Received: 22 October 2016 _{} Revised: 19 July 2017 _{} Accepted: 3 August 2017 DOI: 10.1111/jfpe.12616
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
S. Chantasiriwan
Faculty of Engineering, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani 12121, Mail, Thailand
Correspondence
S. Chantasiriwan, Faculty of Engineering,
Thammasat University, Pathum Thani 12121, Mail, Thailand. Email: somchart@engr.tu.ac.th
Abstract
The sugar juice evaporation process consists of juice heater, evaporator, and crystallizer. The juice heater increases the temperature of diluted sugar juice from the ambient temperature to the boiling point. The evaporator removes most water content of diluted sugar juice. The crystallizer removes the remaining water content, yielding raw sugar as the final product. Since both the juice heater and the crystallizer require vapor bled from the evaporator, there are interactions between the three com ponents. A model of interactions between the three components of the sugar juice evaporation process is presented in this paper. The model yields a system of nonlinear equations that, under some specified assumptions and conditions, consists of only two free parameters. This implies that there is a unique distribution of a given total juice heater surface when vapor is bled from the first two effects of the evaporator. In contrast, if vapor is bled from the first three or four effects, there are many pos sible surface distributions. It is shown that there is an optimum surface distribution when vapor is bled from either the first three or four effects of the evaporator that minimizes the steam economy. The optimum foureffect vapor bleeding arrangement results in the largest steam economy. How ever, the twoeffect vapor bleeding arrangement produces a larger mass flow rate of processed sugar juice than either threeeffect vapor bleeding arrangement or foureffect vapor bleeding arrangement.
Practical applications
This paper presents a mathematical model of a sugar juice evaporation process. Although one specific process design is under consideration, the model can easily be adjusted for a different process design. This model will be useful for analysis and optimization of the process. One optimization problem men tioned in the paper is the optimum allocation of a fixed total surface among the four heat exchangers of the juice heater, which is used to increase juice temperature to the boiling point before entering the quintupleeffect evaporator. It is found that there are two different optimum surface allocations corresponding to the maximum rate of processed juice and the minimum amount of steam required by the process. Results of this paper should provide a guideline to a process designer in selecting the juice heater that will both satisfy the required heating duty and yield the optimum performance.
1  INTRODUCTION
Evaporation is an important unit operation in many industrial processes. These processes make use of multipleeffect evaporators to remove water from diluted solutions such as black liquor (Jyoti & Khanam, 2014; Khanam & Mohanty, 2010), milk (GalvanAngeles, DiazOvalle, GonzalesAlatorre, CastrejonGonzales, & VazquesRoman, 2015; Ribeiro & Andrade, 2003), tomato juice (Simpson, Almonacid, Lopez, & Abakarov, 2008; Sogut, Ilten, & Oktay, 2010), orange juice (Balkan, Colak, & Hepbasli, 2005), sugar juice (Bapat, Majali, & Ravindranath, 2013), and sea water (Piacentino & Cardona, 2010; Sagharichiha,
Jafarian, Asgari, & Kouhikamali, 2014). An important characteristic of multipleeffect evaporator is the monotonic reduction of vapor pressure from the first effect to the last effect. A supply of lowpressure steam is required for the first effect. Vapor produced by an effect is used for evaporation in succeeding effect except the last effect. Multipleeffect evaporator is one of the three components of the juice evaporation process in raw sugar manufacturing. The other two components are juice heater and crystallizer. The juice heater is used to raise the temperature of incoming juice to the boiling point before the juice is sent to the evaporator. The crystallizer is used to evaporate the remaining water content of concentrated juice leaving the evaporator.
