Vol 64, No.

2;Feb 2014

1 MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF MULTIPLE- EFFECT

2 EVAPORATORS AND STEAM EFFICIENCY

3
4 H. Ibrahim SARACa, Durmus Kayab,, Hisham Alidrisib,
a
5 Kocaeli University, Mechanical Engineering Department

6 Umuttepe, Kocaeli, Turkey

b
7 Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box

8 80204, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia

9
10 Abstract

11 In this study, a mathematical model was developed for multiple-effect evaporators. These evaporators

12 have cocurrent, countercurrent, and parallel flow operation options. Each operation was investigated

13 with and without preheaters. The effect of preheating on the evaporation process was investigated

14 with respect to steam consumption efficiency. A sugar factory’s data was used with the applied

15 models as a case study. The results obtained for preheated and non-preheated situations were

16 compared. The best operation for economic steam consumption was found to be countercurrent

17 operation with preheating, while the worst case was parallel flow operation without preheating. The

18 steam savings obtained by preheating of unconcentrated solution for cocurrent, countercurrent, and

19 parallel flow operation cases were 7,343.86 kg/h, 2767.06 kg/h, and 1,143.58 kg/h, respectively.

20

21 Keywords: Multiple-effect evaporators; Steam efficiency; Mathematics model; Modeling;

22 Evaporation processes

23 Introduction
24
25 The sectoral distribution of energy consumption in Turkey for the year 2011 was approximately 32 %

26 for residential, 42 % for industrial, 19.5% for transportation, 5% for agricultural, and 1.5% for other

Corresponding auther
Phone: + 90 532 402 6074
E-mail: durmuskaya@hotmail.com
311 Jokull Journal

1
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

27 sectors [1]. The thermal energy usage in industry accounts for two-thirds of the total energy

28 consumption. Industrial thermal energy demand below 200 oC is 20-25% of the total industrial energy

29 consumption. An important portion of this energy is used in evaporation processes in many industries

30 such as the food, chemical, and paper industries, since the evaporation process is an energy-intensive

31 unit operation [2].

32 An evaporator itself can take several forms, ranging from basic single-effect to multiple-effect

33 systems. This latter type can be highly energy-efficient, and therefore, multiple-effect evaporator

34 systems have been used extensively in large-scale industry for high steam efficiency [3,4]. For

35 example, in a sugar factory, 10% of the energy utilized during the manufacturing process is electrical

36 energy and 90% is thermal energy. Most of the thermal energy is utilized in the evaporation process.

37 Therefore, multiple-effect evaporators must be used in this unit to obtain high-ratio steam efficiency.

38 In a multiple-effect evaporator, the steam requirement of the first evaporator is fed from an external

39 source; the juice steam recovered from the first stage is used as a heat source for the second stage, and

40 so on until the last stage. The cost of sugar manufacturing depends highly on the multiple-stage

41 evaporator’s steam consumption [5]. More precisely, the sugar evaporation processes should be

42 designed in such a way that the energy usage is optimized, and the required quality of the final

43 product is achieved [6-7].

44 High energy consumption in evaporators and increasing energy costs have prompted researchers to

45 study more efficient methods of energy utilization [7-10]. The most efficient way of reducing energy

46 consumption is to utilize energy in a more economical way. High energy efficiency in manufacturing

47 processes not only decreases the direct operation costs but also decreases the investment cost to

48 recycle the waste energy. As an additional benefit, the environment will be less polluted by the

49 utilization of less energy [11].

50 Design and analysis of multiple-effect evaporators and classical step-by-step procedures have been

51 presented by various authors [12]. On the other hand, steady-state process simulation is a valuable

52 tool for design, analysis, and optimization of chemical processes. Different simulation methods have

53 been developed, such as an equation-solving method and a simultaneous modular method. Each of

312 Jokull Journal

2
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

54 these methods has some advantages over others, in various phases of computer simulation (e.g.,

55 modeling, programming, and solving the model equations) [12-18].

56

57 The aim of this study is to develop mathematical models for multiple-effect evaporators and to

58 define the maximum coefficient of evaporator performance using the developed model. Therefore,

59 mathematical models for cocurrent, countercurrent, and parallel flow operation scenarios (each with

60 and without preheating) were developed. The effect of preheating on the evaporation process was

61 investigated with respect to steam consumption efficiency. The best operations for economic steam

62 consumption were defined using a sugar factory’s data.

