Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Transient analysis of steam accumulator integrated with solar based T

MED-TVC system
⁎
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphaela, , R. Velrajb, Purnima Jalihala
a
Energy and Fresh water Group, National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai, India
b
Institute for Energy Studies, Anna University, Chennai, India

A B S T R A C T

In a solar field, the steam production rate and pressure is not constant, but varies and becomes maximum at solar
noon. However solar thermal applications such as multi effect desalination with thermo vapour compressor
(MED-TVC) system are usually designed for a particular pressure and flow rate. Hence a buffer storage system is
needed in solar MED-TVC system to adjust the differences between the steam production and the consumption
rates. In the present work steam accumulators were used as buffer storage in direct steam generation (DSG) for
correcting the mismatch between production and consumption and also for energy storage. A parametric ana-
lysis was performed to investigate the impact of steam accumulator volume and also the irradiance disturbance
in solar field on MED-TVC system's performance. This paper presents the transient simulation results of the steam
accumulator's output and the corresponding output of the MED-TVC yield from 9:00 h to 20:00 h in a day.

1. Introduction
In most of the tropical coastal regions, there is a scarcity of fresh
water due to increase in population, industrialization, urbanization and
increased life standards of people. Naturally available fresh water
sources are not capable of meeting fresh water demands. Desalination is
one of the solutions to meet the water demand. The most common
desalination plants in operation follow the principle of reverse osmosis
(RO), multi stage flash evaporation (MSF) and multi effect desalination
with thermal vapour compression (MED-TVC). Conventional desalina-
tion plants are operated by thermal energy and electricity generated by
fossil fuel. Hence desalination has shown increased threats of CO2
emissions and a severe impact on environment. Desalination can be
made sustainable if it is coupled with renewable energy or utilization of
waste heat available in coastal regions. The use of thermocline from the
sea in a single stage flash evaporative desalination process called LTTD
[1–2], in MED process called ST-MED [3], coastal power plant's con-
denser reject heat in single stage flash evaporative desalination process
[4] and the use of solar energy in MED process show great potential in
the coastal regions.
In the solar field, solar energy is converted into thermal energy in
solar thermal concentrating systems. These systems are classified by
their focus geometry as point concentrators or line concentrators. A
Central receiver and a parabolic dish are examples for point con-
centrators. Parabolic trough collector (PTC) and Linear Fresnel reflector
(LFR) are examples for line concentrators. Different types of heat
transfer fluids (HTF) are used for transferring this thermal energy from
the concentrators to the solar power plant or process heat applications.
One option is the utilization of water/steam in the concentrators as
HTF, the so-called direct steam generation (DSG). Michael Berger [5]
et al. have presented the first year's operational experience of a LFR
based DSG solar thermal plant which supplied steam to a pharmaceu-
tical company in Jordan. A non-linear simulation model was developed
in the modelica language by Markus Eck et al. [6] for a study of the
interaction between the collector loop and the control system in a
parabolic trough based DSG plant. The simulation result showed a
significant reduction in the temperature deviations in a recirculation
mode type DSG plant compared to the simple proportional–integral
controller type DSG plant caused by the feed forward control. In some
solar thermal power plants synthetic oil is used as HTF in the con-
centrators and molten salt is used as thermal storage system (TES) when
excess energy is available. This solar field is connected to the steam
turbine circuit via a heat exchanger. Synthetic oil based plant is simple
from the control point of view and does not involve two phase flow
complications in solar field unlike in DSG. Jan Fabian Feldhoff et al. [7]
compared the efficiency and levelized electricity costs (LEC) of two
promising solar power plant concepts with different HTF and TES. In
both concepts, 100 MWel gross turbine with a 9 h storage capacity was
considered as a bench mark. In one concept, DSG in parabolic trough
collector was considered with two parts TES, a sensible part of three

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: samson@niot.res.in (V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.12.045
Received 28 August 2017; Received in revised form 21 December 2017; Accepted 23 December 2017
Available online 17 January 2018
0011-9164/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al. Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22

Nomenclature τ Phase change relaxation time, s

Γ Mass flow rate of seawater on one side of the tube,
A Heat transfer area kg.m− 1.s− 1
a Steam-water interface concentration, m2.m− 3 μ Dynamic viscosity, N.s.m− 2
H Total enthalpy, kJ α Thermal diffusivity, m2.s− 1
h Specific enthalpy, kJ.kg− 1
ha Heat transfer coefficient, W.m− 2.K− 1 Subscripts and superscripts
M Mass, kg
ṁ Mass flow rate, kg.s− 1 B Boundary parameter
P Pressure, bar c Condensation
Q̇ Heat transfer rate, W e Evaporation
r Latent heat of evaporation/condensation, kJ.kg− 1 in Inlet
T Temperature, °C out Outlet
t Time, s 1 Water
V Volume, m3 2, S Steam
v Specific volume, m3.kg− 1 21 Interfacial transfer from steam to water
n Total number of effects ‘ Saturated water
ΔT Temperature difference, °C "
Saturated steam
F Feed seawater flow rate, kg.s− 1 1 First effect
B Brine flow rate, kg.s− 1 n last effect
D Distillate(vapour) flow rate, kg.s− 1 1a Condensation component in liquid form inside the tube
L Latent heat, kJ.kg− 1 1b Condensation component in vapour form inside the tube
X Salinity, PPM 2a Evaporation component in liquid form outside the tube
R Resistance 2b Evaporation component in vapour form outside the tube
hin Inside heat transfer coefficient, W.m− 2.K− 1 ou, o outer
hou Outside heat transfer coefficient, W.m− 2.K− 1 in, i inner
g Acceleration due to gravity, m.s− 2 i ith effect
k Thermal conductivity, W.m− 1.k− 1 n nth effect
ν Kinematic viscosity, m− 2.s− 1 1 1st effect
q Heat transfer rate, W tot Total
d Tube diameter, m r entrained vapour
h fg Latent heat of vaporization, kJ.kg− 1 b brine
C Specific heat, kJ.kg− 1.k− 1 d Distillate, discharged steam from TVC
CR Compression ratio fw feed water
ER Expansion ratio fi Inside fouling
fo Outside fouling
Greek symbols wall Tube wall

ρ Density, kg/m3

molten salt tanks and a latent part with phase change material (PCM).
The latent PCM storage used sodium nitrate (NaNO3) as material,
showing a melting temperature of 306 °C. In the other concept, the
synthetic oil was heated in a parabolic trough collector from 295 °C to
about 393 °C and two tank molten salt storage systems with one hot and
one cold tank were considered as TES. The efficiency of the DSG plant
was reported as about 8% better than synthetic oil plant, whereas its
project investment was about 10% higher. This caused higher levelized
electricity costs of the DSG concept solar power plant by about 6%.
When storage capacity was lower than 3 h, DSG with a steam accu-
mulator storage concept's LEC was less compared to synthetic oil HTF
with two-tank molten salt storage concept and molten salt HTF with the
same molten salt storage concept [8]. Hence DSG with steam accu-
mulator as buffer storage concept is found to be the better option for
solar MED-TVC process, as it avoids the potential risk associated with
synthetic oil usage in drinking water plant. Also oil water heat ex-
changer is not necessary in the DSG plant and expensive oil can be
replaced by simple water.
Solar energy based MED process has been studied extensively in
medium size plants. Nashar [9] has presented the performance para-
meters observed at the 18 effect 120 m3/day capacity solar MED plant
located in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E during the first year (1985) of operation.
He has also presented the climatic and sea water data for the plant site.
In this plant 1064 evacuated tube collector panels assembled in 76 rows
of 14 panels in each row were used. The absorber plate area of each
panel was 1.75 m2, giving a total collector area of 1862 m2. In this
plant, water was used as the heat transfer fluid in the solar field and
also heat storage medium. Three vertical cylindrical tanks having total
capacity of 300 m3 were used for hot water storage for the supply of
heat about 16 h after sunset. The sensible heat of this hot water was
used in the first effect of the MED evaporator. Variations were reported
in the performance ratio of the plant. These variations were between
12.5 and 14.0 all through for most of the days during the year 1985
except during the month of August. The overall heat transfer coefficient
for condenser and pre heater was reported to be in the range of 1600 to
1700 kcal/m2h °C (1860 to 1977 W/m2 K) and for the evaporator, it
was 2600 to 3000 kcal/m2 h °C (3024 to 3489 W/m2 K). The conclusion
was that only a fraction of the solar radiation was converted into useful
energy for the production of distillate while another part was lost to the
environment by heat convection and radiation. Heat losses in summer
months were seen as lower than in winter months due to higher am-
bient temperatures in the summer than in the winter.
Bernhard Milow et al. [10] has presented his seven years opera-
tional experience of the 72 m3/day capacity 14 effect solar MED plant

