Simulation of Double-Effect Evaporator For Concentrating Orange Juice

Australian Journal of Engineering Research
SCIE Journals
Simulation of Double-Effect Evaporator for Concentrating

Orange Juice
Sara Fatima (Corresponding author)
Department of Chemical Engineering, Aligarh Muslim University
Aligarh 202002, Uttar Pradesh, India
Tel: 91-976-048- 8956 E-mail: fatima.sara76@gmail.com
Aishatul Bushra
E-mail: a.bushra@rediffmail.com
Raunaq Hasib
E-mail: rhasib@gmail.com
The research was part of MTech dissertation topic of author Sara Fatima.
Abstract
The aim of this work is to carry out a steady state simulation of double effect evaporator for
concentrating orange juice. Besides empirical correlations for overall heat transfer coefficient and
boiling point rise of orange juice are developed. A new arrangement of model equations (Reduced
Equations model) is also developed to facilitate the solution. The model equations are solved using
fsolve, Newton Raphson, Relaxation Strategy and Reduced Equations techniques in MATLAB and
results so obtained compared with experimental data available in Moresi and Angletti [1]. First linear
technique and then non-linear technique has been used to solve the simulation problem.
Keywords: Double-effect evaporator, Orange juice, Simulation, Newton Raphson, Non-linear Model,
Linear Model, Relaxation Strategy
1. Introduction
Fruits are perishable. Hence they need to be processed in time to increase their shelf-life, preserve
nutritional value and hence reduce storage, packaging and shipping costs. Oranges are the most
produced fruit in the world, comprising 22.5% of global fruit production. Oranges for orange juice
production are primarily grown in US and Brazil, which together produce 87% of the frozen juice
concentrate. Other major producing countries include Mexico, China, India and Spain. Orange juice is
marketed for its minimal use of additives and preservatives.
Considerable amount of work has been present in open literature on multiple effect evaporators but due
to their non-linearity, they are a difficult system to simulate. Not much work has been reported in open
literature on orange juice (except Moresi and Angletti [1] but model proposed by them is complex).
Hence in present study, a simpler method of simulation of orange juice production has been proposed.
The evaporator used in this study for orange juice concentration is a TASTE (Thermally Accelerated
Short Residence Time) Falling Film evaporator. Figure 1 shows a double effect evaporator in forward
feed arrangement for concentrating orange juice. Orange juice manufacturers use falling film
evaporators. They are especially popular in the food industry where many substances are heat sensitive.
A thin film of the product to be concentrated trickles down inside of heat exchanging tubes. Steam
condenses on the outside of the tubes supplying the required energy to the inside of the tubes. Juices
Australian Society for Commerce Industry & Engineering

www.scie.org.au
1

SCIE Journals
are heat sensitive and their viscosities increase significantly as they are concentrated. Small solids in
the juices tend to cling to the wall and cause fouling. Juice evaporations are usually performed in
vacuum to decrease boiling temperature. High flow circulation rates avoid build-up on the tube walls.
Vacuuming the product side decreases boiling point of the liquid, thereby, the product boils at relatively
low temperatures, thus minimizing the heat exchange.
LINEAR TECHNIQUE
1.0 Mathematical Model
Steady state model equations for the system considered (Fig. 1) are as follows (Koko and Joye [5]).
First Effect
Mass Balance:
Heat Balance:
F- V1- L1=0
F[h(TF,XF)-h( 1,x1)]+V00-V1[H( 1)-h( 1,x1)]=0.0
Heat Transfer Rate:U1R1 A(T0- 1)-V00=0.0
(1)
(2)
(3)
Second Effect
Mass Balance: L1+ (- 1)L2 + (-1) V2=0
Heat Balance:
L1[h( 1,x1)-h( 2,x2)]+V1[H( 1)-h(T1)]-V2[ H( 2)-h( 2,x2)]=0.0
Heat Transfer Rate: U2R2 A(T1- 2)- )]-V1[H( 1)-h(T1)]=0.0
(4)
(5)
(6)
The variable area Ai has been written as ARi to allow for variable area situation, where Ri is the ratio of
area of the ith stage to A.
Some of the assumptions are Forward feed steady state operation, unequal areas of the two effects,
equilibrium conditions achieved in each effect, temperature of boiling liquor is equal to temperature of
solvent vaporised, vapour leaving each effect is superheated, BPR is present, variation in heat
capacities with temperature and composition, variation in latent heat of vaporization of steam with
temperature, no reaction taking place in each effect, homogeneous temperature and composition inside
each effect and negligible heat losses to the surroundings.
Linear method is an iterative method proposed in the literature (Koko and Joye [5] and Lambert, Koko
and Joye[6]) for the design of multiple-effect evaporators. This method is based on the Linearization of
set of non-linear equations. The non-linearity in Eqn. (2), (3), (5) and (6) arise from two sources: the
first source in the cross product of A and T in Eqn. (3) and (6) and the other is the non-linear nature of
enthalpy functions, Us and BPRs with respect to temperature and concentration. The hurdle of nonlinearity can be eliminated by redefining the cross product term (i.e. AT) as a new variable. The second
source can be easily handled by iteration. In each iteration the Us and BPRs are assumed constant ( i.e.
at any Ti the coefficients are defined), thereby yielding linear equations; which can be put in matrix
form and solved by any Linear technique such as Gauss elimination. Of course, iterations will be
required if the new values of Ti are significantly different from old. Because the coefficients are not
strong functions of T, the equations dont change very much from iteration to iteration and convergence
is very rapid.
1.2 Degrees of Freedom
Total number of independent equations describing the double effect evaporator is 6. Total number of
variables are 10 (F, V1, L1, V0, AT0, A1, L2, V2, A2, A). Thus four boundary conditions which can be
specified are:
www.scie.org.au
2

