Applied Thermal Engineering 123 (2017) 1365–1373

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Research Paper

Industrial scale engineering estimation of the heat transfer in falling film

juice evaporators
Piotr Cyklis
Institute of Thermal and Process Engineering, Mechanical Department, Cracow University of Technology, al. Jana Pawla II 37, 31-864 Krakow, Poland

h i g h l i g h t s

The heat transfer coefficients for falling film evaporator are analysed.

Industrial operating conditions of juice evaporators are considered.

The simple formula for overall heat transfer coefficient has been proposed.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Falling film, shell-tube type evaporators are commonly used heat exchangers for the production of fruit
Received 5 January 2017 juice concentrate. Evaporators are one of the main energy consumers in the fruit processing plants.
Revised 3 May 2017 Number of effects influences energy consumption. The main problem in the design of the exchanger is
Accepted 31 May 2017
the reliable estimation of the overall wall heat transfer coefficients for all effects in real operating condi-
Available online 2 June 2017
tions. Most literature sources for the heat transfer coefficients are based on laboratory measurements,
where the tubes are usually short, no fouling exists and the flow rate is carefully adjusted. This paper
Keywords:
shows the heat transfer coefficients estimated in real industrial operating conditions, on the basis of sev-
Heat transfer
Falling film evaporator
eral operating evaporators investigations in the fruit processing plants. Estimated values are compared
Industrial conditions with recognised formulas from literature. As a summary, the design heat transfer coefficients are given
for each effect of the falling film evaporator for juice concentrate production.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction evaporator. In one phase heat exchangers, it is always possible to

Multi-effect/multistage evaporators with a capacity of between
3 and 40 m3h1 of fresh juice inflow are still one of the most
energy demanding and commonly used apparatus in the fruit pro-
cessing factories. Authors [1] claims, that in New Zealand 1% of
total energy consumed is expended in evaporation processes. In
Pulp and Paper factories evaporation consumes about 24–30% of
its total energy [2]. There are two main types of multi-effect evap-
orators – shell-tube and plate [3]. Plate type evaporators are less
expensive to produce, they are of lower mass and require less
space, but due to organic clogging of the heat exchangers, they
are more problematic during operation. Therefore, in spite of the
higher investment costs, the tube type heat exchanger is still a
good and popular choice for fruit juice concentration. The design
of such a unit requires a good estimation of the heat transfer coef-
ficients for the optimal shape and dimensions. The overall heat
transfer coefficient is a critical issue in the case of the falling film
E-mail address: pcyklis@mech.pk.edu.pl
increase the heat transfer area, resulting in a decrease in the tem-
perature difference between the heat exchanging fluids without
affecting the heat exchange rate. In the case of falling film evapo-
rators, increasing the area requires increasing the liquid flow rate
to ensure total coverage of the area of the inner tubes by the liquid
film [4,5].
The falling film evaporators, despite having been used in the
industry for at least 50 years, are still subject to numerous papers
concerning heat and mass transfer in particular [6–9]. Additionally,
the modelling of the falling film evaporators with the optimisation
of liquid flow and exchangers set up is the subject of investigation
[2,10,11]. There are a number of papers and formulas based on lab-
oratory investigations in ideal conditions, where each parameter is
strictly controlled and measured [8,12,1,13]. Using these formulas
for the design of real systems may lead to unexpected results;
therefore, information about real industrial cases is still needed.
The assessment of real heat transfer coefficients may be also
obtained using inverse methods [14]. The real values for heat
transfer coefficients for all evaporator effects has been shown by

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.05.194
1359-4311/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1366 P. Cyklis / Applied Thermal Engineering 123 (2017) 1365–1373

Nomenclature

Latin letters Greek letters

A area, m2 a convection coefficient kWm2 K1
b sugar content in solution, °Brix C mass flow intensity (flowrate per tube circumference)
cp solution specific heat, kJkg1K1 kgs1 m1
cpw water specific heat, kJkg1K1 k heat conductivity kWm1K1
din tube internal diameter l dynamic viscosity Pas
dout tube external diameter q density kgm3
g gravity acceleration = 9.81 ms2 m kinematic viscosity m2s1
h specific enthalpy, kJkg1 d wall thickness mm
_
I, I enthalpy, kJ, enthalpy flux, kW d liquid film thickness
k wall heat transfer coefficient, kWm2 K1
l length, m Subscripts
m_ mass flow rate, kgs1 BPE boiling point elevation
Nu Nusselt number i effect number
nr number of tubes in internal tube diameter
ns number of effect c concentrate
p pressure, MPa cond condensate
Pr Prandtl number s steam
q unitary heat, kJkg1 l liquid phase
Q_ heat flux, kW v vapour phase
r evaporation enthalpy, kJkg1
Re Reynolds number
t temperature, °C
v specific volume, m3/kg

