Optimization of Steam Economy and Consumption of Heptad's PDF

Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag
DOI 10.1007/s13198-016-0488-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Optimization of steam economy and consumption of heptads

effect evaporator system in Kraft recovery process
Om Prakash Verma1 Toufiq Haji Mohammed1 Shubham Mangal1
Gaurav Manik1
Received: 8 February 2016 / Revised: 31 March 2016

The Society for Reliability Engineering, Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM), India and The Division of Operation and
Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden 2016
Abstract Mathematical models have been studied and models, backward feed with the added arrangements of
solved for evaluating an optimized process configuration feed split, steam split and feed preheating showed the best
for the energy intensive black liquor concentrating Kraft steam economy. The studied models can be applied and
recovery process in paper mills. In the present study, a easily extended to solve problems with different operating
heptads effect evaporator system is considered and mod- conditions as well once the liquor, steam and other evap-
eled first on the basis of three possible flow directions of orator effects parameters are known.
black liquor feed and heating steam, i.e. backward, forward
or mixed feed. Further, live steam split, liquor feed split, Keywords Multi stage evaporator Heptads effect
feed preheating and a hybrid of these energy saving evaporator Steam split Feed split Pre-heater Steam
schemes are coupled with the basic backward, forward and economy
mixed feed arrangements. The systematically evaluated
material and heat balance equations evolve into main List of symbols
model equations that are then represented in matrix forms, A Heat transfer area (m2)
thereby, to generalize the models mathematically. The hc Enthalpy of condensate (kJ/h)
advantage of the studied models are their simplicity in H Enthalpy of vapor (kJ/h)
linear representation of equations in matrix form and ease K Liquor feed split fraction
of numerical solution. The proposed mathematical models L Feed flow rate (kg/h)
are iteratively solved using different numerical techniques: m Vapor fraction sent to pre-heater
Gauss-Jordan, Gauss-elimination, GaussSeidel, Jacobi, S Steam used for the pre-heater
successive over-relaxation and interior-point methods. The T Vapor body temperature (C)
simulation results indicate that amongst the 15 simulated U Overall heat transfer coefficient (kW/m2 C)
V Vapor flow (kg/h)
x Concentration of liquor
& Om Prakash Verma Y Fresh steam split fraction
opiitroorkee@gmail.com
Toufiq Haji Mohammed Subscripts
toufiq2t@gmail.com c Condensate
Shubham Mangal f Feed
mangalshubham161@gmail.com i Effect number
Gaurav Manik p Product
manikfpt@iitr.ac.in
1
Greek letters
Department of Polymer and Process Engineering, Indian
k Latent heat of vaporization (kJ/kg)
Institute of Technology Roorkee, Saharanpur Campus,
Saharanpur, India D Change/difference
123
1 Introduction reported nonlinear models have certain stability and

desired convergence problem, whereas, solution of linear
Heptads effect evaporator (HEE) system is one of the most models has faster, stable and desirable convergence. Kaya
important and integral part of the Kraft recovery process and Sarac (2007) developed a linear and simplified model
used for concentrating the weak black liquor. However, of MSE and simulated it using available sugar mill data.
HEE is known to consume *2430 % energy in the form This model was a provision of concurrent, countercurrent
of steam of the total energy consumption (Rao and Kumar and parallel flow sequences with no pre-heating operation
1985). Therefore, there is a need to retain the energy, strategies. Higa et al. (2009) studied the thermal inte-
reduce its consumption, and thereby, improve the effi- gration of MSE and implemented grand composite curve
ciency in HEE system. In a real-time situation, its effi- to find the nonlinear models solution for the sugar plant.
ciency is dictated by many factors such as steam economy Bhargava et al. (2008) developed a nonlinear model for
(SE) and steam consumption (SC), heat loss, scaling of septuple effect flat falling film evaporator system in pulp
evaporator tubes, boiling point elevation, foaming of feed and paper mills. One of the important advantages of this
liquor, etc. Among these, SE and SC are most prominent model is its representation of equation in a cubical poly-
deciding factors in optimizing the overall operation. In nomial form. The model proposed was found capable of
order to find the optimum values of SE and SC, an opti- simulating evaporation process after incorporating real-
mum operation of the HEE system needs to be evaluated istic variations in boiling point rise (BPR), overall heat
after considering the different possible designs or modes of transfer coefficient (U), heat loss etc. Khademi et al.
operations. This requires appropriate mathematical mod- (2009) studied steady state simulation of a six-effect
eling and simulation of HEE system for different evaporator system in a desalination process and optimized
configurations. the GOR (the ratio of produced vapor to consumed steam)
The mathematical models of multiple stage effect parameters. Khanam and Mohanty (2010) developed the
evaporator (MSE) system and the optimum values of SE models based on the concepts of stream analysis and
and SC using different mathematical approach have been temperature path for MSE system with inclusion of con-
analyzed in important literature articles available in this densate flashing. Sagharichiha et al. (2014)) simulated the
area, a few of them are: Kern (1950), Holland (1975), forward feed vertical tube MSE in desalination industries.
Nishitani and Kunugita (1979), Narmine and Marwan Ruan et al. (2015) proposed the mathematical models for
(1997), Miranda and Simpson (2005). Most of the the countercurrent MSE system with various energy sav-
developed models for MSE system are nonlinear and ing schemes such as steam jet heat pump technology,
present a challenging task to solve in an engineering solution flash and condensed water flashing. The heat
environment. In this order, Ali et al. (2012) proposed a pump proved an effective energy saving measure in
modified differential evolution algorithm (DEA) named countercurrent multi evaporator system. The developed
MODEA and investigated on a set of nine bi-objective model helped predict and prevent scale formation in such
and five tri-objective benchmark test functions and com- systems. In pulp and paper industries, cost minimization
pared the results. Usually, non-linear optimization prob- application in washing unit to remove the scaling on the
lem has nonlinear objective function with linear or evaporator section has been also investigated by Garg
nonlinear equality/inequality constraints and in this et al. (2012) using Ant Bee colony (ABC) algorithms and
sequences, Gacem and Benattous (2014) used a hybrid compared the results with PSO, DE and GA.
genetic algorithm (GA) and particle swarm optimization In the light of the above background, the main aim of
(PSO) anmed as HGAPSO for solving optimal power flow this study is to screen a design configuration that has
problem with no-smooth cost function and subjected to optimized high values of SE and low values of SC. In the
limits on generator real, reactive power outputs, bus present work, three different types of feed flow configu-
voltages, transformer taps and power flow of transmission rations: backward, forward and mixed, combined with
lines. The optimal power flow problems are similar to different operating strategies such vapor steam-, liquor
multi-objective MSE system model with linear, non-lin- feed-split, pre-heating of black liquor and their hybrids,
ear, equality and inequality constraints. Another option to have been studied. Mathematical models have been
solve the nonlinear models is to reduce the nonlinaer developed for fifteen such configurations (Verma et al.
models to linear models and solve the linera models easily 2016) and results of simulation using different numerical
and Lambert et al. (1987) developed a nonlinear mathe- techniques presented. A real time data has been used for
matical model and reduced it to linear model for MSE the simulation and has been taken from nearby located pulp
system, and further, solved both the models using Gauss and paper mills in Saharanpur and Yamuna Nagar, U.P,
elimination numerical technique. Zain and Kumar (1996) India.
123
2 Generalized modeling of a heptads effect condensate (hc). Where, the goodness of fit for the latent
evaporator (HEE) system heat of vaporization (k), enthalpy of vapor (H) and the
enthalpy of condensate (h) are: Sum of square error (SSE):
Before attempting to formulate the mathematical models 318.5, 213, 930.4; R2: 0.998, 0.9975, 0.9985; Adjusted R2:
for each of the design configurations mentioned, it is 0.9986, 0.9973, 0.9983; and root mean square error
essential to develop some useful empirical process corre- (RMSE): 3.569, 2.919, 6.1 respectively.
lations that relates process unknown variables to known ki T 0:003857Ti2 2:069Ti 2497 1
ones. Since, the pressure and temperature values are known
for each effect of the MSE system, empirical correlations Hi T 0:0002323Ti2 2:056Ti 2496 2
for these are determined based on available data from paper
hci T 0:001364Ti2 4:15Ti 2:24 3
mill for the entire operating conditions range. Latent heat
of vaporization (k), enthalpy of vapor (H) and enthalpy of Bhargava et al. (2008) developed correlations for the
condensate (hc) are found to fit a second order of polyno- enthalpy of black liquor based on paper mill data is pre-
mial, and are illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3. The evaluated best sented in Eq. (4).
fit correlations for ki ; Hi and hi are represented by Eqs. (1)
hLi 4:1871 0:54xi Ti 4
(3) for the ith effect. The coefficients found with the
average of 95 % confidence bounds for latent heat of The mathematical models of the MSE system initiate
vaporization (k), enthalpy of vapor (H) and enthalpy of from the basic idea of conservation laws of mass,
Fig. 1 Fitted latent heat of