4
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al.
installed in 1988 at the Plataforma Solar de Almeria, Spain. The plant
consisted of 2672 m2 single axis tracking parabolic trough collectors
(PTC), which delivered 6.5 mWht thermal energy daily. In this plant,
synthetic oil was used as a heat transfer fluid in the solar field and also
heat storage medium. A 115 m3 thermocline vessel was used as the
thermal storage system, which stored 5 MWht at charge/discharge
temperatures of 300 °C/225 °C. Vapour at 70 °C produced in a low
pressure boiler was supplied to the first effect. The project was im-
plemented in two phases. In first phase reliability and technical feasi-
bility of coupling solar thermal energy to MED process were demon-
strated. In the second phase, a double-effect absorption heat pump and
a steam ejector based vacuum system were introduced in the system.
Implementation of absorption heat pump and steam jet ejector based
vacuum system was reported as reducing the thermal energy con-
sumption by 44% and electricity consumption by 12%. The thermo-
economic analysis of this plant was presented by Gracia-Rodriguez et al.
[11].
A 6 m3/h capacity 6 effect solar MED-TVC plant was commissioned
at Ramanathapuram, India at 2013 [12–13]. Water was used as HTF in
solar field in this plant. Linear Fresnel reflector of area 1404 m2 con-
centrating the insolation 50 times was used for converting the water
into steam. A 12 m3 volume steam accumulator was used as buffer
storage to store the steam. This steam accumulator corrected the dif-
ferences between steam production and consumption rates and deliv-
ered steam at constant pressure of 5 bar and a constant flow rate of
635 kg/h to the process, out of which 35 kg/h was used in steam jet
ejector based vacuum system and 600kg/h was fed to the TVC through
control valves. The plant produced fresh water at quality < 5 ppm.
Direct storage of high pressure steam in a pressure vessel is not
economical due to low volumetric energy density whereas, saturated or
superheated steam is stored in the steam accumulator as sensible heat
in pressurized saturated liquid water (up to 1.2 kWh/m3) due to its high
heat capacity also act as a buffer storage for meeting the difference
between production and consumption [14]. In this accumulator, char-
ging takes place when saturated or superheated steam which is gener-
ated in the solar field enters the accumulator, which contains relatively
low pressure saturated steam and water initially. There is an increase in
the temperature and pressure of the water in the accumulator when the
accumulator is getting charged with superheated steam. This is due to
the condensation of the superheated steam. But the variation in the
liquid mass is very little. During the discharging process pressure
sliding takes place in the accumulator. This results in flash evaporation
of high pressure water and generation of saturated steam in the accu-
mulator. The volume specific thermal energy density depends on the
saturation temperature during pressure sliding in discharging process
and its values are in the range of 20–30 kWh/m3 [15]. Since water is
used both as working fluid and storage in direct steam generation based
solar-MED process, steam accumulator is found to be well suited for
meeting the storage requirement in this process. Steinmann et al. [15]
have proposed a physical model of a sliding pressure steam accumulator
for compensation of transients in insolation for a solar thermal system
using steam as working medium. Stevanovic et al. [16] have developed
a non-equilibrium numerical model for steam accumulator based on
mass and energy balance equations for predicting steam accumulator
capacity. Using this model the pressure transients of the steam accu-
mulator in the coal drying plant during charging and discharging of the
steam were predicted and the results were compared with results seen
in the equilibrium model. A numerical model for the two stage thermal
storage system was developed by Fengwu Bai et al. [17]. In this model
concrete was considered in the high temperature heat storage stage and
steam accumulator was considered in the low temperature stage. The
exiting temperature of steam in both the steam accumulator and the
concrete storage was seen decreasing with discharging time for such a
two stage thermal storage system. This was the result of this
5
Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22
simultaneous decline in the energy quality for both stages that resulted
in cascade utilization of thermal energy. Buschle et al. [18] have ush-
ered in the concept of Phase Change Material (PCM) enhanced varying
pressure steam accumulator. In this concept, a pump ensures the cir-
culation of water between a tube register with externally arranged PCM
to the steam accumulator. The same concept was analyzed using
Modelica and the results were presented. Baldini et al. [19] have pro-
posed a thermodynamic model for solar parabolic trough based steam
generator with steam accumulator for sizing the solar field and accu-
mulator. Exergy efficiency of the system was analyzed using this model.
The conclusion was that the largest exergy destruction took place in the
solar collector due to temperature rise of water in the solar field, while
the contribution of the steam accumulator was relatively small. Baozhi
Sun et al. [20] validated the non-equilibrium thermodynamic model
proposed by Stevanovic et al. [16] through testing with a lab-based
steam accumulator system for accurate prediction of the dynamic
characteristics of steam catapult's steam accumulator and proposed a
revised relaxation time for evaporation and condensation.
The reliability of the MED plant performance depends on the
mathematical models considered for arriving at the MED process
parameters and correlations used for arriving at the Heat Transfer
Coefficient (HTC) while designing the plant. Hence consideration of
suitable mathematical model and use of appropriate HTC are essential
when designing a new plant. El-Dessouky et al. [21] have proposed
extensive mathematical models for multi effect desalination with
thermo vapour compressor process in steady state conditions to de-
termine the effect of important design and operating variables. These
mathematical models were solved by a modified fixed point iteration
algorithm. The algorithm consists of 10 calculation blocks and 6 logical
blocks was implemented using the L-A-S computer aided language. The
conclusion was that the plant thermal performance ratio was in-
dependent of the top brine temperature and strongly depended on the
number of effects, whereas the specific heat transfer area increased by
raising the number of effects and reducing the top brine temperature.
Bin Amer [22] has developed a steady state mathematical model for
parallel feed MED-TVC process using an Engineering Equation Solver.
The model was validated with three commercial MED-TVC units. He
has also proposed two approaches to find the optimum operating and
design conditions for MED-TVC unit: (1) Smart Exhaustive Search
Method (SESM) and (2) sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP). The
conclusion was that the results obtained by SQP method were better
than those obtained by SESM and the corresponding total execution
time was also less. The results led to the inference of variations between
8.5 and 18.5 for 4 and 12 effects for the maximum gain ratio with an
optimal top brain temperature ranging from 55.8 to 67. 5 °C. Mabrouk
et al. [23] have proposed a mathematical model for predicting the
CaCO3 formation and CO2 release in a triangular pitch tube bundle
arrangement. The conclusion was that increasing the feed seawater to
twice that of the original flow caused reduction in the scale thickness by
15% whereas the scale deposite thickness at a tube pitch of 2 ∗ d was
30% lower than that at tube pitch of 1.3 ∗ d.
Kamali et al. [24] have developed mathematical models for predicting
the design data for plate type evaporator and shell and tube type eva-
porator of 1200 m3/day capacity MED-TVC unit and compared the eva-
porator results. They have also presented the influence of design and
operating parameters like Number of effects, first effect steam tempera-
ture, salt concentration ratio on performance ratio of the system. Ibrahim
et al. [25] have proposed a steady state mathematical model and analyzed
the influence of important design and operating variables on the perfor-
mance of the plant. The conclusion was a variation in the gain output
ratio between 7.34 and 15.04 for 4 effects and 12 effects. A dynamic
mathematical model for MED-TVC process was proposed by Mohammad
et al. [26]. The transient and steady state behavior of this model was
investigated by applying disturbance and also changing the operating
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al.
point which happened in a real condition. Muhammad et al. [27] have
proposed a mathematical model for hybrid system consisted of multi ef-
fect desalination with Adsorption Desalination (AD). In this system the
last effect was connected to the adsorbent bed where silica gel was packed
in the form of cakes. This combination of MED and AD brought down the
temperature of last effect below ambient due to the high affinity of va-
pour and helped insertion of more number of effects and hence more
recoveries and also reduce the corrosion chances. This hybridization of
MED with AD was also reported to increase the production more than
threefold with the same top brine temperature as compared with tradi-
tional MED plants. The same author has proposed a correlation for hor-
izontal tube falling film evaporation for sub-atmospheric conditions,
Fig. 1. Schematic of solar MED-TVC process.
6
Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22
pressure ranged from 0.93 to 3.60 kPa and sea water ranged from 15,000
to 90,000 mg/l based on the experimental results [28]. In the proposed
correlation, a new term was introduced to capture bubble agitation effects
as compared to the conventional falling film evaporation correlations.
The conclusion was that at low saturation temperatures, the bubble agi-
tation phenomena boosted the heat transfer coefficients by as much as
two to three fold as compared to the conventional Han & Fletcher cor-
relation. The effect of feed flow rate in the evaporator, tube diameter,
bundle effect, wall temperature etc. were studied experimentally by Raju
Abraham et al. [29] and this results were validated with Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) results and also compared with published data
available in the literature. Heat transfer coefficient was reported as the
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al.
highest for the top tube in the bundle and decreased proportionately to
the position of the tube in the bundle and it stabilized within the first 10
rows. The heat transfer performance increased with feed rate, but de-
creased with tube diameter. The experimental and CFD results suggested
that In-line tube configuration as found to be better compared to stag-
gered tube configuration.
Many researchers have published mathematical models for multi ef-
fect desalination processes for simulation and economic evaluation pur-
poses. Operational data of several plants are available in literature for the
MED-TVC process. More experimental results are available for predicting
heat transfer in horizontal tube falling film evaporation. However there is
no literature which focusing the influence of steam accumulator in solar
MED-TVC process. In the present study, the effects of two different types
of steam accumulators, namely varying pressure steam accumulator and
constant pressure steam accumulator on solar MED-TVC process were
investigated. Computational codes have been written in MATLAB for this
purpose and the simulation results discussed.
2. Process description
A schematic diagram of a solar MED-TVC desalination process is
presented in Fig. 1. The major components involved in the process are
solar field, steam separator, steam accumulator, thermo vapour com-
pressor, horizontal falling film evaporator (effects), pumps, condenser and
feed pre heaters. In this study, the solar field parameters in Ramanatha-
puram plant have been considered [12]. LFR type solar thermal con-
centrating system is available in the solar field. The LFR is in two modules
are connected in parallel. Each module having a collector area of 702 m2
and hence total collector area in the solar field is 1404 m2. In each
module, an array of eight linear mirrors of each 1.8 m width and 48.75 m
long has been arranged in the tracking system. These mirrors focus sun
light on a stationary linear receiver. In a linear receiver, eight absorber
tubes which are connected in series, made of SS 304 having dimensions of
outer diameter 33.4 mm and inner diameter 26.7 mm are housed in a
trapezoidal cavity. This trapezoidal cavity has glass cover at the bottom
and insulation at the other three sides to reduce heat loss. The reflected
sun rays pass through the glass cover and are incident on the absorber
tubes. Water, while passing through the absorber tubes, gets heated and
subsequently becomes steam. As the insolation varies in the solar field,
the dryness fraction of the steam also varies in the solar field. Hence solar
field is supplied with surplus of feed water by Variable Frequency Drive
(VFD) in the feed water pump for avoiding dry-out and overheating of the
absorber tubes and to enable achievement of around 0.5–0.6 dryness
fraction of steam in the absorber tubes. This two phase mix generated in
the solar field is fed into the steam separator from side, where the baffle
plates reduce the momentum of the water particles available in the two
phase mix forcing them to settle down at the bottom of the steam se-
parator thereby removing the water particles. This saturated water col-
lected at the steam separator is re-circulated along with the treated make-
up water from MED output to solar field. Dry steam from separator is fed
into the steam accumulator. Steam accumulator supplies the constant
pressure and constant mass flow rate motive steam to the thermo vapour
compressor through pressure control cum flow control valve. A part of
vapour from the last effect is also entrained into the thermo vapour
compressor. Hence both motive steam and entrained vapour are fed
through de-super heater into the tubes of the first effect at discharge
pressure, where they condense and supply its latent heat to the feed sea
water which is sprayed over the tubes as falling film. This latent heat of
condensation increases the temperature of the falling film water to top
brine temperature. Evaporation takes place in the shell side of the effect
and a fraction of the feed sea water is converted into vapour and the
remaining liquid becomes brain. This is the result of low pressure which is
less than the saturation pressure of falling film water maintained in the
shell side of the effect by the steam jet ejector based vacuum system. The
7
Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22
evaporated vapour of the first effect is supplied to the next effect and
serves as the heating steam for the second effect and the same process is
repeated in successive effects due to slightly lower pressure maintained in
the effects than the previous effect. The remaining part of the vapour from
the last effect, after a portion is entrained in the thermo vapour com-
pressor, condenses in the condenser. A small fraction of the generated
vapour is used for preheating the feed seawater in pre-heaters. A total of
six effects are considered in the evaporator and except in the sixth effect,
in each effect one pre heater is employed.
3. Discretization and simulation analysis
Three sets of governing equations have been considered in this
study. One set of governing eqs. (A1 to A6 in Appendix A) proposed by
Stevanovic et al. [16] have been utilised for steam accumulator ana-
lysis. A second set of governing eqs. (B1 to B23 in Appendix B) derived
by basic heat and mass balance have been considered for calculating the
fresh water generation rate in MED-TVC process. A third set of gov-
erning eqs. (C1 to C7 in Appendix C) have been utilised for predicting
heat transfer area in the MED evaporator. The discretization method
used was the finite difference method, and the most common finite
difference representation of derivatives is based on Taylor's series of
expansion. In this study, partial derivatives in the governing equations
proposed by Stevanovic et al. [16] for steam accumulator have been
replaced by algebraic difference quotient; thus the original partial dif-
ferential equations were discretized. The previous time step values were
used in this simulation study for the calculation of the current time step
as per finite backward difference method. 39,600 time steps have been
used to simulate the actual duration of 11 h between 9:00 h and
20:00 h. Computational codes were written in the MATLAB for this si-
mulation. It is the language of technical computing which is widely
used by scientists and engineers. In this simulation study an open
source code known as Xsteam was used for obtaining water and steam
thermodynamic properties at different temperatures, pressures and
enthalpies. In this open source code, steam and water properties are
based on the International Association for Properties of Water and
Steam Industrial Formulation 1997(IAPWS IF-97). It provides accurate
data for water and steam properties from 0 to 1000 bar and from 0 to
2000 °C. In this simulation, the temperature, enthalpy, and mass of
water and steam in the accumulator in each time step and pressure of
the accumulator in each time step have been found and the distillate
output was calculated on the basis of the governing equations men-
tioned for MED-TVC process. When pressure and its corresponding
enthalpy of steam accumulator were used to calculate the transient
value of the water specific volume, the results will not be correct [20].
Hence only the pressure of the steam accumulator was used to calculate
the water specific volume in this simulation. The flow chart for the
MATLAB code is presented in the Appendix D.
In this study, three different groups of simulations have been per-
formed. In the first group of simulations, transient behavior of steam
accumulator and the corresponding MED-TVC system yield have been
analyzed. In the second group, the influence of steam accumulator
volume on the varying pressure type and on the constant pressure type
steam accumulator has been analyzed. In the varying pressure type
accumulator, no water was fed or removed from the accumulator
(ṁ 1in = ṁ 1out = 0), hence there was very little variation in this liquid
mass. Charging and discharging of steam took place; hence there were
change in pressure and temperature in this type accumulator. In con-
stant pressure type steam accumulator, charging and discharging of
steam took place and also water was fed into the accumulator when
pressure of the accumulator exceeded the set pressure of the accumu-
lator, hence pressure was almost constant during operation. In this
study, the maximum set pressure of the constant pressure type accu-
mulator was considered as 8 bar and when the pressure of the
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al. Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22

