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

net/publication/318989724

Pinch Analysis of Sugarcane Refinery Water Integration

Article  in  Sugar Tech · August 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s12355-017-0535-5

CITATIONS READS

3 523

3 authors:

Wafa Hatim Balla Ali A. Rabah

Karay University University of Khartoum
1 PUBLICATION   3 CITATIONS    61 PUBLICATIONS   114 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Professor Babiker Karama Abdalla

University of Kordofan
61 PUBLICATIONS   253 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Evaporative cooling View project

Gum Arabic View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Professor Babiker Karama Abdalla on 19 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pinch Analysis of Sugarcane Refinery
Water Integration

Wafa Hatim Balla, Ali A. Rabah &

Babiker K. Abdallah

Sugar Tech
An International Journal of Sugar Crops
and Related Industries

ISSN 0972-1525

Sugar Tech
DOI 10.1007/s12355-017-0535-5

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Society for
Sugar Research & Promotion. This e-
offprint is for personal use only and shall not
be self-archived in electronic repositories. If
you wish to self-archive your article, please
use the accepted manuscript version for
posting on your own website. You may
further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Sugar Tech
DOI 10.1007/s12355-017-0535-5
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Pinch Analysis of Sugarcane Refinery Water Integration
Wafa Hatim Balla1 • Ali A. Rabah2 • Babiker K. Abdallah1
Received: 27 December 2016 / Accepted: 17 July 2017
 Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2017
Abstract Water is one of the key resources for the normal
life and is used extensively in many industries. The sugar
industry is one of the largest water users and producers in
food processing sector. This paper presents the analysis of
freshwater used and wastewater discharged in a sugar
manufacturing process. Also, this paper presents an anal-
ysis of cooling water system. The part of the barometric
condenser, mill turbine and electric power turbine units
were chosen for analysis and synthesis of cooling water
systems. In order to reduce the load of the cooling water
system, the system was modified to an open recirculation
cooling water system. The analysis used water pinch
analysis method and mathematical optimization techniques
by resource conservation networks spreadsheet software.
Analysis of sugarcane hot water balance shows that the
water content of sugarcane itself is more than sufficient for
internal processing. Analysis of the excess condensate
internal water and the discharged water from cooling water
system showed that the quantity of freshwater used for
cooling system requirement is 121 t/h and the wastewater
generation is 24.93 t/h when using BOD as a contaminant.
Keywords Cooling water system 
Sugarcane water balance 
Resource conservation networks  Water pinch analysis 
Water cascade analysis  Water minimization
& Wafa Hatim Balla
wf.balla@gmail.com
1
Postgraduate College, Karary University, Omdurman, Sudan
2
Faculty of Engineering, University of Khartoum, Khartoum,
Sudan
Introduction
The value of water with regard to its use in the industry
arises due to its excellent heat and mass transfer properties
combined with its seemingly limitless and low-cost abun-
dance. Water is a major stream in utility system and in the
process industry. Process water can be used as a solvent as
a direct or indirect way, transportation, cleaning and
cooling medium. Wastewater is generated in the different
processes and utility systems, creating a stream which
eventually needs to be treated. However, in recent years,
the increased price of freshwater and the increased cost of
wastewater treatment to meet environmental requirements
have provided process industries with strong incentive to
minimize the amount of water usage and wastewater
generation.
The sugar industry is one of the largest water users in
food processing sector. Water is used to wash sugarcane,
for steam production as well for cooling application; also, a
huge amount of effluent was discharged into an environ-
ment. The water content in sugarcane is about 0.70 m3/ton
of cane crushed, out of which about 0.50–0.60 m3/ton of
cane crushed is utilized in the process and
0.10–0.20 m3/ton of cane crushed will be excess water
available in any sugar factory. This water can replace
freshwater requirement and conserve natural resource
(Baban and Aparna 2013). Also cooling water is one of the
large water requirements of the sugar factory. Al Guneid
sugar factory uses once-through cooling system which
consumes and produces the largest quantity of water than
other cooling system. This cooling system can be modified
to reduce the quantity of water used and produced. The
main objective of this work is to use pinch analysis for
water management in sugarcane refinery.
123
 Author's personal copy
Recycle and reuse of water is one of the key strategies in
reducing the consumption of freshwater in the process
industries. Several techniques have been developed to
reduce the consumption water. The water pinch analysis
(WPA) technique, as proposed by Wang and Smith (1994),
generally considers the potential of using fresh or recycle
water as a lean stream to absorb certain contaminants from
