Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276

Multiple-effect evaporation desalination systems:

thermal analysis
Hisham T. El-Dessouky*, H.M. Ettouney
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering and Petroleum, Kuwait University,
PO Box 5969, Safat 13060, Kuwait
Tel. +965 481118; Fax +965 483-9498; email: eldessouky@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw

Abstract
Seawater desalination by parallel feed multiple-effect evaporation has a simple layout in comparison with other
multiple-effect or multistage desalination systems. Several operating configurations are analyzed, including the parallel
flow (MEE–P), the parallel/cross flow (MEE–PC), and systems combined with thermal (TVC) or mechanical (MVC)
vapor compression. All models take into account dependence of the stream physical properties on temperature and
salinity, thermodynamic losses, temperature depression in the vapor stream caused by pressure losses and the presence
of non-condensable gases, and presence of the flashing boxes. Analysis was performed as a function of the number of
effects, the heating steam temperature, the temperature of the brine blowdown, and the temperature difference of the
compressed vapor condensate and the brine blowdown. Results are presented as a function of parameters controlling
the unit product cost, which include the specific heat transfer area, the thermal performance ratio, the specific power
consumption, the conversion ratio, and the specific flow rate of the cooling water. The thermal performance ratio of the
TVC and specific power consumption of the MVC are found to decrease at higher heating steam temperatures. Also,
an increase of the heating steam temperature drastically reduces the specific heat transfer area. Results indicate better
performance for the MEE–PC system; however, the MEE–P has a similar thermal performance ratio and simpler design
and operating characteristics. The conversion ratio is found to depend on the brine flow configuration and to be
independent of the vapor compression mode.

Keywords: Seawater desalination; Multiple-effect evaporation; Thermal vapor compression; Modeling

*Corresponding author.