SCIE Journals
B.C. 1
Given F
(7)
B.C. 2
L 2=F*X/x2
(8)
B.C. 3
A 0 = G1A
(9)
B.C. 4
A 2 = G2A
(10)
where, G1 and G2 are constants.

This result is a set of 10 algebraic equations with constant coefficients. The resulting equations can be
put into matrix form as shown below:
]
0
1
1
2
[ ]
2
2
The above matrix and vector can be put as AX = B, and solved by Gauss Elimination as X=B\A.
1.3 Algorithm
The algorithm for solving the evaporator series problem consists of the following steps:
1) The governing equations are linearized as described as above. The resulting equations are:
First Effect
Mass Balance:
F+ (- 1)V1+ (- 1) L1=0
(11)
Heat Balance:
aF+ bV0-cV1=0.0
(12)
Heat Transfer Rate:
dAT0+eA 1-fV0=0.0
(13)
Second Effect

www.scie.org.au
3

SCIE Journals
Mass Balance:
L1+ (- 1)L2 + (-1) V2=0
(14)
Heat Balance:
gL1+ hV1- iV2=0.0
(15)
Heat Transfer Rate: hV1- jA 1+ lA 2 + kA=0.0
(16)
Where,
a = [h(TF,X)-h( 1,x1)]
b= 0
c=[H( 1)-h( 1,x1)]
d= U1R1
e= - d= -U1R1
f= 0
g=[h( 1,x1)-h( 2,x2)]
h=[H( 1)-h(T1)]
i=[ H( 2)-h( 2,x2)]
j=U2R2
k= U2R2 BPR1
l=U2R2
2) Product composition, x2, is assumed (it is unknown for the simulation problem) and then
temperature and composition in each effect is initialized by apportioning the vapor flows and
temperature drops. Since x2 is bounded by xf and 1, a reasonable starting value should be higher than
xf. The remaining variables can be initialized as in traditional trial-and error procedure also used by
Lambert and Koko[6]. If U is a constant or some function of T, then equation (3.9.19) may be used to
initialize the temperature in each effect.
Ti= Ttot / N
(17)
Where,

www.scie.org.au
4

SCIE Journals
Ttot = T0-T2-BPR1-BPR2
(18)
Ttot = Temperature difference between externally supplied steam and final effect solution.
Ti = Temperature difference between externally supplied steam and ith effect solution
N = Effect number
T0 = Inlet saturated steam temperature
T2 = Outlet orange juice temperature
BPR1 = Boiling point rise in Effect I
BPR2 = Boiling point rise in Effect II
3) Further, it is assumed that each effect produces the same amount of vapor, Vi. Hence
Vi= Vtot / N
(19)
Vi = Vapour flow rate across ith effect

Vtot = Total vapour flow rate across the evaporator
4)
The temperature and composition (x, T) are initialized and the coefficients of the variables are
found. These coefficients are the enthalpy values, boiling point rise, and overall heat transfer
coefficients, all of which are functions of temperature and composition, or specified as input
parameters.
5)
These coefficients are filled in the 10x10 matrix as below. In matrix, A, first six rows are
coefficients from the model equations and the last four rows are the four boundary conditions. These
are nothing but input variables.
6)
The coefficient matrix is solved by any Linear technique (such that AX=B) to obtain the
values of the variables (L, V, AT and A) for each effect.
7)
If computed Area > A2, product concentration, x2 is incremented by 0.1 and steps (2) through
(7) is repeated.
8)
Do step (7) until x2>= 0.6, i.e. till it reaches the expected product concentration.
1.4 Simulation model
The linear simulation model presented above has been solved using MATLAB. Linear method is an
alternative to the traditional trial-and-error non-linear method used in solving MEE problems. This
linear system has been solved using GUASS ELIMINATION method. Also, Koko and Joye[5] have
solved the problem as a design problem but in this study, it has been solved as a simulation problem.
1.5 Constitutive Relationships
1. Specific Heat:
The equation for specific heat of orange juice, Cp is obtained from Moresi and Angletti[1] :Cp= 4.186-2.679 x
(J/g.K)
(20)
where, x = weight fraction of orange juice

2. Enthalphy and Latent Heat of Vaporization:
Enthalpy of saturated and superheated steam, H() and Latent heat of vaporization of steam, 0 were
www.scie.org.au
5

