Chemical Engineering Science, 1970, Vol. 25, pp. 61 l-62 1. Pergamon Press. Printed in Great Britain.

Optimization of multi-stage flash evaporation plants

M. A. MANDIL
Chemical Engineering Department, University of Alexandria. Alexandria, U.A.R.

and

E. E. ABDEL GHAFOUR
Atomic Energy Establishment, Cairo, U.A.R.

(First received 2 May 1969; in revisedform 16 October 1969)

Abstract-A new approach to the optimization of multi-stage flash evaporation plants is presented.
While retaining the basic features of current theories, the approach presented involves the use of
relative values of economic parameters rather than their absolute values. The paper deals with a
3-free-design variable problem of constant output while two cost parameters may vary according to
prescribed schedules. Optimization procedures are presented and tested using an illustrative example.

CURRENT theories [4,6,7] concerning optimiza- 1.1 Thermal energy cost term
tion of multi-stage flash evaporation plants are This is given by EpoQ, where Q is taken as the
aimed at clarifying the interrelations between the thermal energy supplied in the brine heater.
major variables involved. The main objective of
the present work, however, is to develop optimi- 1.2 Surface area cost term
zation procedures through a new approach which Among cost items which are proportional to
retains as much as possible the basic features the heating surface area (A) are; installed cost of
of the current theories. Principal optimization heating surface plus its maintenance cost. These
variables considered are; number of stages N. will be allocated to a cost term, C,J. There are
terminal temperature difference TTD, perform- other constructional materials such as walls,
ance ratio R and concentration ratio CR. The foundations and auxiliaries of flashing chambers.
paper deals with a 3-free-design variable prob- In a plant comprising N stages, the cost of such
lem of constant output while two cost parameters items can be incorporated in a cost term;
may vary according to prescribed schedules. FIVpo+J,O (N/F)1’2] [4].
Silver[4] introduced the idea that the unit cost
of fresh water is governed by certain economic 1.3 Sea water make-up cost term
parameters, namely, volume parameter Vpo, Cost of items which are proportional to the sea
Staging parameter Jpo, Surface parameter SD0and water make-up, F,, such as pumping, deaeration
Energy parameter Epo. The present work, though and scale prevention chemicals will be allocated
retaining this basic concept in its early stages of to a cost term, C,F,.
development, it will finally involve the use of the
relative values of such economic parameters 1.4 Remainder cost term
rather than their absolute values. All of the remaining cost items of sea water
conversion are incorporated into a remainder
1. MANUFACTURING COST TERMS cost term, C,F.
All of the items contributing to the manufactur-
ing cost of fresh water are distributed over a set 2. UNIT COST EQUATION
of cost terms, so chosen to cope with optimiza- From the above discussion, the total plant
tion purposes. production cost, C. in cents per day is given by:
611
 M. A. MANDIL
+C,F, +C,F.
Hence, the unit cost, C* in cents per pound of
fresh water is given by:
3. INTRODUCING THE CONCEPT OF
MINIMUM-POSSIBLE ENERGY
Several attempts[ 1,3,5] have been made, in
order to calculate the theoretical amount of
energy required for the recovery of fresh water
from saline water using an isothermal reversible
separation process conducted in differential
stages. However, when an actual process is
analysed quantitatively, it will be readily ap-
parent that it includes two major sources of
irreversibility. The first source being that the
separation process is by no means isothermal.
The second is that the water produced is in
equilibrium with only the final brine concentra-
tion in each stage instead of the whole range of
concentrations from the feed to the discharged
brine. These sources of irreversibility were ac-
counted for in the present work by introducing
the concept of minimum-possible energy require-
ment.
A limiting case will now be considered, in
which the desalination plant contains an infinite
number of stages and infinite heating surface
area. In this case, the brine heater temperature
rise ATBH will be equal to the elevation in boiling
point at conditions prevailing at inlet to first
stage, (BPE)o. Therefore, the energy required
per lb of fresh water in this limiting case, here-
after, referred to as minimum-possible energy
requirement and denoted by E is given by:
E= & (GJ),,(~PE)o.
The recirculation ratio r, by definition,
and E. E. ABDZL GHAFOUR
function of the flashing temperature range FTR
and concentration ratio CR. Also, (C,), and
(1)
(BP@, are functions of maximum brine tempera-
ture T,,, and brine concentration at outlet of
brine heater CB,,. It follows then that E is a
function of FTR, CR, T,,, and C,,. However
CR is in turn a function of FTR and CsH, and
F TR is equal to (T,,, - TBD) . Therefore it could
be concluded that E is a function of T,,, TBDand
CR. The first two variables upon which E de-
(2) pends take care of the first source of irreversi-
bility, the last namely CR clearly accounts for the
second.
It is worth mentioning that the minimum-
possible energy requirement is different from the
thermodynamic minimum energy requirement.
While the latter corresponds to isothermal
reversible process conducted in differential
stages,. E refers to limiting operating conditions
for a hypothetical plant comprising an infinite
number of stages and infinite heating surface.
Consequently, E is the amount of energy which
must be supplied before getting any product.
For a finite size plant, to start getting a product,
an additional amount of energy should be sup-
plied. The amount of energy to be used over and
above E in order to produce one pound of product
(Q/F-E) will, hereafter, be called unit produc-
tive energy (UPE) .
4. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
OPTIMIZATION VARIABLES
Relationships between principal optimization
variables will now be given in a form which will
facilitate their incorporation in the optimization
study.
With reference to Fig. 1, and recalling the
conventional nomenclature used in connection
with desalination plants, it is apparent that the
mean temperature difference (MTD) , heating
surface required per unit product (A/F), and
thermal energy needed per unit product (Q/F)
are given by the following expressions:
is a 4l - to
612
 Optimization of multi-stage flash evaporation plants

