Journal of Food Engineering 47 (2001) 247±253

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Simulation of an agitated thin ®lm evaporator for concentrating

orange juice using AspenPlusTM
Nongluk Chawankul a, Supaporn Chuaprasert a, Peter Douglas b,*, Wilai Luewisutthichat a
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, King Mongkut's University of Technology, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont. N2L 3G1, Canada
Received 7 January 2000; accepted 24 July 2000

Abstract
The focus of this research is on the concentration of orange juice in agitated thin ®lm evaporators (ATFE). The AspenPlusä
simulation program was used to develop a model of the ATFE. A rigorous heat exchanger model, Heatx followed by the rigorous 2-
phase ¯ash model, Flash2, was used to simulate the dominant e€ects of the ATFE. The thermo-physical properties of orange juice
are not available in the AspenPlusä databank. They were, therefore, determined experimentally and modelled as functions of
temperature and solid content. Heat transfer coecients were predicted using correlations and measured from process measure-
ments. Experimental and simulation results are presented. The AspenPlusä simulation model using experimentally determined
thermo-physical properties of orange juice compares well with the experimental data from the ATFE pilot plant. Process mea-
surements were reconciled using the optimisation features of AspenPlusTM . Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Simulation; AspenPlus; Agitated thin ®lm evaporator; Orange juice

1. Introduction One, a lab scale system used by Chuaprasert et al. (1999)

Simulation is used as a tool to analyse plant design
and operating conditions. Simulation packages such as
AspenPlusTM have built-in process models, thus o€ering
a convenient and time saving means of examining an
entire chemical process, Aspen Technology (1993).
Most process simulation applications are found in the
chemical process industries and there are few applica-
tions in the food industry. Evaporators are widely used
in the food industry as concentrators and separators. In
particular, agitated thin ®lm evaporators (ATFE) which
have short residence times and relatively high heat
transfer coecients, are best used for concentrating
foods that are heat sensitive and cannot tolerate high
temperatures for more than a few seconds. Chuaprasert,
Douglas, & Nguyen (1999) used AspenPlusTM to simu-
late and perform data reconciliation of experimental
measurements of a lab scale ATFE for concentrating
sugar syrup. The focus of this paper is on the concen-
tration of tangerine orange juice in an ATFE. Experi-
ments were performed on two di€erent ATFE systems.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-519-888-4567 ext. 2913; fax: +1-
519-746-4979.
E-mail address: pdouglas@cape.uwaterloo.ca (P. Douglas).
0260-8774/00/$ - see front matter Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 0 - 8 7 7 4 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 2 2 - 9
and the other, a pilot plant scale capable of handling
larger ¯ow rates. A generalised heat transfer coecient
model was developed and applied to all the data. The
process was simulated using the AspenPlusTM simula-
tion model developed by Chuaprasert et al. (1999). The
model consisted of a rigorous heat exchange model
(Heatx) followed by a rigorous 2-phase ¯ash (Flash2).
The heat exchanger model was used to simulate the
evaporator and required the heat transfer area, A, and
the overall heat transfer coecient, U. The output
stream from the heat exchanger, a 2-phase stream con-
sisting of concentrated orange juice and water vapour,
was fed to the 2-phase ¯ash unit operating at the same
pressure. The ¯ash unit then separated the water vapour
from the concentrated orange juice liquid.
2. ATFE
A schematic diagram of the ATFE systems in the
Department of Chemical Engineering at King Mong-
kut's University of Technology, Thonburi, KMUTT, is
shown in Fig. 1. Both the lab scale system and the pilot
plant system have the same con®guration, the only dif-
ference being that the pilot plant system can handle
248 N. Chawankul et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 47 (2001) 247±253

Nomenclature Ps pressure of steam (kPa)

2
Pr Prandtl number
A overall heat transfer area (m ) Re Reynold number
B concentration (Brix) S total solid content (% w/v)
Cp speci®c heat capacity (kJ/kg °C) T temperature (°C)
D diameter of cylinder (m) Tf feed temperature (°C)
De equivalent diameter (m) Tp temperature of orange juice product (°C)
Fr Froude number Tv temperature of vapour (°C)
Ff ¯ow rate of feed stream (kg/h) Tsteam steam temperature
Fp ¯ow rate of product stream (kg/h) Tw wall temperature (°C)
Fs ¯ow rate of steam (kg/h) U overall heat transfer coecient (kw/m2 °C)
Fv ¯ow rate of vapour stream (kg/h) V vapour ¯ow rate (kg/h)
g gravity (m/s2 ) Xf mass concentration of orange juice in feed stream
hp heat transfer coecient of liquid steam (kw/m2 °C) (% wet basis)
hs heat transfer coecient of steam (kw/m2 °C) Xp mass concentration of orange juice in product stream
k thermal conductivity (w/m °C) (% wet basis)
kw thermal conductivity of wall (kw/m °C) rw wall thickness (m)
K condensation number k latent heat of evaporation (kJ/kg)
mavg average mass ¯ow rate (kg/s) q density (kg/m3 )
N speed of agitator (rpm) g viscosity (cP)
Nu Nusselt number

