Journal

of
Food
Engineering
99
(2010)
351 359

Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Journal
of
Food
Engineering
journal
homepage:
www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Simulation
and
analysis
of
a
sugarcane
juice
evaporation
system
L.M.M.
Jorge
a,*,
A.R.
Righetto
a,
P.A.
Polli
a,
O.A.A.
Santos
a,
R.
Maciel
Filho
b
a
Chemical
Engineering
Department,

State
University
of
Maring
(UEM),
Av.
Colombo,
5790,
Bloco
D90,
Maring
CEP
87020-900,
PR,
Brazil
b
Chemical
Engineering
School,
State
University
of
Campinas
(UNICAMP),
CP
6066,
Campinas
CEP
13081-970,
SP,
Brazil
article
info
abstract
Article
history:
Received
22
December
2009
Received
in
revised
form
6
March
2010
Accepted
14
March
2010
Available
online
19

March
2010
Keywords:
Sugarcane
juice
Evaporators
Process
simulation
Overall
heat
transfer
coefficients
Fouling
The
production
of
sugar
and
alcohol
is
the
main
objective
of
the
sugarcane
processing
industry.
The
evaporation
of
sugarcane
juice
has
a
high
energetic
cost
and
is
usually
performed
in
multiple-effect
evaporators.
The
loss
of
performance
during
operation
due
to
fouling

makes
the
process
more
complex.
In
this
study,
modeling,
simulation,
validation,
and
analysis
were
performed
for
a
sugarcane
juice
industrial
evaporation
system
(IES)
composed
of
a
falling
film
evaporator
followed
by
three
short
vertical-tube
evaporators
arranged
in
parallel.
The
IES
model
was
developed
using
a
commercial
process
simulator
and
validated
with
data
from
the
plant.
The
IES
had
marked
performance

losses
in
the
first
14
days
of
operation,
mainly
due
to
fouling
in
the
first
effect,
with
a
30%
decrease
in
the
evaporation
rate.
.
2010
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
1.
Introduction
Sugarcane
processing
is
one
of
the
most
important
industries
in
the
Brazilian
economy,
mainly
due
to
its
high
efficiency
and
competitiveness.
There
are
three
main

types
of
plants:
sugar
mills,
ethanol
distilleries,
and
integrated
sugar
and
ethanol
plants
(Ensinas
et
al.,
2009).
In
the
2007/2008
crop,
Brazil
harvested
493,384,552
tons
of
sugarcane
and
produced
30,760,165
tons
of
sugar
and
14,300,
346
tons
of
alcohol,
while
386,090,117
tons
of
sugarcane
were
processed
in
2004/2005,
yielding
26,621,221
tons
of
sugar
and
7,112,218
tons
of
alcohol

(Montanini,
2008).
This
means
an
increase
of
27.8%
in
processed
sugarcane,
15.6%
in
sugar
and
101.1%
in
ethyl
alcohol
production
in
three
years.
The
larger
sugar
and
alcohol
production
reflected
in
the
Brazilian
exports,
which
increased
from
16,011,340
tons
of
sugar
in
2004
to
19,618,989
tons
in
2009
(a
22.5%
increase)
and
from
1,929,896
tons
of
alcohol
in
2004

to
4,076,446
tons
in
2009
(a
111.2%
increase)
(CONAB,
2009,
2005).
The
rapid
growth
experienced
by
the
sugar alcohol
sector
in
Brazil
necessitates
the
design
and
installation
of
new
facilities
and
the
expansion
and
optimization
of
the
existing
ones.
Process
analysis
using
a
properly
validated
process
simulator
is
essential
to
reduce
production
costs
in
each
of
these
steps
as

well.
Computational
simulation
is
an
invaluable
tool
in
design,
reducing
conception
time
and
maximizing
the
economy
of
industrial
*
Corresponding
author.
Tel.:
+55
44
3261
4747;
fax:
+55
44
3261
4793.
E-mail
address:
lmmj@deq.uem.br
(L.M.M.
Jorge).
units
(Volin
and
Ostrovskii,
2006).
Among
the
commercial
process
simulators,
HYSYS
stands
out
due
to
its
ease
of
use
and

quality
databank.
However,
HYSYS,
as
well
as
the
other
primary
commercial
simulators,
only
has
models
and
databanks
developed
for
the
petrochemical
industry
(Seider
et
al.,
1999),
which
requires
corroborating
or
adapting
for
applicability
in
other
sectors,
including
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
sugar alcohol
sector
in
Brazil,
which
is
strongly
expanding.
The
ethanol
production
process
in

a
distillery
is
complex
and
involves
evaporation,
fermentation,
and
distillation
steps
in
this
order.
Evaporation
deserves
special
attention,
as
it
is
the
first
step
of
the
production
chain
and
it
consumes
great
amounts
of
energy
in
sugarcane
juice
concentration
before
its
fermentation
and
distillation.
In
this
research,
modeling,
simulation,
and
analysis
of
a
fullscale
industrial
evaporation
system
(IES)

of
an
alcohol
distillery
(COCAF)
are
performed
using
the
HYSYS
process
simulator.
The
IES
was
monitored
over
23
days
of
operation,
from
startup
to
cleaning
shutdown.
The
distillery
of
the
Cooperativa
Agrcola
de
Astorga
Ltda
(COCAF),
which
is
located
in
the
northwest
of
Paran
State,
Southern
Brazil,
processes
around
180
tons/h
(50
kg/s)
of
sugarcane
juice,
producing
approximately
380
m3/day

(4.398
 103
m3/s)
of
hydrated
ethyl
alcohol.
2.
Industrial
evaporation
system
After
extraction,
the
raw
sugarcane
juice
contains
about
4%
of
suspended
solids,
which
are
decanted
with
lime,
yielding
a
0260-8774/$
-see
front
matter
.
2010
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.03.017