SCIE Journals
obtained from work of Zain and Kumar[4] :H()=4.154T+2.0125x10-4T2+1.62(-T) +2.085*10-4 (2-T2 )-0.3747*10-4 (3-T3)+0
(21)
where,
H()=Enthalpy of Vapor in an Effect
0=Latent Heat of Vaporisation of Steam
0=-80.345 T -21025.8/ T +2049.123/( T)0.5-4213.519ln( T )+0.0918 T2 -1.04*10-4 T3 +8597.953
(22)
3. Solution Temperatures:
Solution temperatures in Effect I and II, 1, and 2 are calculated using Boiling point rise data available
in Moresi and Spinosi[3]. A fifth order Polynomial is developed using MS-Excel Scatter Plot. First T b,
i.e. BPR is calculated at various concentrations of orange juice using following formula. This formula
uses first principles (Moore, 1972):
Tb = (RTo2/Hv) . (MA/ MB ).(yB/(1-yB))
(23)
Here solvent is water and solute is orange juice. Boiling point rise is fit in the following equation:
BPR = ax + bx2 + cx3 + dx4 + ex5(C)
(24)
BPR so obtained is:-
BPR = - 90.53x5 + 55.76x4 - 11.81x3 + 4.5x2 + 2.583x(C),
(25)
= T + BPR
(26)
Data for calculation of BPR is given in Table 2.
4. Heat Transfer Coefficients:

Heat transfer coefficient, U, is calculated using temperature and composition data available in Moresi
and Spinosi[3] using Multiple Linear Regression in MS-Excel. Overall heat transfer coefficient is fit in
the following exponential equation:
U=bxc
(27)
Equation for U so obtained is:U=12.21*103-1.304x-2.06543
(28)

www.scie.org.au
6

SCIE Journals
Data for calculation of U is given in Table 3.
NON - LINEAR TECHNIQUE
2.0 Mathematical Model for Non-linear Technique
Steady state model equations for this system are (Holland, 1975[11]):
First Effect
f1
=F[h(TF,XF)-h( 1,x1)]+V00-(F-L1)[H( 1)-h( 1,x1)]
(29)
f2
=U1A1(T0- 1)-V00
(30)
f3
=m(x1)T1+b(x1)- 1
(31)
f4
=FX-L1x1
(32)
Second Effect
f5
=L1[h( 1,x1)-h( 2,x2)]+(F-L1)[H( 1)-h(T1)]-(L1 L2 )[ H( 2)-h( 2,x2)]
(33)
f6
=U2A2(T1- 2)- )]-(F-L1)[H( 1)-h(T1)]
(34)
f7
=m(x2)T2+b(x2)- 2
(35)
f8
=FX-L2x2
(36)
The assumptions are same as for linear technique.

2.1 Degrees of freedom
Specification: F, X, Tf, T0 (or P0), x2, T2 (or P2), A (or A1, A2)
To find: V0, 1, T1, x1, L1, 2, x2, L2
Number of equations, E = 8
Number of varaibles, V = 8
Degrees of Freedom, F = V-E=0
Hence, in simulation problem, there are 8 equations in 8 unknowns for the double effect evaporator.
2.2 Scaling
A scaling procedure is used to reduce the magnitude of the terms appearing in the functional equations
and matrices. For computational purposes, it is desirable to have terms with magnitudes near unity.
Scaling has been implemented using the same steps as given in Holland, 1975[11] for multiple effect
evaporators.
2.3 Algorithm
The developed model equations have been solved using following procedure:

www.scie.org.au
7

SCIE Journals
1) Read input data. The values of the eight input variables (F, X, Tf, T0, x2, T2, A and A2) are set using
experimental data.
2) Scaling is implemented.
3) Iteration number is set, n=0.
4) Create vector, x0 of eight unknown variables as:X0= [v0, u1*, u1, x1, l1, u2*, x2, l2]
Set the initial guess, X0 of the eight unknown variables.
5) Calculate the eight scaled functional expressions (g1, g2, g3, g4, g5, g6, g7 and g8) using above values.
Fill vector, fn :
fn= [g1, g2, g, g4, g5, g6, g, g8]

6) Calculate the Jacobean matrix, Jn as follows:
g1
v0
g 2
v0
g 3
v0
g 4
v0
g 5
v0
g 6
v0
g 7
v0
g 8
[v0
7)
g1
u1
g 2
u1
g 3
u1
g 4
u1
g 5
u1
g 6
u1
g 7
u1
g 8
u1
g1
u1
g 2
u1
g 3
u1
g 4
u1
g 5
u1
g 6
u1
g 7
u1
g 8
u1
g1
x1
g 2
x1
g 3
x1
g 4
x1
g 5
x1
g 6
x1
g 7
x1
g 8
x1
g1
l1
g 2
l1
g 3
l1
g 4
l1
g 5
l1
g 6
l1
g 7
l1
g 8
l1
g1
u2
g 2
u2
g 3
u2
g 4
u2
g 5
u2
g 6
u2
g 7
u2
g 8
u2
g1
x2
g 2
x2
g 3
x2
g 4
x2
g 5
x2
g 6
x2
g 7
x2
g 8
x2
g1
l2
g 2
l2
g 3
l2
g 4
l2
g 5
l2
g 6
l2
g 7
l2
g 8
l2 ]
Calculate Xn = -fn / Jn
Jn Xn=-fn
where,
Jn= Jacobean Matrix
Xn = Xn+1 Xn