J Food Process Eng. 2017;e12616.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jfpe
V C 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.  1 of 8
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.12616
2 of 8 _{}
CHANTASIRIWAN
The output of the crystallizer is raw sugar. The evaporation process requires a supply of lowpressure steam that is either exhausted from a backpressure steam turbine or extracted from an extractioncondensing steam turbine (Chantasiriwan, 2016). The lowpressure steam is used as the heating medium for the evaporator. The heating medium for both the juice heater and the crystallizer is vapor bled from the evaporator. The juice evaporation process is a major thermal energy consumer in raw sugar manufacturing process. Previous suggestions to improve the process performance have mostly focused on the multipleeffect evaporator. They include adding more effects or more heating surface areas (Urbaniec, Zalewski, & Zhu, 2000) and selecting the optimum dis tribution of evaporator surface (Chantasiriwan, 2015). In addition, the process performance can be enhanced by optimal operation scheduling of the evaporator (Heluane, Colombo, Hernandez, Graells, & Puigjaner, 2007) and using the optimum tube dimensions for the evaporator (Thaval, Broadfoot, Kent, & Rackemann, 2016). For many sugar factories, the modification of multipleeffect evapo rator to optimize the juice evaporation process is not a viable option because of the required investment may be unaffordable. Modification of juice heater, which is another component of the juice evaporation pro cess, is an alternative method to improve the process performance. Juice heater consists of heat exchangers, in which sugar juice temperature is raised from a low temperature to the boiling point before it is fed to the first effect of the evaporator. The heating medium for juice heater is vapor bled from the evaporator. A typical sugar factory uses quintupleeffect evaporator, and bled vapor is available from the first four effects, which can be used for the four heat exchangers of the juice heater. Obviously, the distribution of heat transfer area among the heat exchangers affects the process performance. Previously, Ensinas, Nebra, Lozano, and Serra (2007) considered a method of determining the optimum juice heater and evaporator surface distributions that minimize the total cost of a sugar plant. This method is suitable for the design of a new sugar plant. For an existing plant, however, the surface distribution of the evaporator is known, and the optimum vapor bleeding arrangement surface distribution is to be determined. In this article, an investigation is made into how a
given total juice heater surface can be distributed among the heat exchangers so that the process performance is optimized. The following sections present the detailed description of the evaporation process, the mathematical model of the process, the method used to optimize the pro cess performance, simulation results, discussion, and conclusions.
2  EVAPORATION PROCESS
The schematic of a sugar juice evaporation process that uses quintupleeffect evaporator is shown in Figure 1. The juice heater con sists of five tubular heat exchangers (HC, H1, H2, H3, and H4). It receives diluted juice at the flow rate of m _{f}_{,}_{i}_{n} from the juice extraction process. After passing successively through H4, H3, H2, and H1, the juice temperature increases from T _{h}_{,}_{4} to T _{h}_{,}_{0} . The juice pressure at the exit of the juice heater is slightly above the atmospheric pressure. After passing through FC, dissolved gases in the juice are removed, and its pressure is equal to the atmospheric pressure. Before entering the first effect of the evaporator, the juice pressure is raised to the pressure in the first effect (p _{1} ), and its temperature is raised to the boiling point in HC using lowpressure steam as the heating medium. Lowpressure steam from steam turbine at p _{0} is used as the driving steam for the quintupleeffect evaporator. The thermal energy released by the condensation of the driving