L.M.M.
Jorge
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Food
Engineering
99
(2010)
351 359
Nomenclature
Ai
ext
B*
B0
external
area
of
the
tubes
of
evaporator
i
(m2)
normalized
juice
concentrations
(B*=
B/B0)
juice
concentration
in
the
system
feed
stream
(kg
solid/
hi
S
hi
V
LMTDi
enthalpy
of
heating
steam
in
evaporator
i
(J/kg)
enthalpy
of
the
steam
generated
in

evaporator
i
(J/kg)
logarithmic
mean
temperature
difference
of
evaporator
kg)
i
(C)
Bi
in
Bi
out
juice
concentration
at
the
evaporator
i
inlet
(kg
solid/kg)
juice
concentration
at
the
evaporator
i
outlet
(kg
solid/
kg)
Pi
q1
in
Qi
absolute
pressure
in
evaporator
i
(Pa)
clarified
juice
volumetric
flow
rate
(m3/s)
heating
rate
of
evaporator
i
(W)
BPRi
boiling
point

rise
in
the
evaporator
i
operating
pressure
Rf
fouling
resistance
(m2
C/W)
Ci
(C)
condensate
mass
flow
rate
in
evaporator
i
(kg/s)
R1 f
RG
asymptotic
fouling
resistance
(m2
C/W)
overall
thermal
resistances
(m2
C/W)
Cpm
average
heat
capacity
(J/(kg
C))
RL
juice
thermal
resistance
(m2
C/W)
FBLEEDING
bleeding
stream
mass
flow
rate
(kg/s)
RV
heating
steam
thermal
resistance
(m2
C/W)

FCONC2
CONC2
stream
mass
flow
rate
(kg/s)
RW
tube
wall
thermal
resistance
(m2
C/W)
FHYSYS
mass
flow
rates
estimated
by
the
HYSYS
model
(kg/s)
Si
mass
flow
rate
of
heating
steam
in
evaporator
i
(kg/s)
Fi
in
Fi
out
FModel
mass
flow
rate
of
incoming
juice
to
evaporator
i
(kg/s)
mass
flow
rate
of
exiting
juice
from
evaporator
i
(kg/s)

mass
flow
rates
estimated
by
the
conventional
model
(kg/s)
t
Ti
Fin
Ti
Fout
Ti
eb
time
(s)
temperature
of
incoming
juice
to
evaporator
i
(C)
temperature
of
exiting
juice
from
evaporator
i
(C)
water
boiling
temperature
at
the
operating
pressure
of
FV1
mass
flow
rate
of
V1
stream
(kg/s)
evaporator
i
(C)
FV1EVAP
FV2
FVE
mass
flow
rate
of

V1EVAP
stream
(kg/s)
mass
flow
rate
of
V2
stream
(kg/s)
mass
flow
rate
of
VE
stream
(kg/s)
Ti
in
Ti
out
U0
juice
temperature
at
the
evaporator
i
inlet
(C)
juice
temperature
at
the
evaporator
i
outlet
(C)
overall
heat
transfer
coefficient
at
t
=
0
(W/(m2
C))
GFF
evaporation
flux
in
the
falling
film
evaporator
UHYSYS
overall
heat
transfer

coefficients
estimated
by
the
(kg/(m2
s))
HYSYS
model
(W/(m2
C))
GR
evaporation
flux
in
the
Robert-type
evaporators
Ui
overall
heat
transfer
coefficient
of
evaporator
i
(W/
(kg/(m2
s))
(m2
C))
hi
C
hi
fgS
enthalpy
of
the
condensate
from
the
first
effect
(J/kg)
vaporization
enthalpy
of
the
heating
steam
in
evaporator
i
(J/kg)
UModel
Vi
overall
heat
transfer
coefficients
estimated

by
the
conventional
model
(W/(m2
C))
mass
flow
rate
of
steam
generated
by
evaporator
i
(kg/s)
hi
fgV
vaporization
enthalpy
of
the
steam
generated
in
evapoqCLARIF
clarified
juice
density
(kg/m3)
rator
i
(J/kg)
s
fouling
time
constant
(s)
hi
Fin
hi
Fout
enthalpy
of
incoming
juice
to
evaporator
i
(J/kg)
enthalpy
of
exiting
juice
from
evaporator
i
(J/kg)

clarified
juice
(CLARIF)
that
contains
0.5%
of
suspended
solids
at
most.
The
clarified
juice
then
runs
through
heat
exchangers,
where
it
is
heated
up
to
near
boiling
temperature,
and
then
to
the
evaporation
system
(Fig.
1).
Next,
the
concentrated
juice
(CONC2)
goes
to
the
fermentation
tanks
and
later
to
the
distillation
columns.
The
COCAF
IES
consists
of
a

falling
film
evaporator
(FF,
Fig.
2)
followed
by
three
conventional
Robert-type
short
vertical-tube
evaporators
(R1,
R2,
and
R3),
arranged
in
parallel
(Fig.
3).
The
first
effect
(FF),
consisting
of
1942
10-m
long
tubes
with
external
diameter
of
0.0381
m,
is
fed
with
high
pressurized
steam,
VE,
from
steam
turbines.
The
second
effect
is
constituted
by
three
evaporators
(R1,
R2,
and

R3)
consisting
of
1274
2.315-m
long
tubes,
with
the
same
diameter.
The
clarified
juice
(CLARIF)
runs
through
the
first
effect
and
leaves
as
pre-concentrated
juice
(CONC1),
which
is
evenly
distributed
to
the
three
second
effect
evaporators,
which
turn
it
into
concentrated
juice
(CONC2).
Usually
only
part
of
the
steam
generated
in
the
first
effect
(V1)
is
used
to
heat
the

second
effect
(V1EVAP).
The
first
effect
surplus
steam
is
bled
out
(BLEEDING)
and
used
as
a
heating
fluid
in
various
sectors
of
the
plant.
However,
at
times,
the
demand
for
steam
of
the
second
effect
(V1EVAP)
is
greater
than
the
amount
of
steam
generated
by
the
first
effect.
In
such
event,
the
steam
from
the
first
effect
is
complemented
by