various process operations, provided there is a driving
force for mass transfer. Maximizing water reuse and
recycling can minimize freshwater consumption and
wastewater generation. In the context of WPA, reuse
means that the effluent from one unit is used in another unit
and does not re-enter the unit where it has been previously
used, whereas recycle allows the effluent to re-enter the
unit where it has been used.
The fundamental principle of WPA was introduced by
Wang and Smith (1994) which was developed based on the
general approach of mass exchange network synthesis
technique established by El-Halwagi and Manousiouthakis
(1989).
The former WPA technique divides the synthesis task
into a two-step procedure, i.e., utility targeting and network
design. In targeting the minimum utility requirements and
in locating the pinch points, the graphical technique such as
the composite curves and the numerical technique such as
the problem table have both been used in the heat (Linnhoff
et al. 1982), mass (El-Halwagi and Manousiouthakis 1989;
El-Halwagi 1997) and water recovery problems (Castro
et al. 1999; Mann and Liu 1999) that are based on pinch
analysis. The main advantage of this analysis is that the
minimum utility targets which consist of freshwater and
wastewater flowrates are both located ahead of detailed
network design.
From the mid-1990s until 2000, fixed load problems
were the main focus of water minimization. Instead, this
category has its main focus on removing a certain load
from a rich stream and the flow rate is considered con-
stant over a process unit, i.e., the inlet flowrate is equal
to the outlet flowrate in, e.g., an adsorption tower. Two
recent graphical approaches in locating the global mini-
mum utility targets were individually presented by Hal-
lale (2002), El-Halwagi et al. (2003) and Prakash and
Shenoy (2005). Hallale (2002) presented the iterative
graphical procedure called the water surplus diagram that
was adapted from the hydrogen network analysis (Alves
and Towler 2002) for locating the minimum utility tar-
gets in a water recovery network. Appropriate placement
of water regeneration units is also addressed (Hallale
2002). More recently, the iterative procedure in water
surplus diagrams is overcome by a numerically equiva-
lent water cascade analysis (WCA) technique (Manan
et al. 2004). On the other hand, El-Halwagi et al. (2003)
developed a simpler non-iterative graphical approach for
123
Sugar Tech
utility targeting, with the introduction of a new set of
composite curves located on a load versus flowrate dia-
gram also useful in locating a material recycle/reuse
pinch point, which provides insightful information on the
use of fresh resources, the discharge of unused materials
and the relationships between process streams (sources)
and units (sinks). El-Halwagi et al. (2005) suggested that
the source streams to be chosen to satisfy a particular
water demand must be the nearest available neighbors in
terms of contaminant concentration. To design minimum
freshwater networks for fixed contaminant load problems,
the nearest neighbor’s algorithm is applied to process
units that lie across the pinch. The four latest works are
by far the most promising targeting techniques in locat-
ing utility targets in a MWR network. They overcome
the limitations of the mass transfer-based approach, and
yet, these new tools have automatically built in all
mixing possibilities to determine the true pinch point and
reuse target.
Bandyopadhyay et al. (2006) proposed methodology
can be applied to fixed flow rate as well as fixed con-
taminant load problems having a single contaminant. A
source composite curve is proposed for directly targeting
generation of wastewater. Freshwater can be indirectly
targeted using overall mass balance. Foo and Manan
(2006) used numerical technique known as water cascade
analysis (WCA) (Manan et al. 2004) for optimizing water
networks. The term water cascade refers to the reuse of a
spent water source to satisfy a lower-quality water sink. A
numerical technique capable of handling all types of
water-using operations; including water used as a solvent
or raw material, with drawn as a product or by-product in
a chemical reaction or utilized as heating or cooling
media. Consider both the flowrate and contaminant mass
load for water reuse/recycle, and non-iterative and able to
quickly yield the exact baseline target. Foo (2009) pro-
vided a state-of-the-art overview of the insight-based
techniques developed in the twenty-first century, particu-
larly those developed for single impurity network of the
fixed flowrate problems. Comparisons were also made
between these recent techniques and those developed for
the fixed load problems in the past century. Foo (2012)
presents state-of-the-art, cost-effective techniques,
including pinch analysis and mathematical optimization,
for numerous conservation problems, describes the auto-
mated targeting model, an advanced targeting technique
that incorporates pinch analysis into mathematical mod-
eling and presents techniques for performing material
recovery of batch processes and across different plants,
such as in an eco-industrial park. He provided the uses of
spreadsheet software (Ng et al. 2014) that helps to per-
formance targets and the design of resource conservation
networks.
 Author's personal copy
Sugar Tech
Previous Works Sugar Plant Case Studies