Presented at the Conference on Desalination and the Environment, Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, November 9–12, 1999.
European Desalination Society and the International Water Association.
0011-9164/99/$– See front matter © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
260 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276
1. Introduction
Desalination of sea and brackish water has
developed considerably over the past four
decades. Nevertheless, the adoption of the
desalination processes remains beyond the means
of hard pressed economies of developing
countries. As an example, funding requirements
for a 25 migd thermal- or membrane-based
desalination plant may vary between $98 to $129
million (Leitner, 1999). Moreover, operation of
desalination plants requires consumption of large
amounts of energy. In addition, membrane-based
processes require frequent replacement of the
membrane modules. Today the unit product cost
may have a low value of $0.45 for RO of low
salinity water, 26,000–30,000 ppm (Leitner,
1999). However, desalination of higher salinity
water with values between 36,000–42,000 may
reach $0.9/m3 for low-temperature multiple-effect
evaporation (MEE), reverse osmosis (RO), and
the multi-stage flash (MSF) (Bednarski and
Minamide, 1997). Progress in the desalination
industry has resulted in market expansion to
cover more than 100 countries with more 12,000
operating units, a total production capacity of
22.8×106 m3/d, and a market value of $5×109/y.
To maintain the status of the desalination
market and to continue the progress process, it is
necessary to achieve milestone developments that
result in reduction of the process capital and
operating costs. This is achieved by research,
development, and comprehensive evaluation of
various aspects of the desalination process.
Several examples for these efforts can be found
in the recent literature, including:
& El-Dessouky and Ettouney (1999a) proposed
use of inexpensive plastic materials for
construction of evaporators and preheaters.
Evaluation and comparison against conven-
tional materials show decrease in the specific
cost of the heat transfer area.
& El-Dessouky et al. (1999a) and El-Dessouky
et al. (1999b) proposed novel configurations
for the MSF plants, which focuses on increase
of the thermal performance ratio to higher
values above the prevailing value of eight.
The proposals make minimal modifications in
the layout and operating conditions of the
conventional MSF plant; however, the perfor-
mance ratio increases by 20–50% upon the
use of thermal vapor compression or by brine
mixing.
& Borsani et al. (1995) and Genthener et al.
(1997) showed that doubling the capacity of
MSF plants results in 24% reduction in the
unit product cost.
& El-Dessouky et al. (1999c) stressed the need
for qualifying of manpower for the desalina-
tion industry with simultaneous coordination
of education and research processes. The
proposed program has emphasis on improve-
ments in operation efficiency and simul-
taneous reduction in labor cost.
& Alatiqi et al. (1999) proposed an integrated
model for technology transfer of the
desalination processes for developing
countries, i.e., the Gulf states, Egypt, and
several Asian and African countries. The
model focuses on efficient use of local
resources and experiences.
This paper focuses on performance evaluation
of two flow configurations for parallel feed
multiple-effect evaporation (MEE–P or MEE–
PC). The evaluation includes operation in a
stand-alone mode or combined with thermal or
mechanical vapor compression. Operating lines
for the two configurations are shown in Figs. 1a
and 1b where the feed seawater for all effects has
the same temperature and salinity values of 25(C
and 42,000 ppm, respectively. The brine tempera-
ture is highest for the first effect, which is heated
by the heating steam, and lowest for the last
effect.
On the other hand, the rejected brine salinity
is lowest for the first effect and highest for the
last effect. As is shown the feed is heated to the
 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276
brine boiling temperature at constant salinity,
which is followed by evaporation and increase in
the brine salinity close to the solubility limit of
the calcium sulfate. The operating lines for the
MEE–P system (Fig. 1a) show heating of the feed
seawater temperature in each effect to the
261
Fig. 1a. Calcium sulfate solubility
and top brine temperature for the
MEE–P system.
Fig. 1b. Calcium sulfate solubility
and top brine temperature for the
MEE–PC system.
saturation temperature. On the other hand, the
operating lines for the MEE–PC system (Fig. 1b)
include brine flashing from one effect to another.
Existing MEE units are limited to a combination
of parallel/forward feed, which operates at a low
top brine temperature of 70(C (Fisher et al.,
262 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276
1985; Temstet et al., 1996). Design, construction,
and operation of other systems such as the high
temperature forward feed system (MEE–FF) are
not found on industrial scale (El-Dessouky et al.,
1998).
Regardless, the MEE process has a highly
attractive design and operating features that make
it competitive against the dominant MSF process.
These features include the following:
& The process configuration allows for simple
modification in the routing and distribution of
the brine stream among the system effects.
Therefore, the system can be operated in the
forward feed mode (El-Dessouky et al., 1998)
or in the parallel feed arrangement, which
includes the parallel feed (MEE–P) (Fig. 2a)
or the parallel/cross flow (MEE–PC) (Fig. 2b).
Either of the parallel flow configurations can
be operated in stand-alone mode or combined
with thermal vapor compression (MEE–P/
TVC (Fig. 2c) or mechanical vapor com-
pression (MEE–PC/MVC) (Fig. 2d).
& For the same thermal performance ratio, the
MEE system has fewer effects than the MSF
system; typically the MEE system has 12
effects, while the MSF system has 24 stages.