63
64 General Modeling of a Quadruple-Effect Evaporator System
65

66 For modeling of multiple-effect evaporators, a pressure value and a temperature value are set for each

67 evaporator. The necessary enthalpies for these pressure values are found from thermodynamic tables

68 and diagrams. The mass, component, and energy balances are provided for each evaporator and also

69 for the system. These balances are transformed to linearly independent equations after making

70 necessary assumptions. In an evaporator system, which has N number of evaporators, N+1 linear

71 equations are obtained. These equations are generally a function of the amount of initial steam and the

72 amounts of solution vapor formed in the evaporators. The obtained linear equations are solved either

73 directly or using an iterative method. These studies have been done for cocurrent, countercurrent, and

74 parallel flow operation scenarios under both preheated and non-preheated conditions. The operation

75 scenarios mentioned above were named according to the directions of the solution and its vapor in the

76 evaporator.

77

78 “No Preheating” Condition

79 If the solution and its vapor flow in the same direction, this operation option, or scenario, is called

80 cocurrent flow, as shown in Figure 1. As indicated in the figure, the solution to be concentrated enters

81 the first stage evaporator (I) with feed flow rate L, concentration x, enthalpy h, temperature t, and

313 Jokull Journal

3
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

82 specific heat Cp. The initial steam also enters the first stage with feed flowrate St, enthalpy H,

83 temperature T, and pressure P to vaporize the water, producing solution vapor of flowrate V 1 and

84 vapor phase concentration Y1, enthalpy H1, and pressure P1. The produced vapor is used as the heat

85 source in the next stage. The first stage solution, with flow rate L1, concentration x1, temperature t1,

86 and enthalpy h1, goes to the second stage, and the same operation is repeated until the fourth stage.

87 The vapor pressure of the last stage is controlled by a compressor. The initial steam and vapor is

88 condensed after each evaporation. The concentrated solution is obtained from the final evaporators.

89 Model development:

90 The following basic assumptions have been made during model development:

91  Solution vapor and initial steam are in saturated equilibrium.

92  The mass of the steam in the solution chamber and the mass of the steam in the steam

93 chamber at each stage are constant.

94  The heat losses to the environment are negligible.

95  Mixing is perfect.

96 Model equations of the evaporator are as follows:

97 Energy Balances:

98 For evaporator 1:

99 St H  L h  St Hs  V1 H1  L1 h1 (1)

100 The equation given above can be also written as follows:

101 St (H - Hs)  L h  V1H1  L1 h1  0 (2)

102 H - H s  1 (3)

103 Where,

104  is sensible (latent) heat of vaporization of vapor (kJ/kg)

105 St 1  L h  V1 H1  L1 h1  0 (4)

106 For evaporator 2, 3, and 4:

107 Vi H i  L i h i  Vi H iS  Vi 1H i 1  L i 1h i 1 , i=1, 2, 3 (5)

108 The equation given above can be also written as follows:

314 Jokull Journal

4
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

109 Vi (H i - H is )  L i h i - Vi 1H i 1 - L i 1h i1  0 (6)

110
111 H i - H is  i 1 (7)
112
113 Vi  i 1 + L i h i - Vi1 H i1 - L İ1 h i 1 = 0 (8)

114

115 Solid Mass Balances:

116 For the first evaporator:

117
118 L x  L1 x 1 (9)

119 For evaporator number 2, 3, and 4:

120 L i x i  L i 1x i1 , i  1,2,3 (10)

121 From this equation:

122 L x  L4 x 4 (11)

123 L 4  L x/x 4 (12)

124
125
126 Solution Mass Balances:
127
128 L  V1  V2  V3  V4  L 4 (13)
129
130 When Eq. 12 is written instead L4 in eq.13:
131
132 L  V1  V2  V3  V4  L x/x 4 (14)
133
134 Similar to Eq. 14, L1, L2, L3 equations can be written as follows:
135
136 L1  V2  V3  V4  L x/x 4 (15)
137
138 L 2  V3  V4  L x/x 4 (16)
139
140 L 3  V4  L x/x 4 (17)
141
142 When L1 and L2 given in Eq. 13 and Eq. 14 are written in Eq. 4, the following equation is obtained:

143 St  1+ (V1 + V2 + V3 + V4 + L x/x 4 ) h - V1 H1 - (V2 + V3 + V4 + L x/x 4 ) h1 = 0 (18)

144
145 Equation 18 can be simplified as follows:
146
147 St 1 + V1 (h - H1 ) + V2 (h - h1 ) + V3 (h - h1 ) + V4 (h - h1 ) = L x/x 4 (h1 - h) (19)

315 Jokull Journal

5
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

148
149 When L1 and L2 given in Eq. 15 and Eq. 16 are written in Eq. 8, the following equation is obtained:

150 V12 + V2 (h1 - H 2 ) + V3 (h1 - h 2 ) + V4 (h1 - h 2 ) = (h 2 - h1 ) L x/x 4 (20)

151
152 When L2 and L3 given in Eq. 16 and Eq. 17 are written in Eq. 8, the following equation is obtained:

153 V2 3 + V3 (h 2 - H 3 ) + V4 (h 2 - h 3 ) = (h 3 - h 2 ) L x/x 4 (21)

154
155 When L3 given in Eq.17 is written in Eq. 8, the following equation is obtained:
156
157 V3 4 + V4 (h 3 - H 4 ) = (h 4 - h 3 ) L x/x 4 (22)
158
159 The Eq. 14 can be also written as follows:
160
161 V1  V2  V3  V4  L1 - x/x 4  (23)
162
163 When Eq. 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are reviewed, it is seen that each equation contains a matrix of

164 constants. The model of the system is obtained when equations written as A X=B, form a matrix of

165 constants.

166 The mathematical model for this model is given in Eq.24.

 1 (h  H 1 ) ( h  h1 ) ( h  h1 )( h  h1 )   St   ( h1  h ) L( x / x 4 ) 
 0 2 ( h1  H 2 ) ( h1  h2 ) (h1  h2 )  V1   ( h2  h1 ) L( x / x 4 ) 

 0 0 3 ( h2  H 3 ) ( h2  h3 )  x V2   ( h3  h2 ) L( x / x 4 )
167       (24)
 0 0 0 4 ( h3  H 4 ) V3  ( h4  h3 ) L( x / x 4 )
 0 1 1 1 1  V4   L(1  x / x 4 ) 
168

169 In the matrix form given above, A is a matrix of constants; X represents the variables to be solved

170 (i.e. St, V1, V2, V3, V4); and B is the right side of the equation, which is known. When the equation is

171 solved by Gauss-Side or an iterative method, the required initial steam (St) and generated vapor

172 amount at each evaporator (V1, V2, V3, V4) can be calculated. COEP is calculated by the ratio of

173 generated total vapor to initial steam.

174 In countercurrent operation, the unconcentrated solution is fed to the final evaporator. The

175 concentrating solution moves from the fourth evaporator to first as it is concentrated, and the initial

176 steam is fed to the first evaporator.

316 Jokull Journal

6
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

177 The solution vapor obtained at each step is used as a heat source for the next evaporator. This type

178 of operation and its mathematical model is given in Fig. 2 and Eq.25.

 1 ( h2  H 1 ) 0 0 0   St   (h1  h2 ) L( x / x1 ) 
 0 ( 2  h3  h2 ) (h3  H 2 ) 0 0  V1  (h2  h3 ) L( x / x1 )
179  0 (h4  h3 ) ( 3  h4  h3 ) (h4  H 3 ) 0  x V   (h  h ) L( x / x ) (25)
   2  3 4 1

 0 ( h  h4 ) ( h  h4 ) ( 4  h  h 4 ) (h  H 4 ) V
   3 ( h 4  h ) L ( x / x1 )
 0 1 1 1 1  V4   L(1  x / x1 ) 
180

181 In the case of parallel flow operation, the unconcentrated solution is fed to each evaporator

182 individually. After the solution reaches the desired concentration, it is taken from each evaporator as

183 product. As in the previous cases, the solution does not move among evaporators.