Chetan and Vikas (2015) were collected the wastewater
from the Kaithal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (2500 TCD)
and quantify the volume of the main water and wastewater
in a sugar manufacturing process followed by the sugges-
tion regarding the reutilization of the wastewater. The
results showed that a hot water balance indicates the usage
of total water content introduced in the juice and recovered
back to produce solid sugar crystals. Also fresh cold water
requirement can be reduced by 59.63% by adopting recy-
cling of the condensate in the mill.
Meilyn et al. (2011) were carried out the study in a sugar
factory that processes 150 tons of cane per day. Water and
wastewater samples were analyzed using analytical grade
chemicals and adopting standard procedures for evaluation of
different parameters. Mathematical optimization was carried
out using LINGOTM software in order to achieve an optimal
distribution of flows. The result of the application of pinch
technology in the sugar industry showed that the freshwater was
minimized. While the target for freshwater requirement was
1990.47 m3/day, the requirement was successfully lowered by
achieving a reduction of approximately 85%. A decrease in the
net effluent outflow from the process was also observed.
Poddar and Sahu (2017) were collected the wastewater
from Bhoramdev Sugar Industry Ltd. Kavardha (C.G.),
India. Mathematical optimization was carried out using
Water PinchTM software to achieve an optimal distribution
of flows. They identified 12 sources and 6 sinks which
demonstrate a surplus of water in this process. The target
for freshwater requirement was 1980.47 m3/day, and the
requirement was successfully lowered by achieving a
reduction of approximately 85%. A decrease in the net
effluent outflow from the process was also observed. The
methodology was flexible and can handle large processes.
In this paper used RCNet spreadsheet software (Ng et al.
2014) for performance targets and the design of resource
conservation networks (Foo 2012) of the Guneid sugarcane
refinery.
Materials and Methods
To accomplish the objective of minimized freshwater
consumption and wastewater disposal, the water pinch
analysis (Foo 2012) methodology was used.
Guneid Sugarcane Refinery Case Study
The study was carried out in Al Guneid sugarcane refinery that
processes 230 tons of cane per hour. In the milling, more than
95% of the sugar in the cane goes into the juice (imbibition
water used to remove the juice from the fibers and the cooling
water used for the machinery to extract the juice). After the
mixed juice is heated to 65–75 C, it is treated with phosphoric
acid, sulfur dioxide and milk of lime (water was required for the
preparation of milk of lime). The treated juice on boiling is fed
to continuous clarification from which the clear juice is dec-
anted, while the settled impurities known as mud are sent to
rotary drum vacuum filter (water used for filtration) for removal
of unwanted stuff called filter cake which is discarded or
returned to the field as fertilizer. The clear juice is heated again
to 105 C in another set of juice heaters and sends to the
evaporators without further treatment; the clarified juice con-
tains about 85% water. About 75% of this water is evaporated in
vacuum multiple effects and collected as condensate water.
Crystallization takes place in a single-effect vacuum pan, where
the syrup using steam is evaporated until it is saturated with
sugar. Also, condensate water is collected. Freshwater is fed
into the barometric condenser to condense the vapors from the
final body and vacuum pan; then, it is discharged as wastewater.
During crystallization, water is used as movement water for
pan, molasses dilution and for melting the massecuite; finally,
sugar is dried in the rotary dryer and graded by passing through
standard sieves.
Water was also required during power generation, as
cooling water for the turbo-alternators used to generate
electricity (from burning bagasse), miscellaneous usage
such as cooling waters for pumps, as makeup water to feed
the boilers, and as feed water to the furnace flue-gas
scrubbers and factory washing.
Water Balance of Guneid Sugarcane Refinery
At first, the sugar manufacturing data were collected based
on the material and energy balance of Al Guneid sugarcane
refinery and data (Hugot 1986). Then, the current baseline
of information on plant water use and wastewater gener-
ated was defined. Figure 1 shows the water balance process
flow diagram for a preliminary network for Guneid sugar
industry which was not designed using WPA. Tables 1, 2,
3, 4 and 5 present the analysis data for water and
wastewater flowrates in the main process units.
Process Change of Cooling Water System
In Guneid sugarcane refinery, the cooling system used for
cooling milling, turbine and injection for evaporator and
vacuum pan is the once-through cooling system, which
requires a large quantity of water and therefore discharges it as
wastewater. For water management in the sugar industry, the
cooling system was changed to open recirculation cooling
systems; therefore, the water discharged from turbine milling,
the turbine for electric generation and barometric condenser
were recirculated using the cooling tower. The water utility
used for cooling system changed as shown in Fig. 2.
123
 Author's personal copy
Sugar Tech

