Accepted Manuscript

Online Determination of Heat Transfer Coefficients in Sugar Juice Evaporation

Process

Somchart Chantasiriwan

PII: S0260-8774(18)30076-1

DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2018.02.021

Reference: JFOE 9176

To appear in: Journal of Food Engineering

Received Date: 21 June 2017

Revised Date: 20 February 2018

Accepted Date: 21 February 2018

Please cite this article as: Somchart Chantasiriwan, Online Determination of Heat Transfer
Coefficients in Sugar Juice Evaporation Process, Journal of Food Engineering (2018), doi: 10.1016
/j.jfoodeng.2018.02.021

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Online Determination of Heat Transfer Coefficients in Sugar Juice Evaporation

2 Process

3
4 Somchart Chantasiriwan

5 Faculty of Engineering, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani 12121, Thailand

6 Tel: +66-(0)-25643001; Fax: +66-(0)-25643010; E-mail: somchart@engr.tu.ac.th

8 Abstract

9 In the sugar juice evaporation process, the temperature of incoming juice is

10 raised to the boiling point, and the water content of the juice is reduced by evaporation.

11 The main process outputs are raw sugar and molasses. Heat transfer coefficients are

12 important parameters in the simulation of this process. Due to scaling, the values of heat

13 transfer coefficients decrease over time, and cleaning must be carried after a certain

14 period of operation. Although correlations of heat transfer coefficients and

15 recommended values of scaling rates are available in the literature, there are

16 uncertainties in their values. Therefore, reliance on these correlations to predict when an

17 evaporator station requires cleaning may be in error. In this paper, a method of online

18 determination of heat transfer coefficients and scaling rates using measured values of

19 process parameters is presented. Testing of this method indicates that it can produce

20 accurate values of heat transfer coefficients and scaling rates despite possible errors in

21 input data.

22
23 Key Words: Multiple-effect evaporator, Heat Exchanger, Mathematical model,

24 Parameter estimation

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

25 1. Introduction

26 Numerical simulation is an important tool in food engineering. Examples of the

27 use of this tool can be found in the simulation of the sugar juice evaporation process, in

28 which a large proportion of the water content of incoming dilute sugar juice is removed,

29 and raw sugar and molasses are delivered as the final outputs. Three main components

30 of the process are multiple-effect evaporator, juice heaters, and crystallizer. Adams et al.

31 (2008) proposed a dynamic model of multiple-effect evaporator, and used it to develop

32 a control algorithm that could overcome difficulties arising from steam and juice

33 concentration disturbances. The steady-state model of multiple-effect evaporator

34 proposed by Burke (2014) was used to investigate the effects of operating conditions on

35 the Pareto optimal front, where juice flow rate is maximized and steam input to the

36 process is minimized. Srivastava (2014) developed a generalized model of multiple-

37 effect evaporator, which was used to show that the recovery of condensate flash vapor

38 resulted in increased steam economy. Jayes (2004) and Chantasiriwan (2015)

39 considered the problem of optimum allocation of heating surface among the effects of

40 multiple-effect evaporator. Heluane et al. (2004) and Heluane et al. (2007) investigated

41 the problem of optimizing the sugar evaporation process through operation scheduling

42 of the multiple-effect evaporator. Ensinas et al. (2007) used a thermo-economic

43 procedure to optimize the design of the sugar juice evaporation system, which resulted

44 in the optimum distribution of juice heater and evaporator surfaces. Recently,

45 Chantasiriwan (2017) determined the optimum distributions of a fixed total juice heater

46 surface that result in the maximum rate of processed sugar juice and the minimum

47 amount of steam required for the process.

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

48 An important component of a model of sugar juice evaporation process is

49 correlations of heat transfer coefficients for evaporators and juice heaters. Existing

50 models rely on correlations provided by Honig (1963), Smith and Taylor (1981), Guo et

51 al. (1983), Watson (1987), Van der Poel et al. (1998) for multiple-effect evaporator and

52 correlations provided by Wright (1981) and Hugot (1986) for juice heaters. It can be

53 shown that different correlations yield different values of heat transfer coefficients.