the
injection
of
steam
from
the
boiler
into
the
BLEEDING
line.
The
condensates
from
both
the
first
effect
(CondVE)
and
the
second
effect
(CondV1EVAP)
are
used
to
generate
steam
in
the
plant
boiler,
while
the
low
pressure
vapor
produced
in
the
second
effect
(V2)
is
used
as
heating
fluid
in
several
sectors
of
the
plant.
3.
Materials
and

methods
3.1.
Process
data
collection
During
the
time
interval
between
the
IES
startup
and
cleaning
shutdown,
a
period
of
23
days
of
operation,
operating
temperature
(T),
pressure
(P),
flow
rate
(q),
and
concentration
(B)
were
regularly
taken
at
the
points
indicated
in
Fig.
1
and
listed
in
Table
1.
Operating
data
T,
P,
and
volumetric
flow
rate
of
clarified
juice

were
also
obtained
from
the
online
supervisor
system
AIMAX
records,
while
the
sugar
content
in
the
liquid
streams
(B)
was
evaluated
using
a
refractometer
by
periodic
laboratory
analyses
of
samples
collected
at
several
points
(Table
1).
3.2.
Evaporation
system
HYSYS
model
Because
HYSYS
does
not
have
a
module
specific
for
evaporators,
we
sought
to
develop
alternative
models
from

the
existing
modules
of
this
process
simulator.
Foust
et
al.
(1982)
described
an
evaporator
as
basically
consisting
of
a
heat
exchanger
capable
of
raising
the
solution
temperature
up
to
the
boiling
point
and
a
device
for
separating
the
vapor
phase
from
the
boiling
liquid.
Using
this
concept,
Chawankul
et
al.
(2001)
successfully
simulated
an
agitated
orange
juice
thin-film
evaporator
in

laboratory
scale
using
Aspen
Plus.
The
COCAF
evaporation
system
was
modeled
using
the
HYSYS
(Fig.
4);
each
of
the
four
evaporators
was
represented
by
the
combination
of
a
multitubular
heat
exchanger
and
a
flash
vessel
(separator).
The
heat
exchanger
represents
the
evaporator
calandria.
The
following
assumptions
were
made
for
the
modeling:

L.M.M.
Jorge
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Food
Engineering
99
(2010)
351 359
CLARIF
V2
Distillery
1
2
3
4
109
5
6 7 8
11
VE
CondVE
BLEEDING
CONC1
CondV1EVAP
CONC2
FF
R1
Fermentation
Heating
R2 R3
V1EVAP
V1
12
Fig.
1.
COCAF
evaporation
system.
single
pass
in
the
shell
and
in
the
tubes,
vertical
orientation,
maximum
spacing
between

tube
sheets
and
A E L
classification
according
to
the
Tubular
Exchanger
Manufacturers
Association
(Perry
et
al.,
1984).
3.3.
Conventional
modeling
of
the
evaporation
system
According
to
Prost
et
al.
(2006),
well-known
mass
and
energy
balance
equations
and
the
heat
transfer
rate
equation
between
the
hot
(condensing
steam)
and
cold
(juice
side)
streams
govern
the
evaporator
process.
To
assess
the

quality
of
the
IES
HYSYS
model,
a
conventional
model
was
developed
from
mass
(Eqs.
(1)
and
(3))
and
energy
(Eqs.
(2)
and
(4))
balance
equations,
which
were
simultaneously
solved
for
each
evaporator,
i,
with
auxiliary
Eqs.
(5) (11).
The
overall
heat
transfer
coefficient
(U)
was
estimated
from
Eq.
(12).
Vi
Fi
1
Bi
in
out
=Bi
1

in
h i
FiCpTi
Ti
Vihi
in
mout
in
fgV
Si
2
hi
fgS
Fi
Fi
out
in
Vi
3
Qi
Sihi
4
fgS
In
these
equations,
Vi
,
Si
,
Fi
out
represent
the
mass
flow
rates
in,
Fi
(kg/s)

of
generated
steam,
heating
steam,
incoming
juice,
and
outgoing
juice,
respectively,
in
evaporator
i;
Qi
is
the
heating
rate
of
evaporator
i
(W);
Bi
out
are
the
juice
concentrations
(kg
soin
and
Bi
lid/kg)
in
the
evaporator
i,
Ti
out
are
the
juice
temperatures
in
and
Ti
(C)
in
the
evaporator
i,
hfgS
and
hfgV
are

the
vaporization
enthalpies
(J/kg)
of
the
heating
steam
and
the
steam
generated
of
evaporator
i,
respectively.
Here
and
elsewhere,
in
and
out
indicate
the
evaporator
i
inlet
and
outlet
variables.
Vaporization
enthalpies:
hfg
4:709
1012P3
3:941
106P2
1:435Pi
2:369
106
ii
5
Polynomial
fitting
(R2
=
1)
of
data
from
steam

tables
(Perry
et
al.,
1984)
in
the
range
from
0.4
105
to
3.4
105
Pa.
Clarified
juice
mass
flow
rate:
F11
6
in
qin
qCLARIF
q1
in
is
the
volumetric
flow
rate
(m3/s)
and
qCLARIF
is
the
clarified
juice
density
(kg/m3).
Clarified
juice
density
(Pacheco
et
al.,
1999):

qCLARIF
1000
 1
B1
in
200
54;
000
in
 B1
  .  
 1
0:036
 T1
160
T1
7
in
20
in
Juice
average
heat
capacities
(Hugot,
1986):
Cpm
4186:8
2512:1Bm
8
Cpm
is
the
average
heat
capacity
(J/(kg
C))
and
Bm
is
the
inlet
and
outlet
stream
average

sugar
concentration
of
evaporator
i
(kg
solids/
kg).
Boiling
point
rise
(BPRi)
in
evaporator
i
(Traganits,
1981):
! !
Bi
0:3
Bi
out
out
BPRi
0:22
0:0078Ti
90:3551:036
Bi
eb
out
Ti
eb
is
the
water
boiling
temperature
(C)
at
the
operating
pressure
of
evaporator
i.
Operating
temperatures

of
evaporator
i
(Ti
):
out
Ti
eb
BPRi
out
Ti
10
Water
boiling
temperature:
21P4
15P3
Ti
eb
6:119
106:403
102:672
109P2
ii
6:503
104Pi
54:524
11
Polynomial
fitting
(R2
=
0.99)
of
data
from
steam
tables
(Perry
et
al.,
1984)
in
the
absolute

pressure
range
from
0.4
105
to
3.4
105
Pa.
Overall
heat
transfer
coefficients:
Qi
Ui
12
Ai
extLMTDi
Ui
is
the
overall
heat
transfer
coefficient
(W/(m2
C))
for
evaporator
i,
LMTDi
is
the
logarithmic
mean
temperature
difference
(C),
and
Pi
is
the
absolute
pressure
(Pa).
Aext
i

is
the
external
area
of
the
tubes
(m2).