and
9_ r
- 1000 (C,)mA TBH.
0F

Taking 1 +At,/TTD as an individual term to be

Tubasi& Tube side
called the thermal driving force function 8, the brine in brineout
- -
above expressions could now be rewritten as
/’ b
follows: / ((E
/ 8
A& / 5
(MTD) = ~3 (4) ,/TTD

A
F =a,.Nln@ (5)
0
where “tloou,
-r

L ‘.
’ &t
ao =NUL\t, -.
.

‘.
(9 =$[a.+:+N(;- 4 (6)

where
1000 (4, A&r (BWo Fig. 1. Temperature changes in stage 1 ATBH= T,--t, =
a1 = L, (c~)~~ At,’ u2 = NAr, ’ Dt,,+ BPE+ TTD.

a,=$(l+ABPE), explicitly in the unit cost equation when given

c in the following form:
and A(BPE) = change in elevation of boiling
point with respect to change in brine temperature C* = Epo(~)+C,(~)+Vpo+J,o(~~‘z
in the evaporator.
From the above definitions of a,, a,, a3 and 8, CR
it follows that: +C8 CR_1
( >
+cr. (11)

(TTD) =s From Eqs. U), (10) and (1 l), it is readily seen

that the unit cost equation could take the form:

EC_
a2
a1 C* = Epoe+Epoa-+(q+&)+S;N
N

(UPE) =
lnf3+ VPo+JPo (N)“2+C.?(&)+cr
F (12)

where SD0= surface parameter = a,C, c/lb.

5. REFORMULATION OF UNIT COST 6. MINIMIZATION OF UNIT COST

EQUATION The volume parameter VP0 is related to the
The performance ratio (R = F/Q) and con- volume of flashing chamber required per unit
centration ratio (CR = F,/ (F, - F) ) will appear product. For a fixed flash chamber height, which
613
 M. A. MANDIL and E. E. ABDEL GHAFOUR

is the general practice so far, a certain evaporat-
ing area is needed per unit of product. This will
lead to the conclusion that VP0is constant. Also,
the unit remainder cost C, is constant by defini-
tion since it is not proportional to any of the
variables involved. The cost terms E,“( l/alN) X
( a3 + l/0 - 1) , &ON In 19and JPo (N/F) ‘I2are func-
tions of the design variables (0 and N). In
addition, the cost terms Epoe and C,(CR/(CZ?-
1) ) are functions of the operating variable (CR),
since E is in turn a function of CR. Therefore, the
cost terms included in Eq. (12) can be divided
cost ratio, respectively. Recalling that JPo, S,O,
F, EPo and a1 have the respective dimensions
c/d(lb hr), c/lb, Ib/hr, c/B.t.u. and Ib/B.t.u., it
could be easily shown that X, and X, are dimen-
sionless groups.
In order that X, might be given in more plau-
sible representatton, a, and SPo (Sections 4 and 5)
are substituted for in the definition of X,.
&=J$= Ep”/l~ _
(Cd,, &c 2
1 PO Calu (Cp), A&t (> (FTR)

