Optimization of Integrated Water and Multiregenerator Membrane Systems - Abass2016

Subscriber access provided by UNIV OSNABRUECK
Article
Optimization of Integrated Water and Multi-Regenerator Membrane Systems

Musah Abass, and Thokozani Majozi
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Just Accepted Manuscript DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.5b03423 Publication Date (Web): 22 Jan 2016
Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on January 26, 2016
Just Accepted
Just Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted
online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical
Society provides Just Accepted as a free service to the research community to expedite the
dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. Just Accepted manuscripts
appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. Just Accepted manuscripts have been
fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all
readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Just Accepted is an optional service offered
to authors. Therefore, the Just Accepted Web site may not include all articles that will be published
in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the Just
Accepted Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor
changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers
and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors
or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these Just Accepted manuscripts.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research is published by the American

Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036
Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright American Chemical Society.
However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works
produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the
course of their duties.
Page 1 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Optimization of Integrated Water and Multi-Regenerator Membrane Systems

Musah Abass and Thokozani Majozi*
School of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, University of Witwatersrand, 1 Jan
Smuts Avenue, Braamfontein, Johannesburg, 2000, South Africa
Abstract
Water and energy are key resources in the process industry. The increasing pressure on
freshwater and energy resources coupled with stringent environmental regulations on effluent
discharge limits have called for innovative designs for sustainable use of water and energy.
This can be achieved through process integration techniques that are environmentally benign
and economically feasible. This work proposes a robust water network superstructure
optimisation approach for the synthesis of a multi-regenerator network for simultaneous
water and energy minimisation. Two types of membrane regenerators are considered for this
work, namely, electrodialysis and reverse osmosis. In each of the membrane regenerators, a
detailed design model is developed and incorporated into the water network model. The
detailed model presented in this work is compared to the more common blackbox model,
which uses linear expressions to represent costs of regeneration units. The results show that
the blackbox model gives inaccurate cost representation as compared to the detailed model
and also the blackbox model framework does not give insights on optimal design of the
regeneration units for minimum energy usage. The presence of continuous and integer
variables, as well as nonlinear constraints renders the problem mixed integer nonlinear
programming (MINLP). The developed model is applied to a pulp and paper case study to
demonstrate its applicability, assuming a single contaminant scenario. The model was solved
in GAMS using a solver BARON and the results indicate a 43.7% freshwater reduction,
50.9% decrease in wastewater generation and 46% savings in total annualised cost.
Keywords: Sustainable, Synthesis, Optimization, Reverse-osmosis, Electrodialysis.
1. Introduction
Water and energy are important resources for the development and wellbeing of humanity.
They are key components in the process industry, and great amounts of each resource are
consumed to produce the other. Process integration is often employed in order to achieve a

*
Corresponding author: Tel: +27 11 717 7384; Fax: +27 82 456 1500
Email address: Thokozani.Majozi@wits.ac.za;
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 2 of 36
holistic water network superstructure for water and energy minimisation. This is done
through an integrated water network that is open for direct reuse, recycle, and regeneration
reuse/recycle for sustainable cost-effective water and energy usage.
Water pinch techniques and mathematical based optimization techniques are the two main
approaches used for optimal synthesis of water networks in process industry. Wang and
Smith
1,2
presented the seminal work in water pinch analysis which sets to target the reuse,
regeneration reuse/recycle of wastewater in order to reduce freshwater consumption. The

work of Wang and Smith
1,
Wang and Smith 2 has since developed into advanced graphical,
tabular and heuristic methods for water network synthesis. The insight-based techniques do
not involve computational algorithms in generating solutions. They do require significant
problem simplifications and assumptions and are inherently limited to mass transfer based
operations 3-5.
Takama, et al. 6 presented a superstructure optimisation approach for water minimisation in a
petrochemical refinery based on a fixed mass load. The work of Takama, et al.
extended by several other researchers
7-11
was later
in order to obtain optimal freshwater usage in their
respective water network superstructure. Notable among them are the work of Quesada
Quesada and Grossmann
12
, Karuppiah and Grossmann
10
and Faria and Bagajewicz
13
who
present algorithms to obtain feasible solution in cases of the more complex nonlinear
programming (NLP) and mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) problems that are
in many cases a challenge to solve. Mathematical optimization allows treatment of water
network synthesis problems in their full complexity by considering representative costfunctions, multiple contaminants, and various topological constraints
6, 14-17
. Mathematical
optimization approaches also have an added advantage of simulating the water network into a
desired network structure and operational condition 18.
Tan, et al.
presented a water network superstructure with a single membrane partitioning
regenerator which allows for possible reuse/recycle. The work of Tan, et al. 5 considered the
blackbox approach which uses linear cost functions for the membrane regenerators. This
does not give an accurate cost representation of the water network. Khor, et al.
19
addressed
the gap on the work of Tan, et al. 5 by developing a detailed model representation for water
network regeneration synthesis using a MINLP optimization framework. The work of Khor,
et al.
19
was, however, limited to a single regenerator with a fixed design. In a more recent
development, Yang, et al.
20
proposed a unifying approach by combining multiple water

2
Page 3 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
treatment technologies capable of treating all major contaminants. The work focused on unit
specific short cut cost functions in order to gain detailed understanding of trade-offs between
removal efficiency of treatment units and the cost of the units, as well as the impact on the
unit design. To date all the work on water and membrane regeneration has been focusing on
water minimizing and cost functions of the water networks. No effort has been made on the
simultaneous synthesis of the membrane regeneration units and water network for water and
energy minimization.
The membrane technologies adopted in this work involves electrodialysis (ED) and reverses
osmosis (RO). Electrodialysis, in principle, is based on the electromigration of ions through
cation and anion exchange permselective membranes by means of electric current
21-23
Industrial applications of electrodialysis include brackish water desalination, boiler feed and
process water and wastewater treatment 22.
Reverse osmosis (RO) is a pressure driven membrane separation process that selectively
allows the passage of one or more species through the membrane unit. Industrial applications
of the reverse osmosis unit include its use for municipal and industrial water and wastewater
treatment. It has also gained large industrial favor as partitioning regenerator to enhance
water quality for reuse/recycle
24
. Detailed mathematical model of RO unit that allows for
process simulation and optimization has been developed by El-Halwagi 25.

