4.7 Article

Multi-objective optimization of reverse osmosis networks by lexicographic optimization and augmented epsilon constraint method

期刊

DESALINATION
卷 333, 期 1, 页码 66-81

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2013.10.028

关键词

Reverse osmosis; Seawater desalination; Multi-objective optimization; Exergy analysis; Augmented epsilon-constraint method

资金

  1. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University (PCSIRT) [IRT1059]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology (Beijing Normal University)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a multi-objective optimization (MOO) of reverse osmosis (RO) networks for seawater desalination. The membrane transport model takes into consideration of the longitudinal variation of the velocity, the pressure, and the concentration in the membrane modules. The RO network with three type energy recovery device options (pressure exchanger (PX), Hydraulic Turbocharger, and turbine) is introduced. Lexicographic optimization (for calculation of a more effective payoff table) and augmented epsilon-constraint method (to avoid inefficient Pareto solutions) are proposed to solve the MOO problem. A fuzzy decision maker is introduced to derive the most efficient solution among Pareto-optimal solutions. Firstly, different energy recovery option studies show that using PX is seen to be the most profitable option. Exergy analysis is used to evaluate the contribution of the equipments in energy degradation. Secondly, the proposed multi-objective framework simultaneously optimizes the total annualized cost (TAC) and energy consumption. With the increases of weighting for the main objective function: TAC, the most efficient solution moves to lower TAC direction. Finally, system recovery rate is added as the third objective function. It is reasonable to stay at the appropriate system recovery rather than to increase up to its limit and generating high energetic losses. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved,

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据