54 Correlations for evaporators are usually expressed in terms of juice concentration and

55 saturated steam temperature. Inspection of the derivation of one correlation carried out

56 by Wright (2008) revealed that there was significant scatter in the data from which the

57 correlation was derived. Rein (2007) pointed out that the uncertainty in heat transfer

58 coefficients might be due to factors not taken into account in correlations such as the

59 juice level in the evaporator.

60 Another source of uncertainty is the occurrence of scaling or fouling in

61 evaporators and juice heaters. Scaling is usually negligible in the steam side of the

62 evaporators or juice heaters. Scale deposits occur inside a tube containing flowing juice.

63 Scale consists of many components. The analysis performed by Rackemann et al.

64 (2010) showed that the composition of scale varied from one sugar factory to another.

65 Solberg et al. (2006) reported a range of values of scaling rate in the final effect of the

66 multiple-effect evaporator. Measurements by Watson and Wright (1985) indicated

67 different values of scaling rates for juice heaters in different factories.

68 Due to uncertainties in heat transfer coefficients and scaling rates, a simulation

69 that relies on published correlations of heat transfer coefficients and recommended

70 scaling rates may not yield accurate results. More accurate values of heat transfer

71 coefficients and scaling rates for a specific sugar juice evaporation process should be

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

72 obtained from process measurements. In this paper, a method of determining heat

73 transfer coefficients and scaling rates of heat exchangers in the sugar juice evaporation

74 system is presented. This method makes use of measurements of pressures,

75 temperatures, juice concentrations, and inlet juice flow rate, which are readily available

76 in most factories. Previous work by Solberg et al. (2006) presents a similar method for

77 determining heat transfer coefficients and scaling factors. However, Solberg et al.

78 (2006) restricted their analysis to only the multiple-effect evaporator by assuming that

79 there was no vapor bleeding from the multiple-effect evaporator. By contrast, the model

80 of the sugar juice evaporation system presented in this paper incorporates interaction

81 between the evaporators and juice heaters through mass and energy balances.

82
83 2. Sugar Juice Evaporation Process

84 The schematic of a sugar juice evaporation process that uses a quintuple-effect

85 evaporator system is shown in Fig. 1. A solid line represents steam and vapor, dashed

86 line represents sugar juice, and dotted line represents condensate. There are two juice

87 heaters. The primary juice heater (H2) receives diluted juice at the flow rate of mf,in from

88 the juice extraction process at temperature Th,2. The juice temperature is raised to Th,1

89 before the juice is passed through the secondary juice heater (H1). The juice temperature

90 at the exit of H1 is Th,0. The juice pressure at the exit of the secondary juice heater is

91 slightly above the atmospheric pressure. After passing through FC, dissolved gases in

92 the juice are removed, and its pressure is equal to the atmospheric pressure. Before

93 entering the first effect of the multiple-effect evaporator, the juice pressure is raised to

94 the pressure in the first effect (p1).

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

95 The multiple-effect evaporator requires a supply of saturated steam at pressure

96 p0. The thermal energy released by the condensation of the driving steam results in the

97 evaporation of water in sugar juice at a lower pressure (p1) in the first effect (E1). The

98 vapor leaving all effects except the last one (E5) is used to evaporate water in sugar

99 juice in the following effect. Because condensate from E1 is not contaminated with

100 dissolved solids, it is used as feed water for the boiler. Flash tanks are placed after E2,

101 E3, and E4. Flash tank F1 receives condensate at pressure p1 from E2 and H1, and

102 produces vapor and condensate at pressure p2. The vapor is used for evaporating water

103 in sugar juice in E3. F2 receives condensate at pressure p2 from F1, E3, and H2, and

104 produces vapor and condensate at pressure p3. The vapor is used for evaporating water

105 in sugar juice in E4. F3 receives condensate at pressure p3 from F2 and E4, and

106 produces vapor and condensate at pressure p4. The vapor is used for evaporating water

107 in sugar juice in E5. Condensates leaving F3 and E5 are collected in a storage tank.