vaporization, k(T) (kJ/kg) data
Fig. 2 Fitted enthalpy of vapor,

H(T) (kJ/kg) data
123
Fig. 3 Fitted enthalpy of

condensate, h(T) (kJ/kg) data
component and energy balances. These models are then 2.1 Backward feed configuration: Model-A
transformed to linearly independent equations represented
in matrix form. In MSE, for N number of effects, N ? 1 If the un-concentrated black liquor is fed to the last effect
number of linear equations are obtained. Hence, in the (i.e. seventh effect) of evaporator system and steam is fed
current work, for the heptads effect evaporator (HEE) to the first effect of evaporator system, the developed
system eight equations have been obtained for each of the configuration is called backward feed configuration. The
configurations considered. The obtained equations are concentrated black liquor flows from seventh effect to first
functions of the amount of steam fed and the amount of effect and the concentrated black liquor product is obtained
vapor generated at each effect. For all the studied models, from first effect of the MSE system. The vapor obtained at
the prime advantage is their linear representation, and each effect is further used as a heat source for next effect.
2 32 3
k1 hL2 H2 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1
6 0 k2 hL3 hL2 hL3 H3 0 0 0 0 0 76 V2 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
60 hL4 hL3 k3 hL4 hL3 hL4 H4 0 0 0 0 76 V3 7
6 76 7
60 hL5 hL4 hL5 hL4 k4 hL5 hL4 hL5 H 5 0 0 0 76 V 7
6 76 4 7
6 76 7
60 hL6 hL5 hL6 hL5 hL6 hL5 k5 hL6 h5 hL6 H6 0 0 76 V5 7
6 76 7
60 hL7 hL6 hL7 hL6 hL7 hL6 hL7 hL6 k6 hL7 hL6 hL7 H7 0 76 V 7
6 76 6 7
6 76 7
40 hLf hL7 hLf hL7 hLf hL7 hLf hL7 hLf hL7 k7 hLf hL7 hLf H8 54 V7 5
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V8
2 3
hL1 hL2 Lf xf =x1
6 hL2 hL3 Lf xf =x1 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 h h L x =x 7
6 L4 L5 f f 1 7
6 7 5
6 7
6 h h L x =x 7
6 L6 L7 f f 1 7
6 7
4 hL7 hLf Lf xf =x1 5
Lf 1xf =x1
hence, desired ease of convergence. The study has been Figure 4 elaborates the backward feed flow configura-
done for fifteen different feasible permutation operation tion with steam-, feed-split and liquor feed preheating
strategies for the HEE system that are listed in Table 1. operation strategies.
123
Table 1 Description of proposed configurations and models

Model: Configurations property Remark
Model-A Backward feed Liquor feed to seventh effect and steam to first effect
Model-B Forward feed Liquor and steam feed to first effect
Model-C Mixed feed Liquor feed to sixth effect and steam to first effect
Model-D Backward feed with steam splitting Liquor fed to seventh effect and steam split to first and second
effect with split ratio Y
Model-E Forward feed with steam splitting Liquor fed to first effect and steam split to first and second
Model-F Mixed feed with steam splitting Liquor fed to sixth effect and steam split to first and second
Model-G Backward feed with feed split Liquor fed to seventh and sixth effect simultaneously with feed
ratio K and steam to first effect
Model-H Forward feed with feed split Liquor fed to first and second effect simultaneously with feed
Model-I Mixed feed with feed split Liquor fed to sixth and fifth effect simultaneously with feed
Model-J Backward feed coupled with feed split and Liquor fed to sseventh and sixth effect simultaneously with
steam split feed ratio K and split to first and second effect with split ratio
Y
Model-K Forward feed coupled with feed split and Liquor fed to first and second effect simultaneously with feed
steam split ratio K and split to first and second effect with split ratio Y
Model-L Mixed feed coupled with feed split and steam Liquor fed to sixth and fifth effect simultaneously with feed
split ratio K and split to first and second effect with split ratio Y
Model-M Backward feed coupled with feed split, steam Liquor fed to seventh and sixth effect simultaneously with feed
split and Pre-heater ratio K and split to first and second effect with split ratio
Y. Pre-heater used to concentrate the feed liquor
Model-N Forward feed coupled with feed split, steam Liquor fed to first and second effect simultaneously with feed
Model-O Mixed feed coupled with feed split, steam Liquor fed to sixth and fifth effect simultaneously with feed
Fig. 4 Backward feed coupled

with steam split-, feed-split and
pre-heater for a heptads effect
evaporator system
123
Fig. 5 Forward feed coupled

