (fixed removal ratio)
28
29
30 0.02
31 0.07
32
33 1.01
ED
34
35
36
0.5 .30
53

37
0.
0.

RO
33

38
0

39
4

0.05
0.9

34

40
0.
0.

64

41 1.2
42 1 1
0.34
43
44 2 2
0.

45
1.73
03

46 3 0.024 0.40 3
47
48
4 2.00 4
49 5.20
50 3.88
51 FW 2.90 WW
52
53
54 Figure 7: Optimum water network configuration for scenario 2 (variable removal ratio)
55
56
57
58
59
60

27

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 28 of 36

1
2
3
4
6x10-3
5 0.02
6
7 ED 0.33
8
9

0.3
10

1
11
12 RO
63

13 0.3
0.

0
2
14 0.4

0.3
15 1 1

0
16

0.
12
17
2 0.34 2
18 1 . 44 2 . 65
19 0.024
20 3 3
21 1.32
22 4 7.22 4
23 6.80
24
FW 0.45 WW
25
26
27 Figure 8: Optimum water network configuration for scenario 3 (fixed removal ratio)
28
29
30
31
32 0.03
33 0.04
34 0.58
35 ED
36
37
38
0.

39
03

RO
0.6

40
63

41
0.

0.
0.3

2
0.3

42
4
2
0.7

43 1 1
44
0.
21

45
2 2
46 0 . 66
47 0 . 01 2.60
3 0.024 3
48
0.04 1.4
1.08
49 4
50 4 6.62 4
51
52 5.80
FW WW
53
54
55
56 Figure 9: Optimum water network configurations for scenario 3 (variable removal ratio)
57
58
59
60

28

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 29 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
5. Conclusion
5
6 This work has addressed the synthesis of a multi-membrane regeneration water network by
7
8
proposing a MINLP optimisation model that incorporates detailed mechanistic models of an
9 ED and RO units within a water network. The developed water network allows for direct
10
11 reuse/recycle and regeneration reuse/recycle. The developed MINLP model is applied to a
12
13 pulp and paper industry case study and solved using GAMS/BARON. The results showed
14
15 that setting the removal ratio as variable yields optimal configuration as compared to the
16
fixed removal ratio. The model also showed that incorporating a detailed model of the
17
18 regeneration unit into the overall model yields accurate expression of the regeneration cost as
19
20 compared to the black-box model. It also gives optimal operating variables of the
21
22 regeneration units for minimal energy and water usage. The results in this work demonstrate
23
24
that integrating detailed models of regeneration units in a water network superstructure
25 results in significant reduction in water consumption as well as wastewater reduction in the
26
27 process industry. The optimal design of the membrane regeneration units also aids by given
28
29 investors accurate cost representation for minimal energy usage. The complexity of the model
30
31 results in high computational time. However, this is cannot be deemed a serious limitation in
32 the context of synthesis and design, since this particular problem is solved once prior to
33
34 detailed design. This is unlike in scheduling models where the optimization problem is solved
35
36 very frequently over short time horizons. It is noteworthy that the proposed model can be
37
38 extended to include multiple type regenerators. Hence the formulation in this work offers a
39
40
scope for future work to incorporate multiple ED, RO, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration units, etc.
41
42
43
44
45 6. Nomenclature
46
47 6.1 Sets
48
49 J = {j|j = water source}
50
51 I = {i|i = water sink}
52
53 B ={b|b = flowrates}
54
6.2 Parameters b LCD Constant for limiting
55
56
a LCD Constant for limiting current density
57
58 current density
59
60 F Faraday constant