www.scie.org.au
8

SCIE Journals
Xn= [ v0 u1*u1 x1 l1 u2* x2 l2]
fn=[ g1 g2 g3 g4 g5 g6 g7 g8]
8) Check the convergence criteria of the above Jacobean matrix
i.e. |Xn | = |Xn+1 - Xn| < e.
If |Xn | > e, convergence has not been met. Assign Xn+1 = Xn + Xn. Repeat steps (6) to (7) till
convergence is met for the given initial guess. If the convergence criterion is not met even after
1000 iterations, try another initial guess and repeat steps (4) through (8). Else if the convergence
criteria has been met in step (8), read the values of scaled variables from Xn+1
9) Calculate the un-scaled variables as:
V0= v0 F,
1= u1*T0,
L1=l1*F,
T1=u1*T0,
2=u2* T0,
L2=l2 F
10) Calculate Boiling point rise and Overall Heat Transfer coefficient in Effect I and II.
11) The above procedure is repeated until product concentration, x2 is near experimental product
concentration, i.e., the values are in good agreement with the experimental values reported in literature
(Moresi and Angletti [1]).
2.4 Constitutive Relationships
The constitutive relationships used are same as in linear technique.
2.5 Reduced Equations Model
Careful study of Eqn. (29) to (36) reveals that the eight equations may be combined together into three
equations, namely Eqn. (29), (33) and (34). Correspondingly, the three independent variables are T1, L1
and L2. This is because that if these three variables are known, then the remaining five variables, x1, 1,
V0, x2 and 2 can be easily computed in this order using Eqn. (32), (31), (30), (36) and (35) respectively.
Consequently in this new model, these five equations have been eliminated from the set of non-linear
equations. This idea of new arrangement of model equations was taken from Zain and Kumar [4]. This
reduced model is easy to solve.
2.6 Simulation model
The non-Linear simulation model presented above has been solved using MATLAB. First, fsolve
function was used to solve the non-linear set of equations. Fsolve is a built-in function available in
MATLAB to solve set of non-linear equations. It uses TRUST REGION DOGLEG method of
optimization (based on sum of least squares).
Then Newton Raphson technique was used to solve the same non-linear set of equations. First, a
convergence criterion was applied to check whether the method is converging for particular initial
guess or not. Convergence Criteria used was that the absolute value of the function of each of the
equations is less than 1.0e-15 than expected value (i.e. tolerance<1.0e-15).
Then Relaxation Strategy was used to solve the same non-linear set of equations; using under-relaxed
model of relaxation:
Xj+1 = Xj-1 + (1-) Xj

www.scie.org.au
9

SCIE Journals
where,
= relaxation factor (0.0< <1.0)
j = jth iteration of Newton Raphson
Then, Reduced Equations model was used to solve the same non-linear set of equations.
3.1 Results and Discussion for Linear and Non-linear technique
Results for simulation are shown in Table 4 and 5 for linear technique. Results for simulation are
shown in Table 6 and 15 for non-linear technique.
In linear-simulation, the area of the two effects had to be constantly monitored to get near experimental
conversion. In non-linear-simulation, different parameters affect simulation for concentrating of orange
juice:
Selection of relaxation parameter, : The value of at which convergence occurred has been found
to be 1.0e-07. This was obtained by trial and error. Values lower than this give complex roots and
values higher than this give negative result.
Constitutive Relationships: Two different plant sizes (Feed rate=1200kg/h and 2400kg/h) are used as
input. The BPR correlation given in Moresi and Angletti [1] did not give reliable results. So a BPR
correlation was derived using Moore formula from Moresi and Spinosi [3]. Also constitutive
relationships for specific heat and latent heat of vaporization of steam obtained from Zain and Kumar [4]
are helpful in giving reliable results.
Order of Variables: As many as forty possible different permutations were tried. In some cases, it was
observed that the Jacobean becomes ill-conditioned and hence no solution obtained. Hence changing of
Order of Variables did not yield valuable results. Finally the Order of Variables proposed by Zain
and Kumar[4] was used and the results so obtained have been found to be in good agreement with
experimental data. Therefore attention must be given to the order of variables.
Single vs. Double Precision: Initially, the simulation was done using single precision arithmetic but
Newton Raphson did not converge. Then simulation was carried out using double precision arithmetic
and the algorithm converged.
Derivatives: Zain and Kumar [4] have used the following method to calculate the derivatives:
f/X=(f(X+)-f(X))/
where,
= step size
But in this study, the Jacobean has been calculated using Jacobean () function given in MATLAB. This
function saves tedious manual differentiation of model equations and is also fast and accurate.
Initial Guess: Zain and Kumar[4] have used the initial guess of 1.0 for all the unknown scaled variables.
But other initial estimates also work for caustic soda. This technique was extended to the system of
orange juice. The initial guess was kept as 1.0 but good results were not achieved. Hence in simulation
using Newton Raphson and Relaxation Strategy, other initial guesses (between 0 and 1) were tried and
they worked. For these two cases, initial guess was found to be between 0.7-0.8.
No. of Iterations: Newton Raphson and Relaxation Strategy gave similar results but latter required less
number of iterations.
Reduced Equations: The following observations were made during this numerical simulation:
i.
Number of iterations was significantly reduced and hence the solution required less
computation time.
ii.
The value of initial guess was 0.45-0.48 at which convergence occurred.
The advantages of linear method over non-linear method are:

www.scie.org.au
10

SCIE Journals
1)
The algorithm can be extended to more complex systems (4 to 5 effects) for orange juice
concentration.
2)
The algorithm is unusually efficient and stable, with very favorable convergence
characteristics shown even where non-linear method fails to converge.
3)
It handles non-linearity simply and efficiently.
Comparing linear method with non-linear method, following major differences were found:
1)
The Linear method converged in 3-4 iterations. However, the non-linear method converges in
6-11 iterations. Hence convergence requires less time in linear method than non-linear method.
2)
In non-linear method, first tolerance is specified and then Jacobean matrix non-singular,
convergence test is performed. Here, epsilon (=X2-X1) is calculated using Newton Raphson formula
and then epsilon compared with tolerance (set as 1.0e-15). System is said to be converged if
epsilon<tolerance and the dot product ((Xn-X).(X0-X))<1. But in linear method, epsilon and tolerance
comparison is not required to achieve convergence.
3)
The linear method is solved by Gauss elimination method only. While the non-linear method
can be solved by following ways:
i)
fsolve
ii)
Newton Raphson
iii)
Relaxation Strategy
iv)
Reduced Equations
4)
Scaling is not required in linear method as in non-linear method.
Therefore, it was more difficult to achieve same convergence in non-linear method than linear method.
But results are closer in non-linear method to experimental data.
3.2Conclusion for Linear and Non-linear technique
Simulation model for linear as well as non-linear technique have been developed for concentrating
orange juice in a double effect evaporator using Koko and Joye [5] and Moresi and Angletti[1],
respectively. Empirical correlations for Boiling point rise and overall heat transfer coefficient for
orange juice have also been developed using Moresi and Angletti[1] and Moresi and Spinosi[2]
experimental data, respectively. Computational aspects associated with simulation of a double effect
evaporator for concentrating orange juice have been studied. In view of the results discussed, it may be
concluded that the proposed simulation model is suitable for studying the behavior of a double effect
evaporator under operating conditions.
3.3 Recommendations for Future Work
1)
Simulation was done for two effect evaporator. Now a days several effects, usually 4-7 are
used for the Orange Juice concentration, while a few years ago there might have been two or four
effects. Energy has become more expensive. As the number of effects is increased, capital cost
increases and operating cost decreases. Hence more number of effects can be added for concentrating
orange juice to save on operating cost.
2)
Here vapor and liquid leaving each effect are assumed to be in equilibrium. However, in most
cases, vapor and liquid are not in equilibrium.
3)
Change in pressure with height can also be considered.
3.4Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the Department of Chemical Engineering, AMU, India for providing all
necessary facilities and support for this research work.
3.5 Nomenclature
A
Heat transfer area
[m2]
Feed flow rate
[kg/h]
General mathematical function
Scaled function
Vapor enthalpy
[kJ/kg]

www.scie.org.au
11

SCIE Journals
h
Liquid enthalpy
[kJ/kg]
Liquid flow rate
[kg/h]
Saturation temperature
[C]
Saturation temperature
[C]
Overall heat transfer coefficient
[kJ/h. m2C]
Steam rate
[kg/h]
Weight fraction of orange juice
Latent heat of vaporization
BPR
Boiling point rise
[kJ/kg]
[C]
th
Ti
Temperature difference between externally supplied steam and i effect solution
Ttot
Temperature difference between externally supplied steam and final effect solution
Relaxation Factor
Xi
Value of ith iteration in Newton Raphson
Epsilon to compare value of subsequent iterations in Newton Raphson
Universal gas constant
MA
Molecular weight of the solvent A, water
MB
Molecular weight of the solute B, orange juice
Hv
Enthalpy of vaporization of the solvent A
yB
Weight fraction of the sucrose in the juice
[kJ/kmole.C]
[kJ/kmole]
<Subscript>
i
Iteration number
3.6 References
[1] Angletti, S. and Moresi, M. (1983), Modeling of multiple effect falling film evaporators, Journal
of Food Technology, 18, 539-563.
[2] Moresi, M. (1980), Economic Study of concentrated citrus juice production, Department of
Chemical Engineering, University of Rome, 41, 975-991
[3] Moresi, M. and Spinosi, M. (1980), Engineering factors in the production of concentrated fruit
juices, 1. Fluid physical properties of orange juices, Journal of Food Technology, 15, 265-276
[4] Zain, Omer. S and Kumar, S (1996), Simulation of a Multiple Effect evaporator for concentrating
caustic soda solution-Computational aspects, Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 29: 5, 889893
[5] Joye, D and Koko, F (1988), A simpler way to tame multiple-effect evaporators, Chemical
Engineering Education, 1, 52-56
[6] Lambert, Richard. N, Joye, Donald. D and Koko, Frank. W (1986), Design Calculations for
Multiple-Effect Evaporators. 1. Linear Method, American Chemical Society, 26, 104-107
[7] Joye, Donald. D and Koko, Frank. W (1988), Design Calculations for Multiple-Effect Evaporators.
2. Comparison of Linear and Non-Linear Methods, American Chemical Society, 26, 108-110
[8] Urgin, E. and Urbician, M. J (1999), Design and Simulation of Multi-effect Evaporators, Heat
Transfer Engineering, 20: 4, 38-44
[9] Geankoplis, C. (1983), Transport Processes and Unit Operations, 3 rd Ed, Allyn and Bacon, Boston,
MA
[10] Perry, R.H, D.W. Green and J.O. Maloney (1984), Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook, 6th Ed,
McGraw-Hill, NY
[11] Holland, C.D. (1975). Fundamentals and Modeling of Separation Processes. Prentice Hall Inc.,
Englewood cliffs, NJ
www.scie.org.au
12