with steam-, feed-split and pre-
heater for a heptads effect
evaporator system
2.2 Forward feed configuration: Model-B firstseventh effect and final concentrated product may
be obtained from any of the effect. In the present case,
A forward feed flow arrangement, wherein, the weak black un-concentrated black liquor is fed to sixth effect and
liquor, input steam and vapor generated at each effect flow concentrated output from sixth effect is fed to seventh
in the same direction. In this case, un-concentrated black effect and then it flow to fifth then fourth to first effect,
liquor solution is fed to first effect of MSE system and final where it is finally collected. Figure 6 illustrates the base
concentrated product is obtained from the last seventh case of mixed feed flow configuration with discussed
effect as it moves gradually from firstseventh effects. operation strategies steam-, feed- and black liquor feed
Figure 5 illustrates the base case of forward feed flow preheating.
configuration with given operation strategies steam-, feed- For the Model-C, Fig. 6 have some modification with
and black liquor feed preheating. The base operation of the fresh steam is only provided to the first effect and the
forward feed flow configuration is derived without steam-, vapor flows in the forward direction. The black liquor is fed
feed-split and pre-heater operation. at sixth effect without any preheating of liquor. The model
The final derived model for such a configuration is given equations remain same as in backward feed from first-
by Eq. (6) fourth effects but the equations will change from fifth to
2 32 3 2 3
k1 hLf H2 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 V1 hL1 hLf Lf xf =x7
6 0 k2 hL1 H3 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 7
hL1 hL2 76 V2 7 6 hL2 hL1 Lf xf =x7 7
6 7 6
6 7
6 76 7 6 7
6 0 0 k3 hL2 H4 hL2 hL3 hL2 hL3 hL2 hL3 hL2 hL3 76 V3 7 6 hL3 hL2 Lf xf =x7 7
6 76 7 6 7
6 hL3 hL4 7 6 7 6 7
6 0 0 0 k4 hL3 H5 hL3 hL4 hL3 hL4 76 V4 7 6 hL4 hL3 Lf xf =x7 7
6 76 7 6 7
6 0 0 0 0 k5 hL4 H6 hL4 hL5 hL4 hL5 7 6 V 7 6 h h L x =x 7 7

6 76 5 7 6 L5 L4 f f
7
6 hL5 hL6 7 6 7 6 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 k6 hL5 H7 76 V6 7 6 hL6 hL5 Lf xf =x7 7
6 76 7 6 7
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 k7 hL6 H8 54 V7 5 4 hL7 hL6 Lf xf =x7 5

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V8 Lf 1 xf x7
6
2.3 Mixed feed configuration: Model-C seventh effects due to the mixed feed flow properties of
black liquor.
In the mixed feed configuration type, the un-concen- The final derived mathematical model, Model-C, in
trated black liquor is fed to any of the effects between matrix form is given by Eq. (7)
123
2 3
2 3 V1
k1 hL2 H2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7
6 0 k2 hL3 hL2 hL3 H3 0 0 0 0 0 76 V 2 7
6 76 V 7
6 0 hL4 hL3 k3 hL4 hL3 hL4 H4 0 0 0 0 76 3 7
6 76
6 0 hL5 hL4 hL5 hL4 k4 hL5 hL4 hL5 H 5 0 0 0 7 V4 7
6 76 7
6 0 hL7 hL5 hL7 hL5 hL7 hL5 k5 hL7 hL5 hL6 H6 0 0 76 V 7
6 76 5 7
6 hLf hL6 7
6 0 hLf hL6 hLf hL6 hLf hL6 hLf hL6 k6 hLf hL6 hLf H7 76 V 6 7
4 0 hL6 hL7 hL6 hL7 hL6 hL7 hL6 hL7 hL6 hL7 k7 hL6 H8 56 7
4 V7 5
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 3 V8
hL1 hL2 Lf xf =x1
6 7
6 7
6
6 7 7
7
6 hL6 hLf Lf xf =x1 7
6 7
Lf 1 xf =x1
Fig. 6 Mixed feed coupled with steam split, feed split and pre-heater for a heptads effect evaporator system
2.4 Configurations with steam split 2.4.1 Backward feed steam split configuration: Model-D
In the previously described models, Models-A to C, the fresh In this configuration, the steam split arrangement is added
steam is fed only to the first effect. However, in this section, to the base configuration of backward feed (Model-A) in
the concept of steam split is presented and employed. Here, which the black liquor is fed to the last seventh effect and
the fresh supplied steam is split among the first and second concentrated liquor is taken out from the first effect
effect with fraction, Y going to the first effect, and remaining (Fig. 4). The steam is split among first and second effects
to the second effect. Further, the vapor produced from first with steam split fraction, Y. For the first and seconds
and second effects are combined together and sent to the third effects, the energy balances equation are given by
effect as a heating source, vapor from the third effect is Eqs. (8)(9).
utilized as heating source for fourth effect, and so on.
YV1 k1 V2 hL2 H2 Lf xf x1 hL1 hL2 8
123
1 YV1 k1 V2 hL3 hL2 V3 hL3 H3 2.4.2 Forward feed with steam split configuration:
Lf xf x1 hL2 hL3 9 Model-E
For the third effect, the vapor produced from first and
In this case, the black weak liquor and steam with vapor
second effects are combined together and sent to third
are fed in same direction as in the case of the forward feed
effect of the MSE system, and hence, the model will
flow configuration, however, with added change of split of
change only slightly. The latent heat of vaporization is now
fresh steam among the first two effects with fraction Y.
calculated at an average temperature of first and second
The vapor generated from first and second effects are
effect, i.e. (TV2 T
2
V3
) and represented as kav. Hence, the combined together and sent to third effect and then vapor
energy balance equation is written as by Eq. (10) produced at third effect is further used as heat source for
V2 V3 kavg L4 hL4 V4 H4 L3 hL3 10 the next effect. The un-concentrated liquor is fed to first
effect and final concentrated product is obtained from last
Solving Eq. (10) yields,
seventh effect as shown in Fig. 5. Mathematical model
V2 kavg hL4 hL3 V3 kavg hL4 hL3 V4 hL4 derived for Model-E is represented in the matrices form
H4 by Eq. (13).
Lf xf x1 hL3 hL4
11
For fourthseventh effects, the mathematical equations
remain similar to those derived in Model-A. Hence, the
mathematical model for Model-D is represented in matrix
form by Eq. (12).
2 32 3
Yk1 hL2 H2 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1
6 1 Yk1 hL3 hL2 hL3 H3 0 0 0 0 0 76 V2 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
6 0 kavg hL4 hL3 kavg hL4 hL3 hL4 H4 0 0 0 0 76 V3 7
6 76 7
6 0 hL5 hL4 hL5 hL4 k4 hL5 hL4 hL5 H5 0 0 0 76 V 7
6 76 4 7
6 76 7
6 0 hL6 hL5 hL6 hL5 hL6 hL5 k5 hL6 hL5 hL6 H6 0 0 76 V5 7
6 76 7
6 0 hL7 hL6 hL7 hL6 hL7 hL6 hL7 hL6 k6 hL7 hL6 hL7 H7 0 76 V 7
6 76 6 7
6 76 7
4 0 hLf hL7 hLf hL7 hLf hL7 hLf hL7 hLf hL7 k7 hLf hL7 hLf H8 54 V7 5
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V8
2 3
hL1 hL2 Lf xf x1
6 7
6 hL2 h3 Lf xf x1 7
6 7
6 hL3 hL4 Lf xf x1 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6
6 7 7
6 7
6 h h L x x 7