’
(13)
into three distinct groups:
Since the rate of recycle flowing in the con-
(a) group of constant terms +1 = VP0+ C, denser tubes is the same as the sum of the flash-
(b) group of terms which are a function of CR ing brine and the distillate, the temperature rise
only. of the brine in the tubes is the same as the
temperature decrease due to the flashing. Thus
At, could be assumed equal to AtsP Hence,

(c) groups of terms that are dependent only

X E = ‘$;y (FTR) (14)
upon &Jand N.
where

(EPo/lOOO) = cost of producing one B.t.u. of

where thermal energy.
(CJU) = cost of transmitting one B.t.u.
JPO Epo through heating surface when
XJ = S,O( p7)1/2 and Xl3 = al~po’

(MTD) is 1°F.
Minimum unit cost of fresh water will be
It is clear now that, X, is the ratio between the
realized when:
cost of producing and transmitting one B.t.u. for
(MT@ and (FTR) of 1°F.

6.1 Optimization for constant economic para-

and since J12and I& are independent,
sufficient to have,
&=O and
In the above form of JIQ,it is seen that two new
groups have been introduced, namely X, and
X,. These groups by virtue of their definitions
are unit cost ratios and will be called staging-
surface unit cost ratio and energy-surface unit
then it is meters
The minimization of Eq. (12) will now be con-
sidered for such a case where the economic para-
meters may be taken constant leaving 8, N and
CR, as the only free variables.
6.1.1 Optimum concentration ratio CR,,,.
This is obtained by differentiating e2 with respect
to CR and setting &+WCR = 0.
CR,,, = I+ [$(F),]“. (15)
614
 Optimization of multi-stage flash evaporation plants

Evaluation of CRoPt could be obtained through

a graphical procedure or by numerical analysis. 5d \
Optimum concentration ratios at different values 450
of E,,9/C, and T,,,, are given in Fig. 2. 400
6.1.2 Optimum thermal driving force function
350
8,,Pt’Differentiating I,!I~with respect to 0 holding I\

N constant then setting the derivative equal to

zero, &,,, is obtained, CL 250
W
200
2 1

I
@W= 1+ (l+4N2,XE)1/2_ 1’ (16) I50

loo

6.1.3 Optimum heating su$ace A,,,. Substitut-

ing in Eq. (5), Aopt for a certain N is given by: L------
I.5 I.6 I.7 I.8 I.9 2.0
tca&#

A Fig. 2. Optimum concentration ratios TBD= 100°F.

(1 +4N2/&2- I I * (“I
that <Q/F) in this limiting case corresponds to
6.1.4 Optimum performance ratio R,,,.
E, it follows that E still retains its value of a,/al
Substituting in Eq. (lo), R, of the plant for a
certain N is given by: (Eq. (8)).
6.1.5 Optimum terminal temperature differ-

Noting that the optimum energy required for

producing one pound of fresh water (Q/F),pt =
Recalling the assumption of At= = Atat (Section
WL.,,
6), (TTD),,, will be given by:

(S),,, = $z2+F+ (?&+&)‘12]. (19) (TTD),,, = y [(i i-F)1’z-11.@la)

Also, the optimum unit productive energy
As seen from Eq. ( 14)
(UP.@,,, for a given N is determined by the
following equation:

In the limiting case where the desalination (TTD),, = [r+)‘+$$& (FTR)"' -%.
plant contains an infinite number of stages and
infinite heating surface, a hypothesis which (2lb)
could only correspond to a case where the unit
cost of energy is prohibitively high, S,O/E,O and 6.1.6 Optimum brine heater temperature rise.
hence X, would be quite close to zero. If this (ATBH)OPtwith reference to Fig. 1, (ATBH),,ptfor
finding is inserted in Eq. (19) and remarking a certain N is given by:
615
 M. A. MANDIL
GlU
EPo/lOOO
l/2
x (FTR)
I + BPE.
It is of interest to note that the number of heat
rejection stages (N,) = A T&A tst,hence
. (23)
6.1.7 Optimum number of stages N,,,. The
thermal driving force function 8 has been opti-
mized for a fixed number of stages N. Therefore,
a choice of optimum number of stages N,,,, is
still needed. However, before doing so, the
expressions already obtained above, for eopt and
(UPE),,, will be inserted in +3 which will then
take the following form:
1+(1+4N2,&2_l
+x,(z$+ ($+&y}].
In the applicable range in CR (1.7-2-O) [2], a3
can be taken as constant at a value of 0.993.
Hence, the above expression is left to be a
function of N, X, and X, alone:
SoP &N1’2+Nln l+(1+4N2,?xE)1/2_1
[ {
+o.493++~*+($$2)“2].
Differentiation to find the minimum cost
contribution of $I~ is not permissible here since
N by definition is necessarily an integer, and
therefore discontinuous.
For each pair of values of X., and X,, the mini-
mum value of the cost contribution could be
and E. E. ABDEL GHAFOUR
calculated, at which the corresponding value of
N would thus be NoPt for the assumed pair of
X, and X,.
In order to widen the scope of application of
the proposed optimization procedure, a wide
enough range of values of X, and X, had to be
(22) considered. In view of the fact that this would
require lengthy and repetitive calculations, a
simple computer program was run on IBM 1620
which furnished the data presented in Fig. 3.
It is obvious from the above discussiori that
X, and X, will directly determine Nopt and eoPt
which in turn will fix other design features such
as Atat, TTD, ATBH, NJ, R, Q and A for constant
economic parameters.
6.2 Optimization for variable economic para-
meters
In order that the procedure developed for
constant economic parameters might be extra-
polated to cover the cases where these para-
meters are variable, it is needed to evaluate the
economic parameters that prevail at optimum
conditions.
The basic data needed here are; the pattern of
variation of unit energy cost with energy use
rate (energy cost schedule), and the pattern of
variation of unit area cost with heating surface
requirement (area cost schedule).
6.2.1 Optimum concentration ratio CR,,,.
Each point on Fig. 2 represents a particular
value of E,O/C, with the corresponding value of
CR,,,. In the case of variable economic para-
meters, Epo is variable and dependent upon the
energy use rate, which at this stage would not
have been determined yet. Hence, values of CR,
I are assumed from which the corresponding EF
could be evaluated for the particular product rate
(F) being considered. From the energy cost
schedule, values of ED0corresponding to different
values of EF could be determined, then E,O/C,
calculated. These data will make it possible to
construct a curve similar to Fig. 2, with full
understanding that this plot is optimum only at
one point, which represents CR,,, for the case
under consideration. On the other hand Fig. 2
616
 Optimization of multi-stage flash evaporation plants

L
H
0. 2.4 -
S
‘Z
c”
2 2.2 -

8
$
(r 2.0 -
.c
.z
c
; 1.6-

E
P
- I.6 -
E
‘E
._
= I.4 -
0

0 5 1015202530354045505560665107560659095 0

Optimumnumberof stages, NW

Fig. 3. Optimum number of stages and optimum thermal driving force

function using X, and X, as parameters.

