THERMAL PERFORMANCE OF MULTISTAGE FLASH

DISTILLATION PLANTS IN SAUDI ARABIA1

Osman A. Hamed, Mohammad AK. Al-Sofi, Monazir Imam,
Ghulam M. Mustafa, Khalid Ba-Mardouf and Hamad Al-Washmi

Research & Development Center,

Saline Water Conversion Corporation
P.O.Box # 8328, Al-Jubail 31951, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

ABSTRACT

The Saline Water Conversion Corporation (SWCC) of Saudi Arabia is currently

producing around 16% of the total worldwide capacity of desalted water [1]. The
majority of SWCC desalination plants employ the multistage flash (MSF) distillation
process which produce 94% of SWCC's total desalinated water. SWCC various MSF
distillers are characterized by a wide range of operating and design conditions. The
capacity of operating distillers is ranging between 2.5 to 7.5 MIGD. Some large
distillers of rated capacity up to 10 MIGD are under construction in Shoibah and
Yanbu. The number of stages of these distillers varies between 16 and 34 while the
operating top brine temperature varies between 90oC and 115oC.

Design and operating parameters of various SWCC MSF distillers have been collected
and effectively utilized to simulate and analyze the thermal performance of these
distillers. The thermal performance of each distiller is quantitatively assessed using a
computer program which is based on the first and the second law of thermodynamics. A
comparative study on energy and exergy analyses is conducted for different MSF plants.

This paper also presents a comprehensive micro-thermal analysis to identify the

potential for improving plant efficiency. The exergy losses due to irreversibility in
different subsystems of each MSF distiller is evaluated. Exergy destruction in brine
heater, heat recovery and heat rejection stages and friction in liquid paths are
determined. The impact of different design and operating parameters such as top brine
temperature and number of stages on the thermal performance of the MSF system is
evaluated.

Keywords: Multistage flash distillation, Thermodynamics, Exergy and Exergy flux

1
Presented at the International Desalination Association World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse, “ The
Value of Water in the 21st Century,” San Diego, USA, 29 August – 3 Sept. 1999.

2413
INTRODUCTION

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

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

A comprehensive study on the second law analysis of recirculation multistage flash

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

2414
exergy considerations was conducted to obtain the optimum design parameters for an
MSF seawater distillation plant to be coupled to an existing steam power plant in Abu
Dhabi [16]. Sulaiman and Ismail reported a simple scheme to evaluate overall exergy
losses in Al-Khobar II, Al-Jubail II and Shoibah-I [17]. The study was limited to the
design conditions and no actual test data was used in the thermal analysis. The study
showed that the three MSF desalting plants were highly irreversible and the exergy
losses were directly proportional to the top brine temperature. In this paper, it is
intended to evaluate and compare the thermal performance of SWCC commercial MSF
plants under a wide range of actual operating conditions using the concepts of the first
and second law of thermodynamics.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS

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

2415
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Macro Thermal Analysis

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

Jeddah MSF Plants

Three distillers representing phases I, II, III of Jeddah plants were selected to analyze
their thermal performances. Variation in operating conditions and their effects on
system exergy with time for these three distillers are shown in Figure 2. During the
period of performance analysis, seawater salinity was within the range of 40,500 to
41,000 ppm while its temperature ranged between 28 to 30 oC.

Figure 2 shows that Jeddah II distiller, working at a TBT of 115 oC, yields the highest
performance ratio (PR) of around 11.5. This high PR value is expected because of the
higher number of stages as well as the operation with a relatively higher TBT compared
to other groups. The specific exergy losses of the distiller are relatively low and range
between 54 to 60 kJ per kg product, which is reflected in the relatively high rational
exergy efficiencies which range between 5.8 and 6.4 percent.

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

2416
Al-Jubail Plant

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

Al-Khobar Plant

Figure 4 shows the variation in the thermal performance of Al-Khobar Phase II

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

2417
Al-Khafji Plant

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

Micro-Thermal Analysis

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

2418
large specific condensing areas. Although Jeddah II is operating at a high TBT, it is
having low exergy destruction because of its large number of flash stages which resulted
in moderate temperature drop in each stage. Conversely, Jeddah III and IV are both
showing high specific exergy losses and this is due to the high TBT operation and low
condensing areas.

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

CONCLUSIONS

1. Thermodynamic analysis of MSF distillers representing Jeddah, Al-Jubail, Al-

Khobar and Al-Khafji desalination plant showed that all the examined distillers
are having performance ratios equal to or higher than the design values.

