See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311206128

Mass and Energy Balance Modelling of a Sugar Mill. A comparison of

MATLAB® and SUGARS™ simulations.

Conference Paper · February 2015

CITATION READS

1 2,360

2 authors, including:

Maciej Starzak
Sugar Milling Research Institute, Durban, South Africa
52 PUBLICATIONS   333 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Biorefinery Techno-Economic Modelling View project

STEP-BIO View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maciej Starzak on 30 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Association Andrew van Hook
Reims

MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE AND THE PERFORMANCE

OF SUGAR FACTORIES AND REFINERIES

By courtesy of Omnicane Milling Operations Limited

Proceedings
22nd International Symposium
Mauritius – february 2015
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

Mass and Energy Balance Modelling of a Sugar Mill,

A comparison of MATLAB® and SUGARS™ simulations
STARZAK M1 AND DAVIS SB2
Sugar Milling Research Institute NPC, c/o University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 4041
1
email address: mstarzak@smri.org
2
email address: sdavis@smri.org

Abstract
The Sugar Milling Research Institute
NPC in Durban, South Africa, is
undertaking broad techno-economic
modelling of the sugarcane
biorefinery as a basis for selecting
products and processes with the
highest potential for successful
implementation. Although most of
the fundamental processing steps
involved in bio-refining are well
known, there is a need for a
methodology capable of evaluating
the integrated processes to identify
the optimal set of products and the
best route for producing them. The
approach adopted at SMRI is a case
study modelling of pre-selected
plant configurations involving mass
and energy balances of individual
units constituting the biorefinery. A
sugar-ethanol-cogeneration
biorefinery was chosen for the
starting scenario.
In the presented study we report on
a MATLAB® model of the sugar mill
only, putting special emphasis on
the method of boiling house
modelling. A flowchart illustration of
the Weiss model of massecuite
centrifuging along with a matrix
representation of the respective
mass and energy balances are
discussed in detail. The results of
MATLAB® simulations for the entire
mill have been compared with those
obtained for the same mill
configuration using SUGARS™
software.

INTRODUCTION
The Biorefinery Techno-Economic
Modelling (BRTEM) project
undertaken by the Sugar Milling
Research Institute NPC (SMRI) in
Durban intends to develop a generic
techno-economic model of potential
sugarcane biorefinery processes that
can be used as a basis for selecting
research projects with the highest
potential. The intention is to model
individual plant units separately and
42
integrate them into the Biorefinery
model. The first phase of the BRTEM
project involves a biorefinery
configuration consisting of a sugar
mill, an ethanol plant, and a
cogeneration plant (see Figure 1).
However, the presented paper
discusses the calculation
methodology and shows selected
simulation results for the sugar mill
only. The sugar mill is in a sense
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
already a biorefinery, which
produces sugar and molasses as key
commercial products. In addition, it
also generates bagasse which is
almost entirely sent to sugar mill
boilers as a fuel. The true concept of
the biorefinery extends a sugar mill
into a sugarcane processing plant in
which a broad spectrum of value-
added chemicals and fuels can be
produced in order to provide
additional revenue and profits, and
hence ensure survival of the sugar
industry in an increasingly
competitive market environment
(Rein, 2007).
There are several commercially
available process simulators that in
principle can be used to model a
sugarcane biorefinery. The SUGARS™
program often used by sugar
METHODOLOGY
Degree of freedom analysis
The mathematical model of the
sugar mill presented includes
steady-state mass and energy
balances of the individual process
units constituting the plant. These
balances are expressed in terms of
interconnecting process and utility
stream variables such as species
flow rates (or stream compositions)
and stream temperatures and
pressures. For a n-component
system we can write n independent
material balances and one
independent energy balance. Then a
certain number of additional process
specifications, called subsidiary
relationships, must be imposed on
43
technologists is suitable for sugar
mill steady-state simulations (Stolz &
Weiss, 1997) and has recently been
extended to simple ethanol plant
modelling as well (Weiss, 2013).
Although simulation packages such
as Chemcad or particularly ASPEN®
are of general purpose, modelling of
sugar streams with these programs
can be a challenge due to a very
specific physical property database
required. They are also quite
expensive. Considering the above,
the low-level programming MATLAB®
language was used in this study as a
computational tool. Although
programmatically much more
intensive, this choice gave us more
flexibility in terms of modelling
thermophysical and thermodynamic
properties of the media
characterising sugar mill processes.
the system in order to obtain a
unique mathematical solution to the
mass and energy balance problem.
Typically, the number of the plant
variables is much higher than the
number of mass/energy balance
equations available. This creates
room for technological and design
decisions that need to be taken in
order to solve the modelling
problem uniquely. These are known
commonly as degrees of freedom.
The degree of freedom (DOF) index
is defined as the difference between
the number of independent stream
variables and the sum of the number
of independent balance equations,
the number of stream specifications
and the number of subsidiary
relations. The plant model is
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

