4.7 Article

The effect of feed spacer geometry on membrane performance and concentration polarisation based on 3D CFD simulations

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEMBRANE SCIENCE
Volume 527, Issue -, Pages 78-91

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2016.12.058

Keywords

Reverse osmosis (RO); Spiral wound module; Feed spacers; Computational fluid dynamics (CFD); Membrane performance

Funding

  1. BP through the BP International Centre for Advanced Materials (BP-ICAM)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Feed spacers are used in spiral wound reverse osmosis (RO) membrane modules to keep the membrane sheets apart as well as to enhance mixing. They are beneficial to membrane performance but at the expense of additional pressure loss. In this study, four types of feed spacer configurations are investigated, with a total of 20 geometric variations based on commercially available spacers and selected filament angles. The impact of feed spacer design on membrane performance is investigated by means of three-dimensional (3D) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations, where the solution-diffusion model is employed for water and solute transport through RO membranes. Numerical simulation results show that, for the operating and geometric conditions examined, fully woven spacers outperform other spacer configurations in mitigating concentration polarisation (CP). When designed with a mesh angle of 60 degrees, fully woven spacers also deliver the highest water flux, although the associated pressure drops are slightly higher than their nonwoven counterparts. Middle layer geometries with a mesh angle of 30 degrees produce the lowest water flux. On the other hand, spacers with a mesh angle of 90 degrees show the lowest pressure drop among all the filament arrangements examined. Furthermore, the computational model presented here can also be used to predict membrane performance for a given feed spacer type and geometry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available