184 As shown in Figure 3, the initial steam is fed to the first evaporator. The solution vapor moves in

185 the same direction as explained for the previous cases. The mathematical model for this case is given

186 in Eq.26.

  x  
 1 ( h  H 1 )  (h  h1 ) 0 0 0   
  x1  x   0
187   x     (26)
 0 2 ( h  H 2 )  (h  h2 ) 0 0   St   
  x 2  x   V   0 
 x   1  
 0 0 3 [(h  H 3 )  (h  h3 )] 0  x V2    0 
 x3  x     
 x  V3   
 0 0 0 4 [(h  H 4 )  (h  h4 )]  V4   0 
 x4  x   
   
 x1  x2  x3   x4   
 0       
  x x x2  x       L
 1   x3  x   x4  x 

188
189 Preheating Case

190 In cocurrent and parallel flow operation with preheating, the initial steam is fed to the first evaporator.

191 Some part of the solution vapor obtained in this step is sent to the second evaporator, and the remains

192 are sent to the second preheater. While some part of the solution vapor from the second evaporator is

193 sent to the third evaporator, the remainder is given to the first preheater as a heat source. The solution

194 vapor obtained at the third evaporator is used as a heat source for the fourth evaporator. The

195 unconcentrated solution’s temperature increases as T1=T0-T in the first preheater, and its

196 temperature increases as T2=T1-T in the second preheater.

197 The cocurrent operation with preheating scenario is given in Figure 4. As it can be seen from the

198 figure, the unconcentrated solution coming from the second preheater is fed to the first evaporator.

317 Jokull Journal

7
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

199 The concentrated solution is subsequently fed to the next stage. The product is obtained from the last

200 evaporator. The linear model for this system is given in Eq.27.

 1 (h1  H 1 ) (h  h1 ) (h  h1 ) (h  h1 )   St   (h1  h) L( x / x 4 ) 
 0 2 (h1  H 2 ) (h1  h2 ) (h1  h2 )  V1  (h2  h1 ) L( x / x 4 )  LC p T2 
  
(h2  h3 )  x V 2   (h3  h2 ) L( x / x 4 )  LC p T1 
201 (27)
0 0 3 ( h2  H 3 )
   
 0 0 0 4 (h3  H 4 ) V3   (h4  h3 ) L( x / x 4 ) 
 0 1 1 1 1  V 4   L(1  x / x 4 ) 


202 In countercurrent operation and preheating scenario is shown in Figure 5. As indicated in the

203 figure, the temperature of the solution is increased by T1=T1-T0 by preheating using some of the

204 solvent vapor obtained in the final evaporator. The unconcentrated solution coming from the preheater

205 is fed to the last evaporator. The concentrating solution moves from the fourth evaporator to the first

206 evaporator.

207 The solution is taken from the first evaporation after it has reached the desired concentration. The

208 mathematical model for this case is given in Eq. 28.

 1 ( h2  H 1 ) 0 0 0   St  (h1  h2 ) L( x / x1 ) 
     
 0 (  2  h3  h 2 ) ( h3  H 2 ) 0 0  V1  (h2  h3 ) L( x / x1 )
 0 ( h 4  h3 ) (  3  h 4  h3 ) ( h4  H 3 ) 0  x V2   (h3  h4 ) L( x / x1 )
209      (28)

 0 0 0 4 ( h4  H 4 )  V3   (h4  h ) L 
  V   L(1  x / x ) 
 0 1 1 1 1   4  1 
210

211 The parallel flow operation and preheating scenario is shown in Figure 6. In this case, each evaporator

212 is individually fed by the unconcentrated solution coming from the preheater. After reaching the

213 desired concentration, the solution is taken from the evaporators as products, and this can be modeled

214 by the linear equation given in Eq.29.

  x  
  ( h  H1 )  ( h  h1 ) 0 0 0 
 1  x1  x  
 
215   x   (29)
0 2 ( h  H 2 )  (h  h2 ) 0 0   St   0 
 x  x 
 2   V   LCp T 
 x   1  2

0 0 3 [( h  H 3 )  (h  h3 ) 0  x V    LCp T 
 x3  x 2
    0  1
   V3   

0 0 0 4  
(h  H 4 ) 
x
x4  x
 V   L 
(h  h4 )   4   
 
  x  x2  x   x  
0  1   3   4  
 x  x x2  x x  x x  x 
  1   3   4  

216

217
218
318 Jokull Journal

8
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

219 SAMPLE STUDY

220 Definition of the Sample Problem

221 The sample study, or problem, is from a sugar industry. In a sugar manufacturing facility, the solution

222 obtained from sugar beet or cane is sent to a sugar tank. The temperature of the solution is 35oC. The

223 solution mass flow is 200,000 kg/h, and its concentration is 15%. The solution is concentrated in a

224 cocurrent flow multiple-effect evaporator without preheating, as shown in Figure 1. The final product

225 is syrup in 65% concentrations. The pressure, temperature, and latent heat of initial steam are 1.5 bar,

226 111.4 oC, and 2226.5 kJ/kg, respectively, and its mass flow is read from a calibrated counter as 61000

227 kg/h. The solution in each evaporator is a saturated form, and their pressure is 1, 0.7, 0.5, and 0.3 bar,

228 respectively. The specific heat for the solution is assumed to be constant as 3.81 kJ/kgK [19].