L.M.M.
Jorge
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Food
Engineering
99
(2010)
351 359
Fig.2.Firsteffect:fallingfilmevaporator.
The
mathematical
model
(Eqs.
(1)
through
(12))
was
sequentially
solved
in
an
electronic
spreadsheet
from
the
first
evaporator,
FF
(i
=
1)
to
the
outlet
of
the
three
short
vertical-tube
evaporators
that
make
up
the
second
effect:
R1
(i
=
2),
R2
(i
=

3),
and
R3
(i
=
4).
The
stream
mass
flow
rates
(F)
VE,
V1,
V1EVAP,
BLEEDING,
V2
and
CONC2
were
determined
from
the
respective
stream
flow
P4
rates:
FVE
S1,
FV1
V1,
FV1EVAP
i2Si
,
FBLEEDING
FV1
FV1EVAP,
P4
P4FV2
i2Vi
,
and
FCONC2
i2Fi
outout.
4.
Results
and
discussion
4.1.

Evaporation
system
HYSYS
model
evaluation
The
IES
flow
rates
obtained
by
conventional
modeling
and
those
predicted
by
the
HYSYS
model
were
different
by
only
an
average
of
0.11%
(Fig.
5).
The
difference
between
the
overall
heat
transfer

Fig.
3.
Second
effect:
three
parallel
Robert-type
evaporators.
Table
1
Process
variable
measurement
sites.

Measurement
points
Temperature
(C)
1,2,3,4,5,9,10,11,12
Pressure
(Pa)
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
9,
10,
11,
12
Concentration
(Bx)
1,3,6,7,8,12
Flow
rate
(m3/h)
1,
12
coefficients
(U)
predicted
by
both
models
was
also
small
(Fig.
6).
The
average
deviations
relative
to
the
HYSYS
estimated
values
were
0.15%
for
the
falling
film
evaporator
and
1.5%
for
the
Robert-

type
evaporators.
Therefore,
both
the
conventional
and
HYSYS
models
represented
the
IES
adequately.
The
reliable
prediction
of
overall
heat
exchange
coefficients
for
the
design,
analysis,
simulation,
and
control
of
processes
involving
evaporators
still
is
a
major
challenge
due
to
the
variety
of
equipment
and
solutes
and
solvents
involved.
The
range
of
U
values
(870 1934)
W/(m2
C)
found
for

the
second
effect
Robert-type
evaporators
(Fig.
6)
is
well
within
the
range
presented
by
McCabe
and
Smith
(1976)
for
this
type
of
evaporator
(800 2500)
W/
(m2
C),
indicating
satisfactory
operation.
Generally,
falling
film
evaporators
are
suggested
for
operation
with
heat-sensitive
materials,
such
as
juices
and
milk,
as
they
present
low
residence
times
and
high
heat
transfer
rates
and

coefficients
(Minton,
1986;
Krupiczka
et
al.,
2002).
In
the
range
of
operating
conditions
of
the
first
effect
of
the
explored
IES,
experimental
results
presented
in
literature
(Prost
et
al.,
2006;
Pacheco

L.M.M.
Jorge
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Food
Engineering
99
(2010)
351 359
Fig.
4.
Evaporation
system
HYSYS
model.
Fig.5.Comparisonbetweentheestimatedflowratevalues.
and
Frioni,
2004;
Adib
et
al.,
2009)
involving
the
concentration
of
sugar
solutions
in
falling
film
evaporators
point
to
U
values
in
the
range
(2080 4000)
W/(m2
C).
However,
the
U
values
presented
in
Fig.
6
(262 444)
W/(m2
C),

are
much
lower
than
expected,
suggesting
performance
loss
due
to
incrustation
in
the
first
effect.
This
possibility
finds
support
in
the
work
of
Camargo
et
al.
(1990)
concerning
a
sugar
industry
evaporation
system
composed
of
five
evaporators
in
series
in
which
the
U
values
found
for
the
first
effect
were
far
below
those
reported
in
literature.
This
discrepancy
was
attributed

mainly
to
excessive
incrustation
in
the
evaporator
tubes.
The
IES
HYSYS
model
(Fig.
4)
was
solved
using
the
feed
stream
flow
rate,
pressure,
and
temperature
(CLARIF),
operating
pressures,
and
evaporator
outlet
concentrations
(CONC2 1,
2,
3)
and
the
secFig.
6.
Overall
heat
transfer
coefficients
for
the
first
and
second
effects.
ond
effect
feed
stream
temperature

(1 2).
All
the
process
measurements
applied
in
the
model
solution
were
performed
before
the
system
stream
outlet
(CONC2).
The
comparison
of
the
HYSYS
model
predictions
with
the
flow
rate,
temperature,
and
concentration
measurements
of
concentrated
juice
(CONC2)
is
a
convenient
way
to
assess
the
quality
of
the
model
predictions.
Fig.
7
shows
the
estimated
volumetric
flow
rate,
soluble

solid
concentration,
and
temperature
values
of
the
concentrated
juice
stream
(CONC2)
in
contrast
to
the
measured
plant
values.
The
volumetric
flow
rate
of
concentrated
juice
presented
the
largest
average
deviation
relative
to
the
HYSYS
model
predictions
(4.5%),
followed
by
the
soluble
solid
concentration
(dissolved
solids)
(0.67%)
and
temperature
(0.59%).
These
results
validate
the
HYSYS
modeling
of
the
IES.