Fig. 1 Water balance of Al Guneid sugarcane refinery (ConceptDraw PRO software)

Table 1 General data for Guneid sugarcane refinery contaminants chosen for utility water. Entire water sources
and sink flowrates and quality requirements for each water-
Crushing rate 5000 TCD or 230 t/h
using process are extracted from the data sheet. The water
Mixed juice temperature 35 C sources data are obtained by identifying the maximum
Steam pressure 1.2 kg/cm2 concentration limit and the minimum flowrate limit of the
IV body vacuum 625 mmHg wastewater source from each process. The water sinks data
Specific heat of juice 0.9 kcal/(kg C) are usually obtained from historical variations, emergency
Dryness of steam/vapor 0.95 water substitution, estimates from engineers, vendors and
Mixed juice Brix C15 operators, and description in equipment list (Liu et al. 2004).
Clear juice Brix C15
Syrup Brix C65
Water (Sink) for Sugar Process

Determination of Water ‘Sources’ and ‘Sinks’ Data Boiler makeup, milk of lime, imbibition water, filter wash
and Selection of Key Contaminants for Water Pinch water, movement water for pan, molasses dilution, Meltzer,
Analysis mesquite washing and losses, floor and equipment washing.

After analyzing the water network for Al Guneid sugarcane

refinery, the water processes are grouped into plant sections
(process and utility). The processes chosen are preferably
close geographically and are also chemically related. The
system can be modeled as a single contaminant. The TDS is
the main contaminant chosen for process water that prevents
direct reuse in the water system, while BOD and COD are
Water (Source) for Sugar Process Production
Exhaust condensate, pan condensate, vapor condensate
from second effect ? heaters 5 and 6, vapor condensate
from third effect ? heaters 3 and 4, vapor condensate from
fourth effect ? heaters 1 and 2.

123
 Author's personal copy
Sugar Tech

Table 2 Water balance for milling house

Type of water Used for Flowrate (t/h) Equation or source

Water required
Hot Process Imbibition 62 0.27 A*(?)
Cold Utility Cooling of bearing 150 Guneid factory
Cold Utility Cooling of turbine 3200 Guneid factory
Type of water Discharge as Flowrate (t/h) Equation or source

Water discharge
Hot process Bagasse 31.51 0.13 A* (fiber) ? 0.05 A* (unextracted sugar)

Table 3 Water balance for clarification and filtration

Type of water Used for Flowrate (t/h) Equation or source

Water required
mcp Dt
Steam Utility Heater 31.57 kdryness ofsteam
Hot Process Lime of milk 1.56 consume 0.65 kg of CaO per
t.c. 10 Baume required
10.4 kg water/kg CaO(?)
Hot Process Filtration washes water 9.2 0.04 A*(?)
Type of water Discharge as Flowrate (t/h) Equation or source

Water discharge
Hot Process Exhaust condensate 4.14 In = out
Hot Process Vapor condensate 27.43 In = out
Cold process Filter cake 2.3 0.01 A*(?)

Table 4 Water balance for evaporator, vacuum pan and crystallizer

Type of water Used for Flowrate (t/h) Equation or source

Water required
Steam Process Vapor cell 46 s = Q/k
Steam Process Evaporator 45 S = X ? P1 ? P2 ? P3
Hot Process Movement water for pan 4.6 0.02 A*(?)
Hot Process Molasses dilution 4.6 0.02 A*(?)
Hot Process Meltzer 6.9 0.03 A*(?)
Hot Process Mesquite washing and losses 2.3 0.01 A*(?)

s k
Cold Utility Barometric injection water 3550 mw ¼ cpw Dt

Type of water Discharge as Flowrate (t/h) Equation or source

Water discharge
Hot Process Exhaust steam condensate 110 (vapor cell ? effect 1 ? heater)
Hot Process Vapor condensate 132.6 (effects 2, 3, 4 ?  vacuum pan)
s k
Hot Utility Barometric warm water 3600 mw ¼ cpw Dt þ 1

123
 Author's personal copy
Sugar Tech

Table 5 Water balance for boiler

Type of water Used for Flowrate (t/h) Equation or source

Water required
Hot Utility Exhaust steam generation 110 Guneid factory
Type of water Discharge as Flowrate (t/h) Equation or source

Water discharge
E
Hot Utility Boiler blowdown 5 B ¼ Cycle 1

* Let crushing rate = A, (?) Hugot (1986), S exhaust steam, Q heat transfer rate, X vapor from last effect, P1 vapor bleeding from effect 1, P2
vapor bleeding from effect 2, P3 vapor bleeding from effect 3, mw mass of water, S* steam evaporated from juice, Cpw specific heat of water,
B blown down, E evaporation rate

Fig. 2 Modified water balance for Guneid sugarcane refinery (ConceptDraw PRO software)

Water (Sink) for Sugar Production Utility
Cane washing, the makeup of mill turbine bearing, makeup
of turbine cooling water, the makeup of injection water.
Water Leaving (Source) for Sugar Production Utility
Excess water, boiler blowdown, purge from turbine cooling
water.
Water Pinch Analysis Using Resource Conservation
Networks Software Sheet (RCNet)
Water pinch analysis was used to determine minimum
flowrate targets for freshwater and wastewater discharged.
This work used RCNet spreadsheet software (Ng et al.
2014) for performance targets and design of water net-
works of Guneid sugar industry. The RCNet software first
performs the water targeting task using water cascade