SCIE Journals
Table 1: Operating conditions for orange juice (Moresi and Angletti [1])
Water removal capacity
1000
2000
kg/h
Feed flow-rate
1200
2400
kg/h
Feed temperature
18
18
Feed concentration
10
10
Brix
Output concentration
60
60
Brix
Live steam temperature
95
95
83.8
83.8
kPa
kPa
38
65
m2
71
95
m2
Live steam pressure

Second effect pressure
Effect I
Heat transfer surface
Effect II
Heat transfer surface
Table 2: Data for calculation of BPR (Moresi and Spinosi [3])

S. No
Boiling point rise, BPR(C)
Concentration, x
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.2832
0.5462
0.9223
1.2433
2.0115
2.7477
3.6076
4.9515
(weight fraction)
0.096
0.170
0.257
0.318
0.430
0.5075
0.575
0.650
Table 3: Data for calculation of U (Moresi and Angletti [1])

S. No
Overall heat transfer

coefficient, U(W/m2C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1544
1900
1308
1235
2763
171
162
158
254
Solution
temperature,
(C)
73.65
74.95
74.65
67.55
61.65
44.5
44.5
44.5
44.5
Concentration, x(weight
fraction)
0.1709
0.1708
0.1708
0.1713
0.1718
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6

www.scie.org.au
13

SCIE Journals
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
655
1752
2159
1491
1352
2862
192
187
179
293
657
44.5
79.84
80.84
80.85
71.95
65.85
44.5
44.5
44.5
44.5
44.5
0.6
0.1704
0.1703
0.1703
0.1710
0.1715
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Table 4: Results for orange juice concentration using linear technique (Input 1)
VARIABLES
EXPRIMENTAL
SIMULATION
DATA BY
RESULT
UNITS
MORESI AND
ANGLETTI[1]
F=1200 kg/hr
assume x2=0.2
No. of Iterations
V0
600-650
593
kg/h
L1
791
kg/h
V1
469
kg/h
T1
55-75
50.03
50.57
L2
240
kg/h
V2
491
kg/h
T2
40.4
36.15
40.85
BPR1
0.55
0.54
U1
5558-9946
11022
kJ/hr. m2C
BPR2
4.1
4.7
U2
615-2358
1347
kJ/hr. m2C
A1
38
38
m2
A2
71
67.62
m2
x1
0.16-0.18
0.164
Weight fraction
x2
0.6
0.59
Weight fraction
T0
95
94.99

www.scie.org.au
14

SCIE Journals
Table 5: Results for orange juice concentration using linear technique (Input 2)
VARIABLES
EXPRIMENTAL
SIMULATION
DATA BY MORESI
RESULT
AND ANGLETTI
UNITS
[1]
F=2400 kg/hr
assume x2=0.2
No. of Iterations
V0
1200-1300
1207
kg/h
L1
710
kg/h
V1
489
kg/h
T1
58-80
62.35
62.91
L2
200
kg/h
V2
510
kg/h
T2
40.4
36.15
41.55
BPR1
0.55
0.56
U1
6307-10303
7801
kJ/hr. m2C
BPR2
4.1
5.4
U2
691-2365
748
kJ/hr. m2C
A1
65
65
m2
A2
95
94.54
m2
x1
0.16-0.18
0.169
Weight fraction
x2
0.6
0.6
Weight fraction
T0
95
94.55
Results for non-linear method are given below:

Table 6: fsolve results (Input 1)
VARIABLES
EXPRIMENTAL
INITIAL
SIMULATION
DATA BY MORESI
GUESS
RESULT
AND ANGLETTI
F=1200 kg/hr
UNITS
[1]

www.scie.org.au
15

SCIE Journals
No. of Iterations
11
v0
0.5-0.54
0.5371
u1*
0.58-0.795
0.9189
u1
0.578-0.79
0.9128
x1
0.16-0.18
0.1706
l1
0.55-0.625
0.5860
u2*
0.468
0.6058
x2
0.6
0.6544
l2
0.1667
0.1528
V0
600-650
644
kg/h
55.1-75.53
87.29
T1
55-75.05
86.72
BPR1
0.55
0.57
L1
660-750
703
kg/h
44.46
41.25
T2
40.4
36.15
BPR2
4.1
5.1
L2
200
183.37
kg/h
U1
4446-9947
4989
kJ/hr. m2C
U2
616-2358
534.86
kJ/hr. m2C
UNITS
UNSCALED RESULTS
Table 7: fsolve results (Input 2)
VARIABLES
EXPRIMENTAL
INITIAL
SIMULATION
DATA BY MORESI
GUESS
RESULT
AND ANGLETTI[1]
F=2400 kg/hr
No. of Iterations
14
v0
0.5-0.542
0.8
0.5265
u1*
0.62-0.86
0.8
0.9111
u1
0.61-0.853
0.8
0.9052
x1
0.16-0.18
0.8
0.1679
l1
0.55-0.625
0.8
0.5956
0.468
0.8
0.5306
x2
0.6
0.8
0.5937
l2
0.1667
0.8
0.1684
u2
UNSCALED RESULTS

