Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15

Thermoeconomic design of a multi-effect evaporation

mechanical vapor compression
(MEE–MVC) desalination process
A.S. Nafeya, H.E.S. Fathb, A.A. Mabroukc*
a
Engineering Science Department, Faculty of Petroleum & Mining Engineering, Suez Canal University, Suez, Egypt
b
Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
c
Doosen Desalination R&D Center, Dubai, UAE
Tel. +971 (050) 69 88 667; Fax: +971 (04) 347 7142; email: abdul_naser70@yahoo.com

Received 12 February 2006; Accepted 20 August 2007

Abstract
This work presents thermoeconomic design for a multi-effect evaporation–mechanical vapor compression (MEE–
MVC) desalination process. Exergy and thermoeconomic mathematical models of the considered process units are
developed and presented in this work. The design data of an existing MEE–MVC (1500 m3/day) desalination process
is used for the present analysis. The effect of using external steam to initiate the evaporation process is investigated.
The MEE–MVC without external steam is investigated under different operating conditions. The developed Visual
Design and Simulation (VDS) package is utilized as a powerful tool for the present analysis. The energy analysis
shows that the thermal performance ratio of the considered system with external steam is 8% less than that the system
without external steam. Thermoeconomic analysis shows the unit product cost is 29% higher in the system of external
steam. The unit product cost of the desalted water at the normal operation (without external steam) is calculated by
1.7 $/m3. For system without external steam, by reducing the pressure ratio of the vapor compressor from 1.35 to
1.15, the capital cost of the compressor is reduced by 16%. The specific power consumption is also reduced by 50%.
Sequentially, the unit product cost is reduced from 1.7 to 1.24 $/m3 (27% reduction). Thermoeconomic results show
that, reducing the splitter ratio of the brine re-circulation flow rate from 0.5 to 0.25 while the compression ratio is
specified by 1.15, the unit product cost decreases to 1.21 $/m3. Using the design condition of the considered MEE–
MVC desalination plant, thermoeconomic results show that the minimum unit product cost is obtained at three
evaporators. As the unit product cost at two evaporators and three evaporators are almost the same and due to the
complexity and maintenance requirements, the system of two evaporators is preferable. By increasing the capacity
of the considered process from 1500 m3/day to 5000 m3/day, the results show that the unit product cost at two and
three evaporators are almost the same. Design calculations show that increasing the required capacity of the
considered system, the unit product cost decreases.

Keywords: Desalination; Multi-effect evaporation (MEE); Mechanical vapor compression (MVC); Exergy;
Thermoeconomics; Unit product cost

*Corresponding author.