correctly specified, or in other words model validation based on the key

it can be solved uniquely in terms of industrial plant performance indices
stream flow rates/compositions and is beyond the scope of this paper.
enthalpies/temperatures, if the plant
Important mathematical properties of
degree of freedom index is zero.
process governing equations
Usually, degrees of freedom are
Steady-state mass balances are
eliminated by specifying directly
linear in species flow rates and can
plant input streams (e.g. cane
be solved easily using elementary
throughput and composition, steam
methods of linear algebra provided
temperature/pressure) as well as
the constraints imposed on the plant
imposing additional requirements on
operation are linear as well.
the plant output streams (e.g. syrup
Unfortunately, this is rarely the case
brix, remelt temperature, C-sugar
and iterative calculation is often
moisture). Very often, the degree of
required, which brings up the issue
freedom index can be reduced by
of poor computational convergence.
introducing pre-specified separation
Therefore, the more complex the
coefficients for units such as
plant configuration (e.g. with
diffusers, filters or clarifiers, and
numerous recycle streams), the
reactant conversions for reactors.
more advanced and refined
This is allowed provided the
numerical algorithms need to be
assumed degree of separation/
implemented in order to overcome
conversion is theoretically justified.
instability problems.
For a number of units, especially
separation systems such as Most of the process units
evaporators, crystallisers, etc. the constituting a chemical plant can be
degree of separation is subjected to classified as mixers, splitters
rigorous thermodynamic limits that (distributors and separators) or
cannot be exceeded. reactors. Mass and energy balance
equations written for mixers,
In its current version the entire
distributors and reactors are linear
sugar mill model involves 149
in species mass flow rates Fi and
different process and utility streams.
They are completely described in enthalpy flow rates H, respectively,
terms of pressure, temperature, flow as shown in Table 1. Mass balances
rate, composition and enthalpy. All of separators become nonlinear if
the numerical input data (referring separation coefficients  ik are
to operating conditions, design composition and temperature
decisions, unit performance dependent (e.g. for evaporators,
parameters, etc.) presented in this flash drums, crystallisers). For
paper have been assumed arbitrarily equilibrium processes these
and are used only for the purpose of coefficients are determined by
illustration and comparison with the system thermo-dynamics, the
SUGARS™ simulations. The true temperature and composition

