Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Reverse Osmosis–Pressure Retarded Osmosis hybrid system: Modelling,

simulation and optimization
Senthil S., Senthilmurugan S. ⁎
Chemical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Assam - 781039, India

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Simulation and sensitivity analysis of

integrated SWRO-PRO system configu-
rations for eliminating brine post-treat-
ment step.
• Identification of energy efficient novel
SWRO - PRO hybrid desalination pro-
cess for reducing the SWRO pre-treat-
ment cost.
• Method for optimization of hybrid
SWRO-PRO system design and operat-
ing parameters to achieve minimum
NSEC.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Theoretical analysis of energy harvesting from concentrated brine of Sea Water Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) system
Received 14 October 2015 using Pressure Retarded Osmosis (PRO) is presented in this research. The mathematical model of SWRO–PRO hy-
Received in revised form 15 January 2016 brid system components such as SWRO unit, Energy Recovery Device (ERD), PRO unit and other auxiliary units
Accepted 21 January 2016
were discussed. The mathematical equations were solved adapting an object oriented “Modelica language”
Available online 28 January 2016
framework in Dymola software tool. The complex flowsheet models for six different SWRO–PRO hybrid config-
Keywords:
urations were created. The performance of the SWRO–PRO hybrid system configurations was studied. The pro-
Reverse osmosis cess and design parameters were optimized to reduce the Net Specific Energy Consumption (NSEC) of the
Desalination system. The optimization studies were performed using SQP technique that is available in optimization library
Pressure-Retarded Osmosis of Dymola. The possibility of using sea water (32,000 g/m3) and urban waste water (100–10,000 g/m3) as feed
SWRO–PRO hybrid system solution to the PRO for all the hybrid configurations were studied. Their performances were compared through
Modelling simulation and optimization studies. Among the six potentially viable SWRO–PRO configurations, the one
Optimization which does the direct mixing of diluted PRO draw outlet with feed water of SWRO aided to bring down the
NSEC by 49% in comparison with standard SWRO desalination system. This system does not require additional
ERD units and turbine at optimized process conditions, which are more expensive.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: senthilmurugan@iitg.ernet.in (S. S.).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.01.027
0011-9164/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97
1. Introduction
The Sea Water Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) desalination is one of the
pioneer technologies for desalination of sea and brackish water. As per
latest reported data, desalination industry is able to produce treated
water from sea water with an energy consumption of 1.8 kWh/m3 [1].
The theoretical minimum energy required for desalination of
35,000 g/m3 concentration of seawater at 50% recovery is 1.06 kWh/
m3 (i.e. multistage operation) and 1.56 kWh/m3 (i.e. single stage oper-
ation). Hence, it can be concluded that the energy demand for seawater
desalination was found to be higher by 41% for multistage and 13.3% for
single stage desalination than the stated theoretical minimum energy
[1], which is not far off the thermodynamic limit for single stage. This
was achieved with continuous research and development of fouling re-
sistant SWRO membrane and energy efficient electrical and flow equip-
ment. Therefore, the theoretically zero energy SWRO may be achieved
by developing innovative technology which can extract the osmotic en-
ergy from SWRO brine.
The Pressure-Retarded Osmosis (PRO) is one of the best technology
[2] that can extract osmotic energy by controlled mixing of high and low
concentrated water. In 1976, Loeb et al. published the PRO concept with
experimental results for the first time [3]. When Loeb et al. proposed the
concept of PRO, Dead Sea water (i.e. ≈250,000 g/m3) was considered as
high salinity source. Their results were not very promising because
those experiments were performed using SWRO membrane modules
(i.e. power density in the range from 1.56 to 3.27 W/m2). The lower
power output for the case was mainly due to severe internal concentra-
tion polarization (ICP). The estimated break even membrane power
density by Gerstandta et al., [4] varies in between 4 and 6 W/m2 with re-
spect to TDS of draw and feed solution (DS, FS). As per Statkraft
(Norway), it is important to have the power density above 5 W/m2 for
successful commercialization of PRO system. The continuous research
on this topic resulted into improved PRO membrane with high power
density [23] and stable membrane performance. Saito et al. [5] reported
that Toyobo's prototype hollow fibre PRO membrane was able to
achieve the maximum output power density of 7.7 W/m2 at 2.5 MPa hy-
draulic pressure difference having 38% permeation of pure water into
brine.
The use of the SWRO brine as a draw solution can improve the effi-
ciency of PRO system and shall eliminate the necessity of SWRO brine
post-treatment. Therefore, the reject water (≈ 52,000 g/m3 to
60,000 g/m3) of SWRO plant had attracted researchers as high salinity
source for PRO. A conservative assessment indicates that the SWRO–
PRO offers a potential energy reduction of 20–23% and total capital
cost reduction of 8.7–20% compared to SWRO process [6]. Thermody-
namic analysis on the feasibility of stand-alone SWRO–PRO hybrid sys-
tem was done by Wang et al. [7] and Sharqawy et al. [8]. The recent
theoretical analysis by Prante et al. [9] also inferred that using a well-
characterized CTA membrane, the minimum NSEC of the modelled
SWRO–PRO system was 1.2 kWh/m3 for 50% SWRO recovery. Consider-
ing a SWRO system of having specific energy consumption of 2.0 kWh/
m3, the SWRO–PRO system can theoretically achieve 40% energy reduc-
tion. The SWRO–PRO hybrid system which was considered by Prante
et al. was with two ERD units to minimize the NSEC, which is more ex-
pensive and may lead to increase in the capital cost of the system. Pres-
sure drop and concentration polarization (CP) along the length of the
membrane and pressure drop and frictional loss in ERD were not con-
sidered. Therefore, reduction in the NSEC of the system may significant-
ly reduce from 40%. Further, considering the possibility of recirculating
the diluted brine water of PRO as feed water for SWRO may even reduce
the NSEC.
Considering the above supportive arguments, the objectives of this
research work focused upon the identification of energy efficient
novel SWRO–PRO hybrid desalination process to achieve reduced
NSEC for desalination process. This novel hybrid system aimed at elim-
inating SWRO brine post-treatment and reducing sea water pre-
79
treatment load. Six different SWRO–PRO process flowsheets were
analysed by modelling and optimization of hybrid SWRO–PRO system
design and operating parameters to achieve minimum NSEC. Out of
six different flowsheets studied in this work, two were synthesized in
this work and others were chosen from existing literature. The effect
of design and process parameters on SWRO–PRO system performance
was simulated by using flowsheet models.
2. Theory
In this study, six different SWRO–PRO hybrid system configurations
were considered (i.e. from case II to case VII) along with the currently
existing stand-alone SWRO configuration (i.e. case I) used in desalina-
tion application. Details of the system configurations are explained
with process flowsheet (Fig. 1) and the particulars of those systems
are given in Table 1. Throughout this study, the concentration of sea
water is taken as 32,000 g/m3 and waste water concentration may
vary from 100 to 10,000 g/m3.
2.1. SWRO and PRO trains
In industrial practice, a SWRO plant may consist of multiple trains.
Each SWRO train will consist of multiple pressure vessels connected in
parallel and more than one membrane modules are connected in series
to build one pressure vessel. The number of membrane modules per
pressure vessels is decided based on required recovery and the number
of pressure vessels per train is decided to meet the target production
rate. In contrast to SWRO pressure vessel, PRO pressure vessel has two
inputs (FS and DS). In this work, model development and optimization
framework are limited to SWRO–PRO system consisting of single train.
2.2. SWRO–PRO configurations
Alternate feasible SWRO–PRO hybrid configurations were proposed
and studied by many researchers [9–13]. Kim et al. [10] identified four
potential hybrid PRO–SWRO configurations and PRO is used for both
extracting osmotic energy and dilution of seawater. Diluted sea water
is then desalinated in SWRO to produce pure water. In brownfield pro-
jects, one of the drawbacks is integration of PRO unit before SWRO unit
and it may be challenging and risky in terms of process reliability.
Qureshi et al. [14] evaluated performance of case I and II process config-
uration (Fig. 1) for brackish water desalination using validated mathe-
matical model. They reported that case I is found to be more energy
efficient than case II for brackish water desalination. Almansoori et al.
[12] studied hybrid configurations consisting of both PRO–SWRO and
SWRO–PRO scenarios for sea water application. They concluded that
the configuration having SWRO followed by PRO system is better than
PRO followed by SWRO system. Therefore, six different possible
SWRO–PRO system configurations are considered using various
methods of energy recirculation and/or brine recirculation from SWRO
to PRO and vice versa (Fig. 1). High pressure (HP) pump is used to pres-
surize SWRO feed to the desired pressure (i.e. 30–70 bar). Low pressure
(LP) pump is used to pressurize the LP inlet of PX ERD such that the LP
outlet can be maintained at desired pressure (i.e. LP inlet pressure
should be higher than the pressure of LP outlet in order to overcome
the pressure drop on LP side of PX ERD). In all hybrid systems (i.e.
from case II to VII), the reject of SWRO is depressurized to the required
pressure for PRO with the help of ERD. The total feed flow to the hybrid
system is measured as a sum of water flow at two points, namely the HP
pump and LP pump-1 inlets. Sea water is used as FS for PRO of case II (i.e.
waste water is the FS in rest of the hybrid cases).
The HP pump flow rate is taken to be equal to the flow rate of prod-
uct water according to industrial practice. For case I, the SWRO reject is
post treated and sent back to the sea. Whereas in other cases, the reject
is fed as DS for PRO. In cases II and III, the entire DS outlet water is
depressurized at electric turbine to generate electricity. Whereas in
80 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97