Ref. [15], as well as used for optimisation [2,16]. The values for heat [28,16]. In this research the properties of apple juice were the basis
transfer are also needed and used for CFD simulation [17]. Other for evaporator design. The designed evaporators are also used for
numerical models for evaporation in cases of falling film may also strawberry, blackcurrant, cherries juices concentration, but the
be found in Refs. [18,19]. achieved capacity is calculated for apple juice.
The basis of all designs in juice concentrate production is sugar In this research for apple juice density following formula was
technology [8,12,19]. In the case of fruit juice, the maximum tem- applied [29,17]:
perature is lower than for the sugar cane juice. In the case of sugar t
cane, the temperature can exceed 140 °C and in the case of apple q ¼ ð1005:3  0:22556  tÞ  2:4304  þ 3:7329  b
1000
juice concentrate it may not exceed 98 °C. For blackcurrant or 2
þ 0:01781937  b ð1Þ
other so-called ‘coloured’ fruits, temperature should remain below
90 °C. The capacity required for the juice concentrate evaporator is For juice dynamic viscosity [30,17]:
much lower than for sugar – this requires a different approach for

b  0:3155ðt  50Þ
the design [20]. Nevertheless, the sugar evaporation theory is the l ¼ 4:3  104 exp 3:357 ð2Þ
basis for fruit juice concentrate production, as well as for the esti- 116:8  ½b  0:3155ðt  50Þ
mation of juice parameters since sugar technology has a longer Juice thermal conductivity [29,17]:
experience.
k ¼ ½0:574 þ 1:699  103  t  3:608  106  t 2  3:528  103  b
ð3Þ
2. Materials and methods
Juice specific heat formula developed by the author on the basis of
2.1. Theoretical methodology of the heat transfer coefficients Ref. [22]:
estimation 2
cp ¼ 0:975  cpw ½1:007  0:3826  b  0:1587  b  ð4Þ
There are several recognised formulas for heat transfer coeffi- The Formula (4) for juice specific heat, within the range of parame-
cients calculations in case of falling film evaporator, for engineer- ters 60–100 °C and 14–52 °Bx shows the discrepancy within 5% in
ing applications: [21,22], a web page for the design of falling film the Table 1 based on the Ref. [31].
evaporators [23]. For the design of sugar cane juice falling film The convection heat transfer coefficient estimation is based on
evaporators, the Sugartech [24] website for sugar engineers is well the criterial dimensionless numbers subsequently defined [21].
known. For multiple effect sugar juice evaporators, new results
were published in Ref. [20]. The Prandtl number:
To estimate heat transfer coefficients, the dependence of the cp
Pr ¼ l  ð5Þ
juice properties on temperature and sugar content have to be esti- k
mated first. The estimation of juice properties may be found in The Reynolds number as defined in Ref. [21]:
many papers. For sugar cane juice properties may be found in
m_
Ref. [17]. For apple juice, some information was published by Refs. Re ¼ ð6Þ
nr ldi p
[25,26]; however, these do not cover all necessary ranges of
parameters. The revisions and evaluations presented in this paper According to Ref. [21] the Nusselt number in this case (without
are based on the set of equations shown below. General formulas nucleation) is a combination of the laminar and turbulent numbers
for food commonly cited is based on Ref. [27], used in Refs. assuming that Pr < 50.
 P. Cyklis / Applied Thermal Engineering 123 (2017) 1365–1373 1367

Table 1 The overall wall heat transfer coefficient formula is:

Magerramov [31] formulas for juice specific heat based on experiments.
1
Sugar content °Brix Formula [31] k¼   ð21Þ
3
1
ain þ ddin
kdout
þ ddout
in
 aout
1
14.3 cp ¼ 3:722 þ 2:01010 t.
25.8 cp ¼ 3:475 þ 2:808103 t
Above set of equation was used for overall heat transfer coefficients
35.2 cp ¼ 3:233 þ 2:628103 t
3
calculations.
44.7 cp ¼ 2:916 þ 2:67110 t
51.6 cp ¼ 3:696 þ 2:573103 t
2.2. Industrial scale measurement methodology

