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

net/publication/322303248

Design of 10000 m3d SWRO desalination plant

Thesis · January 2016

CITATIONS READS
0 3,044

1 author:

Usama Ezzeghni
Libyan Nuclear Research Center
20 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Exergy analysis of 10,000 m3/d Tajour SWRO Desalination Plant View project

Optimization study of Alwaha BWRO desalination plant for minimum water cost prediction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Usama Ezzeghni on 26 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 College of Engineering Technology – Janzour
Chemical Engineering Department

Design of a 10,000 m3/day SWRO desalination plant

by

Akram Ammar Nizar Salem Ramdan Ahmed Mohammed

Massoud Elhamrouni Zariba Abboud

5212004 212086 212338

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

of Bachelor of Science in Engineering in the Department of Chemical

Engineering at the College of Engineering Technology – Janzour

Supervised

by

Usama Ahmed H. S. Ezzeghni

2016
 AKNOWLEDGEMENT

Above all, praise be to Allah the Almighty who has sustained me throughout this work

and who provided me the desired intelligence and attributes for delivering this project and I

wish this thesis accepted by Allah as beneficial knowledge.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude and I feel very privileged to have worked

with my advisor, Usama Ahmed A. S. Ezzeghni. I owe a great debt of gratitude for his

valuable guidance, support and patience during the achievement of this work. He was very

supportive throughout the project and was always ready to help. I have truly learnt a lot from

him during studying period and the achievement of this thesis, I am very grateful.

I would also like to thank Eng. Adam Ali Almisurati for his cooperation with me in this

project.

Finally I would like to thank my family and all my friends for their constant support,

encouragement and good wishes, without which this work wouldn’t have been possible.

I
 ABSTRACT

Desalination of seawater has been considered as one of the most promising techniques for

supplying fresh water in Libya. Reverse osmosis (RO) is one of the major technologies for

mid- and large-size desalination plants because it offers a means of producing high quality

of water from seawater with lower energy consumption than other processes such as

evaporation processes. This project aims to understand and design desalination plant in a

manner of reverse osmosis with a capacity of 10,000 m3/day, using mathematical equations

and relationships which are collected in an excel spread sheet to be sued whatever, a new

design or following up the fluctuations of plant parameters is needed. In addition, to that

IMSdesign program will be used for designing and optimizing the recommended designed

plant, furthermore, PWT ProDose and IMSDesign softwares are used in calculating the

recommended antiscalant dose and pressure exchanger respectively, as well as studying the

primary treatment used to treat feed water source of reverse osmosis plant.

The recovery of the plant can be increased to more than 40% with less number of membrane

elements due to installing a new designed membranes (SWC6 MAX) developed by Nitto

Hydranuatics Company, furthermore, including pressure exchanger device in the

recommended designed plant decreases the pumping specific energy from 4.81 kWh/m3 to

2.09 kWh/m3 which saves 6,075,936 Libyan Dinar (L.D.) per year, consequently the unit

product cost will be decreased.

II
 Table Contents

AKNOWLEDGEMENT....................................................................................................... I

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... II

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... VIII

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... IX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. X

LIST OF SYMBOLS ........................................................................................................XII

CHAPTER 1 ..........................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1

1.1 Research Background ....................................................................................................1

1.2 Research Objectives ......................................................................................................2

CHAPTER 2 ..........................................................................................................................3

PRETREATMENT ...............................................................................................................3

2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................3

2.2 Acid addition .................................................................................................................5

2.3 Scale inhibitor addition .................................................................................................6

2.3.1 Sodiumhexametaphostphate (SHMP).....................................................................6

2.3.2 Organophosphonates ..............................................................................................7

2.3.3 Polyacrylic acids (PAA) .........................................................................................7

2.3.4 Blend Inhibitors ......................................................................................................7

III
 2.4 Chlorination / Dechlorination........................................................................................7

2.5 Granular media filtration (GMF)...................................................................................8

2.6 Coagulation-Flocculation ............................................................................................10

2.7 Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration ......................................................................................10

2.8 Cartridge microfiltration .............................................................................................11

CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................................13

DESALINATION ................................................................................................................13

3.1 Overview .....................................................................................................................13

3.2 Multi Stage Flash (MSF) distillation...........................................................................13

3.3 Multiple Effect Distillation (MED) .............................................................................15

3.4 MED plants with Vapor Compression (VC) ...............................................................16

3.5 Reverse Osmosis (RO) ................................................................................................17

3.6 Advantages and disadvantages of membrane processes .............................................18

CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................20

DESIGN CALCULATIONS ..............................................................................................20

4.1 Clarification (Sedimentation) Tank .............................................................................20

4.1.1 Detention time ......................................................................................................20

4.1.2 Rise rate ................................................................................................................21

4.2 Transfer pumps ............................................................................................................22

4.3 Multi-media filters.......................................................................................................23

IV
 4.3.1 Filter dimensions and media quantities ................................................................24

4.3.1.1 Diameter ............................................................................................................24

4.3.1.2 Media quantities ................................................................................................24

4.3.1.3 Straight shell height ...........................................................................................25

4.3.4 Rinse flow rate ......................................................................................................28

4.3.5 Air scour flow .......................................................................................................29

4.3.6 Net production per filter .......................................................................................29

4.4 Micron cartridge filters................................................................................................29

4.4.1 Filter element quantity and height ........................................................................30

4.4.2 High pressure feed pump ......................................................................................31

4.4.2.1 Variable speed pumps ........................................................................................32

4.5 Reverse osmosis membrane system ............................................................................32

4.5.1 Selection of membrane element type....................................................................32

4.5.2 Selection of average membrane flux ....................................................................33

4.5.3 Number of elements needed .................................................................................33

4.5.4 Number of pressure vessels needed ......................................................................34

4.5.5 Selection of stages number ...................................................................................34

4.5.6 Membrane systems report.....................................................................................35

4.6 Energy Recovery Devices (ERD) ...............................................................................36

4.7 Water storage tank .......................................................................................................37

V
 4.8 Chemical requirements ................................................................................................37

4.8.1 Antiscalant ............................................................................................................37

4.8.2 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)..............................................................................38

4.9 RO plant design tools ..................................................................................................40

4.9.1 IMSDesign ............................................................................................................40

4.9.2 PWT ProDose 32 v.74 ..........................................................................................41

4.9.3 Developed an excel spread sheet ..........................................................................42

CHAPTER 5 ........................................................................................................................43

COST ESTIMATION.........................................................................................................43

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................43

5.2 Factors affecting desalination costs.............................................................................43

5.3 Elements of economic calculations .............................................................................44

5.3.1 Capital Costs .........................................................................................................45

5.3.2 Direct Capital Cost ...............................................................................................45

5.3.3 Indirect Capital Cost .............................................................................................47

5.3.4 Operating Cost ......................................................................................................47

5.4 Total desalinated water cost ........................................................................................48

CHAPTER 6 ........................................................................................................................53

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .........................................................................................53

6.1 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................53

VI
CHAPTER 7 ........................................................................................................................55

CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................55

7.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................55

References ............................................................................................................................56

Appendix A ..........................................................................................................................59

A full detailed design results of an Integrated Membranes Solutions Design Software,

2015: ..................................................................................................................................59

Appendix B ..........................................................................................................................62

Results summary of PWT prodose software .....................................................................62

Appendix C ..........................................................................................................................64

Summary of power requirement resulted from IMSDesign system analysis ....................64

VII
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 4 - 1 : Media depth and grain size of DMF ............................................................. 25

Table 4 - 2 : The design parameters of the high pressure feed pumps.............................. 31

Table 4 - 3 : The membrane specifications. ...................................................................... 33

Table 4 - 4 : The seawater analysis (Libyan offshore sample) ......................................... 35

Table 4 - 5 : The design parameters of designed desalination plant ................................. 35

Table 4 - 6 : The design parameters of the pressure exchanger ........................................ 36

Table 4 - 7 : The recommended dosage rate for the SWRO plant .................................... 38

Table 5 - 1 : Estimates of chemical cost and dosing rates ................................................ 48

Table 5 - 2 : Summary of annual cost data of the designed SWRO plants ....................... 52

VIII
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 -1 : Installed capacities of reverse osmosis technology in Libya ......................... 1

Figure 2 - 1 : Pressure filter ................................................................................................ 9

Figure 2 - 2 : Gravity filter.................................................................................................. 9

Figure 2 - 3 : Dead-end filtration versus cross-flow filtration .......................................... 11

Figure 3 - 1 : OT - MSF evaporator plant ......................................................................... 14

Figure 3 - 2 : BR-MSF desalination plant......................................................................... 15

Figure 3 - 3 : Schematic diagram of MED process using horizontal tube evaporators .... 16

Figure 3 - 4 : Schematic diagram of a typical vapor compression distiller ...................... 17

Figure 3 - 5 : Principle of operation of a reverse osmosis (RO) system ........................... 18

Figure 4 - 1 : The dimensions of the sedimentation tank .................................................. 22

Figure 4 - 2 : Typical pump capacity coverage chart........................................................ 23

