FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

ADVANCED DIPLOMA
PRACTICAL: DOUBLE EFFECT EVAPORATOR

Subject: LABORATORY 4
Subject code: LAB470S
Lecturer: Dr Nomnqa
Name: Denilson
Surname: Marcos
Student number: 219180962

I certify that this document is my own unaided work, except for the
assistance received from the teaching stuff. I undertake not to pass
this report onto any other student.

________________

Signature
 Abstract
This laboratory report analyzed a double effect evaporator operation, in which a 4%
sugar solution was evaporated using a Computer Controlled Double Effect Rising Film
Evaporator, “EDPAC” unit, designed by EDIBON. The objective was to understand the
working principle of the double effect evaporation process, conduct a material and
energy balance, and to compare the different steam economies.

It was observed that the experimental feed, 1,547 kg/h, was bigger than the ideal feed,
0,932 kg/h. The mass fraction for the feed were estimated to be very close to each other;
for the theoretical field it was 4%, and for the experimental value it was also 4%. The
total inlet energy of the first effect was the same as the total outlet enthalpy, 247,340
kJ/kg, and the total inlet energy of the second effect was the same as the total outlet
energy, 416,021 kJ/kg. The steam economy of the used equipment was under parallel
feeding of the steam, 0,522, which proved to be less than it would have been should the
system be operated under an ideal double effect evaporator, 1,424.

ii
Contents

Abstract ....................................................................................................................... ii
List of symbols .......................................................................................................... iv
List of figures ............................................................................................................. iv
List of equations ........................................................................................................ iv
List of tables................................................................................................................ v
1. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1
2. Theory .................................................................................................................. 2
3. Materials & Methods ............................................................................................ 7
3.1. Materials ........................................................................................................ 7
3.2. Procedure/Methods ...................................................................................... 8
4. Results and Discussion ...................................................................................... 9
5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 12
6. Reference list ..................................................................................................... 14
7. Appendices ........................................................................................................ 15
7.1. Appendix A – Calculations ............................................................................ 15
7.2. Appendix B- Important tables with results ................................................... 22

iii
 List of symbols
Name Symbol Unit
Feed F (kg/h)
Feed mass fraction XF Unitless
Concentrated liquid L (kg/h)
Concentrated liquid mass fraction XL Unitless
Concentrated liquid in column IN-C (kg/h)
Concentrated liquid in column mass fractionXC Unitless
Steam S (kg/h)
Liquid feed enthalpy hf (kJ/kg)
Steam latent heat Hvl (kJ/kg)
Concentrated liquid product enthalpy hl (kJ/kg)
Water specific heat capacity CPF (Kj/kg )
Steam economy Seconomy Unitless

List of figures
Figure 1: Different types of evaporators: (a) horizontal-tube type, (b) vertical-tube
type, (c) long-tube vertical type, (d) forced-circulation type, (Geankoplis, 1995,
p.492). .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Computer Controlled Double Effect Rising Film Evaporator, “EDPAC”
unit, designed by EDIBON, (Edibon, 2020). ....................................................................... 3
Figure 3:Simplified diagram of forward-feed tripple effect evaporator, (Geankoplis,
1995, p.494). ............................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4:Simplified diagram of background-feed tripple-effect evaporator,
(Geankoplis, 1995, p.495). ...................................................................................................... 4
Figure 5:Typical heat-transfer coefficient values for various evaporators,
(Geankoplis, 1995, p.496). ...................................................................................................... 5
Figure 6: BFD of a single effect evaporator, (Geankoplis, 1995, p.496). ................... 6
Figure 2: Computer Controlled Double Effect Rising Film Evaporator, “EDPAC”
unit, designed by EDIBON, (Edibon, 2020). ....................................................................... 7
Figure 8:Conversion table for sugar from brix to refractive index, (Refractive
Index. n.d.)................................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 9:Graphical representation of refractive index vs % sugar, (Evaporation
practical guide, 2022). ........................................................................................................... 18

List of equations
Equation 1: Overall material balance, (Geankoplis, 1995, p.497). ............................... 6
Equation 2: Balance on the solute alone, (Geankoplis, 1995, p.497). ........................ 6
Equation 3: Steam economy, (ChemE, 2021). ................................................................. 6
Equation 4: Energy balance, and heat transfer formulas, (Geankoplis, 1995,
p.497). .......................................................................................................................................... 7

iv
 List of tables
Table 1: Experimental overall material balance ............................................................... 9
Table 2: Theoretical Overall Material Balance .................................................................. 9
Table 3:Conversion table from brix to refractive index and from refractive index
to mass fraction ........................................................................................................................ 9
Table 4: Experimental component material balance..................................................... 10
Table 5:Ideal component material balance...................................................................... 10
Table 6:Energy balance in both columns separatly ...................................................... 11
Table 7: Experimental Steam Economy Table 8:Ideal Steam Economy
11
Table 9:Sugar concentration in brix for the different streams and columns. ........ 16
Table 10:Conversion table from refractive index to mass fraction of sugar in the
different streams and columns........................................................................................... 17
Table 11: Temperatures and enthalpies of the relevant streams. ............................. 23
Table 12: Energy balance around each unit, first effect and second effect. .......... 24

v
 1. Introduction
When a solution is heated up reaching a boiling point vapor is produced. If this produced
vapor is removed, then the solution becomes more concentrated with the solute present
in it. This process of concentration of solution is called evaporation, (Geankoplis, 1995,
p.489). Usually, evaporation takes place in an evaporation unit also known as
evaporator. This evaporator varies from single effect to multiple effect evaporator.

Processes such as the concentration of orange juice, glycerol, sugar, and sodium
hydroxide are done through evaporation, where the concentrated solution is the product
of interest, (Geankoplis, 1995, p.489). According to Hackett (2018), industries where the
concentrated solution is the main product include the chemical industries, food
processing industries, as well as in the pharmaceutical industries.

Different types of evaporators are used for different processes depending on the physical
and chemical properties of the evaporated vapor and of the denser solution, such as the
concentration in the liquid, the solubility, the temperature sensitivity of materials, foaming
or frothing, temperature and pressure, the scale deposition, and the materials of
construction of the evaporator, (Geankoplis, 1995b, pp.439–440).

In this experiment a 4% sugar solution was to be concentrated using a double effect

evaporator. However, in this process, the steam used was fed in the evaporators in a
parallel manner, meaning, two different steam flows, (Edibon, 2020).

1.1. Objectives

The main objectives include a demonstration of how a double effect evaporator works,
the conduction of mass and energy balance of the operating unit, and the determination
of the steam economy of the double effect evaporation unit

1
 2. Theory
Evaporators have a relatively simple working principle, where heat is added in the
column by steam and energy transfer occurs from the steam to the equipment all the
way to the solution composed by a salute and a volatile liquid, aqueous solution.

How the liquid will flow and the heat transfer area of the evaporator dictate most, if not
all the time, the type of equipment used, (Geankoplis, 1995, p.491).

According to Geankoplis (1995b, pp.491–493), the different types of evaporators are as

follows:

 Open kettle of pan.

 Horizontal-tube natural circulation evaporator.
 Vertical-type natural circulation evaporator.
 Long-tube vertical type evaporator.
 Falling-film-type evaporator.
 Forced-circulation-type evaporator.
 Agitated-film evaporator.
 Open-pen solar evaporator

They can be represented as follows:

Figure 1: Different types of evaporators: (a) horizontal-tube type, (b) vertical-tube

type, (c) long-tube vertical type, (d) forced-circulation type, (Geankoplis, 1995,
p.492).

2
Although in this experiment we used a Computer Controlled Double Effect Rising Film
Evaporator, “EDPAC” unit, designed by EDIBON, to achieve the objectives of this
experiment the same approach to find the energy and material balance of an ideal
evaporator were used (Geankoplis, 1995, p.492).

Figure 2: Computer Controlled Double Effect Rising Film Evaporator, “EDPAC”

unit, designed by EDIBON, (Edibon, 2020).

For different processes there are different methods of operation of evaporators, such as:

 Single effect evaporator.

 Forward-feed multiple-effect evaporators.
 Backward-feed multiple-effect evaporators.
 Parallel-feed multiple-effect evaporators.

3
Figure 3:Simplified diagram of forward-feed tripple effect evaporator, (Geankoplis,
1995, p.494).

Working principle

In the above figure it is observed that both the vapor and the fresh feed flow in the same
direction. This is applicable in cases where the final concentrated solution cannot be
under high temperatures; in this method of operation the pressure of the system reduces
as we fluids move from effect one to effect two, in other words, vacuum pressure is
observed from the second effect onwards.

Figure 4:Simplified diagram of background-feed tripple-effect evaporator,

(Geankoplis, 1995, p.495).

4
Working principle

Here the concentrated solution exits the system of effects from the first effect, as it enters
from the third effect. It is useful when concentrating highly viscous fluids, as the high
temperature in the initial effects make the concentrated product less viscous, contributing
for a more realistic heat transfer coefficient, which composed by the steam-side
condensing coefficient. This value can be predicted when using various types of
evaporators according to Geankoplis, (1995, p.495).

Figure 5:Typical heat-transfer coefficient values for various evaporators,

(Geankoplis, 1995, p.496).

Single effect evaporators do not make use of the steam leaving the unit. To tackle this
situation, multiple-effect evaporators like the unit used for this experiment have been
designed so that the heat produced is recycled in a way that it is also used to heat up
the second evaporator, resulting in a higher steam economy. And since the concentrated
product solution from the first effect is also fed into the second effect, the solution
becomes even more concentrated at the end of the experiment. The evaporation took
place under vacuum pressure which means that less energy was consumed since the
pressure reduced the boiling point of the solution, (Deshpande, 2016)

Since for this experiment the steam fed was done so in a parallel manner, the mass
balance was conducted based on the single evaporator approach in order to find the
experimental feed, using the steps shown in the theory and the energy balance and the
were done based on the double effect evaporator example available on YouTube.

5
Figure 6: BFD of a single effect evaporator, (Geankoplis, 1995, p.496).

The above block flow diagram is used as a base for a better understanding of the masses
and enthalpies that enter and leave the system, given that we will tackle the double effect
evaporator unit by unit, the following formulas.

Equation 1: Overall material balance, (Geankoplis, 1995, p.497).

Equation 2: Balance on the solute alone, (Geankoplis, 1995, p.497).

𝑉1 +𝑉2
𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑦 = 𝑆𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑
,

Equation 3: Steam economy, (ChemE, 2021).

Since the temperatures in of the different streams and columns were taken at steady
state, for mass balance, it was assumed that the material in equals material out,
however, the concentrated solution in the columns were also taken into consideration as
accumulation in the finding of the experimental feed.

The steam economy was done by using the vapor over the steam feed.

6
For the energy balance to find the experimental amount of steam used in this system the
bellow equation was used as it is.

Equation 4: Energy balance, and heat transfer formulas, (Geankoplis, 1995,

p.497).

3. Materials & Methods

3.1. Materials

Figure 7: Computer Controlled Double Effect Rising Film Evaporator, “EDPAC”

unit, designed by EDIBON, (Edibon, 2020).

The above unit was used, as well as a 4% sugar solution, and a provided refractometer.

7
 3.2. Procedure/Methods
After been given the 4% concentrated sugar solution, it was poured in the different bottles
with different volumes so that it could be weighed. After the scaling of the solution, it was
poured in the feed tank to that the operation would then start. The system was turned on
and the not so concentrated solution was fed into the evaporator flowing in the tube all
the way up. In the AB-1 was turned on to allow the steam to enter the column so that it
would heat up the solution. The column had to constantly be monitored by removing
excess steam accumulating in the bottom of the column. As soon as the liquid started to
evaporate along the column, AB-3 was used to allow for steam to heat up the second
column respectively. After reaching steady state the temperature readings of the different
streams and columns were recorded, from the sensor displays. After a satisfactory
amount of solution was evaporated, both columns reached their full capacity, the process
stopped and the weight of the solutions in the different tanks such as feed, and distillate
were recorded. Also, the refractometer was used to record the concentrations of the
solutions in the different tanks.

8
 4. Results and Discussion

Table 1: Experimental overall material balance

Experimental Overall Material Balance

F(kg/h) L(kg/h) V (kg/h) IN-COlUMN (kg/h)

1,547 0,768 0,164 0,615

Table 2: Theoretical Overall Material Balance

Theoretical Overall Material

Balance
F (kg/h) V (kg/h) L (kg/h)
0,932 0,164 0,768

The results shown in tables 1 and 2 differ because of the different considerations and
assumptions made during their generation. It is clear that the for the experimental result
the solution in the column was also considered but in table 2 it a different approach was
used. These material balances were done using the outcomes to get into the income,
feed, because in reality not all the solution was evaporator, therefore we only wanted to
account for what the results would add up to for the sake of acquiring more accurate
values.

Table 3:Conversion table from brix to refractive index and from refractive index
to mass fraction

Refractive
Brix % Solids Liquids
index
Feed 1,341 5,300 0,053 0,947
In colum
5,000
1 1,340 0,050 0,950
In colum
2 1,342 6,000 0,060 0,940
Product1 1,341 5,600 0,056 0,944
Product2 1,342 5,900 0,059 0,941

These concentrations found in table 3 were easily found using the information in
Appendix A and B, where the measured brix were converted to refractive index, and then
through the use of the graph provided in the practical manual and also made readily
available in Appendix A. Table 3 shows that the lowest concentration is in the feed and

9
the highest is the one of the liquid accumulated in the second effect. It might be because
even though the experiment had stopped, it took the students long enough to allow that
more evaporation occur, making the solution more concentrated. Naturally, the second
highest mass fraction of the solution was that derived from the second effect column.

Table 4: Experimental component material balance

Balance on the solute (solids): First effect.

F (kg/h) XF L (kg/h) XL IN-C (kg/h) Xc
1,547 0,048 0,768 0,056 0,615 0,050

Table 5:Ideal component material balance

Balance on the solute (solids): First effect.

F (kg/h) XF L (kg/h) XL
0,932 0,046 0,768 0,056

A component material balance was done using the figures and tables found in Appendix
A and B, giving the familiar 4% mass fraction in the feed. This result agrees with the
theory provided and with the original sugar concentration amount in the solution, even
though the accumulated solution was also considered, as it can be observed in table 3.

Interesting enough, the ideal component material balance in which the accumulated
concentration was not included, also gives a very close mass fraction of sugar similar to
the one given in the theory. This just proves that the material balances were successfully
done despite the assumptions made.

10
Table 6:Energy balance in both columns separatly

Energy Balance

First effect

F (kg/h) hf (kJ/kg) S (kg/h) Hvl (kJ/kg) L (kg/h) hl (kJ/kg) V (kg/h) hvl (kJ/kg)
1,547 -6,691 0,115 2240,416 0,356 444,300 0,040 2224,992
247,340 247,340
Second effect
F (kg/h) hf (kJ/kg) S (kg/h) Hvl (kJ/kg) L (kg/h) hl (kJ/kg) V (kg/h) hvl (kJ/kg)
0,356 -80,294 0,199 2232,575 0,413 341,115 0,124 2224,992
416,021 416,021

The energy balance which was done excluding the condenser in the calculations was
successful as it was proven that energy in equals energy out in both effects. This
approach was based on equation 4 shown in the theory part where steady state
conditions were assumed. Through these calculations, the experimental steam used was
calculated. The steps for the energy balance can be found in Appendix A.

Table 7: Experimental Steam Economy Table 8:Ideal Steam Economy

Exp. Steam economy Units Steam economy Units

V1 0,040 (kg/h) V1 0,040 (kg/h)
VS
V2 0,124 (kg/h) V2 0,124 (kg/h)
Total Steam Feed
used 0,314 (kg/h) steam 0,115 (kg/h)
ANSWER 0,522 unitless ANSWER 1,424 unitless

The values in table 7 were achieved using the assumption that each effect was fed by
the steam in a parallel manner, and it gave us about 52%, whereas the result in table 8
was acquired through the assumption that an ideal double effect evaporator system was
in place and that the feed steam used in column 1 was also used in column 2, reason
why it has a much higher steam economy. Therefore, that shows that a double effect
evaporator economizes more steam than a single effect.

Also, it was assumed that there was no boiling point elevation because of the low
concentration of the sugar in the solution.

11
 5. Conclusion
Through experimental calculations and theoretical data analyzed, light was given to
compare both results and draw up a conclusion. The inclusion of the concentrated
solutions accumulated inside both evaporators defied the theoretical feed by producing
a bigger feed rate. However, in terms of mass fractions the results only differ on the third
decimal.

Once again the experimental results do not necessarily agree with the with theoretical
result. The steam used obtained at the end of the experiment was way bigger than that
which was experimentally found. Because of the different assumptions done in the
energy balance shown in Appendix A, the calculated steam did not take into
consideration the enthalpy of the concentrated solutions inside the columns, which
perhaps could have had an impact on the amount of steam used calculated. Whereas
for the steam used weighed at the end of experiment took all the condensed steam into
consideration; in this report the condenser was only used for logical information rather
than for actual calculations.

It was also agreed from the steam economy calculations performed under the
assumption that a double effect evaporator was in place and that the actual edibon unit
was used, that although an almost unrealistic result would be given, an ideal double
effect evaporator would be more economic than the edibon system used, where both
evaporators would have had steam fed into them from the same source, instead of using
the steam coming directly from the previous evaporator.

Through the theoretical background and the experimental procedure, the working
principle of a double effect evaporator was successfully presented. In Appendix A, the
mass and energy balance of the double effect evaporation unit were conducted, also,
the steam economy of this same system was also experimentally found.

5.1. Recommendations

Although it is safe to say that this experiment was a success, the errors presented proved
that there is still room for improvement. The difference between the steam calculated
and the steam measured at the end of the experiment shows that for this edibon unit, a
more in-depth energy balance must be conducted in a way that the condensate, and the
concentrated solutions inside the evaporators also have their respective enthalpies
included. Also, when conducting the experiment, it was noticed that some air would have
just evaporated into the atmosphere, which means that these losses should also be

12
accounted for. A human error might occur while transferring the solutions from a vessel
into another, therefore, better care must be taken when performing this type of tasks.

All the objectives and aims of the conducted experiment have been achieved.

13
 6. Reference list
ChemE, L. (2021). Double-effect Evaporator Energy Balance Example Problem.
[online] www.youtube.com. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-
O5i8C9PE&t=485s [Accessed 4 Sep. 2022].

Deshpande, R. (2016). Why does water evaporate in a vacuum? [online] Quora.

Available at: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-water-evaporate-in-a-vacuum
[Accessed 5 Sep. 2022].

Geankoplis, C.J. (1995a). Transport process and unit operations. Engelwood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall International, p.489.

Geankoplis, C.J. (1995b). Transport process and unit operations. Engelwood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall International, pp.439–440.

Hackett, B. (2018). The Essentials of Continuous Evaporation. [online] Aiche.org.

Available at: https://www.aiche.org/resources/publications/cep/2018/may/essentials-
continuous-evaporation.

https://www.edibon.com/en/plc-industrial-process-control-for-edpac/catalog

Brinks, M. (2021). What Is the Specific Heat of Water? How Is It Special? SAT / ACT
Prep Online Guides and Tips. Available at: https://blog.prepscholar.com/specific-heat-
capacity-of-
water#:~:text=Water%20is%20one%20of%20the%20latter%E2%80%94it%20has%20a
,has%20a%20specific%20heat%20capacity%20of%204182%20J%2Fkg%C2%B0C.
[Accessed Sep. 3].

14
 7. Appendices

7.1. Appendix A – Calculations

Note: The enthalpies in this report were calculated through the use of the interpolation
𝐲 −𝐲
formula, 𝐲𝐮 = (𝐱𝟐−𝐱𝟏 ) × (𝐱𝐮 − 𝐱𝟏 )+Y1, for the determined temperatures.
𝟐 𝟏

1. Perform a mass balance on the system calculating the amount of concentrated and
evaporated product obtained during the process.

Experimental/Calculated Material balance

Properties of interest:

Column 1 & 2

L: 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒, 3𝐿, = 0,309𝑘𝑔

𝑘𝑔
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝐿) = (0,665 − 0,309) + (0,722 − 0,309) = 0,768 .
ℎ

(Assuming per hour as basis).

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛

= 0,163𝑘𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 0,183𝑘𝑔 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦.

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛𝑠 = (0,269 − 0,163) + (0,692 − 0,183)

𝑘𝑔
= 0,615 .
ℎ

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟 (𝑉)

= 0,138𝑘𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 0,163𝑘𝑔, 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦.

Therefore:

𝑘𝑔
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑉 = (0,178 − 0,138) + (0,287 − 0,163) = 0,164 ℎ
.

Overall material balance (OMB):

15
 𝑘𝑔
𝐹 = 𝐿 + 𝑉 + 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 = 0,768 + 0,163 + 0,615 = 1,547 .
ℎ

Table 9:Sugar concentration in brix for the different streams and columns.

CONCENTRATIONS

Column1 Column2 Unit

Feed 5,3 Brix
Product 5,6 5,9 Brix
In-Column 5,0 Brix
In-Column 6,0 Brix

The above values were measured in the experiment using the provided refractometer.
And were used to convert them into mass fractions using the figures bellow.

16
Figure 8:Conversion table for sugar from brix to refractive index, (Refractive Index.
n.d.).

Table 10:Conversion table from refractive index to mass fraction of sugar in the
different streams and columns.

Refractive
Brix % Solids Liquids
index
Feed 1,341 5,300 0,053 0,947
In colum
5,000
1 1,340 0,050 0,950
In colum
2 1,342 6,000 0,060 0,940
Product1 1,341 5,600 0,056 0,944
Product2 1,342 5,900 0,059 0,941
The above values were concentrated based on the figure bellow.

17
Figure 9:Graphical representation of refractive index vs % sugar, (Evaporation
practical guide, 2022).

Balance on the solute (solids) alone/first effect

𝐹𝑥𝐹 = 𝐿𝑥𝐿 + 𝐼𝑛_𝐶𝑥𝐶

𝐿𝑥𝐿 + 𝐼𝑛_𝐶𝑥𝐶 (0,768 × 0,056) + (0,615 × 0,050)

𝑥𝐹 = = = 0,048.
𝐹 0,932

18
Theoretical Material balance

Properties of interest:

Column 1 & 2

L: 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒, 3𝐿, = 0,309𝑘𝑔

𝑘𝑔
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝐿) = (0,665 − 0,309) + (0,722 − 0,309) = 0,768 .
ℎ

(Assuming per hour as basis).

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑟 (𝑉)

= 0,138𝑘𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 0,163𝑘𝑔, 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑦.

Therefore:

𝑘𝑔
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑉 = (0,178 − 0,138) + (0,287 − 0,163) = 0,164 .
ℎ

Overall material balance (OMB):

𝑘𝑔
𝐹 = 𝐿 + 𝑉 = 0,768 + 0,163 = 0,932 .
ℎ

2. Determine the steam flow (kg/h) introduced in the column from the energy balance.

Energy Balance

First effect

𝐹ℎ𝑓 + 𝑆𝐻𝑣𝑙 = 𝐿ℎ𝑙 + 𝑉ℎ𝑣𝑙

Where hf = 𝐶𝑃𝐹 × (𝑇𝐹 − 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 )

Therefore, using the temperature obtained from the experiment, which can be seen in
Appendix B – Tables of results, the following can be calculated:

𝐹(𝐶𝑃𝐹 × (𝑇𝐹 − 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 ) + 𝑆𝐻𝑣𝑙 = 𝐿ℎ𝑙 + 𝑉ℎ𝑣𝑙

𝐿ℎ𝑙 + 𝑉ℎ𝑣𝑙 − 𝐹(𝐶𝑃𝐹 × (𝑇𝐹 − 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 )

𝑆=
𝐻𝑣𝑙

19
 (0,356 × 444,300) + (0,040 × 2224,992) − 1,547 × (4,182 × (99,1 − 100,7))
𝑆=
2240,416
𝑘𝑔
= 0,115 .
ℎ

Second effect

𝐹ℎ𝑓 + 𝑆𝐻𝑣𝑙 = 𝐿ℎ𝑙 + 𝑉ℎ𝑣𝑙

Where hf = 𝐶𝑃𝐹 × (𝑇𝐹 − 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 )

Therefore, using the temperature obtained from the experiment, which can be seen in
Appendix B – Tables of results, the following can be calculated:

𝐹(𝐶𝑃𝐹 × (𝑇𝐹 − 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 ) + 𝑆𝐻𝑣𝑙 = 𝐿ℎ𝑙 + 𝑉ℎ𝑣𝑙

𝐿ℎ𝑙 + 𝑉ℎ𝑣𝑙 − 𝐹(𝐶𝑃𝐹 × (𝑇𝐹 − 𝑇𝑜𝑢𝑡 )

𝑆=
𝐻𝑣𝑙

(0,413 × 341,115) + (0,124 × 2224,992) − 0,356 × (4,182 × (81,5 − 100,7))

𝑆=
2240,416
𝑘𝑔
= 0,119 .
ℎ

Therefore, the total experimental steam used is as follows:

𝑘𝑔
𝑆𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 = 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 + 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 = 0,115 + 0,119 = 0,314 .
ℎ

3. Determine the experimental steam economy of the system

𝑉1 + 𝑉2
𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑦 =
𝑆𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑

0,040+0,124
𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑦 = 0,314
= 0,522.