108 The juice heaters require bled vapor from the evaporators. Vapors bled from the

109 first and second effects are used to increase the juice temperature in H1 and H2,

110 respectively. Additional vapor is bled from the first effect, and used in the crystallizer

111 (C) to evaporate most of the water content in the concentrated juice leaving the

112 evaporator E5. The outputs of the crystallizer are raw sugar and molasses.

113 The model of the sugar juice evaporation process consists of equations of mass

114 and energy balances, equations of steam and sugar juice properties, and correlations of

115 heat transfer coefficients. It can be seen from Fig. 1 that the mass balance equations are

116 m f ,1  m f , 0  mv ,1  mb ,1  ma (1)

117 m f , 2  m f ,1  mv , 2  mb , 2 (2)

118 m f ,3  m f , 2  mv ,3 (3)

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

119 m f , 4  m f ,3  mv , 4 (4)

120 m f ,5  m f , 4  mv ,5 (5)

121 Equation (1) can be solved for mf,i in terms of mf,0, ma, mv,i, and mb,i.

i min i , 2 
122 m f ,i  m f , 0  ma   mv , j  m b, j (6)
j 1 j 1

123 The energy balance equations are

124 1  1 mv,0hvl ,0  m f ,0 hfin,1  hfout,1    ma  mv,1  mb,1 hv,1  hfout,1   (7)

125 1  1 mv,1hvl ,1  m f ,1 hfin, 2  hfout, 2    mv, 2  mb, 2 hv, 2  hfout, 2   (8)

126 1  1 mv, 2  mc,1 hvl , 2  m f , 2 hfin,3  hfout,3    mv,3 hv,3  hfout,3   (9)

127 1  1 mv,3  mc, 2 hvl ,3  m f ,3 hfin, 4  hfout, 4    mv, 4 hv, 4  hfout, 4   (10)

128 1  1 mv, 4  mc,3 hvl , 4  m f , 4 hfin,5  hfout,5    mv,5 hv,5  hfout,5   (11)

129 where hvl,i is the latent heat of evaporation at the saturation temperature Ti, hv,i is the

130 saturated steam enthalpy at Ti, and hf,i is the sugar juice enthalpy in effect i. It is

131 assumed that a fraction 1 of heat is lost in each vessel. Rein (2007) suggested that 1 =

132 0.015.

133 Figure 2 shows mass balances in F1, F2, and F3. The mass flow rate of vapor

134 from each flash tank (mc,i) is determined from the mass balance and energy balance of

135 the flash tank, which results in

136 mc ,1  mv ,1  mb ,1  f T1 ,T2  (12)

137 mc , 2  mv ,1  mb ,1  mv , 2  mb , 2  f T2 ,T3  (13)

138 mc ,3  mv ,1  mb ,1  mv , 2  mb , 2  mv ,3  f T3 ,T4  (14)

139 where

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

hv Ti 1   hv Ti   hvl Ti 1   hvl Ti 

140 f Ti 1 , Ti   (15)
hvl Ti 

141 Juice temperature at the inlet to the first effect is below the boiling point.

142 Therefore, part of the heating surface in the first effect must be used for raising the juice

143 temperature to the boiling point before evaporation can occur. Juice temperature reaches

144 the boiling point at the exit of each effect. The effects of the concentration of dissolved

145 solids in juice and the hydrostatic pressure due to liquid level in the multiple-effect

146 evaporator result in the boiling temperature of sugar juice exceeding the saturated steam

147 temperature. The boiling point of sugar juice may be expressed as

3816.44 2x
148 T f  227.03   (16)
18.3036  ln7.5 p  gH 2000 100  x

149 where x is concentration of dissolved solids in sugar juice, g is gravitational

150 acceleration,  is juice density, and H is liquid level in evaporator vessels. In this paper,

151 H is assumed to be 0.3 m.

152 In addition to equations of mass and energy balances, there are the following

153 heat transfer equations in the evaporators.