Figure 4 - 3 : Multi-media filter vessel dimensions .......................................................... 24

Figure 4 - 4 : Multi-media filter calculated vessel dimensions ......................................... 26

Figure 4 - 5 : Typical Cartridge Filter System (source Glegg) ......................................... 30

Figure 4 - 6 : IMSDesign computer program V. 1.2. ........................................................ 41

Figure 4 - 7 : the main screen of ProDose 32 v.74 software ............................................. 41

Figure 4 – 8 : A snap shoot of the calculation results of the developed spreadsheet....... 43

Figure 5 - 1 : Structure of cost analysis of a SWRO desalination .................................... 45

Figure 5 - 2 : Construction cost of SWRO plant ............................................................... 50

IX
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BHP Brake Horse Power

BR Brine Recycle

DC Direct Capital

ED Electrodialysis

ERD Energy Recovery Device

GMF Granular media filtration

HPP High Pressure Pump

IMSDesign Integrated Membrane Solution Design

LSI Langelier Saturation Index

LT-HTME Low Temperature Horizontal Tube Multi-Effect

MED Multiple Effect Distillation

MF Microfiltration

MSF Multi Stage Flash

MVC Mechanical Vapor Compression

ORP Oxidation Redox Potential

OT Once Through

PWT Professional Water Technologies

PX Pressure Exchanger

S&DSI Stiff & Davis Stability Index

SDI Silt Density Index

SWC6 Sea Water Composite 6

X
SWRO Sea Water Reverse Osmosis

TDS Total Dissoloved Salts

TVC Thermo Vapor Compression

UF Ultrafiltration

VC Vapor Compression

VFD Variable Speed Drives

VTE Vertical Tube Evaporation

XI
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

a The amortization factor, eq. ( 5-1) yr-1

n Plant life, eq. ( 5-1) years

QP Required permeate flow, eq. (3-24) m3/d

m Plant capacity, eq. ( ) m3/d

SE Membrane active area, eq. (3-24) m2

f Average flux, eq. (3-24) lmh

w Specific consumption of electric power, eq. ( 5-3) kWh/m3

i Interest rate, eq. ( 5-1) %

f Plant availability, eq. ( 5-3), ( 5-4), ( 5-6) and ( 5-8) %

l Specific cost of operating labor, eq. ( 5-6) $/m3

k Specific chemicals cost, eq. ( 5-4) $/m3

c Electric cost, eq. ( 5-3) $/ kWh

NE Total number of elements, eq. (3-24)

XII
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Background

Reverse osmosis technique were used as a water desalination choice in Libya about thirty

years ago, this technique has seen a steady growth rate of almost constant during the last two

decades , figure 1.1 shows the cumulative capacities of reverse osmosis plants in Libya until

the year 2004 [1] .

RO cumulative capacities

40

35

30

25
Mm3/yr

20

15

10

0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Years

Figure 1-1 : Installed capacities of reverse osmosis technology in Libya.

Due to increased demand for water in Libya and the fast developments of a reverse osmosis

technology, it has led to increased use of this technology locally and broadly, furthermore

identifying the future needs for desalination technology development, as well as a research

and development activities that will result in cost-effective, efficient desalination

technologies that can meet the future needs.

1
1.2 Research Objectives

This project aims to design of 10,000 m3/d (SWRO) desalination plant which include the

following:

 Design of sedimentation tank, high pressure pumps, multimedia filters and cartridge

filters.

 Design and optimize the membrane assembly of the SWRO plant with IMSdesign

software.

 Predicting the antiscalant dose using PWT ProDose software.

 Selecting the optimum energy recovery device for the plant according to the

published papers in this field.

 Developing a design with less energy consumption.

 Estimation of the unit produced cost of the plant designed.

 Preparing an excel spread sheet to be used for designing different capacities, whatever

the recommended data are available.

2
 CHAPTER 2

PRETREATMENT

2.1 Overview

For increasing the efficiency and life of reverse osmosis systems, effective pretreatment of

the feed water is obligatory. Selection of the appropriate pretreatment will maximize

efficiency and membrane life by minimizing:

 Fouling

 Scaling

 Membrane degradation

Optimizing:

 Product flow

 Product quality (salt rejection)

 Product recovery

 Operating & maintenance Costs

Fouling is the growth of foreign materials from feed water on the active membrane surface

and/or on the feed spacer to the point of causing operational problems. The term fouling

includes the accumulation of all kinds of layers on the membrane and feed spacer surface,

including scaling. More specifically, colloidal fouling refers to the entrapment of particulate

or colloidal matter such as iron flocs or silt, biological fouling (biofouling) is the growth of

a biofilm, and organic fouling is the adsorption of specific organic compounds such as humic

substances and oil on to the membrane surface. Scaling refers to the precipitation and

deposition within the system of sparingly soluble salts including calcium carbonate, barium

sulfate, calcium sulfate, strontium sulfate and calcium fluoride.

3
Pretreatment of feed water must involve a total system approach for continuous and reliable

operation. For example, an improperly designed and/or operated clarifier will result in

loading the sand or multimedia filter beyond its operating limits. Such inadequate

pretreatment often necessitates frequent cleaning of the membrane elements to restore

productivity and salt rejection. The cost of cleaning, downtime and lost system performance

can be significant.

The proper treatment scheme for feed water depends on:

 Feed water source

 Feed water composition

 Application

The type of pretreatment system depends to a large extent on feed water source (i.e., well

water, surface water, and municipal wastewater). In general, well water is a consistent feed

source that has a low fouling potential. Well water typically requires a very simple

pretreatment scheme such as acidification and/or antiscalant dosing and a 5-μm cartridge

filter.

Surface water, on the other hand, is a variable feed water source that is affected by seasonal

factors. It has a high fouling potential, both microbiological and colloidal. Pretreatment for

surface water is more elaborate than pretreatment for well water. Additional pretreatment

steps often include chlorination, coagulation/flocculation, clarification, multimedia filtration,

dechlorination, acidification and/or antiscalant dosing.

Industrial and municipal wastewaters have a wide variety of organic and inorganic

constituents. Some types of organic components may adversely affect RO membranes,

4
inducing severe flow loss and/or membrane degradation (organic fouling), making a well-

designed pretreatment scheme imperative.

Once the feed water source has been determined, a complete and accurate analysis of the feed

water should be made. The importance of a feed water analysis cannot be overemphasized.

It is critical in determining the proper pretreatment and RO system design.

Finally, the application often determines the type or extent of RO pretreatment required. For

example, pretreatment in an electronics application might be much more sophisticated than

for a municipal system due to the different product water quality requirements.

Pretreatment is a continuous water treatment process upstream of a continuous membrane

process. Water treatment chemicals may be dosed continuously or intermittently during

operation of the RO system.

2.2 Acid addition

Most natural surface and ground waters are almost saturated with CaCO3. The solubility of

CaCO3 depends on the pH, as can be seen from the following equation:

2+ – +
Ca + HCO3 ↔ H + CaCO3

+
By adding H as acid, the equilibrium can be shifted to the left side to keep calcium carbonate

dissolved. Use food-grade quality acid.

Sulfuric acid is easier to handle and in many countries more readily available than

hydrochloric acid, however, additional sulfate is added to the feed stream, potentially causing

sulfate scaling.

CaCO3 tends to dissolve in the concentrate stream rather than precipitate. This tendency can

be expressed by the Langelier Saturation Index (LSI) for brackish waters and the Stiff &

5
Davis Stability Index (S&DSI) for seawaters. At the pH of saturation (pHs), the water is in

equilibrium with CaCO3.

The definitions of LSI and S&DSI are:

 LSI = pH – pHs (TDS < 10,000 mg/L)

 S&DSI = pH – pHs (TDS > 10,000 mg/L)

Where the methods predicting pHs are different for LSI and S&DSI.

To control calcium carbonate scaling by acid addition, the LSI or S&DSI in the concentrate

stream must be negative. Acid addition is useful to control carbonate scale only [2].

2.3 Scale inhibitor addition

Scale inhibitors (antiscalants) slow the precipitation process of sparingly soluble salts by

being absorbed on the forming salt crystals to prevent the attraction of the supersaturated salt

to the crystal surfaces. In this situation the crystals never grow to a size or concentration

sufficient to fall out of suspension. Furthermore, many scale inhibitors have some dispersive

qualities which involve surrounding particles of suspended salt or organic solids with the

anionically charged scale inhibitor. Now the anionically charged particles will repel each

other to prevent the agglomeration of the particles to larger particles that may precipitate.

Scale inhibitors effective in controlling carbonate scaling, sulfate scaling and calcium

fluoride scaling are listed below.

2.3.1 Sodiumhexametaphostphate (SHMP) is most widely used because it offered good

inhibition at a low cost. However, care must be taken in order to avoid hydrolysis of SHMP

in the dosing feed tank (a fresh solution should be made every 3 days).

6
2.3.2 Organophosphonates are an improvement over SHMP in that they are more resistant

to hydrolysis though more expensive. They offer scale inhibition and dispersion ability

similar to SHMP.