6 L7 Lf f f 1 7
6 7
4 xf 5
Lf 1
x1
12
123
2 32 3
Yk1 hLf H2 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 V1
6 1 Yk1 0 hL1 H3 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 76 V2 7
6 76 7
6 0 k kavg hL2 H4 hL2 hL3 hL2 hL3 hL2 hL3 hL2 hL3 76 7
6 avg 76 V3 7
6 0 0 0 k4 hL3 H5 hL3 hL4 hL3 hL4 hL3 hL4 76 7
6 76 V4 7
6 0 0 0 0 k5 hL4 H6 hL4 hL5 hL4 hL5 76 7
6 76 V5 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 k6 hL5 H7 hL5 hL6 76 7
6 76 V6 7
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 k7 hL6 H8 54 V7 5
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V8
2 3
hL1 hLf Lf xf x7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
4 xf 5
Lf 1
x1
13
2.4.3 Mixed feed with steam split configuration: Model-F 2.5 Configurations with feed split
When the steam split operation is combined with the base This special configuration ensures a split of un-concen-
case of mixed feed flow sequence Model-C, we obtain the trated black liquor at the last effect into sixth and seventh
Model-F that is illustrated in Fig. 6 and mathematically effects, with the sixth effect receiving a fraction K of total
represented by Eq. (14). amount. This is an important configuration and has been
visited earlier in the literature (Kumar et al. 2013) to
2 32 3
Yk1 hL2 H2 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1
6 1 Yk1 hL3 hL2 hL3 H3 0 0 0 0 0 76 V 2 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
6 0 kavg hL4 hL3 kavg hL4 hL3 hL4 H4 0 0 0 0 76 V 3 7
6 76 7
6 76 4 7
6 76 7
6 0 hL7 hL5 hL7 hL5 hL7 hL5 k5 hL7 hL5 hL7 H6 0 0 76 V 5 7
6 76 7
6 0 hLf hL6 hLf hL6 hLf hL6 hLf hL6 k6 hLf hL6 hLf H7 hLf hL6 7 6 7
6 76 V 6 7
6 76 7
4 0 hL6 hL7 hL6 hL7 hL6 hL7 hL6 hL7 hL6 hL7 k7 hL6 H8 54 V7 5
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V8
2 3
hL1 hL2 Lf xf =x1
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 h h L x =x 7
6 L4 L5 f f 1 7
6 7
6 7
6 h h L x =x 7
6 L6 Lf f f 1 7
6 7
Lf 1 xf =x1
14
123

develop the dynamic model of MSE in pulp and paper V6 fk6 hL6 1 KhLf g V7 1 KhLf H7
industry and observe the transient behavior of temperature, V8 1 KhLf
concentration of each effect.
V5 L4 hL6 1 KhLf 19
2.5.1 Backward feed with feed split configuration: V5 f1 KhLf hL6 g V6 fk6 hL6 1 KhLf g

Model-G V7 1 KhLf H7 V8 1 KhLf

V4 L3 hL6 1 KhLf 20
The fresh steam is fed to the first effect only and vapor
produced from first effect used as a heat source for sec- V2 f1 KhLf hL6 g V3 f1 KhLf hL6 g
ond effect, and moves counter-currently to the feed V4 f1 KhLf hL6 g V5 f1 KhLf hL6 g
movement. The un-concentrated black liquor is split and
V6 fk6 hL6 1 KhLf g V7 1 KhLf H7
fed to the last sixth and seventh effects simultaneously
V8 1 KhLf hL6 1 KhLf Lf xf x1
with fraction K and 1 - K respectively as shown in
Fig. 4. For 7th effect, the equation evolves into Eq. (22)
The equations for the first-fifth effects essentially remain
the same as in backward feed flow sequence (Model-A) but V2 fKhLf hL7 g V3 fKhLf hL7 g V4 fKhLf hL7 g
for the last two effects, wherein the model will change due V5 fKhLf hL7 g V6 fKhLf hL7 g
to the feed split with fraction (K). The modified equations V7 fk7 KhLf hL7 g V8 KhLf H8

are given by Eqs. (15)(21). hL7 KhLf Lf xf x1 22
V6 k6 L7 hL7 1 KLf hLf V7 H7 L6 hL6 15
The Model-G in matrix form is represented by Eq. (23)
2 32 3
k1 hL2 H2 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1
60 k2 hL3 hL2 hL3 H3 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 V2 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
60 hL4 hL3 k3 hL4 hL3 hL4 H4 0 0 0 0 7 6 V3 7
6 76 7
60 hL5 hL4 hL5 hL4 k4 hL5 hL4 hL5 H5 0 0 0 76 V 7
6 76 4 7
6 76 7
60 hL6 hL5 hL6 hL5 hL6 hL5 k5 hL6 hL5 hL6 H6 0 0 7 6 V5 7
6 76 7
60 1 KhLf h6 1 KhLf h6 1 KhLf h6 1 KhLf h6 fk6 hL6 1 KhLf g f1 KhLf H7 g f1 KhLf g 7 6 7
6 7 6 V6 7
6 76 7
40 KhLf h7 KhLf h7 KhLf h7 KhLf h7 KhLf h7 fk7 KhLf hL7 g KhLf H8 54 V7 5
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V8
2 3
hL1 hL2 Lf xf x1
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 hL5 h L6 L f xf x1 7
6 7
6 fh 1 Kh gL x x 7
6 L6 Lf f f 1 7
6 7
4 hL7 KhLf Lf xf x1 5

Lf 1 xf x1
23
V6 k6 V7 H7 L6 hL6 L7 hL7 1 KV8 L7 hLf 2.5.2 Forward feed with feed split configuration: Model-H
16
In this configuration, the forward feed flow sequence is
V6 k6 V7 H7 V8 1 KhLf combined with feed split arrangement in which the black
L6 hL6 L7 hL7 1 KV7 L7 hLf 17 liquor to be fed is split in first two effects with split fraction
K and (1 - K) and moves in the direction of steam and
V6 k6 V7 1 KhLf H7 V8 1 KhLf vapor. The final derived model for Model-H is represent by
V6 L5 hL6 1 KhLf 18
Eq. (24)
123
2 32 3
k1 hf H2 hLf hL1 hf hL1 hf hL1 hf hL1 hf hL1 hf hL1 V1
60 k2 hL1 H3 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 7 6 V2 7
6 76 7
60 0 k3 hL2 H4 hL2 hL3 hL2 hL3 hL2 hL3 hL2 hL3 7 6 7
6 7 6 V3 7
60 0 0 k4 hL3 H5 hL3 hL4 hL3 hL4 hL3 hL4 7 6 7
6 7 6 V4 7
60 0 0 0 k5 hL4 H6 hL4 hL5 hL4 hL5 7 6 7
6 7 6 V5 7
60 0 0 0 0 k6 hL5 H7 hL5 hL6 7 6 7
6 7 6 V6 7
40 0 0 0 0 0 k7 hL6 H8 54 V7 5
0 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 V8
Lf fxf x7 1 KghL1 hLf
6 Lf fxf x7 hL2 hL1 1 KhL1 hLf g 7
6 7
6 Lf xf x7 hL3 hL2 7
6 7
6 L x x h h 7
6
6 f f 7 L4 L3 7 24
L x x h h 7
6 f f 7 L5 L4 7
6 L x x h h 7
6 f f 7 L6 L5 7
Lf 1 xf x7
2.5.3 Mixed feed with feed split configuration: Model-I (1 - K) and K, respectively and the liquor produced at last
effect is fed to fourth effect, then third and so on. Live fed
This configuration combines the base case of mixed feed steam and generated vapor propagate in forward direction as
configuration and liquor feed split concept. The black liquor shown in Fig. 6. Therefore, the derived mathematical model,
feed is split among fifth and sixth effects with split fractions Model-I, is given by Eq. (25).
2 32 3
k1 hL2 H2 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1
60 k2 hL3 hL2 hL3 H3 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 7
6 76 V 2 7
6 76 7
60 hL4 hL3 k3 hL4 hL3 hL4 H4 0 0 0 0 76 V 3 7
6 76 7
60 hL7 hL4 hL7 hL4 k4 hL7 hL4 hL7 H5 hL7 hL5 0 0 76 V 7
6 76 4 7
6 76 7
60 0 0 0 k5 hL5 H6 0 0 76 V 5 7
6 76 7
60 0 0 0 0 k6 hL6 H7 0 76 V 7
6 76 6 7
6 76 7
40 0 0 0 0 0 k7 hL6 hL7 hL7 H8 54 V7 5
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V8
2 3 25
Lf xf x1 hL1 hL2
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 L fx x h h 1 Kh h g 7
6 f f 1 L4 L7 L7 L5 7
6 7
6 Lf 1 KhL5 hLf 7
6 7
6 Lf KhL6 hLf 7
6 7
6 7
4 Lf KhL7 hL6 5