Several heat exchangers already operating in juice processing

plants in Poland have been designed by the author’s team [34].
The Nusselt number for laminar flow: The investigations of concentrate production presented in this
work took place from 2004 to 2015. Four complete falling film
Nulam ¼ 0:9  Reþ0:33 ð7Þ
evaporators with different capacities, were the subject of investi-
The Nusselt number for turbulent flow: gation, however other evaporators were also used for additional
validation. The investigations took place immediately after the
Nuturb ¼ 0:00622  Re0:4  Pr0:65 ð8Þ
installation of the evaporators to ensure that they were in brand
The combined Nusselt number according to Ref. [21]: new condition. The main dimensions of the investigated evapora-
0:5
tors are shown in Table 2.
Nuin ¼ ðNu2com þ Nu2turb Þ ð9Þ Two photographs of working evaporators are presented in
Fig. 3.
The heat convection coefficient [21]:
All designed evaporators have five effects in series (Figs. 1 and
 g 0:33
3), because from author’s experience, this is the most effective
a¼k  Nu ð10Þ
m2 design for real industrial operation. The reason for this is as fol-
For the convection heat transfer during evaporation inside the tubes lows: six-effect evaporators have better energy efficiency when
of the falling film evaporators [32], the formula for the Nusselt clean but they require cleaning more often, due to a fouling effect
number is: inside the tubes reducing the overall heat transfer coefficient.
Reduced heat transfer coefficients decrease the capacity of the
Nu ¼ 1:663  Re0:2648  Pr0:1592 ð11Þ evaporator in general; however, for six effects, this capacity reduc-
tion makes the operation of the evaporator impossible after a
Valid within the range: 15 < Re < 3000 and 2.5 < Pr < 200.
shorter period due to the lower temperature differences available
In an earlier paper [33] the Nusselt number was estimated as:
between the juice and steam on the each effect. The required addi-
Nu ¼ 3:8  103 Re0:4  Pr0:65 ð12Þ tional cleaning time and energy for six effects compared to five
effects reduces the overall monthly evaporator efficiency. The
In Formulas (12) and (11) Reynolds number is defined as 4 times
qualitative example for operational time limit of the evaporator
higher than in Eq. (6).
is shown in Fig. 2. It is important to notice abrupt decrease of
The minimal required mass flow rate and layer thickness inside
the evaporator capacity. At the beginning of fouling time the tem-
the tubes according to Ref. [21] based on Nusselt (1916) is:
perature difference across the exchanger wall is used for wall ther-
_ ¼ pdin  nr  ð1000  ReÞ  ll
m ð13Þ mal resistance and evaporation, then the thermal resistance
consumes all available temperature difference and the evaporation
0  2 10:33 is not possible. This picture shows that the evaporator after about
ll
B ql C 60 h of constant operation needs to be cleaned. This period for five
dl ¼ @3 A  Re0:33 ð14Þ
g effects evaporator working with apple juice is standard, while for
six effect evaporator 48 h is usually achievable maximum.
The steam flow heat convection coefficient on the outer side of the In Table 3, the comparison of the three evaporator types is
vertical exchanger tubes estimated using the [21] formulas: shown. The sugar content after each effect in the case of four-,
five-, and six-effect evaporators is presented together with the the-
m_v
Cv ¼ ð15Þ oretical, overall performances for evaporators operating under
p  dout  nr steady state conditions. Performance is defined as the mass flow
ratio of fresh steam to evaporated steam from the concentrate
Cv (the lower the ratio, the higher level of performance).
Res ¼ ð16Þ
lv Due to the energy balance principle, different sizes and designs
of multi-effect falling film evaporators have similar values if they
l  cpv
Prs ¼ v ð17Þ have the same number of effects. Small differences may arise due
kv to the heat consumption by juice preheaters which take part of
!0:3333 the steam energy during the first three effects. Although it is pos-
Res sible to design the evaporator without the juice preheaters inside
Nus ¼ 0:925  ð18Þ
1  kkv exchangers, this results in the process being less economical. Apple
l
juice (or other fruit juice) entering the evaporator changes during

0:33 the season from 8 °Bx up to 13 °Bx. However, the designer has to
lv  v 2v
Lv ¼ ð19Þ assume standard design conditions for heat exchangers. Evapora-
g  qv tors designed for 10/70 °Bx will work perfectly well for the whole
range of fresh juice parameters because in the case of lower sugar
kv
av ¼ Nuv  ð20Þ content, evaporation is better, and for higher sugar content, less
Lv evaporation for the same input capacity is required.
1368 P. Cyklis / Applied Thermal Engineering 123 (2017) 1365–1373

Table 2
Investigated evaporators.