Fig. 1. Six different SWRO–PRO system configurations.

case IV, instead of sending the entire DS outlet through the turbine, part LP pump 1 by the 2nd ERD. In systems IV and V, the use of ERD-2 is ex-
of it (i.e. equal to the product water flow rate of SWRO) is fed to the 2nd pected to have a positive impact on reducing the NSEC. However, an ad-
ERD. It is used to exchange the energy between DS outlet stream to HP ditional ERD is used along with the one which was employed for energy
pump inlet stream. In case V, the DS outlet is recirculated to both HP and recovery from SWRO reject stream. In the remaining two cases (i.e. VI
 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97 81

Table 1
Attributes of SWRO–PRO hybrid systems.

System type ➔ Case I Case II Case III Case IV Case V Case VI Case VII

No. of PRO units – 1 1 1 1 1 1

No. of HP pump units 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
No. of LP pump units 2 3 3 4 4 3 4
No. of ERD units 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
No. of splitters 1 1 1 2 2 2 1
1 + 1 (cum
No. of mixers 1 1 1 1 1 2
splitter)
No. of Turbine – 1 1 1 1 1 1
PRO feed solution – Sea water Waste water Waste water Waste water Waste water Waste water
Brine recirculation – – – – – Yes, maximum Yes, maximum
Yes, partial (by Yes, maximum
Yes, partial (by Yes, partial (by Yes, partial (by Yes, maximum ERD, (by ERD,
Energy recirculation Yes (by ERD)
ERD) ERD) ERD1, 2) (by ERD1, 2) recirculation recirculation
brine) brine)
Reducing load on Reducing load on
Higher PRO Reducing load on HP pump, HP pump,
Sea water as PRO recovery is Reducing load on HP pump, reducing reducing
Advantages Simple setup
feed solution possible. lesser HP pump reducing energy pre-treatment pre-treatment
ICP loss in turbine and energy loss and energy loss in
in turbine turbine
Use of two ERD Use of two ERD
Availability of Use for two Use of four LP
NSEC is around Possibility of units and four LP units and four LP
Disadvantages waste water in splitters and two pump leads to
2 kWh/m3 sever ICP in PRO pumps leads to pumps leads to
all the places mixers higher capital cost
higher capital cost higher capital cost

and VII), the direct mixing of DS outlet with SWRO feed is enabled (sim- van't Hoff factor, universal gas constant, operating temperature and
ilar to close circuit PRO and desalination [15]) in order to reduce the sea molecular weight of NaCl, respectively.
water pre-treatment unit capacity. Thus, the energy consumption asso- The permeate concentration equation is derived by combining the
ciated with the pre-treatment of sea water can be minimized. Case VI is solute flux equation of SK model and the concentration polarization
a kind of modified version of case IV, where the ERD-2 is removed and a equation based on the film theory model [16]
fraction of the DS water equal to the flow rate of SWRO product water is 0  σ  1
directly fed to the HP pump. The remaining fraction of the DS outlet is 1þ 1−e
− Jv ð1−σ Þ
=B
B 1−σ C
depressurized in the turbine. In case VII, a large fraction of the DS outlet C f ¼ Cp @ A ð3Þ
eð k Þ
Jv

is directly supplied back as feed to SWRO after mixing with pre-treated

sea water. The depressurized diluted DS outlet can be discharged into
the sea without post treatment.
2.3. Model development
As shown in Fig. 1, the SWRO–PRO hybrid system includes impor-
tant ancillary equipment other than SWRO and PRO modules with tur-
bine, ERD, HP pump, and low pressure pump (LP pump). Mathematical
model of each process unit was developed by solving integrated mass,
energy and momentum balance equations reported in literature.
These individual process units were integrated to build flowsheet
model of SWRO–PRO hybrid systems.
2.4. SWRO model equations
The water flux is directly proportional to the difference between hy-
draulic pressure difference and actual osmotic pressure difference
across the membrane, which can be written as
where Cf, Cp, B and k are feed water concentration, permeate concentra-
tion, salt permeability and mass transfer coefficient, respectively. The
concentration polarization equation based on the film theory at feed
side [16] is written in equation below.


Cm −Cp Jv
¼ ek ð4Þ
C f −Cp
Hydraulic pressure in spiral wound membrane module feed
channel may vary along the length due to pressure drop and can
be defined using Darcy's law [17]. Darcy's law states that the pres-
sure drop per unit length in narrow channel is a function of the
fluid flow rate. The flow rate and pressure are varying along the
membrane length. Furthermore, to simplify model equations, both
pressure and flow in the membrane module are calculated by tak-
ing the average between inlet and outlet condition of the streams.
Therefore, the pressure drop equation can be expressed as follows

Jv ¼ AðΔPRO –σ Δπact Þ ð1Þ Pdrop ¼ P f −Pr

LD f ðQ f þ Q r Þ ð5Þ
Pdrop ¼
The actual osmotic pressure difference across the membrane is 2


iRT   where Pdrop, Pr, Df, Q f, Q r, and L are pressure drop in a pressure
Δπact ¼ Cm –Cp ð2Þ
M vessel, pressure of reject stream, Darcy's law constant, flow rate
of feed, flow rate of reject and total length of a pressure vessel,
where Jv, A, Δ PRO, Δ πact, σ, Cm, Cp, i, R, T and M are water flux, hydro- respectively.
dynamic permeability of the membrane, hydraulic pressure differ- It is assumed that the feed channel is completely mixed, negligible
ences, actual osmotic pressure difference, reflection coefficient, pressure drop on permeate channel and permeate water pressure as
concentration at feed side membrane, concentration of permeate, atmospheric pressure, then the hydraulic pressure difference across
82 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97

the membrane is given by Cfi, Cdi, and Cs are FS inlet concentration, DS inlet concentrations and

 feed side concentration at support layer, respectively.
Pdrop Internal concentration polarization (ICP) is a strong function of sol-
ΔPRO ¼ Pf– −Patm ð6Þ
2 ute resistance of porous support layer and water flux [9]. The effective
concentration difference across the membrane with ICP effect is predict-
Feed side mass transfer coefficient of SWRO membrane is a function ed by equation given below
of fluid velocity. The empirical equation for mass transfer coefficient is