L.M.M.
Jorge
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Food
Engineering
99
(2010)
351 359
Fig.7.HYSYSpredictionscomparedwithprocessmeasurementsattheIESoutlet.
Fig.9.Generatedandheatingsteamflowratesinbotheffects.
4.2.
Evaporation
system
integrated
analysis
The
behavior
of
clarified
(CLARIF),
pre-concentrated
(CONC1),
and
concentrated
(CONC2)
juice
flow
rates
can
be
seen
in
Fig.
8.
In
the
first
day,
195
103
kg/h
of
clarified
juice
were
processed;
however,
the
flow
rate
gradually

decreased
to
a
minimum
of
159
103
kg/h
on
day
5,
followed
by
a
continuous
increase
to
the
maximum
of
195
103
kg/h
on
day
23.
Both
pre-concentrated
(CONC1)
and
concentrated
(CONC2)
juice
flow
rates
followed
this
same
trend,
though
at
lower
levels
due
to
the
removal
of
water
in
the
evaporators,
which
continuously
increased
the
juice
sugar
concentration.

The
heating
steam
flow
rates
of
the
first
and
second
effects
(FVE
and
FV1EVAP)
during
the
period
of
operation
are
illustrated
in
Fig.
9.
While
the
heating
steam
flow
rate
for
the
falling
film
evaporator
continuously
decreased,
diminishing
the
amount
of
steam
generated
in
the
first
effect
(FV1),
the
amount
of
steam
consumed
in
the
three
Robert-type
evaporators
(FV1EVAP)

gradually
increased
to
compensate
for
the
decreased
efficiency
of
the
first
evaporator.
Fig.
9
also
shows
that
FV2
and
FV1EVAP
were
almost
equal
at
the
start
of
operation
and
remained
very
close
up
to
day
23,
while
FV1
and
FVE
were
equal
at
the
beginning,
but
gradually
diverted,
tending
to
stabilize
after
day
14.
This
difference
indicates
a

pronounced
efficiency
loss
for
the
falling
film
evaporator
in
the
first
14
days,
possibly
due
to
incrustation
which
tended
to
occur
in
the
first
effect
and
did
not
significantly
affect
the
efficiency
of
the
second
effect.
According
to
Hugot
(1986),
incrustation
in
sugarcane
juice
evaporator
tubes
derive
from
either
suspended
solids
or
dissolved
salts.
The
suspended

solids
are
due
to
deficient
previous
separation
(filtration
and
defection)
and
are
mainly
deposited
in
the
first
effect,
while
the
dissolved
salts
become
insoluble
as
the
juice
concentration
increases
and
preferentially
deposit
in
the
subsequent
effects.
Thus,
the
deposition
of
solids
in
suspension
in
the
first
effect
is
believed
to
be
the
main
responsible
for
the
performance
loss
of
the

evaporation
system
during
operation,
while
incrustation
on
the
second
effect
seems
negligible.
During
the
analyzed
period
of
operation
(Fig.
10),
the
first
effect
steam
flow
rate,
FV1,
decreased
continuously,
leading
to
a
progressive
performance
loss
of
the
first
effect,
which
resulted
in
a
gradual
decrease
in
the
sugar
content
of
the
pre-concentrated
juice
(CONC1).
As
a
result,
it

was
necessary
to
increase
the
amount
of
steam
fed
to
the
second
effect
(FV1EVAP)
so
that
the
sugar
content
in
the
concentrated
juice
(CONC2)
was
not
much
lower
than
the
desired
value
of
0.18
Bx,
otherwise
the
subsequent
fermentation
process
would
be
hindered.
Fig.8.Juiceflowratesinthesystem.
Fig.10.SteamflowratesofV1,V1EVAP,andBLEEDINGstreams.

L.M.M.
Jorge
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Food
Engineering
99
(2010)
351 359
Due
to
the
decrease
in
FV1
(Fig.
10),
the
amount
of
surplus
steam
from
the
evaporation
system,
FBLEEDING,
drastically
decreased
after
day
5.
Steam
bleeding
fell
from
11,020
kg/h
at
the
beginning
of
operation
to
9240
kg/h
on
day
5
and
became
null
near
day
13.
At

that
time,
the
amount
of
steam
generated
in
the
first
effect
(FV1)
was
exactly
equal
to
the
amount
of
steam
consumed
in
the
second
effect
(FV1EVAP),
thus
canceling
the
steam
surplus
(FBLEEDING),
according
to
the
mass
balance
FV1
FV1EVAP
FBLEEDING.
From
that
point
on,
the
consumed
steam
flow
rate
of
the
second
effect
(FV1EVAP)
was
higher
than
the
flow
rate

of
steam
generated
in
the
first
effect
(FV1),
thus
requiring
complementation
of
the
amount
of
steam
fed
to
the
second
effect
with
steam
from
the
boiler.
This
steam
complementation
was
admitted
by
the
BLEEDING
stream,
and
was
mathematically
represented
by
negative
FBLEEDING
values.
After
day
13,
the
amount
of
required
additional
steam
continuously
increased
and
tended
to
stabilize
around
2730

kg/h
after
18
days
of
operation.
The
performance
of
the
IES
evaporators
may
also
be
assessed
from
the
calculation
of
evaporation
fluxes
in
both
effects:
falling
film
evaporator
(GFF
=
FV1/A)
and
Robert-type
evaporators
(GR=
FV1EVAP/A).
As
can
be
seen
in
Fig.
11,
at
the
beginning
of
operation,
GFF
(9.62
kg/(m2
h))
was
very
close
to
GR
(9.92

kg/(m2
h)).
However,
as
time
passed
GFF
decreased,
probably
due
to
incrustation
in
the
evaporator
tubes,
while
GR
slightly
increased
due
to
the
increasing
heating
steam
flow
rate
in
the
second
effect
(FV1EVAP),
which
was
required
to
compensate
for
the
efficiency
loss
in
the
first
effect
(Fig.
10).
After
day
18,
GFF
remained
practically
constant
at
an
average
value
of