Number of tubes Length of tubes Diameter of tubes Wall thickness Total area
m mm mm m2
Evaporator 10t/h
I effect 211 6 38 1.5 145
II effect 211 6 38 1.5 145
III effect 121 6 38 1.5 83
IV effect 121 6 38 1.5 83
V effect 121 6 38 1.5 83
Evaporator 18t/h
I effect 211 9 38 1.5 218
II effect 211 9 38 1.5 218
III effect 163 9 38 1.5 168
IV effect 163 9 38 1.5 168
V effect 163 9 38 1.5 168
Evaporator 21t/h
I effect 211 10.2 38 1.5 247
II effect 211 10.2 38 1.5 247
III effect 211 10.2 38 1.5 247
IV effect 163 10.2 38 1.5 191
V effect 163 10.2 38 1.5 191
Evaporator 20t/h
I effect 211 9.5 38 1.5 230
II effect 211 9.5 38 1.5 230
III effect 211 9.5 38 1.5 230
IV effect 163 9.5 38 1.5 178
V effect 163 9.5 38 1.5 178

Fig. 1. Two examples of evaporators designed and investigated, on the left 12 t/h on the right 20 t/h.

General scheme of the product and steam flow in the five-effect
evaporator is shown in Fig. 5.
One heat and mass transfer effect of the multi-effect evaporator
is comprised of a heat exchanger and a steam/liquid separator. The
heat exchanger is heated by the steam from the previous effect and
the juice concentrate is fed concurrently on the heated side of the
exchanger. The steam condenses on the outer side of the vertical
tubes of the heat exchanger. The evaporation takes place inside
the tubes where juice concentrate is supplied using a special distri-
bution system assuring equal feed for all tubes and covering all of
the tube inlet circles with a uniform film layer.
In this studies conducted in the factories in Poland, the temper-
ature and pressure were measured on both sides of the heat
exchanger; however, due to saturation conditions, the temperature
is in fact the pressure function according to the saturation curve.
The pressure was measured using analogue manometers with a
1% level of accuracy. The density and mass flow at the inlet and
outlet of the evaporator were measured using accurate class 0.5
mass flow meters. The sugar concentration of juice entering the
evaporator, after each effect and at the output of the final product
were measured using an optical refractometer with a 0.1 °Bx level
of accuracy. All test results were additionally balanced using the
total energy balance for the evaporator during steady operation.
The total amount of evaporated steam was checked against the
measured evaporator capacity with a measuring accuracy of 1%.
The measurement started after one hour of steady state opera-
tion of the whole unit with a constant fresh juice sugar content and
relatively constant ambient conditions.
The last effect of the evaporator produces low pressure steam
which is removed by the water cooled condenser. The temperature
 P. Cyklis / Applied Thermal Engineering 123 (2017) 1365–1373 1369

25 Table 3
The sugar concentration in three types of evaporators (theoretical design values).
m3/h
20 Effect 4 effects 5 effects 6 effects
Sugar content
15 °Bx °Bx °Bx
0 10 10 10
10 I 13.4 12.8 12.4
II 18.5 17.0 15.7
III 29.6 22.9 19.6
5 IV 70.0 34.9 26.0
V 70.0 38.1
VI 70.0
0
Specific steam consumption related to 0.350 0.299 0.269
0 20 40 60 80 h 100 evaporated water (dimensionless) kgs/kgw

Fig. 2. Qualitative picture of a decrease of an evaporator capacity due to tubes

fouling.

difference between fresh steam from the inlet to the first effect and
the condenser temperature gives the total available temperature
difference which is thermodynamically balanced between effects.
On each effect, the energy balance for evaporation heat transfer
can be formulated as follows (Fig. 4):