The application of membrane systems as regenerators generally requires enormous amount of
energy. Most published work, however, uses linear cost functions blackbox representation
for membrane partitioning regenerators
5, 26, 27
. This does not give an accurate cost
representation of the membrane systems. There is, therefore, a need for a technique that
would cater for energy minimization through detailed synthesis of membrane regeneration
systems in order to obtain optimal variables that affect the operation and economics of the
regenerator unit.
The main objective of this work is to develop a systematic technique that would
simultaneously optimize energy and water consumption within a water network
superstructure. The technique is based on an integrated water and membrane regeneration
network superstructure. The membrane regenerators in this representation are ED and RO.
The choice of regenerators is motivated by the increasing demand and use of membrane
technology for water treatment in the process industry and also the varying potential of
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
different membrane systems to treat specific waste ranges.
Page 4 of 36
Detailed synthesis of the
membrane regeneration systems is conducted to determine optimal operating conditions for

efficient energy usage in terms of costs. The detailed model of the regenerators is
incorporated in the overall water network objective function in order to minimize freshwater
and energy consumption and also give a true cost representation as compared to the
blackbox method. It is also demonstrated that treating the removal ratio as an additional
degree of freedom allows for better performance of the integrated system. This is contrary to
what is presented in literature where the removal ratio is generally treated as a parameter.
2. Problem statement
The problem statement in this work can be stated as follows:
Given:
(i) A set of water sources, J, with known flowrates and contaminant concentration.
(ii) A set of water sinks, I, with known flowrates and known maximum allowable
contaminant concentration.
(iii) Membrane regeneration units with the potential for parallel/series connection for
partial treatment of wastewater from sources for reuse/recycle.
(iv) A freshwater source, FW, with known concentration and variable and unlimited
flowrate.
(v) A wastewater sink, WW, with maximum allowable contaminant concentration and
variable and unlimited flowrate.
Determine:
(i) The minimum freshwater intake, wastewater generation, the energy consumed in the
ED and RO units, and the total annualised costs for ED (TACe) and RO (TACr).
(ii) Optimal water network configuration.
(iii) Optimum design variables of the regenerators.
3. Model formulation
Based on the problem statement, water network superstructure in Figure 1 is developed. The
superstructure representation is an extension of the work by Khor, et al.
19
The
superstructure in this work incorporates multiple regenerators which are open for parallel and
series connection as well as recycle and reuse of both permeate and reject streams from
regenerators.
The fixed flowrate approach adopted in this work considers water using
4
Page 5 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
processes as sources and sinks that generate or consume a fixed amount of water respectively.
Total fixed flowrate is adopted because it presents a general representation of both mass
transfer and non-mass transfer-based water using operations 27.
ED
RO
Sources
Sinks
J=FW
I=WW
Figure 1: General water network superstructure with multiple membrane regenerators

3.1. Mass balances for sources
Figure 2 shows a schematic representation of water sources, j J , water recycle and reuse
streams within the membrane regeneration units, and water sink i , that receives water from
sources, and both permeate and reject stream of the membrane regeneration units.
Based on Figure 2, the flowrate, Q xj from any source, j, can split into different streams for
direct reuse/recycle or for regeneration. The corresponding material balance is shown in
constraint (1). Where, Q aj ,i , is the flowrate from any particular source, j to sink, i, Q ed
j and
Q ro
j are flowrates from source to the ED and RO regenerators respectively.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Permeate and reject

to regenerators
Q de
Q fe
Permeate and reject
to regenerators
Page 6 of 36
QFed
ee
ED
Q Ped
Q ge
Q Re d
Permeate and reject
to regenerators
Qdr
Permeate and reject
to regenerators
Q fr
Q er
Q Fro
RO
Q Pr o
Q gr
QRro
Q1ed
Q Jed
Sources
Q1x
1
J=FW
Q ids
Q ies
Q1ro
Q Jro
Q 1a, i
QJx
Q i fs
Q igs
Q iz
Sink
i
Q Ja , i
Figure 2: Schematic representations of a water source

ed
Q xj = Q aj ,i + Q ro
j + Qj
j J
iI
(1)
It should be noted that the wastewater sink, WW, is considered as the final sink.
3.2. Mass and concentration balances for regeneration units
Flow and load balances are conducted for all streams entering the regenerator units. The
streams from sources, permeate and reject streams of both regenerators, are open to
reuse/recycle depending on the component concentration limits of the regeneration units.
Constraints (2) and (3) are water balances around the mixer preceding the ED and RO units
respectively. Where Q Fro and Q Fed are the total flowrates into the ED and RO units
respectively. Here Q dr and Q er , is permeate and reject flowrates from the ED unit into the RO
unit. Whereas, Q fr and Q gr , are permeate and reject flowrates from the RO unit into the RO
unit.
ro
dr
er
fr
gr
Fro
Qj + Q + Q + Q + Q = Q
(2)
jJ
Page 7 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
ed
de
ee
fe
ge
Fed
Qj + Q + Q + Q + Q = Q
(3)
jJ
Similarly, Q de and Q ee , and Q fe and Q ge are flowrates from permeate and reject streams of
ED and RO units into the ED unit.
Based on the varying tolerance of contaminants of the ED and RO units, a contaminant
balance for the regenerator feed is conducted based on the maximum contaminant each
regenerator can take. Hence the corresponding contaminant balance around the mixer of each
regenerator unit is represented by constraints (4) and (5) for ED and RO respectively.
CUe
CUr
ed x
de Ped
+ Q eeC Red + Q feC Pro + Q geC Rro
Qj Cj + Q C
jJ
Fed
ro x
dr Ped
+ Q er C Red + Q fr C Pro + Q gr C Rro
Qj C j + Q C
j J
Fro
(4)
(5)
It should be noted that, C Ue and C Ur are the maximum allowable contaminant into the ED
and RO units respectively. C xj is the concentration from any source j. Whereas C Ped and
C Re d , and C Pr o and C Rro are concentrations of contaminants for both permeate and reject
stream of ED and RO units.
3.3. Mass and concentration balances for permeate and reject streams
Based on Figure 2, water balances for permeate and reject streams of the ED unit are
represented in constraints (6) and (7). The flowrates from permeate and reject streams into
sinks are represented by Qids and Qies .
Q Ped = Qids + Q dr + Q de
(6)
Q Re d = Qies + Q er + Q ee
(7)
iI
iI
Similarly, the water balances for permeate and reject streams of the RO unit are represented
by constraints (8) and (9). Where Qi fs and Qigs are permeate and reject flowrates into sinks.
Q Pr o = Qi fs + Q fr + Q fe
(8)
iI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 8 of 36
Q Rro = Qigs + Q gr + Q ge
iI
(9)
3.4. Mass and concentration balances for sinks

The water balances into a particular sink is represented by constraint (10). The parameter Qiz
is the maximum flowrate into a particular sink i.
a
ds
es
fs
gs
z
Q j ,i + Qi + Qi + Qi + Qi = Qi
(10)
jJ
It should be noted, however, that the last source represents the freshwater source, FW. The
maximum load into any sink, i, should not exceed the maximum allowable contaminant
concentrations CiU , into that sink. This constraint is expressed by constraint (11).
a
ds Ped
+ Qies C Red + Qi fs C Pro + Qigs C Rro
Q j ,i C j + Qi C
jJ
Qiz
CiU
(11)
3.5. Electrodialysis membrane regeneration unit