Lf 1 xf x1
123
2.6 Configuration with steam split and feed split 2.6.2 Forward feed configuration with steam split and feed
split: Model-K
2.6.1 Backward feed configuration with steam split
and feed split: Model-J In the base case of forward feed configuration, both the
operations of steam split and feed split are combined to
Combining both the operations of steam split and feed split yield another configuration (Model-K) shown in Fig. 5 and
with backward feed flow generates a new model, Model-J. mathematically represented by Eq. (27).
Here the steam is split among between first and second
effects and the un-concentrated black liquor feed split 2.6.3 Mixed feed configuration with steam split and feed
among sixth and seventh effects. The steam is split with split: Model-L
fraction Y and (1 - Y) in first and second effects, and the
black liquor is split with split fraction K and (1 - K) When the mixed feed flow configuration is coupled with
respectively, in seventh and sixth effects as shown in steam split and feed split arrangements, new design con-
Fig. 4. The mathematical model combines the model of figuration is obtained as shown in Fig. 6 and the corre-
Model-D and Model-G. The final derived model in matrix sponding model, Model-L, represented by Eq. (28).
form is given by Eq. (26).
2 32 3
Yk1 hL2 H2 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1
6 1 Yk1 hL3 hL2 hL3 H3 0 0 0 0 0 76 7
6 76 V2 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
6 76 4 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
6 76 6 7
6 76 7
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 k7 hL7 H8 54 V7 5
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V8
2 3
hL1 hL2 Lf xf x1
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 hL5 h L6 L f x f x 1 7
6 7
6 h h L x x L 1 Kh h 7
6 L6 L7 f f 1 f L7 Lf 7
6 7
4 KLf hL7 hLf 5

Lf 1 xf x1
26
123
2 32 3
Yk1 hLf H2 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 hLf hL1 V1
6 1 Yk1 0 hL1 H3 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 hL1 hL2 76 V2 7
6 76 7
6 0 kavg kavg hL2 H4 hL2 hL3 hL2 hL3 hL2 hL3 hL2 hL3 76 7
6 76 V3 7
6 0 0 0 k4 hL3 H5 hL3 hL4 hL3 hL4 hL3 hL4 76 7
6 76 V4 7
6 0 0 0 0 k5 hL4 H6 hL4 hL5 hL4 hL5 76 7
6 76 V5 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 k6 hL5 H7 hL5 hL6 76 7
6 76 V6 7
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 k7 hL6 H8 54 V7 5
20 1
1 1 3 1 1 1 1 V8
Lf fxf x7 1 KghL1 hLf
6 Lf xf x7 hL2 hL1 1 KLf hL1 hLf 7
6 7
6 7
6 L x x h h 7
6
6 f f 7 L4 L3 7
L x x h h 7
6 f f 7 L5 L4 7
6 L x x h h 7
6 f f 7 L6 L5 7
Lf f1 xf x7 g
27
2.7 Configurations with pre-heater in MSE system 2.7.1 Backward feed configuration coupled with steam
split, feed split and pre-heater: Model-M
Pre-heater is used to pre-heat the black liquor which is
going to be fed to the MSE system with a part of the vapor In this operation, fresh live steam is split among first two
(fraction M) produced at several effects used as a heating effects with split fraction, Y, and the vapor produced at first
source. and second effects combined together to acts as a heating
2 32 3
Yk1 hL2 H2 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1
6 1 Yk1 hL3 hL2 hL3 H2 0 0 0 0 0 76 V 2 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
6 0 hL7 hL4 hL7 hL4 k4 hL7 hL4 hL7 H5 hL7 hL5 0 0 76 V 7
6 76 4 7
6 76 7
6 0 0 0 0 k5 hL5 H6 0 0 76 V 5 7
6 76 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 k6 hL6 H7 0 76 V 7
6 76 6 7
6 76 7
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 k7 hL7 hL6 hL7 H8 54 V7 5
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V8
2 3
hL1 hL2 Lf xf x1
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 h h L x x f1 KL h h g 7
6 L4 L7 f f 1 f L7 L5 7
6 7
6 1 KLf hL5 hLf 7
6 7
6 KLf hL6 hLf 7
6 7
6 7
4 KLf hL7 hL6 5

Lf 1 xf x1
28
123
source and sent to third effect, and so on. The vapor pro- among first and second effects with fraction K and (1 - K),
duced at sixth effect is split with fraction M, which is sent the concentrated product of each effects after second effect
to pre-heater PH-2 and rest of the vapor sent to the last is fed to next one and so on. The product is obtained in last
effect. The vapor produced at last effect is sent to pre- effect. The derived mathematical model, Model-M, in
heater, PH-1. The pre-heater heats the un-concentrated matrix form is given by Eq. (30).
liquor going as main feed to MSE system, increases its
temperature by DT1 T0 T) in the first pre-heater, PH- 2.7.3 Mixed feed configuration coupled with steam split,
1 and by DT2 T T1 in the second pre-heater-2, PH-2, feed split and pre-heater: Model-O
respectively. The pre-concentrated liquor from PH-1 and
PH-2 is split and fed at last two effects. The concentrated In this special mixed feed configuration (shown in Fig. 6),
black liquor solution as a product is obtained from first fresh live steam V1 is split among first and seconds effects
effect. The derived equation for Model-M in matrix form is and the vapor produced at these two effects, i.e. V2 and V3
given by Eq. (29). are combined together and sent to the third effect at an
2 32 3
Yk1 hL2 H2 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1
6 1 Yk1 hL3 hL2 hL3 H3 0 0 0 0 0 76 V2 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
6 76 4 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
6 76 6 7
6 76 7
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 k7 hL7 H8 54 V7 5
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V8
2 3
hL1 hL2 Lf xf x1
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 h h L x x L 1 Kh h 7
6 L6 L7 f f 1 f L7 Lf 7
6 7
4 KLf hL7 hLf Lf Cp DT1 5