Cs  
given by [18].
Jw eð Jw Kp Þ þ B eð Jw Kp Þ
−1
Cfm Cdm

 ¼   ð19Þ
Q f þ Qr y Cdm B eð Jw Kp Þ −1 þ J
k¼x ð7Þ w
2

where x and y are empirical constants. where Kp is solute resistance in porous support layer.
The mass balance equations are given below. The pressure drop across the feed and draw channel is estimated by
using Darcy's law [17]
Q f ¼ Qr þ Qp ð8Þ
ΔP f ¼ Pfi −Pfo
LPRO D f;PRO ðQ fi þ Q fo Þ ð20Þ
Q p ¼ Jv Sm ð9Þ ΔP f ¼
2
Q f C f ¼ Q r Cr þ Q p Cp ð10Þ
ΔPd ¼ Pdi −Pdo
LPRO Dd;PRO ðQ di þ Q do Þ ð21Þ
where Q p, Sm, and Cr are flow rate of permeate (i.e. product water), ΔPd ¼
2
total area of SWRO membrane per train, and concentration of brine
respectively. where Pfi, Pfo, Df,PRO, Q fi, Q fo, LPRO, Pdi, Pdo, Dd,PRO, Q di and Q do are FS inlet
SWRO recovery is defined as, pressure, FS outlet pressure, FS side Darcy's law constant, FS inlet flow

 rate, FS outlet flow rate, length of one PRO membrane pressure vessel,
Qp DS inlet pressure, DS outlet pressure, DS side Darcy's law constant, DS
RecvRO ¼ 100 ð11Þ
Qf inlet flow rate and DS outlet flow rate, respectively.
The theoretical maximum power density is achieved when the hy-
draulic pressure difference is equal to half the value of the effective os-
2.5. PRO model equations motic pressure difference [17]. The DS inlet pressure equation is given
below
Water flux and salt flux for PRO membrane are written as below [16,


18]. ΔΠ eff −ΔPd þ Δp f
Pdi ¼ þ Pfi ð22Þ
2
Jw ¼ APRO ½Δπeff −ΔPPRO  ð12Þ


 where ΔPd and ΔPf are draw side pressure drop and feed side pressure
iRT C
Δπeff ¼ 1− fm Cdm ð13Þ drop, respectively.
M Cdm Pressure difference across the membrane is written as [17]

Js ¼ BPRO ðCdm −Cfm Þ ð14Þ



ΔPd ΔP f
ΔPPRO ¼ Pdi − − Pfi − ð23Þ
2 2
where APRO, BPRO, Cdm, Cfm, and πeff, are water permeability, salt perme-
ability, draw side concentration at membrane–solution interface, feed
Power produced per unit area of the membrane is calculated as
side concentration at membrane–solution interface and effective os-
below (i.e. power density) [19,20]
motic pressure difference across the PRO respectively.
The empirical mass transfer coefficient equations are given below
Wden ¼ Jw Pdo ð24Þ
[18].

 Mass and solute balance equations for PRO unit are written as
Q fi þ Q fo y
kf ¼ x ð15Þ
2
Q do ¼ Q di þ Jw Sm;PRO ð25Þ


Q di þ Q do y
kd ¼ x ð16Þ Q fo ¼ Q fi −Jw Sm;PRO ð26Þ
2

Q di Cdi −Js Sm;PRO

where x and y are empirical constants. Cdo ¼ ð27Þ
The equation for Dilutive External Concentration Polarization Q do
(DECP) is given by [21,22]
Q fi Cfi þ Js Sm;PRO
Cfo ¼ ð28Þ
Cdm −Cfi Q fo
¼ eð− Jw =kd Þ ð17Þ
Cdi −Cfi
where Sm,PRO and Cfo are total surface area per train and FS outlet con-
Concentrative External Concentration Polarization (CECP) at feed centration of PRO membrane, respectively.
side is given by [22] Recovery of PRO is given by


Cs −Cdi Q
¼ eð− Jw =k f Þ ð18Þ RecvPRO ¼ 1− fo 100 ð29Þ
Cfi −Cdi Q fi
 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97 83

Fig. 2. SWRO sensitivity analysis.

2.6. ERD model equations at LP inlet, velocity at HP outlet, velocity at LP outlet, friction loss coeffi-
cient and density of feed water, respectively.
The simplified Bernoulli's equation for calculating LP outlet pressure Average velocity at LP and HP inlets
of ERD unit is given below [24]. 
Vli ¼ Q li Ar
ð31Þ
  
ηERD ðQ hi Phi −Q ho Pho Þ þ Q li Pli −K ηERD Q ho ρf Vhi 2 −Q lo ρb Vli 2 
Plo ¼ Vhi ¼ Q hi Ar
ð32Þ
Q lo
ð30Þ where Ar is the cross sectional area of ERD inlets.
Small fraction of HP stream shall leak through piston edge to LP
where ηERD, Q hi, Q li, Q ho, Q lo, Phi, Pli, Pho, Plo, Vhi, Vli, Vho, Vlo, K, and ρf are stream to lubricate ERD's part movement which can be written in the
ERD efficiency, flow rate at HP inlet, flow rate at LP inlet, flow rate at HP mathematical form as below
outlet, flow rate at LP outlet, pressure at HP inlet, pressure at LP inlet,
pressure at HP outlet, pressure at LP outlet, velocity at HP inlet, velocity Lub flow ¼ Q hi Lub flow ratio ð33Þ

Table 2
Industrial SWRO operating data.

Feed water flow rate of SWRO Operating pressure of SWRO Recovery Product water flow rate Product concentration Reject pressure
Qf [m3/s] Pf [bar] [%] Qp [m3/s] CP [ppm] PR [bar]

Experimental Model Error % Experimental Model Error % Experimental Model Error %

0.29101 50.47 33.1 0.09340 0.09699 −3.84 44 42.99 2.30 48.23 48.337 −0.22
0.29105 55.81 39.6 0.11603 0.11534 0.59 49 46.46 5.18 54.72 54.721 0.00
0.29110 60.28 44.5 0.12809 0.1295 −1.10 52 49.58 4.65 59.22 59.224 −0.01

Note 1: The model parameters such A, B, σ, x, y, and Df are estimated by tuning model with experimental data.
Note 2: The experimental is taken from sea water desalination plant data reported in [26].
Note 3: The sea water concentration = 32,000 g/m3, temperature = 298 K.
84 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97

Q lo ¼ Q hi −Lub flow ð34Þ Applying mass balance across inlets and outlets of ERD

Q ho ¼ Q hi þ Q li −Q lo ð35Þ
where Lub_flow is the lubrication flow from HP side to LP side and
Lub_flow_ratio is the ratio between lubrication flow to HP inlet Due to high and low pressure stream mixing, the concentra-
flow. tions of outlet streams will be varying from the inlet streams.

Fig. 3. PRO sensitivity analysis.

 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97 85

Based on solute mass balance, salinity at high pressure outlet of ERD is 2.8. Mixer and splitter model equations
given by
Mixer is used to mix and distribute multiple streams. Splitter is used
Clo ¼ ðChi −Cli ÞMix=100 þ Cli ð36Þ to split and distribute multiple streams. The pressure drop across the
mixer and splitter is assumed as negligible. Mass balance for both
mixer and splitter is written as
where Chi, Clo, Cli, Cho, and Mix are concentration of brine inlet (high-
pressure), concentration of brine outlet (low-pressure), concentration
Xm Xn
of feed inlet (low-pressure), concentration of feed outlet (high-pressure) Q out;m ¼ Q in;n ð40Þ
1 1
and mixing percentage, respectively. From solute balance, the salinity at
high pressure outlet of ERD is given by
where m and n are total number of outputs and total number of inputs


Chi Q hi þ Cli Q li −Clo Q lo respectively.
Cho ¼ ð37Þ
Q ho
2.9. Turbine model equations

Turbine is used to convert pressure head into electrical energy. Mass

2.7. HP and LP pump model equations
and momentum balance equations for turbine are given below

HP pump is used to pump sea water for SWRO at constant pressure.