2.3.3 Polyacrylic acids (PAA) are good at both scale inhibition and dispersion. PAA with

higher molecular weight distribution in the range of 6000 to 25000 showed the best

dispersion ability at the sacrifice of scale inhibition ability. In general, PAA are more

effective than SHMP. However, precipitation reactions may occur with cationic

polyelectrolytes or multivalent cations such as aluminum or iron to foul the membrane.

2.3.4 Blend Inhibitors are a combination of low and high molecular weight of PAA or a

blend of low molecular weight PAA and organophosphonates for excellent dispersive and

inhibitor performance [3].

2.4 Chlorination / Dechlorination

Chlorination for RO pretreatment has been applied usually where biological fouling

prevention is required (i.e., typically for surface waters). Chlorine is added continuously at

the intake, and a reaction time of 20–30 min should be allowed. A free residual chlorine

concentration of 0.5–1.0 mg/L should be maintained through the whole pretreatment line.

Dechlorination upstream of the membranes is required, however, to protect the membranes

from oxidation.

Some types of membranes can withstand short-term exposure to free chlorine (hypochlorite);

however, its resistance is limited. The membrane can be used successfully in installations

where system upsets result in temporary exposure to free chlorine. Eventual degradation may

occur after approximately 200 – 1,000 hours of exposure to 1 ppm concentrations of free

chlorine.

7
Instead of continuous chlorination, chlorine is preferably applied off-line to the pretreatment

section periodically. During off-line chlorination, the feed water has to be sent to drain prior

to reaching the membranes. Before the system goes into operation again, all chlorine

containing feed water has to be rinsed out carefully, and the absence of chlorine must be

verified (e.g., by monitoring of the oxidation-redox potential (ORP) [2].

2.5 Granular media filtration (GMF)

Conventional pretreatment systems for SWRO were developed based on existing technology

and most commonly consist of conventional media filtration. Single or dual stage granular

media filters consisting of sand and anthracite (garnet is sometimes used) is typically applied

in conventional pretreatment systems, in gravity or pressurized configuration as shown in

figures 2-1 and 2-2. Sand and anthracite (0.8-1.2 mm and 2-3 mm) filter beds are superior to

single media filtration in that they provide higher filtration rates, longer runs and require less

backwash water. Anthracite/sand/garnet beds have operated at normal rates of approximately

12 m/h and peak rates as high as 20 m/h without loss of effluent quality. In SWRO

pretreatment, the primary function of GMF is to reduce high loads of particulate and colloidal

matter (i.e., turbidity).

8
Figure 2 - 1 : Pressure filter (Courtesy of Nalco., www.nalco.com).

Figure 2 - 2 : Gravity filter (Courtesy of Nalco., www.nalco.com).

GMF relies on depth filtration to enhance RO feed water quality. However, when high

concentrations of organic matter or turbidity loads are encountered, coagulation is required

to ensure that RO feed water of acceptable quality is produced (SDI < 5) [4].

9
2.6 Coagulation-Flocculation

Coagulation and filtration uses the conventional chemical and physical treatment processes

of chemical addition, rapid mix, coagulation, flocculation, and multi-media filtration.

Chemical coagulation and flocculation consists of adding a chemical coagulant combined

with mechanical flocculation to allow fine suspended and some dissolved solids to clump

together (floc). Fe2(SO4)3 has been proven to be the most effective coagulant for Se+4

removal; while Al2(SO4)3 proved most effective for Se+6 removal. Filtration provides final

removal by multi-media filtering of all floc and suspended solids [5].

2.7 Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration

Microfiltration (MF) has the largest pore size (0.1-3 µm) of the wide variety of membrane

filtration systems. Ultrafiltration (UF) pore sizes range from 0.01 to 0.1 µm. In terms of pore

size, MF fills in the gap between ultrafiltration and granular media filtration. In terms of

characteristic particle size, MF range covers the lower portion of the conventional clays and

the upper half of the range for humic acids. This is smaller than the size range for bacteria,

algae, and cysts, and larger than that of viruses. MF is also typically used for turbidity

reduction, removal of suspended solids, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium. UF membranes are

used to remove viruses, color, odor, and some colloidal natural organic matter [6]. Both

processes require low trans-membrane pressure (1-30 psi) to operate, and both are now used

as a pretreatment to desalination technologies such as reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, and

electrodialysis, but cannot remove salt themselves [7].

MF membranes can operate in either cross-flow separation as shown in figure 2 - 3 and also

dead-end filtration where there is no concentrate flow.

11
Figure 2 - 3 : Dead-end filtration versus cross-flow filtration [Courtesy of Porex Filtration

Company, http://www.porexfiltration.com].

If a chlorine-resistant membrane material is used (e.g, polysulfone or a ceramic membrane),

chlorine can be added to the wash water in order to retard biological fouling [2].

2.8 Cartridge microfiltration

A cartridge filter with an absolute pore size of less than 10 μm is the suggested minimum

pretreatment required for every RO system. It is a safety device to protect the membranes

and the high pressure pump from suspended particles. Usually it is the last step of a

pretreatment sequence. A pore size of 5 μm absolute is recommended. The better the

prefiltration the less RO membrane cleaning required. If there is a risk of fouling with

colloidal silica or with metal silicates, cartridge filtration with 1 to 3 μm absolute pore size

is recommended. The filter should be sized on a flow rate according to the manufacturer’s

recommendation and replaced before the pressure drop has increased to the permitted limit,

but at least every 3 months.

The cartridge filter should be made of a synthetic nondegradable material (e.g., nylon or

polypropylene) and equipped with a pressure gauge to indicate the differential pressure,

11
thereby indicating the extent of its fouling. Regular inspections of used cartridges provide

useful information regarding fouling risks and cleaning requirements [2].

12
 CHAPTER 3

DESALINATION

3.1 Overview

Water is available in large quantities on earth but only a small fraction has a low enough

salinity to be fit for drinking and irrigation. Desalination of sea and brackish water is

therefore attracting considerable attention in the scientific and engineering communities. Its

commercial application is changing the face of regions such as the Middle East, North Africa

and some islands of the Caribbean. Recently the main desalination technologies are reverse

osmosis (RO) and multi-stage flash distillation (MSF) processes which represent

respectively,60% and 26.8% of the total installed desalination capacity in the world [8].The

choice of the appropriate process depends greatly on the salinity of the supply water [9].

Previously RO technique were normally used for salt concentrations below 3% (30,000 ppm)

while distillation is preferred for concentrations above 3% [10], due to the development

occurred in membrane performance, the RO desalination technique can be used for

concentrations even more than 5%.

3.2 Multi Stage Flash (MSF) distillation

Multi-stage flash distillation is another method commonly used for desalting drinking water

supplies. In MFS distillation plants the seawater feed passes through tubes in each

evaporation stage where it is progressively heated. Final seawater heating occurs in the brine

heater by the heat source. Subsequently, the heated brine flows through nozzles into the first

stage, which is maintained at a pressure slightly lower than the saturation pressure of the

incoming stream. As a result, a small fraction of the brine flashes forming pure steam. The

13
heat to flash the vapour comes from cooling of the remaining brine flow, which lowers the

brine temperature. Subsequently, the produced vapour passes through a mesh demister in the

upper chamber of the evaporation stage where it condenses on the outside of the condensing

brine tubes and is collected in a distillate tray. The heat transferred by the condensation

warms the incoming seawater feed as it passes through that stage. The remaining brine passes

successively through all the stages at progressively lower pressures, where the process is

repeated. The hot distillate flows as well from stage to stage and cools itself by flashing a

portion into steam which is re-condensed on the outside of the tube bundles. The vent gases

from the deaeration together with any noncondensable gases released during the flashing

process are removed by steam-jet ejectors and discharged to the atmosphere [11].

Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show two process arrangements for the MSF process: Once Through and

Brine Recycle. Each of these process can be arranged as a “long tube” or “cross tube” design.

In the long tube design, tubing is parallel to the concentrate flow in the vessel. Tubing is

perpendicular to the concentrate flow in the cross tube design.

Figure 3 - 1 : OT - MSF evaporator plant [12].

14
Figure 3 - 2 : BR-MSF desalination plant [12].

3.3 Multiple Effect Distillation (MED)

MED, like the MSF process, takes place in a series of vessels (effects) and uses the

principle of reducing the ambient pressure in the various effects, This permits the sea water

feed to undergo multiple boiling without supplying additional heat after the first effect. In an

ME0 plant, the sea water enters the first effect and is raised to the boiling point after being

preheated in tubes. The sea water is either sprayed or otherwise distributed onto the surface

of evaporator tubes in a thin film to promote rapid boiling and evaporation. The tubes are

heated by steam from a boiler, or other source, which is condensed on the opposite side of

the tubes. The condensate from the boiler steam is recycled to the boiler for reuse.

The schematic flow diagram of MED plant illustrated in figure 3-3, this process of

desalination uses only a portion of seawater applied to the tubes in the first effect is

evaporated. The remaining feed water is fed to the second effect, where it is again applied to

the tube bundle. These tubes are in turn being heated by the vapors created in the first effect.