This section presents a detailed mechanistic model of a single stage electrodialysis
regeneration unit based on the work of Tsiakis and Papageorgiou 23. A single stage ED unit is
considered to demonstrate the interaction between the water network and the regeneration
unit and also to enhance simplicity of the formulation.
Q FedC Fed
Q d C Ped
Q d C Fed
Q ped C Ped
Qr
Qm
r
c
Q C
fc
Q c Cc
Q crC cr
Figure 3: Schematic of a single stage ED plant
Q RedC Red
Page 9 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
In order to formulate the model for the regeneration unit, assumptions are made to describe
the feed solution properties, hardware dimensions and operating conditions (Lee et al., 2002).
The assumptions are:
(i)
The diluate and concentrate cells are geometrically similar with identical flow
patterns.
(ii)
The flowrate in the diluate and concentrate compartments are equal and uniform
Qd = Qc .
(iii) The fluid considered is Newtonian, i.e. the viscosity remains constant.
(iv) The unit is operated in a co-current flow.
(v)
During operation the current should not exceed the limiting current density
(vi) Water transport across the membrane is negligible compared to the flowrate in the
diluate and concentrate streams.
(vii) Membrane thickness is negligible.
(viii) The concentration of the salt species is calculated using molar equivalents.
From the diagram Q d is the diluate flowrate, Q c is the concentrate stream flowrate, Q cr is the
concentrate stream recycle flowrate, Q m is the flowrate from the feed stream that mixed with
the concentrate stream to balance the flowrates. Whereas, C fc is the feed concentration for
the concentrate stream.
Physical parameters and necessary variables are incorporated to obtain an MINLP model.
The total annualised cost TACe , comprises of the electric current through the ED unit, stack
design considerations, desalination energy requirement, pumping energy requirement and
material balances and is formulated based on the following constraints.
3.5.1 Electric Current
The required electrical power through an ED unit is based on Faradays law which relates to
the driving force that is required to transfer electrons from one stream to another in the ED
unit as related in Lee, et al. 28. It also relates to the degree of desalination C , the flowrate of
the diluate stream and the number of cell pairs N in the stack as represented in constraint (12).
is the current utilisation, F is the faradays constant which is required for the total current
required to drive electrons from one stream to the other. The electrochemical valences of the
ionic contaminants are represented by z.
9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 10 of 36
Q d FC z
I=
N
(12)
The degree of desalination is measured by the concentration difference between the diluate
and concentrate streams across the ED unit as defined by the mass balance in constraint (13).
C = C Fed C Ped = C c C fc
(13)
The limiting current density is determined by the mass transfer coefficient for the transport of
ions across the membrane surface. This is difficult to determine theoretically, since it is a
function of solution flow velocity, concentration and stack and spacer configuration Lee, et
al. 28. Therefore, the limiting current density is determined experimentally for a certain flow
velocity, concentration and stack configuration as shown in constrain (14).
I prac = a LCDC d ( u )b
LCD
(14)
A safety factor, , within the range of 0.7 to 0.9, is used to adjust the practical limiting
current density which is dependent on the flow pattern. Constants a and b are determined by
measuring the limiting current density under different flow conditions.
3.5.2 Stack design considerations
Efficient operation of an ED unit is dependent on the membrane area for a given feed
solution, current density, number of cell pairs as well as the production rate
23
. Spacers are
used to enhance mixing and attain uniform flow through the ED unit and also to separate and
support the membranes. However, they reduce the volume of available cell, hence decreasing
the flowrate. A safety factor, , is included to cater for the corrections as shown in constraint
(15). Here is the cell thickness, w is the diluate cell width and v is the linear flow velocity.
Q Ped = N w v
(15)
Membrane area is one of the design characteristics that determine the rate of desalination
within an ED unit. The rate of desalination increases with the exposure of feed water on the
membrane area. The presence of spacers reduces the available area for current due to shadow
effect. As a result the practically required membrane area is larger than the theoretically
10

Page 11 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
required area. A correction factor, , is introduced to account for this effect as can be seen in
constraint (16).
C c C Fed AC C Ped Ped

ln C Ped C fc +
C Q z F
A =
Ped
d
C
C AC prac
+
1
+
I
C c
(16)
From constraint (16), the parameter AC is the area resistance of the anion and cation
exchange membranes, is the equivalent electrical conductivity of the solution.
3.5.3 Energy requirement
The energy required for the operation of an ED system is made of two components. The
energy required for the transfer of ions from the solution across membrane material and the
energy required for pumping the feed solution through the ED unit. The rate of consumption
of either form of energy is dependent, among other factors, on the concentration of feed
solution and the available membrane area to the feed solution.
Direct energy required in an ED unit is dependent on the voltage and current applied across
the unit. The voltage drop across an ED unit is a result of resistance and potentials due to
solutions of different salt concentration
29
. The resistance is as a result of friction between
ions with membrane matrix and water molecules. There is also energy loss due to electrode
processes in the terminal compartments, although the energy loss due to resistance is much
greater
23
. It is, therefore, advisable to use membranes with low electrical resistance.
Membranes should be closely arranged in order to reduce energy losses due to resistance of
the cell pair unit as a result of salt transfer
29
. Based on Ohms law, the voltage U, applied
across an ED unit is shown in constraint (17).
C c C Fed
ln
Ped
C N Q z F
C Ped C fc + AC
U=
A
C
11

(17)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 12 of 36
The voltage across an ED unit is, therefore, related to the total power, PER , required to
produce a product capacity, Q Ped . The specific energy required for desalination is
represented by constraint (18).
Pow
Q Ped
E spec =
(18)
The pumping energy is the energy consumed in pumping the feed water into the ED unit.
Since the membrane compartment is arranged in a rectangular form, the flows through the
diluate and concentrate streams are considered to be passing through a rectangular channel.
The geometry of the pipe is considered to be that of rectangular channel with a pressure drop
P , considered to be of a laminar flow as represented by constraint (19), which is a modified

Hagen-Poisuille equation for this type of geometry. The symbol is the viscosity of water, d
is the diameter of the rectangular channel of the ED unit, L is the process path length of the
ED unit.
P =
12 v L
d2
(19)
The pumping energy is, therefore, calculated based on the pressure drop as shown in
constraint (20). Here is a conversion factor available in literature, p is the pumping
efficiency23.
E pump =
P
p
(20)
3.5.4 Material balances

Material balances are conducted around the ED unit in Figure 6 in order to conserve mass by
accounting for materials entering, leaving or mixing within the unit as shown in constraints
(21) to (25).
Q Fed = Q Ped + Q Re d
(21)
Q Fed = Q d + Q m
(22)
12