LP pump is working as a booster pump to pressurize the ERD's HP outlet. Q in ¼ Q out ð41Þ
The mass and momentum balance equation for pump is given by

Pout ¼ Pin −PHU ð42Þ

Q in ¼ Q out ð38Þ

where Pin and Pout, PHU are pressure of inlet stream, pressure of outlet
stream and pressure head utilized to generate power by turbine,
Pout ¼ Pin þ PHP respectively.
The power generated by turbine is given by
PH Q in ð39Þ
Wconsumed ¼
ηpump
Wgen ¼ PHU Q in ηturbine ð43Þ
where Qin, Qout, Pin, Pout, PHP, and ηpump are the inlet flow rate, outlet
flow rate, pressure of inlet stream, pressure of outlet stream, pressure
head developed in the pump, and efficiency of the pump, respectively. where ηturbine is the efficiency of turbine cum generator system.

Table 3
Important input parameters of the system.

Parameter name Value Unit

PRO
Hydro dynamic permeability (APRO) 1.61389 × 10−6 m/bar·s
Salt permeability (BPRO) 2.44 × 10−7 m/s
Multiplying constant in mass transfer coefficient equation (x) 0.0038 m−0.5 s−0.5
Power constant in mass transfer coefficient equation (y) 0.5 –
Feed channel Darcy's law constant (Df, PRO) 200 bar·s/m4
Draw channel Darcy's law constant (Dd, PRO) 200 bar·s/m4
Area of one membrane (SPRO) 7.43224 m2
Length of one PRO membrane (lPRO) 0.9626 m
Total number of membranes per pressure vessel (mPRO) 5 –
Total number of pressure vessels per train (NoP) 291 –
Universal gas constant (R) 0.00008314 m4·bar/mol·K
Molecular weight of NaCl (M) 58.5 g/mol

SWRO
Reflection coefficient (σ) 0.999 –
Water permeability coefficient of membrane (A) 5.0815 × 10−7 m/bar·s
Salt permeability coefficient of membrane (B) 4.34 × 10−7 m/s
Area of one membrane (SRO) 7.43224 m2
No. of membrane per pressure vessel (mRO) 7 –
van't Hoff factor (i) 2 –
Membrane length (l) 0.9626 m
Darcy's law constant on feed side (Df) 200 bar·s/m4
Constant in mass transfer coefficient equation (x) 0.0038 m−0.5 s−0.5
Constant in mass transfer coefficient equation (y) 0.5 –
Permeate pressure (Pp) 1 bar

ERD
Volumetric mixing (Mix) 5.2 %
Lubrication flow ratio (Lub_flow_ratio) 0.01 –
Density (ρ) 997 kg/m3
Efficiency of ERD (ηERD) 96 %
Friction coefficient in ERD (K) 0.0005 –
86 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97

3. Results and discussion Table 4

Operating condition for SWRO–PRO configurations.

3.1. Simulation Input variable Unit Default value Simulation range

Feed to SWRO
3.1.1. Modelling framework Net flow rate m3/s 0.291 0.23–0.3
Modelling and simulation were done in an object oriented, declara- Pressure bar 55 30–70
tive and multi-domain modelling language “Modelica” with a help of a FS to PRO
software called Dymola. The mathematical model equations of each FS–DS inlet flow ratio – 1 0.8–2
process units were programmed in Modelica language to create individ- Concentration (except for Case-II) g/m3 100 100–10,000
ual process units (i.e. SWRO Module, PRO module and ERD) with user DS to PRO
designed icons and graphically connected to build integrated flowsheet DS inlet pressure bar Eq. (22) 5–15
model.
Flowsheet parameters
Ratio of brine recirculation – 1 0.8–1
3.1.2. Individual process unit simulation
For verification purpose, the individual process unit models were
simulated in appropriate operating range. So that the integrated
flowsheet model can be simulated for wide range of operating condi- increasing CP effect. Concentration of permeate water decreases till
tions. The simulation results are analysed and verified with literature. feed pressure ≈33 bar and then increases with inlet pressure (Fig. 2c)
as expected for SWRO membranes [27]. The increase in inlet flow rate
3.1.3. SWRO unit reduces the CP effect which results into lower product water concentra-
The seawater is pumped to SWRO unit by using HP pump (Fig. 2a). tion but SEC increases due to increase in pumping energy consumption
The SWRO model and design parameters were taken from literature (Fig. 2d).
[25]. As shown in Table 2, the SWRO model parameters such as A, B,
σ, x, y, and Df were estimated by tuning model with experimental 3.1.4. PRO unit
data used in reference [26]. For simulation study, the sea water concen- Flowsheet for PRO model is shown in Fig. 3a. Waste water (100 g/m3)
tration is fixed as 32,000 g/m3 and the effect of feed pressure and flow was used as FS and SWRO brine (52,000 g/m3) was used as DS. The DS
rate on SWRO performance were verified. While varying pressure and FS inlet flow rates were fixed as 0.1745 m3/s by assuming 40% re-
or flow rate, the other variables were fixed to their default values i.e. covery in SWRO unit. Due to unavailability of experimental plant data
0.291 m3/s and 55 bar respectively. As shown in Fig. 2b, the SWRO re- for PRO unit, the PRO membrane parameters were taken from literature
covery and reject concentration increases with inlet pressure as expect- [28] and design parameters were calculated based on the PRO design
ed. For example, 40% recovery and 53,300 g/m3 reject concentration, capacity requirements as described in SWRO–PRO trains section. For ex-
which is essential for PRO draw solution inlet was achieved at 56 bar ample, five number of PRO modules should be connected in series per
pressure. pressure vessel to achieve 67% recovery in PRO unit (for given value
The SEC decreases even though the work done by the pump in- of membrane permeability = 1.61389 × 10−6 m/bar·s, surface area
creases with increase in inlet pressure (Fig. 2c). However, at higher per module = 7.43224 m2 and DS inlet pressure = 10 bar). The
feed pressure, the rate of decrease of SEC is relatively small due to model parameters of PRO process are given in Table 3.

Fig. 4. ERD sensitivity analysis.

 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97 87

The PRO system performance is analysed by calculating following
model outputs such as power density and recovery (Fig. 3). For a
fixed PRO membrane surface area, the dilution water flux was in-
creased with DS inlet flow rate that resulted into higher recovery
(i.e., 1 − Q fo/Q fi). On the other hand the power density decreased
due to increased pressure drop in DS membrane channel (Fig. 3b).
This phenomenon was happening because the power density is high-
ly sensitive towards pressure drop than dilutive concentration
polarization. As expected, the reverse trend is obtained for power
density and recovery with respect to FS flow rate (Fig. 3c)). As re-
ported by many researchers [23,29–31], both recovery and power
density increased with respect to draw inlet concentration
(Fig. 3d). The concentration of FS and DS outlets were increasing
with DS inlet concentration and this is due to higher PRO recovery
(Fig. 3g). Recovery decreases and power density increases while in-
creasing draw solution inlet pressure (Fig. 3e).

Fig. 5. Effect of SWRO feed pressure.

88 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97

Fig. 6. Effect of SWRO feed pressure on concentration polarization.

As shown in Fig. 3f, the FS inlet concentration is varied to study the above sea water concentration with FS inlet concentration greater
effect of an internal concentration polarization on recovery and power than 700 g/m3. Also the power density is reduced with reduced water
density. Due to severe ICP, the DS outlet concentration is increased flux.

Fig. 7. Effect of SWRO feed flow rate.