Assuming a similar specific heat transfer area
for both systems, the first cost of the MEE
should be lower than the MSF system because
of the fewer effects, tube connections, and
partition walls (Morin, 1993; Wade, 1993).
& The MEE system has stable operation over a
load range of 30–120% of the design capacity,
while the MSF system has a narrower range
of 70–110% (El-Dessouky et al., 1995;
Darwish and El-Dessouky, 1996). This gives
the MEE system an added edge, since
operation for most of the desalination units is
tied with power plants. Therefore, an increase
or decrease in the demand load for power,
especially for summer air-conditioning
demand in hot regions or for winter indoor
heating in cold climates, can be met by the
MEE system than MSF. Also, the MEE
systems are very suitable for coupling with
gas turbine power plants, which have a wide
range of load variation.
& Vapor compression MEE units provide much
higher thermal performance ratios than the
stand-alone MEE or MSF systems, with
values ranging from 16–24 (Lucas and
Tabourier, 1985; Michles, 1993; El-Dessouky
and Ettouney, 1997), although a similar
arrangement of vapor compression can be
applied to the MSF process (El-Dessouky et
al., 1999a); however, it remains on the
conceptual design level.
Based on the above, the authors believe very
strongly that the market share of the MEE
desalination industry will increase dramatically
within the first decades of the next century
(Ettouney et al., 1999a).
Literature on the MEE system includes field
studies, conceptual design, modeling, and
economic evaluation. Analyses of various MEE
configurations in stand-alone modes and
combined with vapor compression include simple
mathematical models developed by El-Dessouky
and Assassa (1985), Hanbury (1995), Minnich et
al. (1995), Hamed et al. (1996), and Darwish and
El-Dessouky (1996). In addition, a more detailed
model was developed by El-Dessouky et al.
(1998).
Simple models give quick and relatively
accurate estimates for some of the main system
characteristics including performance ratio,
specific heat transfer, specific flow rate of
cooling water, and conversion ratio. On the other
hand, the detailed models provide a more
accurate tool that take into consideration various
design aspects and can be used to give a good
description of the system performance.
Subsequent applications of the model by
El-Dessouky et al. (1998) were made for the
single-effect thermal vapor compression by
El-Dessouky and Ettouney (1999b), single-effect
vapor compression systems by Al-Juwayhel et al.
 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276
(1997), MEE combined with heat pumps by
El-Dessouky and Ettouney (1997), and
mechanical vapor compression by Ettouney et al.
(1999b). Wade (1993) and Morin (1993)
performed economic evaluations of the MEE
systems and comparison against other thermal
and membrane desalination processes in the
studies. Temstet and Laborie (1995), Michles
(1995), and Temstet et al. (1996) reported field
results for a number of MEE systems. Weinberg
and Ophir (1995) and Pepp et al. (1997)
presented a conceptual design for a vertical MEE
system with a large capcity of 75 migd. Such a
large system is motivated by the fact that each
doubling the unit production capacity reduces the
production cost by more than 20% (Silver, 1988).
This study is concerned with the performance
evaluation of two parallel feed configurations
which include operation in a stand-alone mode or
combined with thermal or mechanical vapor
compression. The models and analysis are based
on the MEE–FF study originally developed by
El-Dessouky et al. (1998). Also, the study
extends the vapor compression models developed
to simulate single-effect vapor compression units
by El-Dessouky and Ettouney (1999b), Al-
Juwayhel et al. (1997), and Ettouney et al.
(1999b), and the models for MEE–FF combined
with heat pumps (El-Dessouky and Ettouney,
1997).
Recently the authors have developed models
for parallel feed multiple-effect systems with
vapor compression (El-Dessouky et al., 1999d,
1999e). The main differences between these two
papers and the current study are:
& considered the heat steam temperature rather
than the top brine temperature on system
performance
& increased the number of effects to 12
& studied six possible configurations for the
parallel feed system with/without vapor
compression
& investigated the effect of the total temperature
difference between the hot brine and brine
263
blow down on the system performance
& eeveloped a new solution procedure for
solving the equations describing the six
systems
2. Elements of the processes with/without
vapor compression
Schematics of the MEE–P, MEE–PC, MEE–
P/TVC, and MEE–PC/MVC are shown in
Figs. 2a–2d, respectively. Because of similarities
in the layout of the vapor compression modes,
schematics for MEE–PC/TVC and MEE–P/MVC
are not given. As is shown, each system contains
the following elements:
& a number of flashing effects (n) where each
effect contains evaporator/condenser tubes,
vapor space, brine pool, spray nozzles,
demister pad, and venting system
& a number of distillate flashing boxes (n) for
the vapor compression mode and (n1) for
operation without vapor compression
& a steam jet ejector for the TVC system and a
mechanical vapor compressor for the MVC
system
& a down condenser for operation without a
mechanical vapor compressor
& feed preheaters for systems operating with
mechanical vapor compression
All systems have the following features:
& Vapor flow is from left to right, in the
direction of falling pressure, while the feed
seawater flows in a perpendicular direction.
& Horizontal falling film tubes are used because
of their ability to handle seawater scaling.
This configuration offers the additional
advantages of positive venting and disengage-
ment of vapor products and/or non-
condensable gases, high heat transfer
coefficients, and monitoring of scaling or
fouling materials.
The MEE–P process is described in the
following steps:
264 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276