Page 13 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Q d = Q Ped + Q r
(23)
Q c = Q m + Q cr
(24)
Q Re d = Q c + Q r Q cr
(25)
Corresponding load balances are conducted across the ED unit in order to obtain the species
balance in the streams and to demonstrate that the amount of contaminants removed from the
diluate stream equals the amount of contaminants accumulated in the concentrate stream, for
the case where Qc=Qd.
Q Fed C Fed = Q Ped C Ped + Q Re d C Re d
(26)
Q r C Ped + Q c C c = Q cr C cr + Q Re d C Re d
(27)
Q mC Fed + Q cr C cr = Q c C fc
(28)
Q d C Fed + Q c C fc = Q d C Ped + Q c C c
(29)
The liquid recovery rate, r, is the amount of product water that is directed to the recycle
concentrate stream in order to reduce its salinity and is shown in constraint (30). It is required
in order to avoid water transport due to osmosis across the membranes 23.
r=
Q Ped
Qd
(30)
The purge concentrate is replaced by an amount of the less concentrated feed, and is
represented by the mixing ratio, m, in constraint (31).
Qd
m = Fed
Q
(31)
13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 14 of 36
Based on the formulation and physical design of the ED unit it is assumed that both the
diluate and concentrate maintain a constant flowrate. This is done in order to avoid strain on
the membrane material.
The cost function of the ED regeneration unit which is expressed as the TACe comprises of
the capital and operational costs. The capital cost consists of the costs associated with the
purchase of pumping equipment, and the establishment of the plant. The operating cost is the
costs incurred due to day to day running of the plant over a specified time. It is associated
with the electrical energy costs due to pumping of feed water into the system and
desalination. Both costs are incorporated into a single function called TACe which is
synthesised to obtain optimal design parameters as shown in constraint (32). Here K mb is the
capital cost of membrane, t max is the maximum equipment life, AOT is the annual operating
time of the plant, K el represents the cost of the electrical power.
TAC e =
K mb A
+ AOT K el Q Ped E Pump + E spec
max
t
(32)
3.6. Reverse osmosis membrane regenerator formulation

Figure 4 is a schematic representation of a reverse osmosis membrane regeneration unit based
on the works of El-Halwagi
25
and Khor, et al.
19
. Detailed synthesis of the membrane
regeneration unit is conducted to obtain optimal design parameters based on number of

membrane modules, feed flowrates and energy required for pumping. In industrial
applications, reverse-osmosis networks (RON) are used for the separation processes. A RON
comprises of multiple RO modules, pumps, and turbines to form a system. The task of this
section is to formulate a mathematical model of a hollow-fibre RON based on El-Halwagi 25.
The formulated model is synthesised based on the pumps, reverse-osmosis modules and
energy recovery turbines from the high pressure reject side 19
Q FroC Fro P F
Feed
RO unit
Reject
Permeate
Pump
Q Pr o
Q Rro
C Pr o
C Rro
PP
PR
14

Turbine
Page 15 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Figure 4: Schematic of a reverse osmosis unit

In modelling a RON there are two main considerations, such as, membrane transport
equations and the hydrodynamic modelling of the RON modules. The membrane equations
have to do with water permeation and solute flux taking place at the membrane surface.
Hydrodynamic modelling deals with microscopic transport of various species along with the
momentum and energy associated with it. The separation efficiency of a RON is dependent
on the influent solute concentration, pressure and water flowrate 20.
3.61 Membrane transport equations
Transport equations are used to predict the flux of water and solute based on the work of
Dandavati, et al. 30 and Evangelista 31. Both the water and solute flux equations are valid for
all reverse osmosis module configurations. The solute flux, N solute , relates to the transport of
solute by diffusion due to the transport of water across the membrane phase and is given by
D
constraint (33). Where 2 M
K
the solute is flux constant and C s is the average concentration
on the feed side of the RO unit.
D
N solute = 2 M
K
C S
(33)
Water flux relates to rate at which water permeates through RO unit. It is directly related to
the temperature and pressure as well as RO module dimensions and water properties as
shown in constraint (34). Here AP is the water permeability constant, P is the pressure drop
across the unit, F is the osmotic pressure on the feed side of the RO unit, and is a
constant that represents the design features of the hollow fibre module.
N water = AP P Fro
CS
C
(34)
15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 16 of 36
3.6.2 Average shell side concentration

The average concentration on the shell side of the membrane is the average of the feed and
rejects concentration as represented in constraint (35).
C Fro + C Rro
CS =
2
(35)
3.6.3 Trans-membrane pressure

The pressure drop across the membrane is the difference in pressure between the feed side
and the permeate side of the membrane unit. It is the driving force for membrane
performance and product water production. The pressure difference across a RON increases
with increasing flux across the membrane which is represented by constraint (36). Here PF ,
PR and PP are the feed, retentate and permeate pressures of the RO unit respectively.
P =
( PF + PR )
PP
2
(36)
The pressure on the shell side Pshell , of the RO hollow-fibre module is represented by the
pressure difference between the feed side and the reject side of the RO unit.
Pshell = PF PR
(37)
Substituting the shell side pressure drop into the pressure drop across the reverse osmosis unit
gives rise to the feed pressure applied to the RON.
PF = P + shell + PP
2
(38)
3.6.4 Power across the RON

The power of turbine and pump across RON is represented by constraints (39) and (40)
respectively. Here Patm is the atmospheric pressure and is the density of water.
16

Page 17 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Pow( turb ) =
Q Rro [PR Patm ]
Pow( pump ) =
(39)
Q Fro [PF Patm ]
(40)
3.6.5 Average concentration on the feed side

The osmotic pressure on the feed side of RON is a function of the contaminant concentration
25
. In this formulation the osmotic pressure on the permeate side is neglected since the
concentration is assumed to be significantly lower. The osmotic pressure on the retentate side
RO is adopted from the formulation of Saif, et al. 32 and is shown in constraint (41).
ro = OS C Fro
(41)
The osmotic pressure coefficient OS , ranges between osmotic pressure on the feed side and
average solute concentration on the feed side. The average concentration on the feed side is
reformulated based on the concentration on the permeate side as adopted from Khor, et al. 19.
The pressures across the membrane material and membrane area are important parameters
that determine the performance of the RON. Here S C is the solute permeability coefficient.
C Fro =
C Pr o AP [P ro ]
SC
(42)
3.6.6 Permeate flowrate

The permeate flowrate, described by Saif, et al.
32
is related to the pressure drop across the
membrane, the osmotic pressure on the reject side and the number of modules present in the
RON according to constraint (43). The parameter S m is the membrane area per module.
Q Pro = N m Sm AP [P ro ]
(43)
Constraint (43) is then reformulated based on the average solute concentration on the feed
side to cater for the number of RO modules in the RON.
17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Q Pr o
Nm =
AP Sm P OS C Fro
Page 18 of 36
(44)
The cost function of the RON comprises of variables and physical parameters of the reverse
osmosis membrane unit. It consists of the annualised fixed capital cost of turbine, pump,
membrane modules as well as the operating costs for pump and pretreatment of chemicals.
The operating revenue through energy recovery by the turbine at the retentate side is also
incorporated to supplement the cost of energy usage.
TAC r = K mod N m + K pump (Pow( pump ) )
0.65
Pow( pump ) K elec AOT
pump
+ K tur b (Pow( tur b ) )
0.43
+ Q Fro K chemicals AOT
(45)
Pow( tur b )tur b K chemicals AOT
3.7 Model constraints

Bounds are set on the flowrates which are used with the binary variables to force constraints
to be active or inactive. This is done to reject flowrates that are uneconomically small that
could add unnecessary costs to the plant. The lower bounds are set at flowrates below which
uneconomical inter pipping connections are eliminated and the capacity of the pipe
determines the upper bound. In order to achieve this, constraint (47) is introduced using a list
B. Elements of B, are flowrates that defines the respective units within the superstructure.