229 The pre-heating of the solution will be done in two steps for cocurrent and parallel flow operation.

230 The solution will be heated from 35 oC to 70 oC in the first preheater and from 70 oC to 90 oC in the

231 second preheater. In the countercurrent operation, the initial solution will be heated to 65 oC using

232 only one preheater.

233 The steam consumption and performance of the evaporation will be calculated for cocurrent,

234 countercurrent, and parallel flow operation under preheated and non-preheated conditions using the

235 developed model. The results will be compared with respect to steam consumption efficiency.

236

237 The Solution of the Sample Problem

238

239 The necessary enthalpies for solution, water, and vapor were found from thermodynamic tables and

240 diagrams using pressure and temperature values [19-21]. These values are given in Table 1.

241 As an example, the solution of the problem for a cocurrent operation without preheating is given

242 as follows:

243 Solution entrance enthalpy (h):

244 h  Cp t (30)

245 h=3.81x35 =133.35 kJ/kg

319 Jokull Journal

9
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

246 h-H1=133.35-2675.5=2542.15 kJ/kg, h-h1=133.35-379.6=-246.25 kJ/kg, h1-H2=379.6-2660=-2280.4

247 kJ/kg, h1-h2=379.6-342.7=36.9 kJ/kg , h2-H3=342.7-2645.9=-2303.2 kJ/kg, h2-h3=342.7-309.9=-32.8

248 kJ/kg, h3-H4=309.9-2625.3=-2315.4 kJ/kg.

249 The right sides of the equation is calculated as follows:

250 (h1-h) L (x/x4)= 246.25x200 000x(0.15/0.65)=11,365,385

251 (h2-h1) L (x/x4)= -36.9x200000 x (0.15/0.65)=-1,703,077

252 (h3-h2) L (x/x4)= 32.8x200000 x (0.15/0.65)=-1,513,847

253 (h4-h3) L (x/x4)=(263.3-309.9)x 200000 x(0.15/0.65)=-2,150,770

254 L (1-x/x4)= 200,000 x (1-0.15/0.65)= 153,846

255 When data given above are used in equation 24, equation 31 can be obtained:

 2226.5  2542.15  246.25  246.26  246.25   St   11365385 


 0 2258  2280.4 36.9 36.9  V1    1703077 
256  0 0 2283.3  2303.2 32.8  x V2     1513847  (31)
     
 0 0 0 2305.4  2315.4  V3   2150770
 0 1 1 1 1  V4   153846 
257 When the matrix is solved by Gauss-elimination method (also can be solved by Iterative method),

258 it is found that St =59834.18 , V1=36 574.2, V2=38 240.6, V3=39 135.6, and V4= 39 895.6

259 Coefficient of Evaporator Performance (COEP) according to the model is calculated as:

V1  V2  V3  V4 36574,2  38240,6  39135,6  39895,6

260 COEPm    2.57
S 59834.18
261 Same calculations were completed for cocurrent and countercurrent operations without preheating

262 and for parallel flow, cocurrent, and countercurrent operations with preheating, and the results are

263 given in Table 2.

264 From Table 2, the following conclusions can be made:

265 Operation without preheating:

266  The initial steam consumption during cocurrent flow operation is 59834,18 kg/h, and COEP

267 is 2.57. When compared with other operations, the highest amount of initial steam is

268 consumed during this operation.

320 Jokull Journal

10
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

269  When countercurrent flow is used, initial steam consumption is 48892,08 kg/h and COEP is

270 3.14. By this method, when compared with the first operation,10,942.10 kg/h steam will be

271 saved.

272  When parallel flow is used, initial steam consumption is 53 878,34 kg/h and COEP is 2.85.

273 By this method, 5,955.84 kg/h steam will be saved with respect to first choice, but additional

274 4,986.26 kg/h steam will be spent with respect to second choice.

275

276 Operation with preheating:

277  The initial steam consumption during cocurrent operation is 52,490.32 kg/h, and COEP is

278 2.93.