This vapor is condensed to fresh water product, while giving up heat to evaporate a portion

of the remaining sea water feed in the next effect. This continues for several effects, with 8

or 16 effects being found in a typical large plant. Usually, the remaining sea water in each

15
effect must be pumped to the next effect so as to apply it to the next tube bundle. Additional

condensation takes place in each effect on tubes that bring the feed water from its source

through the plant to the first effect. This warms the feed water before it is evaporated in the

first effect [13].

Currently, MED processes with the highest technical and economic potential are the low

temperature horizontal tube multi-effect process (LT-HTME) and the vertical tube

evaporation process (VTE).

In LT-HTME plants, evaporation tubes are arranged horizontally and evaporation occurs

by spraying the brine over the outside of the horizontal tubes creating a thin film from which

steam evaporates. In VTE plants, evaporation takes place inside vertical tubes [11].

Figure 3 - 3 : Schematic diagram of MED process using horizontal tube evaporators [11].

3.4 MED plants with Vapor Compression (VC)

In some MED designs, a part of the vapour produced in the last effect is compressed to a

higher temperature level so that the energy efficiency of the MED plant can be improved.

This type of MED called multiple effect distillation with vapour compression (see figure 3-

16
4). To compress the vapour, either Mechanical (mechanical vapor compression [MVC]) or

Steam (thermo-vapor compression [TVC]) are used.

Figure 3 - 4 : Schematic diagram of a typical vapor compression distiller [11].

3.5 Reverse Osmosis (RO)

The RO system depends on the properties of semipermeable membranes which, when used

to separate water from a salt solution, allow fresh water to pass into the brine compartment

under the influence of osmotic pressure. If a pressure in excess of this value is applied to the

salty solution, fresh water will pass from the brine into the water compartment. Theoretically,

the only energy requirement is to pump the feed water at a pressure above the osmotic

pressure. In practice, higher pressures must be used, typically 50–80 bar, in order to have a

sufficient amount of water pass through a unit area of membrane.

17
Figure 3 - 5 : Principle of operation of a reverse osmosis (RO) system [13].

With reference to figure 3-5, the feed is pressurised by a high-pressure pump and made to

flow across the membrane surface. Part of this feed passes through the membrane, where the

majority of the dissolved solids are removed. The remainder, together with the remaining

salts, is rejected at high pressure. In larger plants, it is economically viable to recover the

rejected brine energy with a suitable Energy Recovery Device (ERD). Such systems are

called energy recovery reverse osmosis (ER-RO) systems.

3.6 Advantages and disadvantages of membrane processes

Advantages of the membrane processes are: (1) low energy consumption, (2) moderate

costs (lower capital and operation costs), (3) easier operation and maintenance, (4) compact

and modular units, (5) faster delivery time of plant, (6) advances in RO membranes and

technology, (7) decoupling of power and desalination plants (due to water demand growth

factor of 11% over 4% for power), (8) hybrid of three or more processes, (9) ambient

temperature process. Electric power requirements to drive high-pressure pumps can be

reduced by 30% by adding an energy recovery unit to brine discharge. A single-stage RO

plant at 30% recovery is estimated to consume 9.24 kWh/m3 without (or 6.38 kWh/m3 with)

energy recovery on brine discharge [14].

18
 Earlier the disadvantage of membrane systems was that, in general, RO is not generally

favored for seawater desalination due to high salinity (45,000 ppm of TDS in the Arabian

Gulf), high temperatures (40 oC in the Arabian Gulf), high silt density, high bacteria activity

and pollution. The main disadvantage of RO systems is the problem of fouling. Pretreatment

is very important for RO systems [15]. However, there has been a recent inclination towards

using RO in seawater desalination, both for new plants and in connection with present MSF

plants, due to a reduction in energy requirements and lower operation, maintenance costs for

RO and the rapid development in the field of membrane physical and chemical properties.

Membrane processes, mainly RO, are the fastest-growing technology among the current

processes [16]. The RO membrane technique is considered the most promising for brackish

and seawater desalination [17]. The world’s largest RO plant was built in southern Arizona

at a capacity of 274,000 m3/d [18].

19
 CHAPTER 4

DESIGN CALCULATIONS

4.1 Clarification (Sedimentation) Tank

Sedimentation chamber rise rate and slow mix chamber detention time are the most important

factors utilized in sizing clarification tanks.

4.1.1 Detention time

Detention time is the theoretical average length of time the water is in the clarifier. Detention

time depends on two following parameters:

 Volume of the clarifier; and

 The flow rate of the water.

It is calculated using the following formula:

Volume of Clarifier
Detention time = (4-1)
Flow rate

Where the typical detention time of most clarifiers varies between 20 to 30 minutes [19]

therefore the volume of slow mix chamber can be calculated as follows:

Slow Mix Chamber Volume = (Flow rate) ∗ (Detention Time) (4-2)

m3
Slow Mix Chamber Volume = 1070.93 ∗ 0.5 hr = 535.465 m3
hr
Slow Mix Chamber Volume
Slow Mix Chamber Area = (4-3)
Slow Mix Chamber Height

Where typical height recommended by different companies s are between 3 and 6 m.

535.465 m3
Slow Mix Chamber Area = = 146.39 m2
3.6576 m(12 ft)

21
 (4)∗ (Slow Mix Chamber Area)
(Slow Mix Chamber Diameter)2 = (4-4)
3.14

(4)∗ (146.39 m2 )
(Slow Mix Chamber Diameter)2 = d2 = = 186.48 m2
3.14

d = 13.66 ~ 14 m

4.1.2 Rise rate

Major factors in determining the efficiency of a clarifier. It is also known as the surface

loading rate, the surface settling rate, or the overflow rate. Rise rate is defined as the flow per

unit surface area of the clarifier.

Most clarifiers are designed with rise rates in the range of 25 to 75 m3/d per m2 [19].

Clarifier Flow rate

Treated Water Surface Area = (4-5)
Rise Rate

m3
1070.93
Treated Water Surface Area = hr = 438 m2
m3 2
2.445 ⁄m
hr

Total Clarifier Area = Treated Water Surface Area + Slow Mix Chamber Area (4-6)

Total Clarifier Area = 438 m2 + 146.39 m2 = 584.41 m2

(4)∗ (Total Clarifier Area)

(Clarifier Diameter)2 = (4-7)
3.14

(4)∗ (584.41 m2 )
(Clarifier Diameter)2 = = 744.47 m2
3.14

d ~ 27 m

All the calculated dimensions of the sedimentation tank are shown in figure 4-1.

21
Figure 4 - 1 : The dimensions of the sedimentation tank.

4.2 Transfer pumps

These pumps will be used to pump the clarified seawater to the pressure required by

multimedia filters, which can be calculated as follows:

Outlet pressure = Required pressure at the top outlet (4.5 bar)

Gross feed flow to filtration plant = 1070.93 m3/hr

Four pumps are recommended to pump the raw water to filtration system, three in operation

and one standby.

Feed flow per pump = 1070.93 / 3 = 356.97 ~ 360 m3/hr

Where the pressure required and feed flow to filtration plant are known, the transfer pumps

can be selected using a coverage chart ( see Figure 4-2 ), which makes it possible to do a

preliminary pump selection by looking at a wide range of pump casing sizes for a specific

impeller speed.

22
Figure 4 - 2 : Typical pump capacity coverage chart [Source http:// www.omel.com.br].

4.3 Multi-media filters

Figure 4-3 below shows the most important dimensions required for designing a multi-media

filter vessel.

23
Figure 4 - 3 : multi-media filter vessel dimensions (Source Glegg Company).
The dimensions of the multi-media vessels are calculated as follows:

4.3.1 Filter dimensions and media quantities

4.3.1.1 Diameter

The vessel diameter is based on the normal service flow rate, the service water requirement

and the relationship between area and diameter.

Feed flow to filtration plant

Feed flow per filter = (4-8)
Number of filter units

m3
1070.93 3
Feed flow per filter = hr = 133.87 m
8 hr

Feed flow per filter

Required cross sectional filtration area per filter = (4-9)
Service down−flow rate

m3
133.87
Required cross sectional filtration area per filter = hr 2
m = 7.44 m
18
hr

1
Required cross−sectional filtration area per filter∗4 2
Required internal diameter = ( ) (4-10)
π

1
7.44 m2 ∗ 4 2
Required internal diameter = ( ) = 3.08 m
π

4.3.1.2 Media quantities

A typical multi-media filter has the following top to bottom layer configuration (media bed

depths shown are the minimum allowed):

• (0.45 - 0.60 m) of anthracite.

• (0.2 – 0.3 m) of sand.

24
 • (0.10 – 0.15 m) of garnet [20].

Table 4-1 shows the filtering material layers for each media for the designed plant.

(internal diameter )2 ∗ π
Media Quantity = Layer Thickness ∗ (4-11)
4

(3.08 m )2 ∗ π
QuantityAnthracite = 0.6 m ∗ = 4.5 m3
4

(3.08 m)2 ∗ π
QuantitySand = 0.3 m ∗ = 2.2 m3
4

(3.08 m)2 ∗ π
Quantitygarnet = 0.15 m ∗ = 1.1 m3
4

Table 4 - 1 : Media depth and grain size of MMF.