29

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 30 of 36

1
2
3
4 z Electrochemical Sm Membrane area per
5 valence module
6
7
K el Electric power cost Density of saline water
8
9 K mb Membrane and capital Viscosity of water
10
11 cost RR e Removal ratio for ED
12
13 K tr Conversion factor unit
14
AP Water permeability RR r Removal ratio for RO
15
16
coefficient unit
17
18
Annual operating time LR e Liquid phase recovery
19 AOT
20 for ED unit
n Number of years
21
LR r Liquid phase recovery
22
K Chem Unit cost of pre-
23
for RO unit
24 treatment of chemicals
25 Flowrate from source j
WW Unit cost for waste Q jx
26 K
27
28 treatment C jx Contaminant co from
29
K FW Unit cost for freshwater source j
30
31
Unit cost of electricity Q iz Flowrate of sink i
32 K elect
33
34 K mod Unit cost of HFRO Maximum allowable
35
membrane module C iU contaminant
36
37
K Pump Cost coefficient of concentration into sink
38
39 pump i
40
41 K turb Cost coefficient of Volume factor
42
43 turbine Shadow factor
44
45 D2 M K Solute flux constant Safety factor
46
47 SC Solute permeability Water viscosity
48 Design parameter
49 coefficient
50
OS Osmotic pressure Current utilisation
51
52 PF Feed pressure Cell thickness
53
54 Permeate pressure of w Width of cell pair
PP
55
56 RON
Pumping efficiency for
57
58 p, q Parameter for carbon ED unit
59 Pumping efficiency for
60 steel piping pump
RO unit

30

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 31 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4 turb Turbine efficiency for ED unit
5 RO unit Reject flowrate of ED
6 Q Re d
7
AC Membrane resistance unit
8
9
Equivalent conductance Q Fro Flowrate into the RO
10
11 unit

12
13 v Velocity of fluid in Q Pr o Permeate flowrate of
14 RO unit
15 pipes
16
Manhattan distance Q Rro Reject flowrate of RO
17 D bj ,i
18
from source to sink unit
19
20 Manhattan distance Qids Flowrate from permeate
D bj
21
22 from source to stream of ED into sink i
23
24 regeneration units Q de Flowrate from permeate
25
26 Dib Manhattan distance stream of ED unit into
27
from permeate and ED unit
28
29 reject stream to sinks Q dr Flowrate from permeate
30
31 Db Manhattan distance stream of ED unit into
32
33 from permeate and RO unit
34
35 reject streams to ED Qies Flowrate from reject
36 and RO units
37
stream of ED unit into
38 sink i
39
40 6.3 Continues variable Q ee Flowrate from reject
41
42 FW Freshwater flowrate stream of ED unit into
43
44 WW Wastewater flowrate ED unit
45
46 Q aj ,i Flowrate from source j Q er Flowrate from reject
47 to sink i stream of ED unit into
48
49 Q roj Flowrate from source j RO unit
50
51 to RO unit Qi fs Flowrate from permeate
52
53 Q edj Flowrate from source j stream of RO unit into
54
to ED unit sink i
55
56 Flowrate into the ED Flowrate from permeate
57 Q Fed Q fe
58 unit stream of RO unit into
59
60 Q Ped Permeate flowrate of ED unit

31

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 32 of 36

1
2
3
4 Q fr Flowrate from permeate the concentrate stream
5 stream of RO unit into of ED unit
6
7 RO unit Cc Concentration of
8
9 Qigs Flowrate from reject contaminant in the
10
11 stream of RO unit into concentrate stream
12
sink i C cr Concentration of
13
14 Flowrate from reject recycle stream of the
15 Q ge
16 stream of RO unit into ED unit
17
18 ED unit CUr Maximum allowable
19
20 Q gr Flowrate from reject contaminant into RO
21
22
stream of RO unit into unit
23 RO unit C Ue Maximum allowable
24
25 C Fed Concentration of contaminant into ED
26
27 contaminant co into ED unit
28
29 unit Qd Diluate stream flowrate
30
C Fro Concentration of of ED unit
31
32 contaminant co into RO Qc Concentrate stream
33
34 unit flowrate of ED unit
35
36 C Ped Concentration of Qm Mixing flowrate of ED
37
38 contaminant co in the unit
39
permeate stream of ED Qr Recycle stream
40
41 unit flowrate of ED unit
42
43 C Re d
Concentration of Q cr Concentrate stream
44
45 contaminant co in the recycle flowrate
46
47 reject stream of ED unit m Feed split rate
48 Pr o
Concentration of
C A Membrane area of ED
49
50 contaminant co in the unit
51
52 permeate stream of RO I Electric current
53
54 unit V Velocity of stream in
55
56 C Rro
Concentration of ED unit
57 contaminant co in the
58 U Voltage across ED unit
59 reject stream of RO unit P Pressure drop
60
C fc
Feed concentration in Practical current
I prac