279  When countercurrent flow is used, initial steam consumption is 46,165.02 kg/h, and COEP is

280 3.33. By this method, 6,325.28 kg/h steam will be saved with respect to cocurrent choice, and

281 6,569.74 kg/h steam will be saved with respect to parallel flow choice. This scenario offers

282 the highest energy-savings.

283  When parallel flow is used, initial steam consumption is 52,734.76 kg/h, and COEP is 2.92

284 By this method, additional 244.44 steam will be spent with respect to cocurrent choice.

285 When the same flow types with and without preheating are compared, a great amount of steam

286 savings is obtained with preheating as compared to conditions without preheating. The steam savings

287 by preheating of unconcentrated solution for cocurrent, countercurrent, and parallel flow operation

288 cases are 7,343.86 kg/h, 2727.78 kg/h, and 1,143.58 kg/h, respectively.

289 When choices compared with respect to the total amount of vapor consumed, it is seen that the

290 total amount of vapor consumed is same, but the distribution of vapor consumption through the

291 processes differs.

292

293 Model Validation

294 Model validation is done by comparing the model results with actual data points (i.e. data obtained
295 during actual operations). Total vapor production is calculated by the solution concentration data for
296 the evaporators taken from the factory. COEP is calculated from initial steam and total vapor
321 Jokull Journal

11
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

297 consumption values. These values are compared with the results obtained by the model in order to
298 validate the model accuracy.
299 Vapor generated at the evaporators (amount of liquid evaporated from solution) can be given as:

300 Total vapor mass flow generated in evaporators = total solution mass flow - weight of solid materials

301 in solution - water amount in the product

302 Where:

303 Weight of solid materials in solution = 200000x0.15 = 30,000 kg/h

304 Water amount in the product = 30,000 x(100-65)/65 =16,152 kg/h

305 Total vapor flow generated in evaporators = 200,000-30,000 -16,152 = 153,848 kg/h

306 COEP for actual operating conditions is given as:

307 COEPa =153,848 /61,000 = 2.522

308 Therefore, the deviation between COEPm and COEPa is calculated as shown below:
309 Deviation = 2.57-2.522/2.57 = 0.0186
310 Deviation ratio = 1.86%

311 Based on these results, data obtained by the model can be said to quite accurately predict actual

312 conditions.

313
314 Conclusions
315

316 In multiple-effect evaporators, the mathematical models for cocurrent, countercurrent, and parallel

317 flow operation scenarios, each with and without preheating, were developed. The physical model and

318 the governing equations of mass, energy, and component are derived in some detail for countercurrent

319 flow without preheating, and all of the assumptions made are outlined. The final form of the equations

320 for the other five flow arrangements in matrix form was given. A numerical study has been done for

321 each model using a sugar factory’s data, and the most efficient model was identified. The maximum

322 COEP was found as 3.33 for countercurrent operation with preheating, while the minimum COEP was

323 2.57 for parallel flow operation without preheating. For all of the other cases, COEP was found to be

324 between 2.57 and 3.33. The best operation for economic steam consumption was found to be

325 countercurrent operation with preheating, while the worst case was parallel flow operation without

322 Jokull Journal

12
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

326 preheating. The steam savings obtained by preheating of unconcentrated solution for cocurrent,

327 countercurrent, and parallel flow operation cases were 7,343.86 kg/h, 2767.06 kg/h, and 1,143.58

328 kg/h, respectively.

329 Model validation was completed by comparing the model results with actual data obtained from

330 the plant. It was found that the model developed agrees reasonable well with plant data.

331 We hope that this study will be a useful guide for process design engineers in designing, analysis,

332 and optimization of evaporation processes.

333 Acknowledgements

334 The authors would like to thank King Abdulaziz University (KAU), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia for

335 providing all the facilities and support required to conduct and publish this paper. The authors are

336 also grateful to Prof. Dr. Sibel Ozdagan and Ms. Stephanie Dikec, M.Sc. for their editing of the paper.

337

338 References

339 [1] Turkey’s Energy Outlook Report, TMMOB Makina Mühendisleri Odası , Publication Number

340 2012; MMO/588 (In Turkish).

341 [2] Yanniotis S, Pilavavhi P.A. Energy Consumption of absorbstion-driven Multiple-Effect

342 Evaporators. Journal of food engineering 1994; 23: 543-554.

343 [3] Badger WL, Banchero JT. Introduction to chemical engineering. New York:McGraw-Hill. , 1995.