0011-9164/08/$– See front matter © 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.desal.2007.08.021
2 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15
1. Introduction
The multi-effect evaporation–mechanical
vapor compression process (MEE–MVC) is one
of the attractive techniques for remote and small
population areas. The MEE–MVC is compact and
confined. The system is driven by electric power;
therefore, it is suitable for remote population
areas with access to power grid lines. The MEE–
MVC can also be driven mechanically by diesel
engine. Another advantage of the MEE–MVC
system is the absence of the down condenser and
the cooling water requirements. The MEE–MVC
system is a viable alternative to the reverse
osmosis (RO) systems. The barrier to achieving
this potential is the absence of a specially
designed steam compressor of a capacity compar-
able to that of the multi-stage flash (MSF) unit
capacity [1]. The MEE–MVC system has specific
power consumption similar to the RO system,
which may vary between 6–8 kWh/m3. However,
the MVC system reliability and its plant factor
are highly superior to the RO system with value
close to 90%. Moreover, the system has much
simpler pretreatment system and limited opera-
tional problems related to fouling and scaling [2].
The impact of some design parameters and
different plant configurations on the evaporation
cost of the mechanical vapor compression (MEE–
MVC) were performed by Nafey [3]. In his work,
external steam is induced as make up steam to
avoid compressor surge. Results showed that
make-up steam consumption is inversely propor-
tional to the temperature difference (ΔT) between
the heating steam and boiling temperature, but the
latter is proportional to the total saturated steam
input to the evaporator.
Both parallel/series evaporators with respect to
the compressor were investigated against single
MVC configuration by Aly [4]. The make-up
steam is utilized in his analysis and the results
showed that the single MVC scheme gives a
slightly lower cost.
In the work of Ettouney et al. [2], a single
effect MVC system without using external steam
was modeled and analyzed. Results showed
decrease in the specific power consumption and
the specific heat transfer area of the evaporator
with higher top brine temperature. On the other
hand the specific power consumption decreases at
low temperature differences between the boiling
brine and steam condensate, while specific area
increases.
Mathematical and experimental study of a
single effect brine circulation MVC system of a
5 m3/d capacity was conducted by Aly et al. [5].
This unit is currently located in the heat transfer
unit laboratory of the Egyptian Atomic Energy
Authority. The starting and make-up steam is
produced in an evaporator boiler’s “electrical
heater”. Two electrical immersion heaters are
used; they are in service, depending on the feed
water temperature and compressor load. The
experimental and theoretical results indicated that
the production rate increases by increasing the
operating temperature from 70 to about 98EC,
“evaporation design temperature was 70EC”.
However, the analysis considered only the system
without make-up steam.
In the work of El-Sayed [1], three mechanical
MVC seawater distillation systems of unit capa-
cities 2 to 10 MGD were analyzed. The results
showed the importance of developing reliable
chemical agents that control the scale for boiling
seawater at atmospheric pressure. The considered
systems did not analyzed under the use of the
external steam mode.
Study of the MEE–MVC without using exter-
nal steam was the aim of many investigators
[1,2,5]. However the external steam in the normal
operation to avoid surging of the compressor was
considered by some investigators [3,4]. Con-
sidering the two configurations (with/without)
external steam are not studied in one plate form
under the same operating conditions. Using
exergy and thermoeconomic technique for the
two configurations is still required.
This work presents thermoeconomic design
for a MEE–MVC desalination process. Exergy
 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15
and thermoeconomic mathematical model of the
process units are developed and presented in this
work. The design data of an existing MEE–MVC
(1500 m3/day) desalination process is used for the
present analysis. The effect of using external
steam to initiate the evaporation process is inves-
tigated. The MEE–MVC without external steam
is investigated under different operating condi-
tions. The developed Visual Design and Simu-
lation (VDS) package is utilized as a powerful
tool for the present analysis.
2. Process description
As shown in Fig. 1, the system includes a shell
and tube evaporator/condenser, a mechanical
compressor, plate type feed preheaters, brine and
product pumps. The compressor and evaporators
form one single unit which contains horizontal
heat-exchanger tubes, spray nozzles, a vapor
Fig. 1. MEE–MVC system without external steam (Abu Souma, Red Sea, Egypt), 1500 m3/d.
3
suction tube, and a wire mesh mist eliminator. In
this process, vapor releasing from boiling sea-
water in one side of the evaporator tubes is
compressed by a mechanical compressor. Com-
pression raises the pressure and temperature of
vapor which is returned to the other side of the
first evaporator tubes to be used as a heating
source for producing additional vapor, and thus
continuing the evaporation process. The latent
heats of evaporating and condensing vapor are
very nearly equal. Therefore, the energy required
by the compressor is merely supplied to com-
pensate for losses, boiling point elevation, and to
provide a sufficient driving force for heat transfer
operation. The feed seawater is preheated by the
condensed vapor (product) and the rejected brine
streams. For start-up purposes, and for main-
taining normal operating conditions in some
plants, externally supplied heat is provided as
shown in Fig. 2.
4 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15

Fig. 2. MEE–MVC system with make-up steam.

3. Exergy and the thermoeconomic mathe- The chemical exergy is calculated with respect
matical model the sea water composition as follows:
The specific exergy of a fluid stream with
e ch = − N m RuT0 ⎡⎣ ( xw ln xw + xs ln xs )↓ brine ⎤⎦(1b)
negligible kinetic and potential energies is given
by e = h!h0!T0 (s!s0). Since the saline water is a
where
mixture of pure water and salt, the properties of
C p ,m = N m ( xwC p , w + xs C p , s )
salt must be taken into account with pure water
properties. So the exergy point of saline water,
distillate and vapor streams are calculated based
on the developed relation in [7]. The physical N m = ( N pure + N salt )
exergy of a brine stream is calculated from the
following equation:
⎛ ρ + ρs ⎞
ρ m = N m ⎜ w
e ph
= C p ,m ( T − T0 ) ⎜ ρ * ρ ⎟⎟
⎝ f s ⎠