154 
U1 A1 T0  T fout
,1


 1  1 mv , 0 hvl , 0 (17)

155 
U 2 A2 T1  T fout
,2


 1  1 mv ,1hvl ,1 (18)

156 
U 3 A3 T2  T fout
,3


 1  1 mv , 2  mc ,1 hvl , 2 (19)

157 
U 4 A4 T3  T fout
,4


 1  1 mv ,3  mc , 2 hvl ,3 (20)

158 
U 5 A5 T4  T fout
,5


 1  1 mv , 4  mc ,3 hvl , 4 (21)

159 For the juice heaters, the requirement that the latent heat of condensation of the

160 bled vapor equals the increase in enthalpy of the juice in H1 and H2 yields

161 1  2 mb,1hvl ,1  m f ,inc p ,1 Th,0  Th,1  (22)

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

162 1  2 mb, 2hvl , 2  m f ,inc p , 2 Th,1  Th, 2  (23)

163 where cp,i is the average heat capacity of the juice between Th,i and Th,i1, and 2 is the

164 heat-loss fraction in the juice heaters, which is assumed to be 0.05. In addition, the heat

165 transfer equations in H1 and H2 are

166 U h ,1 Ah ,1
Th,0 Th ,1 
 1   2 mb ,1hvl ,1 (24)
lnT1  Th ,1  T1  Th , 0 

167 U h , 2 Ah , 2
T  Th , 2 
h ,1
 1   2 mb , 2 hvl , 2 (25)
lnT2  Th , 2  T2  Th ,1 

168 After leaving H1, the juice pressure (pin) is a little above the atmospheric pressure (pout).

169 The juice is allowed to flash in FC, resulting in a reduced mass flow rate (mf,0) that is

170 determined from

171 m f , 0  m f ,in 1  f Tin , Tout  (26)

172 where Tin and Tout are saturation temperatures corresponding to pin and pout. As a

173 consequence, the juice concentration at the inlet to the first effect (x0) is related to the

174 juice concentration at the inlet to the primary juice heater (xin) as follows.

175 xi m f ,i  m f ,in xin (27)

176 where i = 0 – 5.

177 Most of the water content of the syrup coming from the evaporators is removed

178 in the crystallizer, yielding raw sugar and molasses. The crystallizer is modeled as a

179 single-effect evaporator. Vapor bled from the first effect is used to evaporate most of

180 the remaining water in the syrup. Ideally, the amount of water to be evaporated is the

181 water content of the syrup. In practice, however, more water evaporation occurs due to

182 water addition and heat loss. Therefore, the ideal amount of vapor bleeding required for

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

183 crystallization must be multiplied by a correction factor to obtained the actual amount of

184 vapor bleeding. It is assumed that the correction factor is 2.0. Therefore,

2m f ,5 1  x5 100 hvl ,5
185 ma  (28)
hvl ,1

186
187 3. Determination of Heat Transfer Coefficients

188 Inspection of the above mathematical model reveals that there are 39 variables

189 (mf,in, mf,0 – mf,5, ma, mv,0 – mv,5, mb,1, mb,2, xin, x0 – x5, p0 – p5, Th,0 – Th,2, A1 – A5, Ah,1,

190 and Ah,2) and 26 equations [Eqs. (1) – (5), (7) – (11), (17) – (21), (22) – (28)]. Therefore,

191 the number of free parameters is 13. Some of the known parameters are 7 surface areas

192 of the evaporators and juice heaters (A1 – A5, Ah,1, and Ah,2). In a typical simulation, the

193 other 6 known parameters are the concentration of inlet sugar juice (xin), the pressure of

194 steam input to the multiple-effect evaporator (p0), the vapor pressure at the exit of the

195 last effect (p5), the juice temperature at the inlet of the primary juice heater (Th,2), the

196 juice temperature at the exit of the secondary juice heater (Th,0), and the mass flow rate

197 of processed juice (mf,in). Once these parameters are specified, the system of nonlinear

198 equations can be solved by iteration to find corresponding values of the remaining

199 variables.