32

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 33 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
density 6.4 Integer Variables
5 Pumping energy Nm Number of reverse
6 E pump
7
E spec Specific energy osmosis modules
8
9 Cost of piping from N Number Electrodialysis
10 K bj ,i
11 source to sinks cell pairs
12
13 K bj Costs for piping from
14
source to ED and RO 6.5 Binary Variables
15
16
17
units 1 Existence of piping
18
interconnection between
K ib Costs of piping from b
y j ,i =


19
source and sink,
20 permeate and reject
21 0 Otherwise
22 stream to sinks
23 1 Existence of piping
24 Kb Costs of piping from interconnection between
b
25 y j =
26
permeate and reject source and regeneration units,

27 streams to ED and RO 0 Otherwise
28
29 units
30 1 Existence of piping
31 Pow Power through ED unit interconnection between
b
32 y i =
33 Pow( turb ) Power of turbine permeate and reject and sinks,
34 0 Otherwise
35 Pow( pump ) Power of pump
36 1 Existence of piping
37 Concentration on the
38 Cs b

interconnection between
y =
39 shell side permeate and reject into units,
40
41 N solute Solute flux 0 Otherwise
42
43 Water flux
44
N water
45
46 TAC e Total annual cost of RO
47 unit
48
49 TAC r Total annual cost of ED
50
51 unit
52
53 ro Osmotic pressure at
54
55 retentate side of RO
56 unit
57
58 F Osmotic pressure on
59
60 the feed side

33

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 34 of 36

1
2
3
4
7. Acknowledgement.
5 The authors would like to thank the Water Research Commission (WRC) and National
6
7
8 Research Foundation (NRF) for funding this work under the NRF/DST Chair in Sustainable
9
10 Process Engineering at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
11
12
13
14
15
16
8. References
17
1. Wang, Y.; Smith, R., Wastewater minimisation. Chemical Engineering Science 1994,
18
19 49, (7), 981-1006.
20
21 2. Wang, Y.-P.; Smith, R., Design of distributed effluent treatment systems. Chemical
22 Engineering Science 1994, 49, (18), 3127-3145.
23
24 3. Manan, Z. A.; Tan, Y. L.; Foo, D. C. Y., Targeting the minimum water flow rate
25 using water cascade analysis technique. AIChE Journal 2004, 50, (12), 3169-3183.
26
27
28 4. Bandyopadhyay, S.; Cormos, C.-C., Water management in process industries
29 incorporating regeneration and recycle through a single treatment unit. Industrial &
30 Engineering Chemistry Research 2008, 47, (4), 1111-1119.
31
32 5. Tan, R. R.; Ng, D. K.; Foo, D. C.; Aviso, K. B., A superstructure model for the
33 synthesis of single-contaminant water networks with partitioning regenerators. Process Safety
34
35
and Environmental Protection 2009, 87, (3), 197-205.
36
37 6. Takama, N.; Kuriyama, T.; Shiroko, K.; Umeda, T., Optimal planning of water
38 allocation in industry. Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan 1980, 13, (6), 478-483.
39
40 7. Ahmetovi, E.; Grossmann, I. E., Strategies for the global optimization of integrated
41 process water networks. Computer aided chemical engineering 2010, 28, 901-906.
42
43
44
8. Doyle, S.; Smith, R., Targeting water reuse with multiple contaminants. Process
45 safety and environmental protection 1997, 75, (3), 181-189.
46
47 9. Huang, C.-H.; Chang, C.-T.; Ling, H.-C.; Chang, C.-C., A mathematical
48 programming model for water usage and treatment network design. Industrial & Engineering
49 Chemistry Research 1999, 38, (7), 2666-2679.
50
51
52
10. Karuppiah, R.; Grossmann, I. E., Global optimization for the synthesis of integrated
53 water systems in chemical processes. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2006, 30, (4), 650-
54 673.
55
56 11. Rossiter, A.; Nath, R., Wastewater minimization using nonlinear programming. Waste
57 Minimisation through Process Design. New York: McGraw Hill 1995.
58
59
60
12. Quesada, I.; Grossmann, I. E., Global optimization of bilinear process networks with
multicomponent flows. Computers & Chemical Engineering 1995, 19, (12), 1219-1242.