Fig. 2a. Schematic of parallel feed MEE–P.

Fig. 2b. Schematic of parallel/cross feed MEE–PC.

 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276 265

Fig. 2c. Schematic of parallel feed thermal vapor compression, MEE–P/TVC.

Fig. 2d. Schematic of parallel/cross feed mechanical vapor compression, MEE–PC/MVC.

266 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276
& In this system, the brine stream leaving each
effect is rejected directly to the sea.
& The vapor condensate from effects 2 to n is
allowed to flash off in the associated flashing
boxes. This generates a small amount of vapor
which is used to heat subsequent effects. The
flashed-off vapor is produced at a temperature
lower than the distillate condensation
temperature by the non-equilibrium allow-
ance. The flashing boxes offer a means for
recovering heat from condensed fresh water.
& The intake seawater is introduced into the
down condenser where it absorbs the latent
heat of the condensing vapor from the last
effect. As a result, intake seawater tempera-
ture increases to the feed temperature. Part of
the heated intake seawater is rejected back to
the sea, which is known as the cooling
seawater. The function of cooling seawater is
the removal of the excess heat added to the
system in the first effect.
& The feed seawater stream is chemically
treated, deaerated, and sprayed into the
effects. The seawater spray falls in the form
of thin film down the succeeding rows of
tubes arranged horizontally. Within each
effect the brine temperature rises to the
boiling temperature corresponding to the
pressure in the vapor space before a small
portion of vapor is evaporated.
& In the first effect the heat required for
preheating and evaporation is released by
condensing a controlled mass of saturated
steam inside the tube bundle. The steam is
supplied to the system from an external boiler.
The high-quality condensate from the first
effect is returned back to the boiler.
& The temperature of the vapor formed in each
effect is less than the brine boiling
temperature inside the effect by the boiling
point elevation. The vapor generated in each
effect flows through a knitted wire mist
separator known as wire mesh demister to
remove the entrained brine droplets. The
saturation temperature of the vapor departing
the demister is less than that of the formed
vapor due to the frictional pressure loss in the
demister. The vapor flows from the demister
has to be transported to the second effect.
This transport inevitably involves a pressure
drop and hence a corresponding decrease in
the saturation temperature. Another pressure
fall and consequent depression in the
saturation temperature of the vapor are
associated with vapor condensation inside the
heat transfer tubes in the evaporators or over
the heat transfer area in the preheaters.
& The latent heat of condensation of the vapor is
exploited for further evaporation in the
second effect. The amount of steam generated
by evaporation in each effect is less than the
amount generated in the previous effect. This
is due to an increase in the specific latent heat
of vaporization with the decrease in the effect
temperature. Consequently, the amount of
vapor generated in an evaporator by boiling is
less than the amount of condensing steam
used for heating in the following evaporator.
In either configuration the salinity of the brine
stream leaving each effect is close to the
solubility limit of CaSO4 (Fig. 1). The brine
stream leaving the last effect in the parallel or
the parallel/cross systems is rejected back to
the sea.
& The boiling point elevation and temperature
depression corresponding to pressure loss in
the demister, transmission lines and during
the condensation process reduce the available
driving force for heat transfer in the
evaporators and the preheaters. Thus, it is
necessary to provide excess surface areas to
compensate for these temperature degrada-
tions. In other words, the temperature losses
present an extra resistance to the flow of heat
between the condensing steam and the boiling
seawater.
& Temperature downgrading due to various
losses does not influence the plant thermal
 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276
performance ratio or steam economy. The
plant performance ratio depends on heat
balance consideration and not on the rate of
heat transfer.
& The down condenser is provided by good
vents, first for purging during start-up and
then for removing non-condensable gases that
may have been introduced with the feed or
due to in-leakage. The presence of the non-
condensable gases not only impedes the heat
transfer process but also reduces the
temperature at which steam condenses at the
given pressure. This occurs partially because
of the reduced partial pressure of vapor in a
film of poorly conducting gas at the interface.
To help conserve steam, economy venting is
usually cascaded from the steam chest from
one preheater to another. The effects operated
above atmospheric pressure are usually vented
to the atmosphere. The non-condensable gases
are always saturated with vapor. The vent for
the last condenser must be connected to
vacuum-producing equipment to compress the
non-condensable gases to the atmosphere.
This is usually a steam jet ejector if high-
pressure steam is available. Steam jet ejectors
are relatively inexpensive but also quite
inefficient. Since the vacuum is maintained on
the last effect, the unevaporated brine flows
by itself from effect to effect and only a blow-
down pump is required in the last effect.
The MEE–PC system has similar character-
istics to those given above, except for flow of the
brine reject stream from each effect to the
subsequent effect. As the hot brine leaving effect
i1 enters effect i, it flashes off forming a small
amount of vapor, which is routed together with
the vapor formed by evaporation and inside the
associate flashing box to heat effect i+1.
In the TVC system, the vapor formed in the
last effect is introduced into the down condenser.
A controlled amount of intake seawater is routed
into the tube side of the down condenser where it
267
condenses part of the vapor formed in the last
effect. The steam jet ejector entrains and
compresses the remaining part of the vapor.
Motive steam with a pressure range of 250–
4500 kPa compresses the entrained vapor to the
desired pressure and temperature. The warm
intake seawater stream leaving the down
condenser with a temperature range of 30–40(C
is divided into two parts: the first is the feed
seawater stream, which is distributed among the
evaporation effects, and the second is the cooling
seawater stream, which is reject back to the sea.
The cooling seawater stream removes the heat
added to the system by the motive steam. Further
details on the ejector operation and properties
were previously presented by El-Dessouky and
Ettouney (1999b) studying the performance of
single-effect thermal vapor compression.
The mechanical vapor compression system is
distinguished by the absence of the down
condenser and use of the feed preheaters.
Removal of the down condenser is a result of
routing the entire vapor formed in the last effect
to the mechanical vapor compressor where the
vapor is superheated to the desired temperature
and pressure. At the other end, the feed
preheaters recover part of the sensible heat in the
rejected brine and distillate product streams. This
improves the system thermal efficiency and
maintains production at the design levels,
especially during winter operation.
3. Mathematical models
Similarities among various systems con-
sidered in this analysis necessitate simultaneous
development of the balance equations for various
components within each system. Common
assumptions among various models include
steady-state operation, negligible heat losses to
the surroundings, and salt-free distillate product.
Schematics for the system variables in the
evaporator and the associated flash box in effect
268 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276
Fig. 3. Variables in evaporator and flash box of effect i.
i are shown in Fig. 3. The figure includes flow
rates, salinity, and temperatures of various
streams as it enters and leaves the evaporator and
the flashing box.
Features of the developed mathematical
models include the following:
& constant and equal heat transfer areas in all
effects, which the standard practice in design
of thermal desalination system.
& the heat transfer equations model the heat
transfer area in each evaporator as the sum of
the area for brine heating and the area for
evaporation. This is a new feature in mathe-
matical modeling and analysis of thermal
desalination processes. All of the previous
models in the literature allocate all of the heat
transfer area to the evaporation process.
& Model variations in the thermodynamic losses
(boiling point elevation, non-equilibrium
allowance inside the evaporators and the
flashing boxes, temperature depression
corresponding to the pressure drop in the
demister, vapor transmission lines, and during
the condensation process) from one effect to
another.
& Study the effect of boiling temperature, the
velocity of brine flowing through the tubes of
feed heaters, the tube material of construction,
and the tube bundle geometry on the required
specific heat transfer area.
& Consider the effects of water temperature and
salinity on the water physical properties such
as density, latent heat of evaporation,
viscosity, Prandtl number, and specific heat at
constant pressure.
& Weight the effect of the presence of non-
condensable gases on the heat transfer
coefficients in the evaporators and the feed
heaters.
4. Solution algorithm
The mathematical models for various
configurations are interlinked and highly
nonlinear. Therefore, an iterative solution is
 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276 269