Let B = {a, ro,ed , ds, dr, de, es, er, ee, fs, fr , fe, gs, gr, ge}
(46)
Based on constraint (46), constraints (47) (50) is introduced, which satisfy all possible
bounds for minimum or maximum flowrates that can be used to govern the existence of
piping interconnections within the water network superstructure. It can also be used to control
the structural features of the design.
b
Q bLj ,i Y jb,i Q bj ,i Q bU
j ,i Y j ,i
b

Q bLj Y jb Q bj Q bU
j Yj
b B j J i I
b B j J
18

(47)
(48)
Page 19 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
QibLYi b Qib QibU Yi b
b B i I
(49)
QbLY b Qb QbU Y b
b B
(50)
3.8 The objective function

Constraint (52) represents the objective function which minimises the overall annualised cost
of the water network. This includes freshwater cost, wastewater treatment cost and annualised
regeneration cost, as well as capital and operating costs of piping interconnections. The costs
related to piping are accounted for by specifying an approximate length of pipe, the material
of construction and linear velocities through the pipes.
The piping cost K bj ,i which is a function of the Manhattan distance between any units
represented by constraint (51) is introduced to simplify the presentation of the objective
function.
K bj ,i
pQ bj ,i
+ qY jb,i
3600 v
D bj ,i
(51)
The subscripts j and i represents interconnections between any sources and sinks respectively.
Similarly, K bj , K ib and K b in constraint (52), are costs for interpipping connections from
source to regenerators, permeate and reject streams of regenerators to sinks and permeate and
reject streams into regeneration units. Where Y jb,i , Y jb , Yib and Y b are the binary variables for
existence of piping connections respectively.
K FW FW + K WW WW AOT + TACe + TAC r +
a
b
K +
Kj
j ,i
Obj = min jJ iI
b{ro ,ed }, jJ
AF
b
b
Ki +
K

{
}
{
}
b
ds
,
es
,
fs
,
gs
,
i
I
b
B
\
ro
,
ed
,
a
,
ds
,
es
,
fs
,
gs
19

(52)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1-norm
Manhattan
distance, D bj ,i , D bj , Dib and D b is
Page 20 of 36
considered
for
all
piping
interconnections. All pipes are assumed to be of the same material properties and as a result
the carbon steel pipes parameters of p and q are adopted for the piping costs. v is the stream
flow velocity and AF is the annualisation factor adopted from Chew, et al. 18 which is used to
annualise the piping cost. The resulting mathematical model is an MINLP. The nonlinear
terms are due to the presence of bilinear terms in mass balance equations and power terms in
the cost functions of regeneration units. The MINLP model was solved using GAMS 24.2
using the general purpose global optimisation solver BARON.
4. Illustrative Example
The developed mathematical model is applied to a pulp and paper case study adopted from
Chew, et al.
18
. The choice of the case study is motivated by the high amount of ionic
components produced by the pulp and paper industry. More so, the pulp and paper industry
involves miscible phase networks which consist of aqueous systems where streams lose their
identities through the mixing process hence the case study is suitable for a fixed flowrate
method adopted for this work.
Table 1: Basic data for water sources and sinks
Sources, j
j
Sinks, i
Flowrate
Concentration
(ton/h)
(mg/L)
2.07
89.4
3.26
34.0
0.34
272
0.34
84.0
0.024
18.3
1.34
50.0
7.22
36.0
7.22
6.3
WW
FW
Flowrate
Max. concentration
(ton/h)
(mg/L)
600
Table 1 shows the basic data for the plant water network which comprises of five water
sources including the freshwater source, and five water sinks including the wastewater sink.
Tables 2 and 3 show process data for ED and RO unit, whereas Table 4 shows the economic
data for detailed design of both regeneration units.
20

Page 21 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Table 2: Input data parameters into the ED unit.

Parameter
Value
Current utilization,
0.9
Cell width, w
0.42 m
10.5 m2/kep
Equivalent conductance,
9.65x107 As/keq
Faradays constant, F
Electrochemical valence, z
Constant for limiting current density, aLCD
25000
LCD
0.5
Constant for limiting current density, b

Membrane resistance, AC
0.0007 m2
Volume factor,
0.8
Velocity in pipes, v
1 m/s
Shadow factor,
0.7
Maximum equipment life, tmax
5 years
Safety factor,
0.7
Pump efficiency,
0.7
Liquid recovery, LRe
0.7
Conversion factor, Ktr
27.2
Electric power costs, Kel
0.12 $/kWh
mb
150 $/m2
Membrane and capital costs, K
21

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 22 of 36
Table 3: Input data parameters into the RO unit

Parameter
Value
Shell side pressure drop, Pshell
0.4 atm
4.083x10-4 atm
Osmotic pressure coefficient, OS
1.82x10-8 m/s
Solute permeability coefficient, SC
9.84x10-4 kg/(m.s)
Water viscosity,
5.573x10-8 m/(s.atm)
Water permeability coefficient, AP

Permeate pressure, Pp
1 atm
Atmospheric pressure, Patm
1 atm
Design parameter,
0.694
Pump efficiency, pump
0.7
Turbine efficiency, turb
0.7
180 m2
Membrane area per module, Sm

Liquid recovery, LRr
0.7
Cost coefficient for pump, Kpump
6.5 $/(year.W0.65)
Cost coefficient for turbine, Kturb
18.4 $/(year.W0.43)
Unit cost of HFRO membrane module Kmod
2300 $/year
Table 4: Economic data for case study.