123
 Author's personal copy
Sugar Tech
analysis (Foo 2012) and next design the resource conser-
vation networks (RCN) based on mathematical optimiza-
tion technique for the superstructural model (Foo 2012) as
shown below to achieve the flowrate targets.
To achieve the targets using water cascade analysis, one
has to fulfill both the flowrate and mass load requirements
for all water-using processes under consideration with the
following detailed step:
• The first step in WCA is to set up the interval water
balance table to determine the net water source or net
water sink at each concentration levels. The first
column of the table contains the contaminant concen-
tration levels arranged in ascending order. Next the
water concentration difference (Dc), the difference
between concentrations at intervals k and k ? 1, is
calculated.
Dc ¼ Ckþ1  Ck ð1Þ
• The next columns contain the total flowrates for water
P P
sinks ( Fj) and water sources ( Fi) at their
corresponding concentration intervals. Subtracting the
total flowrate of the water sinks from the water sources
at each concentration level yields the net interval water
P P
flowrate ð Fj  Fi Þ, where a positive value
indicates a net water source and a negative value
indicates a net water sink.
• The next key step in WCA is to establish the freshwater
and wastewater targets for the process. In doing so, it is
important to consider both the water flowrate balance
and the mass load requirement so that the true
minimum water targets can be obtained.
The water flowrate balance involves the use of water cas-
cade diagram in which a freshwater flowrate ðFfw Þ of 0 ton/
h at a concentration of 0 ppm is assumed. The net water
sink of x ton/h at the second concentration level is cascaded
to the third concentration level to meet another water sink
of y ton/h, giving a cumulative net sink or cumulative water
flowrate (FC) of x ? y ton/h. The cascading process con-
tinues toward the lowest quality (highest concentration)
level which is the cumulative water sink, or the wastewater
flowrate (Fww) at this point.
• Next, the mass load allocation throughout the water
network is determined via the mass load cascade in
order to obtain true minimum targets. First, the mass
load Dm surplus or deficit at each concentration level of
the water cascade is calculated. This is the product of
the cumulative water flowrate (FC) and the concentra-
tion difference (Dc) across two concentration levels. A
mass load surplus (?) means the load available from
the water sources exceeds what is required, whereas a
load deficit (-) means that there is still sufficient
capacity to absorb the mass loads in this concentration
range. Cascading the mass load surpluses/deficient
drawn the concentration intervals the cumulative mass
load.
• If the cumulative mass load deficient exists at all
concentration levels, this indicates mass load infeasi-
bility which is the result of assuming zero freshwater
flowrate during water cascading. Thus, additional
freshwater should be supplied to remove all flowrate
and mass load deficient and yield a feasible water
cascade.
• Freshwater should be supplied at the highest quality
level (0 ppm). To minimize freshwater consumption, it
is necessary to determine the minimum flowrate of
freshwater, or the interval freshwater demand ðFfw Þ that
will satisfy the total water requirement at each
concentration level Ck. The interval freshwater demand
will resource a feasible water cascade throughout the
entire water network.
• At each concentration level k, Ffw,k is obtained by
dividing the cumulative mass load (Dmc) by the
difference between the concentration level (Ck) of
interest and that of freshwater supply (CFW) as follows:
Ffw;k ¼ Dmc =ðCk  CFW Þ ð2Þ
• A negative value for Ffw,k means that there is
insufficient freshwater, whereas a positive Ffw,k means
that there is excess freshwater at the concentration level
k.
• To ensure that there is sufficient freshwater at all points
in the network, a freshwater flowrate Ffw of exactly the
same magnitude as the absolute value of the largest
negative Ffw,k should be supplied. This in turn gener-
ates the minimum wastewater flowrate target.
• Note that a feasible water cascade is the one that results
in a positive (or zero) value for the cumulative mass
load cascade. Where there is zero cumulative mass
load, a pinch concentration exists. The pinch divided
the overall network into two independent regions, i.e.,
the region above and below the pinch concentration. In
the region above the pinch, mass load supplied by the
water sources is completely consumed by the water
sinks. On the other hand, excess mass load is found in
the region below the pinch.
• In order to achieve the water flowrate targets, water
source above the pinch (including freshwater) should
neither be fed to the water sink nor mixed with water
sources below the pinch.
• The water cascade analysis provides the baseline
targets a head network design.
123
 Author's personal copy
The nearest neighbor algorithm (NNA) procedure was fol-
lowed to synthesize the RCN, with the following detailed step:
1. All material sinks and sources were arranged in the
descending order of quality levels. The design was
started from the sink that requires the highest quality
feed. The sinks are arranged horizontally, with the
lowest concentration (highest quality) on the leftmost
to the highest concentration (lowest quality) on the
rightmost side of the diagram. Similarly, all sources
are arranged vertically, with the lowest concentration
on the highest level, while the highest concentration is
at the lowest level. We shall start the design with SK1,
which requires the most strength (highest quality feed).
2. The selected sink SKj was matched with sources SRi of
the same quality level, if any are available.
3. The two source candidates were mixed SRi and SRi?1 to
fulfill the flowrate and quality requirements of sink SKj.
Note that the source candidates SRi and SRi?1 are the
nearest available neighbors to the sink SKj with the
quality levels just lower and just higher than that of sink.
4. The respective flowrate between the source and sink is
calculated via Eqs. 3 and 4.
• Overall material balance:
FSRi ;SKj þ FSRi þ1;SKj ¼ FSKj ð3Þ
• Impurity balance:
FSRi ;SKj CSRi þ FSRiþ1 ;SKj CSRiþ1 ¼ FSKj CSKj ð4Þ
where FSRi ;SKj is allocation flowrate sent from SRi to SKj, if
SRi has sufficient flowrate to be allocated to SKj, i.e.,
FSRi  FSRi ;SKj , go to step 5 or else to step 4. Later the
source is used completely, if the source has insufficient
flowrate to be used as the allocation, i.e., FSRi ;SKj [ FSRi .
5. Repeat steps 2–4 for all sinks. Once all sinks are fulfilled,
the unutilized sources are discharged as waste.
The RCNet with source shift algorithm (SSA) is then
followed by nearest neighbor algorithm. In this technique,
some matches between sink and sources (i.e., established
using the NNA) are removed, aiming to reduce their
number of interconnections. To evolve the RCNet with
SSA is design by the following procedure:
The sink–source pairs that fulfill the both following
criteria were identified:
(a) The chosen sink–source matches should have the
same quality value, i.e.,
CSK ¼ CSR ð5Þ
123
Sugar Tech
(b) The source flowrate should be larger than or equal to
that of the sink, i.e.,
FSK  FSR ð6Þ
After that, the selected sink was feed fully with the source.
Finally, the excess source flow rate was shifted experienced
by the sink to the sink (where the source was matched to
originally) that experiences a flowrate deficit.
*An equal flowrate of source(s) will be shifted to the
sink that was originally fed by the source.
Results and Discussion
Water Used for Process
Table 6 represents the limiting data required for water
pinch analysis. From the water balance of Guneid sugar-
cane refinery, the flowrate of source and sink was identi-
fied. TDS was the contaminant chosen as the main
contaminants that prevent direct reuse in the process water
system. The maximum concentration limit for the sink and
the concentrations of the source was taken from the liter-
ature of previous work (Pradeep and Omprakash 2015).
Table 7 shows that freshwater is 0.00 t/h and the
wastewater (excess condensate) is 65.24 t/h. This result
shows that the entire water in the sugarcane can be recycled
to all processes of sugar industry without needed of an
external source of water.
Based on mathematical optimization model (Foo 2012),
process water network is designed to fulfill the flowrate
targets obtained from pinch analysis as shown in Fig. 3.
Water Used for Utility
Tables 8 and 9 present the comparison between the flowrate
(freshwater requirement and wastewater discharged) of
existing sugar industry and the modified sugar industry (by the
management of wastewater without using pinch analysis).
As shown in Tables 8 and 9, open recirculating cooling
systems save a tremendous amount of freshwater compared
to the alternative method, once-through cooling, and the
freshwater reduced from 8042.415 to 212.67 t/h. Also, the
quantity of water discharged as wastewater is greatly
reduced from 8065.415 t/h in once-through system to
73.397 t/h in the open recirculating system.
For further saving water, water pinch analysis was used.
Table 10 represents the limiting data required to water
pinch analysis for water utility system. The excess con-
densate water determined from pinch analysis of process
water, water purged from the boiler and turbine cooling
 Author's personal copy
Sugar Tech