Lf 1 xf x1
29
2.7.2 Forward feed configuration coupled with feed split TV2 Tv3
average temperature of Tav 2 . The vapor produced
and pre-heater: Model-N
at third effect is used further in fourth effect and so on.
In this case, live steam V1 is fed to first effect and the However, at the sixth effect, M fraction of vapor, V7 obtained
fraction M of the vapor V2, represented as S2 is sent to the as S7 is sent to the second pre-heater, and remaining (V7 - S7)
second pre-heater, PH-2 and remaining vapor, i.e. sent to the last effect. Likewise, for vapor produced at last
(V2 - S2) is sent to second effect. Likewise, a fraction M of effect, i.e. seventh effect, M fraction of V8 is sent to first pre-
the vapor, V3 from second evaporator is sent as S3 to first heater as a heat source. The pre-concentrated black liquor
pre-heater, PH-1 as a heat source and remaining amount temperature increases by DT1 ( = T0 - T) in PH-1 and by
(V3 - S3) is sent to first effect evaporator, from third effect DT2 ( = T - T1) in PH-2. Finally, the pre-concentrated
to fourth effect, and so on. The un-concentrated solution solution coming from PH-2 is split among fifth and sixth
black liquor temperature increases as DT1 = (T0 - T) in effects with fraction K. Writing the energy balance at each
PH-1 and DT2 = (T - T1) in PH-2. Finally, the pre-con- effect and rearranging the equations yields the mathematical
centrated solution coming from second pre-heater is split model in matrix form as given by Eq. (31).
123
2 32 3
k1 hL1 H2 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1
6 0 k2 hL2 hL1 hL2 H3 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 V2 7
6 76 7
60 0 k h H h h h h h hL3 hL2 hL3 7 6 7
6 3 L2 4 L2 L3 L2 L3 L2 7 6 V3 7
60 0 0 k h H h h h hL4 hL3 hL4 7 6 7
6 4 L3 5 L3 L4 L3 7 6 V4 7
60 0 0 0 k h H h hL5 hL4 hL5 7 6 7
6 5 L4 6 L4 7 6 V5 7
60 0 0 0 0 k h H7 hL5 hL6 7 6 7
6 6 L5 7 6 V6 7
40 0 0 0 0 0 k7 hL6 H8 54 V7 5
0 2 1 1 1 31 1 1 1 V8
L h
f L1 Kh f
6 Lf hL2 hL1 1 KhL2 hf Lf Cp DT2 7
6 7
6 Lf xf x7 hL3 hL2 Lf Cp DT1 7
6 7
6 L x x h h 7
6 6 f f 7 L4 L3 7 30
L x x h h 7
6 f f 7 L5 L4 7
6 L x x h h 7
6 f f 7 L6 L5 7
Lf f1 xf x7 g
2 32 3
Yk1 hL2 H2 0 0 0 0 0 V1
6 1 Yk1 hL3 hL2 hL3 H3 0 0 0 0 0 76 V 2 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
6 76 7
6 0 hL7 hL4 hL7 hL4 k4 hL7 hL4 hL7 H5 hL7 hL5 0 0 76 V 7
6 76 4 7
6 76 7
6 0 0 0 0 k5 hL5 H6 0 0 76 V 5 7
6 76 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 k6 hL6 H7 0 76 V 7
6 76 6 7
6 76 7
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 k7 hL7 hL6 hL7 H8 54 V7 5
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V8
2 3
L f xf
6 hL1 h L2 7
6 x1 7
6 7
6 L x
f f 7
6 hL2 hL3 7
6 x1 7
6 7
6 L x 7
6 f f
hL3 hL4 7
6 x1 7
6 7
6 7
6 L f x f 7
6 7
6 x1 hL4 hL7 1 KLf hL7 hL5 7
6 7
6 7
6 1 KLf hL5 hf 7
6 7
6 KL h h 7
6 f L6 f 7
6 7
6 KLf hL7 hL6 Lf Cp DT1 7
6 7
4 xf 5
Lf 1
x1
31
Table 2 Operating parameters

S. no. Parameter (S) Value (s)
of HEES (data has been
presented from taken by paper 1. Total number of effects 07
mill)
2. Inlet black liquor concentration 0.118
3. Inlet liquor temperature 65 C
4. Feed flow rate of black liquor 15.6111 kg/sec
5. Last effect vapor temperature (7th effect) 52 C
6. Feed flow sequence Presented in Table 1
7. Area A1A2, A3A6 and A7 540,660 and 690 m2
123
3 Model simulations liquor feed-split configuration (Model-H) as illustrated in