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

2419
3. Distillers which were generating high exergy losses are Jeddah III and IV and both
are operating at high TBT and of relatively low number of stages. Al-Khobar
distiller, which is also of limited number of stages and subjected to seawater of
high salinity exhibited high exergy destruction.

4. Al-Jubail, Al-Khafji and Jeddah II distillers demonstrated comparable exergy

destruction. The first two plants are characterized by large specific condensing
area while the third is having more number of stages.

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

6. Overall exergy losses due to irreversibilities in different subsystems can be

reduced by increasing the number of stages and specific condensing area and by
decreasing heating steam temperature.

2420
Table 1. Design Parameters of the Examined MSF Distillers

Plant No. of stages

Heat Heat Production TBT , oC GOR
Parameter Total
Recovery Rejection m3/day
Jeddah Phase II 31 3 34 10,800 115 9.5

Phase III 14 2 16 22,000 108 6.9

Phase IV 21 3 24 22,000 108 7.0

Al-Jubail Phase II 19 3 22 24,000 90 7.8

Al-Khobar Phase II 13 3 16 21,500 90 6.5

Al-Khafji Phase II 19 3 22 11,600 87.8 9.5

2421
 START

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

Initialize stage brine temperatures

Initialize makeup and brine recycle flow rates.

STAGE-TO-STAGE CALCULATION
Seawater
Computation for mass and energy balances
Properties
Calculate temperature, flow rate and salinity of brine and
Vapor in each stage.

Calculate total distillate, recycle and makeup flows

Calculate the difference between the calculated and targeted
Adjustment of makeup
blowdown concentrations (DIFF CONC)
and brine recycle flows

NO
ABS (DIFF CONC) ≤ 0.02

YES
Calculate number of recovery and rejection stages
Determine pressure drop per stage for recovery and rejection

Seawater THERMAL CALCULATION

Properties Perform thermal calculations for determination of
HTC, GOR and PR.

EXERGY CALCULATION
Calculate the thermo-mechanical and chemical exergy for flashing
brine, distillate vapor, condensate and heated brine in each stage.
Determine exergy input for recycle, makeup, distillate product,
blowdown, and cooling water pumps

EXERGY ACCOUNTING
Calculate exergy destruction in brine heater, recovery and
rejection section, wasted in leaving streams, friction in liquid
paths and useful chemical exergy of the product.

Specific exergy losses, ε = Total exergy losses , and

Distillate production

Exergetic Efficiency, η = Useful chemical exergy output

Thermomechanical exergy input

STOP

Figure 1. Mathematical Models and Computation Flow Chart

2422
 120
TBT(°c)-2 TBT(°c)-3 TBT(°c)-4
TBT(°c) 115

110

105

100

80
Flash Range(°c)-2 Flash Range(°c)-3 F. R. Temp.(°c)-4
Flash Range(°c)

75

70

65

60

14
PR. Plant-2 PR. Plant-3 PR. Plant-4
P.R. (kg/2326kJ)

12

10

90
Sp. Exergy losses-2 Sp. Exergy Losses-3 Sp. Exergy Losses-4
Sp. Exergy Losses(KJ/Kg)

80

70

60

50

7
Exergy Eff.-2 Exergy Eff.-3 Exergy Eff.-4
6.4
Exergy Efficiency

5.8

5.2

4.6

4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Days

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

2423
 120

100 Acid Cleaning

Temperature ( C )
o

80 SW Temp TBT
Steam Temp Flash Range
60

40

20

9.5
P.R. (kg/2326kJ)

8.5

7.5

70
Specific Exergy Losses, (kJ/kg)

65

60

55

50

45

8
Exergy Efficiency

7.5

6.5

5.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Days Acid Cleaning

Figure 3. Operation Performance of Al-Jubail Plant Unit # 8

2424
 120

Temperature ( C) 100

80
o

SW Temp. TBT
60 Steam Temp. Flash Range

40

20

7.6
P.R. (kg/2326 kJ)

7.4

7.2

6.8

6.6

80
Sp. Exergy Losses, (kJ/kg)

76

72

68

64

60

7
Exergy Efficiency

6.6

6.2

5.8

5.4

5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Days

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

2425
 120

100
Temperature ( c)

80
o

SW Temp(°c) TBT(°c)
Steam Temp(°c) Flash Range(°c)
60

40

20

10.2
P. R. (kg/2326kJ)

9.8

9.4

8.6

8.2

64
Specific Exergy losses(kJ/kg)

60

56

52

48

44

7.5
Exergy Efficiency

6.5

5.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Days

Figure 5. Operational Performance of Al-Khafji Plant

2426
 90
Destruction in Brine Heater
80 Wasted in Ejector
Wasted in Leaving Streams
70
Destruction In Rejection
Sp. Exergy Losses (kJ/kg )
Destruction in Recovery
60