steam results in the evaporation of water in sugar juice at a lower pressure (p _{1} ) in the first effect (E1). The vapor leaving all effects except the last one (E5) is used to evaporate water in sugar juice in the succeeding effect. The arrangement in Figure 1 makes use of full condensate flash recovery in order to improve the effi ciency of the evaporator. A flash tank is placed after each effect except the last one. F1 receives condensate from the first effect at pressure p _{0} to produce vapor and condensate at pressure p _{1} . Condensate at p _{1} is also produced in E1 and H1. F2 uses all condensate to produce vapor and condensate at pressure p _{2} . Similarly, F3 and F4 receive condensate from three sources. The condensate leaving F4 is collected in a storage tank. Vapor is bled from all effects of the evaporator except the last one. Vapor bled from the first, second, third, and fourth effects are
FIGURE 1 Schematic representation of the system
CHANTASIRIWAN
_{} 3 of 8
used to increase juice temperature in H1, H2, H3, and H4, respectively.
Additional vapor is bled from the first effect, and used in the crystallizer
(C) to evaporate the water content in the concentrated juice leaving
the evaporator. The output of the crystallizer is raw sugar.
3  COMPONENT MODELS
The mathematical model of the evaporation process consists of sub
models of evaporator, juice heater, and crystallizer. The energy balance
equation for each effect i (i 5 1–5) of the multipleeffect evaporator is
ð12EÞ
m v;i21 1m c;i21 h vl;i21 1
"
m f;0
ð
2 12d
i1
Þm
a
i21
2
X
j51
m 1m
v;j
b;j
#
ðinÞ
h 2h
f;i
ðoutÞ
f;i
5 m d
a i1
1m 1m
v;i
b;i
h 2h
v;i
ðoutÞ
f;i
(1)
where h _{v}_{l} , _{i} is the latent heat of evaporation at saturation temperature
T _{i} , h _{v} , _{i} is the saturated steam enthalpy at T _{i} , h _{f} , _{i} is the sugar juice
enthalpy in effect i, and d _{i}_{1} is the Kronecker delta function (d _{i}_{1} 5 1 if
i 5 1, and d _{i}_{1} 5 0 if i 6¼ 1). It is assumed that a fraction E of heat is lost
in each effect. Rein (2007) suggests that E 5 0.015. Mass balance and
m f;i x i 5m f;in x in
(10)
It should be noted that boiling temperature rise due to hydrostatic
pressure head is not taken into account in this model because the
evaporator is assumed to be of a design in which the effect of hydro
static pressure head on boiling temperature is negligible.
Additional equations are obtained from the requirement that the
rate of heat transfer across evaporator surface (A _{i} ) in effect i is equal to
the rate of thermal energy released by condensing steam in that effect.
U i A i T i21 2
1
2
T 1T
f;i
f;i
ðinÞ
ðoutÞ
5ð12EÞ
m v;i21 1m c;i21
^{} h vl;i21
(11)
The evaporator is assumed to be of the fallingfilm type, for which
the correlation of heat transfer coefficient is provided by Pacheco and
Frioni (2004).
U _{i} 56:9796exp 20:038164x _{i}_{;}_{a}_{v}_{e} ^{}
where x _{i}_{.}_{a}_{v}_{e} 5 0.5(x _{i}_{–} _{1} 1 x _{i} ).
(12)
For the juice heater, the requirement that the latent heat of con
densation of the bled vapor equals the juice enthalpy increase in H1,
H2, H3, and H4 yields
(h _{f} 5 c _{p}_{f} T _{f} ). Equation for specific heat capacity is computed from (Bub
nik, Kadlec, Urban, & Bruhns, 1995):
ð ; xÞ54:186820:0297x17:5310 ^{2}^{5} xT _{f} (7)
c pf T f
Juice temperature (T _{f} ) is assumed to be the saturation temperature. It
is larger than the boiling point of saturated liquid water at the same pres
sure due to the concentration of dissolved solids in juice (Honig, 1963):
ðinÞ
T 5T _{i} 1
f;i
2x i21
1002x _{i}_{2}_{1}
ðoutÞ
T
f;i
5T _{i} 1
2x _{i}
1002x _{i}
(8)
(9)
Juice concentrations are determined from mass balances of dis
solved solids:
After leaving H1, the juice pressure (p _{i}_{n} ) is a little above the atmos
pheric pressure (p _{o}_{u}_{t} ). The juice is allowed to flash in FC, resulting in a
reduced mass flow rate (m _{f}_{,}_{0} ) that is determined from
m f;0 5m f;in
½
12f
ð
T _{i}_{n} ; T out
Þ
(18)
where T _{i}_{n} and T _{o}_{u}_{t} are, respectively, saturated steam temperature cor
responding to p _{i}_{n} and p _{o}_{u}_{t} . Before entering the first effect, the juice
pressure is increased to p _{1} . Furthermore, its temperature is raised to
the boiling point in HC. Lowpressure steam is used as the heating
medium. The model of HC is represented by the following equations.
m v;c h _{v}_{l}_{;}_{c} 5m f;0 c p;c
ð T
1 2T out
Þ
c p;c 5
1
2
½ c
ð
pf T out
; x
0
Þ1c
pf
ð
T ; x
1
0
Þ
(19)
(20)
4 of 8 _{}
CHANTASIRIWAN
T _{1} 5T _{c}
2
ð
T c 2T out
Þexp
2U h;c A h;c m f;0 c p;c
(21)
U _{h}_{,}_{c} is approximately 1.0 kW/m ^{2} K (Peacock & Love, 2003). The
steam pressure in HC (p _{c} ) is assumed to be controlled in such a way
that the juice temperature is exactly T _{1} at the exit of HC. The surface
area of HC (A _{h}_{,}_{c} ) is 900 m ^{2} , which is large enough that p _{c} does not
exceed p _{0} .
The crystallizer may be modeled as a singleeffect evaporator. It
uses the vapor bled from the first effect to evaporate the remaining
water content in the syrup leaving the evaporator. Ideally, the amount
of water to be evaporated is the water content of the syrup. In prac
tice, however, crystallization is usually carried out in three stages. In
each stage, water may be added, and heat loss occurs. The ratio
between the two quantities is in the range of 2.0–2.2 (Reid & Rein,
1983; Rein, 2007). In this article, the ratio of 2.0 is assumed, yielding
the relation
_{m} _{a} _{5} 2m f;5
ð
12x
5
=100Þh _{v}_{l}_{;}_{5}
h vl;1
(22)
4  VAPOR BLEEDING ARRANGEMENTS
Because the juice temperature at the exit of HC is assumed to be T _{1} ,
HC is uncoupled from the rest of the system as far as the solution to
the system is concerned. Inspection of the above mathematical model
reveals that there are 44 variables (m _{f}_{,}_{i}_{n} , m _{f}_{,}_{0} –m _{f}_{,}_{5} , m _{a} , m _{v}_{,}_{0} –m _{v}_{,}_{5} , m _{b}_{,}_{1} –
m _{b}_{,}_{4} , x _{i}_{n} , x _{0} –x _{5} , p _{0} –p _{5} , T _{h}_{,}_{0} –T _{h}_{,}_{4} , A _{1} –A _{5} , and A _{h}_{,}_{1} –A _{h}_{,}_{4} ) and 30 equations
(Equations 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 22). Therefore, the number of
free parameters is 14. Their values must be specified in order for the
solution of the system of nonlinear equations to be found. Six of these
parameters are design variables, consisting of the juice concentration
at the inlet of the process (x _{i}_{n} ), the juice concentration at the outlet of
the process (x _{5} ), the juice temperature at the inlet of the juice heater
(T _{h}_{,}_{4} ), the juice temperature at the outlet of the juice heater (T _{h}_{,}_{0} ), the
steam pressure at the inlet of the evaporator (p _{0} ), and the vapor pres
sure at the outlet of the evaporator (p _{5} ),
Sugar juice that enters the evaporation process comes from a juice
extraction process using sugar milling machinery. The juice extraction
process requires water addition, which results in low concentration of
outgoing juice. Chantasiriwan (2016) showed that there is the optimum
amount of water addition under certain conditions. It is assumed that
this optimum amount of water addition results in the juice concentra
tion at the outlet of the juice extraction process equal to 15%. The
juice leaving the extraction process goes directly to the juice heater
without water addition, Therefore, x _{i}_{n} 5 15%. The second design vari
able is the juice concentration at the outlet of the evaporator (x _{5} ),
which is controlled to be at a high value to improve energy efficiency
of the system. However, x _{5} should not be too high because it will cause
difficulty in the crystallization process. It is assumed in this study that
x _{5} 5 70%.
If water added to the milling unit is at ambient temperature, the
temperature of juice leaving the milling unit may be assumed to be
equal to the ambient temperature. If no heat loss occurs between the
outlet of the juice extraction process and the inlet of the juice heater,
T _{h}_{,}_{4} 5 30 8C. The temperature of sugar juice leaving the juice heater
(T _{h}_{,}_{0} ) is assumed to be 103 8C (Rein, 2007). The sugar juice is also
assumed to be saturated, which means that the juice pressure is above
the atmospheric pressure. The juice is allowed to flash in FC in order to
get rid of dissolved gases, and its temperature is raised to T _{1} in HC
before entering the first effect of the evaporator.
Saturated steam at a specified pressure p _{0} must be available as an
input to the multipleeffect evaporator. Superheated steam is either
exhausted from a backpressure turbine or extracted from a
condensingextraction turbine. It is then mixed with water in a desu
perheater to produce the saturated steam required for the evaporation
process. Vapor pressure at the exit of the fifth effect (p _{5} ) is also
assumed to be fixed because the temperature of sugar juice in the fifth
effect is controlled at a low value to minimize color formation and
sucrose degradation losses. In this study, the values of p _{0} and p _{5} are,
respectively, 200 and 16 kPa.
With x _{i}_{n} , x _{5} , T _{h}_{,}_{0} , T _{h}_{,}_{4} , p _{0} , and p _{5} specified, there are eight remaining
free parameters. It is additionally assumed that the surface areas of the
multipleeffect evaporator (A _{1} –A _{5} ) are specified parameters. It is assumed
that the evaporator surface areas are 5,600 m ^{2} for the first effect,
4,000 m ^{2} for the second effect, and 1,900 m ^{2} for the third, fourth, and
fifth effects. If the total juice heating surface area (A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} 5 A _{h}_{,}_{1} 1 A _{h}_{,}_{2} 1
A _{h}_{,}_{3} 1 A _{h}_{,}_{4} ) is also specified, the number of free parameters is reduced to
two. This means that the system of equations can be solved provided that
two of the juice heater surface areas are given.
Three vapor bleeding arrangements are considered. In twoeffect
vapor bleeding arrangement, vapor is bled from the first and second
effects, which means that A _{h}_{,}_{3} 5 A _{h}_{,}_{4} 5 0. There is a unique dis
tribution of a given total surface between H1 and H2 in this arrange
ment. Threeeffect vapor bleeding arrangement requires vapor
bleeding from the first, second, and third effects, which means that
A _{h}_{,}_{4} 5 0. Because there is one free parameter in this arrangement,
there are several distributions of total surface among H1, H2, and H3
that satisfy a specified juice heating requirement. Foureffect vapor
bleeding arrangement requires vapor bleeding from the first, second,
third, and fourth effects. Because there are two free parameters in this
arrangement, there are several distributions of total surface among H1,
H2, H3, and H4 that satisfy a specified juice heating requirement. Since
there are many surface distributions in the threeeffect and foureffect
vapor bleeding arrangements, it is likely that there is an optimum juice
heater surface area distribution that maximizes steam economy, which
is defined as
SE5
ð 120:01x _{i}_{n}
Þm f;in
m v;0 1m v;c
(23)
In addition to SE, another important performance parameter is the
mass flow rate of processes sugar juice (m _{f}_{,}_{i}_{n} ). The former is related to
cost of manufacturing raw sugar. The latter is related to the revenue
earned by the sugar factory. It is, therefore, desirable for the sugar fac
tory to maximize both parameters.
CHANTASIRIWAN
_{} 5 of 8
5  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
If vapor is bled from the first and second effects, there is a unique dis
tribution of the total surface between H1 and H2. It can be seen from
Figure 2a that A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} must be at least 1,160 m ^{2} . At this value, vapor is
bled from only the first effect because A _{h}_{,}_{2} 5 0 and A _{h}_{,}_{1} 5 A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} .
Increasing A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} results in decreasing A _{h}_{,}_{1} and increasing A _{h}_{,}_{2} . The maxi
mum value of A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} for twoeffect vapor bleeding arrangement is
2,005 m ^{2} . At this value, vapor is bled from only the second effect
because A _{h}_{,}_{1} 5 0, and A _{h}_{,}_{2} 5 A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} . Figure 2b shows that steam econ
omy (SE) increases monotonically with A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} . A plot of m _{f}_{,}_{i}_{n} in Figure 2b
shows that it also increases monotonically with A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} .
If vapor is bled from the first, second, and third effects, there are
many possible distributions of the total juice heater surface among H1,
H2, and H3 because there is a free parameter, which is the surface area of
H3 (A _{h}_{,}_{3} ). Figure 3a shows how the distribution of the total juice heater
surface of 1,500 m ^{2} among H1, H2, and H3 varies with A _{h}_{,}_{3} . It can be seen
that the maximum value of A _{h}_{,}_{3} is 807 m ^{2} . At this value, vapor is bled from
the first and third effects because A _{h}_{,}_{2} 5 0, and A _{h}_{,}_{1} 1 A _{h}_{,}_{3} 5 A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} . Figure
3b shows that, with a fixed value of A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} , there is the optimum value of
A _{h}_{,}_{3} that maximizes SE. However, m _{f}_{,}_{i}_{n} is a monotonically decreasing func
tion of A _{h}_{,}_{3} . Therefore, m _{f}_{,}_{i}_{n} of the threeeffect vapor bleeding arrange
ment is less than that of the twoeffect vapor bleeding arrangement.
Similar results are obtained when A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} is different from 1,500 m ^{2} .
For a given value of A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} , the optimum value A _{h}_{,}_{3} can be found
and the result is the optimum threeeffect vapor bleeding arrangement.
The total juice heater surface distribution among H1, H2, and H3 in
the optimum threeeffect vapor bleeding arrangement as a function of
FIGURE 2 (a) Distribution of the total juice heater surface
between H1 and H2 and (b) variations of the steam economy (SE)
and the mass flow rate of processed sugar juice (m _{f}_{,}_{i}_{n} ) with the
total juice heater surface in the twoeffect vapor bleeding
arrangement
FIGURE 3 (a) Distribution of the total juice heater surface of
1,500 m ^{2} among H1, H2, and H3 as a function of A _{h}_{,}_{3} and (b)
corresponding variations of the steam economy (SE) and the mass
flow rate of processed sugar juice (m _{f}_{,}_{i}_{n} ) in threeeffect vapor
bleeding arrangement
6 of 8 _{}
CHANTASIRIWAN
A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} is shown in Figure 4a. The total juice heater surface can be opti
mally distributed among H1, H2, and H3 when A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} is at least
1,181 m ^{2} . As A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} increases, A _{h}_{,}_{1} decreases, whereas A _{h}_{,}_{2} and A _{h}_{,}_{3}
increase. Increasing A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} results in a monotonic increase in SE, as
shown in Figure 4b.
In the foureffect vapor bleeding arrangement, there are many
possible distributions of the total juice heater surface among H1, H2,
H3, and H4 because there are two free parameters, which are the sur
face area of H3 and H4 (A _{h}_{,}_{3} and A _{h}_{,}_{4} ). Surface plots of variations of SE
and m _{f}_{,}_{i}_{n} with A _{h}_{,}_{3} and A _{h}_{,}_{4} are shown in Figure 5. It can be seen from
Figure 5a that SE is convex function of A _{h}_{,}_{3} and A _{h}_{,}_{4} . Therefore, the
optimum surface distribution that maximizes SE can be found. By con
trast, Figure 5b shows that The maximum value of m _{f}_{,}_{i}_{n} occurs when
A _{h}_{,}_{3} 5 A _{h}_{,}_{4} 5 0. This means that m _{f}_{,}_{i}_{n} of the foureffect vapor bleeding
arrangement is always less than that of the twoeffect vapor bleeding
arrangement.
Figure 6a shows the distribution of A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} among H1, H2, H3, and
H4 in the optimum foureffect vapor bleeding arrangement. It can be
seen that the total juice heater surface can be optimally distributed
among H1, H2, H3, and H4 when A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} is at least 1,250 m ^{2} . As A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t}
increases, A _{h}_{,}_{1} decreases, whereas A _{h}_{,}_{2} , A _{h}_{,}_{3} , and A _{h}_{,}_{4} increase. Figure
6b shows that SE increases monotonically with A _{h}_{,}_{t}_{o}_{t} .
Simulation results corresponding to three different vapor bleeding
arrangements are compared in Table 1. The total juice heater surface
for all arrangements is 1,500 m ^{2} . It can be seen that the optimum
threeeffect vapor bleeding arrangement increases SE by 3.16% com
pared with the twoeffect vapor bleeding arrangement, and the opti
mum foureffect vapor bleeding arrangement increases SE by 0.80%
compared with the optimum threeeffect vapor bleeding arrangement.
FIGURE 4 (a) Distribution of the total juice heater surface among
H1, H2, and H3 and (b) variation of the steam economy (SE) with
the total juice heater surface in the optimum threeeffect vapor
FIGURE 5 Variations of (a) the steam economy (SE) and (b) the
mass flow rate of processed sugar juice (m _{f}_{,}_{i}_{n} ) with A _{h}_{,}_{3} and A _{h}_{,}_{4} in
foureffect vapor bleeding arrangement that has the total juice
bleeding arrangement
heater surface of 1,500 m ^{2}
CHANTASIRIWAN
_{} 7 of 8
TABLE 1 Comparison of simulation results of sugar juice evapora
tion processes having twoeffect, optimum threeeffect, and opti
mum foureffect vapor bleeding arrangements
Vapor bleeding arrangement
Parameter
2Effect
Optimum 3effect
Optimum 4effect
A _{h}_{,}_{1} (m ^{2} )
323.1
464.6
533.5
A _{h}_{,}_{3} (m ^{2} )
0
609.6
344.2
SE
2.312
2.385
2.404
FIGURE 7 Comparison of the steam economy (SE) of sugar juice
evaporation processes that use the 2effect, optimum 3effect, and
optimum 4effect vapor bleeding arrangements
FIGURE 6 (a) Distribution of the total juice heater surface among
H1, H2, H3, and H4 and (b) variation of the steam economy (SE)
with the total juice heater surface in the optimum foureffect vapor
bleeding arrangement
It is interesting to note that m _{f}_{,}_{i}_{n} decreases by 2.72 and 3.43% as the
twoeffect vapor bleeding arrangement is changed, respectively, to the
optimum threeeffect vapor bleeding arrangement and the optimum
foureffect vapor bleeding arrangement.
Figure 7 shows further comparison of SE in the twoeffect, opti
mum threeeffect, and optimum foureffect vapor bleeding arrange
ments. It can be seen that the optimum foureffect vapor bleeding
arrangement gives the best performance in maximizing SE. It is also
interesting to note that all curves exhibit the trend of diminishing
returns. This means that, although SE can be increased by installing
more juice heater surface, the return for the cost of installing additional
surface decreases monotonically as the total surface increases.
6  CONCLUSIONS
Three components of the sugar juice evaporation process are multiple
effect evaporator, juice heater, and crystallizer. The model presented in
this paper takes into account interactions between the three compo
nents through mass and energy balances. The system of nonlinear equa
tions in this model has 44 variables and 30 equations. By specifying the
total juice heater surface area and imposing certain assumptions and
conditions, the number of free parameters decreases from 14 to 2,
which are the surface areas of two exchangers of the juice heater. In the
twoeffect vapor bleeding arrangement, there is a unique solution to the
system of the equations. Simulation results show that both the steam
economy and the rate of processed sugar juice increase with the total
juice heater surface. In either threeeffect or foureffect vapor bleeding
arrangement, there is the optimum surface distribution that maximizes
the steam economy. Simulation results for a hypothetical process with
8 of 8 _{}
CHANTASIRIWAN
the total juice heater surface area of 1,500 m ^{2} indicate that the steam
economy increases by 3.16 and 3.98% as the twoeffect vapor bleeding
arrangement is changed, respectively, to the optimum threeeffect vapor
bleeding arrangement and the optimum foureffect vapor bleeding
arrangement. However, the twoeffect vapor bleeding arrangement
yields a larger value of the rate of processed sugar juice than either a
threeeffect vapor bleeding arrangement or a foureffect vapor bleeding
arrangement. Therefore, the twoeffect vapor bleeding arrangement is
the more suitable arrangement if maximizing the rate of processed sugar
juice has the priority over maximizing the steam economy.
NOMENCLATURE 

A 

c 
_{p} 

h 
enthalpy (kJ/kg) 

m 
mass flow rate (kg/s) 

p 
pressure (kPa) 

SE 
steam economy 

T 

U 

x 

Subscripts 

0 
inlet to evaporator 

b 

c 

f 
sugar juice 

i 
effect number 

in 
into juice heater 

v 
vapor 

vl 
vapor to liquid 

Superscripts 

(in) 
inlet to an effect 

(out) 
outlet from an effect 

ORCID 

S. Chantasiriwan 


REFERENCES 
bled vapor to juice heater
vapor outlet from flash tank
heat transfer surface of evaporator (m ^{2} )
A _{h} heat transfer surface of juice heater (m ^{2} )
specific heat capacity (kJ/kg 8C)
saturated steam temperature in evaporator ( 8C)
T _{h} juice temperature in evaporator ( 8C)
heat transfer coefficient of evaporator (kW/m ^{2} 8C)
U _{h} heat transfer coefficient of juice heater (kW/m ^{2} 8C)
concentration of sugar juice (%)
Chantasiriwan, S. (2016). Optimum imbibition for cogeneration in sugar factories. Applied Thermal Engineering, 103, 1031–1038.
Ensinas, A. V., Nebra, S. A., Lozano, M. A., & Serra, L. (2007). Design of evaporation systems and heaters networks in sugar cane factories using a thermoeconomic optimization procedure. International Journal of Thermophysics, 10, 97–105.
GalvanAngeles, E., DiazOvalle, C. O., GonzalesAlatorre, G., Castrejon Gonzales, E. O., & VazquesRoman, R. (2015). Effect of thermo compression on the design and performance of fallingfilm multi effect evaporator. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 96, 65–77. Honig, P. (1963). Principles of sugar technology (Vol. III). New York: Elsevier.
Heluane, H., Colombo, M., Hernandez, M. R., Graells, M., & Puigjaner, L. (2007). Enhancing sugar cane process performance through optimal pro duction scheduling. Chemical Engineering and Processing, 46, 198–209.
Hugot, E. (1986). Handbook of cane sugar engineering (3rd ed.). Amster dam: Elsevier.
Jyoti, G., & Khanam, S. (2014). Simulation of heat integrated multiple effect evaporator system. International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 76, 110–117.
Khanam, S., & Mohanty, B. (2010). Placement of condensate flash tanks in multiple effect evaporator system. Desalination, 262, 64–71.
Pacheco, C. R. F., & Frioni, L. S. M. (2004). Experimental results for evap oration of sucrose solution using a climbing/falling film evaporator. Journal of Food Engineering, 64, 471–480.
Peacock, S. D., & Love, D. J. (2003). Clear juice heaters—Do we need them? Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association, 77, 452–462.
Piacentino, A., & Cardona, E. (2010). Advanced energetics of a Multiple EffectsEvaporation (MEE) desalination plant. Part II: Potential of the cost formation process and prospects for energy saving by process integration. Desalination, 259, 44–52.
Reid, M. J., & Rein, P. (1983). Steam balance for the new Felixton II mill. Pro ceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association, 57, 85–91.
Rein, P. W. (2007). Cane sugar engineering. Berlin: Verlag.
Ribeiro, C. P., JR., & Andrade, M. H. C. (2003). Performance analysis of the milk concentrating system from a Brazilian milk powder plant. Journal of Food Process Engineering, 26, 181–205.
Sagharichiha, M., Jafarian, A., Asgari, M., & Kouhikamali, R. (2014). Simula tion of a forward feed multiple effect desalination plant with vertical tube evaporators. Chemical Engineering and Processing, 75, 110–118.
Simpson, R., Almonacid, S., Lopez, D., & Abakarov, A. (2008). Optimum design and operating conditions of multiple effect evaporators:
Tomato paste. Journal of Food Engineering, 89, 488–497.
Sogut, Z., Ilten, N., & Oktay, Z. (2010). Energetic and exergetic perform ance evaluation of the quadrupleeffect evaporator unit in tomato paste production. Energy, 35, 3821–3826.
Thaval, O. P., Broadfoot, R., Kent, G. A., & Rackemann, D. W. (2016).
Determination of optimum tube dimensions for Robert evaporators. In Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists (pp. 321–331). Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Balkan, F., Colak, N., & Hepbasli, A. (2005). Performance evaluation of a tripleeffect evaporator with forward feed using exergy analysis. International Journal of Energy Research, 29, 455–470.
Urbaniec, K., Zalewski, P., & Zhu, X. X. (2000). A decomposition approach for retrofit design of energy systems in the sugar industry. Applied Thermal Engineering, 20, 1431–1442.
Bapat, S. M., Majali, V. S., & Ravindranath, G. (2013). Exergetic evaluation and comparison of quintuple effect evaporation units in Indian sugar industries. International Journal of Energy Research, 37, 1415–1427.
Bubnik, Z., Kadlec, P., Urban, D., & Bruhns, M. (1995). Sugar technologists manual (8th ed.). Berlin: Verlag.
Chantasiriwan, S. (2015). Optimum surface area distribution in cocurrent multipleeffect evaporator. Journal of Food Engineering, 161, 48–54.
How to cite this article: Chantasiriwan S. Determination of
optimum vapor bleeding arrangements for sugar juice evapora
tion process. J Food Process Eng. 2017;e12616. https://doi.org/