Fig. 4. Solution algorithm of the six systems.

270 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276
necessary to calculate the system characteristics.
The solution algorithm starts with definition of
the following parameters:
& Number of effects are 4, 8, or 12.
& The heating steam temperature varies over a
range of 70–120(C.
& The seawater salinity is 36,000 ppm.
& The seawater temperature (Tcw) is 25(C.
& The temperature of rejected cooling water or
feed seawater (Tf ) is 35(C.
& The boiling temperature in the last effect (Tn)
is 40(C.
& The specific heat at constant pressure of the
vapor (Cpv) is 1.884 kJ/kg (C.
& The polytropic efficiency of the compressor,
1 X f F i / X b B i
, is 0.76 (ASHRAE, 1997).
The model equations for each configuration
are solved simultaneously by Newton’s method
to calculate the following:
& flow rates of the feed, the brine, and the
distillate in each effect
& steam flow rate
& brine temperature in effects 2 to n1
& fraction of heat consumed by evaporation in
each effect
& heat transfer areas for vapor formation and
brine heating in each effect
& condenser heat transfer area
& flow rate of cooling seawater.
The solution algorithm for the thermal vapor
compression of either flow configuration
includes the same set of variables for operation
without vapor compression as well as:
& the entrainment ratio in the steam jet ejector
& the amount of motive steam
The solution algorithm for the mechanical
vapor compression is also similar to the stand-
alone mode system; however, the model
calculates the following:
& the specific power consumption of the
compressor
& the superheat temperature of the compressed
vapor
& the heat transfer area of the feed preheaters.
Fig. 4 shows the solution algorithm for the six
systems.
The Newton’s iterative procedure has an
iteration error of 1×104. To facilitate the
conversion procedure, each equation is scaled by
the largest term found in the equation. Therefore,
all equations are in the order of one. For
example, the salt balance equation is rearranged
into the following form
f X f , F i, X b , B i
i i i i
Convergence of Newton’s method is
dependent on the initial guess; therefore, linear
profiles are used for the flow rates, brine
temperature, heat transfer areas, and the ratio a.
The guess for the steam flow rate is based on the
approximate relation of the number of effects and
the performance ratio.
5. Results and discussion
The performance of various configurations
was analyzed as a function of the number of
effects, the heating steam temperature, the
temperature of brine blowdown, and the
temperature difference of the compressed vapor
condensate and the top brine temperature.
Performance parameters include the thermal
performance ratio, the specific cooling water
flow rate, conversion ratio, and the specific heat
transfer area.
Figs. 5 and 6 shows the performance of the
stand-alone and thermal vapor compression
MEE–P and MEE–PC. Performance evaluation
includes variations in the thermal performance
ratio, specific heat transfer area, specific flow
rate of cooling water, and conversion ratio. The
 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276 271

Fig. 5. Variations in the performance parameters of MEE–P (——) and MEE–P/TVC (-----) as a function of the heating
steam temperature and number of effects.