5.2
kg/(m2
h),
46%
less
than
at
the
beginning,
while
GR
increased
40%
relative
to
the
starting
value
and
remained
practically
constant
at
around
13.87
kg/(m2
h)
after
day
14.
The
supposed
strong
influence
of
fouling
on
the
first
effect
performance
is
demonstrated
by
the
behaviors
of
the
overall
thermal
resistances
(RG
=1/U)
of
the
first
and
second

effects
during
operation,
as
shown
in
Fig.
12.
The
resistance
values
were
calculated
from
U
values
estimated
by
the
HYSYS
model.
The
overall
heat
transfer
resistance
in
the
falling
film
evaporator
increased
70%
from
day
1
to
day
10
and
had
a
slight
further
increase
after
that,
tending
to
stabilize
around
41.5
104
m2
C/W
at
day
23.
This
behavior

was
well
fitted
(R2
=
0.968)
to
the
following
equation:
RG
19:19
104
23:14
1041
expt=7:421 13
The
three
Robert-type
evaporators
that
compose
the
second
effect
showed
equivalent
and
approximately
constant
thermal
behaviors
throughout
operation
(Fig.
12).
The
average
overall
therFig.12.Overallthermalresistances.
mal
resistance
value
for
the
three
evaporators
was
7.13
 104
m2
C/W,
approximately

5.8
times
lower
than
that
found
for
the
falling
film
evaporator
at
the
end
of
operation.
This
can
be
justified
by
the
severe
incrustation
in
the
first
effect.
The
fouling
resistance,
Rf,
was
calculated
from
Eq.
(14);
U0
and
U
are
the
overall
heat
transfer
coefficients
at
startup
and
at
time
t
>0,
respectively
(Bansal
et
al.,
2008).

U
was
determined
from
the
HYSYS
model.
11
Rf
 14
UU0
Experimental
Rf
values
obtained
from
Eq.
(14)
and
presented
in
Fig.
13
varied
from
0
m2
C/W
at
startup
to
22.1
104
m2
C/W
at
day
23
and
were
of
the
same
order
of
magnitude
as
those
found
in
the
literature
(Perry
et

al.,
1984;
Rohsenow
et
al.,
1998)
for
various
liquid
streams
in
different
industrial
processes:
minimum
of
0.8
104
m2
C/W
for
distilled
boiler
feed
water
and
maximum
of
17.6
104
m2
C/W
for
vacuum
tower
bottoms.
According
to
the
fouling
curve
classification
presented
by
Bansal
et
al.
(2008),
the
Rf
behavior
observed
in
Fig.
13
is
asymptotic,
which

is
typical
of
weak
deposits.
This
finding
confirms
Hugot s
(1986)
observation
that
incrustation
in
the
first
effect
preferably
results
from
the
deposition
of
suspended
solids.
Fig.11.Evaporationfluxes.
Fig.13.Foulingresistancecurve.

L.M.M.
Jorge
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Food
Engineering
99
(2010)
351 359
The
Kern
and
Seaton
(1959)
model,
Eq.
(15),
is
one
of
the
first
models
presented
in
the
literature
with
a
consistent
theoretical
basis.
Initially,
the
authors
used
it
for
the
analysis
of
oil
refinery
fouling
and
found
it
to
describe
fouling
behavior
in
a
number
of
other

instances
(Fernandez-Torres
et
al.,
2001).
The
basis
for
this
model
is
the
difference
between
the
fouling
removal
and
deposition
rates,
which
eventually
become
equal
(Bansal
et
al.,
2008).
The
net
fouling
rate
then
becomes
null.
Rf
R1 f
1
expt=s 15
The
asymptotic
fouling
resistance
(R1 f
)
represents
the
maximum
thermal
resistance
that
can
be
produced
by
incrustation,
and

the
fouling
time
constant
(s)
represents
the
time
required
for
Rf
to
be
37%
of
the
R1 f
value.
This
value
is
86%
when
t
=2s.As
one
can
see
in
Fig.
13,
the
Kern
and
Seaton
model
adequately
represents
(R2
=
0.999)
experimental
Rf
data
obtained
from
Eq.
(14).
The
obtained
R1 f
value
was
23.14
104
m2
C/W
and
the
fouling

time
constant
(s)
was
equal
to
7.421
days
(6.412
105
s).
Rf
23:14
1041
expt=7:421 16
The
limiting
step
in
the
falling
film
evaporator
is
the
heat
transfer
in
the
incrustation
of
the
tubes,
Rf.
Thus,
it
is
expected
that
Rf
imposes
the
same
behavior
to
the
overall
thermal
resistance,
RG.
In
this
way,
the
same
functional
relationship

of
the
Kern
and
Seaton
model
was
admitted
to
represent
the
behavior
of
RG
with
time,
Eq.
(13).
When
this
correlation
is
compared
with
Eq.
(16),
it
appears
that
both
RG
and
Rf
have
exactly
the
same
behavior
throughout
the
operation
period
with
a
constant
difference
between
them
(23.14
104
m2
C/W).
In
turn,
the
overall
thermal

resistance,
RG,
is
the
sum
of
four
series
thermal
resistances
(Adib
et
al.,
2009):
RG=
RV+
RW+
Rf+
RL,
where
RV,
RW,
and
RL
are
the
thermal
resistances
of
the
heating
steam,
the
tube
walls,
and
the
juice,
respectively.
Therefore,
it
appears
that
the
difference
between
RG
and
Rf
represents
the
sum
of
the
three
remaining
thermal
resistances,
that
is

