Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Thermodynamic assessment of MVR implementation in multistage evaporation plants

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A study on process alternatives for reducing steam consumption was carried out in a multistage evaporation system of a chlorine–alkali industrial complex. A phenomenological model was developed, based on the mass and energy balances and on gas–liquid equilibrium correlations for the ternary mixture of caustic soda, sodium chloride and water. The design specifications of the plant were adopted as a reference to validate the mathematical model, which comprises 153 nonlinear equations. Different process conditions were simulated by taking into account the most important process variables and their effect on steam consumption. Differently from previously published studies, in which the conservation laws are mainly focused on the heat exchangers and their optimization, the present study considers the whole multistage evaporation unit. The model also enabled to evaluate the effect of changes in the plant configuration, either by considering a side product stream at a specified concentration, designated to another production unit in the industrial complex, or by including mechanical vapor recompression, which has proven to be a better solution to reduce steam consumption from the energy and exergy points of view. Results indicate an expressive decrease in steam consumption to around 1% of the original configuration. Moreover, from the exergy perspective, if the power generation is considered, the MVR is a better choice from the energy and exergy point of view.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Based on [6]

Fig. 4

Based on [6]

Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

b :

Specific exergy (kJ/kg)

B :

Exergy flow rate (kW)

B :

Exergy of the control volume (kJ)

BPE:

Boiling point elevations (°C)

C :

Mass concentration (%)

c :

Specific heat (kJ/kg K)

h :

Specific enthalpy (kJ/kg)

H :

Enthalpy flow rate (kW)

P :

Pressure (kPa)

Q :

Heat transfer rate (kW)

s :

Specific entropy (kJ/kg K)

T :

Temperature (°C/K)

v :

Specific volume (m3/kg)

W :

Performed power (kW)

x :

Mass fraction (kgsubstane/kgsolution)

y :

Molar fraction (kmolsubstance/kmolsolution)

γ :

Activity coefficient

η :

Efficiency

0:

Environment

d:

Destroyed

Cool:

Cooling process

ch:

Chemical

in:

Stream inside the control volume

MVR:

Mechanical vapor recompression

out:

Stream outside the control volume

sol:

Solution

MVR:

Mechanical vapor recompression

TVR:

Thermal vapor recompression

SEC:

Specific energy consumption

References

  1. Pfisterer F, Meissner D (1993) Ullmann’s, encyclopedia of industrial chemistry, vol A24. VCH Publishers, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rutherford J, Ver Hoeve RW (1984) U.S. Patent 4,459,188. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington

  3. Shah DJ, Bhagchandani CG (2012) Design, modelling and simulation of multiple effect evaporator. Int J Sci Eng Technol 1(3):01–05

    Google Scholar 

  4. Druetta P, Aguirre P, Mussati S (2013) Optimization of multi-effect evaporation desalination plants. Desalination 311:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gautami G, Khanam S (2012) Selection of optimum configuration for multiple effect evaporator system. Desalination 288:16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mady CEK, Jardin RN Jr, Oliveira S Jr (2015) Is MVR an efficient alternative to optimize the energy use in an evaporation unit of electrolytic caustic NaOH production? An exergy approach to the diaphragm arrangement. In: Proceedings of ECOS 2015—the 28th international conference on efficiency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of energy systems, Pau, France

  7. Le Cao Nhien GK, Andika R, Husnil YA, Lee M (2014) Application of mechanical vapor recompression to acetone–methanol separation. Int J Chem Eng Appl 5(3):216–218

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ettouney H (2006) Design of single-effect mechanical vapor compression. Desalination 190(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Al-Juwayhel F, El-Dessouky H, Ettouney H (1997) Analysis of single-effect evaporator desalination systems combined with vapor compression heat pumps. Desalination 114(3):253–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pellegrini LF, Oliveira S Jr (2006) Exergy analysis of different configurations of multiple-effect evaporators in sugarcane mills. In: Proceedings of the 11th Brazilian Congress of Thermal Sciences and Engineering, Curitiba, Brazil