Table 6 Limiting data for water minimization (process water)

No. Sink Sink flowrate, FSKj (t/h) TDS max concentration, CSKj (ppm)

SK1 Boiler makeup 110 10

SK2 Milk of lime 1.56 40(-)
SK3 Imbibition water 62 80(-)
SK4 Filter wash water 9.2 80(-)
SK5 Movement water for pan 4.6 80(-)
SK6 Molasses dilution 4.6 80(-)
SK7 Meltzer 6.9 80(-)
SK8 Mesquite washing and losses 2.3 80(-)
SK9 Floor and equipment washing 2.3 100
ej 203.46
Source Source flowrate, FSRi (t/h) Concentration, CSRi (ppm)

SR1 Exhaust condensate 110.24 0

SR2 Pan condensate 46 23
SR3 Vapor condensate from second effect ? heaters 5 and 6 45.2 42
SR4 Vapor condensate from third effect ? heaters 3 and 4 37.8 48
SR5 Vapor condensate from fourth effect ? heaters 1 and 2 29.7 54
ei 269.57

(-) Poddar and Sahu (2017)

Table 7 Water cascade analysis for water used for process

P P P P
C DC Fj Fi Fi - Fj Fc Dm Cum Dm FFW,K Fc Dm Cum Dm

0.00
0 110 110 0
23 0 0 0.00 0
23 46 46 0 0.00 0.00
17 46 0.782 46 0.8
40 1.56 -1.56 0.782 19.55 0.8
2 44.4 0.088 44.44 0.1
42 45.2 45.2 0.870 20.74 0.9
6 89.6 0.537 89.64 0.5
48 37.8 37.8 1.408 29.35 1.4
6 127.44 0.764 127.44 0.8
54 29.7 29.7 2.137 40.25 2.2
26 157.14 4.085 157.14 4.1
80 89.6 -89.6 6.259 78.24 6.3
29 67.54 1.350 67.54 1.4
100 2.3 -2.3 7.609 76.10 7.6
999,900 65.24 65,233.48 65.24 65,233.5
1,000,000 65,241.1 65.24 65,241.1
Bold values indicate significance to the flowrate of fresh water and wastewater

tower consider as a source for utility water. BOD and COD
were the contaminants chosen for analysis, and the data for
maximum concentrations of sink were taken from the lit-
erature (FIESP 2004).
Table 11 shows that the target freshwater required is
121.93 t/h and the wastewater discharged is 24.93 t/h.
Table 12 shows that the target freshwater required is
131.92 t/h and the wastewater discharged is 34.92 t/h.
By comparison, Tables 11 and 12 showed that the flow
target was different, and COD contaminant required more
freshwater. Therefore, for selecting the most critical con-
taminants is essential, especially when using single