50

40

30

20

10

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

Unit No. 2 2 8 1 5 10 19
Steam Temp.(oC) 105 95 95 94 120 112 114
TBT, oC 90 90 90.6 87 115 108 110
No. of Stages 16 16 22 22 34 16 24
PR 6.8 7.1 8.1 9.2 11.2 7.6 8.7
Ad/Md, 2.85 2.85 3.56 3.84 1.646 2.25 1.7
(m2/m3/day)

Figure 6. Comparison of Breakdown of Exergy Destruction

0.6
Recovery Section
Exergy Destruction Flux ( kW/m )
2

0.5 Rejection Section

Brine Heater
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

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

Figure 7. Breakdown of Exergy Flux Among Major Subsystems

2427
REFERENCES

1. Wangnick Consulting & GMBH, (1998). IDA worldwide desalting plants inventory
report 15.
2. Burley, M.J.(1967). Analytical comparison of the multistage flash and long tube vertical
distillation, Desalination, 2, 81-88.
3. Darwish, M. A. and El-Hadik, A. A.(1986). The multieffect boiling desalting system
and its comparison with the multistage flash system, Desalination, 60, 251-265.
4. El-Dessoukey, H., shaban, H. I. and Al-Ramadan, H. (1995). Steady state analysis of
multistage flash desalination process, Desalination, 103, 271-287.
5. Hamed, O. A. and Aly, S., (1991). Simulation and design of MSF desalination
processes, Desalination, 80, 1-14.
6. Hussain, A., Woldai, A., Al-Radif, A., Kesou, A., Borsani, R., Sultan, H. and
Deshpandey, P.B. (1994), Modelling and simulation of a multistage flash (MSF)
desalination plant, Desalination,97, 555-586.
7. Honburg, C.D. and Walson, B.M.(1993), Operational Optimization of MSF Systems,
Desalination, 92, 331-351.
8. Tanios, B.Z.(1984). Marginal operation field of existing MSF distillation plants,
Desalination, 51, 201-212.
9. Darwish, M. A.,(1991). Thermal analysis of multistage flash desalting systems,
Desalination, 59-79.
10. Helal, A.M., Medani, M.S. and Soliman, M.A.(1986). A Tridiagonal matrix model for
multistage flash desalination plants, Computers and Chemical Engineering, 10, (4),
327-342.
11. Rasso, M., Beltramini, A., Mazzotti, M and Morbidelli, M. (1996). Modelling
multistage flash desalination plants, Desalination,108, 335-364.
12. El-Dessoukey, H., Shaban, H. I. and Al-Ramadan, H. (1995). Steady state analysis of
multistage flash desalination process, Desalination,103, 253-279.
13. El-Sayed, Y.M. (1992). Advances in the methodologies of optimal thermal design,
Proceedings of Desal 92 Arabian Gulf Regional Water Desalination Symposium, Al-
Ain, Unites Arab Emirates, 2, 555-595.
14. Koot, L.W. (1968). Exergy losses in a flash evaporator, Desalination, 5, 331-348.
15. Darwish, M. A., Al-Najem, N. M. and Al-Ahmed, M. S.(1993). Second law analysis of
recirculating multistage flash desalting system, Desalination, 89, 289-309.
16. El-Nasher, A.M.(1994). An MSF evaporator for the UANW 9 and 10 power stations.
Design consideration based on energy and exergy, Desalination, 107, 253-279.
17. Sulaiman, F.A. and Ismail, B. (1995). Exergy analysis of major recirculating multistage
flash desalting plants in Saudi Arabia, Desalination, 103, 265-270.
18. El-Sayed, Y.M. (1998). Design and simulation software, Advanced Energy Systems,
Fremont, CA, USA.

2428
19. Al-Sofi, M. AK., Al-Hussain M. A. and Al-Zahrani S. G. (1987). Additive scale control
optimization and operation modes, Desalination, 66, 11-32.
20. Al-Mudaiheen, A. M., Al-Sofi, M. AK., Al-Omran, A. A. and Al-Jardan, A. A. (1986).
Practical experience in operating multistage flash MSF evaporators, Topics in
Desalination, Saline Water Conversion Corporation.
21. Nada, N. (1986). Operating experience of MSF units in Saudi Arabia, Topics in
Desalination, Saline Water Conversion Corporation.
22. Spiegler, K. S. (1983). Thermal analysis, Desalination, 44, 3-16.

2429