accumulator exceeded 8 bar, 3 kg water at 28 °C was considered as fed
into the accumulator. In the third group of simulation, the influence of
cloud cover above the solar field (irradiance disturbance) on both type
of steam accumulator was analyzed. The results of the simulations have
been discussed in three different sections.
All simulations were performed with the same values as the empirical
parameters in the model considered by Stevanovic et al. [16]: the con-
densation and also evaporation relaxation time was (τ) = 85 s and the
product of the heat transfer coefficient from steam to liquid water and the
steam-water interface area concentration was (ha)21 = 50,000 W/m3-K.
The assumption in all performed simulations was that in the initial state,
liquid water and steam were in thermal equilibrium determined by the
initial pressure in the accumulator which was 2.182 bar in the simula-
tions. The initial water and steam mass in the accumulator were calcu-
lated by the initial liquid water level, which specified in each simulation
in terms of percentage of total volume of the accumulator. In all the si-
mulations performed, pressure of the steam (Psf) and mass of the steam
(Msf) generated in solar field of RAMDAS plant [12] were considered as
input parameters. Three conditions were considered in all simulations.
The first condition is, if solar field pressure is greater than the accumu-
lator pressure, steam is fed into the steam accumulator from the solar field
or no steam is fed into the steam accumulator, In practice this first con-
dition appears valid. The second condition is, if pressure in the steam
accumulator is > 5 bar, steam discharged from the accumulator is