Table 4. The steam split operation decreases the SE in the
In recent years, a very high increase in energy cost in forward feed flow sequences, and therefore, when feed-
relation to capital equipment cost has caused an effective split operation is combined with steam split, SE reduces.
increase in the operation cost of the evaporators. If this This behavior is just the opposite of what is observed in the
trends is likely to continue in future it produces an alarming case of backward-feed arrangement.
condition for industries. Hence, energy plays a very vital Table 5 presents the results for mixed feed sequences
role in the design of evaporators. The performance of operated with the mentioned operation strategies. The
evaporators system is evaluated by the factor steam econ- mixed feed flow sequence is a combination of backward
omy, SE, and steam consumption, SC. SE is the amount of and forward feed flow configurations, with the feed flowing
water vaporized per amount of the fresh steam consump- in backward mode from first to sixth effects of HES system
tion. As a matter of fact, high values of SE are desirable in and forward feed flow for seventh and sixth effects. Hence,
multiple effect evaporators so that the steam consumption overall the backward feed flow dominates over forward
is kept at the lowest level for a given evaporation of water. feed mode, and therefore, results obtained for mixed feed
P8
Vi configuration resemble closely to those obtained for the
Mathematically, SE Vi21 and SC V1 . backward feed one. The optimum SE and SC for the mixed
For the computation of SE, the developed set of eight feed configuration is found for the steam-split, liquor feed-
linear equations have been solved using different numerical split and pre-heater combinations (Model-O).
techniques called Gauss-Jordan, Gauss-elimination, Among the fifteen models developed for operations in
GaussSeidel, Jacobi, successive of relaxation and interior backward, forward and mixed feed configuration, it is found
point method. For this purpose, a MATLAB code has been that the values of SE and SC are optimum when backward
developed which predicts the optimal values of Vi and V1 . feed configuration is operated with steam-split, liquor feed-
The algorithm to compute these optimal values has been split and pre-heating of black liquor (Model-M).
elaborated in Appendix. The data used for the simulation It has been observed that iterative numerical techniques
has been presented in Table 2. such as Gauss Jordan/eliminations methods and Interior
Point method based algorithm method shows approxi-
mately similar results, and are quite insensitive to the initial
4 Results and discussion assumptions and process conditions. The other techniques
namely GaussSeidel, Jacobi and successive over-relax-
In the present study, fifteen operating strategies for back- ation, show marginal sensitiveness to the chosen initial
ward, forward and mixed feed configurations have been assumptions. This is specifically due to the representation
studied and their equivalent mathematical models, namely of models through simple linear equations in matrix form.
Model-A to O, developed and solved for the case of the The numerical techniques employed here demonstrate the
HEE system. The simulation results of these models for potential of fast convergence as well as desired stability for
steam-split, liquor feed-split and preheater operations are finding the SE and SC of MSE system.
presented in Tables 3, 4, 5.
The models are solved using six numerical techniques
namely, Gauss Jordan, Gauss-elimination, GaussSeidel, 5 Summary
Jacobi, successive over relaxation and interior point
method based algorithms. Since, the models are linear and This work attempts to propose and simulate models for the
less sensitive to initial values as compared to non-linear HEE system with various possible feed flow configurations
equations, the convergence rate is expected to be very high (backward feed, forward feed and mixed feed) and process
and solutions more stable. configurations of steam split, feed split and feed preheating.
The solution of mathematical models for backward feed In all, fifteen models have been developed and mathemati-
configuration with different operations is illustrated in cally represented through equations that are simpler, linearly
Table 3. It is observed that the maximum energy efficiency independent and enable easy representation in matrix form.
is obtained when it is operated with incorporation of the The developed mathematical models have been solved with
three arrangements of steam-split, liquor feed-split and different numerical techniquesGauss-Jordan/elimination,
feed preheating configuration (Model-M). It is interesting Jacobi, GaussSeidel, successive over-relaxation and Inte-
to note that though the steam-split operation improves the rior point method based algorithms that displayed good
SE, the feed-split operation does the reverse. efficiency in solving such models with high convergence
In the case of forward feed configuration, the maximum rate. Although, GaussSeidel, Jacobi, successive over-re-
energy efficiency is found when it is operated with only laxation methods showed dependence on the choice of the
123
Table 3 Solution of mathematical models of backward feed flow configuration for HEE system
P8
Model type (backward feed) Used methodology V1 (or) SC Liquor vapor (kg/h) i2
Vi
(kg/h) SE V1
V4 V5 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8
Base case backward feed (Model- Gauss Jordan and elimination 9245.98 8498.99 7723.07 6704.85 5805.81 5202.41 4953.77 5030.33 4.75
A) Jacobi iterative 9796.91 8797.53 8054.89 6926.18 6128.29 5356.17 4224.04 3319.25 4.36
GaussSeidel iterative 9796.91 8797.53 8050.90 6923.65 6125.97 5355.81 4224.35 4441.01 4.48
Successive over-relaxation 9756.29 8757.04 8060.13 6907.76 6150.58 5326.88 4049.31 4741.06 4.50
Interior point method 9245.98 8498.99 7723.07 6704.85 5805.81 5202.41 4953.77 5030.33 4.75
Backward feed coupled with steam Gauss Jordan and elimination 9156.32 4209.05 4447.1 8029.94 7638.99 7069.27 6288.82 6236.08 4.79
split, steam fraction Y = 0.5 Jacobi iterative 9129.76 4841.02 4462.42 8033.28 7647.83 7085.87 6299.16 6239.86 4.88
(Model-D)
Backward feed coupled with feed Gauss Jordan and elimination 9850.85 9060.98 8578.53 7548.37 6492.68 5526.65 3598.66 3113.39 4.45
split, feed fraction K = 0.9 Jacobi iterative 9783.89 9083.55 8525.14 7768.67 6672.39 5135.63 5996.20 1419.26 4.56
(Model-G)
Interior point method 10,074.4 9264.53 8772.14 7724.16 6649.74 5666.38 5476.36 365.94 4.36
Backward feed coupled with steam Gauss Jordan and elimination 9476.56 4352.06 4598.27 8307.66 7910.10 7371.61 5659.14 5720.42 4.63
and feed split, steam and feed Jacobi iterative 9471.95 3435.38 4592.38 8399.27 7938.86 7373.86 5638.97 5609.26 4.56
fraction Y = 0.5 and K = 0.9
respectively (Model-J) GaussSeidel iterative 9471.95 4738.17 4204.21 8399.18 7940.14 7374.40 5638.97 5624.19 4.64
Backward feed coupled with steam- Gauss Jordan and elimination 9113.27 4189.82 4426.77 7986.00 7598.24 7074.03 6621.26 6023.13 4.82
, feed-split and pre-heater, (steam Jacobi iterative 9136.06 6648.91 4431.12 7988.18 7523.58 6952.53 6598.53 6169.26 5.07
and feed fraction Y = 0.5 and
K = 0.9 respectively) (Model-M) GaussSeidel iterative 9136.06 5438.49 3192.63 7987.96 7523.15 6951.46 6598.53 6227.04 4.81
123
123
Table 4 Solution of mathematical models of forward feed flow configuration for HEE system
P8
Model type (forward feed) Used methodology V1 (or) SC Liquor vapor (kg/h) i2
Vi
(kg/h) SE V1
V4 V5 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8
Base case forward feed (Model-B) Gauss Jordan and elimination 10,329.74 3902.94 4345.94 5708.27 6819.85 7460.49 7796.60 7885.17 4.25
Jacobi iterative 10,529.50 4051.81 4627.69 5884.42 6856.73 7461.44 7913.31 7119.26 4.17
GaussSeidel iterative 10,529.50 4051.81 4627.69 5884.42 6856.73 7461.44 7913.31 7123.86 4.17
Successive over-relaxation 10,635.40 4062.17 4653.23 5861.31 6828.08 7453.73 7935.97 6949.73 4.11
Forward feed coupled with steam Gauss Jordan and elimination 11,498.79 143.69 5111.21 5831.55 7022.14 8119.98 8683.75 9006.93 3.82
split (steam fraction Y = 0.5) Jacobi iterative 11,512.50 2047.76 5172.35 5809.00 7003.38 8034.24 8645.58 9069.26 3.98
(Model-E)
Successive over-relaxation 11,515.00 3808.02 797.19 5771.33 6975.09 7999.24 8628.20 10,128.22 3.83
Forward feed coupled with feed Gauss Jordan and elimination 9402.62 8104.19 7132.22 6318.46 5620.73 5488.65 5523.52 5731.49 4.67
split (feed fraction K = 0.9) Jacobi iterative 9281.41 7955.96 7110.89 6294.58 5530.70 5465.25 5492.76 6119.26 4.73
(Model-H)
Forward feed coupled with steam Gauss Jordan and elimination 9784.65 4182.42 4107.95 7585.29 6863.08 6860.42 7043.71 7276.39 4.49
and feed split (steam and feed Jacobi iterative 9682.59 4264.24 4096.37 7603.14 6643.78 6789.54 7004.58 7314.25 4.51
fraction Y = 0.5 and K = 0.9
respectively) (Model-K) GaussSeidel iterative 9689.24 4327.68 4128.04 7598.54 6751.29 6848.24 7084.14 7259.49 4.54
Forward feed coupled with feed-, Gauss Jordan and elimination 10,515.46 8096.01 7036.40 6276.47 5641.29 5525.80 5567.15 5776.16 4.18
split (feed fraction K = 0.9) and Jacobi iterative 10,404.84 7839.22 6954.49 6437.96 5715.53 5459.19 5297.41 6019.26 4.20
pre-heater (Model-N)
Successive over-relaxation 10,385.80 7807.06 6985.38 6485.56 5698.64 5431.03 5256.89 6405.64 4.24
Table 5 Solution of mathematical models of mixed feed flow configuration for HEE system
P8
Model type (mixed feed) Used methodology V1 (or) SC Liquor vapor (kg/h) i2
Vi
SE V1
(kg/h)
V4 V5 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8
Base case mixed feed (Model-C) Gauss Jordan and elimination 9531.57 8758.70 7963.98 6870.89 5780.76 5124.91 4599.81 4820.20 4.60
Jacobi iterative 9796.91 8797.53 8110.59 7116.83 5650.56 5547.06 4776.05 3919.26 4.48
Mixed feed coupled with steam split, steam Gauss Jordan and elimination 9496.57 4360.99 4607.71 8331.42 7931.20 6594.67 5591.29 6501.96 4.62
fraction Y = 0.5 (Model-F) Jacobi iterative 9359.99 3435.38 4687.97 8400.74 7850.33 6603.96 5669.76 6469.26 4.60
Mixed feed coupled with feed split, feed Gauss Jordan and elimination 9133.26 8438.99 7986.91 7011.23 5185.11 5047.52 5113.65 5135.84 4.81
fraction K = 0.9 (Model-I) Jacobi iterative 9200.25 8347.62 7976.09 6915.00 5906.83 5099.30 5069.79 5319.26 4.85
Mixed feed coupled with steam and feed Gauss Jordan and elimination 9935.51 4545.66 4616.66 8658.34 6569.41 6515.39 6486.73 6527.07 4.42
split, steam and feed fraction Y = 0.5 Jacobi iterative 9945.12 2481.05 4603.74 8648.01 6564.00 6528.75 6479.71 6539.26 4.21
and K = 0.9 respectively (Model-L)
Mixed feed coupled with steam-, feed-split Gauss Jordan and elimination 9509.22 4474.16 4539.89 9127.74 6715.22 6688.65 6257.87 6115.73 4.61
and pre-heater, (steam and feed fraction Jacobi iterative 9565.60 6148.71 4536.06 9167.27 6736.20 6730.18 6324.50 5959.26 4.77
Y = 0.5 and K = 0.9 respectively)
(Model-O) GaussSeidel iterative 9565.60 2615.02 6421.04 9166.52 6736.20 6730.18 6324.50 5925.80 4.60
123
initial process condition assumptions with marginally dif- References