 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97
3.1.5. ERD unit
Energy Recovery Device (ERD) is an important equipment in
SWRO plant, to reduce the energy consumption. The efficiency of
ERD is a function of operating pressure and flow rate. As shown
in Fig. 4, the HP stream is supplied from high pressure source
(i.e. SWRO brine) and LP stream is supplied from low pressure
source (i.e. sea water feed). The energy between HP & LP inlet
streams is exchanged with minimal mixing between inlet and outlet
streams.
ERD model simulation results are presented in Fig. 4. In general, the
ERDs are designed such that the optimal efficiency may be achieved
when LP side inlet flow rate is equal to HP side inlet flow rate. Therefore,
the ERD model was simulated to verify the trend of HP outlet pressure
and concentration with respect to HP inlet pressure and concentration
respectively. As expected, HP outlet pressure increases with HP inlet
pressure (Fig. 4b) and HP outlet concentration increases with inlet con-
centration (Fig. 4c) [32].
3.1.6. SWRO–PRO process flowsheet
The performance of integrated flowsheet models (Fig. 1) was
analysed by simulating with respect to the operating conditions
mentioned in Table 4. The efficiency of HP pump, LP pump and ERD
were assumed as 80%, 83% and 96% respectively. FS inlet concentra-
tion of PRO for the case II was fixed as 32,000 g/m3 (i.e. sea water).
The design parameter of individual units are given in Table 3.
Fig. 8. Effect of DS inlet pressure.
89
3.1.6.1. Effect of SWRO feed pressure on SWRO–PRO system performance.
The feed pressure to SWRO unit was varied from 30 to 70 bar and corre-
sponding variation in some of the important variables are plotted in Fig. 5.
For cases I to V, the product water concentration decreases to a minimum
value and then increased with feed pressure (Fig. 5a) and this is due to
the CP effect at membrane surface [20]. However, for the cases VI and
VII, the product water concentration increased with feed pressure. This
was occurring due to increase in SWRO feed concentration with direct
mixing of diluted DS outlet and SWRO feed. For all cases, SWRO and
PRO recoveries were increasing with membrane feed pressure (Fig. 5b
& c). The trend of SWRO and PRO recovery curves were almost same
for cases I to V. However, for case II, PRO recovery was found to be too
low due to severe ICP. For cases VI and VII, both PRO and SWRO recoveries
were higher than the former cases at the pressure below 60 bar. Later
both recoveries were found to be lesser at above 60 bar. This phenome-
non was occurring due to the PRO unit capacity limitation i.e. the DS con-
centration can not to be reduced below the seawater concentration.
For the cases III to V, The power density was increasing till a maxi-
mum value attained and then decreased (Fig. 5d). To understand this
phenomenon in more detail, the effect of SWRO inlet pressure on effec-
tive osmotic pressure difference across the PRO membrane and DECP
were analysed for Case V and shown in Fig. 6. The PRO power density
is proportional to water flux and DS outlet pressure. The water flux is
proportional to the osmotic pressure difference across the PRO mem-
brane. As shown in Fig. 6a, the effective osmotic pressure difference
90 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97
was found to be increasing and reached the maximum at 50 bar
SWRO inlet pressure. The DS inlet flow rate was expected to decrease
with SWRO recovery and this leads to severe DECP effect (Fig. 6b).
The above described phenomenon was not happening for the cases
VI and VII, hence no maximum found within the simulation range.
As shown in Fig. 5e, in case VII, the direct mixing of DS outlet with
SWRO feed aids to lowest NSEC among other cases. The optimum
NSEC with respect to SWRO feed pressure for cases I to V were esti-
mated around 38 to 45 bar. For cases VI and VII, the NSEC decreases
with decrease in SWRO feed pressure. Power generation was expect-
ed to increase with power density and reduction in NSEC. But, this
behaviour was not observed while comparing power density and
NSEC of systems grouped under “with” and “without” brine recircu-
lation (i.e. II–V versus VI & VII). This was due to decreased SWRO unit
power consumption by minimizing SWRO feed concentration for
cases VI & VII.
3.1.6.2. Effect of net SWRO feed flow rate on SWRO–PRO system perfor-
mance. As shown in Fig. 7, while increasing SWRO feed flow rate from
0.23 to 0.3 m3/s, the SWRO recovery and PRO recovery are found to be
decreasing due to pressure drop in membrane channel (Fig. 7a & b).
On the other hand, power density was increasing due to reduced recov-
ery in SWRO followed by increase in DS flow rate. However, for the case
II, the power density was decreasing due to severe ICP. The best SWRO–
PRO hybrid system should provide high SWRO & PRO recovery, low
Fig. 9. Effect of FS–DS ratio.
NSEC and product water concentration. As shown in Fig. 7, the cases
VI and VII were found to be the best by satisfying above definitions.
For cases I to V, the trend of SWRO recovery, PRO recovery and power
density were found to be similar and this may be possible when
SWRO feed conditions are identical.
3.1.6.3. Effect of PRO DS inlet pressure on SWRO–PRO system performance.
In all the previous sensitivity analysis, the DS inlet pressure was found
as a function of effective osmotic pressure difference across the PRO
membrane. The theoretical maximum power density may be achieved
when the hydraulic pressure difference among DS and FS were equal
to half the value of effective osmotic pressure difference [22]. But, this
is not always true for a system when pressure and concentration vary
along the length of the membrane module [19]. Therefore, the effect
of DS inlet pressure on the system performance was studied (Fig. 8).
As expected, the DS inlet pressure does not have any impact on either
product water concentration or SWRO recovery for cases II and III,
since there is no recirculation flow from PRO to SWRO. However, in
other cases, recirculation flow from PRO to SWRO was enabled, which
leads to variation in product water concentration and SWRO recovery
with respect to DS inlet pressure. PRO recovery and NSEC were decreas-
ing and power density was increasing with DS inlet pressure for cases
III–VII. SWRO and PRO recovery of cases VI and VII were higher than
all other cases due to reduced CP effect. Choosing seawater as FS for
the case II resulted into severe ICP that in turn leads to decreased
 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97
power density and increased NSEC with DS inlet pressure. It is evident
from the Fig. 5 that if the same study was done at the pressure above
60 bar, then the trend of SWRO recovery, PRO recovery, power density
and NSEC would have been reversed.
3.1.6.4. Effect of PRO FS/DS inlet ratio on SWRO–PRO system performance.
The ratio between FS and DS inlet flow rate is very important. Altaee
et al. reported that the DS flow rate has more impact on power density
than the feed flow rate [33]. The relationship between DS/FS flow rate
and power density are not linear. Increasing FS/DS ratio will decrease
the effect of concentration polarization but cannot eliminate it, because
very high flow rates would increase the overall power consumption
instead of improving power density. Therefore, optimal ratio is very
important to achieve maximum power output from PRO. In this
simulation study, since DS flow rate was fixed based on SWRO unit op-
erating conditions, the FS/DS ratio was varied from 0.8 to 2 and corre-
sponding hybrid system output variables are plotted in Fig. 9. As
expected, FS/DS ratio does not have much impact on product water
concentration for all the cases. For cases IV to VII, SWRO recovery
was increasing steadily, whereas PRO recovery was decreasing and
power density was increasing with FS/DS ratio as reported by Altaee
et al. [33]. For the case II, both power density and PRO recovery were
almost constant compared to other cases. Therefore, the NSEC in-
creased with FS/DS ratio for case II. For other cases, NSEC reaches to
minimum value then again increasing with FS/DS ratio.
Fig. 10. Effect of FS inlet concentration.
91
3.1.6.5. Effect of PRO FS concentration on SWRO–PRO system performance.
As reported by Altaee et al. [34], the PRO power density and recovery
can be influenced by FS concentration. In this simulation, the FS inlet
concentration was varied from 100 g/m3 to 10,000 g/m3 and this may
be the case when waste water is considered as a source. As shown in
Fig. 10b & c, both PRO recovery and power density were decreasing
with FS inlet concentration and may reach zero asymptotically when
both FS and DS concentrations were equal. Therefore, NSEC was increas-
ing while FS inlet concentration was increased and reaches asymptotic
value for cases III to V (Fig. 10d). But for cases VI and VII, the NSEC
was expected to increase due to the interaction between PRO and
SWRO streams by direct mixing. For example, in case VII the NSEC is
lesser than other systems with FS inlet concentration lesser than
1300 g/m3, but for higher FS inlet concentration NSEC increased rapidly.
3.1.6.6. Effect of back mixing ratio on SWRO–PRO system performance. As
shown in Fig. 11, back mixing ratio is applicable for cases VI and VII
only. The effect of back mixing was studied for two different SWRO
inlet pressures (i.e. 55 bar and 65 bar) by keeping all other operating
condition as in Table 4. The flow ratio between DS flow to SWRO and
DS flow at point P1 is defined as back mixing ratio (refer Fig. 1f &
g) and will vary from 0 to 1. For the case VI, DS recirculation flow to
HP pump was kept equal to the product water flow rate.
As shown in Fig. 11a, the DS outlet concentration was decreasing
with back mixing ratio at 55 bar, and it was vice versa at 65 bar SWRO
92 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97