results are obtained as a function of the heating
steam temperature and the number of effects. As
is shown, the performance ratio decreases for
both systems at higher heating steam
temperatures, which is caused by (1) an increase
in the amount of sensible heating required for
increasing the feed seawater temperature to the
boiling temperature, and (2) a decrease in the
latent heat of the heating steam at higher
temperatures.
In addition, a decrease in the MEE–P/TVC
system is also caused by the increase in the vapor
compression range. This is because the motive
stream pressure and the vapor pressure of the
entrained vapor are kept constant, while the
vapor pressure of the compressed vapor increases
272 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276
Fig. 6. Variations in the performance parameters of
MEE–PC (—) and MEE–PC/TVC (----) as a function of
the heating steam temperature and number of effects.
as the heating steam temperature is increased. As
a result, the amount of motive steam increases at
higher heating steam temperatures. The same
analysis applies for variations of the thermal
performance ratio of the MEE–PC and MEE–
PC/TVC systems, which are shown in Fig. 6. It
should be noted that the thermal performance
ratio of the MEE–PC/TVC is higher than the
MEE–P/TVC system, and the same result is
obtained upon comparison of the MEE–PC and
MEE–P systems. This is because of the brine
flow configuration where energy is recovered
from the brine stream flowing across the effects
and the simultaneous production of additional
amounts of product water vapor as a result of
brine flashing within the effect. Increase in the
thermal performance ratio for the MEE–P and
MEE–PC systems, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6,
with the increase in the number of effects is
caused by the increase in the number of vapor
reuse. The same behavior is also found for
system operation with vapor compression.
There are few variations in the specific heat
transfer area between the stand-alone and the
vapor compression mode. This is because of the
equality of the temperature range for both
configurations. Consequently, the temperature
drop per stage is identical as well as the overall
heat transfer coefficient, which implies similar
thermal load per effect. The small difference
found in the specific heat transfer area is caused
by the reduction in the overall thermal load of the
system. This reduction is caused by the fact that
the flow rate of the motive steam in the vapor
compression system is lower than the amount of
heating steam in the stand-alone mode. As is
shown for all configurations, the specific heat
transfer area decreases rapidly as the top brine
temperature increases. Also, the specific heat
transfer area increases as the number of effects
are increased. The following effects cause this
behavior:
& The increase in the overall heat transfer
coefficient as a result of the change in the
 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276
values for the physical properties of the brine
and condensing vapor, especially the liquid
phase viscosity, which enhances the rate of
heat transfer in either stream.
& The increase in the temperature driving force
per effect, which increases the driving force
for heat transfer. For the same number of
effects, this behavior is obtained as a result of
increasing the top brine temperature and
keeping the last effect temperature constant at
40(C.
As for the increase in the specific heat transfer
area upon the increase of the number of effects,
this is caused by the decrease in the amount of
distillate formed per effect upon increasing the
number of effects. This is because of the smaller
temperature drop per effect, which is caused by
keeping a constant temperature range in all
calculations. Also, it should be noted that the
specific heat transfer areas for the MEE–PC and
MEE–PC/TVC systems are lower than those for
the MEE–P and MEE–P/TVC systems. This is
caused by the higher thermal performance ratio
for the MEE–PC configuration, which implies a
larger amount of product water per unit mass of
heating steam. As a result, the specific heat
transfer area, which is defined as the total heat
transfer area divided by the total flow rate of
product water for the MEE–PC/TVC system is
always lower than that for the MEE–P/TVC
system. This is because in all calculations the
heat transfer area per effect is kept constant and
equal for all systems.
As shown in Fig. 5, identical curves are
obtained for the conversion ratio of the MEE–P
and MEE–P/TVC systems. This is because the
salt balance for both systems is identical since
the feed salinity as well as the salinity of the
brine reject from each effect are the same for
both configurations. As shown, the conversion
ratio for both systems decreases with the increase
in the top brine temperature. This is because of
the lower salinity of the brine reject from the
273
effects operating at high temperatures as set by
the solubility limit of CaSO4. As discussed
before, the heat transfer area per effect is kept
constant in all calculations, which implies an
increase in the fresh water production rate at
higher temperatures. This necessitates an
increase in the flow rate of the feed seawater to
account for the increase in the system capacity
and the limitations on the salinity of the brine
reject streams. The decrease in the conversion
ratio upon increasing the number of effects is
also related to the increase in the system
production capacity, which requires the increase
in the amount of feed seawater. Fig. 6 does not
include variations in the conversion ratio for the
MEE– PC or MEE–PC/TVC system. This is
because the conversion ratio is independent of
the heating steam temperature or the number of
effects. This is because the salinity of the brine
blowdown stream is independent of the heating
steam temperature, since it is defined in terms of
the brine blowdown temperature, which is kept
constant at 40(C. Therefore, the overall mass and
salt balance of the system is independent of the
heating steam temperature.
Variations in the specific flow rate of cooling
water for the four configurations are shown in
Figs. 5 and 6. In Fig. 6, for the MEE–PC/TVC
system, the specific flow rate of cooling water
increases with the increase in the top brine
temperature. This is caused by the decrease in the
system thermal performance ratio at higher top
brine temperatures, which implies an increase in
the specific thermal energy of the system. As
discussed before, thermal vapor compression of
the vapor formed in the last effect, which is kept
at a constant temperature, to higher temperatures
above the top brine temperatures would imply
reduction in the amount of entrained vapor and
therefore increase in the amount of cooling
seawater. A similar analysis is given for the
MEE–PC system where at higher temperatures
the temperature drop per effect increases and
results in an increase in the amount of vapor
274 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276