www.scie.org.au
16

SCIE Journals
V0
1200-1300
1263
kg/h
58.9-81.7
86.55
T1
57.95-81.04
85.99
BPR1
0.55
0.56
L1
660-750
1429
kg/h
44.46
40.55
T2
40.4
36.15
BPR2
4.1
4.4
L2
200
404.24
kg/h
U1
4867-10303
5218
kJ/hr. m2C
U2
691-2365
777.47
kJ/hr. m2C
Table 8: Newton Raphson results (Input 1)
VARIABLES
EXPRIMENTAL
INITIAL
DATA BY MORESI
GUESS
SIMULATION RESULT
UNITS
[1]
AND ANGLETTI
F=1200 kg/hr
No. of Iterations
11
v0
0.5-0.54
0.8
0.536538228129474
u1
0.58-0.795
0.8
0.919087645043830
u1
0.578-0.79
0.8
0.913059132520497
x1
0.16-0.18
0.8
0.170469690041145
l1
0.55-0.625
0.8
0.586614546995797
u2*
0.468
0.8
0.600381313152053
x2
0.6
0.8
0.650675610750239
l2
0.1667
0.8
0.153686412012121
V0
600-650
644
kg/h
55.1-75.53
87.31
T1
55-75.05
86.74
BPR1
0.55
0.57
L1
660-750
703
kg/h
44.46
41.15
T2
40.4
36.15
BPR2
4.1
5.0
L2
200
184
kg/h
U1
4446-9947
4998
kJ/hr.
UNSCALED RESULTS
m2C
www.scie.org.au
17

SCIE Journals
616-2358
U2
548
kJ/hr.
m2C
Table 9: Newton Raphson results (Input 2)
VARIABLES
EXPRIMENTAL
INITIAL GUESS
SIMULATION RESULT
UNITS
DATA BY MORESI
AND ANGLETTI[1]
F=2400 kg/hr
No. of Iterations
v0
0.5-0.542
0.7
0.529033284893321
u1
0.62-0.86
0.7
0.909949773444520
u1
0.61-0.853
0.7
0.904008695559832
x1
0.16-0.18
0.7
0.168644873472966
l1
0.55-0.625
0.7
0.592961991317396
u2
0.468
0.7
0.547499478259759
x2
0.6
0.7
0.609318779484449
l2
0.1667
0.7
0.164117705488432
V0
1200-1300
1269
kg/h
58.9-81.7
86.45
T1
57.95-81.04
85.88
BPR1
0.55
0.56
L1
660-750
1423
kg/h
44.46
40.65
T2
40.4
36.15
BPR2
4.1
4.5
L2
200
394
kg/h
U1
4867-10303
5178
kJ/hr.
UNSCALED RESULTS
m2C
U2
691-2365
707
kJ/hr.
m2C
Table 10: Relaxation Strategy results (Input 1)
VARIABLES
EXPRIMENTAL
INITIAL GUESS
SIMULATION RESULT
UNITS
DATA BY MORESI
AND ANGLETTI[1]

www.scie.org.au
18

SCIE Journals
F=1200 kg/hr
No. of Iterations
10
v0
0.5-0.54
0.8
0.536538228129474
u1
0.58-0.795
0.8
0.919087645043830
u1
0.578-0.79
0.8
0.913059132520497
x1
0.16-0.18
0.8
0.170469690041145
l1
0.55-0.625
0.8
0.586614546995797
u2
0.468
0.8
0.600381313152054
x2
0.6
0.8
0.650675610750239
l2
0.1667
0.8
0.153686412012121
V0
600-650
643
kg/h
55.1-75.53
87.31
T1
55-75.05
86.74
BPR1
0.55
0.57
L1
660-750
704
kg/h
44.46
41.15
T2
40.4
36.15
BPR2
4.1
5.0
L2
200
184
kg/h
U1
4446-9947
4998
kJ/hr.
UNSCALED RESULTS
m2C
616-2358
U2
548
kJ/hr.
m2C
Table 11: Relaxation Strategy results (Input 2)
VARIABLES
EXPRIMENTAL
INITIAL GUESS
SIMULATION RESULT
UNITS
DATA BY MORESI
AND ANGLETTI[1]
F=2400 kg/hr
No. of Iterations
v0
0.5-0.542
0.6
0.529033284893321
u1
0.62-0.86
0.6
0.909949773444520
u1
0.61-0.853
0.6
0.904008695559831
x1
0.16-0.18
0.6
0.168644873472966
l1
0.55-0.625
0.6
0.592961991317396
u2*
0.468
0.6
0.547499478259759
x2
0.6
0.6
0.609318779484452