123
 Author's personal copy
Sugar Tech

Fig. 3 Network for water used for process

Table 8 Freshwater requirement for the co-generator sugar unit, t/h

Industrial Before recycle (t/h) After recycle (t/h)

Boiler water makes up 40 40

Cane washing 1100 55
Laboratory 0.115 0.115
Floor and equipment washing 2.3 2.3
Turbine cooling water 3200 34.67
Cooling water for mill and turbine bearings 150 2.181
Injection water 3550 78.4
Total factory 8042.415 212.666

Table 9 Wastewater discharged from the co-generator sugar unit, t/h

Industrial Before recycle (t/h) After recycle (t/h)

Boiler blown down 5 5

Cane washing 1100 55
Laboratory 0.115 0.115
Floor and equipment washing 2.3 2.3
Turbine cooling water purge 3200 2.87
Cooling water for mill and turbine bearings purge 150 0.312
Injection water 3608 7.8
Total factory 8065.415 73.397

contaminant for designing the RCN as in this work. The
COD (as it has higher flowrate) was selected as the con-
taminant to design the network as shown in Fig. 4; then,
track the concentration of BOD throughout the network
(using the network in Fig. 5), to ensure that the concen-
tration of BOD stays below the limit. For sinks where the
BOD is exceeded, we can increase freshwater to ensure the
BOD limit is observed. Without this step, there may be a
risk that water sinks receive the water of BOD higher than
its limits.
Based on mathematical optimization model (Foo 2012),
utility water network is designed to fulfill the flowrate
targets obtained from water cascade analysis (Table 11)
and (Table 12) as shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5.
The network design when select COD or BOD as con-
taminate shown excess water (SR1) which has the highest
concentration are distributed by various ratio to all sinks
and this source are diluted by fresh water to achieve the
concentration limit, the remains of (SR1) discharged as
wastewater.

123
 Author's personal copy
Sugar Tech

Table 11 Water cascade analysis for water used for utility (BOD as contaminant)
P P P P
C DC Fj Fi Fi - Fj Fc Dm Cum Dm FFW,K Fc Dm Cum Dc

121.93
0 0 0 0
20 0 0.00 121.93 2.4
20 7.67 7.67 0.00 0.00 2.4
5 7.67 0.03835 129.60 0.6
25 91.85 -91.85 0.03835 1.53 3.1
25 -84.18 -2.1045 37.75 0.9
50 78.06 -78.06 -2.06615 -41.32 4.0
100 -162.24 -16.224 -40.31 -4.0
150 65.24 65.24 -18.2902 -121.93 0.0 (pinch)
999850 -97 -96,985.5 24.93 24,930.6
1,000,000 -97,003.7 -97.00 24,930.6
Bold values indicate significance to the flowrate of fresh water and wastewater

Table 10 Limiting data for water minimization (water utility)

No. Sink Sink flowrate, FSKj (t/h) BOD max concentration, CSKj COD max concentration, CSKj
(ppm) (ppm)

SK1 Cane washing 55 25 75

SK2 Makeup of mill turbine bearing 2.182 25(**) 75(**)
SK3 Makeup of turbine cooling water 34.67 25(**) 75(**)
SK4 Makeup of injection water 78.06 50 75(**)
ej 169.912

Source Source flowrate, FSRi (t/h) BOD concentration, CSRi (ppm) COD concentration, CSRi (ppm)

SR1 Excess water 65.24 150 400

SR2 Boiler blowdown 5 20 80
SR3 Purge from turbine cooling water 2.67 20 80
ei 72.91
** FIESP (2004)

Table 12 Water cascade analysis for water used for utility (COD as contaminant)
P P P P
C DC Fj Fi Fi - Fj Fc Dm Cum Dm FFW,K Fc Dm Cum Dm

131.92
0 0 0 0
75 0 0.00 131.92 9.9
75 169.91 -169.91 0.00 0.00 9.9
5 -169.91 -0.84955 -37.99 -0.2
80 7.67 7.67 -0.84955 -10.62 9.7
320 -162.24 -51.9168 -30.32 -9.7
400 65.24 65.24 -52.7664 -131.92 0.0 (pinch)
999,600 -97 -96,961.2 34.92 34,901.9
1,000,000 -97,014 -97.01 34,901.9
Bold values indicate significance to the flowrate of fresh water and wastewater