Fig. 2. Transient simulation results of 12 m3 volume steam ac-

cumulator.
Solar Insolaon Steam generaon rate in solar field a
Solar Insolaon W/m2

Steam generaon rate kg/s

1000 1
800 0.8
600 0.6
400 0.4
200 0.2
0 0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h

Steam accumulator pressure Solar Field Pressure b

61
51
41
Pressure, bar

31
21
11
1
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h

Steam charged into the steam accumulator

Steam discharged from steam accumulator to MED c
0.25
Rate of steam mass, kg/s

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h

Mass of water in accumlator Mass of steam in accumlator d

7000 70
Mass of water, kg

Mass of steam, kg

6000 60
5000 50
4000 40
3000 30
2000 20
1000 10
0 0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h

8
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al. Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22

0.176 kg/s (635 kg/h), else 0 kg/s, since 5 bar pressure is the process
requirement as per Shinu M. Varghese et al. [12]. The third condition is, if
the volume of water in the accumulator is > 10% of the total volume of
the accumulator, steam discharged from the accumulator is 0.176 kg, else
0 kg, as it is always safe to maintain water level above 10% of accumu-
lator total volume in the accumulator to ensure submergence of steam
charging nozzle in water.
4. Result and discussion
4.1. Transient behavior of steam accumulator on solar MED-TVC process
In this study, the mass and pressure of steam generated in the solar
field at experimental plant [12] were considered as input parameters.
The mass of steam generated in the solar field and the solar insolation at
that duration is presented in Fig. 2a. In this simulation, the volume of
the accumulator was considered as 12 m3 and 50% of the accumulator
volume was considered as filled with water initially. No water was fed
into or removed from the accumulator, hence ṁ 1in = ṁ 1out = 0. The
simulations results are discussed in this section.
A comparison of the solar field pressure and its influence on steam
accumulator's pressure is shown in Fig. 2b. The pressure increased
steadily in solar field from 2.18 bar to 49.31 bar, due to increase in
solar insolation. Then the solar field pressure decreased gradually due
to decrease in solar insolation. As the accumulator was getting charged
with this super heated steam from solar field, the temperature and
pressure of the water and steam increased in the accumulator due to
condensation of superheated steam. Initially the pressure in the accu-
mulator increased quickly up to 5 bar as the discharge valve was in a
closed condition and set pressure to open the discharge valve was only
5 bar. After attaining 5 bar, both charging of steam from solar field to
accumulator and discharging of steam from accumulator to process at
the rate of 0.176 kg/s took place simultaneously, hence pressure raise
was gradual and the maximum pressure attained by the accumulator
was 9.65 bar. After that, as the solar field pressure was less than the
accumulator pressure, charging stopped and only discharging of steam
took place. During discharging process pressure sliding took place in
the accumulator. This resulted in flash evaporation of high pressure
water and generation of saturated steam in the accumulator and re-
duction of water mass. Hence again a slight increase in pressure took
place in the accumulator. When the volume of water was < 10% of the
volume of the accumulator, discharge of steam also stopped as it was
the set volume to ensure submergence of steam charging nozzle in
water. The total duration of discharging in the present simulation was
27,046 s. The rate of steam mass charged into the accumulator from
solar field and rate of steam mass discharged from the accumulator for
process are presented in Fig. 2c.
The mass of water and mass of steam in the steam accumulator are

Fig. 3. Temperature and Thermal energy in 12 m3 volume steam

Temperature of water in steam accumulator

200
Temperature of steam in steam accumulator a accumulator.
Temperature, OC

180
160
140
120
100
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h
Instantaneous energy charging into the accumulator
Instantaneous energy discharging from the accumulator b
700
600
500
400
Energy, kJ

300
200
100
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h

Termal energy stored in terms of hot water

c
Thermal energy stored in terms of Steam
8.00E+06
Total thermal energy stored in accumulator
6.00E+06
Energy, kJ

4.00E+06

2.00E+06

0.00E+00
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h

9
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al. Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22

Table 1 charging and discharging were less. There was no rapid charge or dis-
Input data. charge of steam from the accumulator. Hence temperature difference
between water and steam was only negligible, though non-equilibrium
Parameter Unit Value
model was considered in this analysis. The instantaneous energy
Number of effects 6 charged into the steam accumulator and discharged from the steam
Pressure of motive steam bar 5 accumulator is presented in Fig. 3b. The energy stored in the form of
Flow rate of motive steam kg/s 0.167
o
pressurized hot water, super heated steam and the total energy avail-
Temperature of feed seawater C 28
Flow rate of feed seawater (‘Ftot’) kg/s 4.7267 able in the steam accumulator are presented in Fig. 3c.
Salinity of feed seawater ppm 35,000 During this simulation, the duration of the discharge of steam from
Temperature raise considered in effects °C 5 the accumulator was 27,046 s and the amount of steam discharged from
Saturation temperature of first effect °C 63 the accumulator was 0.176 kg/s. Out of this, 0.167 kg/s was supplied
Saturation temperature of last effect °C 50
for the operation of TVC and remaining was considered for steam jet
Length of the tubes m 1.6
Outside diameter of the tubes mm 25.4 ejector based vacuum system operation. The input parameters con-
Liquid load (Γ) Kg/m-s 0.01 sidered for obtaining the fresh water yield of the MED-TVC process are
presented in Table 1.The process simulations of MED was carried out
and the results are shown in Tables 2 and 3. In this study the first effect
saturation temperature have been considered as 63 °C and the sixth
Table 2 effect saturation temperature as 50 °C. Hence the temperature differ-
TVC parameters. ence between the effects was 2.6 °C. As parallel feed arrangement was
considered in the evaporator, in each effect 0.79 kg/s feed sea water at
Parameter Unit Value
35000 PPM salinity was considered to be sprayed over the tubes. The
Pressure of motive steam bar 5 corresponding Reynolds number of the feed sea water was 21.96, which
Flow rate of motive steam Kg/s 0.167 was well above the minimum Reynolds number(Remin = q/48) re-
Vapour pressure in 6th effect bar 0.124
commended by Fujita et al. [34] to be maintained for avoiding dry-out.
Entrainment ratio 0.975
Rate entrainment from 6th effect Kg/s 0.171 The temperature raise of feed seawater in each pre heaters was also
Discharge pressure of TVC bar 0.245 considered as 2.6 °C. The total temperature raise of feed sea water in
Discharge flow rate of TVC Kg/s 0.338 final condenser and steam jet ejector's condenser was considered as
17 °C. Hence the feed seawater temperature in the effects were 58 °C,
55.4 °C, 52.8 °C, 50.2 °C, 47.6 °C and 45 °C from first to sixth effects
respectively. As the entrainment ratio of the TVC was 0.975 [12], the
presented in Fig. 2d. During this process, despite the condensation of amount of steam supplied to the first effect was 0.338 kg/s as shown in
superheated steam taking place, variation in liquid mass in the accu- Table 2. The governing Eqs. (B1) to (B23) in Appendix B have been
mulator was less due to discharging also took place simultaneously. considered for arriving at the fresh water yield and the corresponding
When charging of steam stopped and only discharge took place, mass of fresh water generation rate from first effect to sixth effect obtained in
the water decreased gradually and mass of steam increased due to flash this study were 0.33 kg/s, 0.32 kg/s, 0.30 kg/s, 0.28 kg/s, 0.26 kg/s
evaporation of high pressure water. When both charge and discharge of and 0.24 kg/s respectively as shown in Table 3. The average recovery
steam stopped, a small fraction of water was flash evaporating up to the ratio of the first effect was 42% and it was only 29% at the sixth effect.
end of simulation due to slight non-equilibrium between water and This decrease in recovery ratio was due to a reduction in the heat flux
steam in accumulator. This non-equilibrium process occurred mainly induced in the tubes from 1st effect to 6th effect while the overall re-
because the water was still in a superheated state and also due to covery ratio was 36.6%.
thermal inertia of water. The governing Eqs. (C1) to (C7) in Appendix C have been con-
The temperatures of water and of steam in the steam accumulator sidered for arriving at the overall heat transfer coefficient of the MED
are presented in Fig. 3a. During this process, the variation in rate of evaporator and the corresponding overall heat transfer coefficient from

Table 3
MED-TVC process parameters.