Q_ i ¼ I_si  I_condi ¼ I_ciþ1 þ I_siþ1  I_ci ¼ Ai  k  ðt si  tsiþ1 Þ ð22Þ

I_ciþ1 þ I_siþ1  I_ci m_ siþ1  r i

k¼ ffi ð23Þ
Ai  ðt si  t siþ1 Þ Ai  ðtsi  t siþ1 Þ

The basis of the overall heat transfer calculations for the evaporator
effect shown in the above equation is the mass of evaporated H2O
msi+1. This is accurately measured using optical refractometer after
each evaporator effect. In Table 4, sample results from one of the
investigated cases are shown.
The overall heat transfer coefficient was calculated using the Fig. 4. Schematic drawing of the i-th effect heat exchanger for energy balance.
real temperature difference measured at each effect. There is a
questionable issue of boiling point elevation (BPE). The BPE is the
rise of the steam evaporation temperature above boiling point the author’s opinion the BPE is the result only of sugar
determined from the saturation curve. concentration.
The BPE occurs due to the tubes height and sugar concentration. Considering the boiling point elevation (BPE) the calculation of
The sugar concentration causes chemical elevation of the BPE the overall wall heat transfer coefficient is as follows:
dependent on the sugar content (Fig. 6). The tube height results
in pressure rise in liquid therefore saturation temperature rises I_ciþ1 þ I_siþ1  I_ci m _ siþ1  r i
kBPE ¼ ffi ð24Þ
(Fig. 5). Since only tube surface is covered by the falling film of Ai  ½ðt si  t siþ1 Þ  t BPE  Ai  ½ðtsi  t siþ1 Þ  t BPE 

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the juice and steam flow in the five-effect evaporator. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – the effect numbers, C – the condenser, JP – the juice preheater.
1370 P. Cyklis / Applied Thermal Engineering 123 (2017) 1365–1373

4.5 5.00
oC oC
4 4.50
y = 0.3226x + 6E-15 4.00 y = 0.0954e0.0553x
3.5
3.50
3
3.00
2.5 2.50
2 2.00
1.5 1.50
1 1.00
0.50
0.5
0.00
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 oBx
Tube length m
Fig. 6. Boiling point elevation due to sugar concentration.
Fig. 5. Boiling point elevation due to tube height.

8000
[W/m2K]
7000
3. Results and discussion
6000

3.1. Discussion of the calculation results 5000

VDI
4000
Theoretically calculated heat transfer coefficients using Eqs. PGU
(1)–(21) are shown in Fig. 7. The results presented in Fig. 7 are 3000 CS
for five effects apple juice falling film evaporator 20t/h with 2000
dimensions shown in Table 2. Juice entering each effect under fol-
lowing thermodynamic conditions: I effect: 95.2 °C, b = 10 °Bx, II 1000
effect: 89.4 °C, b = 12.8 °Bx, III effect: 83.4 °C, b = 17 °Bx, IV effect: 0
74.4 °C, b = 22.9 °Bx. V effect: 56.9 °C, b = 34.9 °Bx, End result: I effect II effect III effect IV effect V effect
56.9 °C, b = 70 °Bx. The averaged values for juice thermal proper-
ties were used. Fig. 7. Convection heat transfer coefficients inside tubes calculated according to:
the Verein Deutscher Ingenieure [21] , (VDI); Prost et al. [32], (PGU); Chun & Seban
The differences between convection heat transfer values [33], (CS).
obtained using the formulas shown above for each effect of
the evaporator are extremely high – this has been noticed
also in Ref. [32]. Since all juice parameters and dimensionless
2500
numbers are the same, the differences are the result of a
criterial equations form. The reason for this may be different [W/m2K]
conditions in the laboratory used by the authors of 2000
[32,33,21], especially length of tubes has influence usually
neglected. In real conditions tubes are several meters high, 1500
in laboratory conditions this may not be the possible. The VDI
calculations for the above given formulas (Fig. 7) make it PGU
possible to estimate the overall wall heat transfer coefficient 1000
CS
as is shown in Fig. 8.
The same remarks concerning values discrepancies which were 500
made regarding Fig. 7 can also be said of Fig. 8. The results are sur-
prising. It is impossible to work out an effective design solution
0
using only the recognised formulas given above for the evaporator I effect II effect III effect IV effect V effect
design; therefore, the estimation of those coefficients on the basis
of a real operating evaporator is a very important consideration for Fig. 8. The calculated overall heat transfer coefficient for heat exchanger tube
evaporator designer. comparison – VDI [21], PGU [32], CS [33].