44
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

dependence of which is often highly - continuation methods (highly

nonlinear. There are three basic nonlinear systems).
sources of nonlinearities in the
sugar mill model: Although the Newton-Raphson and
more advanced methods can
- vapour-liquid equilibrium
significantly improve the rate of
(boiling point rise) in the
convergence, they become
water-sucrose-impurities
extremely memory-expensive and
system
time-consuming for large scale
- the effect of temperature and
systems. This is because a major
impurities on sucrose
part of the calculation involves the
solubility in water (liquid-solid
evaluation of the system jacobian, a
equilibrium)
huge, often sparse, matrix of first
- thermodynamic properties of
derivatives that may contain
steam and thermophysical
hundreds of thousands of elements.
properties of sugar solutions
In order to ensure numerical
Numerical solution strategies stability, these methods also require
Nonlinear chemical plant models good initial estimates of the solution
involving several (typically hundreds) which may be difficult to obtain. It is
independent process variables can therefore advisable to analyse the
be solved only by iterative system structure more closely and, if
calculation. Numerous possible, to decompose it into
computational methods have been smaller subsystems with no or weak
developed to tackle the problem of feedback interactions. Detaching
numerical stability and ensure rapid mass balances from energy balances
convergence of calculations. In by pre-assuming and iterating
general, the following temperatures is another option
recommendations apply (Buzzi- worth consideration. As a result,
Ferraris & Manca, 2006): individual reduced-size subsystems
can be treated separately and a
- the method of successive suitable combination of the methods
substitutions (MSS), (weak mentioned above can be applied
nonlinearities) depending on the degree of
- improved MSS known as the complexity.
Wegstein method (moderate
nonlinearities, esp. for The nonlinearities present in the
systems with recycles) sugar-mill model are relatively mild
- the Newton-Raphson method allowing for the application of the
(NR), (strong nonlinearities) method of successive substitutions.
- Broyden’s method (a Moreover, the sugar-mill
computationally cost-effective configuration can be easily
variant of NR) decomposed. As a result, the natural
order of calculation can be

45
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

preserved starting from the shown in Figure 2. There is also a

extraction plant, then going through number of smaller iteration loops
the clarification, evaporation and within individual plants that can be
crystallisation plants, to finally end executed successively. The
up with the utilities block (boilers evaporation and crystallisation
and cooling tower). The latter plants
completes the main iteration loop as
are computationally the most intense.

SELECTED ASPECTS OF SUGAR MILL MODELLING

first of these tables gives a list of
Boiling house modelling – an
154 independent variables involved
illustrative example
in mass balance equations and
As limited space does not allow for a
process constraints, while the
complete description of the sugar
second one specifies 154 equations
mill model in terms of the governing
that can uniquely be solved for these
equations, for the purposes of
variables. As demonstrated earlier,
illustration it was decided that only
all material balances are
selected aspects of the boiling
temperature independent and linear
house modelling would be
in flow rates. However, the
presented. The assumed
remaining equations constituting the
crystallisation plant model
model may exhibit different
implements a three-boiling partial
behaviour. It is thus important to
remelt scheme for the boiling house
check some of the typical subsidiary
(see Figure 3). The results of the
equations (process constraints) used
DOF analysis for the boiling house
in the boiling house modelling for
are shown in Tables 2 and 3. The
their algebraic properties.

Example 1: Specified water mass By definition, the mass fraction of

fraction in magma (mingler exit water in magma in terms of flow rate
condition) variables is given by:
MAG
Fwat
MAG
wwat  MAG
Fwat  Fsuc
MAG
 Fnsuc
MAG
 Fcry
MAG

Then a straightforward rearrangement leads to a linear expression in flow rates:

(1  wwat
MAG MAG
) Fwat  wwat
MAG MAG
( Fsuc  Fnsuc
MAG
 Fcry
MAG
)0

Example 2: Specified purity of C- Similarly, the percent purity of a C-

massecuite (C-crystalliser exit massecuite stream leaving the
condition) crystalliser is defined as:

46
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
MASC
Fsuc  Fcry
MASC

Q MASC
 100 MASC
Fsuc  Fnsuc
MASC
 Fcry
MASC

Hence, given the stream purity, a linear expression in flow rates results again:

Q MASC Q MASC MASC

(1  MASC
)( Fsuc  Fcry
MASC
) Fnsuc  0
100 100

Example 3: Specified concept. Defined in terms of the

supersaturation of A-massecuite (A- pure sucrose solubility and the so-
pan exit condition) called saturation coefficient, it can
be expressed through the following
The supersaturation of impure sugar
sequence of relationships:
solutions is a more complicated
PANA
SWimpure
SS PANA
 PANA
( SWimpure ) sat