200 It can be seen from Eqs. (17) – (21), (24), and (25) that U1 – U5, Uh,1, and Uh,2

201 can be determined if mv,0 – mv,5, mb,1, and mb,2 are known. Therefore, the problem of

202 determining heat transfer coefficients becomes the problem of determining these mass

203 flow rates using known values of mf,in, xin, x1 – x5, p0 – p5, Th,0 – Th,2, A1 – A5, Ah,1, and

204 Ah,2. Because mf,in is given, mf,0 can be determined from Eq. (26). Since mf,i can be

205 expressed in terms of mf,0, ma, mv,i, and mb,i, there are 9 unknowns in Eqs. (7) – (11),

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

206 (22), and (23). Additional equations required for the determination of the unknowns are

207 obtained by eliminating mf,i from Eqs. (6) and (27). The resulting equations are

 x 
208 ma  mv ,1  mb ,1  m f , 0 1  0  (29)
 x1 

 x 
209 ma  mv ,1  mv , 2  mb ,1  mb , 2  m f , 0 1  0  (30)
 x2 

 x 
210 ma  mv ,1  mv , 2  mv ,3  mb ,1  mb , 2  m f , 0 1  0  (31)
 x3 

 x 
211 ma  mv ,1  mv , 2  mv ,3  mv , 4  mb ,1  mb , 2  m f , 0 1  0  (32)
 x4 

 x 
212 ma  mv ,1  mv , 2  mv ,3  mv , 4  mv ,5  mb ,1  mb , 2  m f , 0 1  0  (33)
 x5 

213 Therefore, the system of equations consists of 9 unknowns and 12 equations. The

214 solution for ma, mv,0 – mv,5, mb,1, and mb,2 can be found by a least-squares method.

215
216 4. Results and Discussion

217 Consider a hypothetical sugar juice evaporation process. The surface area of the

218 first effect of the multiple-effect evaporator is 6000 m2, whereas the surface areas of the

219 other effects are 3000 m2. The surface areas of both the primary and secondary juice

220 heaters are 1000 m2. The values of heat transfer coefficients are 2.5, 2.5, 2.0, 1.5, and

221 0.7 W/m2.K for, respectively, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th effects. The values of heat

222 transfer coefficients are 1.0 and 0.9 W/m2.K for the primary and secondary juice

223 heaters. By specifying the values of xin, p0, p5, Th,0, Th,2, and mf,in, simulated process data

224 are obtained as shown in Table 1.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

225 The system is assumed to be in operation for a period of 10 days. Due to scaling

226 or fouling effects, heat transfer coefficients are expected to decrease with time. It was

227 reported by Solberg et al. (2006) that the scaling rates in evaporator varied with time (t),

228 whereas the scaling rate in juice heaters was found by Watson and Wright (1985) to

229 vary with t0.8. Therefore, the variations with time of the heat transfer coefficients are

230 expressed as

1 1
231 n     itn (34)
Ui Ui

1 1
232 n    itn0.8 (35)
U h ,i U h ,i

233 where i and i are, respectively, scaling rates for the evaporators and juice heaters, and

234 t is time in hour. It is assumed that the scaling rates are 0.001 for the first 4 effects, and

235 0.008 for the last effect. The scaling rates for the primary and secondary juice heaters

236 are, respectively, 0.006 and 0.003.

237 Measurements of juice concentrations (xin, x1 – x5), steam and vapor pressures

238 (p0 – p5), juice temperatures (Th,0 – Th,2), juice mass flow rate (mf,in) are taken every hour

239 during the 10-day operation period. Figure 3(a) shows variations of juice concentrations

240 with time. It can be seen that only x5 decreases significantly with time, whereas the

241 other juice concentrations remain almost constant. Figure 3(b) shows variations of

242 pressures with time. Both p0 and p5 are kept constant in the simulation. The resulting

243 variations of the other pressures are quite small. Figure 3(c) shows that, due to effects of

244 scaling, the processed juice flow rate decreases monotonically with time. It should be

245 noted that variations of juice temperatures are not shown because all temperatures stay

246 almost constant.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

247 For the purpose of testing the proposed method, the measured values of xin, x1 –

248 x5, p0 – p5, Th,0 – Th,2, and mf,in are used to determine variations with time of U1 – U5,

249 Uh,1, and Uh,2. The measured values differ from the exact values due to limited precision

250 and accuracy. Limited precision results from the fact that a measured value can be

251 displayed to only a few decimal places. Limited accuracy is caused by a random error.