Filtering material layer Grain size, Layer depth, m Media quantity

mm (in) (m3)
Anthracite 0.85–0.95 0.6 (23.6) 4.5
Sand 0.45–0.55 0.3 (11.8) 2.2
Supporting layer (Garnet) 0.3 0.15 (5.9) 1.1

4.3.1.3 Straight shell height

A multi-media filter requires 50% minimum freeboard to allow bed expansion during the

backwash cycle.

Straight Shell Height = (DepthAnthracite + DepthSand + DepthGarnet ) ∗ (1 +

50% Freeboard) (4-12)

Straight Shell Height = (0.6 + 0.3 + 0.15) ∗ (1 + 50% Freeboard) = 1.58 m

The above calculated dimensions for a multi-media filter vessel are shown in figure 4-4.

25
Figure 4 - 4 : Multi-media filter calculated vessel dimensions.

4.3.4 Service and Backwash Performance per Filter

4.3.4.1 Service flow rate

The allowable flow rate through a multi-media filter is 290 - 530 m3.d-1/m2. Normal service

flow is 290 - 350 m3.d-1/m2. Flow rates of 470 - 530 m3.d-1/m2. should only be used for short

periods of time, when one filter is being cleaned and the other filters must temporarily process

the higher flow rate. Flow rates above 530 m3.d-1/m2 should not be used, as impurities will

be driven through the media bed.

Gross water throughput per filter unit per cycle = Feed flow per filter ∗ Backwash

frequency (4-13)

Gross water throughput per filter unit per cycle= 133.87 m3/hr ∗24hr = 3212.79 m3

4.3.4.2 Backwash flow rate

26
The backwash flow is required to expand the bed depth by 30%. The flow rate depends on

temperature, since the force pushing the particles up is a function of the viscosity of the water,

which decreases with increasing temperature.

Backwash water flow rate (without air) = Required across −

sectinal filtration area per filter ∗ Water up − flow during backwash (without air)

(4-14)

m 2
m3
Backwash water flow rate (without air) = 7.44 m ∗ 35 = 260.4
h hr

Backwash time (without air) = 10 min

Backwash water volume (without air) =

Backwash water flow rate (without air)∗ Backwash time without air
(4-15)
60

m3 1 hr
Backwash water volume (without air) = 260.4 ∗ (10 min ∗ ) = 43.38 m3
hr 60 min

Feed flow per filter∗Rinse time (at service flow)

Raw water volume used to rinse = (4-16)
60

Rinse time (at service flow) = 5 min

m3 1 hr
Raw water volume used to rinse = 133.86 ∗ 5 min∗ = 11.16 m3
hr 60 min

Backwash time with air = 5 min

Water up-flow during backwash - together with air = Air up-flow during backwash +

Water up-flow during backwash - without air (4-17)

Water up-flow during backwash - together with air = 50 m/h + 35 m/h = 85 m/h

27
Backwash water flow rate (with air) = Required cross sectional filtration area per

filter ∗ Water up-flow during backwash - together with air (4-18)

Backwash water flow rate (with air) = 7.44 m2 ∗ 85 m/hr = 632.4 m3/hr

Backwash water volume (with air) =

Backwash water flow rate (with air)∗Backwash time with air

(4-19)
60 min

m3 1 hr
Backwash water volume (with air) = 632.4 ∗ 5 min∗ = 52.68 m3
hr 60 min

Total filtered water volume required for backwash = Backwash water volume (without

air) + Backwash water volume (with air) (4-20)

Total filtered water volume required for backwash = 43.38 m3+52.68 m3 = 96.06 m³

Total filtered and raw water required for backwash= Raw water volume used to rinse

+ Total filtered water volume required for backwash (4-21)

Total filtered and raw water required for backwash = 11.16 m3 + 96.06 m3

= 107.22 m3

4.3.4 Rinse flow rate

To adequately rinse the media bed, the flow rate must be at least 350 m3.d-1/m2 for 1 bed

volume.

Rinse Flow = Rinse Flow Rate ∗ (Diameter)2 ∗ π/ 4 (4-22)

Rinse Flow = 350 m3.d-1/m2 ∗ (3.08 m)2 ∗ π/ 4= 2607.71 m3/d

28
4.3.5 Air scour flow

For an effective air scour, the air flow rate of the recommended design blower must be at

least 50 m3.hr -1/m2 (3 SCFM/ft2) at 0.5 bar.

Air flow-rate requirement = Required cross-sectional filtration area per filter ∗Air up-

flow during backwash (4-23)

Air flow-rate requirement = 7.44 m2 ∗ 50 m3.hr-1 /m2= 371.85 m³/hr

4.3.6 Net production per filter

Net production of filtered water = Gross water throughput per filter unit per cycle-

Total filtered water volume required for backwash (4-24)

Net production of filtered water = 3212.79 m3 – 96.06 m3 = 3116.73 m3

Time of production of net volume filtered water = Backwash frequency-(Backwash

time with air+ Backwash time without air+ Rinse time (at service flow))/60 (4-25)

Time of production of net volume filtered water =24 hr - (5 min+10 min +5

min) ∗1hr/60 min = 23.67 hr

Net production rate of filtered water = Net production of filtered water/ Time of

production of net volume filtered water (4-26)

Net production rate of filtered water =3116.73 m3 / 23.67 hr = 131.69 m3/hr

Net production rate = Net production rate of filtered water ∗ Number of filter units (4-27)

Net production rate =131.69 m3/hr ∗ 8 = 1053.54 m3/hr

4.4 Micron cartridge filters

29
 The filter elements of a cartridge filter are selected based on two measures, the nominal

micron rating and the service water flow rate. The standard diameter of the filter elements is

2.5 inches. The standard length of the filter elements can be either 30 or 40 inches. Figure 4-

5 shows a typical cartridge filter system.

The choice of 30-inch or 40-inch cartridges often depends on the availability of ‘standard’

filter housings. In general, there is not much cost difference between housings for 30-inch or

40-inch cartridges, so if there are no other constraints a 40-inch cartridge system generally is

the most economical.

Figure 4 - 5 : Typical Cartridge Filter System (source Glegg comp).

4.4.1 Filter element quantity and height

The number of 10” lengths of cartridge required for a system can be calculated as follows:

Quantity = Service water requirement / Flow per 10-inch length (4-28)

(10-inch lengths) (at available pressure drop)

31
 m3
1053.36 hr
= m3
= 1170.6 ~1171 element
0.9 hr

Using a filter element that can support 0.9 m3/h per psid per 10-inch length, the quantity of

filter elements for the entire system can be calculated as follows:

Quantity (10−inch lengths)

Quantity (40 − inch lengths) = (4-29)
Quantity (10−inch elements per element)

1171
= = 292.75 ~ 293 element
4

No. of cartridge vessels = Quantity (40-inch lengths) / Quantity per vessel (4-30)

293
= = 5.86 ~ 6 cartridge vessels
50

Feed flow per filter = Service water requirement / No. of cartridge vessels (4-31)

m3
1070.93 hr m3
Feed flow per filter = = 175.59
6 hr

4.4.2 High pressure feed pump

For most water treatment applications, the centrifugal pump and its close relatives are usually

the best choices. Selection of the high pressure pump (HPP) depends on the minimum and

maximum flow rates, the discharge pressure required, the suction pressure available and the

maximum temperature, where these parameter can be obtained from the IMSDesign report.

Table 4-2 shows the design parameters of the high pressure feed pumps.

Table 4 - 2 : The design parameters of the high pressure feed pumps are the following:

Power Calculation (without ERD)

Pump pressure (bar) 52.9

Product flow m3/d 10000
Pump flow m3/d 25000

31
 Pump efficiency % 83
Motor efficiency % 93
VFD efficiency % 97
Power/stage/pass Kw 2004.4
Brake horse power BHP 2686.8
Total pumping power kW 2004.4
3
Pumping specific energy kwh/m 4.81

4.4.2.1 Variable speed pumps

Variable speed motors are used to control motor operating speed. This allows a pump to

operate at different speeds and thus reduce pump size and/or number of stages and eliminate

the need for a speed-increasing gearbox in some applications. High-speed pumps are

especially useful for high head, low-flow applications and the ability to alter pump speed

allows operation over wide range of conditions. Variable speed drives also provide a pump

system with a built-in soft start and stop to prevent shocks to the system.

4.5 Reverse osmosis membrane system

The process design of a reverse osmosis system involves detailed calculations. However, by

using several calculations, a close approximation can be devised. This approximation can be

used to make initial design decisions.

The following steps were used to design the membrane assembly of the SWRO desalination

plant to be designed.

4.5.1 Selection of membrane element type

Elements are selected according to feed water salinity, feed water fouling tendency, required

rejection and energy requirements, where the membrane selected for the designed plant is

SWC6 and IMSDesign software were used to give the informations required for the designed

system. This software is available on the website of Hydranautics Company.

Table 4-3 lists all the specifications of SWC6 MAX membranes.