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of ATFE systems.

much higher ¯ow rates. The speci®cations of the evap-
orator are the same in each case and are as follows:
Material stainless steel (0.0034 m)
Height 4.5 m
Diameter 0.108 m
Heat transfer 0.251 m2
area
Agitator blades 4 Luwa ®xed clearance (smooth or meshed)
The dual system was used to test the model on two
di€erent-sized systems as a test for generality. The
ATFE systems were operated under vacuum conditions
to reduce the boiling point of the orange juice. The dilute
orange juice feed solution was pumped from the Feed
Tank; the ¯ow rate was controlled by adjusting valve V1.
The solution ¯ows through a ¯owmeter and enters the
ATFE and is distributed over the inner circumference of
the heated ATFE cylinder. A thin liquid ®lm is formed
by the rotating wipers and the liquid ¯ows downwards
under gravity. The liquid is concentrated by steam that
enters the outer shell of evaporator. The concentrated
liquid ¯ows into tank R1 and leaves the system via valve
V5. The vapour formed during the process is condensed
in the Condenser and ¯ows to the tank R2 and leaves
the system via valve V7. A vacuum pump is used to
create a vacuum in the ATFE system, valve V6 is used to
control the vacuum pressure in the ATFE system.
3. AspenplusTM simulation of the ATFE process
An AspenPlusTM model of the ATFE process was
developed using a rigorous heat exchanger model, Heatx
followed by a rigorous 2-phase ¯ash model, Flash2 as
shown in Fig. 2, Chuaprasert et al. (1999). The feed to
the Heatx block represents the dilute orange juice±water
 N. Chawankul et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 47 (2001) 247±253 249

Fig. 2. AspenPlusTM simulation ¯owsheet of the evaporation process.