⎡ ⎛ T ⎞ P − P0 ⎤ (1a)
−T0 ⎢C p ,m ⎜ ln ⎟ − ⎥ By summing Eqs. (1a) and (1b) the following
⎣ ⎝ T0 ⎠ T0ρm ⎦ equation is obtained:
 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15
E b = M b ( e ph + e ch )
Similarly the exergy of the distilled water can be
written as follows [8]:
E d = M d {C p ,d ( T − T0 ) − T0
⎡ ⎛ T ⎞ P − P0 ⎤
⎢C p ,d ⎜ ln ⎟ − ⎥ (2)
⎣ ⎝ T0 ⎠ T0ρ d ⎦
+ M d ( ΔG ) P ,T } The above equation expresses that the cost rate
The first term on the right side of Eq. (2) is
related to thermal and mechanical exergy which
is calculated from Eq. (1) by substituting xs = 0
and xw = 1. The second term is a function of the
minimum power required for seawater separation.
The exergy rate of the heating steam or
generated vapor is determined from the following
equation:
E v = M v ⎡⎣ hv − h0 − T0 ( sv − s0 )⎤⎦
Based on Eqs. (1), (2) and (3), the exergy rate of
each process stream is calculated.
Exergy balance analysis of each unit in the
considered process is performed based on the
following equation [8]:
E F = E P + E D + E L
The rate of fuel exergy ( E F ) represents the
resources expended to generate the product. The
difference between the fuel and product is mainly
due to exergy destruction within the system ( E D )
and the exergy loss out of the process ( E L ) [8].
Thermoeconomic analysis is implemented to
show the expenditure cost and to determine the
unit product cost as well as to point out the unit
which needs more improvement. Thermoeco-
nomic analysis requires solving energy, exergy
and cost balance equations of the considered
5
(1) desalination plant. Mathematical models of mass
and energy equations have been previously
illustrated [2,3,6]. Here only the exergy and
thermoeconomics analysis are presented.
The cost balance of the equipment relates to
the rate of the expenditures made to generate the
product. The general cost balance equation is
written as follows [8]:
C p = C F + Z CI+OM
(5)
associated with the product of the stream C p
equals the total rate expenditures made to gene-
rate the product, namely the fuel cost rate C F
and the cost rates associated with capital invest-
ment and operating and maintenance Z (CI+OM ) .
The capital investment and operating and
maintenance term of the right-hand side of the
above equation Z CI+OM is calculated using the
illustrated relations in Table 1.
The total annual investment cost of each
process unit is calculated according the following
(3) relation:
Annual investment = present value ×
i × (1 + i )
n
(6)
(1 + i )
n
−1
Using an interest rate, i = 7% and the amorti-
zation year, n = 20 years, then the hourly cost is
(4) equal to the annual investment/(365×24×0.9) $/h.
This cost is specified to the VDS program as a
capital cost for each process unit.
3.1. Vapor compressor (Fig. 3)
The exergy balance of the vapor compressor is
developed as follows:
Wcompressor = E vapor , out − E vapor , in (7)
E vapor , out − E vapor , in
ηII = (8)
W compressor
6 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15

Table 1
Cost data of the process units

Unit Equation Reference

!0.01 !0.1
Evaporator/condenser, $ Z = 430×0.582×US×ΔP ×ΔPs
t ; El-Sayed [13]
U, kW/m2 k; A, m2; ΔP, kPa
1.05
⎛ η ⎞
1000×32×0.000435×( ( M water )
Pump, $  0.55 El-Sayed [13]
ΔP 0.55 ⎜ ⎟
⎝1− η⎠
M, kg/s; ΔP, kPa

Heat exchanger, $ 1000×(12.86 + A0.8) Y A, m2 El-Mudir [12]

0.7
Compressor, $ ⎛P ⎞ ⎛ ηc ⎞ El-Sayed [13]
7364 × M vapor × ⎜ o ⎟×⎜ ⎟
⎝ Pi ⎠ ⎝ 1 − ηc ⎠
Ṁ, kg/s; Pi, Po, kPa; ηc, compressor efficiency