PANA
Fsuc
where PANA
SWimpure  PANA
,
Fwat

S * (t PANA )
PANA
( SWimpure ) sat  SC  ( SWpure
PANA
) sat  SC  ,
100  S * (t PANA )

SC  a  NSW  b  (1  b) exp(c  NSW ) , saturation coefficient,

PANA
Fnsuc
NSW  PANA
, non-sucrose to water ratio,
Fwat

for cane juice: a  0.04, b  0.71, c  2.10 (Vavrinecz, 1965),

while the solubility of pure sucrose in water is a function of temperature

(Vavrinecz, 1962):

S * (t )  64.447  0.08222 t  1.6169 103 t 2  1.558 106 t 3  4.63108 t 4

After combining all these equations, one can arrive at a nonlinear relationship
of the form:

 PANA Fwat
PANA
 Fsuc
PANA
  PANA Fnsuc
PANA
0

where coefficients  PANA and  PANA depend on flow rates and temperature as
follows:

47
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

S * (t PANA )
 PANA  SS PANA a
100  S * (t PANA )
S * (t PANA )   Fnsuc
PANA

 PANA  SS PANA  b  (1  b ) exp   c PANA  
100  S * (t PANA )   Fwat  

The above examples of subsidiary corresponding wash water

relations show that the boiling streams in the process of
house model is generally nonlinear crystals washing
and its solution requires iterative
- the supersaturation SS is
calculations. This is mainly due to calculated for both MOL and
the complex dependence of sucrose SUG streams using the process
solubility in impure sugar solutions temperature and stream
on temperature and composition, conditions after the washing
which determines the performance
of pans, crystallisers, centrifuges - if the given stream (MOL or
and minglers. SUG) is undersaturated (SS<1),
crystal melting is considered;
Weiss’ model of a two-output the rate of crystal melting is
centrifuge determined by the
Particularly interesting is the requirement that the output
stream is to be saturated;
nonlinear two-output model of sugar
however, if the available
centrifuging originally implemented amount of crystals in the
by Warren Weiss in the SUGARSTM stream is insufficient to reach
program (Weiss, 2013). Basic the state of saturation, all the
concepts of this model have been crystals will be melted; then
illustrated in Figure 4. The the rate of crystal melting is
underlying model assumptions can identical to the crystal flow
rate;
be summarised as follows:

- crystals and mother liquor of - if the stream is

the massecuite stream (MAS) supersaturated (SS>1), no
crystal growth is allowed.
are split in two different pre-
specified ratios, Z and Pl, The following set of centrifuge
respectively, resulting in two performance indices has been
parallel non-interacting defined and pre-specified in order to
streams: molasses (MOL) and determine the process streams
sugar (SUG) involved uniquely (all quantities on
mass basis):
- total wash water stream (WW)
is split between molasses and Z - crystal loss ratio = [sucrose
sugar in a pre-specified ratio crystals lost to molasses] to [sucrose
crystals in massecuite]
- MOL and SUG are mixed P - mother liquor purge ratio =
independently with the [mother liquor purged with

48
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

molasses] to [mother liquor in streams are two-phase flows (mother

massecuite]
R - ratio of total wash water to
massecuite
Pw - wash purge ratio = [wash
water purged with molasses] to
[total wash water used]
In practice, this set of four numbers
is determined during the process of
model validation against the plant
data. Material balances of the
centrifuge can then be formulated
using the above centrifuge
characteristics. Because centrifuge
liquor and sugar crystals), mass
balances must include exchange of
mass between the phases
represented in the model by the rate
of sugar crystal melting rmelt .
Eventually, the separated molasses
and sugar streams as well as
streams of washing water can be
expressed solely in terms of the
massecuite streams of individual
components as shown below (valid
for A, B and C massecuite input
streams).