252 In Fig. 4, variations of U1 with time are presented in 3 plots corresponding to three

253 levels of precision and accuracy. The first plot corresponds to measurement data that

254 have the precision of 2 decimal places and the accuracy of 0.1 unit (which is

255 percentage for xin, x1 – x5, kPa for p0 – p5, C for Th,0 – Th,2, and kg/s for mf,in). The

256 second plot corresponds to measurement data that have the precision of 1 decimal place

257 and the accuracy of 0.5 unit. The third plot corresponds to measurement data that have

258 the precision of 1 decimal place and the accuracy of 1 unit. It can be seen that data

259 scatter increases as measurement data are less precise or less accurate. However, all

260 plots display the same trend. Regression analysis indicates that all three plots yield the

261 correct values of U1 and 1. Results for the other four effects are shown in Figs. 5 – 8.

262 Variations of Uh,1 and Uh,2 with t0.8 are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Although data scatter

263 increases as measurement data become less precise or less accurate, correct values of

264 Uh,1, Uh,2, 1, and 2 can be recovered. It is interesting to note that data scatter in

265 computed values of Uh,1 is noticeably more than for Uh,2 because the smaller value of

266 the denominator in the log-mean temperature difference in Eq. (24) results in larger

267 effects of measurement errors.

268
269 5. Conclusion

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

270 Accurate simulation of the sugar juice evaporation process requires accurate

271 values of heat transfer coefficients and scaling rates. Values provided in the literature

272 were obtained from experiments and test runs under specific conditions, which may be

273 different from conditions in a process. Using them in the process simulation may yield

274 inaccurate results. This paper presents a model of the sugar juice evaporation process, of

275 which components are evaporators, juice heaters, and crystallizer. The model can be

276 used to determine heat transfer coefficients and scaling rates of the evaporators and

277 juice heaters provided that process measurements of juice concentrations, juice

278 temperatures, evaporator effect pressures, and juice flow rate are available. Testing of

279 this method using simulated process measurements that have limited precision and

280 accuracy shows that accurate values of heat transfer coefficients and scaling rates can be

281 obtained by using regression analysis.

282
283 Nomenclature

284 A heat transfer surface of evaporator, m2

285 Ah heat transfer surface of juice heater, m2

286 cp specific heat capacity, kJ/kg.K

287 H juice level in evaporator, m

288 h enthalpy, kJ/kg

289 m mass flow rate, kg/s

290 p pressure, kPa

291 T temperature, C

292 t time, h

293 U heat transfer coefficient of evaporator, kW/m2.K

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

294 Uh heat transfer coefficient of juice heater, kW/m2.K

295 x concentration of sugar juice, %

296
297 Greek symbols

298  scaling rate in evaporator

299  scaling rate in juice heaters

300 1 heat loss coefficient in evaporator

301 2 heat loss coefficient in juice heaters

302
303 Subscripts

304 0 inlet to evaporator

305 a bled vapor to crystallizer

306 b bled vapor to juice heater

307 c vapor leaving flash tank

308 f sugar juice

309 h juice heater

310 i effect number

311 in inlet to the evaporation process

312 v vapor

313 vl vapor-to-liquid

314
315 Superscripts

316 n time level

317 in inlet to an effect

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

318 out outlet from an effect

319
320 References

321 Adams, G.J., Burke, B.J., Goodwin, G.C., Gravdahl, J.T., Peirce, R.D., & Rojas, A.J.

322 (2008). Managing steam and concentration disturbances in multi-effect

323 evaporators via nonlinear modelling and control. In Proceedings of the 17th

324 International Federation of Automatic Control World Congress, Seoul, South

325 Korea.

326 Burke, B.J. (2014). Modelling and multi-objective optimisation of a sugar mill based

327 on multi-effect evaporator set. In Proceedings of the 19th International

328 Federation of Automatic Control World Congress, Cape Town, South Africa.

329 Chantasiriwan, S. (2015). Optimum surface area distribution in co-current multiple-

330 effect evaporator. Journal of Food Engineering, 161, 48-54.