RV+
RW+
RL=
19.19
104
m2
C/W.
Given
the
above,
it
seems
that
significant
fouling
in
the
first
effect
during
the
period
of
operation
resulted
from
the
deposition
of
suspended
solids
remaining
from
the
previous
filtration
and
settling
operations.
There
was
no
evidence
of
significant
incrustation
in
the
second
effect.
Thus,
it
is
evident
that
if

the
IES
were
cleaned
in
less
than
13
days,
there
would
be
steam
economy
because
the
steam
produced
in
the
first
effect
would
be
more
than
enough
to
adequately
heat
the
second
effect
and
no
additional
steam
from
the
boiler
would
be
required.
Furthermore,
the
first
effect
would
generate
a
significant
amount
of
excess
steam
that
could
be
reused
in

the
factory,
saving
energy
in
the
boiler.
Despite
the
large
efficiency
gain
obtained
in
the
first
effect
with
more
frequent
cleaning,
a
major
drawback
is
shutdown,
which
might
be
circumvented
in
two
ways:
by
installing
an
additional
evaporator
that
would
operate
in
parallel
with
the
first
effect
and/or
by
improving
the
performance
of
the
previous
suspended
solids
separation

steps.
Besides
the
previously
discussed
factors,
it
is
important
to
stress
that
the
usual
incrustation
at
the
clarified
juice
pre-heaters
also
may
secondarily
affect
the
IES
performance.
The
pre-heaters
usual
incrustation
led
to
a
continuous
decrease
of
the
clarified
juice
temperature
fed
to
the
first
effect
(CLARIF),
while
the
temperatures
of
both
pre-concentrated
(CONC1)
and
concentrated
(CONC2)
juices

remained
almost
constant
throughout
operation
(Fig.
14).
The
clarified
juice
temperature
has
changed
from
116
C
at
the
beginning
of
the
operation
up
to
109
C
by
the
end
of
experiment
and
could
exert
some
influence
on
the
first
effect
operation
and
affect
the
IES
performance
since
part
of
the
first
effect
heating
steam
(FVE)
Fig.14.Juicetemperaturesinthesystem.

Fig.15.Juiceconcentrationsinthesystem.
would
be
used
to
raise
the
temperature
of
the
clarified
juice
to
the
boiling
point
(about
117
C).
Due
to
the
progressive
reduction
of
efficiency
of
the
first
effect,
the
juice
concentration
at
its
output
(CONC1)
decreased
over
time
and
imposed
a
juice
concentration
reduction
at
the
output
of
the
second
effect
(CONC2),
as
shown

in
Fig.
15.
In
this
figure,
B*
corresponds
to
normalized
concentrations
and
was
obtained
by
dividing
B
of
the
indicated
streams
by
the
value
of
B
of
the
system
feed
stream
(B0).
At
the
beginning
of
operation,
the
difference
between
the
B*
values
for
the
clarified
juice
fed
to
the
first
effect
and
for
the
pre-concentrated
juice
at
its
output

was
0.133,
falling
to
0.0664
on
day
23,
a
decrease
of
50%.
In
the
same
period,
the
difference
between
the
normalized
concentrations
at
the
inlet
and
outlet
of
the
second
effect
Robert-type
evaporators
remained
virtually
unchanged,
confirming
that
the
performance
of
the
second
effect
remained
practically
constant
throughout
the
operation
period,
while
that
of
the
first
effect
decreased
sharply.

5.
Conclusions
The
representation
of
evaporators
by
the
combination
of
heat
exchangers
with
phase
separator
vessels
was
successfully
used
to

L.M.M.
Jorge
et
al.
/
Journal
of
Food
Engineering
99
(2010)
351 359
model
and
simulate
an
industrial
evaporator
system
(IES)
using
the
HYSYS
process
simulator.
The
model
implemented
in
HYSYS,
as
well
as
using
a
conventional
model,
adequately
represented
the
IES
behavior.
The
main
steam
and
juice
stream
flow
rate
values
predicted
with
the
conventional
model
showed

a
mean
absolute
difference
relative
to
the
HYSYS
simulations
of
only
0.11%.
The
COCAF
evaporation
system
showed
marked
performance
loss
in
the
first
14
days
of
operation,
mainly
due
to
incrustation
in
the
first
effect,
which
led
to
a
70%
increase
in
overall
heat
transfer
resistance
from
startup
to
day
10,
tending
to
an
asymptote.
Significant

fouling
occurred
in
the
IES
first
effect
during
the
period
of
operation
due
to
deposition
of
suspended
solids
remaining
from
previous
filtration
and
settling
operations.
There
was
no
evidence
of
significant
incrustation
in
the
second
effect.
The
fouling
curve
behavior
was
asymptotic
and
well
represented
by
the
classic
Kern
and
Seaton
model,
with
R1 f
and
s
values
of

23.14
104
m2
C/W
and
7.42
days,
respectively.
The
steam
generation
flow
rate
of
the
first
effect,
GFF,
showed
a
behavior
opposite
to
that
of
the
thermal
resistance,
a
46%
reduction
from
day
1
to
day
18,
while
the
latter
increased
during
the
period
of
operation,
which
required
heating
steam
complementation
for
the
second
effect
(V1EVAP)
with
steam

from
the
boiler
near
day
13.
The
IES
performance
was
secondarily
affected
by
the
loss
of
performance
of
the
clarified
juice
pre-heaters
due
to
the
occurrence
of
usual
incrustation,
which
led
to
a
continuous
decrease
of
the
clarified
juice
temperature.
Consequently,
part
of
the
steam
fed
to
the
first
effect
had
to
be
used
to
raise
the
juice

temperature
to
its
boiling
point
rather
than
for
its
evaporation.
The
second
evaporation
effect
did
not
suffer
significant
performance
loss
over
the
23
days
of
operation,
suggesting
that
it
could
operate
uninterruptedly
for
a
longer
period.
This
result
points
to
the
need
to
install
an
additional
evaporator
parallel
with
the
first
effect
to
allow
its
cleaning
without
process

interruptions.
The
first
effect
cleaning
should
be
performed
in
less
than
13
days
for
all
the
heating
steam
required
for
the
second
effect
to
be
produced
by
the
first
effect
without
the
need
of
complementation
of
steam
from
the
boiler.
Acknowledgements
The
authors
gratefully
acknowledge
the
financial
support
from
CNPq
(Conselho
Nacional
de
Desenvolvimento
Cientfico
e