Molasses streams

Wash water joining molasses stream WW

Fmol  ( Pw) RF MAS
Final water in molasses stream MOL
Fwat  ( Pl ) Fwat
MAS
 Fmol
WW

The flow of crystals in molasses stream Fcry

MOL
depends on the
molasses supersaturation SSMOL. If the molasses stream is undersaturated
(SSMOL<1) then the crystal melting process takes place to the point when
the state of saturation is reached, i.e.:

Crystals in molasses MOL

Fcry  max 0, Z Fcry
MAS
 ( Pl ) Fsuc
MAS
 ( SW MOL )impure
sat MOL
Fwat 
Crystal melting rate MOL
rmelt  Z Fcry
MAS
 Fcry
MOL

Note that the calculated Fcry

MOL
must be positive. Otherwise:

Crystals in molasses MOL

Fcry  Z Fcry
MAS

Crystal melting rate MOL

rmelt  0

Finally:

Sucrose in molasses MOL

Fsuc  ( Pl ) Fsuc
MAS
 rmelt
MOL

Non-sucrose in molasses MOL

Fnsuc  ( Pl ) Fnsuc
MAS

An analogous calculation procedure applies to the centrifuge sugar streams:

49
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

Sugar streams
WW
Fsug  (1  Pw) RF MAS
SUG
Fwat  (1  Pl ) Fwat
MAS
 Fsug
WW

if SSSUG < 1 then

SUG
Fcry  max 0, (1  Z ) Fcry
MAS
 (1  Pl ) Fsuc
MAS
 ( SW SUG )impure
sat SUG
Fwat 
SUG
rmelt  (1  Z ) Fcry
MAS
 Fcry
SUG

else
SUG
Fcry  (1  Z ) Fcry
MAS

SUG
rmelt  0
end
SUG
Fsuc  (1  Pl ) Fsuc
MAS
 rmelt
SUG

SUG
Fnsuc  (1  Pl ) Fnsuc
MAS

It thus becomes evident that the order to proceed with the

above schemes depend on the flow- calculation. This is the key feature of
dependent supersaturation SS which the centrifuge model which makes it
needs to be known in advance in nonlinear as well.

distribution. A three-boiling partial

MATLAB® vs SUGARSTM 
COMPARISON OF CALCULATION
RESULTS
The MATLAB® model of the sugar
mill discussed here is not a perfect
replica of the SUGARSTM model
developed simultaneously for the
purpose of double-checking and
comparison. In general, the
differences between the two models
are minor. In the MATLAB® model,
the diffuser is a single well-mixed
tank, while SUGARSTM uses a
compartmental unit represented by
a complex system of interacting
tanks. Similarly, the mud vacuum
filter is modelled by a single- rather
than two-compartment system. The
calculation was made assuming a
four-effect evaporation station given
a pre-assumed evaporation pressure
remelt scheme for the boiling house
was adopted. The same physical
properties have been used in both
models except for the boiling-point
elevation (BPE) formula. A more
recent empirical correlation by Saska
(2002) was introduced instead of
that of Kadlec et al. (1978) used in
SUGARSTM. The numerical simulation
was done for the sugar mill
operating at 250 tonnes of cane per
hour preserving the same arbitrarily
assumed input data for both models.
The calculation showed an excellent
agreement between MATLAB® and
SUGARSTM process variables. A
comparison of selected stream data
is presented in Table 4. The
observed small, insignificant
discrepancies (indicated by arrows)
are mainly due to different diffuser