www.scie.org.au
19

SCIE Journals
0.1667
0.6
0.164117705488432
V0
1200-1300
1269
kg/h
58.9-81.7
86.44
T1
57.95-81.04
85.88
BPR1
0.55
0.56
L1
660-750
1423
kg/h
44.46
40.65
T2
40.4
36.15
BPR2
4.1
4.5
L2
200
393
kg/h
U1
4867-10303
5178
kJ/hr.
l2
UNSCALED RESULTS
m2C
691-2365
U2
707
kJ/hr.
m2C
Table 12: Reduced Equation results using Newton Raphson (Input 1)
VARIABLES
EXPRIMENTAL
INITIAL
DATA BY MORESI
GUESS
SIMULATION RESULT
UNITS
[1]
AND ANGLETTI
F=1200 kg/hr
No. of Iterations
v0
0.5-0.54
0.48
u1*
0.58-0.795
0.48
u1
0.578-0.79
0.48
0.610951932243284
x1
0.16-0.18
0.48
0.1721*
l1
0.55-0.625
0.48
0.580873083855312
u2*
0.468
0.48
x2
0.6
0.48
0.5872*
l2
0.1667
0.48
0.170292418657319
V0
600-650
602
kg/h
55.1-75.53
58.62
T1
55-75.05
58.04
BPR1
0.55
0.58
L1
660-750
697
kg/h
44.46
44.95
T2
40.4
36.15
UNSCALED RESULTS

www.scie.org.au
20

SCIE Journals
BPR2
4.1
4.3
L2
200
204
kg/h
U1
4446-9947
8234
kJ/hr. m2C
U2
616-2358
2019
kJ/hr. m2C
Calculated Results
Table 13: Reduced Equation results using Newton Raphson (Input 2)
VARIABLES
EXPRIMENTAL DATA
INITIAL
BY MORESI AND
GUESS
SIMULATION RESULT
UNITS
[1]
ANGLETTI
F=2400 kg/hr
No. of Iterations
v0
0.5-0.542
0.48
u1
0.62-0.86
0.48
u1
0.61-0.853
0.48
0.674322640474179
x1
0.16-0.18
0.48
0.1722*
l1
0.55-0.625
0.48
0.580858966440164
0.468
0.48
u2
x2
0.6
0.48
0.5772
l2
0.1667
0.48
0.173248575182311
V0
1200-1300
1306
kg/h
58.9-81.7
64.64
T1
57.95-81.04
64.06
BPR1
0.55
0.58
L1
660-750
1394
kg/h
44.46
40.35
T2
40.4
36.15
BPR2
4.1
4.2
L2
200
416
kg/h
U1
4867-10303
7248
kJ/hr.
UNSCALED RESULTS
m2C
U2
691-2365
858
kJ/hr.
m2C
Calculated Results

www.scie.org.au
21

SCIE Journals
Table 14: Reduced Equation results using Relaxation Strategy (Input 1)
VARIABLES
EXPRIMENTAL
INITIAL
DATA BY MORESI
GUESS
SIMULATION RESULT
UNITS
[1]
AND ANGLETTI
F=1200 kg/hr
No. of Iterations
v0
0.5-0.54
0.48
u1*
0.58-0.795
0.48
u1
0.578-0.79
0.48
0.610951932243284
x1
0.16-0.18
0.48
0.1721*
l1
0.55-0.625
0.48
0.580873083855312
u2*
0.468
0.48
x2
0.6
0.48
0.5872
l2
0.1667
0.48
0.170292418657319
V0
600-650
602
kg/h
55.1-75.53
58.62
T1
55-75.05
58.04
BPR1
0.55
0.58
L1
660-750
697
kg/h
44.46
40.45
T2
40.4
36.15
BPR2
4.1
4.3
L2
200
204
kg/h
U1
4446-9947
8234
kJ/hr. m2C
U2
616-2358
2019
kJ/hr. m2C
UNSCALED RESULTS
Calculated Results
Table 15: Reduced Equation results using Relaxation Strategy (Input 2)
VARIABLES
EXPRIMENTAL
INITIAL GUESS
SIMULATION RESULT
UNITS
DATA BY MORESI
AND ANGLETTI[1]
F=2400 kg/hr
No. of Iterations
v0
0.5-0.542
0.45
u1
0.62-0.86
0.45
u1
0.61-0.853
0.45
0.674322640474179

www.scie.org.au
22

SCIE Journals
x1
0.16-0.18
0.45
0.1722*
l1
0.55-0.625
0.45
0.580858966440164
u2*
0.468
0.45
x2
0.6
0.45
0.5772
l2
0.1667
0.45
0.173248575182311
V0
1200-1300
1306
kg/h
58.9-81.7
64.64
T1
57.95-81.04
64.06
BPR1
0.55
0.58
L1
660-750
1394
kg/h
44.46
40.35
T2
40.4
36.15
BPR2
4.1
4.2
L2
200
416
kg/h
U1
4867-10303
7248
kJ/hr. m2C
U2
691-2365
858
kJ/hr. m2C
UNSCALED RESULTS
Calculated Results
Figure 1: Double Effect Evaporator System with forward feed arrangement
V1
V2
P1, 1
F, Feed
P2, 2
Tf
P0, T0
P1, T1
V0, Steam
mSteaFeed
Drips
L1
Condensate
L2

www.scie.org.au
23

Simulation of Double-Effect Evaporator For Concentrating Orange Juice

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Simulation of Double-Effect Evaporator For Concentrating Orange Juice

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Australian Journal of Engineering Research