Fig. 11. Effect of back mixing ratio.

feed pressure. When DS outlet concentration is realized below sea water
concentration, the SWRO feed is diluted and that leads to decreased DS
inlet concentration. Similarly, recovery of both PRO and SWRO units
was increasing at 55 bar and decreased at 65 bar of SWRO feed pressure.
The above phenomenon was in compliance with Fig. 5b. For a fixed FS
inlet concentration, the power density was proportional to DS concen-
tration. Therefore, power density was also expected to perform similar
to DS outlet concentration profile (Fig. 11d). The power density and
SWRO recovery profiles were found to be opposite in nature with
respect to back mixing ratio. NSEC was found to be decreasing while in-
creasing back mixing ratio for case VII (i.e. independent of SWRO feed
pressure variation). On the other hand, for case VI, the NSEC was mar-
ginally decreasing at 55 bar and it was contrast at 65 bar.
3.2. Optimization
Reducing the SWRO–PRO system NSEC is one of the main objectives
of this work. As presented in the SWRO–PRO process flowsheet section,
 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97 93

the NSEC is a function of process parameters. The relative impact of pro-
cess parameters on NSEC are presented in Table 5. The relative impact
on NSEC is defined based on the gain between NSEC and process param-
eter and linearity between NSEC and process parameter. The impact
levels are defined as follows: (i) high means gain is larger and nonlinear,
(ii) medium means gain is larger and linear and (iii) low means gain
lesser and linear. The target production for SWRO was fixed as
0.1164 m 3 /s. The NSEC was optimized for two scenarios i.e. with
and without target production at five different FS inlet concentrations
(i.e. 100 g/m3, 500 g/m3, 1000 g/m3, 5000 g/m3 and 32,000 g/m3). The
performance of cases III–VII were compared with case I (i.e. existing
SWRO system). The case II was also reported under case III with FS
inlet concentration of 32,000 g/m3, since both cases were similar with
respect to optimization problem formulation.
3.3. Objective function
The NSEC is defined as the amount of energy consumed by all pumps
minus the energy generated in turbine per unit quantity of pure water
produced from SWRO.
 Xj X1 ,
WPump − WTurb
minimize NSEC ¼ 1 0
ðQ p 3600Þ
where NSEC, j, WPump , W Turb , and Q P are net specific energy con-
sumption (kWh/m3), number of pumps, power consumption in
pump (kW), power generation by turbine (kW) and product water
flow rate (m3/s) respectively.
3.4. Constraints
Based on the target production rate and other operational limita-
tions, constraints and bounds for decision variable are given in
Table 5. The decision variables which are not applicable for given hybrid
system were marked as not applicable (NA). The significance of decision
variable on NSEC was marked with three levels (i.e. high, medium, low).
If required, the variable with low significance may be excluded from op-
timization decision variable for reducing complexity in optimization.
However, in this study, all the applicable decision variables were consid-
ered for optimizing NSEC.
3.5. Optimization results and discussion
The optimum NSEC for case I was obtained to be 2.079 and
1.661 kWh/m3 for the production rate of 0.1164 (i.e. target) and
0.0448 m3/s respectively. For the fixed production rate, the optimum
NSEC for the cases III–VII are presented in the bar chat with respect to
five different FS inlet concentrations Fig. 12. The energy saving with re-
spect to the existing SWRO system is also reported. The positive values
of energy saving represent that the SWRO–PRO hybrid system is effi-
cient than SWRO system. As shown in Fig. 12, for lower FS inlet concen-
tration, all the SWRO–PRO hybrid configurations were found to be
energy efficient than SWRO system. But at higher FS concentration,
NSEC of all the hybrid systems were found to be higher than the
SWRO system.
The lowest possible NSEC was achieved for the case VII when the FS
inlet concentration was 100 g/m3. The calculated optimal NSEC was
1.120 and 0.842 kWh/m3 for the production rate of 0.1164 (i.e. target)
and 0.054 m3/s. The corresponding energy saving with respect to case I
were 41.7% and 49.33% respectively. The optimized process operating
conditions for best cases are reported in Table 6. The optimized decision
variables such as FS/DS ratio, DS inlet pressure and DS back mixing ratio
were found to be at their bounds for case VII. The SWRO–PRO system
does not require turbine for energy generation since all the brine water
was recirculated at optimized process condition. The PRO operating pres-
sure was hitting to lower bound i.e. PRO operation conditions are moving
towards Forward osmosis process operating condition. Similarly, for
higher FS concentration, it was found that the existing SWRO system
(case I) is energy efficient compared to hybrid SWRO–PRO configurations.
The optimization results with relaxed target product water flow were
presented in Fig. 13. For all the cases, the calculated optimum NSEC with-
out target production was lesser than NSEC with target production. None
of the system was able to meet the target production (0.1164 m3/s) at op-
timal NSEC and their optimal product water flow rate was not equal. The
optimal product water flow rate for SWRO system was 0.045 m3/s. For
ð44Þ benchmarking purpose, the hybrid systems having production rate great-
er than 0.045 m3/s were compared among them with respect to NSEC.
The comparisons of SWRO–PRO hybrid systems from lowest to highest
NSEC for different FS inlet concentration were given below.
100 g/m3 is given as VII N VI N IV N III N I
500 g/m3 is given as VII N VI N IV N I N III
1000 g/m3 is given as VII N VI N IV N I N III
5000 g/m3 is given as V N I N IV N III
32,000 g/m3 is given as I N V N IV N VII N III N VI
Above observations shows that, if low concentrated waste water
is fed as a FS to PRO, then the hybrid SWRO–PRO system which
does the back mixing was found to be energy efficient solution for
desalination. For higher FS concentration, it was found that the
existing SWRO system (case I) is energy efficient compared to hybrid
SWRO–PRO configurations. The optimum operating conditions for
the best performing case at five different FS inlet concentrations
were given in Table 6. The estimated optimal operating condition
of PRO system concluded that the PRO was operated at high pressure
(i.e. PRO mode) for all configurations while target water production
constraint was relaxed.
As concluded by Straub et al. [35], the above analysis was also
identified energy saving prospective for hybrid SWRO–PRO system
after including energy losses in membrane, pumps and energy recovery
devices. However, it will be feasible only when large amount of pre-
treated waste water is available at locations nearby SWRO desalination
plant. The following important practical constraints has to be addressed
before implementation of such a hybrid SWRO–PRO system: (i) bio
fouling will be the likely biggest technical challenge for the combined
SWRO–PRO system due to use of waste water as FS and this issue may
be resolved by implementing proper pre-treatment system; (ii) inte-
grated operation of the hybrid SWRO–PRO system requires large size
storage facility for waste water storage; and (iii) validation of overall

Table 5
Constraints for optimization and their relative impact on NSEC.

Effect on NSEC
Sl. no. Variable Bounds
Case I Case II Case III Case IV Case V Case VI Case VII

1 Product water flow rate Qp ≥ 0.1164 m3/s High High High High High High High
2 SWRO feed pressure 30 bar ≤ Pf ≥ 70 bar High High High High High High High
3 SWRO feed flow rate 0.234 m3/s ≤ Qf ≤ 0.291 m3/s Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
6 DS inlet pressure 5 bar ≤ Pdi ≤ 15 bar NA High Medium High High High High
4 FS/DS flow ratio 0.8 ≤ FS/DS ≤ 2 NA High Low Medium Medium High High
5 Concentration of waste water 100 g/m3 ≤ Cfi ≤ 10,000 g/m3 NA NA Medium Medium Medium High High
7 Back mixing ratio 0 ≤ nmix ≤ 1 NA NA NA NA NA High High
94 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97

Fig. 12. Optimum NSEC and the percentage energy saving (with target).

Table 6
Optimal process parameters.