feed to the process. Steam enters the Heatx and leaves as These thermo-physical property equations were used
condensate. The product from the Heatx block is a 2- to determine the value of overall heat transfer coe-
phase mixture of water vapour and concentrated orange cient, U, using the models developed by Sae Tae (1999)
juice±water liquid; this stream does not exist in the real as follows:
process. The Flash2 model is used to separate the con- 0:0112 0:02
NuDe ˆ 0:00538 Re0:285
De …1 ‡ FrDe † Pr0:539 K 1:643 ; …6†
centrated orange juice from the water vapour. The
products from the Flash2 represent the two products where
from the real process. The pressure in the Flash2 unit " #0:25
was assumed to be the same as in the Heatx unit and m_ avg
gavg
De ˆ 5:492 ; …7†
adiabatic operation was assumed. Adiabatic operation is q2avg
B
a reasonable assumption since the feed to Flash2 is a 2-
phase mixture of water vapour and concentrated juice 8
m_ avg
and the purpose of the Flash2 is merely to separate the ReDe ˆ ; …8†
De
gavg
g
B
two phases.
N 2 D2
FrDe ˆ ; …9†
De
g
4. Physical property equations of orange juice
Cp;avg
gavg
g
The thermo-physical properties of tangerine orange Pr ˆ ; …10†
kavg
juice were developed as a function of temperature and
total dissolved solids over the temperature range of 32± L
Kˆ ; …11†
80°C and dissolved solids range 5±40% w/v by Boons- Cp;avg
‰Tw ÿ Tf;avg Š
riudomsuk (1999). The correlations are as follows:
% total dissolved solids; S ˆ 1:294B ‡ 3:2167; …1† Q_ evap
Tw ˆ Tsteam ÿ ; …12†
A
U0
2
density; q ˆ 1:001 ‡ 0:348S ÿ 0:002S ÿ 2:947
1
 10ÿ7 T 2 ; …2† U0 ˆ  ; …13†
1
hs
‡ rkww
viscosity; g ˆ 3:269 ÿ 2:4592S ‡ 17:0113S 2
hp
D e
ÿ 0:0673T ‡ 3:8  10ÿ4 T 2 ; …3† NuDe ˆ ; …14†
kavg
specific heat capacity; Cp 1 1 1 rw
ÿ5 2 ˆ ‡ ‡ : …15†
ˆ 3:8325 ÿ 5:423  10 T ‡ 0:01027 U hs hp k w
ÿ 3:0486S 2 ÿ 0:68486S; …4† Eqs. (6)±(15) were developed based on the ATFE pilot
plant data operating over the following range of oper-
thermal conductivity; k ˆ 0:54689 ÿ 6:886 ating conditions: feed ¯ow rate 60±120 kg/h, steam
 10ÿ6 T 2 ‡ 0:00206T pressure 1±2 bar and agitator speeds of 0±1000 rpm
and using a sugar-syrup solution, Sae Tae (1999). In
ÿ 0:15732S 2 ÿ 0:2776S: …5† our experiments we used tangerine orange juice and
250 N. Chawankul et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 47 (2001) 247±253
operated both the pilot plant and lab scale ATFE under
the following conditions:
· rotational speed of the agitator 200±800 rpm;
· concentration of feed 3±10 Brix;
· feed ¯ow rate:
 lab scale (batches 1±8) 13±21 kg/h,
 pilot scale (batches 9±13) 60±117 kg/h;
· absolute pressure of steam 1±2 bar.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Predicted heat transfer coecients
Eqs. (1)±(5) were used to determine the physical
properties of the orange juice and then the overall heat
transfer coecient, U, was predicted from Eqs. (6)±(15).
The predicted U-value was then used in the Aspen-
PlusTM Heatx model. Although we expect the general
form of the heat transfer coecient model, Eq. (6), to
remain the same for orange juice it is expected that the
coecients in Eq. (6) will be di€erent for orange juice. A
new model is currently under development.
Figs. 3±5 show the comparison between the predicted
and measured values of product ¯ow rate, vapour ¯ow
rate and product concentration, respectively. From Fig.
3, we can see that the simulation and experimental
product ¯ow rate results compare well. In batches 1±8
(lab scale evaporator), the agreement is very good,
Fig. 3. Product ¯ow rates using predicted heat transfer coecients.
Fig. 4. Condensate ¯ow rates using predicted heat transfer coecients.
Fig. 5. Product concentrations using predicted heat transfer coe-
cients.
however, in batches 9±13 (pilot plant evaporator), the
simulated product ¯ow rates are somewhat higher than
the experimental results. If one compares the di€erence
between experimental and simulated results on a per-
centage basis then the high ¯ow rate results are also in
very good agreement.
Fig. 4 shows the vapour ¯ow rate results. Again there
is good agreement in batches 1±8 (lab scale) and some
larger discrepancies in batches 9±13 where we ®nd that
the simulated vapour ¯ow rates are lower than the ex-
perimental vapour ¯ow rates. It is worthwhile to note
that all the experimental results were measured inde-
pendently and therefore may exhibit some mass balance
errors when compared with the feed ¯ow rate and the
liquid ¯ow rate.
Fig. 5 presents the experimental and simulated
product concentrations using heat transfer coecients
predicted using Eqs. (6)±(15). The results are in rea-
sonable agreement for batches 1, 8 and 11±13, however,
in batches 5, 6 and 7 we ®nd large discrepancies between
the simulation and experimental results where the pre-
dicted product concentrations are very high. These three
experiments were run at the lowest feed ¯ow rates (13±
16 kg/h); in this range we had diculty in maintaining
the ¯ow rates and small absolute errors in the ¯ow rates
will lead to large errors in concentration. In addition
because the ¯ow rate was so low the orange juice resi-
dence time in the ATFE was high and scalding of the
orange juice on the heat transfer surface of the ATFE