Parameter
Value
Annual operating time, AOT
8760 h
Cost of electricity, Kel
0.12 $/kWh
Unit cost of pretreatment of chemicals, Kchem
3x10-5 $/kg
Annualization factor, AF
0.23
FW
Unit cost of freshwater, K
0.001 $/kg
Unit cost of effluent treatment, KWW
0.001 $/kg
Parameter for carbon steel piping, p
7200
Parameter for carbon steel piping, q
2500
22

Page 23 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
The case study was applied to three different scenarios in order to ascertain the benefits of
incorporating detailed network of the membrane regeneration units in the constraints of the
water network.
(i) Scenario 1 considered a model of the water network without regeneration.
(ii) Scenario 2 considered a model of water network with regeneration units based on the
blackbox approach.
(iii) Scenario 3 considered detailed synthesis of the regeneration units incorporated into
the overall water network objective function.
For scenario 2 and 3, the optimisation was conducted for both fixed and variable removal
ratios. For comparison, in both cases the removal ratio had a fixed value of 0.7.
The optimal results for all scenarios are presented in Table 5. The results showed a reduction
in freshwater consumption, wastewater generation as well as the total annualised water
network cost as compared to the scenario without regenerations. The results of scenario 3 are
displayed in Figures 8 and 9 respectively. Scenario 3 showed significant reduction in water
network cost as well as freshwater consumption and wastewater reduction as compared to the
direct water network model without regeneration. However, there was an increase in the total
water network cost compared to the scenario 2. This is as a result of scenario 3 being a true
representation of the total water network as it incorporates a detailed design of the membrane
regeneration units and gives an accurate expression of the regeneration cost compared to the
linear cost function of scenario 2 which uses the blackbox method. Apart from presenting
accurate cost of water regeneration units, the detailed model presented in this work also gives
optimal design configurations of the membrane regeneration units for minimum energy
usage.
23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 24 of 36
Table 5: Optimal results of water network based on the case study

Scenario1
Freshwater use
Scenario 2
Scenario3
Fixed RR
Variable RR
Fixed RR
Variable RR
11.42
9.83
11.64
10.3
37.5
46.3
36.4
43.7
8.89
7.3
9.11
7.75
43.7
53.7
42.3
50.9
1170000
597000
508000
634000
626000
0.06
687.50
2764.20
865
16709.78
18.30
(ton/h)
% of freshwater
savings
Wastewater
15.79
generated (ton/h)
% of wastewater
saved
Total cost of
water network($)
CPU time (s)
From the results in Table 5 it is evident that variable removal ratio in scenario 3 presents the
optimal configuration, since the model is allowed to choose the performance parameters of
the membrane regenerators. The results also show that incorporating multiple membrane
regenerators with different performance and inlet and outlet contaminant limits in a water
network can lead to an optimal use of freshwater. The inlet contaminant limits were set at
different levels in order to give membrane regenerators varying options for contaminant
treatment. The model that incorporates variable removal ratio in scenario 3 proved to be the
optimal result for the case study as represented in Figure 9. The configuration showed
regeneration reuse, regeneration recycle within the water network between the regenerators.
This resulted in 43.7 % reduction in freshwater consumption, 50.9% reduction in wastewater
generation and 46 % savings in the total annualised water network cost as compared to
scenario 1. Tables 6 and 7 show the design results of the ED and RO units, respectively. In
particular, the optimum removal ratios for both units are different from the fixed removal
ratio of 0.7. The results also show the detailed design parameters that could be used in
designing the optimum units in terms of energy and water use. The statistics of the model for
all the cases are shown in Table 8.
24

Page 25 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Table 6: Optimal design results for electrodialysis unit in scenario 2

Variable
Value
50
A (m2)
54.4
L (m)
0.8
I (A)
12.5
v (m/s)
0.01
U (V)
30.2
Espec (J/s)
0.02
Epump (J/s)
0.004
P (kPa)
16.3
QFed (t/h)
1.03
RRe
0.8
Table 7: Optimal design results for reverse-osmosis unit in scenario 2.

Variable
Nm
Value
10
PF (kPa)
5.73x105
PR (kPa)
5.33x105
Pshell (kPa)
4.52x105
ro(kPa)
1.63
Pturb (J/s)
3615.97
Ppump (J/s)
301.66
QFro (t//h)
0.72
RRr
0.65
25

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 26 of 36
Table 8: Model characteristics for all cases

Scenario1
Scenario2
Fixed
Variable
RR
RR
Scenario3
Fixed RR
Variable
RR
No. of constraints
31
232
232
276
276
No. of continuous variables
68
185
187
222
224
No. of discrete variables
25
67
67
69
69
Tolerance
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Table 8 shows characteristics of all the models associated with this work. It can be seen that
the number of integer and binary variables increases with the detail model. This makes the
model highly nonlinear as a result it becomes a mixed integer nonlinear programming
(MINLP). MINLP models are inherently difficult to solve hence the CPU time for the
detailed model is high compared to the base model and blackbox models as can be seen in
Table 6.
0.62
1
2
0.34
1.45
0.02
3
4
0 . 34
2 . 62
1.34
7.22
6.78
FW
Figure 5: Optimum water network configuration for scenario 1
26

4x10-3
7.22
4
WW
Page 27 of 36
6x10-3
0.04
0.34
ED
3
0.
0
RO
0.06
0
0.3
0.4
2
0.
6
0.3
1
1
0.
0.01
2
3
0.024
0 . 33
1.3
8
2
2.88
1.32
0 . 04
7.22
6.76
FW
WW
Figure 6: Optimum water network configuration for scenario 2 (fixed removal ratio)
0.02
0.07
1.01
0.05
64
0.
0.
34
0.9
4
RO
1.2
0.34
33
0.
0.
53
ED
0
0.5 .30
0
2
3
4
FW
03
0.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1.73
0.024
0.40
2.00
2.90
5.20
4
3.88
WW
Figure 7: Optimum water network configuration for scenario 2 (variable removal ratio)
27

6x10-3
0.02
0.33
ED
1
0.3
0.
63
RO
0
0.3
0.4
0.3
0
12
0.
0.34
2
0.024
1
2
2 . 65
1 . 44
1.32
7.22
6.80
FW
WW
0.45
Figure 8: Optimum water network configuration for scenario 3 (fixed removal ratio)
0.03
0.04
0.58
ED
3
0.
0
RO
0.7
2
0.3
3
8
0.3
2
0.
0.
63
0
0.6
1
1
0.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 28 of 36
2
3
0.024
0 . 66
0 . 01
0.04
2
2.60
1.4
4
1.08
6.62
5.80
FW
WW
Figure 9: Optimum water network configurations for scenario 3 (variable removal ratio)
28