formed per effect. This increases the amount of

vapor formed in the last effect and therefore the
amount of cooling water. Similar behavior is
found for the MEE–P/TVC at low top brine
temperatures. However, at higher top brine
temperatures and upon further decrease in the
system conversion ratio, the flow rate of the feed
seawater increases drastically to account for the
CaSO4 solubility limits and the increase in the
production capacity. As a result, the flow rate of
the cooling water for the MEE–P/TVC decreases
at higher top brine temperatures.
Reduction in the specific flow rate of cooling
water upon increasing the number of effects is
caused by decreasing the thermal load per effect,
which is a result of decrease in the temperature
drop per effect. Therefore, the total amount of
distillate vapor formed in the last effect is smaller
and consequently the required amounts of
cooling water.
Analysis of the mechanical vapor compression
systems shows high sensitivity to the range of
operating parameters, especially the temperature
difference of the brine in the first and last effect
and the temperature of the feed seawater.
Calculations were performed for the following
conditions:
& Saturation temperatures for the compressed
vapor were 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90(C
& Saturation temperatures for the compressed
vapor were higher than the brine blowdown
temperature by 12, 13, 14, and 15(C.
& The feed temperature was lower than the
brine temperature in the last effect by 2(C.

Results for the MEE–P/MVC and MEE–

PC/MVC systems are shown in Fig. 7 for the
specific heat transfer area, the specific power
consumption, and the conversion ratio,
respectively. As is shown in Fig. 7, the specific
heat transfer area decreases for both systems with
the increase in the brine blowdown temperature
and the difference of the saturation temperature
Fig. 7. Variations in the specific heat transfer area,
specific power consumption, and conversion ratio as a
function of the brine blowdown temperature and the
difference between condensing vapor and brine
blowdown temperatures.
 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276
of the compressed vapor and the brine blowdown
temperature. As discussed before, an increase in
the system operating temperature increases the
heat transfer coefficient as well as the tempera-
ture drop per effect. Either factor increases the
driving force for heat transfer, which in turn
increases the total amount of product water.
Since the total heat transfer area for the
evaporators is kept constant in the calculations,
then the specific heat transfer area decreases at
higher top brine temperature.
As is shown in Fig. 7, variations in the
specific power consumption for both systems
decreases at higher operating temperature and
lower temperature differences of the saturation
temperature of the compressed vapor and brine
blow down temperature. At higher operating
temperatures, the specific volume of the vapor
decreases, which reduces the power consumed
for vapor compression. On the other hand, larger
temperature differences of the saturation
temperature of the compressed vapor and the
brine blowdown result in an increase in the
compression range, which increases the power
consumed for vapor compression. The specific
power consumption for both systems and the
above set of parameters vary between low values
close to 9 kWh/m3 and higher values close to
17 kWh/m3, which are consistent with literature
data.
Variations in the conversion ratio for the
MEE–P/MVC and MEE–PC/MVC show
decreases in the conversion ratio at higher
temperatures for the brine blowdown. This is
because of the limitation imposed on the salinity
of the brine blowdown stream for both systems.
As discussed before, increases in the system
operating temperature result in an increase of the
total amount of product water. Therefore, the
total amount of feed water is increased to account
for the limitation imposed on the salinity of the
brine blowdown and the increase in the total
amount of product water.
275
6. Conclusions
Mathematical models are developed for the
parallel feed MEE systems with/without vapor
compression. In light of the results, analysis, and
discussion, the following conclusions are made:
& The thermal performance ratio for the thermal
vapor compression systems is higher at low
top brine temperatures and a larger number of
effects.
& The thermal performance ratio for the
MEE–PC/TVC system is higher than for the
MEE–P/TVC system.
& The specific power consumption for both
systems decreases at higher temperatures for
the brine blowdown and upon reduction in the
difference of the saturation temperature of the
compressed vapor and the brine blowdown
temperature.
& The specific power consumption for the
MEE–PC/MVC system is lower than for the
MEE–P/MVC system.
& The specific heat transfer area for both