Intake cost, $/h 4.6 Appendix A

Electrical cost, $/kWh 0.09 Appendix A

Fig. 4. Schematic of desuperheater unit.

saturated steam. Thus, the following equation is

Fig. 3. Schematic of compressor unit. obtained:

The purpose of the compressor is to increase the E steam , in + E distilled = E steam , out + E D (10)
pressure at the expense of the electrical power.
T h u s , C F = C power , in a n d C p = C vapor , out + The exergetic efficiency (ηII) is the ratio between

Cvapor , in ; therefore, the cost balance equations for the product and fuel:
vapor compressor can be summarized as follows:
E steam , out
ηII = (11)
 ( CI+OM ) E steam , in + E
−C power , in − C vapor , in + C vapor , out = Z (9) distilled , in

The superheated steam is mixed with the ato-

3.2. Desuperheater (Fig. 4) mized condensate to produce saturated heating
The purpose of the desuperheater is to mix steam at the specified conditions before entering
superheated steam with subcooled water to obtain the brine heater; thus, C p = C steam , out and C F =
 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15 7

E D = E steam , in − E condensate, out + E b,1 − E b,3 − E vapor

(16)

The exergetic efficiency of the evaporator unit is

written as follows:
Fig. 5. Schematic of water pump.

E b,3 − E b,1 + E vapor

ηII = (17)
C water , in + C steam , in . So, the following equation is E − E
steam , in condensate , out
obtained:
The forward feed evaporator cost balance is
−C steam , in − C water , in + C steam , out = Z (CI+OM ) (12)
written as follows:

C vapor + C b,3 − C b,1 = C steam − C condensate + Z evaporator

CI+OM

3.3. Pump (Fig. 5)

(18)
The exergy balance of the pump is represented
by the following equation: As there are three outlet streams from the
evaporator, two additional auxiliary equations are
W pump = E b, out − E b, in (13) required. The first auxiliary equation states the
equality of the average cost of the inlet feed and
And the exergetic efficiency is exit brine.

E brine, out − E brine, in C b,1 C b,3

ηII = (14) − =0 (19)
Wpump E b,1 E b,3

The purpose of the pump is to increase the The second auxiliary equation states the equal
pressure at the expense of the electrical power. average cost of the heating steam and its con-
Thus, C F = C power , in + Cwater , in and C p = C water , out ; densate, i.e,
therefore:

−C power , in − C water , in + C water , out = Z (CI+OM ) (15) C vapor C condensate

− =0 (20)
E vapor E condensate
3.4. Evaporator (Fig. 6)
3.5. Feed/distilled heat exchanger (Fig. 7)
The evaporator may be considered as two
subunits; preheater/condenser exchanger and tank The exergy balance equation and the exergetic
for vapor generation, which is operating simul- efficiency of the feed/distillate heat exchanger,
taneously as shown in Fig. 4. Most formed vapor Fig. (7), can be written as follows:
is generated by boiling and a small fraction by
flashing. E distilled , in − E distilled , out = E feed , out
The exergy destruction in the forward feed (21)
evaporator is obtained as: − E feed , in + E D , F / D
8 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15

Fig. 6. Simple flow sheet of forward feed

evaporation.

Fig. 7. Schematic diagram of the distillate/brine heat Fig. 8. Schematic diagram of the feed/brine heat
exchanger. exchanger.

E feed , out − E feed , in E feed , out − E feed , in

ηII = (22) ηII = (26)
E − E E − E
brine , in brine , out
distilled , in distilled , out

In this unit the distilled water heats the incoming The rejected brine heats the incoming cooling
feed, thus the cost balance equation is represented water; thus,
by the following equation:
C p = C feed , out − C feed , in and C F =
C feed , out − C feed , in = C distilled , in C − C
brine , in brine , out
(23)
−C distilled , out + Z FCI+OM
/D So the cost balance equation can be obtained as
follows:
As the specific cost of the inlet distilled is
equal to the out, an auxiliary equation is written C feed , out − C feed , in = C brine , in
for the feed/distilled exchanger as follows: (27)
−C brine , out + Z FCI+OM
/B