50
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
models employed and different BPE
formulae used in both simulations.
The total computational time
required for a complete single
simulation of the sugar mill in
MATLAB® is comparable to that
required by the Sugars™ program.
FURTHER BRTEM
DEVELOPMENTS
The completion of the sugar mill
model was followed by the
development of steady-state mass
and energy balance models of the
ethanol plant and the cogeneration
plant. The ethanol plant comprises
fermentation, distillation and
ethanol dehydration processes. The
cogeneration plant has two mutually
interacting sections. The steam
generation system consists of a
high-pressure boiler and a highly
integrated heat recovery system. The
power generation system involves
two turbo-alternators. On the
condensing turbo-alternator side,
two intermediate-pressure pass-out
steams (low pressure [LP] and
medium pressure [MP]) are used for
heating duties in the boiler section
and, if needed, sent to other parts of
the biorefinery while exhaust-
pressure steam is used in the de-
aerator. The exhaust steam from the
back-pressure turbo-alternator
meets the demand of the sugar mill.
Exhaust, LP and MP steam
condensates are returned to the
plant. High-purity make-up water is
51
needed to compensate for boiler
blowdowns and vent losses.
Initially, individual plants were
modelled and simulated
independently. Then, in the second
phase of biorefinery modelling, all
three plant models were integrated
into a single model (Figure 5). The
model of utilities, originally
developed to service the sugar mill
only, was completely discarded. The
new high-pressure boiler has
become part of the cogeneration
plant while a new cooling tower is to
supply cooling water to the entire
biorefinery. Currently, the integrated
model is being validated using plant
data for typical operating conditions
encountered in the South African
sugar industry. In this process the
most sensitive model parameters
(e.g. separation coefficients of the
diffuser, running parameters of
distillation columns, etc.) are
regressed accordingly.
CONCLUSIONS
A MATLAB® model for a specific
configuration of a sugar mill was
developed. The achieved numerical
convergence and accuracy as well as
computational times are comparable
to those produced by commercial
SUGARS™ software. The model was
successfully incorporated into a
larger structure of a sugar-ethanol-
cogeneration biorefinery.
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
Buzzi-Ferraris, G. & Manca, D.
(2006). Large-scale algebraic
systems, in Computer Aided Process
and Product Engineering, pp. 15-34,
eds. Pulgianer, L. & Heyen, G., Wiley,
Weinheim.
Kadlec, P., Bretschneider, R., &
Dandar, A. (1978). Boiling point
elevation of sugar solutions,
Sucrerie Belge, 97, 369-377.
Rein, P.W. (2007). Prospects for the
conversion of a sugar mill into a
biorefinery. Proceedings of the
International Society of Sugarcane
Technologists, 26, 44-60.
Saska, M. (2002). Boiling point
elevation of technical sugarcane
solutions and its use in
automatic pan boiling, International
Sugar Journal, 104 (1247), 500-507.
Stolz, N. & Weiss, W. (1997).
Simulation of the Malelane and
52
Komati mills with SugarsTM
simulation software, Proceedings of
the South African Sugar
Technologists' Association, 71, 184-
188.
Vavrinecz, G. (1962). Neue Tabelle
über die Löslichkeit reiner
Saccharose in Wasser, Zeitschrift für
Zuckerindustrie, 12, 481–487.
Vavrinecz, G. (1965). Bildung und
Zusammensetzung der
Rübenmolasse – I. Die Gleichung der
Löslichkeit, Zeitschrift für
Zuckerindustrie, 15, 70-74 (1965).
Weiss, W. (2013). Sugars™ for
Windows® 3.9.20 computer
program. User’s guide, Sugars
International LLC, Denver, Colorado.
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1. General flowchart of the benchmark sugar-ethanol-cogeneration plant

53
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2. The order of calculation used in the method of successive substitutions as implemented in the sugar mill modelling

54
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 3. Typical South African boiling-house configuration with a three-boiling partial remelt scheme

55
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 4. Weiss’ conceptual model of a two-output centrifuge

56
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 5. Integrated biorefinery model

57
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
__________________________________________________________________________________

Table 1. Mass and energy balances for typical process units

i = 1,2, …, n (species); k = 1,2, …, s (streams).