Page 29 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
5. Conclusion
This work has addressed the synthesis of a multi-membrane regeneration water network by
proposing a MINLP optimisation model that incorporates detailed mechanistic models of an
ED and RO units within a water network. The developed water network allows for direct
reuse/recycle and regeneration reuse/recycle. The developed MINLP model is applied to a
pulp and paper industry case study and solved using GAMS/BARON. The results showed
that setting the removal ratio as variable yields optimal configuration as compared to the
fixed removal ratio. The model also showed that incorporating a detailed model of the
regeneration unit into the overall model yields accurate expression of the regeneration cost as
compared to the black-box model. It also gives optimal operating variables of the
regeneration units for minimal energy and water usage. The results in this work demonstrate
that integrating detailed models of regeneration units in a water network superstructure
results in significant reduction in water consumption as well as wastewater reduction in the
process industry. The optimal design of the membrane regeneration units also aids by given
investors accurate cost representation for minimal energy usage. The complexity of the model
results in high computational time. However, this is cannot be deemed a serious limitation in
the context of synthesis and design, since this particular problem is solved once prior to
detailed design. This is unlike in scheduling models where the optimization problem is solved
very frequently over short time horizons. It is noteworthy that the proposed model can be
extended to include multiple type regenerators. Hence the formulation in this work offers a
scope for future work to incorporate multiple ED, RO, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration units, etc.
6. Nomenclature
6.1 Sets
J = {j|j = water source}
I = {i|i = water sink}
B ={b|b = flowrates}
6.2 Parameters
a LCD
Constant for limiting
b LCD
Constant for limiting

current density
current density
F
29

Faraday constant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Electrochemical
Sm
valence
Page 30 of 36
Membrane area per

module
K el
Electric power cost
Density of saline water
K mb
Membrane and capital
Viscosity of water
cost
RR e
Removal ratio for ED
K tr
Conversion factor
AP
Water permeability
unit
RR r
unit
coefficient
AOT
Annual operating time
Number of years
K Chem
Unit cost of pre-
LR e
LR r
Liquid phase recovery

for RO unit
Unit cost for waste
Q jx
Flowrate from source j
treatment
C jx
Contaminant co from
K FW
Unit cost for freshwater
K elect
Unit cost of electricity
K mod
Unit cost of HFRO
source j
Q iz
Flowrate of sink i
Maximum allowable
C iU
membrane module
K Pump
Liquid phase recovery

for ED unit
treatment of chemicals
WW
Removal ratio for RO
contaminant
Cost coefficient of
concentration into sink
pump
Cost coefficient of
Volume factor
turbine
Shadow factor
D2 M K
Solute flux constant
Safety factor
SC
Solute permeability
Water viscosity
coefficient
Design parameter
OS
Osmotic pressure
Current utilisation
PF
Feed pressure
Cell thickness
PP
Permeate pressure of
Width of cell pair
RON
Pumping efficiency for
K turb
p, q
ED unit
Parameter for carbon
pump
steel piping
Pumping efficiency for

RO unit
30

Page 31 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
turb
Turbine efficiency for
ED unit
RO unit
AC
Q Re d
Membrane resistance
unit
Q Fro
Equivalent conductance
Q Pr o
Velocity of fluid in
Q Rro
Manhattan distance
Qids
Manhattan distance
regeneration units
Q de
Flowrate from permeate
Manhattan distance
stream of ED unit into
from permeate and
ED unit
reject stream to sinks

Db

stream of ED into sink i
from source to
Dib
Reject flowrate of RO
unit
from source to sink
D bj
Permeate flowrate of
RO unit
pipes
D bj ,i
Flowrate into the RO

unit
Reject flowrate of ED
Q dr
Manhattan distance
from permeate and
RO unit
reject streams to ED
Qies
and RO units
Flowrate from reject

sink i
6.3 Continues variable
Q ee
FW
Freshwater flowrate
WW
Wastewater flowrate
ED unit
Q aj ,i
Q roj
Q er
to sink i
RO unit
to RO unit
Q edj
Q Fed
Q Ped
Qi fs
stream of RO unit into
to ED unit
sink i
Flowrate into the ED
Q fe
unit
Permeate flowrate of
ED unit
31

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Q fr
the concentrate stream
of ED unit
RO unit
Qigs
Cc
contaminant in the
concentrate stream
C cr
recycle stream of the
ED unit
CUr
contaminant into RO
unit
C Ue
contaminant into ED
contaminant co into ED
unit
Qd
Concentration of
Qc
unit
Concentration of
Qm
Qr
unit
Concentration of
Q cr
reject stream of ED unit
Feed split rate
Concentration of
Membrane area of ED
unit
permeate stream of RO
Electric current
unit
Velocity of stream in
Concentration of
ED unit
contaminant co in the
reject stream of RO unit
C
fc
Feed concentration in
Voltage across ED unit
Pressure drop
I prac
Practical current
32

Concentrate stream
recycle flowrate
Rro
Recycle stream
flowrate of ED unit
Pr o
Mixing flowrate of ED
unit
permeate stream of ED
C
Concentrate stream
flowrate of ED unit
Re d
Diluate stream flowrate

of ED unit
contaminant co into RO
C Ped
Maximum allowable
Concentration of
unit
C Fro
Maximum allowable

RO unit
C Fed
Concentration of

ED unit
Q gr
Concentration of

sink i
Q ge
Page 32 of 36
Page 33 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
density
6.4 Integer Variables
E pump
Pumping energy
Nm
E spec
Specific energy
K bj ,i
Cost of piping from
osmosis modules
N
K ib
Costs for piping from

source to ED and RO
6.5 Binary Variables
units
1 Existence of piping
interconnection between
b

y j ,i =
source and sink,
0 Otherwise
b
y j =
source and regeneration units,
0 Otherwise
Costs of piping from

permeate and reject
stream to sinks
Kb
Costs of piping from

permeate and reject
streams to ED and RO
units
Pow
Power through ED unit
Pow( turb )
Power of turbine
Pow( pump )
Power of pump
Cs
Concentration on the
b
y i =
permeate and reject and sinks,
0 Otherwise
b
y =
permeate and reject into units,
0 Otherwise
shell side
N solute
Solute flux
N water
Water flux
TAC e
Total annual cost of RO

unit
TAC r
Total annual cost of ED

unit
ro
Osmotic pressure at
retentate side of RO
unit
Osmotic pressure on
the feed side
33

Number Electrodialysis
cell pairs
source to sinks
K bj
Number of reverse
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 34 of 36
7. Acknowledgement.
The authors would like to thank the Water Research Commission (WRC) and National
Research Foundation (NRF) for funding this work under the NRF/DST Chair in Sustainable
Process Engineering at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
8. References
1.
Wang, Y.; Smith, R., Wastewater minimisation. Chemical Engineering Science 1994,
49, (7), 981-1006.
2.
Wang, Y.-P.; Smith, R., Design of distributed effluent treatment systems. Chemical
Engineering Science 1994, 49, (18), 3127-3145.
3.
Manan, Z. A.; Tan, Y. L.; Foo, D. C. Y., Targeting the minimum water flow rate
using water cascade analysis technique. AIChE Journal 2004, 50, (12), 3169-3183.
4.
Bandyopadhyay, S.; Cormos, C.-C., Water management in process industries
incorporating regeneration and recycle through a single treatment unit. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research 2008, 47, (4), 1111-1119.
5.
Tan, R. R.; Ng, D. K.; Foo, D. C.; Aviso, K. B., A superstructure model for the
synthesis of single-contaminant water networks with partitioning regenerators. Process Safety
and Environmental Protection 2009, 87, (3), 197-205.
6.
Takama, N.; Kuriyama, T.; Shiroko, K.; Umeda, T., Optimal planning of water
allocation in industry. Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan 1980, 13, (6), 478-483.
7.
Ahmetovi, E.; Grossmann, I. E., Strategies for the global optimization of integrated
process water networks. Computer aided chemical engineering 2010, 28, 901-906.
8.
Doyle, S.; Smith, R., Targeting water reuse with multiple contaminants. Process
safety and environmental protection 1997, 75, (3), 181-189.
9.
Huang, C.-H.; Chang, C.-T.; Ling, H.-C.; Chang, C.-C., A mathematical
programming model for water usage and treatment network design. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 1999, 38, (7), 2666-2679.
10.
Karuppiah, R.; Grossmann, I. E., Global optimization for the synthesis of integrated
water systems in chemical processes. Computers & Chemical Engineering 2006, 30, (4), 650673.
11.
Rossiter, A.; Nath, R., Wastewater minimization using nonlinear programming. Waste
Minimisation through Process Design. New York: McGraw Hill 1995.
12.
Quesada, I.; Grossmann, I. E., Global optimization of bilinear process networks with
multicomponent flows. Computers & Chemical Engineering 1995, 19, (12), 1219-1242.
34