C distilled , in C distilled , out As the specific cost of the inlet brine is equal that
− =0 (24)
E distilled , in E distilled , out of the out, an auxiliary equation is written for the
feed/brine exchanger as follows:
C brine, in C brine, out
− =0 (28)
3.6. Feed/brine heat exchanger (Fig. 8) E brine , in E brine , out
The exergy balance equation balance equation
is written as follows:
4. Calculation methodology
E brine , in − E brine, out = E feed , out − E feed , in + E D , F / B The developed VDS package [6] is utilized to
(25) solve mass, pressure, energy equations iteratively
 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15 9

to obtain the mass, temperature and pressure of Table 2

the state point in the system. Then the exergy Design data and calculated results of the MEE–MVC
flow rate of the streams is calculated. Finally the plant (Abu Soma, Egypt) [10]
cost balance equation model is solved to obtain
Design Present
the monetary cost flow rate of the streams. Then data calculation
the following parameters are calculated:
Tevaporator (1), EC 65 65
C Performance ratio (PR), Tevaporator (2), EC 60 60
Seawater temperature, ECa 21 21
M distillate × λ Compression ratio, Cra 1.35 1.35
ηI = (29)
M × λ + W
steam /ηcomp carnot
Compressor power, kW 550 553
Mreject, T/h 93.5 93.75
Ti , compressor Mdistillate, T/ha 62.5 62.5
where ηcarnot = 1 − . Seawater intake, T/h 156 156
To , compressor
Mrecirculate, T/h 250 250
Feedwater salinity, g/la 42 42
C Exergetic efficiency, Brine salinity, g/la 70 70
Aevaporator, m2 2670 2760
Exergy output E P Afeed-brine, heat exchanger, m2 619.5 684
ηII = = (30)
Exergy input E F Afeed-distilate, heat exchanger ,m2 418.9 422
Total surface area, m2 3709 3866
C Unit product cost a
Specified parameters.

C desalted water + C L of the considered plant were previously presented

$ / m3 = (31)
Md [10]. The calculated results are illustrated in
Table 2. This table indicated that the VDS results
C Compression ratio of mass and temperature streams are in a good
agreement with the design data. However, the
Compressed vapor pressure calculated area is overestimated by 4%. This is
Cr = (32)
Suction vapor pressure because the precise design data about the brine
splitter ratio are not available.
C Brine recycle ratio Comparison between the two operation modes
is illustrated in Tables 3–5. Table 3 shows that
the calculated heat transfer area in both modes is
M recycle the same while the thermal performance ratio
α= (33)
M reject (PR) of the system of make up steam (start up
operation) is 8% less than the system with no
make-up steam (normal operation). This differ-
ence is due to using external heating steam.
5. Results and discussion
Table 4 shows that the exergy input at the start-up
The reliability and validity of the VDS pack- mode (steam + electrical) is greater than that of
age is checked by considering the design data of normal operation (electrical only). This is due to
an existing plant of 1500 m3/d MVC system (Abu the external steam consumption. The outlet
Soma, Red Sea, Egypt). The design and field data exergy is the same in the two modes. The exergy
10 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15

Table 3 losses are the same because the rejected stream

Energy analysis within the MEE–MVC system for both has the same salinity temperature and mass flow
modes rate. The exergy destruction of the starting mode
operation is higher than that of the normal
With make- Without
up steam make- up operation as shown in Table 4. This is mainly due
steam to irreversibility which results from the heat
transfer phenomena. As a result the exergetic
Make up steam, t/h 2 —
efficiency (ηII) at the start-up is lower than that of
Tdesuperheated steam, ECa, 70 70
the normal operation as shown in Table 4.
Tf, EC 57.2 57.2
Tevaporation,1, EC 65 65 The exergy costs of the main controlling vari-
Tevaporation,2, ECa 60 60 able of the plant in the two modes of operations
Surface area, m2 3860 3860 are presented in Table 5. This table shows that
Compressor pressure ratio 1.35 1.35 using external steam consumption increases the
(Cr)a hourly running cost by 56%. This is due to the
Compressor power, kW 556 556 higher cost of the heating steam which is calcu-
Specific power, kWh/m3 9.4 9.4 lated as 15.6 $/t [13]. Table 5 shows also that the
Performance ratio (PR) 5.5 6 capital investment in the two are similar as there
a
is no change in the heat transfer area, while the
Specified parameters.
destruction cost at the start up is 90% higher than
that of the normal operation. As a result, using
Table 4 external steam increases the unit product cost by
Exergy analysis within MEE–MVC system for both 29%.
modes The thermoeconomic variables (cp, cF, C D ,

Z CI+OM
, r, f ) are calculated for the process units
With Without under the normal operation as shown in Table 6.
steam steam
The variables include the exergetic efficiency
Exergy input, MW 1.43 1.07 (ηII), rate of exergy destruction ( E D ), average
Exergy output, MW 0.061 0.061 costs per unit fuel exergy (cF), and product exergy
Exergy loss, MW 0.47 0.47 (cp), cost rate of exergy destruction ( C D ), invest-
Exergy destruction ( E D ), MW 0.89 0.53 ment and O&M cost rate ( Z CI+OM ), relative cost
ηII, % 4.34 5.75
difference (r), and exergoeconomic factor ( f).
Table 6 shows that the first evaporator and the
Table 5 desuperheater have the highest values of the
Cost analysis of the MEE–MVC with/without make-up amount ( Z + C D ) while the feed/brine heat ex-
steam changer comes in next. Therefore, these are the
most important units to consider for improvement
Variable Make-up No make- from the thermoeconomic point of view. Zero
steam system up system value of the exergoeconomic factor (ƒ) for the
Chemical cost, $/h 5.9 5.9 desuperheater shows that the cost associated with
Running cost, $/h 91 58 the desuperheater are almost exclusively due to
Capital investment, $/h 48 48 exergy destruction. Table 6 also shows that the
Destruction cost, $/h 57 30 relatively high value of ƒ in the compressor and
Reject loss cost, $/h 128 97 the evaporators suggests a reduction in the invest-
Unit product cost, $/m3 2.2 1.7 ment costs of the components. The feed/distilled
 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15 11

Table 6
Thermoeconomic variables of MEE–MVC at Cr =1.35 and α = 0.5

Table 7
Thermoeconomic variables of MEE–MVC at Cr = 1.15 and α = 0.50

and feed/brine heat exchangers have the lowest
exergetic efficiency (ηII) and the highest relative
cost difference (r). Thus it can be concluded that
a decrease of the exergy destruction in these units
will reduce the unit product cost of an MEE–
MVC plant.
Table 7 illustrates that by reducing the com-
pression ratio (Cr) of the compressor from 1.35 to
1.15, the capital cost of the compressor is reduced
accordingly by 16%. The specific power con-
sumption is also reduced by 50%. Because the
inlet vapor temperature of the compressor is fixed
at 60EC, the compressor outlet temperature is
reduced from 95 to 75EC. This in turn reduces the
desuperheater exergy destruction by 77%. Also
the sum of the desuperheater is reduced by 84%.
The amount of the first evaporator is reduced by
22%. The sum of the heat recovery heat exchan-
ger is reduced by nearly 20%. Sequentially, the
unit product cost is reduced from 1.7 to 1.24 $/m3
(27% reduction).
Thermoeconomic results also show by reduc-
ing the splitter ratio (α) of the brine re-circulation
flow rate from 0.5 to 0.25 while the compression
ratio Cr is specified by 1.15, the exergy destruc-
tion in the first evaporation decreased by 15%.
The sum of the desuperheater also experiences a
further reduction of 36%. By reducing the brine
splitter ratio (α) from 0.5 to 0.25, the unit product
cost decreases to 1.21 $/m3.
Table 9 shows the effect of the evaporator
number variation under the same specified vari-
ables of the considered desalination plant. The
numerical results show that there is no visible
solution for the considered system using eight
evaporators or above. Yet this limitation will be
12 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15