Fk
i
in ( k )
 Fi out  0
Mixer
Hk
in ( k )
 H out  0

Fi out ( k )   k Fi in  0 , 
k
k 1
Distributor
H
k
out ( k )
H 0in

Fi out ( k )  ik ( xk , Tk ) Fi in  0
Separator
H
k
out ( k )
 H in  0

  Mi 
Fi in   i X A  FAin  Fi out  0
Reactor  ( A ) M A 
H in  H out

58
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
__________________________________________________________________________________

Table 2. List of independent variables involved in mass balance equations of the boiling house

SYRA, SYRB, SYRC, SYRM (syrup after splitting) 4×3 = 12

PANA, PANB, PANC (massecuite from pans A, B, C) 3×4 = 12

VA, VB, VC (vapour from pans A, B, C) 3

RPA, RPB, RPC (crystallisation rate in pans A, B, C) 3

MASA, MASB, MASC (massecuite from crystallisers A, B, C) 3×4 = 12

RCA, RCB, RCC (crystallisation rate in crystallisers A, B, C) 3

MOLA, MOLB, MOLC (molasses from centrifuges A, B, C) 3×4 = 12

SUGA, SUGB, SUGC (sugar from centrifuges A, B, C) 3×4 = 12

MOAB, MOAC, MOAF (A-molasses after splitting) 3×4 = 12

MOBC, MOBF (B-molasses after splitting) 2×4 = 8

MOC, MOCF (C-molasses after splitting) 2×4 = 8

MAG (magma from mingler) 4

RRM (crystal melting rate in mingler) 1

MAGA, MAGB, MAGC (magma after splitting) 3×4 = 12

WWAmol, WWBmol, WWCmol (wash water to A-, B-, C-molasses streams) 3

WWAsug, WWBsug, WWCsug (wash water to A-, B-, C-sugar streams) 3

rMOLA, rMOLB, rMOLC (crystal melting rate in A-, B-, C-molasses streams) 3

rSUGA, rSUGB, rSUGC (crystal melting rate in A-, B-, C-sugar streams) 3

SUBM, SUBR, SUB (B-sugar after splitting) 3×4 = 12

SUCM, SUCR (C-sugar after splitting) 2×4 = 8

REMC (remelt from remelter) 4

CER (hot water to remelter) 1

SER (steam to remelter) 1

αMOAC (A-molasses distribution coefficient to pan C) 1

αSUBR (B-sugar distribution coefficient to remelter) 1

TOTAL number of independent variables 154

59
AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
__________________________________________________________________________________

Table 3. List of governing equations for the boiling house mass balancing
Syrup distributor mass balances: 3
“A” pan mass balances: 4
“A” crystalliser mass balances: 4
“A” centrifuge mass balances: 12
A-molasses distributor mass balances: 4
“B” pan mass balances: 4
“B” crystalliser mass balances: 4
“B” centrifuge mass balances: 12
B-molasses distributor mass balances: 4
B-sugar distributor mass balances: 4
“C” pan mass balances: 4
“C” crystalliser mass balances: 4
“C” centrifuge mass balances: 12
C-molasses distributor mass balances: 4
C-sugar distributor mass balances: 4
Remelter mass balances: 4
Mingler mass balances: 4
Magma distributor mass balances: 4
Syrup distribution conditions: 8
“A” pan exit conditions:
supersaturation 1
dry substance 1
“B” pan exit conditions:
supersaturation 1
dry substance 1
“C” pan exit conditions:
supersaturation 1
dry substance 1
“A” crystalliser exit condition:
supersaturation 1
“B” crystalliser exit condition:
supersaturation 1
“C” crystalliser exit condition:
supersaturation 1
purity 1
A-molasses distribution: 8
B-molasses distribution: 4
B-sugar distribution: 8
C-molasses distribution: 4
C-sugar distribution: 4
Mingler exit condition:
saturation 1
water content in magma 1
Magma distribution: 8
B-sugar distribution condition: 1
Remelter exit conditions:
remelt brix 1
remelt temperature 1
________________________________________________

60
 AVH Association – 22nd Symposium – Mauritius, February 2015
__________________________________________________________________________________

Table 4. Comparison of MATLABTM and SUGARSTM simulation results (shaded areas

indicate pre-specified process conditions)

61

View publication stats