  11. Ayangbile WO, Okeke EO, Beveridge GSG (1984) Generalised steady-state cascade simulation algorithm in multiple-effect evaporation. Comput Chem Eng 8(3):235–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zain O, Kumar S (1996) Simulation of a multiple effect evaporator for concentrating caustic NaOH solution-computational aspects. J Chem Eng Jpn 29(5):889–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jyoti G, Khanam S (2014) Simulation of heat integrated multiple effect evaporator system. Int J Therm Sci 76:110–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Khademi MH, Rahimpour MR, Jahanmiri A (2009) Simulation and optimization of a six-effect evaporator in a desalination process. Chem Eng Process 48(1):339–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sayyaadi H, Saffari A (2010) Thermoeconomic optimization of multi effect distillation desalination systems. Appl Energy 87(4):1122–1133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bapat SM, Majali VS, Ravindranath G (2013) Exergetic evaluation and comparison of quintuple effect evaporation units in Indian sugar industries. Int J Energy Res 37(12):1415–1427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hamed OA, Zamamiri AM, Aly S, Lior N (1996) Thermal performance and exergy analysis of a thermal vapor compression desalination system. Energy Convers Manag 37(4):379–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sogut Z, Ilten N, Oktay Z (2010) Energetic and exergetic performance evaluation of the quadruple-effect evaporator unit in tomato paste production. Energy 35(9):3821–3826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hanshika C, Jeonga H, Jeongb KW, Choi S (2016) Improved productivity of the MSF (multi-stage flashing) desalination plant by increasing the TBT (top brine temperature). Energy 107:683–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Soufiyan MM, Dadak A, Hosseini SS, Nasiri F, Dowlati M, Tahmasebi M, Aghbashlo M (2016) Comprehensive exergy analysis of a commercial tomato paste plant with a double-effect evaporator. Energy 111:910–922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dowlati M, Aghbashlo M, Soufiyan MM (2017) Exergetic performance analysis of an ice-cream manufacturing plant: a comprehensive survey. Energy 123:445–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Soufiyan MM, Aghbashlo M, Mobli H (2017) Exergetic performance assessment of a long-life milk processing plant: a comprehensive survey. J Clean Prod 140:590–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Klein SA (2014) Engineering equation solver (EES). F-Chart Software, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  24. Szargut J, Morris DR, Steward FR (1988) Exergy analysis of thermal, chemical, and metallurgical processes. Hemisphere Publishing, Nova York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Campbell AN, Bhatnagar ON (1984) Osmotic and activity coefficients of sodium hydroxide in water from 150 to 250°C. J Chem Eng Data 29:166–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pitzer KS, Pelper JC, Busey RH (1984) Thermodynamic properties of aqueous sodium chloride solutions. J Phys Chem Ref Data 13(1):1–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Flórez-Orrego D, Silva JA, Oliveira SD Jr (2014) Renewable and non-renewable exergy cost and specific CO2 emission of electricity generation: the Brazilian case. Energy Convers Manag 85:619–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Empresa de Pesquisa Energética (EPE) (2015) Brazilian Energy Balance 2015: year 2014. Empresa de Pesquisa Energética (EPE), Rio de Janeiro

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Unipar Carbocloro.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Polytechnic School, University of São Paulo, Av. Luciano Gualberto 380, São Paulo, 05508-010, Brazil

    Antonio Esio Bresciani, Jose Luis Paiva, Roberto Guardani & Silvio de Oliveira Jr.

  2. School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Campinas, Mendeleyev St., 200, Campinas, SP, 13083-970, Brazil

    Carlos Eduardo Keutenedjian Mady

  3. Unipar Carbocloro, Cubatão, SP, Brazil

    Roberto Nicolas de Jardin Jr.

Authors
  1. Carlos Eduardo Keutenedjian Mady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio Esio Bresciani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jose Luis Paiva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roberto Nicolas de Jardin Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roberto Guardani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Silvio de Oliveira Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos Eduardo Keutenedjian Mady.

Additional information

Technical Editor: Jose A. R. Parise.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keutenedjian Mady, C.E., Bresciani, A.E., Paiva, J.L. et al. Thermodynamic assessment of MVR implementation in multistage evaporation plants. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 40, 395 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-018-1319-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-018-1319-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation