You are on page 1of 8

Received: 22 October 2016 | Revised: 19 July 2017 | Accepted: 3 August 2017 DOI: 10.1111/jfpe.12616

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

## Determination of optimum vapor bleeding arrangements for sugar juice evaporation process

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 four-effect vapor bleeding arrangement results in the largest steam economy. How- ever, the two-effect vapor bleeding arrangement produces a larger mass flow rate of processed sugar juice than either three-effect vapor bleeding arrangement or four-effect 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 quintuple-effect 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 multiple-effect evaporators to remove water from diluted solutions such as black liquor (Jyoti & Khanam, 2014; Khanam & Mohanty, 2010), milk (Galvan-Angeles, Diaz-Ovalle, Gonzales-Alatorre, Castrejon-Gonzales, & Vazques-Roman, 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 multiple-effect evaporator is the monotonic reduction of vapor pressure from the first effect to the last effect. A supply of low-pressure steam is required for the first effect. Vapor produced by an effect is used for evaporation in succeeding effect except the last effect. Multiple-effect 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 low-pressure steam that is either exhausted from a back-pressure steam turbine or extracted from an extraction-condensing steam turbine (Chantasiriwan, 2016). The low-pressure 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 multiple-effect 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 multiple-effect 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 quintuple-effect 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 quintuple-effect 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,in 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 low-pressure steam as the heating medium. Low-pressure steam from steam turbine at p 0 is used as the driving steam for the quintuple-effect 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 15) of the multiple-effect 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 vl , 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 i1 is the Kronecker delta function (d i1 5 1 if

i 5 1, and d i1 5 0 if i 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 falling-film type, for which

the correlation of heat transfer coefficient is provided by Pacheco and

Frioni (2004).

U i 56:9796exp 20:038164x i;ave

where x i.ave 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

energy balances of the flash tanks yield the following expression for
(13)
m b;i h vl;i 5m f;in c p;i T h;i21 2T h;i
vapor mass flow rate from each flash tank (i 5 1–4):
"
where m f,in is the mass flow rate of juice into the juice heater, and c p,i
i21
ð
12d
Þ1 X
m
1m
# f ð
;
Þ
(2)
is the average heat capacity of the juice.
m c;i 5 m v;0
i0
v;j
b;j
T i21
T i
j51
1
c
T ; x 1c
(14)
c p;i 5
pf
h;i
in
pf T h;i21 ; x in
where
2
ð
Þ2h v ð
T i
ð
Þ1h vl T i
ð
Þ
T i21
f ð
;
T i
Þ5 h v
Þ2h vl T i21
h vl T i
(3)
In addition, the requirement that the heat transfer across the
T i21
ð
Þ
surfaces of H1, H2, H3, and H4 equals the increase in enthalpy of the
Required equations for latent heat of evaporation of water and
juice yields:
enthalpy of saturated steam are obtained from Rein (2007):
exp
(15)
T h;i21 5T i 2 T i 2T h;i
h vl ðT Þ52492:922:0523T 23:0752310 23 T 2
(4)
2U h;i A h;i
m f;in c p;i
h v ðT Þ52502:0411:8125T 12:585310 24 T 2 29:8310 26 T 3
(5)
The following equation is proposed by Hugot (1986) for the overall
heat transfer coefficient of the juice heater:
The saturated steam temperature (T) is related to the saturated
u
0:8
pressure p by
U h;i 50:007T i
(16)
1:8
3; 816:44
T 52227:031
(6)
The juice velocity (u) is assumed to be 2.5 m/s, and the above
18:30362ln ð7:5pÞ
equation becomes
Specific enthalpy of juice at inlet and exit of the ith effect is the
U h;i 50:0091T i
(17)
product of specific heat capacity of sugar juice and juice temperature

(h f 5 c pf T f ). Equation for specific heat capacity is computed from (Bub-

nik, Kadlec, Urban, & Bruhns, 1995):

ð ; xÞ54:186820:0297x17:5310 25 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 i21

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 in ) is a little above the atmos-

pheric pressure (p out ). 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 in ; T out

Þ

(18)

where T in and T out are, respectively, saturated steam temperature cor-

responding to p in and p out . Before entering the first effect, the juice

pressure is increased to p 1 . Furthermore, its temperature is raised to

the boiling point in HC. Low-pressure steam is used as the heating

medium. The model of HC is represented by the following equations.

m v;c h vl;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 single-effect 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 2.02.2 (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 vl;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,in , m f,0 m f,5 , m a , m v,0 m v,5 , m b,1

m b,4 , x in , 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 in ), 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 in 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 multiple-effect evaporator. Superheated steam is either

exhausted from a back-pressure turbine or extracted from a

condensing-extraction 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 in , 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

multiple-effect 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,tot 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 two-effect

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. Three-effect 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. Four-effect 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 three-effect and four-effect

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 in

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,in ). 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,tot 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,tot .

Increasing A h,tot results in decreasing A h,1 and increasing A h,2 . The maxi-

mum value of A h,tot for two-effect 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,tot . Figure 2b shows that steam econ-

omy (SE) increases monotonically with A h,tot . A plot of m f,in in Figure 2b

shows that it also increases monotonically with A h,tot .

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,tot . Figure

3b shows that, with a fixed value of A h,tot , there is the optimum value of

A h,3 that maximizes SE. However, m f,in is a monotonically decreasing func-

tion of A h,3 . Therefore, m f,in of the three-effect vapor bleeding arrange-

ment is less than that of the two-effect vapor bleeding arrangement.

Similar results are obtained when A h,tot is different from 1,500 m 2 .

For a given value of A h,tot , the optimum value A h,3 can be found

and the result is the optimum three-effect vapor bleeding arrangement.

The total juice heater surface distribution among H1, H2, and H3 in

the optimum three-effect 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,in ) with the

total juice heater surface in the two-effect 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,in ) in three-effect vapor

bleeding arrangement

6 of 8 |

CHANTASIRIWAN

A h,tot is shown in Figure 4a. The total juice heater surface can be opti-

mally distributed among H1, H2, and H3 when A h,tot is at least

1,181 m 2 . As A h,tot increases, A h,1 decreases, whereas A h,2 and A h,3

increase. Increasing A h,tot results in a monotonic increase in SE, as

shown in Figure 4b.

In the four-effect 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,in 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,in occurs when

A h,3 5 A h,4 5 0. This means that m f,in of the four-effect vapor bleeding

arrangement is always less than that of the two-effect vapor bleeding

arrangement.

Figure 6a shows the distribution of A h,tot among H1, H2, H3, and

H4 in the optimum four-effect 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,tot is at least 1,250 m 2 . As A h,tot

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,tot .

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

three-effect vapor bleeding arrangement increases SE by 3.16% com-

pared with the two-effect vapor bleeding arrangement, and the opti-

mum four-effect vapor bleeding arrangement increases SE by 0.80%

compared with the optimum three-effect 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 three-effect vapor

FIGURE 5 Variations of (a) the steam economy (SE) and (b) the

mass flow rate of processed sugar juice (m f,in ) with A h,3 and A h,4 in

four-effect vapor bleeding arrangement that has the total juice

CHANTASIRIWAN

| 7 of 8

TABLE 1 Comparison of simulation results of sugar juice evapora-

tion processes having two-effect, optimum three-effect, and opti-

mum four-effect vapor bleeding arrangements

Vapor bleeding arrangement

Parameter

2-Effect

Optimum 3-effect

Optimum 4-effect

A h,1 (m 2 )

323.1

464.6

533.5

A h,2 (m 2 )
1176.9
425.8
346.7

A h,3 (m 2 )

0

609.6

344.2

A h,4 (m 2 )
0
0
285.6

SE

2.312

2.385

2.404

m f,in (kg/s)
154.4
150.2
149.1

FIGURE 7 Comparison of the steam economy (SE) of sugar juice

evaporation processes that use the 2-effect, optimum 3-effect, and

optimum 4-effect 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 four-effect vapor

bleeding arrangement

It is interesting to note that m f,in decreases by 2.72 and 3.43% as the

two-effect vapor bleeding arrangement is changed, respectively, to the

optimum three-effect vapor bleeding arrangement and the optimum

four-effect vapor bleeding arrangement.

Figure 7 shows further comparison of SE in the two-effect, opti-

mum three-effect, and optimum four-effect vapor bleeding arrange-

ments. It can be seen that the optimum four-effect 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

two-effect 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 three-effect or four-effect vapor bleeding

arrangement, there is the optimum surface distribution that maximizes

the steam economy. Simulation results for a hypothetical process with

8 of 8 |

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1274-8326 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. Galvan-Angeles, E., Diaz-Ovalle, C. O., Gonzales-Alatorre, G., Castrejon- Gonzales, E. O., & Vazques-Roman, R. (2015). Effect of thermo- compression on the design and performance of falling-film 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- Effects-Evaporation (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 quadruple-effect 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 triple-effect 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 co-current multiple-effect 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/ 10.1111/jfpe.12616 " id="pdf-obj-7-5" src="pdf-obj-7-5.jpg">
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1274-8326 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. Galvan-Angeles, E., Diaz-Ovalle, C. O., Gonzales-Alatorre, G., Castrejon- Gonzales, E. O., & Vazques-Roman, R. (2015). Effect of thermo- compression on the design and performance of falling-film 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- Effects-Evaporation (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 quadruple-effect 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 triple-effect 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 co-current multiple-effect 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/ 10.1111/jfpe.12616 " id="pdf-obj-7-7" src="pdf-obj-7-7.jpg">

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 two-effect vapor bleeding

arrangement is changed, respectively, to the optimum three-effect vapor

bleeding arrangement and the optimum four-effect vapor bleeding

arrangement. However, the two-effect vapor bleeding arrangement

yields a larger value of the rate of processed sugar juice than either a

three-effect vapor bleeding arrangement or a four-effect vapor bleeding

arrangement. Therefore, the two-effect 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, 10311038.

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, 97105.

Galvan-Angeles, E., Diaz-Ovalle, C. O., Gonzales-Alatorre, G., Castrejon- Gonzales, E. O., & Vazques-Roman, R. (2015). Effect of thermo- compression on the design and performance of falling-film multi- effect evaporator. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 96, 6577. 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, 198209.

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, 110117.

Khanam, S., & Mohanty, B. (2010). Placement of condensate flash tanks in multiple effect evaporator system. Desalination, 262, 6471.

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, 471480.

Peacock, S. D., & Love, D. J. (2003). Clear juice heatersDo we need them? Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association, 77, 452462.

Piacentino, A., & Cardona, E. (2010). Advanced energetics of a Multiple- Effects-Evaporation (MEE) desalination plant. Part II: Potential of the cost formation process and prospects for energy saving by process integration. Desalination, 259, 4452.

Reid, M. J., & Rein, P. (1983). Steam balance for the new Felixton II mill. Pro- ceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists Association, 57, 8591.

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, 181205.

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, 110118.

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, 488497.

Sogut, Z., Ilten, N., & Oktay, Z. (2010). Energetic and exergetic perform- ance evaluation of the quadruple-effect evaporator unit in tomato paste production. Energy, 35, 38213826.

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. 321331). Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Balkan, F., Colak, N., & Hepbasli, A. (2005). Performance evaluation of a triple-effect evaporator with forward feed using exergy analysis. International Journal of Energy Research, 29, 455470.

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, 14311442.

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, 14151427.

Bubnik, Z., Kadlec, P., Urban, D., & Bruhns, M. (1995). Sugar technologists manual (8th ed.). Berlin: Verlag.

Chantasiriwan, S. (2015). Optimum surface area distribution in co-current multiple-effect evaporator. Journal of Food Engineering, 161, 4854.