fering results, the interior point method and Gauss Jordan/
elimination methods are insensitive and gave similar Ali M, Siarry P, Pant M (2012) An efficient differential evolution
based algorithm for solving multi-objective optimization prob-
results. The simulated results of the important process
lems. Eur J Oper Res 217(2):404416
design configurations are compared amongst them for the Bhargava R, Khanam S, Mohanty B, Ray AK (2008) Simulation of
most relevant factors that dictate energy optimization, flat falling film evaporator system for concentration of black
namely, steam economy and steam consumption. Finally, it liquor. Comput Chem Eng 32(12):32133223
Gacem A, Benattous D (2014) Hybrid genetic algorithm and particle
is concluded that the use of backward feed flow configu-
swarm for optimal power flow with non-smooth fuel cost
ration with steam split, liquor feed split and feed preheating functions. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 18
arrangements, is the best possible configuration among all Garg H, Sharma SP, Rani M (2012) Cost minimization of washing
the proposed models that promises the best steam and unit in a paper mill using artificial bee colony technique. Int J
Syst Assur Eng Manag 3(4):371381
energy efficiency.
Higa M, Freitas AJ, Bannwart AC, Zemp RJ (2009) Thermal
integration of multiple effect evaporator in sugar plant. Appl
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Director of Therm Eng 29(2):515522
Star paper Mill, Saharanpur, India for permissions to visit the mill Holland CD (1975) Fundamentals and modelling of separation
time to time and collect the real-time plant data. The authors processes. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs
would like to acknowledge Prof. A. K. Ray (Department of Poly- Kaya D, Sarac HI (2007) Mathematical modeling of multiple-effect
mer and Process Engineering) and Dr. Millie Pant (Department of evaporators and energy economy. Energy 32(8):15361542
Applied Science and Engineering) from IIT Roorkee for some of Kern DQ (1950) Process heat transfer. Tata McGraw-Hill Education,
their useful suggestions and discussions related to the problem New York
solution. Khademi MH, Rahimpour MR, Jahanmiri A (2009) Simulation and
optimization of a six-effect evaporator in a desalination process.
Compliance with ethical standards Chem Eng Process 48(1):339347
Khanam S, Mohanty B (2010) Energy reduction schemes for multiple
Conflict of interest None. effect evaporator systems. Appl Energy 87(4):11021111
Kumar D, Kumar V, Singh VP (2013) Modeling and dynamic
simulation of mixed feed multi-effect evaporators in paper
industry. Appl Math Model 37(12):384397
Appendix: Pseudo code to estimate SE and SC Lambert RN, Joye DD, Koko FW (1987) Design calculations for
multiple-effect evaporators. 1. Linear method. Ind Eng Chem
Res 26(1):100104
Miranda V, Simpson R (2005) Modelling and simulation of an
industrial multiple effect evaporator: tomato concentrate. J Food
Eng 66(2):203210
Narmine AH, Marwan MA (1997) Dynamic response of multi-effect
evaporators. Desalination 114(2):189196
Nishitani H, Kunugita E (1979) The optimal flow-pattern of multiple
effect evaporator systems. Comput Chem Eng 3(1):261268
Rao NJ, Kumar R (1985) Energy conservation approaches in a paper
mill with special reference to the evaporator plant. In: Proceed-
ings of the IPPTA international seminar on energy conservation
in pulp and paper industry, New Delhi, India, pp 5870
Ruan Q, Jiang H, Nian M, Yan Z (2015) Mathematical modeling and
simulation of countercurrent multiple effect evaporation for fruit
juice concentration. J Food Eng 146:243251
Sagharichiha M, Jafarian A, Asgari M, Kouhikamali R (2014)
Simulation of a forward feed multiple effect desalination plant
with vertical tube evaporators. Chem Eng Process 75:110118
Verma OP, Toufiq HM, Mangal S, Manik G (2016) Mathematical
modeling of multistage evaporator system in Kraft recovery
process. In: Proceedings of fifth international conference on soft
computing for problem solving. Springer, India
Zain OS, Kumar S (1996) Simulation of a multiple effect evaporator
for concentrating caustic soda solution-computational aspects.
J Chem Eng Jpn 29(5):889893
123

Optimization of Steam Economy and Consumption of Heptad's PDF

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

Optimization of Steam Economy and Consumption of Heptad's PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag

Optimization of steam economy and consumption of heptads

Received: 8 February 2016 / Revised: 31 March 2016

1 Introduction reported nonlinear models have certain stability and

Fig. 1 Fitted latent heat of

Fig. 2 Fitted enthalpy of vapor,

Fig. 3 Fitted enthalpy of

Table 1 Description of proposed configurations and models

Fig. 4 Backward feed coupled

Fig. 5 Forward feed coupled

Table 2 Operating parameters

3 Model simulations liquor feed-split configuration (Model-H) as illustrated in

initial process condition assumptions with marginally dif- References

Você também pode gostar