FS inlet Best Optimum value of decision variables Values of other important variables at optimum point
concentration case
Feed water Operating FS/DS ratio PRO DS inlet Brine back Product water Flow rate Flow rate at Flow rate at Flow rate at Flow rate
(g/m3)
flow rate pressure of PRO inlets pressure mixing ratio flow ratea at BP pump LP pump-1 LP pump-2 LP pump-3 at FS outlet
of SWRO of SWRO Pdi [bar] nmix Q p [m3/s] Q HPP [m3/s] Q LPP-1 Q LPP-2 Q LPP-3 Q fo [m3/s]
Qf [m3/s] Pf [bar] [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s]

For targeted production rate of 0.1164 m3/s

100 VII 0.239 35.303 2 5 1 0.12363 0.12239 0.24479 0.00105 0.12945
500 VII 0.257 41.005 2 5 1 0.14209 0.14066 0.28133 0.00107 0.16602
1000 VII 0.271 47.934 2 5 1 0.1164 0.15652 0.15495 0.30991 0.00109 0.19469
5000 V 0.291 56.479 1.0404 15 NA 0.17884 0.17705 0.18421 0.291 0.12595
32,000b I 0.291 56.120 NA NA NA 0.17641 0.17464 NA NA NA

For non-targeted production rate

100 VII 0.234 30 0.8 15 1 0.05396 0.18185 0.18003 0.14402 0.00164 0.09170
500 VII 0.234 30 0.8 15 1 0.04988 0.18597 0.18411 0.14729 0.00192 0.09903
1000 VII 0.234 30 0.8 15 1 0.04569 0.19020 0.18830 0.15064 0.00159 0.10653
5000 V 0.234 38.750 0.8 15 NA 0.04490 0.19334 0.19141 0.15313 0.234 0.11348
b
32,000 I 0.234 38.755 NA NA NA 0.04486 0.19105 0.18913 NA NA NA
a
The SWRO and SWRO–PRO systems were designed such that the feed flow rate through HP pump is always equal to permeate water produced.
b
None of the hybrid system is better than the existing system when the sea water (32,000 g/m3) is used as FS for PRO.
 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97
Fig. 13. Optimum NSEC and the percentage energy saving (without target).
economic benefit considering both capital and operating expenditure of
PRO unit in place of SWRO brine post treatment unit.
4. Conclusion
Mathematical model for SWRO–PRO hybrid system was developed
and implemented in Modelica language using Dymola software tool.
The verified individual process unit models are used for SWRO–PRO
flowsheet simulation studies and the following observations were made:
• When sea water was used as feed solution for PRO, the SWRO–PRO
hybrid system is found to be an unsustainable system with respect
to SWRO system.
• This is mainly due to severe ICP in PRO unit. Unless the ICP is nullified
with help of innovative PRO membranes, the self-sustainable SWRO–
PRO configuration may not be viable if sea water is used as a FS solution.
• When water waster was used as FS for PRO, the SWRO–PRO hybrid
system was found to be energy efficient solution for desalination
application.
95
• Among the six SWRO–PRO configurations presented in this work,
the one (i.e. case VII) which does the direct mixing of diluted DS
outlet with SWRO feed was found to be energy efficient solution
for desalination.
• For optimal case VII, the calculated NSEC is reduce by 41% and 16%
with respect to SWRO desalination system for FS inlet concentration
of 100 g/m3 and 1000 g/m3 respectively.
• The identified best configuration (i.e. case VII) in this work does
not require additional ERD and turbine at optimized process
conditions.
5. Future work
Further studies on improved return on investment (ROI) for hybrid
SWRO–PRO system may help us to verify whether the proposed hybrid
system can provide improved ROI than the SWRO with directly
reclaiming wastewater.
96 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97

Nomenclature PHP pressure head developed in pump (bar)