32
Table 4 - 3 : The membrane specifications.

Performance
Permeate Flow 50 m3/d
Salt Rejection 99.8% (99.7% min)
Applied Pressure 55 bar
Type
Configuration Spiral Wound
Membrane Polymer Composite Polyamide
Membrane Active Area 40.8 m2
Application Data
Maximum Applied Pressure 83 bar
Maximum Chlorine Concentration < 0.1 ppm
Maximum Operating Temperature 45 oC
pH Range, Continuous (Cleaning) 2-11
Maximum Feed water Turbidity 1.0 NTU
Maximum Feed water SDI (15 mins) 5
Maximum Feed Flow 17.0 m3/h
Minimum Ratio of Concentrate to
5:1
Permeate Flow for any Element
Maximum Pressure Drop for Each Element 15 psi

4.5.2 Selection of average membrane flux

Selection the design flux based on pilot data, experience or the typical design fluxes
2
according to the feed source. The recommended design flux for this plant is 13.5 l/m -h.

4.5.3 Number of elements needed

The number of elements NE can be calculated using equation (4-32) by dividing the design

permeate flow rate QP by the design flux f and by the membrane surface area of the selected

2 2
element SE (ft or m ).

QP
NE = (4-32)
𝑓.SE

Where

NE = Total number of elements.

33
QP = required permeate flow.

SE = Membrane active area, and

f = Average flux.

m3 1000 l 1d
10000 d ∗ ∗
1 m3 24 h
NE = l
⁄ 2
= 756 membrane elements
13.5 mh
∗40.8 m2

4.5.4 Number of pressure vessels needed

For this plant, 6-element vessels will be used, so the number of pressure vessels will be:
𝑁𝐸
𝑁𝑉 = (4-33)
𝑁𝐸𝑝𝑉

Where

NV = Total number of pressure vessels.

NE= Total number of elements; and

NEpV = No. membrane element per PV.

NEpV = 756 / 6 = 126 PVs

4.5.5 Selection of stages number

The number of stages defines how many pressure vessels in series the feed will pass through

until it exits the system and is discharged as concentrate. Typically, the number of serial

element positions is linked with the system recovery and the number of stages, for the

designed SWRO plant the recovery is 40% and one stage plant will be selected to avoid the

expected scaling problems and the uncaring in operation and monitoring of the plant .

34
The RO stage consist of two parallel RO racks with 63 pressure vessels each. Each pressure

vessel contains six spiral wound RO membranes.

4.5.6 Membrane systems report

Integrated Membrane Solutions Design (IMSDesign) software were used to design, optimize

and analyze the performance of the designed plant and testing the configuration according to

seawater analysis listed in table 4-4. The design parameters of the designed desalination plant

are listed in table 4-5.

Table 4 - 4 : The seawater analysis (Libyan offshore sample).

Ph 8 CO3 12.653 mg/l E Conductivity μs/cm

Cations mg/l mg/l CaCO3 Anions mg/l mg/l CaCO3
Ca 455 HCO3 163 133.61
Mg 1427 SO4 2915 3036.46
Na 11600 Cl 20987 29600.85
K 419 F 0 0
NH4 0 NO3 0 0
Ba 0 PO4 0
Sr 0 SiO2 2
Cal. TDS 37981 mg/l B 0

Table 4 - 5 : The design parameters of designed desalination plant.

Company Name Hydranautics

Design software used IMS design
Pressure vessels (PVs) configuration 1 stage
Permeate recovery % 40
Average flux, lmh 13.5
No. of pressure vessels (PVs) 126
No. of membranes 756
No. of membranes per (PV) 6
Nominal diameter, inch 8
Membrane model SWC6 MAX
Max. operating pressure, bar 83
Working pressure, bar 52.9
Ph 8
o
Maximum temperature, C 45
Feed flow, m3/d 25000

35
 Permeate flow, m3/d 10000
Concentrate flow, m3/d 15000
Design salt rejection, % 99.6
Concentrate salinity, mg/l 63119.2
Permeate salinity, mg/l 295.51
Feed salinity, mg/l 37981

4.6 Energy Recovery Devices (ERD)

In seawater systems, typically 55 to 60% of the pressurized feed water leaves the system with

about 870 psi (60 bar) pressure in the concentrate stream. This energy can be recovered to

decrease the specific energy demand of the system. Energy recovery methods are:

 Turbocharger

 Pelton wheel

 Pressure exchanger

The high-pressure concentrate is fed into the energy recovery device, where a pressure

exchanger (PX) will be suggested for this plant. This PX supplies about 94 % of the high-

pressure pump’s energy requirement. Table 4-6 shows power calculation of the designed

plant with and without pressure exchanger which calculated using IMSDesign software

version 1.2. A full detailed report of the pressure exchanger parameters and the power

requirements are presented at Appendix C.

Table 4 - 6 : The design parameters of the pressure exchanger.

Power Calculation Power Calculation (with

(without PX) PX)
Pass 1 Pass 1 ERD boost
Pump pressure (bar) 52.9 54.1 1.7
Product flow m3/d 10000 10000 -
Pump flow m3/d 25000 10153.9 14846.1
Pump efficiency % 83 83 83
Motor efficiency % 93 93 93
VFD efficiency % 97 97 97
Power/stage/pass kW 2004.4 832.6 37.2
36
Brake horse power BHP 2668.8 1116 49.9
Total pumping power kW 2004.4 869.8
Pumping specific energy kwh/m3 4.81 2.09

4.7 Water storage tank

The permeate water of the plant is collected in an underground storage tank. The capacity of

the tank recommended is 60,000 m3 which depends on the plant capacity, the area of the site

to be built in, and the consumption of the fresh water produced. For good insulation, the

storage tank should be made of prefabricated concrete elements coated with a thin film foil.

The flat roof of the tank is covered with stones, to simulate the underground water reservoirs.

For example if the land available for the storage tank is 60m width and 50m length, so the

calculation will be as follows:

The area of the storage tank = 60m ∗ 50m = 3000 m2

The height of the storage tank = 60000 m3/ 3000 m2 = 20 m

4.8 Chemical requirements

4.8.1 Antiscalant

For dosage rates on all antiscalants, the manufacturers should be contacted. Overdosing

should be avoided. Care should be taken that no significant amounts of cationic polymers are

present when adding an anionic scale inhibitor, because precipitation reactions may occur,

however, with negatively charged scale inhibitors and cationic polyelectrolytes or

multivalent cations (e.g., aluminum or iron) [2].

In RO plants operating on seawater with TDS in the range of 35,000 mg/L, scaling is not as

much of a problem as in brackish water plants because the recovery of seawater plants is

limited by the osmotic pressure of the concentrate stream to 30-45%. For safety reasons,

however, a scale inhibitor is recommended when operating above a recovery of 35% [2].

37
A computer model developed by Professional Water Technologies, Inc. was used to

determine the performance of an antiscalant (TITAN ASD 200 SC LIQUID SUPER CONC)

supplied by the same antiscalant manufacturer. Table 4 – 7 shows the results of the computer

model indicate that an antiscalant dose of 0.2 mg/l at the feed side and 0.3 mg/l at the

concentrate side would effectively control membrane scaling based on the input feed water

chemistry and a design recovery of 40 percent.

Table 4 - 7 : The recommended dosage rate for the SWRO plant.

Product Selection
TITAN ASD 200 SC LIQUID SUPER CONC
Recommended Dose Rates
Feed (mg/l) Concentrate (mg/l)
0.2 0.3
Est. Product usage (100%)
kgs/day mt/yr
3.89 1.4213

4.8.2 Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)

A similar oxidant to chlorine is sodium hypochlorite, also known as liquid bleach (NaOCl).

Two types are available: a high strength 12%; or regular strength 4.5% bleach (Javex or

Purex are two trade names). This salt reacts with water to form hypochlorous acid, which is

the same oxidizing agent that chlorine produces in water.

NaOCl + H2O HOCl + NaOH

In water hypochlorous acid dissociates to hydrogen and hypochlorite ions:

HOCl + H+ H+ + OCl-

Sodium hypochlorite is considered safer to handle and ship than chlorine, and thus may be

preferred for these reasons. However, it is slow to decompose and has adverse reactions with

38
ammonia and organics. pH control can be more difficult because of the formation of sodium

hydroxide, a strong base, where higher pH levels are typically desired, sodium hypochlorite

may be preferred over chlorine addition, which will lower the pH levels [21].

From experience, a 1% solution seems to solve all the following problems most of the time:

 Moving water too slowly through the tubing or else the tubing will become clogged

and you will have to do additional maintenance;

 If the hypochlorite solution is too strong, difficulty will be encountered in controlling

the residual as a very small amount of solution can make a big change in the residual;

and

 The pump should be operated within its operating range; if the hypochlorite solution

is too weak, pumping a lot of solution will be needed. This means that, difficulty will

be found to put enough amount in the tank during the fill cycle.

 Making up solution much more often, which will take away from other duties [19]

Sodium Metabisulfite (SMBS) or sodium Bisulfite (SBS) is most commonly used for

removal of free chlorine and as a biostatic, as shown in the following reaction.