Table 8
Thermoeconomic variables of MEE–MVC at Cr = 1.15 and α = 0.25

Table 9
Number of evaporator variations at 1500 m3/day

Number of effects
1 2 3 4 6 8
a
Tcompressor, in , EC 60 60 60 60 60 NVSb
Theating steam , ECa 70 70 70 70 70 NVS
Tf, EC 61 57.2 57 56.9 56.7 NVS
Distillate product, m3/ha 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 62.5 NVS
NVS
Total surface area, m2 2260 3860 6202 9650 23796 NVS
Performance ratio (PR), ηI 3.28 6.5 8.5 10.5 14 NVS
Pressure ratio 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 NVS
Specific power, kWh/m3 17.9 9.4 7.2 5.5 4 NVS
Exergetic efficiency, ηII 3.84 5.75 6.6 7.5 8.4 NVS
Unit product cost, $/m3 2.13 1.7 1.68 2 3.88 NVS

a
Specified parameters.
b
No visible solution.

changed if the specified variables changed. This
table shows that the thermal performance ratio of
the the MEE–MVC system increases with the
increase of the number of the evaporators. This is,
on one hand, due to the increase of the reuse of
the vapor, and on the other hand, due to the
decrease in the compressor power consumption as
shown in Table 9. The decrease in the power
consumption is mainly due to the decrease of the
induced vapor flow rate. The system exergetic
efficiency increases with the increase of the
number of evaporators as a result of the reduction
in the power consumption. The heating surface
area of the evaporators increases with the increase
of the effect number. This is due to the decrease
of the temperature drop per evaporator. The
inverse effect of the exergetic efficiency and the
required surface area gives numerically a mini-
mum unit product cost at three evaporators as
shown in Table 9. The unit product cost at two
evaporators and three evaporators are almost the
same. From the complexity and maintenance
point of view, the system of two evaporators is
preferable.
 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15 13

Table 10
Evaporator number variations on the MEE–MVC plant of 5000 m3/day

No. of evaporators
1 2 3 4 6
Seawater temperature, EC 27 27 27 NVSb
Tcompressor, in a, EC 60 60 60 60 NVS
Theating steam, EC 70 70 70 70 NVS
Distillate producta, m3/h 208 208 208 208 NVS
Total surface area, m2 7523 12,848 20,642 32,118 NVS
NVS
Pressure ratioa 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35
NVS
Total SPC, kWh/m3 17.9 9.9 7.23 4.7 NVS
Performance ratio (PR), ηI 3.4 6.5 9.35 12 NVS
Exergetic efficiency, ηII 3.8 5.75 6.6 7.5 NVS
Unit product cost, $/m3 2 1.67 1.64 2 NVS
a
Specific parameters.
b
No visible solution.

Table 10 shows the evaporator number vari-
ations for the considered MEE–MVC system
under the same specified variables of the con-
sidered desalination process when the capacity is
changed from 1500 m3/day to 5000 m3/day. The
numerical results show that there is no visible
solution for the system at six evaporators or
above. This limitation will be changed if the
specified variables changed. This table shows
also that both thermal performance ratio (PR) and
exergetic efficiency (ηII) of the MEE–MVC
system increase with an increasing number of
evaporators. This is because of the decrease in the
compressor power consumption, as shown in
Table 10. The decrease in the power consumption
is mainly due to the decrease of the induced
vapor flow rate. The system heating surface area
increases with increasing the number of evapora-
tors. The inverse effect of the exergetic efficiency
and the required surface area gives a minimum
unit product at three evaporators as shown in
Table 10. Also, the unit product cost at two and
three evaporators is almost the same. From the
complexity and maintenance point of view, the
system of two evaporators is preferable. Tables 9
and 10 show that by increasing the system capa-
city under the same operating conditions, the unit
product cost accordingly is reduced.
6. Conclusions
Using the design data of an existing MEE–
MVC plant (1500 m3/day), the following results
are obtained:
C The energy analysis shows that the thermal
performance ratio of the considered system
with external steam is 8% less than that the
system without external steam.
C Thermoeconomic analysis shows the unit pro-
duct cost is 29% higher in the system of
external steam. The unit product cost of the
desalted water at the normal operation (with-
out external steam) is calculated by 1.7 $/m3.
C For a system without external steam, by re-
ducing the pressure ratio of the vapor com-
pressor from 1.35 to 1.15, the capital cost of
the compressor is reduced by 16%. The speci-
fic power consumption is also reduced by
50%. Sequentially, the unit product cost is
14 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15