Table 4
Sample results from experimental field investigation.

Juice inlet Temperature difference Boiling point Inlet sugar Inlet juice Evaporation on effect
temperature on effect elevation content flow (calculated)
°C °C °C °Bx kg/h kg/h
I effect 96.3 5.9 3.1 10.0 18612 4079
II effect 90.0 6.3 3.2 12.8 14533 3584
III effect 83.5 6.5 3.2 17.0 10949 2828
IV effect 73.5 10.0 3.3 22.9 8122 2781
V effect 56.0 17.5 3.7 34.9 5340 2681
 P. Cyklis / Applied Thermal Engineering 123 (2017) 1365–1373 1371

Table 5
The overall heat transfer coefficients according to different sources and industrial experimentation.

Evaporator Overall wall heat transfer coefficient k [W*m2*K1]

effect
Verein Deutscher cheresources.com Prost et al. Chun & Seban Sugartech Author’s experiment tubes Author’s experiment tubes
Ingenieure [21] [23] [32] [33] [24] without BPE with BPE
I 1915 2056 2176 1474 3994 1926 3528
II 1860 1700 2214 1351 2934 1566 2686
III 1689 1471 2234 1188 1950 1351 2190
IV 1551 1364 2097 1030 1225 1108 1536
V 1025 704 1783 503 601 717 905

2500
3.2. Discussion of the experimental results
k[W/m2K]
2000 The results from a number of tests were averaged for all inves-
tigated evaporators. In each test, a steady state was reached. The
VDI results shown in Table 5 are averages where the deviation from
1500
Che the averaged value is ±18%.
1000 PGU In Table 5, comparisons between differently estimated values
for the overall wall heat transfer coefficients for each effect of
no BPE
the evaporator is shown.
500 CS
As can be seen in Figs. 9 and 10 and in Table 5, results differ
from each other. Though in accordance with the opinion of the
0 author, introduction of the BPE due to the tube height in case of
1 2 3 4 5 falling film evaporation has no physical explanation, compared
number of effect results are more close when BPE is taken into account (23, 24).
Part of this difference may also be the result of different
Fig. 9. Comparison of the overall wall heat transfer coefficients given in Table 5
with the industrial tests (no BPE considered). media (sugar cane juice in Ref. [24] instead of apple juice in
other formulas).
Nevertheless, it is not possible to ensure the accuracy of for-
4500 mula by more than ±25%. Therefore, for the evaporator designer,
4000
simple equations may be worked out on the basis of the industrial
tests.
3500
3000
3.3. Summary of the experimental results
2500
k[W/m2K]
2000 Sugartech Since the design assumptions for a five-effect evaporator for
1500 with BPE apple juice are the same in terms of sugar content on each effect
1000 and for all temperatures, simple equations for the overall wall heat
transfer coefficient for five-effect evaporators were estimated on
500
the basis of several measurement days for each evaporator. The
0
averaged results for investigated evaporators are presented in
1 2 3 4 5
Fig. 11. Each point represents average for several measurements
number of effect
in one effect of the tested evaporator. The inlet conditions were
Fig. 10. Comparison of the overall wall heat transfer coefficients given in Table 5 within the range from 90 °C up to 100 °C and sugar content from
with the industrial tests (BPE considered). 8.5 °Bx up to 12.5 °Bx. Final product after 5th effect with the tem-
perature range from 55 °C up to 60 °C and 70 °Bx.
The linear approximation without considering the BPE due to
3000 the tube length:
W/m2K
2500 k ¼ 288  ns þ 2196 ð25Þ