Page 35 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
13.
Faria, D. C.; Bagajewicz, M. J., On the appropriate modeling of process plant water
systems. AIChE journal 2010, 56, (3), 668-689.
14.
Savelski, M. J.; Bagajewicz, M. J., On the optimality conditions of water utilization
systems in process plants with single contaminants. Chemical Engineering Science 2000, 55,
(21), 5035-5048.
15.
Bagajewicz, M.; Savelski, M., On the use of linear models for the design of water
utilization systems in process plants with a single contaminant. Chemical engineering
research and design 2001, 79, (5), 600-610.
16.
Lee, S.; Grossmann, I. E., Global optimization of nonlinear generalized disjunctive
programming with bilinear equality constraints: applications to process networks. Computers
& chemical engineering 2003, 27, (11), 1557-1575.
17.
Gunaratnam, M.; Alva-Argaez, A.; Kokossis, A.; Kim, J.-K.; Smith, R., Automated
design of total water systems. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2005, 44, (3),
588-599.
18.
Chew, I. M. L.; Tan, R.; Ng, D. K. S.; Foo, D. C. Y.; Majozi, T.; Gouws, J., Synthesis
of direct and indirect interplant water network. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
2008, 47, (23), 9485-9496.
19.
Khor, C. S.; Foo, D. C.; El-Halwagi, M. M.; Tan, R. R.; Shah, N., A superstructure
optimization approach for membrane separation-based water regeneration network synthesis
with detailed nonlinear mechanistic reverse osmosis model. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 2011, 50, (23), 13444-13456.
20.
Yang, L.; Salcedo-Diaz, R.; Grossmann, I. E., Water Network Optimization with
Wastewater Regeneration Models. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2014, 53,
(45), 17680-17695.
21.
Korngold, E., Electrodialysis unit: Optimization and calculation of energy
requirement. Desalination 1982, 40, (1), 171-179.
22.
Strathmann, H., Electrodialysis, a mature technology with a multitude of new
applications. Desalination 2010, 264, (3), 268-288.
23.
Tsiakis, P.; Papageorgiou, L. G., Optimal design of an electrodialysis brackish water
desalination plant. Desalination 2005, 173, (2), 173-186.
24.
Garud, R.; Kore, S.; Kore, V.; Kulkarni, G., A short review on process and
applications of reverse osmosis. Universal journal of Environmental research and technology
2011, 1, (2).
25.
El-Halwagi, M., Sustainable design through process integration. Massachusetts:
Elsevier Inc 2012.
26.
Alva-Argez, A.; Kokossis, A. C.; Smith, R., Wastewater minimisation of industrial
systems using an integrated approach. Computers & Chemical Engineering 1998, 22, S741S744.
35

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 36 of 36
27.
Khor, C. S.; Chachuat, B.; Shah, N., A superstructure optimization approach for water
network synthesis with membrane separation-based regenerators. Computers & Chemical
Engineering 2012, 42, 48-63.
28.
Lee, H.-J.; Sarfert, F.; Strathmann, H.; Moon, S.-H., Designing of an electrodialysis
desalination plant. Desalination 2002, 142, (3), 267-286.
29.
Strathmann, H.; Krol, J.; Rapp, H.-J.; Eigenberger, G., Limiting current density and
water dissociation in bipolar membranes. Journal of Membrane Science 1997, 125, (1), 123142.
30.
Dandavati, M. S.; Doshi, M. R.; Gill, W. N., Hollow fiber reverse osmosis:
experiments and analysis of radial flow systems. Chemical Engineering Science 1975, 30,
(8), 877-886.
31.
Evangelista, F., Improved Graphical-Analysis Method for the Design of ReverseOsmosis Plants. Industrial Engineering Chemical Process 1986, 25, (86), 366-375.
32.
Saif, Y.; Elkamel, A.; Pritzker, M., Optimal design of reverse-osmosis networks for
wastewater treatment. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 2008,
47, (12), 2163-2174.
36


Optimization of Integrated Water and Multiregenerator Membrane Systems - Abass2016

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Optimization of Integrated Water and Multiregenerator Membrane Systems - Abass2016

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Subscriber access provided by UNIV OSNABRUECK

Optimization of Integrated Water and Multi-Regenerator Membrane Systems

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research is published by the American

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Optimization of Integrated Water and Multi-Regenerator Membrane Systems

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

regeneration reuse/recycle of wastewater in order to reduce freshwater consumption. The

Wang and Smith 2 has since developed into advanced graphical,

in order to obtain optimal freshwater usage in their

, Karuppiah and Grossmann

and Faria and Bagajewicz

presented a water network superstructure with a single membrane partitioning

development, Yang, et al.

proposed a unifying approach by combining multiple water

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

. Detailed mathematical model of RO unit that allows for

process simulation and optimization has been developed by El-Halwagi 25.

. This does not give an accurate cost

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

different membrane systems to treat specific waste ranges.

Detailed synthesis of the

membrane regeneration systems is conducted to determine optimal operating conditions for

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Figure 1: General water network superstructure with multiple membrane regenerators

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Permeate and reject

Figure 2: Schematic representations of a water source

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

3.4. Mass and concentration balances for sinks

3.5. Electrodialysis membrane regeneration unit

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

C c C Fed AC C Ped Ped

. The resistance is as a result of friction between

. It is, therefore, advisable to use membranes with low electrical resistance.

. Based on Ohms law, the voltage U, applied

across an ED unit is shown in constraint (17).

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

P , considered to be of a laminar flow as represented by constraint (19), which is a modified

3.5.4 Material balances

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Q Fed C Fed = Q Ped C Ped + Q Re d C Re d

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

3.6. Reverse osmosis membrane regenerator formulation

and Khor, et al.

. Detailed synthesis of the membrane

regeneration unit is conducted to obtain optimal design parameters based on number of

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research