331 Chantasiriwan, S. (2017). Distribution of juice heater surface for optimum performance

332 of evaporation process in raw sugar manufacturing. Journal of Food

333 Engineering, 195, 21-30.

334 Ensinas A.V., Nebra S.A., Lozano M.A., & Serra L. (2007). Design of evaporation

335 systems and heaters networks in sugar cane factories using a thermoeconomic

336 optimization procedure. International Journal of Thermodynamics, 10, 97-105.

337 Guo, S.Y., White, E.T., & Wright, P.G. (1983). Heat transfer coefficients for natural

338 circulation evaporators. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane

339 Technologists, 5, 237-244.

340 Heluane, H., Colombo, M.A., Hernandez M.R., Sequeira, S.E., Graells, M., &

341 Puigjaner, L. (2004). Scheduling of continuous parallel lines in the evaporation

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

342 section of sugar plants. Chemical Engineering Communications, 191, 1121-

343 1146.

344 Heluane, H., Colombo, M., Hernandez M.R., Graells, M., & Puigjaner, L. (2007).

345 Enhancing sugar cane process performance through optimal production

346 scheduling. Chemical Engineering and Processing, 46, 198-209.

347 Honig, P. (1963). Principles of Sugar Technology, Vol. III. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

348 Hugot, E. (1986). Handbook of Cane Sugar Engineering, 3rd ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

349 Jayes, W.E.G. (2004). Optimum distribution of heating surface in a multiple effect

350 evaporator train. International Sugar Journal, 106, 612-619.

351 Rackemann, D.W., Doherty, W.O.S., & East, C.P. (2010). Development of descriptor

352 tools for the characterization of Australian sugar mill evaporator scale.

353 Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 27, 1-10.

354 Rein, P. (2007). Cane Sugar Engineering. Verlag, Berlin.

355 Smith, I.A., & Taylor, L.A.W. (1981). Some data on heat transfer in multiple effect

356 evaporators. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists’

357 Association, 55, 51-55.

358 Solberg, D., Rein, P., & Schlorke, D. (2006). Online evaporator heat transfer

359 measurement and analysis. International Sugar Journal, 108, 28-38.

360 Srivastava, D., Mohanty, B., & Bhargava, R. (2013). Modeling and simulation of MEE

361 system used in the sugar industry. Chemical Engineering Communications, 200,

362 1089-1101.

363 Van der Poel, P.W., Schiweck, H., & Schwartz, T. (1998). Sugar Technology: Beet and

364 Cane Sugar Manufacturer. Verlag, Berlin.

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

365 Watson, L.J. (1987). Heat transfer mechanisms in evaporators. Proceedings of the

366 Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 9, 221-227.

367 Watson, L.J., & Wright, P.G. (1985). Fouling rates for tubular juice heaters.

368 Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 7, 201-208.

369 Wright, P.G. (1981). Performance equations for horizontal tubular juice heaters.

370 Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 3, 135-143.

371 Wright, P.G. (2008). Heat transfer coefficient correlations for Robert juice evaporators.

372 Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 30, 547-

373 558.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure Captions

Figure 1 Sugar juice evaporation system.

Figure 2 Mass balances in condensate flash tanks.
Figure 3 Variations with time of (a) the concentrations of dissolved solids in juice
in effects of the evaporator, (b) the pressures in effects of the evaporator,
and (c) the processed sugar juice flow rate during 10-day operation
period of a hypothetical process.
Figure 4 Computed values of the heat transfer coefficient in the first effect of the
evaporator during 10-day operation period obtained from different
measurements.
Figure 5 Computed values of the heat transfer coefficient in the second effect of
the evaporator during 10-day operation period obtained from different
measurements.
Figure 6 Computed values of the heat transfer coefficient in the third effect of the
evaporator during 10-day operation period obtained from different
measurements.
Figure 7 Computed values of the heat transfer coefficient in the fourth effect of
the evaporator during 10-day operation period obtained from different
measurements.
Figure 8 Computed values of the heat transfer coefficient in the fifth effect of the
evaporator during 10-day operation period obtained from different
measurements.
Figure 9 Computed values of the heat transfer coefficient in the primary juice
heater during 10-day operation period obtained from different
measurements.
Figure 10 Computed values of the heat transfer coefficient in the secondary juice
heater during 10-day operation period obtained from different
measurements.