gives all possible optimum concentration ratios needed, which gives the pattern of variation of
for different values of E,O/C,. Hence, CR,,, an adjusted energy parameter (Epo)a with
could be obtained by superimposing the newly (PEF). The adjusted energy parameter which
constructed curve on that given in Fig. 2 for the corresponds to the productive energy require-
same T,, adopted. The optimum concentration ment is defined as follows:
ratio being given by the point of intersection of
the two curves. Q(J%~)Q-~F(&")~
6.2.2 Opt&num design features. In this case,
tEpOja =

the adaptation of theory developed to variable
economic parameters needs the introduction of
new design functions, namely, productive energy
function (PEF) and surface function (SF) which
are given by:
(PEF) = a, ( UPE) = + (0993 + A)
(SF) =$g) =Nln8.
Figure 4 gives (PEF)O,, and (SF),,, for each
pair of unit cost ratios X, and X,.
A modified energy cost schedule would be
Q--EF *
(26)
In addition, a modified area cost schedule
would represent the pattern of variation of SPo
with (SF).
Adopting the use of the term JPo(N/F)‘/’ to
represent the amortized cost of constructional
(24) material relating to staging per unit product[4],
the staging parameter JPo for a particular plant is
obtained by dividing the amortized cost of con-
(25) structional material relating to staging in the
whole plant by (NF)‘/* where N is any arbit-
rarily chosen value of number of stages.
In order to evaluate EPo and S,O that prevail at
optimum conditions, a wide range of (SF) values
617
 M. A. MANDIL and E. E. ABDEL GHAFOUR

is considered. For each value of (SF) within from Fig. 4, the unit cost ratios X, and X_, can
such a range, corresponding S,O could be ob- be determined.
tained using the modified area cost schedule. From thereon the same procedure given for
For X, = JPo/SPo(F)‘/*, a set of X, values is constant economic parameters could be
obtained. followed.

0.200
I
NOTATION
heating surface area
(BP; elevation in boiling point
A(BPE) change in elevation of boiling point
with respect to change in brine
temperature in the evaporator
C fresh water production cost per unit
time
c* unit cost of fresh water
Cl2 installed cost and maintenance cost of
a unit surface area.
C, unit remainder cost
ohIO ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ 1 unit cost of make-up sea water
II 12 I3 14 I5 16 17 I6 192021 222324252627262930
Optimum surface function, SF,, (C2 mean specific heat of brine in the
evaporator
Fig. 4. Optimum surface function and optimum productive mean specific heat of brine in brine
energy function using X, and X, as parameters.
(C,)m
heater
CR concentration ratio
Using Fig. 4, each value of (SF) and its corre- EIJO energy parameter, cl1000 B.t.u.
sponding value of X., would give: F fresh water production rate
F, make-up sea water rate
(a) Value of X, that must prevail if (SF) were FTR flashing temperature range
optimum, JIJO staging parameter, c/d(lb.hr)
(b) Value of (PEF),,, that corresponds to L, mean latent heat of vaporization of the
(SF). flashed vapour in the whole evapor-
ator
From the relationship Epo = al &OX,, one could MTD mean temperature difference
calculate a corresponding value of Epo. On the N number of flash stages
other hand, from the modified energy cost sched- Q total thermal energy required
ule (PEF),,, would give another value of EPo. R performance ratio of the plant
These two values of Epo are not necessarily recirculation ratio
equal except when the design is optimum. SJ surface parameter, c/lb
Now, having two sets of values of Epo, these T temperature of brine in the evapora-
are plotted separately versus (SF), giving two tors
curves which if superimposed the point of their t temperature of brine in the condensers
intersection will give (SF),,, and the correspond- T max maximum brine temperature
ing value of Epo that prevails at optimum condi- TBD brine blowdown temperature
tions. From the modified energy cost schedule, to temperature of flashed vapour
the value of E,” just obtained, determines the Ate stage temperature rise in the conden-
optimum productive energy function. While ser
618
 Optimization of multi-stage flash evaporation plants

stage temperature drop in the evapor- Greek symbols

ator E minimum-possible energy required
brine temperature rise in the brine per unit of fresh water (Section 3)
heater 8 thermal driving force function (Sec-
stage terminal temperature difference tion 4)
overall heat transfer coefficient Q) group of cost terms (Section 5)
volume parameter, c/lb
staging-surface unit cost ratio Subscripts
energy-surface unit cost ratio opt refers to optimum value

REFERENCES
[ 1] DODGE B. F. and ESHAYA A. M., Thermodynamics of Some Desalting Processes, Advances in Chemistry, Series No.
27. American Chemical Society 1960.
[2] FLUOR CORPORATION LTD., Preliminary Study of an Optimum Nuclear Reactor-Saline Water Evaporator
Process, Office of Saline Water, Research and Development Progress, Rept. No. 34, PB 161010, U.S., Dept. of Interior,
Washington, D.C. 1959.
[3] MURPHY G. W. et al., Minimum energy requirements for sea water conversion processes, O&e of Saline Water
Research and Development Program, Rep. No. 9 1956.
[4] SILVER R. S., Fresh Waterfrom the Sea, Paper Presented during the Symp on Nuclear Energyfor Water Desalination,
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1966; Tech. Rep. Series No. 5 1, P. 29.
[5] SPIEGLER K. S., Salt Water Purification 1962.
[6] TRIBUS M. and EVANS R. B., The Thermoeconomics of Sea Water Conversion, University of California, Los Angeles,
Water Resources Center Contribution NO. 61, Rep. NO. 62-53 1963.
171 TRIBUS M. and EVANS R. B., Thermoeconomic Design Under Conditions of Variable Price Structure, Paper Pre-
sented during the First Int. Symp. on Water Desalination, Washington (1965).

APPENDIX 0.12

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE I
6 O.ll-
For the purpose of illustrating the use of suggested
optimization procedure a numerical example will be taken
g
up. Cost data to be used here are those given by Tribus[7] 7
_ 0.10 -
and Silver[4]. In order that such data might be used without
subjecting the results to be obtained to undue errors, it was .E
decided to use the same plant capacity quoted by Silver, OP
w 0.09 -
namely one million Imperial gallons per day. 8
t
E
0 0.06 -
1. OPTIMUM CONCENTRATION RATIO b
0
1: 1 Basic data
8
(a) Tmax= 250”F, (b) ZBD= lOO“F, & 0.0-r -
tc) C, = 4.08 x lO-4 c/lb[6] I:
(d) Energy Cost Schedule: based upon data given by
Tribus [7] and shown in Fig. A 1.
1
0 0~5XlD6 I06 I.5xlO6 2x106 2.5~10’

1.2 Evaluation of E,” Energy use rate ,000 B.t.u./day

Results shown in Table Al are obtained by following
procedure outlined in Section 6.2.1. Fig. A 1. Energy cost schedule.
The slight variation in Epo with F indicates that E,,Ocould
be taken constant at a value of 0.113 c/l000 E.t.u. Hence, the
use of optimization procedure for constant economic para- 2. OPTIMUM DESIGN FEATURES
meters, Section 6.1.1, is justified. From Fig. 2, the value of 2.1 In an actual case the value of Jpo corresponding to a
CR.,, corresponding to T,,,., = 250”F, Ts, = 100°F and certain set of conditions will be known. For the purpose of
E,“IC, = 277, is found to be 1.76. illustration a value of J,” = 0.30 c/lb. hr is adopted.

619
 M. A. MANDIL and E. E. ABDEL GHAFOUR

Table A 1

Assumed values of CR lF in 108% Epo, c/l000 B.t.u.

1.5 1.328 0.114

2.0 1.640 0.112

2.2 Taking U = 400 B.t.u./hr. ft*. “F and noting that A&/

At, is quite close to unity, a0 and (I, are found to be 0.018 and
O-926 respectively (Section 4).
f* 2.09 I,l,l,l,l,l,l,lrl,I,
The (BW$ corresponding to our case is 2.07”F [2].
IO 12 14 &o~ 20 22 24 26 26
Taking Nht, = NAt, = (FTR), a value of a, is calculated function, SF
to be = O-0138(Section 4).
The minimum-possible energy requirement being az/al is Fig. A3. Modified area cost schedule.
0.0149 in 1000 B.t.u./lb (Eq. (8)).
2.3 Based upon energy cost schedule shown in Fig. Al
and area cost schedule given by Tribus [7], the modified cost
schedules shown in Figs. A2 and A3 were obtained.
2.4 Following the steps outlined in Section 6.2.2, the re-
2 0.0900 sults outlined are given in Table A2.
8 2.5 The two sets of values of E,,Ogiven in Table A2 are
0
:

.E
oa660

0.0620
I\
;,,,\-----,_
-
then plotted against (SF) to give two separate curves as
shown in Fig. A4. The point of intersection gives (SF),,
of 18.06 and (E,“) of 0.0785 in c per thousand B.t.u. From
Fig. 4, (PEF),, is then found to be 0.0710 in thousands
“w”
B.t.u.‘s per pound.
E 0.0790 2.6 The remaining design features are then obtained as
t follows:
e
0 0.0740
0 X, = 332, from Fig. 4 or computer results.
6 X, = 1.833, from Fig. 4 or computer results.
$ o~07000
c 0.02 0.04 006 0.06 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 N,,,, = 35 stages, from Fig. 3
W
Productive energy function, PEF
(At&,t = v = 4.286”F per stage
Fig. A2. Modified energy cost schedule. I&, = 1.6738, Eq. (16)

Table A2

From Fig. 4
or computer results
Assumed
values Staging Productive Calculated
of Surfacet surface Energy energy Energy+ energy
surface parameter unit surface function parameter parameter
function S,O in cost unit cost (PEF) in Epo in Epo in
(SF) 1O-4c/lb ratio X, ratioXE lOOOB.t.u./lb cllOO0B.t.u. c/lOOOB.t.u.

10 3.100 1.499 102.6 0.11692 0.07353 0.02943

13 2.832 1641 173.8 0.09905 0.07505 0.0455 1
16 2.643 l-758 262.1 0.07981 0.07753 0.06407
19 2.487 1.869 369.2 0.06700 O-07890 0.08492
22 2.350 l-978 494.3 0.06026 0.08034 0.10744
25 2.238 2.077 638.3 0.05069 0.08182 0.13211
28 2.164 2.148 800.0 0.04512 0.08270 0*16011

Walues of SD0 given in this column are obtained from Fig. A3 corresponding to
values of (SF) in the first column of table.
SValues of Epo given in this column are obtained from Fig. A2 corresponding to values
of (PEF) in the fifth column of table.

620
 Optimization of multi-stage flash evaporation plants

0.16

0.15

0.14

0.13

0.12

0.11

0.10

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

IO II 12 I3 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
I
'0
Surface fundon, SF

Fig. A4. Evaluation of optimum surface functions.

(TTD),,, = 6*361”F, Eq. (2 la) Unit energy requirement

(BPE) = 2*04”F, for first flashing stage
N, = 2.96 = 3 stages, Eq. (23) e -- 0.07667+0.01490 = 0@9157 thousand B.t.u./lb
(AT,&,t = 12.687”F, Eq. (22) 0F Km
(Ar,&,t = F = 4.229”F for heat rejection stages. 1
R,,, = o-o9157= 10.92

Unit productive energy requirement QoDt= 10’ (089157) = 9.157 x 105thousands B.t.u./day
A.,, = aoF(S = 0.018
(PEF),,, = ($-c)~,, = s = 0.07667thousand B.t.u./lb.
= 135450ft*, Eq. (25).

Resume- Une nouvelle approche est presentee en ce qui conceme I’optimisation eclair Z+plusieurs
&tapes des plantes d’evaporation. Tout en retenant les caracttristiques de base des theories courantes,
I’approche qui est present&e traite de I’utilisation des valeurs relatives des parambtres tconomiques
plutbt que de ieurs valeurs absolues. Cet expose traite d’un probleme variable de 3 modtles libres
de rendement constant, alors que deux parametres de cout peuvent varier selon les programmes
ttablis. Les procedures d’optimisation sont presentees et test&es au moyen d’un exemple illustratif.

Zusammenfassung- Es wird ein neuer Weg zur Optimierung von mehrstufigen Flash-Verdampfungs-
anlagen dargelegt. WPhrend dieser neue Weg die grundlegenden Merkmale der gegenwartigen
Theorien beibehalt, werden hier jedoch mehr die relativen Werte der wirtschaftlichen Parameter
verwendet als die absoluten Werte derselben. In dem Artikel wird ein Problem mit 3 freien Konstruk-
tionsvariablen bei konstanter Leistung beschrieben, wobei zwei Kostenparameter gemlss vorgeschrie-
benen Planen variieren konnen. Die Optimierungsverfahren werden an einem erlautemden Beispiele
geprtift.

621