systems decreases drastically at higher
operating temperatures.
& The specific heat transfer area for the
MEE–PC/MVC system is lower than for the
MEE–P/MVC system.
& The conversion ratio is independent of the
vapor compression mode.
& The conversion ratio for the MEE–P/TVC or
MEE–P/MVC system decreases at higher
operating temperatures.
& The conversion ratio for the MEE–PC/TVC or
MEE–PC/MVC systems is independent of the
top brine temperature. However, an increase
in the brine blowdown temperature reduces
the conversion ratio for both systems.
References
Alatiqi, I., El-Dessouky, H.T. and Ettouney, H.M.,
Technology transfer in desalination processes, J. Tech.
Trans., 1999, in press.
276 H.T. El-Dessouky, H.M. Ettouney / Desalination 125 (1999) 259–276
Al-Juwayhel, F., El-Dessouky, H. and Ettouney, H.,
Desalination, 114 (1997) 253.
ASHRAE Handbook — Fundamentals, ASHRAE, Atlanta,
GA, USA, 1997.
Bednarski, J., Minamide, M. and Morin, O.J., Proc., IDA
World Congress on Desalination and Water Sciences,
Madrid, 1 (1997) 227.
Borsani, R., Superina, R. and Sommariva, C., MSF
desalination – The myth of the largest unit some
technical and economical evaluation, Proc., IDA World
Congress on Desalination and Water Sciences, Abu
Dhabi, 1995.
Darwish M.A. and El-Dessouky, H., Applied Thermal
Engineering, 18 (1996) 523.
El-Dessouky, H.T. and Assassa, G.R., Desalination, 55
(1985) 145.
El-Dessouky, H.T., Shaban, H.I. and Al-Ramadan, H.,
Desalination, 103 (1995) 271.
El-Dessouky, H.T. and Ettouney, H.M., Hybrid multiple
effect evaporation/heat pump water desalination
systems, IDA Seminar, Cairo, 1997.
El-Dessouky, H., Alatiqi, I., Bingulac, S. and Ettouney, H.,
Chem. Eng. Technol., 21 (1998) 15.
El-Dessouky, H.T. and Ettouney, H.M., Desalination, 121
(1999a) 271.
El-Dessouky, H.T. and Ettouney, H.M., Heat Transfer
Eng., 20 (1999b) 52.
El-Dessouky, H.T., Ettouney, H.M., Al-Fulaij, H. and Al-
Aryan, N., Multistage flash desalination with thermal
vapor compression, submitted, 1999a.
El-Dessouky, H.T., Ettouney, H.M. and Al-Roumi, Y.,
Chem. Eng. J., 73 (1999b) 175.
El-Dessouky, H.T., Ettouney, H.M. and Alatiqi, I.,
Qualifying manpower in desalination processes,
Desalination, 1999c, in press.
El-Dessouky, H.T., Ettouney, H.M. and Mandani, F.,
Performance of parallel feed multiple effect evaporation
system for seawater desalination, Applied Thermal
Eng., 1999d, submitted.
El-Dessouky, H.T., Ettouney, H.M. and Al-Juwayhel, F.,
Multiple effect evaporation/thermal vapor compression
desalination process, Trans. I. Chem. E., 1999e,
submitted.
El-Dessouky, H., Alatiqi, I., Ettouney, H. and Al-Deffeeri,
N., Performance of wire mesh mist eliminators,
Chemical Eng. Proc., 1999f, in press.
Ettouney, H.M., El-Dessouky, H.T. and Alatiqi, I., Progress
in thermal desalination processes, Chem. Eng. Prog.,
1999a, in press.
Ettouney, H.M., El-Dessouky, H.T. and Al-Roumi, Y., Int.
J. Energy Res., 23 (1999b) 431.
Fisher, U., et al., Desalination, 55 (1985) 13.
Friedel, L., New friction pressure drop correlations for
upward, horizontal and downward two-phase pipe flow,
Proc., HTFS Symposium, Oxford, 1979.
Hamed, O.A., Zamamiri, A.M., Aly, S. and Lior, N.,
Energy Convers. Mgmt, 37 (1996) 379.
Han, J. and Fletcher, L., Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des.
Dev., 24 (1985) 570.
Hanbury, W.T., Proc., IDA World Conference on
Desalination and Water Science, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 4
(1995) 375.
Leitner, G.F., Int. Desalination & Water Reuse Quart., 9
(1998) 11.
Lucas, M. and Tabourier, B., Desalination, 52 (1985) 123.
Michles, T., Desalination, 93 (1993) 111.
Minnich, K., Tonner, J. and Neu, D., Proc., IDA World
Congress on Desalination and Water Science, Abu
Dhabi, UAE, 3 (1995) 233.
Morin, O.J., Desalination, 93 (1993) 69.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), United States
Department of the Interior, Research and Development
Progress, Report 315, December 1967.
Pepp. F., Weinberg, J., Lee, D., Ophir, A. and Holtyn, C.,
The vertical MWD–MED (multi-effect distillation)
process, IDA World Congress on Desalination and
Water Sciences, Madrid, 1997.
Power, B.R., Steam Jet Ejectors for Process Industries,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.
Silver, R.S., Desalination, 68 (1988)1.
Temstet, C. and Laborie, J., Proc., IDA World Congress on
Desalination and Water Science, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 3
(1995) 297.
Temstet, C., Canton, G., Laborie, J. and Durante, A.,
Desalination, 105 (1996) 109.
Wade, N.M., Desalination, 93 (1993) 343.
Weinberg, J. and Ophir, A., Ashdod experience and other
dual purpose desalination plants based on multi effect
desalination with aluminum tubes, Symposium of
Desalination of Seawater with Nuclear Energy, Taejon,
Republic of Korea, May, 1997.
Zivi, S.M., Trans. ASME, J. Heat Transfer, 86 (1964) 247.
1964.