1
 Figure 1

Th,0 Th,1 Th,2

mf,in, xin
H1 H2
mb,1 mb,2
ma mv,5
C

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
mv,0 mv,1 mv,2 mv,3 mv,4
cond
m c,1 c
enser mc,2 mc,3

FC F1 F2 F3
mf,0 mf,1 mf,2 mf,3 mf,4

mf,5

2
 Figure 2

m +m m +m +m m +m
v,1 b,1 v,2 b,2 c,1 v,3 c,2

m m m
c,1 c,2 c,3

F1 F2 F3
m +m +m +m +m –m
v,1 b,1 v,2 b,2 v,3 c,3

m +m –m m +m +m +m –m
v,1 b,1 c,1 v,1 b,1 v,2 b,2 c,2

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 3

80
(a)

60 x5
x4
xi (%)

40 x3
x2
x1
20
xin

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
t (h)

160
(b)
140
p1
120
100 p2
pi (kPa)

80 p3
60 p4
40
20 p5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
t (h)

200
(c)

150
mf,in (kg/s)

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
t (h)

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 4

0.8

0.6
1/U1 (m2 .K/kW)

0.4

0.2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

0.8

0.6
1/U1 (m2 .K/kW)

0.4

0.2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

0.8

0.6
1/U1 (m2 .K/kW)

0.4

0.2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 5

0.8

0.6
1/U2 (m2 .K/kW)

0.4

0.2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

0.8

0.6
1/U2 (m2 .K/kW)

0.4

0.2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

0.8

0.6
1/U2 (m2 .K/kW)

0.4

0.2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 6

0.8

0.6
1/U3 (m2 .K/kW)

0.4

0.2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

0.8
1/U3 (m2 .K/kW)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

0.8
1/U3 (m2 .K/kW)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 7

0.8
1/U4 (m2 .K/kW)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

1.2

1
1/U4 (m2 .K/kW)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

1.2

1
1/U4 (m2 .K/kW)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 8

3
1/U5 (m2 .K/kW)

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

3
1/U5 (m2 .K/kW)

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

3
1/U5 (m2 .K/kW)

0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
t (h)

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 9

1.4

1.2

1
1/Uh,1 (m2 .K/kW)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80
t0.8 (h0.8 )

1.4

1.2

1
1/Uh,1 (m2 .K/kW)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80
t0.8 (h0.8 )

1.6
1.4
1.2
1/Uh,1 (m2 .K/kW)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80
t0.8 (h0.8 )

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 10

1.8
1.6
1.4
1/Uh,2 (m2 .K/kW)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80
t0.8 (h0.8 )

1.8
1.6
1.4
1/Uh,2 (m2 .K/kW)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80
t0.8 (h0.8 )

1.8
1.6
1.4
1/Uh,2 (m2 .K/kW)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80
t0.8 (h0.8 )

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

 Heat transfer coefficients are important parameters in simulation of evaporation process.

 There are uncertainties in available correlations of heat transfer coefficients.
 Heat transfer coefficients and scaling rates are determined in this paper using process
measurement data.
 Despite errors in the input data, accurate values of heat transfer coefficients and scaling
rates are determined in this method.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1 Simulated process data

xin (%) 15.00

mf,in (kg/s) 177.71
ma (kg/s) 23.27
Effect i
0 1 2 3 4 5
xi (%) 15.09 23.26 31.79 38.60 49.58 70.78
pi (kPa) 200.00 142.79 100.33 78.06 53.57 20.00
mv,i (kg/s) 67.25 31.58 14.41 14.81 15.29 16.11
mb,i (kg/s)  7.27 16.32   
Ai (m2)  6000 3000 3000 3000 3000
Ah,i (m2)  1000 1000   
Ui (W/m2.C)  2500 2500 2000 1500 700
Uh,i (W/m2.C)  1000 900   