344 [4] McCabe WL, Smith JC, Harriott P. Unit operation of chemical engineering. 7 th Edition New

345 York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.

346 [5] Green DW, Perry JH. Perry”s Chemical engineer’s handbook, 8 th Edition. New York: McGraw-

347 Hill, 2008.

348 [6] Lissane Elhaq S, Giri F, Unbehauen H. Modelling, identification and control of sugar evaporation-

349 theoretical design and experimental evaluation. Control Engineering Practice 1999; 7: 931-942.

350 [7] Tekin T, Bayramoğlu M. Exergy and structural analysis of raw juice production and steam-power

351 units of a sugar production plant. Energy 2001; 26: 287-297.

352 [8] Urbaniec K, Zalewski P, Zhu X.X. A decomposition approach for retrofit design of energy

353 systems in the sugar industry. Applied Thermal Engineering 2000; 20: 1431-1442.
323 Jokull Journal

13
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

354 [9] Gidner A, Jernqvist A, Aly G. An energy efficient evaporation process for treating bleach plant

355 effluents. Applied Thermal Engineering 1996; 16 (1): 33-42.

356 [10] Bourgıis J., LeMaguer M. Heat-Transfer Correlation for Upward Liquid Film Heat Transfer with

357 Phase Change: Application in the Optimization and Design of Evaporators. Journal of food

358 engineering 1987; 6:291-300.

359 [11] Kilicaslan I, Sarac HI, Ozdemir E, Ermis K. Sugar cane as an alternative energy source for

360 Turkey. Energy Conversion & Management 1999; 40: 1–11.

361 [12] Bayramoğlu M, Ekmekyapar A, Ceyhun I, Colak S. Modelling and Simulation of multiple-effect

362 evaporator system in sugar industry. Chim Acta Turcica 1987: 15: 449-459.

363 [13] Mithraratne P, Wijeysundera NE. An experimental and numerical study of the dynamic behavior

364 of a counter-flow evaporator. International Journal of Refrigeration 2001; 24: 554-565.

365 [14] Lopez A., Lacarra G. Mathematical modelling of thermal storage systems for the food industry,

366 International Journal of Refrigeration 1999; 22: 650-658.

367 [15] Quaak P, Wijck MPCM, Van Haren JJ. Comparison of process identification and physical

368 modelling for falling-film evaporators 1994; 5(2): 73-82.

369 [16] Simpson, R., Almonacid, S., Lopez, D., & Abakarov, A. (2008). Optimum design and operating

370 conditions of multiple effect evaporators: Tomato paste. Journal of Food Engineering, 89(4),

371 488-497.

372 [17] Druetta, P., Aguirre, P., & Mussati, S. (2013). Optimization of Multi-Effect Evaporation

373 desalination plants. Desalination, 311, 1-15.

374 [18] Jyoti, G., & Khanam, S. (2014). Simulation of heat integrated multiple effect evaporator system.

375 International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 76, 110-117.

376 [19] Akhtar MJ. Energy calculation and conservation in sugar mills. Lahore: Department of

377 mechanical engineering. 1990.

378 [20] Moran MJ, Sharpo MN, Boettner, D.D and M.B. Bailey. Fundamentals of engineering

379 thermodynamics. Seventh Edition. New York: John Wiley, 2011.

380 [21] Thumann A. et al. Plant engineers and managers guide to energy conservation. Lilburn: The

381 Fairmont Press Inc. 2010.

324 Jokull Journal

14
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

382 Figure Captions

383 Figure 1. Quadruple-effect evaporator system cocurrent flow scenario

384 Figure 2. Quadruple-effect evaporator system countercurrent flow scenario

385 Figure 3. Quadruple-effect evaporator system parallel current flow scenario

386 Figure 4. Quadruple-effect evaporator system cocurrent operation with preheating

387 Figure 5. Quadruple-effect evaporator system countercurrent operation with preheating

388 Figure 6. Quadruple-effect evaporator system parallel flow operation with preheating

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

325 Jokull Journal

15
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

solution vapor
V1, H1, Y1=0 V2, H2, Y2=0 V3,H3,Y3=0 V4, H4,Y4=0

St,P,H I P1 II P2 III P3 IV P4
initial V1 V2 V3
steam H1s H2s H3s
L4
St, Hs h4
x4
L
condenser x L1, h1, x1 L2, h2 ,x2 product
h L3, h3, x3
solution
409
410 Figure 1. Quadruple-effect evaporator system cocurrent flow scenario