2000 with the regression coefficient R2 = 0.85

This simple relation allows for estimation tube number for nor-
1500 malised sieve plates and shell inner diameters for each effect,
therefore estimate main costs of the evaporator.
1000 The natural question arises: can this Formula (25) be applied for
other tube-shell falling film evaporators, with different tube
dimension? The overall heat transfer coefficient may be calculated
500
for comparison using formulas shown above (Eqs. (1)–(20)). In
Fig. 12 the influence of the tube diameter on the overall heat trans-
0
fer coefficient is presented. The differences within the reasonable
1 2 3 4 5
inner tubes diameters 20–57 mm is much lower than discrepan-
Number of effect
cies between different calculation methods and real industrial
Fig. 11. Averaged results for wall heat transfer coefficient, based on the industrial experimental values shown in this paper. So the simple Formula
tests of four evaporators. (25) is justified also for other tube diameters.
1372 P. Cyklis / Applied Thermal Engineering 123 (2017) 1365–1373
2500
W/m2K
2000
1500
1000
500
0
I effect II effect
Fig. 12. The influence of the internal tubes diameters on the overall heat transfer coefficient.
4. Conclusions
In this paper currently recognised formulas for overall wall
heat transfer coefficients for falling film evaporator effects were
compared. The comparison gave rather divergent results. For
the evaporator designer, it is really difficult to guess which
relationship is more trustworthy. Therefore a reference to realistic
values, measured during real industrial concentrate production, is
important.
The results presented in the Table 5, show that in comparison
with the ‘‘field experiment” formulas given in Refs. [21,23] as well
as presented in Ref. [33] are closest to the experimentally esti-
mated operational values and may be used for design.
Some other results are close to the industrial experimental
results only when the BPE (Boiling Point Elevation) due to the tube
height is considered.
Still, the results are quite divergent, even considering best for-
mulas. Besides there is a significant level of complication in math-
ematical formulas for an evaporator designer.
Since complex relationships for the overall wall heat transfer
coefficient give results within ±25% compared to ‘‘field results”, a
simple Formula (25) was worked up for the design purpose with-
out sacrificing the calculation accuracy.
It has been shown that the influence of internal tubes diameter
on the overall heat transfer coefficient is insignificant compared
with other factors impact.
Additional conclusion resulting from long time operation of fall-
ing film evaporators is that the fouling in the multi-effect falling
film evaporator plays an important role as resistance for heat
transfer. The decrease in the heat transfer is non-linear with
respect to operating time, but the evaporator ceases to operate
after some level of fouling – this means that the evaporation stops.
Five effect evaporator has higher specific steam consumption dur-
ing operation, but requires less production interruption for clean-
ing, which is energy consuming. Therefore five effects evaporator
for seasonal operation may be less energy consuming than six
effects evaporator.
References
[1] H. Chen, R.S. Jebson, Factors affecting heat transfer in falling film evaporators,
Inst. Chem. Eng. 75 (1997) 111–116.
[2] G. Gautami, S. Khanam, Selection of optimum configuration for multiple effect
evaporator system, Desalination 288 (2012) 16–23.
[3] D.G. Rao, Fundamentals of Food Engineering, PHI Learning Private Ltd, New
Delhi, 2010.
20
25
38
57
III effect IV effect V effect
[4] K.R. Morison, Q.A. Worth, N.P. O’dea, Minimum wetting and distribution rates
in falling film evaporators, Trans IChemE Food Bioprod. Process. 84 (2006) 302–
310.
[5] Q. Ronghui, L. Lu, H. Yang, F. Qin, Investigation on wetted area and film
thickness for falling film liquid desiccant regeneration system, Appl. Energy
112 (2013) 93–101.
[6] X. Bu, W. Ma, Y. Huang, Numerical study of heat and mass transfer of
ammonia-water in falling film evaporator, Heat Mass Transfer 48 (2012) 725–
734.
[7] P. Schausberger, J. Nowak, O. Medek, Heat Transfer in Horizontal Falling Film
Evaporators, IDA World Congress, 2009, pp. 1–9.
[8] A.E. Lewis, F. Khodabocus, V. Dhokun, M. Khalife, Thermodynamic simulation