Tecnolgico,
Brazil)
and
the
COCAF s
distillery
permission
to
obtain
the
operating
data
necessary
to
develop
this
research.
Appendix
A.
Development
of
Eqs.
(1)
and
(3)
Eq.
(1)
was
obtained
by
combining
the
overall
mass
balance
in
the
cold
stream
(juice
side),
Eq.
(3),
and
the
dissolved
solid
balance:
Fi
Bi
inBi
outA:1

in
Fi
out
Eq.
(2)
was
obtained
by
combining
the
energy
balances
in
the
cold
stream
(Eq.
(A.2))
and
in
the
hot
stream
(Eq.
(A.3)),
assuming
hi
Ti
fgV
hi
Fout
hVi
,
hi
fgS
hS
i
hi
C,
and
hi
Fout
hi
Fin
Cpm
Fout
Ti
.
Fin
Fi
Vihi
V

Fi
hi
A:2
inhi
Fin
Qi
outFout
Sihi
S
Qi
Cihi
A:3
C
References
Adib,
T.A.,
Heyd,
B.,
Vasseur,
J.,
2009.
Experimental
results
and
modeling
of
boiling
heat
transfer
coefficients
in
falling
film
evaporator
usable
for
evaporator
design.
Chem.
Eng.
Process.
48,
961 968.
Bansal,
B.,
Chen,
X.D.,
Mller-Steinhagen,

H.,
2008.
Analysis
of
classical
deposition
rate
law
for
crystallisation
fouling.
Chem.
Eng.
Process.
47,
1201 1210.
Camargo,
C.A.,
Ushida,
A.H.,
Ribeiro,
A.M.M.,
Souza,
M.E.P.,
Santos,
N.F.,
1990.
Conservao
de
energia
na
indstria
do
acar
e
do
lcool,
first
ed.
Instituto
de
Pesquisas
Tecnolgicas
do
Estado
de
So
Paulo
(IPT),
So
Paulo.
Chawankul,
N.,
Chuaprasert,
S.,
Douglas,

P.,
Luewisutthichat,
W.,
2001.
Simulation
of
an
agitated
thin
film
evaporator
for
concentrating
orange
juice
using
AspenPlus .
J.
Food
Eng.
47,
247 253.
CONAB
Companhia
Nacional
de
Abastecimento,
2005.
Indicadores
da
Agropecuria,
vol.
10,
p.
18.
<http://www.conab.gov.br/conabweb/
index.php?PAG=212>
(acessed
13.07.09).
CONAB
Companhia
Nacional
de
Abastecimento,
2009.
Indicadores
da
Agropecuria,
vol.
4,
p.
28.
<http://www.conab.gov.br/conabweb/
index.php?PAG=212>

(acessed
13.07.09).
Ensinas,
A.V.,
Modesto,
M.,
Nebra,
S.A.,
Serra,
L.,
2009.
Reduction
of
irreversibility
generation
in
sugar
and
ethanol
production
from
sugarcane.
Energy
34,
680
688.
Fernandez-Torres,
M.J.,
Fitzgerald,
A.M.,
Paterson,
W.R.,
Wilson,
D.I.,
2001.
A
theoretical
study
of
freezing
fouling:
limiting
behaviour
based
on
a
heat
and
mass
transfer
analysis.
Chem.
Eng.
Process.
40,
335 344.

Foust,
A.S.,
Wenzel,
L.A.,
Clump,
C.W.,
Anderson,
L.B.,
1982.
Princpios
das
Operaes
Unitrias,
Guanabara
Dois,
Rio
de
Janeiro.
Hugot,
E.,
1986.
Handbook
of
Cane
Sugar
Engineering,
third
ed.
Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Kern,
D.Q.,
Seaton,
R.A.,
1959.
A
theoretical
analysis
of
thermal
surface
fouling.
Br.
Chem.
Eng.
14
(5),
258 262.
Krupiczka,
R.,
Rotkegel,
A.,

Ziobrowski,
Z.,
2002.
Heat
transfer
to
evaporating
liquid
films
within
a
vertical
tube.
Chem.
Eng.
Process.
41,
23 28.
McCabe,
W.L.,
Smith,
J.C.,
1976.
Unit
Operations
of
Chemical
Engineering,
third
ed.
McGraw-Hill,
Tokyo.
Minton,
P.E.,
1986.
Handbook
of
Evaporation
Technology.
Noyes
Publications,
New
Jersey.
Montanini,
L.,
2008.
Brazilian
Sugar
and
Ethanol
Guide
(Anurio
da
Cana),

Procana,
So
Paulo.
Pacheco,
C.R.F.,
Frioni,
L.S.M.,
2004.
Experimental
results
for
evaporation
of
sucrose
solution
using
a
climbing/falling
film
plate
evaporator.
J.
Food
Eng.
64,
471 480.
Pacheco,
C.R.F.,
Czar,
C.A.,
Song,
T.W.,
1999.
Effect
of
the
solute
concentration
on
the
performance
of
evaporators.
Chem.
Eng.
Process.
38,
109 119.
Perry,
R.H.,
Green,
D.W.,
Maloney,
J.O.,

1984.
Perry s
Chemical
Engineers
Handbook,
sixth
ed.
McGraw-Hill,
New
York.
Prost,
J.S.,
Gonzles,
M.T.,
Urbicain,
M.J.,
2006.
Determination
and
correlation
of
heat
transfer
coefficients
in
a
falling
film
evaporator.
J.
Food
Eng.
73,
320 326.
Rohsenow,
W.M.,
Hartnett,
J.P.,
Cho,
Y.I.,
1998.
Handbook
of
Heat
Transfer,
third
ed.
McGraw-Hill,
New
York.
pp.
17148 17149.
Seider,
W.D.,
Seader,
J.D.,

Lewin,
D.R.,
1999.
Process
Design
Principles.
John
Wiley
&
Sons,
New
York.
Traganits,
S.P.,
1981.
Designing
multiple-effect
evaporators
in
sugar
factories
using
HP-41C
programmable
calculator.
La
Sucrerie
Belge
100,
385 394.
Volin,
Yu.M.,
Ostrovskii,
G.M.,
2006.
Three
phases
in
the
development
of
computer
simulation
of
chemical
engineering
systems.
Theor.
Found.
Chem.
Eng.
40,
281
290.