411
412
solution vapor
V1,H1,Y1=0 V2,H2,Y2=0 V4,H4,Y4=0
V3,H3,Y3=0
initial
steam
St,P,H I P1 II P2 III P3 IV P4
S,Hs V1 V2 V3
H1s H2s H3s L4
L1 h4
h1 x4
x1 L2,h2,x2
L3,h3,x3

solution
product L, h, x

condenser
413
414
415 Figure 2. Quadruple-effect evaporator system countercurrent flow scenario
416
solution vapor
V1,H1,Y1=0 V2,H2,Y2=0 V3,H3,Y3=0 V4,H4,Y4=0

St,P,H I P1 II P2 III P3 IV P4
initial V1 V2 V3
steam H1s H2s H3s
S,Hs

solution
L, x, h
product product product
L2,h2,x2 product
L1,h1,x1 L3,h3,x3 L4,h4,x4

condenser
417
418 Figure 3. Quadruple-effect evaporator system parallel flow scenario

419

420

421
326 Jokull Journal

16
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

L, hd, x, To L, h, x, T1
T
solution H1s
H2s

Preheater 2
Preheater 1

solution vapor
V3,H3,Y3 V4,H4,Y4

(V1-St1), H1 (V2-St2), H2
St,P,H I P1 II P2 III P3 IV P4
Initial H2s
H1s V3,
steam L4
H3s h4
S,Hs x3

L1, h1, x1 L2, h2, x2 L3, h3, x3

product
422
423 Figure 4. Quadruple-effect evaporator system cocurrent operation with preheating
424
425
(V4-St1), H4 solution
L, h0, x, To
solution vapor

St1, H4 St1, H4s

solution vapor V4,H4,Y4 L

h
V1,H1,Y1 V2,H2,Y2 V3,H3,Y3 x
T1

St,P,H I P1 II P2 III P3 IV P4
Initial
V1 V2 V3
steam H1s H2s H3s
L4
St,Hs h4
L3, h3, x3 x4
L2,h2,x2
L1,h1,x1

426 product
427 Figure 5. Quadruple-effect evaporator system countercurrent operation with preheating

327 Jokull Journal

17
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

L,h0,x,To L, h, x,T1
T

St1, H1s
St1
St2,
H2s

Preheater 1 Preheater 2

solution vapor
V1,H1,Y1 V4,H4,Y4
V3,H3,Y3
(V1-St1),H1 St2 (V2-St2),H2
St,P,H I P1 II P2 III P3 IV P4
initial V3
H1s H2s
steam H3s

St,Hs
L
x
h
product product product product
L1,h1,x1 L2,h2,x2 L3,h3,x3 L4,h4,x4
428
429
430 Figure 6. Quadruple-effect evaporator system parallel flow operation case with preheating

431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
328 Jokull Journal

18
 Vol 64, No. 2;Feb 2014

463 Table 1.Data for sample problem

464
Specification Evaporative
I II III IV
Pressure P (bar) 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3
Temperature (oC) 99.63 89.95 81.33 69.10
Saturated water enthalpy (His, kJ/kg) 417.46 376.7 340.49 289.23
Saturated vapor enthalpy (Hi, kJ/kg) 2675.5 2660.0 2645.9 2625.3
Sensible (latent) heat (i, kJ/kg) 2226,5 2258 2283.3 2305.4
Solution enthalpy (hi, kJ/kg) 379.6 342.7 309.9 263.3
465

466

467 Table 2. Solution of initial steam and solution vapor values for sample study

Pre-heat Operation Initial steam Solution vapor (kg/h)

COEP 
Vi
Situation St (kg/h) V1 V2 V3 V4 St

Cocurrent 59834.18 36574.20 38240.60 39135.60 39895.40 2.57

Without- Countercurrent 48892.08 45972.20 42884.80 38456.80 26532.00 3.14
Preheating Parallel 53878.34 45855.80 39986.20 35587.60 32416.20 2.85
With Cocurrent 52490.32 47706.60 42334.20 31506.20 32299.00 2.93
Preheating Countercurrent 46165.02 43331.20 40384.20 36161.00 33969.40 3.33
Parallel 52734.76 50099.60 42245.60 30434.40 31066.20 2.92

329 Jokull Journal

19