and evaluation of sugar refinery evaporators using a steady state modelling
approach, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (2010) 2180–2186.
[9] L.M. Jorge, A.R. Righetto, P.A. Polli, O.A. Santos, R. Maciel Filho, Simulation and
analysis of a sugarcane juice evaporation system, J. Food Eng. 99 (2010) 351–
359.
[10] R. Bhargava, S. Khanam, B. Mohanty, A.K. Ray, Selection of optimal feed flow
sequence for a multiple effect evaporator system, Comput. Chem. Eng. 32
(2008) 2203–2216.
[11] Q. Ruan, H. Jiang, N. Meiling, Y. Zuoyi, Mathematical modeling and simulation
of countercurrent multiple effect evaporation for fruit juice concentration, J.
Food Eng. 146 (2015) 243–251.
[12] G.N. Tiwari, S. Kumar, O. Prakash, Study of heat and mass transfer corn
sugarcane juice for evaporation, Desalination 159 (2003) 81–96.
[13] H. Pehlivan, M. Ozdemir, Experimental and theoretical investigations of falling
film evaporation, Heat Mass Transfer 48 (2012) 1071–1107.
[14] P. Duda, A general method for solving transient multidimensional inverse heat
transfer problems, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 93 (2016) 665–673.
[15] R.R. Simpson, S. Almonacid, D. López, A. Abakarov, Optimum design and
operating conditions of multiple effect evaporators: tomato paste, J. Food Eng.
89 (2008) 488–497.
[16] T.A. Adib, B. Heyd, J. Vasseur, Experimental results and modeling of boiling
heat transfer coefficients in falling film evaporator usable for evaporator
design, Chem. Eng. Process. 48 (2009) 961–968.
[17] S.N. Pennisi J.-L. Liow P.A. Schneider CFD model development for sugar mill
evaporators, in: Third Int 2003 Conf. on CFD in the Minerals and Process
Industries Melbourne Australia.
[18] R. Kouhikamal, S.M. Noori, Rahim Abadi, M. Hass, Numerical investigation of
falling film evaporation of multi-effect desalination plant, Appl. Therm. Eng. 70
(2014) 477–485.
[19] V. Miranda, R. Simpson, Modelling and simulation of an industrial multiple
effect evaporator: tomato concentrate, J. Food Eng. 66 (2005) 203–210.
[20] S. Chantasiriwan, Optimum surface area distribution in co-current multiple-
effect evaporator, J. Food Eng. 161 (2015) 48–54.
[21] Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, VDI – Heat Atlas, second ed., Springer-Verlag,
Berlin Heidelberg, 2010.
[22] A. Kubasiewicz, Wyparki Kostrukcja i obliczanie (Evaporators, Constructions
and Calculations in Polish), first ed., Wydawnictwa Naukowo Techniczne,
Warszawa, 1977, p. 439.
[23] cheresources.com, 2004, (Online). Available: http://www.cheresources.com/
content/articles/heat-transfer/falling-film-evaporators-in-the-food-industry,
(Accessed 7 12 2015).
[24] Sugartech, http://www.sugartech.co.za/, 2004. (Online). Available: http://
www.sugartech.co.za/rapiddesign/index.php, (Accessed 7 12 2016).
[25] S. Peacock, Predicting physical properties of factory juices and syrups, Int.
Sugar J. 97 (no. 1162) (1995).
[26] A.M. Ramos, A. Ibarz, Density of juice and fruit puree as a function of solubie
solids content and temperature, J. Food Eng. 35 (1998) 57–63.
 P. Cyklis / Applied Thermal Engineering 123 (2017) 1365–1373
[27] Y. Choi, M.R. Okos, Effects of temperature and composition on the thermal
properties of foods, Food Engineering and Process Applications (Volume 1
Transport Phenomena), 1986, pp. 93–101.
[28] T.A. Adib, J. Vasseur, Bibliographic analysis of predicting heat transfer
coefficients in boiling for applications in designing liquid food evaporators, J.
Food Eng. 87 (2008) 149–161.
[29] L.J. Watson, Heat Transfer Performance in Evaporators Part I: Theory and
Mechanisms Technical Report 191, Sugar Research Institute (SRI), Mackay
Queensland, 1986.
[30] R.J. Steindl, Viscosity Estimation for Pan Stage Materials – Technical Circular
59, Sugar Research Institute (SRI), Mackay Queensland, 1981.
1373
[31] M.A. Magerramov, Heat capacity of natural fruit juices and of their
concentrates at temperatures from 10 to 120 °C, J. Eng. Phys. Thermophys.
80 (5) (2007) 1055–1063.
[32] J.S. Prost, M.T. Gonzalez, M.J. Urbicain, Determination and correlation of heat
transfer coefficients in a falling film evaporator, J. Food Eng. 73 (2006) 320–
326.
[33] K.R. Chun, R.A. Seban, Heat transfer to evaporating liquid films, J. Heat Transfer
96 (1971) 391–396.
[34] P. Cyklis, Selected issues of the multistage evaporator thermodynamics, Tech.
Trans. Mech. Y. 112 (no. 1-M) (2015), 3-10.