4. Compare the experimental and the theoretical mass balance of the system, note that
this title was adjusted by the student to ensure a better understanding of what is been
asked.

20
Experimental/Calculated Material balance vs Theoretical Material balance

Overall material balance (OMB):

𝑘𝑔
𝐹 = 𝐿 + 𝑉 + 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 = 0,768 + 0,163 + 0,615 = 1,547 .
ℎ

Overall material balance (OMB):

𝑘𝑔
𝐹 = 𝐿 + 𝑉 = 0,768 + 0,163 = 0,932 .
ℎ

5. Compare the amount of steam used in the experiment and the one obtained in the
calculations.

𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑦 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 (𝑆) = 0,413𝑘𝑔.

kg
Mass of theoretical steam used = (1,591 − 0,413) = 1,178 h .

Experimental steam used

𝑘𝑔
𝑆𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 = 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 + 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 = 0,115 + 0,119 = 0,314 .
ℎ

6. What would the steam economy be if the system was operated using the double effect
operation.

Should the system be operated using a double effect operation, the experimental steam
economy would be as follows:

𝑉1 + 𝑉2
𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑦 =
𝑆𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑

0,040 + 0,124
𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑦 = = 1,424.
0,115

21
 7.2. Appendix B- Important tables with results
MASSES

Column1 Column2
m1(g) m1(kg) m2(g) m2(kg)
IN-COlUMN
Empty B 163,38 0,163 183,04 0,183
Solution 268,54 0,269 692,43 0,692 Total
0,615

Column1 Column2

PRODUCT m1(g) m1(kg) m2(g) m2(kg)

Empty B 309,420 0,309 309,420 0,309
Solution 665,050 0,665 722,220 0,722 Total
0,768

Column1 Column2

m1(g) m1(kg) m2(g) m2(kg)

DISTILLATE
Empty B 138,220 0,138 163,380 0,163
Solution 178,370 0,178 287,070 0,287 Total
0,164

m1(g) m1(kg)
THEORETICAL Empty B 413,190 0,413
STEAM USED Solution 1591,260 1,591 Total
1,178

22
 STEADY STATE TEMPERATURES & ENTHALPIES
STEADY STATE TEMPERATURE ENTHALPY

SINGLE EFFECT SINGLE EFFECT

STREAM TEMP. UNIT ĥl UNIT ĥg UNIT

ST-1 STEAM-IN 106,200 445,204 kJ/kg 2685,620 kJ/kg
ST-2 STEAM-OUT 106,000 444,358 kJ/kg 2685,315 kJ/kg
ST-3 SOLTN-IN 99,100 415,249 kJ/kg kJ/kg
ST-4 SOLTN-OUT 100,700 444,300 kJ/kg 2669,292 kJ/kg

CONDENSER CONDENSER

STREAM TEMP. UNIT ĥl UNIT ĥg UNIT

ST-6 COND-IN 18,800 78,917 kJ/kg
ST-7 COND-OUT 16,800 70,531 kJ/kg
DOUBLE-EFFECT DOUBLE-EFFECT

STREAM TEMP. UNIT ĥl UNIT ĥg UNIT

ST-9 STEAM-IN 109,100 457,465 kJ/kg 2690,040 kJ/kg
ST-10 STEAM-OUT 110,000 kJ/kg 2691,412 kJ/kg
ST-11 SOLTN-IN 81,500 341,115 kJ/kg kJ/kg
ST-12 SOLTN-OUT 100,700 444,300 kJ/kg 2669,292 kJ/kg

Table 11: Temperatures and enthalpies of the relevant streams.

23
 Energy Balance

First effect
F (kg/h) hf (kJ/kg) S (kg/h) Hvl (kJ/kg) L (kg/h) hl (kJ/kg) V (kg/h) hvl (kJ/kg) CPF (Kj/kg )
1,547 -6,691 0,115 2240,416 0,356 444,300 0,040 2224,992 4,182
Energy in 247,340 247,340 Energy out
Second effect
F (kg/h) hf (kJ/kg) S (kg/h) Hvl (kJ/kg) L (kg/h) hl (kJ/kg) V (kg/h) hvl (kJ/kg) CPF (Kj/kg )
0,356 -80,294 0,199 2232,575 0,413 341,115 0,124 2224,992 4,182
Energy in 416,021 416,021 Energy out

Table 12: Energy balance around each unit, first effect and second effect.

24
25