reduced from 1.7 to 1.24 $/m3 (a 27% Greek

reduction).
α — Brine circulation ratio
C Thermoeconomic results show that reducing
ηII — Exergetic efficiency (second law
the splitter ratio of the brine re-circulation
efficacy)
flow rate from 0.5 to 0.25 while the com-
pression ratio is specified by 1.15, the unit
product cost decreases to 1.21 $/m3. Superscripts
C Using the design condition of the considered
CI — Capital investment
MEE–MVC desalination plant, thermoeco-
OM — Operating and maintenance
nomic results show that the minimum unit
product cost is obtained at three evaporators,
as the unit product cost for two evaporators Subscripts
and three evaporators is almost the same.
0 — Dead state
C Due to complexity and maintenance require-
D — Destruction
ments, the system of two evaporators is pre-
d — Distillate
ferable. By increasing the capacity of the
F — Fuel
considered process from 1500 m3/day to
L — Loss
5000 m3/day, the results show that the unit
p — Product
product cost at two and three evaporators is
almost the same.
C Design calculations show that increasing the
required capacity of the considered system, References
the unit product cost decreases.
[1] Y.M. El-Sayed, Thermoeconomics of some options
of large mechanical vapor-compression units.
Desalination, 125 (1999) 251–257.
7. Symbols [2] H. Ettouney, H. El-Desouky and Y. Al-Roumi, Ana-
lysis of mechanical vapor compression desalination
Ċ — Cost flow rate, $/h process. Inter. J. Energy Res., 23 (1999) 431–451.
c — Cost per unit exergy, $/GJ [3] A.S. Nafey, Design and simulation of sea water
Cr — Pressure ratio thermal desalination plants. Ph.D. Thesis, 1988,
Ė — Exergy flow rate, MW Leeds University, UK.
f — Exergoeconomic factor [4] G. Aly, Computer simulations of multi-effect FFE–
h — Specific enthalpy, kJ/kg VC systems for water desalination. Desalination, 45
LMTD — Logarithmic mean temperature differ- (1983) 119–131.
ence, k [5] N.H. Aly and A.K. El-Fiqi, Mechanical vapor com-
Ṁ — Mass flow rate, kg/h pression desalination systems: case study. Desali-
nation, 158 (2003) 143–150.
N — Amortization year
[6] A.S. Nafey, H.E.S. Fath and A.A. Mabrouk, A new
P — Pressure, kPa visual package for design and simulation of desali-
r — Relative cost difference nation processes. Desalination, 194 (2006) 281–296.
s — Specific entropy, kJ/kg [7] A.S. Nafey, H.E.S. Fath and A.A. Mabrouk, Exergy
T — Temperature, K and thermoeconomic evaluation of MSF process
Ẇ — Power, MW using a new visual package. Desalination, 201 (2006)
Ż — Rate of the capital cost 224–240.
 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 230 (2008) 1–15
[8] A. Bejan, G. Tsatsaronis and M. Moran, Thermal
Design & Optimization, Wiley, New York, 1996.
[9] A.S. Nafey, H.E.S. Fath and A.A. Mabrouk,
Thermoeconomic investigation of multi-effect eva-
poration (MEE) and hybrid multi-effect evaporation
— multi-stage flash (MEE–MSF) systems. Desali-
nation, 201 (2006) 241–254.
[10] B. Djebedejian, M.S. Mohamad, M. El-sarraf and
M. Abou Rayan, Evaluation of desalination and
water transport costs (case study: Abu Soma Bay,
Egypt). Conference, IWTC, Sharm Elshiekh, Egypt.
2005.
15
[11] M.A. Darwish, F.A.Youcef and N.M. Al-Najem,
Energy consumption and costs with a multi-stage
flashing (MSF) desalting system. Desalination, 109
(1997) 285–302.
[12] W. El-Mudir, M. El-Bousiffi and S. Al-Hengari,
Performance evaluation of a small size TVC desali-
nation plant. Desalination, 165 (2004) 269–279.
[13] Y.M. El-Sayed, Designing desalination systems for
higher productivity. Desalination, 134 (2001) 129–
159.