occurred. As a result the measured concentration of
orange juice in the liquid product was abnormally low; it
should have been much higher due to the high heat
transfer rates and large residence time.
5.2. Measured heat transfer coecients
The heat transfer coecient model, (Eqs. (6)±(15)),
was developed using the pilot plant ATFE only and with
sugar syrup. Discrepancies in the model when applied to
orange juice and di€erent sizes of evaporators may lead
to errors in the predicted U-values. Therefore the e€ec-
tive heat transfer coecient was measured by direct
measurement of process variables and using Eq. (16),
where the reference temperature was assumed to be Tp .
Ff Cp …Tp ÿ Tf † ‡ V k
Uˆ : …16†
ADTlm
The e€ective heat transfer coecient combines all heat
transfer factors including any heat loss from the process
and any fouling factors. Therefore one should expect to
see an improvement in the ®t between the simulation
results and the experiments. Figs. 6±8 show the com-
parison between the experimental and simulation results
when the e€ective heat transfer coecient was used in
the Heatx model. Figs. 6 and 7 show the product and
condensate ¯ow rates; the simulated ¯ow rates were
 N. Chawankul et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 47 (2001) 247±253
Fig. 6. Product ¯ow rates using the e€ective heat transfer coecients.
Fig. 7. Condensate ¯ow rates using e€ective heat transfer coecients.
Fig. 8. Product concentrations using e€ective heat transfer coecient.
calculated using AspenPlusTM using the e€ective heat
transfer coecients determined from Eq. (16). The
agreement between the experiments (m) and the simu-
lations (n) is better than in Figs. 3 and 4 because the
e€ective overall heat transfer coecient was used and
modelling errors were reduced.
Fig. 8 shows an improvement in the product com-
positions ®t between the simulation and experimental
results in batches 1±4 and 8±13. However, in batches 5, 6
and 7 a large discrepancy still exists, in fact the gap
between the experimental results (m) and the simulation
results (n) has widened when the e€ective heat transfer
coecient was used. This is because the e€ective heat
transfer coecient was greater than that predicted by
the model and so our predicted concentrations will in-
crease when compared to those in Fig. 5. As mentioned
above the ¯ow rates used in batches 5, 6, and 7 were
extremely low and hard to control. It was felt that these
low ¯ow rates led to scalding of orange juice on the heat
transfer surface of the ATFE resulting in lower than
actual orange juice concentrations.
6. Data reconciliation
Process measurements generally do not satisfy mate-
rial and energy balance constraints due to random or
251
possibly gross errors in the measuring device readings.
Data reconciliation is a method of adjusting random
errors in the measurements in a weighted least-squares
sense in order to satisfy the process constraints. Steady-
state simulators equipped with optimisation routines
can be used to perform data reconciliation and param-
eter estimation. Readers are urged to consult Tjoa and
Biegler (1991) and Picollo and Douglas (1996) for a
review of data reconciliation and the use of Aspen-
PlusTM for performing nonlinear data reconciliation of
complex processes. Chuaprasert et al. (1999) presented
an application of data reconciliation of an ATFE for
concentrating sugar syrup using AspenPlusTM .
The general nonlinear data reconciliation problem
can be written as the following constrained weighted
least squares problem:
choose x:
T
to minimise ‰…x ÿ y† Q…x ÿ y†Š …17†
such that h…x† ˆ 0 and g…x† P 0; where x is the vector of
reconciled variables, y the vector of measured variables
and Q is the weighting matrix, usually the inverse of the
variance of the measured variables; h(x) are the set of
equality constraints representing the model and g(x) are
the set of inequality constraints present in the process.
All measured variables are subjected to random error
and should be considered in the formulation of the ob-
jective function. In addition, the heat transfer coe-
cient, which was calculated from measurements, should
be included. The measured, and/or calculated variables
therefore include:
· feed ¯ow rate, Ff ;
· feed concentration of orange juice, Xf ;
· feed temperature, Tf ;
· steam ¯ow rate, Fs ;
· steam pressure, Ps ;
· product ¯ow rate, Fp ;
· product concentration, Xp ;
· product temperature, Tp ;
· vapour ¯ow rate, Fv ;
· vapour temperature, Tv ;
· overall heat transfer coecient, U.
It was decided not to include the overall heat transfer
area, A, in the list of variables subjected to random error
since it was measured only once and the e€ect of an
error in its measurement would be compensated for in
the overall heat transfer coecient.
The overall objective function is a sum of the squares
of the variable mismatches divided by their variances
and multiplied by a factor denoting the importance and/
or con®dence we have in the accuracy of the particular
variable measurement. The factor becomes larger as the
variable becomes more important to match closely or its
value is known more accurately. It was felt, for exam-
ple, that the orange juice feed concentration was known