123
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 4 Network when using
COD as contaminant
Fig. 5 Network when using
BOD as contaminant
Conclusions
1. The water balance for each section of sugarcane
refinery was analyzed.
2. From water cascade analysis of process water, the
minimum flow target of freshwater was found to be
0.0 t/h and wastewater discharged was found to be
65.24 t/h. This shows that the vapor condensate from
entire water in the sugarcane can recycle to all
processes of sugarcane manufacturing step without
needed of an external source of freshwater. According
to flow target obtained, the process water network was
designed using RCNet software.
3. For utility water, the modification of the cooling
system without using water pinch analysis minimizes
the freshwater required to be 212.67 t/h and
123
Sugar Tech
wastewater discharged to be 73.40 after recycling of
water. After using pinch analysis by RCNet software,
the flow target of freshwater was minimized to 121 t/h
and wastewater discharged was minimized to 24.93 t/h
when using BOD as contaminants. According to flow
target obtained, the utility water network was
designed.
Acknowledgements I would like to thank Guneid Sugar Industry,
Prof. Ali A. Rabah, Prof. Babiker Karama Abdalla Mohammed and
Prof. Hamid M. Mustafa for their support and encouragement during
this project.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest Wafa Hatim Balla, Prof. Ali Rabah and Prof.
Babiker Abdallah have no conflict of interest.
 Author's personal copy
Sugar Tech
References
Alves, J.J., and G.P. Towler. 2002. Analysis of refinery hydrogen
distribution systems. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research 41: 5759–5769.
Baban, G., and G. Aparna. 2013. Water conservation in sugar
industry, nature environment and pollution technology. An
International Quarterly Scientific Journal 12 (2): 325–330.
Bandyopadhyay, S., M.D. Ghanekar, and H.K. Pillai. 2006. Process
water management. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research 45: 5287–5297.
Castro, P., H. Matos, M.C. Fernandes, and C.P. Nunes. 1999.
Improvements for mass-exchange networks design. Chemical
Engineering Science 54: 1649–1665.
Chetan, S., and K. Vikas. 2015. Analysis of the volume of the main
water and wastewater in a sugar manufacturing process followed
by the suggestion regarding the reutilization of the waste water.
International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology 5
(3): 1757–1761.
El-Halwagi, M.M., and V. Manousiouthakis. 1989. Synthesis of mass
exchange networks. AlChE Journal 35 (8): 1233–1244.
El-Halwagi, M.M., F. Gabriel, and D. Harell. 2003. Rigorous
graphical targeting for resource conservation via material
recycle/reuse networks. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research 42: 4319–4328.
El-Halwagi, M.M. 1997. Pollution prevention through process
integration, systematic design tools. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
FIESP, Sao Paulo State Industry Federation. 2004. Reuse water
conservation. Orientation manual for industrial sector; [Brazil (in
Portuguese)].
Foo, D.C.Y. 2009. A state-of-the-art review of pinch analysis
techniques for water network synthesis. Industrial and Engi-
neering Chemistry Research 48 (11): 5125–5159.
Foo, D.C.Y. 2012. Process integration for resource conservation.
Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Foo, D.C.Y., and Z.A. Manan. 2006. Setting the minimum flowrate
targets for utility gases using cascade analysis technique.
View publication stats
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 45 (17):
5986–5995.
Hallale, N. 2002. A new graphical targeting method for water
minimisation. Advances in Environmental Research 6: 377–390.
Hugot, E. 1986. Handbook of cane sugar engineering. Third
completely revised edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier Elsevier
Science Publishers.
Linnhoff, B., D.W. Townsend, D. Boland, G.F. Hewitt, B.E.A.
Thomas, A.R. Guy, and R.H. Marsland. 1982. A user guide on
process integration for the efficient use of energy, 1st ed. Rugby:
IChemE.
Liu, Y.A., Lucas, B., Mann, J. 2004. Up-to-date tools for water-
system optimization. Chemical Engineering Magazine, January,
30–41
Manan, Z.A., Y.L. Tan, and D.C.Y. Foo. 2004. Targeting the
minimum water flowrate using water cascade analysis technique.
AlChE Journal 50 (12): 3169–3183.
Mann, J.G., and Y.A. Liu. 1999. Industrial water reuse and
wastewater minimisation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Meilyn, G., V. Harry, E. Rubén, and G. Erenio. 2011. Water and
wastewater management in a sugar process production. Chem-
ical Engineering Transaction 25: 839, ISSN 1974-9791.
Ng, D.K.S., I.M.L. Chew, R.R. Tan, D.C.Y. Foo, M.B.L. Ooi, and
M.M. El-Halwagi. 2014. RCNet: An optimisation software for
the synthesis of resource conservation networks. Process Safety
and Environmental Protection 92 (6): 917–928.
Poddar, P.K., and O. Sahu. 2017. Quality and management of
wastewater in sugar industry. Applied Water Science 7: 461. doi:
10.1007/s13201-015-0264-4.
Pradeep, K., Omprakash, S. 2015. Quality and Management of
Wastewater in Sugar Industry. Applied Water Science. 7(1):
461–468.
Prakash, R., and U.V. Shenoy. 2005. Targeting and design of water
networks for fixed flowrate and fixed contaminant load opera-
tions. Chemical Engineering Science 60 (1): 255–268.
Wang, Y.P., and R. Smith. 1994. Wastewater minimisation. Chemical
Engineering Science 49: 981–1006.
123