Parameters Unit Effect 1 Effect 2 Effect 3 Effect 4 Effect 5 Effect 6

Saturation pressure of effects bar 0.229 0.203 0.180 0.159 0.140 0.124
Saturation temperature of effects °C 63.0 60.4 57.8 55.2 42.6 50.0
Temperature of feed sea water (Sprayed over the tubes) °C 58.0 55.0 53.0 50.0 48.0 45.0
Flow rate of feed sea water kg/s 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Reynolds number of feed sea water 21.96 21.96 21.96 21.96 21.96 21.96
Temperature of vapour (inside the evaporator tubes) °C 65.2 62.6 60.0 57.4 54.8 52.2
Velocity of vapour inside the tubes m/s 0.0012 0.0013 0.0015 0.0016 0.0018 0.002
Heat load of evaporator kW 793 765 730 686 634 574
Heat load of Pre Heaters (PH) and Final condenser (FC) kW 8.56 (PH1) 17.12 (PH2) 25.68 (PH3) 34.24 (PH4) 42.80 (PH5) 150 (FC)
Vapour generation rate in effects kg/s 0.33 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.23
Brine salinity (leaving the tube bundle) ppm 60,237 58,666 56,760 54,595 52,244 49,778
Overall HTC W/m2.K 1665 1649 1633 1616 1599 1581
Total heat transfer area m2 220 214 206 195 182 166
Specific heat transfer area m2/kg/s 667 669 687 696 700 722
Number of horizontal tubes Nos 38 38 38 38 38 38
Number of vertical tubes Nos 46 45 43 41 38 35
Fresh water yield of the MED-TVC system kg/s 1.73
Gain output ratio (GOR) 10.36
Universal Performance Ratio (UPR) 87.29
Thermodynamic Limit (TL) 10.54%

10
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al. Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22

Fig. 4. Analysis results of varying pressure type accumulator.

4cu.m 8cu.m 12cu.m 16cu.m
a
Steam charging rate into

0.25
the accumulator, kg/s

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h
4cu.m 8cu.m 12cu.m 16cu.m
25
b
accumulator, bar
Pressure of the

20
15
10
5
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h

4cu.m 8cu.m 12cu.m 16cu.m c

9000
Mass of water in the

8000
accumulator, kg

7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
TIme, h

4cu.m 8cu.m 12cu.m 16cu.m d

Steam discharging rate from

0.2
the accumulator, kg/s

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h

the first effect to the sixth effect was 1665 W/m2-K, 1649 W/m2-K,
1633 W/m2-K, 1616 W/m2-K, 1599 W/m2-K and 1581 W/m2-K re-
spectively. The heat transfer areas required for the MED evaporator
were 220 m2, 214 m2, 206 m2, 195 m2, 182 m2 and 166 m2 from first
effect to sixth effect respectively. As shown in Table 3 the maximum
vapour velocity through the tubes was below the technical limit of
60 m/s and velocity through demister was lower than 8 m/s [23].
Considering the total fresh water generation rate of 1.73 kg/s in the
entire MED-TVC process, the total yield obtained from the steam dis-
charging duration of 27,046 s was 46,695 kg and the Gain Output Ratio
(GOR) was 10.36 in this study. As 2.6 kWh electrical energy and
77.66 kWh thermal energy were consumed per cubic meter of fresh
water generation, the Universal Performance Ratio (UPR) [35] of this
process was 87.29 and Thermodynamic Limit (TL) of this process was
10.54%.

11
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al. Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22

Fig. 5. Analysis results of constant pressure type accumulator.

4cu.m 8cu.m 12cu.m 16cu.m
a
Steam charging rate into

0.250
the accumulator, kg/s

0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h
4cu.m 8cu.m 12cu.m 16cu.m
10 b
8
Pressure of steam
accumulator, bar

0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h
4cu.m 8cu.m 12cu.m 16cu.m
10000 c
8000
Mass of water in the
accumulator, kg

6000
4000
2000
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
TIme, h

4cu.m
0.200
8cu.m 12cu.m 16cu.m
d
from the accumulator, kg/s
Steam discharging rate

0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h

4.2. Influence of volume of the steam accumulator on solar MED-TVC
process
The influence of accumulator volume has been analyzed on both
varying pressure type as well as constant pressure type steam accu-
mulator. There was variation in the accumulator volume from 4 m3 to
16 m3 in increment of 4 m3 and the initial volume of water was con-
sidered as 50% of the total accumulator volume. The mass and pressure
of steam generated in the solar field at experimental plant [12] was
considered as input parameters as presented in the previous Section 4.1.
The steam charging rate, pressure, mass of water and steam
discharging rate in the varying pressure type accumulator are presented
in the Fig. 4a to d respectively. Fig. 4a shows increase in the charging
duration with increases in the accumulator volume. This was due to
increase in mass of water, which was the result of an increase in volume
of accumulator, which stored the energy of the charged steam as a
sensible heat. At the same time, an increase in accumulator volume
decreased the maximum pressure attained by the accumulator as shown
in Fig. 4b. The maximum pressure attained by accumulators were
19.78 bar, 12.14 bar, 9.56 bar and 8.41 bar in 4 m3, 8 m3, 12 m3 and
16 m3 capacity accumulators respectively. Fig. 4c shows the small
variation in water mass compared to the initial water mass in the

12
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al.
30000
Duration of production, s
28000
26000
24000
22000
20000
0 4 8 12 16
Volume of the steam accumulator in m3
accumulator during charging process. When the solar field pressure was
less than the accumulator pressure the charging stopped and only dis-
charge took place. Pressure sliding took place during this period and
there was a reduction in the mass of water due to flash evaporation in
the accumulator. This is shown in Fig. 4b and c.
The pressure dropped quickly during the pressure sliding process
then increased slightly before finally stabilizing. The occurrence of this
phenomenon was due to the entry of a fraction of the steam into the
steam space directly before an ample heat exchange and equilibrium
with water during charging time, this effect leading to a quick raise in
pressure during charging process. When charge stopped and discharge
took place, the steam in the steam accumulator condensed and trans-
formed into water because of the energy potential difference between
the steam and water phase, which caused a quick drop in the pressure.
Then due to non-equilibrium effect between steam and water and also
due to thermal inertia of water, flash evaporation happened and the
pressure of accumulator was increasing slightly until it reached a new
equilibrium state.
The Fig. 5a to d show the steam charging rate, pressure, mass of
water, and steam discharging rate in the constant pressure type steam
accumulator respectively. In the constant pressure type accumulator,
the maximum pressure attained by the accumulator was 8 bar as it was
the set pressure. Fig. 5b shows increase in the duration for attaining this
maximum pressure with increases in the accumulator volume. This was
due to increase in mass of water, which was the result of increase in
volume of accumulator, which stored the energy of the charged steam
as a sensible heat. Following the attainment of 8 bar pressure, the
variation in the pressure was seen as less despite charge and discharge
of steam taking place simultaneously. This was due to 3 kg water at
28 °C fed into the accumulator when pressure was exceeding 8 bar. The
32000
Duration of production, s
31000
30000
29000
28000
27000
0 4 8 12 16
Volume of the steam accumulator in m3
Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22
Fig. 6. Duration and mass of production in the varying pressure
55000 type accumulator coupled MED-TVC process.
Amount of producon, kg
51000 Duraon of
producon in
47000 seconds
43000
39000 Amount of
producon in kgs
35000
20
Fig. 5c shows increase in water mass due to charging of sub cooled feed
water in the accumulator. As discussed earlier when the solar field
pressure was less than the pressure of the accumulator, only discharge
of steam and also reduction in mass of water took place in the accu-
mulator as in Fig. 5c.
The steam discharging rate from the varying pressure and constant
pressure type accumulator to MED-TVC are presented in Fig. 4d and
Fig. 5d respectively. The 4 m3 volume accumulators (both constant as
well as varying type) discharged the steam quickly for MED operation
also stopped the steam at the earliest, whereas 16 m3 steam accumu-
lators took a longer duration for discharge of steam for MED operation
and also it took a longer duration to stop the discharge of steam. As the
mass of water which stored the energy as sensible heat was less in 4 m3
accumulator as compared to 16 m3, it quickly attained above 5 bar due
to condensation of charged super heated steam. Whereas in the 16 m3
accumulator the water mass was more, hence it took time to attain
5 bar which was the set pressure to open discharge valve. Following the
stopping of charge in the accumulator, as the water mass was less in
4 m3 accumulator as compared to 16 m3, it quickly attained 10% of the
total volume of the accumulator during discharge. Whereas in 16 m3
accumulator the water mass was more, it took a longer duration to
attain 10% of the accumulator volume. The duration of production and
the corresponding yield in both varying pressure and constant pressure
type accumulator coupled MED-TVC systems are presented in Figs. 6
and 7 respectively. The figures show increase in accumulator volume
causing increase the amount of fresh water production. It is also re-
vealed that for the same volume of the accumulator, constant pressure
type accumulator coupled MED-TVC system gives more fresh water
yield. This is due to fact that the charging of sub cooled feed water at
intervals, decrease the pressure and increase the amount of steam
Fig. 7. Duration and mass of production in the constant pressure
55000 type accumulator coupled MED-TVC process.
Amount of producon, kg
53000
Duraon of
51000 producon in
seconds
49000
47000 Amount of
producon in
45000 kgs
20
13
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al. Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22

Fig. 8. Pressure and mass of water in the varying pressure type

Distrubance No disturbance a accumulator.
14
Pressure of steam accumulator,

12
10
8
6
bar

4
2
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h
Disturbance No disturbance
b
7000
6000
5000
Mass of water, kg

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
TIme, h

Fig. 9. Pressure and mass of water in the constant pressure type

Distubance No disturbance a accumulator.
Pressure of steam accumulator,

9
8
7
6
bar

5
4
3
2
1
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, h

8000
Disturbance No Disturbance b
7000
Mass of water, kg

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
TIme, h

14
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al.
charged into the constant pressure type accumulator compared to
varying pressure type accumulator.
4.3. Influence of irradiance disturbances on the steam accumulator on solar
MED-TVC process
The influence of cloud cover of a 30 min duration has been analyzed
on both varying pressure type as well as constant pressure type steam
accumulator. In this analysis 39,600 time steps, which is 09:00 h to
20:00 h has been simulated. Out of which, the period of 13:00 to
13:30 h was considered as cloud cover above the solar field and no
steam generation during this period has been considered. The simula-
tion results have been compared with the results obtained without
cloud cover case. In this analysis, 50% water level is considered at
12 m3 capacity accumulators.
A comparison of the pressure and mass of water at varying pressure
type accumulator with cloud cover and without is shown in Fig. 8a and
b. At 13:00 h, the accumulator attained 8.18 bar and mass of water was
6118 kg in both cases. During cloud cover time, only discharge of steam
occured in the accumulator and pressure sliding took place in the ac-
cumulator and it attained 7.37 bar at 13:30 h. There was a decrease in
the mass of water from 6118 kg to 4745 kg in the cloud cover case as a
result of flash evaporation whereas there was attainment of 8.81 bar in
a situation without cloud cover with the mass of water increasing from
6118 kg to 6153 kg. This is shown in Fig. 8a and b. There was a steep
increase in pressure in the accumulator after cloud cover time whereas
in the case without cloud cover the pressure increase was gradual. This
phenomenon occurred because lesser water mass (due to reduction in
water mass during cloud cover period) stored the energy in the case
with cloud cover. The corresponding duration of production was
27,046 s and 21,821 s in the case without and with cloud cover re-
spectively. The production of fresh water was 46,695 kg and 37,674 kg
for the case without and with cloud cover respectively. Similarly, there
was a reduction in the mass of water from 6175 kg to 4823 kg and
reduction in the pressure from 7.99 bar to 7.17 bar in the constant
pressure type accumulator during cloud cover period. This was due to
flash evaporation of high pressure water as a result decrease in pressure
of accumulator from 7.99 bar to 7.17 bar. In the case without cloud
cover, there was an increase in the mass of water from 6175 kg to
6374 kg, with pressure maintained constant at 8.00 bar. This is shown
in Fig. 9a and b. The corresponding duration of production was
29,819 Seconds and 26,608 s and amount of production of fresh water
were 51,482 kg and 45,939 kg for the case without and with cloud
cover respectively. The results show the overall reduction in fresh water
Appendix A. Governing equations for steam accumulator
Liquid mass balance in the accumulator is given as
dM1
= ṁ 1B + ṁ PT 1
dt
where, ṁ 1B is the net mass balance of liquid water due to inlet and outlet of water in the accumulator. ṁ PT1 is the net liquid mass balance due to
evaporation and condensation of water in the accumulator.
Similarly the steam mass balance in the accumulator is given as
dM2
= ṁ 2B + ṁ PT 2
dt
where, ṁ 2B is the net mass balance of steam due to inlet and outlet of steam in the accumulator. ṁ PT2 is the net steam mass balance due to
evaporation and condensation of steam in the accumulator.
As the volume of the accumulator is constant and there is no work applied on the steam accumulator, the enthalpy of both liquid and gaseous
phase of the accumulator is given as follows, when neglecting the potential and kinetic energies.
Enthalpy change with respect to time of liquid phase is given as,
15
Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22
production was 19.32% in varying pressure type accumulator coupled
MED-TVC system. This was due to cloud cover of 30 min. Similarly the
reduction in fresh water production was 10.77% in the constant pres-
sure type accumulator coupled MED-TVC system. Hence as compared to
the varying pressure type accumulator, the constant pressure type ac-
cumulator stores and also discharges more steam for the specified solar
field conditions. However both the type of accumulators of 12 m3 ca-
pacity is capable of meeting 30 min steam demand.
5. Conclusion
Steam accumulator is an attractive buffer storage system in solar
MED-TVC process for adjusting the differences between steam pro-
duction and consumption rates. But the challenging task is the predic-
tion of the transient pressure changes in the accumulator under dy-
namic operating conditions due to variations in solar field pressure and
steam generation rate and also the constant discharge of steam from
accumulator to MED-TVC process. Another challenging task in steam
accumulator design is the prediction of accumulator volume that can
provide the required storage capacity between the specified maximum
and minimum pressure limits. Hence transient simulation and also
parametric analysis were performed for the investigation of the impact
of different parameters of steam accumulator on solar MED-TVC pro-
cess's performance. The main conclusions from the simulation results
are as follows:
1) The steam accumulator stores energy in water and so water mass
decides the energy storage capacity of the steam accumulator.
Hence, as the accumulator volume increases, the mass of water
which stores energy as sensible heat is also increasing. This results in
increase in the duration of charge time and duration of steam dis-
charge time from the accumulator. At the same time any increase in
accumulator volume cause a reduction in the maximum pressure
attained by the accumulator for the same solar field capacity.
2) For the same accumulator volume, the constant pressure type ac-
cumulator stores and discharges more steam compared to the
varying pressure type accumulator. Also constant pressure type ac-
cumulator operates within the specified maximum and minimum
pressure limits eliminating the need for higher wall thickness in
accumulator shell.
3) 12 m3 capacity constant pressure type accumulator is capable of
meeting the 30 min steam demand during the cloud cover for the
specified solar field condition.
(A1)
(A2)
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al. Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22

dh1 1 ⎡ dp dM1 ⎤
= ̇ )1B + ṁ PT 1 h" + Q̇21 + V1
(mh − h1
dt M1 ⎣ dt dt ⎦ (A3)
where, (ṁ h)1B is the net energy balance of liquid water due to inlet and outlet flows at the accumulator. Q̇ 21 is the heat transfer rate from the
superheated steam to the liquid.
Similarly steam phase enthalpy is given as
dh2 1 ⎡ dp dM2 ⎤
= ̇ )2B + ṁ PT 2 h" − Q̇21 + V2
(mh − h2
dt M2 ⎣ dt dt ⎦ (A4)
Further, the specific volumes of liquid water and steam are written as functions of pressure and corresponding enthalpies. The volume balance is
differentiated by time and the following equation is obtained

dM1 dM2 ⎛ ∂v dp ∂v dh1 ⎞ ⎛ ∂v2 dp ∂v dh2 ⎞

v1 + v2 + M1 ⎜ 1 + 1 ⎟ + M2 ⎜ + 2 ⎟ = 0
dt dt ⎝ ∂p h
dt ∂h p dt ⎠ ⎝ ∂p h
dt ∂h p dt ⎠ (A5)
Substituting Eqs. (A3) and (A4) in eq. (A5) leads to the following

⎛ ⎛h ∂v1 − v1 ⎞
dM1 ∂v
+ ⎛h2 ∂h2 − v2 ⎞
dM2 ⎞
1
⎜ ⎝ ∂h p ⎠ dt
⎝ p ⎠ dt
⎟
⎜ − ∂v1 + ṁ PT 2 h" − Q21 ]⎟⎟
dp
⎜ ∂h ( ) p
̇ )1B
[(mh + ṁ PT 1 h" + Q̇21] − ( )
∂v 2
∂h p
̇ )2B
[(mh ̇
= ⎝ ⎠
dt ⎛ ⎛ ∂v1 ∂v
⎜ + v1 ∂h1 ⎞ M1 + ⎛ ∂v2 + v2
∂v 2
⎞ M2 ⎟⎞
∂p
⎝⎝ h p⎠ ⎝ ∂p h ∂h p
⎠ ⎠ (A6)
Eq. (A1), (A2), (A3), (A4) and (A6) constitute a set of five first-order ordinary differential equations for the prediction of liquid water and steam
masses, liquid water and steam enthalpies and steam accumulator pressure respectively.

Appendix B. Governing equations for MED-TVC process

Applying mass and energy conservation laws to the evaporator and thermo vapour compressor, the following mathematical models are proposed.
The following assumptions are considered in the models:

• The evaporator and the thermo vapour compressor are perfectly insulated, hence heat loss to the surrounding is negligible.
• Equal temperature difference between feed heaters and effects.
• Distillate is salt free (as compared to feed sea water, the distillate salinity is negligible).
• Non condensable gas effects are negligible.
The energy balance of the TVC and its compression (CR), expansion (ER) and entrainment ratio are calculated as presented by Shinu M. Varghese
et al. [12]:
ṁ 2, out h2, out + ṁ r hr = (ṁ 2, out + ṁ r ) hd (B1)
ṁ 2, out
ṁ r
. h2, out + hr
hd = ṁ 2, out
1+ ṁ r (B2)
Pd
CR = = 1.975806
Pn (B3)
Ps
ER = = 40.32258
Pn (B4)

ṁ 2, out
= 0.97561
ṁ r (B5)
The temperature difference between the effects (Δ T) is assumed to be the same, Hence temperature difference between the effects is calculated as
follows:
T1 − Tn
∆T =
n−1 (B6)
where T1 the first is effect temperature and Tn is the last effect temperature. If the temperature in the effect is Ti, then the temperature in the next
effect Ti + 1 is calculated as follows:
Ti + 1 = Ti − ∆T (B7)
Feed seawater Ftot is distributed equally to all effects, hence feed flow at each effect and brine from each effect are calculated as follows:

16
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al. Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22

Ftot
Fi =
n (B8)
Bi = Fi − Di (B9)
Total brine is calculated as follows:
n
B= ∑ Bi
i=1 (B10)
Motive steam (ṁ 2, out ) from steam accumulator and entrained vapour(mr) from last effect are fed into the tubes of the first effect at discharge
pressure(Pd), where it condenses and supplies its latent heat(Ld) to the feed sea water which is sprayed over the tubes as falling film. This latent heat
of condensation increases the temperature of the feed water(Tfw(1)) to top brine temperature(T1). Evaporation takes place in the shell side of the
effect and a fraction of the water is converted into vapour and remaining becomes brine. This is due to low pressure which is less than the saturation
pressure of water maintained in the shell side of the effect. The vapour generated in the first effect is calculated as follows:
(ṁ 2, out + mr ) (Ld ) T1 − Tfw (1) ⎞
D1 = − F1 C ⎛ ⎜ ⎟

L1 ⎝ L1 ⎠ (B11)
The generated vapour temperature is less than the boiling temperature (Ti) by Boiling point elevation (BPEi) and it is calculated as follows from
the correlations proposed by Dessouky and Ettouney [30]:
BPEi = AX + BX 2 + CX 3 (B12)
where,
A = 8.325 × 10−2 + 1.883 × 10−4 Ti + 4.02 × 10−6 Ti 2

B = −7.625 × 10−4 + 9.02 × 10−5 Ti − 5.2 × 10−7 Ti 2

c = 1.522 × 10−4 − 3 × 10−6 Ti − 3 × 10−8 Ti 2

where Ti is the temperature in °C and X is the salt weight percentage. The above equation is valid over the following ranges: 1 ≤ X ≤ 16%,
10 ≤ Ti ≤ 180 °C.
Pressure loss occurs when the vapour flows through mist eliminator in the evaporator, Temperature drop occurs in the vapour as a result of this
pressure drop. The correlation for pressure drop in the demister(Δ Pme) has been developed by El-Dessouky et al. [30] for industrial type wire pads.
This correlation is given by
∆Pme = 3.88178 (ρp )0.375798 (V )0.81317 (δ w )−1.56114147 (B13)
where Δ Pme is the demister pressure drop in Pa/m, δw is the wire diameter in mm, V is the vapour velocity in the demister in m/s, and ρp is the
demister density in kg/m3.
The pressure drop in the lines connecting the vapour space in effect i and the evaporator tubes of the next effect are calculated using Unwin
formula [30] as follows:

∆Pcl =
0.0001306 m2 L 1 + ( 3.6
δi )
ρv δi5 (B14)
where m is the mass flow rate of the vapour stream in kg/s, L is the tube length in m, δi is the inner diameter in m, ρv is the vapour density in kg/m3
and Δ Pcl is the pressure drop in Pa/m.
Hence the condensation temperature of vapour inside the tube bundle of the next effect is less than the boiling temperature(Ti) by boiling point
elevation(BPEi) and the temperature depression(Δ Tme(i)) associated with the pressure loss due to mist eliminator(Δ Pme) and the temperature de-
pression(Δ Tcl(i)) associated with the pressure loss due to friction in connecting lines(Δ Pcl(i)). Vapour condensing temperature in the next effect is
calculated as follows:
TV (i + 1) = Ti − (BPEi − ∆Tme (i) − ∆Tcl (i) ) (B15)
Pre heater load in each effect is calculated as follows:
PHi = i Fi C (Tfw (i) − Tfw (i + 1) ) (B16)
th
Vapour generated in second to n effect is calculated as follows:

((Di − 1) Li − 1) − PHi − 1 Ti − Tfw (i) ⎞

Di = − Fi C ⎛ ⎜ ⎟

Li ⎝ Li ⎠ (B17)
As the feed arrangement is a parallel feed arrangement, the feed seawater salinity in all effects is the same(Xfw). The salt mass conservation law is
applied on the assumption of the distillate being free of salt and the brine salinity which leaves the tube bundle is calculated as follows:
Fi Xfw = Bi Xb (i) + Di Xd (B18)
where Xd = 0

17
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al. Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22

Fi
Xb (i) = Xfw
Bi (B19)
The process performance of the MEE-TVC is evaluated in terms of Gain Output Ratio (GOR) as follows:
n
D= ∑ Di
i=1 (B20)

D
GOR =
ṁ 2, out (B21)
The Universal performance ratio [35] and Thermodynamic Limit of this MEE-TVC is evaluated as follows:
hfg
UPR =
3.6
2
∑i = 1 {φ ( 1
kWhele
m3 )+φ ( TBT
2
kWhther
m3 )} (B22)

UPR
TL = X 100
828 (B23)

Appendix C. Governing equations for calculating heat transfer area of the MED evaporator

Condensation heat transfer co-efficient is calculated using modified Nusselt correlation [31] as follows
1
3 4
hin = 0.728α3/4 ⎛ K1a . ρ1a . (ρ1a − ρ1b ). g . hfg − 1b . ⎟⎞
⎜

⎝ μ1a . din. (T1b − Twall ) ⎠ (C1)

When the axial vapour velocity inside the tube is high and turbulent, Nusselt correlation is no longer valid [28]. In this study the dimensionless
mass velocity (jg*) of vapour inside the tube is < 0.5 and Lockhart-Martinelli parameter (Xtt) is < 1.0, hence the condensate profile is wavy and
stratified. The fraction the heat transfer area where stratified layer exists is accounted for by the term 0.728α3/4 in the above Nusselt correlation
[28].
Evaporation heat transfer co-efficient is calculated using Sernas correlation [32] as follows
1 0.24 0.66
g ⎞ 3 ⎛ 4Γ ⎞ ⎛ ν2a ⎞
hout = 0.01925 k2a ⎛ 2 ⎜
⎜ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟

⎝ 2a ⎠ ⎝ μ 2a ⎠
ν ⎝ α2a ⎠ (C2)
Sernas derived the above empirical equations of the average heat-transfer coefficient for a tube of 25.4 mm diameter from experimental data. It
fits best to the tube diameter considered in this work. The mean quadratic deviation of the above correlation is 3.1% and only one point out of 33
exceeded such a deviation [33].
In this analysis, for calculating the overall heat transfer coefficient and heat transfer area, the value of T1b − Twall in equation: (C1) is unknown.
Hence the following iteration procedure (six steps) is adopted.
Step 1: Rt is calculated using equation: (C3)

r
Rt = o ∗Rfi +
ro ∗ln ( ) +R
ro
ri
fo +
1
ri k hout (C3)
Step 2: A value is assumed for T1b − Twall.
Step 3: hin is calculated from equation: (C1)
Step 4: U is calculated from equation: (C4)
1
U=
r
ro ∗ ln ⎛ o ⎞
ro 1 ro ⎝ ri ⎠ 1
∗
ri hin
+ ri
∗Rfi + k
+ Rfo + hout (C4)
Step 5: T1b − Twall is recalculated from equation: (C5)
T1b − Twall = ΔT (1 − Rt ∗U ) (C5)
where ΔT is the temperature difference between condensing vapour and feed seawater
ΔT = T1b − T2a (C6)
Step 6: The calculations from step 3 repeated and the iteration is continued until T1b − Twall converges.
Q
A=
U ∗ ( T1b − Twall ) (C7)