to a high degree of accuracy i.e. the standard deviation
252 N. Chawankul et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 47 (2001) 247±253
of the orange juice concentration is small compared to
the standard deviation of other variables. Therefore we
set the weighting factor for orange juice feed concen-
tration to be a high value, 50, relative to the other
weighting factors to force the optimiser to adjust other
process variables rather than the orange juice feed
concentrations. There was not enough information to
calculate the standard deviations therefore it was de-
cided to ignore standard deviations and use only
weighting factors. The objective function was therefore
written as
2
OF ˆ 1  …feed flow rate ÿ Ff †
‡ 50  …feed concentration of orange juice ÿ Xf †2
2
‡ 1  …steam flow rate ÿ Fs †
‡ 1  …product flow rate ÿ Fp †2
‡ 1  …product concentration of orange juice ÿ Xp †2
2
‡ 1  …vapour flow rate ÿ Fv † : …18†
One cannot directly manipulate all decision variables in
AspenPlusTM . For example, in our case one cannot di-
rectly manipulate the product ¯ow rate and product
concentration. Therefore manipulated variables that will
indirectly adjust or manipulate these variables must be
selected. Four manipulated variables were chosen to
minimise the objective function, Eq. (18):
· ¯ow rate of water in feed,
· steam ¯ow rate,
· heat transfer coecient,
· ¯ow rate of orange juice component in feed.
The adjustment of ¯ow rate of the orange juice
component in the feed and the ¯ow rate of the water in
the feed has the combined a€ect of adjusting the total
feed ¯ow rate and composition of the feed simulta-
neously. The steam ¯ow rate was adjusted to try and
match the evaporator temperature and product con-
centration. The overall heat transfer coecient was ad-
justed to try and match the concentration of orange
juice in the product stream. Therefore, solution to the
problem using AspenPlusTM can be written as
choose ¯ow rate of water in the feed
¯ow rate of orange juice component in the
feed
steam ¯ow rate
heat transfer coecient
to minimise Eq. (18) such that h(x) ˆ 0
7. Results of data reconciliation
The reconciliation results are presented in Figs. 6±8.
The results indicate that the reconciled values (d) match
the measured values (m) quite well. From the results in
Figs. 6±8 one can clearly see that an improvement in the
®t was obtained from the data reconciliation. One can
think of the reconciled values (d) as improved experi-
mental values that are both close to the actual experi-
mental values (m) and also satisfy all the mass and
energy balance constraints. Once the data have been
reconciled to satisfy the heat and material balances, we
can use these adjusted data for further studies. For ex-
ample, the operation of the evaporator may now be
studied to determine the e€ect of alternate operating
procedures to improve production or reduce energy
consumption.
8. Conclusions
1. A steady-state simulation model of an ATFE for con-
centrating tangerine orange juice was developed using
AspenPlusTM .
2. The simulation results show good agreement with the
experimental results when using overall heat transfer
coecients predicted from an independent correla-
tion and better agreement when using e€ective heat
transfer coecients calculated from experimental
process measurements.
3. Low and dicult to control feed ¯ow rates lead to
large errors in the prediction of the product concen-
trations due to scalding of the orange juice on the
heat transfer surface of the ATFE.
4. The steady-state AspenPlusTM simulation model
combined with a built-in optimisation routine was
used to reconcile the experimental data gathered from
the evaporator. After data reconciliation a signi®cant
improvement in the ®t of the measured data was ob-
served. On average the ®t between measured values
and the process model was increased by about 60%.
Acknowledgements
The authors are very appreciative of research funding
from The National Science and Technology Develop-
ment Agency of Thailand (NSTDA) which enabled this
research to be undertaken.
References
Aspen Technology. (1993). AspenplusTM users manual. AspenTech Ltd,
Cambridge MA, USA.
Boonsriudomsuk, et al. S. (1998). Thermophysical Properties of Orange
Juice. Bachelor Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering, King
Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thai-
land, (in Thai).
Chuaprasert, S., Douglas, P. L., & Nguyen, M. (1999). Data
reconciliation of an agitated thin ®lm evaporator using Aspen-
PlusTM . Journal of Food Engineering, 39, 261±267.
 N. Chawankul et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 47 (2001) 247±253 253

Piccolo, M., & Douglas, P. L. (1996). Data reconciliation using
AspenPlusTM . Developments in Chemical Engineering & Mineral
Processing, 4(3/4), 157±182.
Sae Tae, A. (1999). Heat transfer coecients in an agitated thin ®lm
evaporator for concentrating sugar syrup. Masters Thesis, Depart-
ment of Chemical Engineering, King Mongkut's University of
Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand, (in Thai).
Tjoa, I. B., & Biegler, L. T. (1991). Simultaneous strategies for data
reconciliation and gross error detection of nonlinear systems.
Computers and Chemical Engineering, 15(10), 679±690.