A water permeability of SWRO the membrane (m/bar·s) ρf density of feed water (kg/m3)
APRO water permeability of PRO membrane (m/bar·s) Qf flow rate of feed (m3/s)
Ar area of ERD's inlet and outlet pipes (m) Qr flow rate of reject (m3/s)
B salt permeability of SWRO the membrane (m/s) Qp flow rate of permeate (m3/s)
BPRO salt permeability PRO membrane (m/s) Qhi flow rate at HP inlet (m3/s)
Cm concentration at SWRO feed side membrane (g/m3) Qli flow rate at LP inlet (m3/s)
Cp concentration of permeate (g/m3) Qlo flow rate at LP outlet (m3/s)
Cf SWRO feed water concentration (g/m3) Qho flow rate at HP outlet (m3/s)
Cr SWRO concentration of reject (g/m3) Qfi FS inlet flow rate (m3/s)
Cdm draw side concentration at membrane–solution interface Qfo FS outlet flow rate (m3/s)
(g/m3) Qdi DS inlet flow rate (m3/s)
Cfm feed side concentration at membrane–solution interface Qdo DS outlet flow rate (m3/s)
(g/m3) Qin inlet flow rate (m3/s)
Cfi FS inlet concentration (g/m3) Qout outlet flow rate (m3/s)
Cdi DS inlet concentrations (g/m3) R universal gas constant (m4·bar/mol·K)
Cs feed side concentration at support layer (g/m3) RecvRO recovery of SWRO (%)
Cfo FS outlet concentration (g/m3) RecvPRO recovery of PRO (%)
Chi concentration of high-pressure inlet (g/m3) σ reflection coefficient
Clo concentration of low-pressure outlet (g/m3) S area of one SWRO membrane (m2)
Cli concentration of low-pressure inlet (g/m3) Sm total membrane area of a SWRO train (m2)
Cho concentration of high-pressure outlet (g/m3) SPRO area of one PRO membrane (m2)
Df Darcy's law constant (bar·s/m4) Sm,PRO total membrane area of a PRO train (m2)
Df,PRO FS side Darcy's law constant (bar·s/m4) T operating temperature (K)
Dd,PRO DS side Darcy's law constant (bar·s/m4) Vhi velocity at HP inlet (m/s)
i van't Hoff factor Vli velocity at LP inlet (m/s)
j number of pumps Vlo velocity at LP outlet (m/s)
Jv water flux in SWRO (m3/m2·s) Vho velocity at HP outlet (m/s)
k mass transfer coefficient of SWRO membrane (m/s) Wden power produced per unit area of the membrane (W/m2)
kd DS side mass transfer coefficients (m/s) WPump power consumption in pump (kW)
kf FS side mass transfer coefficients (m/s) WTurb power generation by turbine (kW)
Kp solute resistance in porous support layer (s/m) x, y empirical constants
K friction loss coefficient
l length of one SWRO membrane (m) References
L total length of a SWRO pressure vessel (m)
[1] M. Elimelech, W.A. Phillip, The future of seawater desalination: energy, technology,
lPRO length of one PRO membrane (m) and the environment, Science 333 (2011) 712–717, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
LPRO length of one PRO membrane pressure vessel (m) science.1200488.
M molecular weight of NaCl (g/m3) [2] Z. Jia, B. Wang, S. Song, Y. Fan, Blue energy: current technologies for sustainable
power generation from water salinity gradient, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 31
Mix mixing percentage (%) (2014) 91–100, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.049.
mRO number of membranes per one SWRO pressure vessel [3] S. Loeb, F. Van Hessen, D. Shahaf, Production of energy from concentrated brines by
mPRO number of membranes per one PRO pressure vessel pressure-retarded osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 1 (1976) 249–269, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0376-7388(00)82271-1.
m, n total number of outputs and inputs of mixer/splitter
[4] K. Gerstandt, K.-V. Peinemann, S.E. Skilhagen, T. Thorsen, T. Holt, Membrane pro-
NoP number of pressure vessels per train cesses in energy supply for an osmotic power plant, Desalination 224 (2008)
ηERD efficiency of ERD 64–70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2007.02.080.
[5] K. Saito, M. Irie, S. Zaitsu, H. Sakai, H. Hayashi, A. Tanioka, Power generation with sa-
ηpump efficiency of pump
linity gradient by pressure retarded osmosis using concentrated brine from SWRO
ηturbine efficiency of turbine cum generator system system and treated sewage as pure water, Desalin. Water Treat. 41 (2012)
Pr pressure of reject stream (bar) 114–121, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2012.664696.
ΔPRO hydraulic pressure differences in SWRO (bar) [6] V. Sim, Q. She, T. Chong, C. Tang, A. Fane, W. Krantz, Strategic co-location in a hybrid
process involving desalination and pressure retarded osmosis (PRO), Membranes
Pfi FS inlet pressure (bar) (Basel) 3 (2013) 98–125, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes3030098.
Pfo FS outlet pressure (bar) [7] W. He, Y. Wang, A. Sharif, M.H. Shaheed, Thermodynamic analysis of a stand-alone
Δπact actual osmotic pressure difference across the SWRO mem- reverse osmosis desalination system powered by pressure retarded osmosis, Desali-
nation 352 (2014) 27–37, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.08.006.
brane (bar) [8] M.H. Sharqawy, S.M. Zubair, J.H. Lienhard, Second law analysis of reverse osmosis
Δπeff effective osmotic pressure difference across the PRO mem- desalination plants: an alternative design using pressure retarded osmosis, Energy
brane (bar) 36 (2011) 6617–6626, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.08.056.
[9] J.L. Prante, J.A. Ruskowitz, A.E. Childress, A. Achilli, RO–PRO desalination: an inte-
Pdrop pressure drop in a pressure vessel (bar) grated low-energy approach to seawater desalination, Appl. Energy 120 (2014)
Pdi DS inlet pressure (bar) 104–114, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.01.013.
Pdo DS outlet pressure (bar) [10] J. Kim, M. Park, S.A. Snyder, J.H. Kim, Reverse osmosis (RO) and pressure retarded
osmosis (PRO) hybrid processes: model-based scenario study, Desalination 322
Phi pressure at HP inlet (bar)
(2013) 121–130, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.05.010.
Pli pressure at LP inlet (bar) [11] D. Inhyuk, J. Kim, H. Kyong, S. Hong, Pressure retarded osmosis (PRO) for inte-
Plo pressure at LP outlet (bar) grating seawater desalination and wastewater reclamation : energy consump-
tion and fouling, J. Membr. Sci. 483 (2015) 34–41, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
Pho pressure at HP outlet (bar)
memsci.2015.02.025.
ΔPd draw side pressure drop (bar) [12] A. Almansoori, Y. Saif, Structural optimization of osmosis processes for water and
ΔPf feed side pressure drop (bar) power production in desalination applications, Desalination 344 (2014) 12–27,
Pin pressure of inlet stream (bar) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.03.002.
[13] L.G. Palacin, F. Tadeo, C. De Prada, K. Touati, Evaluation of the recovery of osmotic
Pout pressure of outlet stream (bar) energy in desalination plants by using pressure retarded osmosis, Desalin. Water
PHU pressure head utilized to generate power by turbine (bar) Treat. 51 (2013) 360–365, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2012.715130.
 S. S., S. S. / Desalination 389 (2016) 78–97
[14] B.A. Qureshi, S.M. Zubair, Exergetic analysis of a brackish water reverse osmosis de-
salination unit with various energy recovery systems, Energy 93 (2015) 256–265,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.003.
[15] A. Efraty, Pressure retarded osmosis in closed circuit: a new technology for clean
power generation without need of energy recovery, Desalin. Water Treat. 51
(2013) 7420–7430, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2013.793499.
[16] Z.V.P. Murthy, S.K. Gupta, Estimation of mass transfer coefficient using a combined
nonlinear membrane transport and film theory model, Desalination 109 (1997)
39–49, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(97)00051-9.
[17] S.S. Hong, W. Ryoo, M.S. Chun, S.O. Lee, G.Y. Chung, Numerical studies on the
pressure-retarded osmosis (PRO) system with the spiral wound module for
power generation, Desalin. Water Treat. 52 (2014) 6333–6341, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/19443994.2013.821041.
[18] A. Achilli, T.Y. Cath, A.E. Childress, Power generation with pressure retarded osmo-
sis: an experimental and theoretical investigation, J. Membr. Sci. 343 (2009)
42–52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2009.07.006.
[19] K.L. Lee, R.W. Baker, H.K. Lonsdale, Membrane for power generation by pressure re-
tarded osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 8 (1981) 141–171, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0376-
7388(00)82088–8.
[20] S. Sundaramoorthy, G. Srinivasan, D.V.R. Murthy, An analytical model for spiral
wound Reverse Osmosis membrane modules: part I — model development and pa-
rameter estimation, Desalination 280 (2011) 403–411, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2011.03.047.
[21] J.R. Mccutcheon, M. Elimelech, Influence of concentrative and dilutive internal con-
centration polarization on flux behavior in forward osmosis, 284 (2006) 237–247,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.07.049.
[22] C. Klaysom, T.Y. Cath, T. Depuydt, I.F.J. Vankelecom, Forward and pressure retarded
osmosis: potential solutions for global challenges in energy and water supply, Chem.
Soc. Rev. 42 (2013) 6959, http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c3cs60051c.
[23] F. Helfer, C. Lemckert, Y.G. Anissimov, Osmotic power with pressure retarded osmo-
sis: theory, performance and trends — a review, J. Membr. Sci. 453 (2014) 337–358,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.10.053.
[24] M.J. Guirguis, Energy Recovery Devices in Seawater Reverse Osmosis Desalination
Plants with Emphasis on Efficiency and Economical Analysis of Isobaric Versus Cen-
trifugal Devices, University of South Florida, 2011.
97
[25] S. Senthilmurugan, A. Ahluwalia, S.K. Gupta, Modeling of a Spiral-wound Module
and Estimation of Model Parameters Using Numerical Techniques, 2005.
[26] N. Bhutani, A. Purohit, V.K. Mantravadi, S. Mekapati, S. Subbaiah, Energy efficiency
solutions for RO desalination plant, Desalin. Water Treat. 51 (2013) 5049–5055,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2013.795258.
[27] A.R. Bartman, A. Zhu, P.D. Christofides, Y. Cohen, Minimizing energy consumption in
reverse osmosis membrane desalination using optimization-based control, J. Process
Control 20 (2010) 1261–1269, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2010.09.004.
[28] N.Y. Yip, A. Tiraferri, W.A. Phillip, J.D. Schiffman, L.A. Hoover, Y.C. Kim, et al., Thin-
film composite pressure retarded osmosis membranes for sustainable power gener-
ation from salinity gradients, Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (2011) 4360–4369, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1021/es104325z.
[29] Y. Xu, X. Peng, C.Y. Tang, Q.S. Fu, S. Nie, Effect of draw solution concentration and op-
erating conditions on forward osmosis and pressure retarded osmosis performance
in a spiral wound module, J. Membr. Sci. 348 (2010) 298–309, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2009.11.013.
[30] Q. She, D. Hou, J. Liu, K.H. Tan, C.Y. Tang, Effect of feed spacer induced membrane de-
formation on the performance of pressure retarded osmosis (PRO): implications for
PRO process operation, J. Membr. Sci. 445 (2013) 170–182, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.memsci.2013.05.061.
[31] M.F. Naguib, J. Maisonneuve, C.B. Laflamme, P. Pillay, Modeling pressure-retarded
osmotic power in commercial length membranes, Renew. Energy 76 (2015)
619–627, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.11.048.
[32] A.M. Farooque, A.M. Jamaluddin, A.R. Al-reweli, Comparative Study of Various Ener-
gy Recovery Devices Used in SWRO Process 1, 2004.
[33] A. Altaee, G. Zaragoza, A. Sharif, Pressure retarded osmosis for power generation and
seawater desalination: performance analysis, Desalination 344 (2014) 108–115,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.03.022.
[34] A. Altaee, A. Sharif, G. Zaragoza, A.F. Ismail, Evaluation of FO–RO and PRO–RO de-
signs for power generation and seawater desalination using impaired water feeds,
Desalination 368 (2014) 27–35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.06.022.
[35] A.P. Straub, A. Deshmukh, M. Elimelech, A.P. Straub, Pressure-retarded osmosis for
power generation from salinity gradients : is it viable ? Energy Environ. Sci. 9
(2015) 31–48, http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C5EE02985F.