Na2S2O5 + H2O 2NaHSO3

NaHSO3 + HOCl HCl + NaHSO4

Stoichiometrically, 1.34 mg of sodium metabisulfite will react with 1.0 mg of free chlorine.

In practice 3.0 mg of sodium metabisulfite is normally used to remove 1.0 mg of chlorine to

make sure that all the chlorine is reduced.

39
The injection point of the SMBS solution is preferably upstream of the cartridge filters in

order to keep the residual chlorine up to the filters to prevent microbial growth in the filters.

The SMBS solution should be filtered through a separate cartridge and injected through static

mixers for good mixing into the RO feed line. The absence of chlorine should be monitored

using an oxidation - reduction potential (ORP) electrode downstream of the mixing line [3].

4.9 RO plant design tools

Several design tools which are provided by the manufacturers companies were used to

validate high rejection and low energy consumption SWRO plant, additionally an excel

spreadsheet were developed to be used whatever the recommended design parameters are

available. A brief summary for each design tool are given below:

4.9.1 IMSDesign

IMSDesign is an abbreviation for (Integrated Membrane Solutions design), which is a

design software version 1.2 provided by Hydranautics membrane separation technology that

allows the user to design a membrane systems using Hydranautics' membranes. The design

engineer can use this tool to optimize and analyze the performance of RO and nanofiltration

systems, as well as membrane selection and operation. This software require the designer to

enter the information on the RO system design to allow for testing multiple RO

configurations with dissimilar membranes to determine the best design for the application.

Figure 4-6 displays a snapshot of Hydranatutics RO Projection Program, furthermore a full

calculation report for recommended designed plant is involved in appendix A.

41
Figure 4 - 6: IMSDesign computer program V. 1.2, developed by Hydranautics Company.

4.9.2 PWT ProDose 32 v.74

Professional Water Technologies’ ProDose 32 v.74 software provides immediate dosage

calculation capabilities for the PWT line of RO antiscalant/dispersants. Figure4-7 shows a

snapshot of ProDose Projection Program, furthermore a full calculation report for

recommended antiscalant is attached in appendix C.

Figure 4 – 7: The main screen of ProDose 32 v.74 software.

41
4.9.3 Developed an excel spread sheet

An excel sheet shown in figure 4-8 was developed in this project which can be used in parallel

with the previous design tools to design different SWRO plant capacities, figure 4-8 shows

the developed spread sheet.

Figure 4 – 8: A snap shoot of the calculation results of the developed spreadsheet.

42
 CHAPTER 5

COST ESTIMATION

5.1 Introduction

One of the most sensitive and critical aspects of any water project is cost. For membrane

desalination ,decreasing costs and producing superior water quality are among a number of

significant reasons why this technology continues to be the water treatment technology of

choice.

Cost is a major factor in implementing desalination technologies. This section provides

elements of desalination cost which are components of direct, indirect and operating costs.

5.2 Factors affecting desalination costs

Unit product cost is affected by several design, operational and maintenance factors, which

includes the following:

 Quality and salinity of feed water: The quality of feed water is a critical design factor.

Lower feed salinity allows for higher production rates. As a result, the plant operates

with lower specific power consumption and dosing of antiscalant chemicals. Also,

downtime related to chemical scaling is reduced.

 Plant capacity: Large capacity plants require high capital cost compared with low

capacity plants. However, the unit production cost for large capacity plants can be

lower.

 Site conditions: Installation new units to existing site, would eliminate cost associated

with facilities for feed water intake, brine disposal, and feed water pretreatment.

43
  Qualified manpower: Availability of qualified operators and engineers would result

in higher plant production capacity.

 Energy cost: The energy type used at the plant site have strong impact on the unit

product cost.

 Plant life: Increasing plant life reduces the capital product cost [22].

 Regulatory Requirements: These costs are associated with local permits and

regulatory requirements [23].

5.3 Elements of economic calculations

The cost of desalination is usually a function of the plant capacity, feed water quality,

pretreatment, site characteristics, energy cost, plant life and investments amortization. Plant

capacity specifies sizes for various process equipment, pumping units, and membrane area.

Site characteristics have a strong effect on the type of pretreatment and post-treatment

equipment, and consumption rates of chemicals. In addition, design features of the process

affect consumption of electric power and chemicals. Desalination plant implementation costs

can be categorized as capital costs (starting costs) and operation and maintenance costs. Cost

analysis for the SWRO desalination based on the cost structure as shown in figure 5-1.

44
Figure 5 - 1 : Structure of cost analysis of a SWRO desalination.

5.3.1 Capital Costs

Capital costs include direct and indirect costs. The indirect capital cost is usually estimated

as percentage of the total direct capital cost. Indirect costs may include insurance,

construction overhead, owner’s costs, and emergency costs. Below is a description of various

direct and indirect costs associated with constructing a desalination plant.

5.3.2 Direct Capital Cost

The direct capital cost covers purchasing cost of various types of equipment, auxiliary

equipment, land cost, construction, and buildings. Brief description for various cost items is

shown below:

1- Land Cost

2- Well Supply

3- Process Equipment

4- Energy System

45
This is one of the most cost items and it depends on the process type and capacity. Item

included under this category are listed below:

- Instrumentation and controls

- Pipelines and valves

- Electric wiring

- Pumps

- Process cleaning systems

- Pre and post-treatment equipment

- Seawater intake and brine discharge line

- Chlorination equipment.

5- Auxiliary Equipment

The following auxiliary equipment is included:

- Transmission piping,

- Storage tanks,

- Generators and transformers,

- Pumps, and

- Pipelines and valves.

6- Building Cost

Building cost depends on the building type. Buildings may include the following:

- Control room,

- Laboratory, and

- Offices.

7- Membrane Cost

46
Cost of membrane modules depends on its size. Cost of SWRO Desalination Plant

membranes 8 inch diameter and 40 inch length varies between $500 - $1000 for every module

[24].

5.3.3 Indirect Capital Cost

Indirect, or depreciating, capital costs are based on a percentage of the direct capital cost,

Indirect capital costs include freight and insurance, interest during construction, construction

overhead, owner’s expenses, and Emergency cost. These costs are added to the direct capital

cost to calculate the estimated total capital cost [25].

5.3.4 Operating Cost

Operating cost covers all expenditure incurred after plant commissioning and during actual

operation. These items include labor, energy, chemical, spare parts, and miscellaneous. The

following gives brief description of each item and current cost estimates:

 Electricity: This cost varies over a range of $0.04-0.09/kWh. The upper limit is

characteristic of European countries and the lower limit can be found in the Gulf States

and the US.

 Labor: This cost item is site specific and depends whether the plant is government or

privately. In addition, recent trends in plant operation aims for contracting operation

and maintenance duties. This reduces the full time manpower, which may include plant

director and small team of experienced engineers and technicians.

 Membrane Replacement: Replacement rate may vary between 5%-20% per year. The

lower bound applies to low salinity brackish water supported by proper operation and

pretreatment system and the upper would reflect high salinity seawater, similar to the

Gulf area, in addition to relatively poor operation and inefficient pretreatment system.

47
  Maintenance and Spares: This cost item can be assigned a value lower than 2% of the

total capital cost was used as a yearly rate.

 Insurance: Insurance is rated at 0.5% of the total capital cost.

 Amortization or Fixed Charges: This item defines the annual payments that cover the

total direct and indirect cost. This cost is obtained by multiplying the total direct and

indirect cost by the amortization factor, which is defined by the following relation

𝑖 (1+𝑖)𝑛
𝑎= (5-1)
(1+𝑖)𝑛 −1

Where i is the annual interest rate and n is the plant life. Accumulated experience in

the desalination industry indicates that an amortization life of 30 years is adequate.

As for the interest rate, its average value is equal 5%, however, a range of 3-8%

should be considered in economics analysis.

 Chemicals: The chemicals used in feed treatment include antiscalant, Sodiumbisulfite.

Cost of these items may be affected by availability of nearby manufacturing plants and

prices in the global markets. Table 5-1 gives estimates for the unit cost of chemicals

used in thermal and membrane desalination, dosing rates, and specific rates per unit

volume of product water [26].

Table 5 - 1 : Estimates of chemical cost and dosing rates.

Chemical Unit Cost

Chlorine (10% conc.) 550 $/ton
Antiscalant 2,800 $/ton
Sodiumbisulfite 500 $/ton

5.4 Total desalinated water cost

The total cost of desalination is generally a function of: plant capacity, feed water quality,

pretreatment, process technology, energy cost, plant life and investments amortization. The

48
major cost elements for desalination plants are capital cost and annual operating costs.

Capital cost covers purchasing cost of equipment, auxiliary equipment, land, installation

charges and pretreatment of water. Annual operating costs are the total yearly costs of owning

and operating a desalting plant. These include Amortization or fixed charges, operating and

maintenance (O&M) costs and membrane replacement costs [27].

The following method were used for estimating the production cost of water desalinated by

reverse osmosis technology.