34

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 35 of 36 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

1
2
3
4
13. Faria, D. C.; Bagajewicz, M. J., On the appropriate modeling of process plant water
5 systems. AIChE journal 2010, 56, (3), 668-689.
6
7 14. Savelski, M. J.; Bagajewicz, M. J., On the optimality conditions of water utilization
8 systems in process plants with single contaminants. Chemical Engineering Science 2000, 55,
9 (21), 5035-5048.
10
11
15. Bagajewicz, M.; Savelski, M., On the use of linear models for the design of water
12
13 utilization systems in process plants with a single contaminant. Chemical engineering
14 research and design 2001, 79, (5), 600-610.
15
16 16. Lee, S.; Grossmann, I. E., Global optimization of nonlinear generalized disjunctive
17 programming with bilinear equality constraints: applications to process networks. Computers
18
& chemical engineering 2003, 27, (11), 1557-1575.
19
20
21 17. Gunaratnam, M.; Alva-Argaez, A.; Kokossis, A.; Kim, J.-K.; Smith, R., Automated
22 design of total water systems. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2005, 44, (3),
23 588-599.
24
25 18. Chew, I. M. L.; Tan, R.; Ng, D. K. S.; Foo, D. C. Y.; Majozi, T.; Gouws, J., Synthesis
26 of direct and indirect interplant water network. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
27
28 2008, 47, (23), 9485-9496.
29
30 19. Khor, C. S.; Foo, D. C.; El-Halwagi, M. M.; Tan, R. R.; Shah, N., A superstructure
31 optimization approach for membrane separation-based water regeneration network synthesis
32 with detailed nonlinear mechanistic reverse osmosis model. Industrial & Engineering
33 Chemistry Research 2011, 50, (23), 13444-13456.
34
35
36
20. Yang, L.; Salcedo-Diaz, R.; Grossmann, I. E., Water Network Optimization with
37 Wastewater Regeneration Models. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2014, 53,
38 (45), 17680-17695.
39
40 21. Korngold, E., Electrodialysis unit: Optimization and calculation of energy
41 requirement. Desalination 1982, 40, (1), 171-179.
42
43
44
22. Strathmann, H., Electrodialysis, a mature technology with a multitude of new
45 applications. Desalination 2010, 264, (3), 268-288.
46
47 23. Tsiakis, P.; Papageorgiou, L. G., Optimal design of an electrodialysis brackish water
48 desalination plant. Desalination 2005, 173, (2), 173-186.
49
50 24. Garud, R.; Kore, S.; Kore, V.; Kulkarni, G., A short review on process and
51
52
applications of reverse osmosis. Universal journal of Environmental research and technology
53 2011, 1, (2).
54
55 25. El-Halwagi, M., Sustainable design through process integration. Massachusetts:
56 Elsevier Inc 2012.
57
58 26. Alva-Argez, A.; Kokossis, A. C.; Smith, R., Wastewater minimisation of industrial
59
systems using an integrated approach. Computers & Chemical Engineering 1998, 22, S741-
60
S744.

35

ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Page 36 of 36

1
2
3
4
27. Khor, C. S.; Chachuat, B.; Shah, N., A superstructure optimization approach for water
5 network synthesis with membrane separation-based regenerators. Computers & Chemical
6 Engineering 2012, 42, 48-63.
7
8 28. Lee, H.-J.; Sarfert, F.; Strathmann, H.; Moon, S.-H., Designing of an electrodialysis
9 desalination plant. Desalination 2002, 142, (3), 267-286.
10
11
29. Strathmann, H.; Krol, J.; Rapp, H.-J.; Eigenberger, G., Limiting current density and
12
13 water dissociation in bipolar membranes. Journal of Membrane Science 1997, 125, (1), 123-
14 142.
15
16 30. Dandavati, M. S.; Doshi, M. R.; Gill, W. N., Hollow fiber reverse osmosis:
17 experiments and analysis of radial flow systems. Chemical Engineering Science 1975, 30,
18
(8), 877-886.
19
20
21 31. Evangelista, F., Improved Graphical-Analysis Method for the Design of Reverse-
22 Osmosis Plants. Industrial Engineering Chemical Process 1986, 25, (86), 366-375.
23
24 32. Saif, Y.; Elkamel, A.; Pritzker, M., Optimal design of reverse-osmosis networks for
25 wastewater treatment. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 2008,
26 47, (12), 2163-2174.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

36

ACS Paragon Plus Environment