18
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al. Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22

Appendix D. Flow chart

19
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al. Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22

20
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al.
References
[1] Phanikumar V.S. Sistla, G. Venkatesan, Purnima Jalihal, S. Kathiroli, Low tem-
perature thermal desalination plants, Proceedings of Eighth ISOPE Ocean Mining
Symposium, 2009, 20–24 September Chennai, India. (ISBN 978-1-880653-75-3;
ISSN 1946-0066).
[2] Dilli Balaji, Experimental study on the effect of feed water nozzles on non-
21
Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22
equilibrium temperature difference and flash evaporation in a single stage-
evaporator and an investigation of effect of process parameters on the liquid
flashing in a LTTD desalination process, Desalin. Water Treat. 57 (2016)
27152–27168.
[3] Muhammad Wakil Shahzad, Muhammad Burhan, Noreddine Ghaffour, Kim
Choon Ng, A multi evaporator desalination system operated with thermocline en-
ergy for future sustainability, Desalination (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2017.04.013.
V. Samson Packiaraj Raphael et al.
[4] G. Venkatesan, S. Iniyan, Purnima Jalihal, A theoretical and experimental study of a
small-scale barometric sealed flash evaporative desalination system using low grade
thermal energy, Appl. Therm. Eng. 73 (2014) 627–638.
[5] Michael Berger, Mirko Meyer-Grünefeldt, Dirk Krüger, Klaus Hennecke,
Marwan Mokhtar, Christian Zahler, First year of operational experience with a solar
process steam system for a pharmaceutical company in Jordan, Energy Procedia 91
(2016) 591–600.
[6] Markus Eck, Tobias Hirsch, Dynamics and control of parabolic trough collector
loops with direct steam generation, Sol. Energy 81 (2007) 268–279.
[7] Jan Fabian Feldhoff, Kai Schmitz, Markus Eck, Lars Schnatbaum-Laumann,
Doerte Laing, Francisco Ortiz-Vives, Jan Schulte-Fischedick, Comparative system
analysis of direct generation and synthetic oil parabolic trough power plants with
integrated thermal storage, Solar Energy 86 (2012) 520–530.
[8] Edouard González-Roubaud, David Pérez-Osorio, Cristina Prieto, Review of com-
mercial thermal energy storage in concentrated solar power plants: steam vs.
molten salts, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 80 (2017) 133–148.
[9] Ali M. El-Nashar, Performance of the solar desalination plant at Abu Dhabi,
Desalination 72 (1989) 405–424.
[10] Bernhard Milow, Eduardo Zarza, Advanced MED solar desalination plants config-
urations, costs, future - seven years of experience at the plataforma solar de Almeria
(Spain), Desalination 108 (1996) 51–58.
[11] L. Garcia-Rodriguez, C. Gomez-Camacho, Thermo-economic analysis of a solar
multi-effect distillation plant installed at the plataforma solar de Almeria (Spain),
Desalination 122 (1999) 205–214.
[12] Shinu M. Varghese, Raju Abraham, E.P. Hariprasad, C. Sureshkumar, Design and
Performance Analysis of Solar Assisted Multi Effect Desalination System for Coastal
Regions, InDACON 2012, Feb 8–9, Mumbai, (2012).
[13] S.P. Viswanathan, Raju Abraham, Vineet Saini, Sanjay Bajpai, Public private part-
nership on water - lessons from RAMDAS project on solar desalination,
International Conference on Innovative Technologies and Management for Water
Security, 12–14 February 2014 (Chennai, India).
[14] Marc Medrano, Antoni Gil, Ingrid Martorell, Xavi Potau, Luisa F. Cabeza, State of
the art on high-temperature thermal energy storage for power generation part 2 -
case studies, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 14 (2010) 56–72.
[15] Wolf-Dieter Steinmann, Markus Eck, Buffer storage for direct steam generation, Sol.
Energy 80 (2006) 1277–1282.
[16] Vladimir D. Stevanovic, Blazenka Maslovaric, Sanja Prica, Dynamics of steam ac-
cumulation, Appl. Therm. Eng. 37 (2012) 73–79.
[17] Fengwu Bai, Chao Xu, Performance analysis of a two-stage thermal energy storage
system using concrete and steam accumulator, Appl. Therm. Eng. 31 (2011)
2764–2771.
[18] J. Buschle, W.D. Steinmann, R. Tamme, Analysis of steam storage systems using
Modelica, Modelica, 2006, September 4th–5th.
[19] A. Baldini, G. Manfrida, D. Tempesti, Model of a solar collector/storage system for
22
Desalination 435 (2018) 3–22
industrial thermal applications, Int. J. Thermodyn. 12 (2) (2009, June) 83–88.
[20] Baozhi Sun, Jiamin Guo, Lei Yu, Longbin Yang, Yanjun Li, Guolei Zhang, Simulation
and verification of a non-equilibrium thermodynamic model for a steam catapult's
steam accumulator, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 85 (2015) 88–97.
[21] H. El-Dessoukey, I. Alatiqi, S. Bingulac, H.M. Ettouney, Steady-state analysis of the
multiple effect evaporation desalination process, Chem. Eng. Technol. 21 (1998) 5.
[22] A.O. Bin Amer, Development and optimization of ME-TVC desalination system,
Desalination 249 (2009) 1315–1331.
[23] A.A. Mabrouk, K. Bourouni, H.K. Abdulrahim, M. Darwish, A.O. Sharif, Impacts of
tube bundle arrangement and feed flow pattern on the scale formation in large
capacity MED desalination plants, Desalination 357 (2015) 275–285.
[24] R.K. Kamali, A. Abbassi, S.A. Sadough Vanini, M. Saffar Avval, Thermodynamic
design and parametric study of MED-TVC, Desalination 222 (2008) 596–604.
[25] Ibrahim Halil Yilmaz, Mehmet Sait Soylemez, Design and computer simulation on
multi-effect evaporation seawater desalination system using hybrid renewable en-
ergy sources in turkey, Desalination 291 (2012) 23–40.
[26] Mohammad Taghi Mazini, Alireza Yazdizadeh, Mohammad Hossein Ramezani,
Dynamic modeling of multi-effect desalination with thermal vapour compressor
plant, Desalination 353 (2014) 98–108.
[27] Muhammad Wakil Shahzad, Kim Choon Ng, Kyaw Thu, Bidyut Baran Saha, Won
Gee Chun, Multi effect desalination and adsorption desalination (MEDAD): a hybrid
desalination method, Appl. Therm. Eng. 72 (2014) 289–297.
[28] Muhammad Wakil Shahzad, Aung Myat, Won Gee Chun, Kim Choon Ng, Bubble-
assisted film evaporation correlation for saline water at sub-atmospheric pressures
in horizontal-tube evaporator, Appl. Therm. Eng. 50 (2013) 670–676.
[29] Raju Abraham, A. Mani, Heat transfer characteristics in horizontal tube bundles for
falling film evaporation in multi effect desalination system, Desalination 375 (2015)
129–137.
[30] H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney, Fundamentals of sea water desalination, (2002)
(ISBN:0-444-50810-4).
[31] Sadik Kakac, Hongtan Liu, Heat exchangers selection, rating and thermal design,
(2002) (ISBN:0-8493-0902-6).
[32] Lixi Zhang, Shuai Zhou, Hefei Zhang, The process Researches for the desalination
using residual heat of flue gas, Proceedings of the International Multi Conference of
Engineers and Computer Scientists 2009, Vol-II IMECS 2009, March18–20 (Hong
Kong).
[33] Petr Kracík, Ladislav Snajdárek, Martin Lisý, Marek Balás, Jirí Pospísil, Correlation
of heat transfer coefficient at sprinkled tube bundle, Mater. Technol. 50 (4) (2016)
479–483.
[34] Y. Fujita, M. Tsutusi, Experimental investigation of falling film evaporation on
horizontal tube, Heat Transfer Jpn. Res. 27 (1998) 609–618.
[35] Kim Choon Ng, Muhammad Wakil Shahzad, Hyuk Soo Son, A. Osman, Hamed, An
exergy approach to efficiency evaluation of desalination, Appl. Phys. Lett. 110
(2017) 184101.