The RO cost data includes the following:

Plant capacity (m) = 10000 m3/d

Plant life (n) is set at 30 years

Interest rate (i) = 5%

Electric cost (c) = $0.04/ kWh

Specific consumption of electric power (w) = 2.09 kWh/m3

Specific cost of operating labor (l ) = $1/m3

Specific chemicals cost (k) = $0.033/m3

Plant availability (f ) = 90%

The direct capital cost of the plant can be estimated using either the graph shown in figure

5-2 or the factor 1500$/(m3/d) developed by Ros Tek Assoiates Inc.[25], where the capital

cost doesn’t include the land costs, product water delivery and concentrate disposal.

Direct capital cost (DC) = 10000 m3/d ∗ 1500$/m3/d = 15*106 $

49
Figure 5 - 2 : Construction cost of SWRO plant.

The calculations proceed as follows:

- The amortization factor

i(1 + i)n
a=
(1 + i)n − 1

0.05 (1+0.05)30
a= (1+0.05)30 −1
= 0.065051 y −1

- The annual fixed charges

A1 = (a) (DC) (5-2)

A1 = (0.065051 y-1) (15∗106 $) = 975,772 $/yr

- The annual electric power cost

A2 = (c) (w) (f) (m) (365) (5-3)

51
A2 = ($0.04/kWh) (2.09kWh/m3) (0.9) (10000 m3/d) (365d/yr) = 274,626 $/yr

- The annual chemical cost

A3 = (k) (f) (m) (365) (5-4)

A3 = ($0.033/m3) (0.9) (10000 m3/d) (365d/yr) = 108,405 $/yr

- The annual membrane replacement cost

Membrane purchase cost (@ 60% DC) = 0.6 ∗ 15∗106 = 9 ∗106 $

A4 = 10% of membrane purchase cost (5-5)

Membrane annual replacement cost (@10% of membrane purchase cost

A4 = 0.1 ∗ 9∗106 =900,000 $/yr

- Total annual labor cost

A5 = (l) (f) (m) (365) (5-6)

A5 = (l) (0.9) (10,000 m3/d) (365d/yr) = 3,285,000 $/yr

- Total annual cost

AT= A1 + A2 + A3 + A4 + A5 (5-7)

AT = 975,772 $/yr + 274,626 $/yr + 108,405 $/yr + 900,000$/yr + 3,285,000 $/yr

= 5543803$/yr

- Unit product cost (m3)

AS = AT/ ((f) (m) (365)) (5-8)

51
As = (5543802.53 $/yr) / ((0.9) (10000 m3/d) (365d/yr)) = 1.69 $/m3

Table 5 - 2 : Summary of annual cost data of the designed SWRO plants.

$/yr $/m3 $/(m3/d)

Fixed Charges 975,772 0.297 97.5772
Electric Power 274,626 0.0836 27.4626
Chemicals 108405 0.033 10.8405
Membrane Replacement 900000 0.274 90
Operating Labor 3285000 1 328.5
Total 5543803 1.69 554.3803

52
 CHAPTER 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 Results and Discussion

The plant designed with advanced SWC6 MAX membranes increases the productivity of the

plant with less number of membrane elements and pressure vessels, this design were

compared with an installed SWRO plant in Tajoura, with the same capacity, it is found that

the number of elements as well as the pressure vessels were decreased from 2376 element to

756 which will decrease the cost of the next membrane replacement as well [28], furthermore

the pumping specific energy of the HPPs were decreased due to installation of PX with a

hydraulic efficiency in the range of 94-96%, in addition to that the overall recovery were

increased from 35% to 40% and it can be increases to more than 50%, but for avoiding the

scaling and fouling problems and for decreasing chemicals consumptions the researchers

suggested 40% recovery.

As far as the pressure exchanger were selected as ERD for designed SWRO plant, the

pressure exchanger conversion efficiency of more than 94%, and therefore the unit designed

saves 56.5 % of the destroyed power which will decrease the unit product cost.

If the plant consumes electricity at 0.68 Libyan dinar (L.D.) /kWh, the annual savings due to

this 2.09 kWh electricity will be 6,075,936 L.D/yr That is the pressure exchanger can save

the plant about 6,075,936 L.D/yr just by taking benefit of the pressure being wasted by the

old membranes, throttling valves and low efficiency turbine which is the poorest in

performance compared to the other ERDs.

53
All the above benefits of using the SWC6 MAX membranes and developed PXs can increase

the plant capacity and decreases the unit product cost.

The developed excel spread sheet of the project can be used to follow up the variable

parameters of the plant and can be used to scale up the plant to more high or less capacities.

54
 CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

7.1 Conclusion

In conclusion, the optimal design of SWRO process has been addressed in this work using

advanced membrane (SWC6 MAX) developed by Hydranautics Company The design of

plant with a new SWRO elements have improved permeability and area. These features

provide system designers with new options to reduce the capital cost of the system as well as

the operating cost. Although the new low energy membranes run at lower pressure.

The greatest sensible and applied way to rise efficiency or decrease the power input of the

designed plant meaningfully seems to be replacing the throttling valve and old turbine or

reverse running pumps on the brine stream by modern pressure exchanger, the use of a

pressure exchanger as energy recovery system enables a very low energy consumption for

the reverse osmosis process.

The simple model were used in predicting the unit product cost of the designed plant can

give a reasonable estimate of the produced fresh water.

55
 References

[1] Abduljawad, M. and Ezzeghni, U. Optimization of Tajoura MSF desalination plant,

Desalination, (2010), 254 23-28.

[2] Technical Manual, Dow Water & Process Solutions, FILMTEC Reverse Osmosis

Membranes, June, (2004).

[3] Technical Manual, Saehan Industries, Saehan Reverse Osmosis Membranes, Aug.,

(2006).

[4] S.A.A. Tabatabai, Coagulation and Ultrafiltration in Seawater Reverse Osmosis

Pretreatment, May, (2014).

[5] Jurenka, Robert; Martella, Susan; and Rodriguez, Robert, Water Treatment Primer for

Communities InNeed, September, (2001).

[6] Desalination Technologies, (2008), http://www.trusselltech.com/tech_desalination.asp.

[7] Bureau of Reclamation, Water Treatment Primer for Communities in Need, 2003,

www.usbr.gov/pmts/water/media/pdfs/report068.pdf.

[8] Desalination.com (2012), http://www.desalination.com/market/technologies.

[9] M. Smith, R. Shaw, Desalination, WEDC Loughborough University, Leicestershire UK,

(1999).

[10] S. Bross, W. Kochanowski, SWRO core hydraulic module – the right concept decides

in terms of energy consumption and reliability, Part II: advanced pressure exchanger design,

Desalination 165 (2004).

56
[11] Desalination economic evaluation program version Deep-3.1, Draft of the user’s manual

international Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, September (2006).

[12] Ahmed M. Helal, Mufeed Odeh, The once-through MSF design. Feasibility for future

large capacity desalination plants, January, (2004).

[13] S. K. Tadros, Preliminary research study for the construction of a pilot cogeneration

desalination plant, may (1995).

[14] L. Awerbuch, IDA Desalination Seminar, Cairo, Egypt, 1997.

[15] S.P. Bindra and W. Abosh, Desalination, 136 (2001).

[16] R. Semiat, IWRA, Water Internat, 25 (2000).

[17] D.H. Furukawa, IDA Desalination Seminar, Cairo, Egypt, (1997).

[18] R. Applegate, World Water News, (1986).

[19] FSC Architects & Engineers, Class II Water Treatment Plant Operator Program Manual,

(2003).

[20] N. Voutchkov, Considerations for selection of seawater filtration pretreatment system,

Desalination 261 (2010) 354–364.

[21] Oxidation Reduction Potential Measurement for Microbiological Control in Makeup

Water and Cooling Water, Honeywell, solution note.

[22] Chaudhary D., Analysis of desalination of water by reverse osmosis, degree of Bachelor

of Technology, Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur, (2010).

57
[23] Younos T, The Economics of Desalination, Virginia Polytectnic Institute and State

University, (2005).

[24] H. A. Al-Borsh and S. M. Ghabayen, Solar Energy to Optimize the Cost of RO

Desalination Plant Case Study: Deir El-Balah SWRO Plant, (2013).

[25] Desalination Research and Development Program Report No. 72, Desalting Handbook

for Planners, 3rd Edition, (July 2003).

[26] H.T. El-Dessouky and H.M. Ettouney, Fundamentals of Salt Water Desalination,

Elsevier, Amsterdam, (2002).

[27] F. Banat, N. Jwaied, Economic evaluation of desalination by small-scale autonomous

solar-powered membrane distillation units, (January 2007).

[28] I.M. El-Azizi and A.A. Mohamed Omran, Design criteria of 10,000 m3/d SWRO

desalination plant of Tajura, Libya. Desalination, 153 (2003) 273–279.

58
 Appendix A

A full detailed design results of an Integrated Membranes Solutions Design

Software, 2015:

59
61
61
 Appendix B

Results summary of PWT prodose software:

62
63
 Appendix C

Summary of power requirement resulted from IMSDesign system analysis:

64

View publication stats