Journal of Food Engineering

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: JFOODENG-D-17-01884

Title: Modelling of a milk powder falling film evaporator for predicting

process trends and comparison of energy consumption

Article Type: Research Article

Keywords: Simulation, falling film evaporator, mechanical vapour

recompression.

Abstract: In this study, two commonly used types of milk powder

evaporators: a conventional five-effect falling-film evaporator without
mechanical vapour recompression (MVR), and a three-effect evaporator with
MVR were modelled in a commercial process simulator. The objectives were
to predict the process variable trends (temperature profile along the
tube side and the shell side of the evaporator) and to compare energy
consumption for the two types of evaporators. Heat-recovery processes
were integrated into the model so that energy consumption could be
compared for the two processes. The size of the evaporator required was
also estimated so that so that operating and capital costs could be
assessed. The model prediction results were validated using industrial
data from a local milk powder plant. The developed model successfully
predicted temperature profiles similar to industrial evaporator.
Furthermore, energy comparison between two types of evaporators was
consistent with a known fact that a three-effect falling-film evaporator
with MVR could consume 60 % less energy than a conventional five-effect
evaporator. These developed models in a commercial process simulator are
novel in the dairy industry and can be used for simulating heat-recovery
integrated evaporation processes but they still remain sufficiently
generic and flexible to be applied to other production processes.
*Highlights (for review)

Modelling of a milk powder falling film evaporator for predicting

process trends and comparison of energy consumption

Yechun Zhang, M. Tajammal Munir*, Isuru Udugama, Wei Yu, and Brent R. Young
Industrial Information and Control Centre (I2C2), The Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, the
University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Highlights

 Two commonly used types of milk powder evaporators were modelled.

 The objectives were to predict the process variable trends.
 Heat-recovery processes were integrated into the model to compare energy
consumption.

*Corresponding authors: Tel.: +64-9-3737599, Email Address tajammal.munir@auckland.ac.nz

1
*Manuscript
Click here to view linked References

1 Modelling of a milk powder falling film evaporator for predicting

2 process trends and comparison of energy consumption
3 Yechun Zhang, M. Tajammal Munir*, Isuru Udugama, Wei Yu, and Brent R. Young

4 Industrial Information and Control Centre (I2C2), The Department of Chemical and Materials
5 Engineering, the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

6 Abstract

7 In this study, two commonly used types of milk powder evaporators: a conventional

8 five-effect falling-film evaporator without mechanical vapour recompression (MVR),

9 and a three-effect evaporator with MVR were modelled in a commercial process

10 simulator. The objectives were to predict the process variable trends (temperature

11 profile along the tube side and the shell side of the evaporator) and to compare energy

12 consumption for the two types of evaporators. Heat-recovery processes were

13 integrated into the model so that energy consumption could be compared for the two

14 processes. The size of the evaporator required was also estimated so that so that

15 operating and capital costs could be assessed. The model prediction results were

16 validated using industrial data from a local milk powder plant. The developed model

17 successfully predicted temperature profiles similar to industrial evaporator.

18 Furthermore, energy comparison between two types of evaporators was consistent

19 with a known fact that a three-effect falling-film evaporator with MVR could

20 consume 60 % less energy than a conventional five-effect evaporator. These

21 developed models in a commercial process simulator are novel in the dairy industry

22 and can be used for simulating heat-recovery integrated evaporation processes but

23 they still remain sufficiently generic and flexible to be applied to other production

24 processes.

*Corresponding authors: Tel.: +64-9-3737599, Email Address tajammal.munir@auckland.ac.nz

1
25 Keywords: Simulation, falling film evaporator, mechanical vapour recompression.

26 1. Introduction

27 Evaporators in milk-powder production plants are widely used for concentrating milk

28 not only to achieve the desired viscosity for subsequent spray drying but also to

29 reduce the energy required for spray drying. During evaporation, sterilised milk is

30 concentrated under vacuum at temperatures between 40–70 °C. The total solids

31 content increased from approximately 13 % to 50 % as a result of this process.

32 Evaporation of milk takes place under vacuum to minimise the adverse impact of heat

33 on thermally sensitive milk components such as fats and to avoid thermal

34 degeneration of key nutrients such as vitamins.

35 Various types of evaporator are used in the dairy industry such as falling-film, plate,

36 and horizontal-tube evaporators. Falling-film evaporators are the most commonly

37 used for milk powder production and are usually used with mechanical and thermal

38 vapour recompression. Falling-film evaporators have a shell-and-tube arrangement as

39 shown in Figure 1. Milk circulates inside vertical tubes while steam provides direct

40 heating from the evaporator shell for evaporation. Falling-film evaporators are

41 preferred since they are easy to design, have a large heat-transfer area and produce a

42 short residence time. Although various types of evaporators differ in the details of

43 their design, different evaporators have the same working principle: the heat flow

44 evaporates water from the milk (Bylund, 1995).

45

2
46

47 Figure 1. Basic principle of falling-film evaporator (Munir et al., 2014)

48 Evaporation is the second most energy intensive process in milk powder production

49 after drying (Ruan et al., 2015). Therefore, energy consumption during evaporation

50 has a substantial impact on the cost of milk powder production. Energy saving or heat

51 recovery during milk powder production are desirable in terms of revenue savings and

52 the environment in terms of reduced impacts and minimized energy-related

53 greenhouse emissions. Several authors, such as Ramírez et al. (2006) and Atkins et al.

54 (2010), have reviewed energy use in the dairy industry, and have recommended

55 various energy-saving strategies such as energy efficiency monitoring, energy

56 integration, and use of integrated solar thermal energy. Increasing the temperature of

57 milk evaporation may reduce costs by speeding up the process but relatively high

3
58 temperatures cause whey protein reactions and damage the functional properties of

59 milk powder (Pisecky et al., 2012; Winchester, 2000). However, Bylund (1995)

60 suggested some energy-saving opportunities for evaporators such as evaporating milk

61 at a relatively higher temperature above 70 °C using multi-effect evaporators, and

62 using mechanical vapour recompression (MVR) during evaporation with a falling-

63 film evaporator. With MVR, vapours generated from the boiling chamber are

64 mechanically recompressed to the pressure of the corresponding heating steam

65 temperature of the evaporator and are recycled back to the evaporator. Mechanical

66 vapour recompression is preferably used with falling-film evaporators rather than

67 other types because of they require low amounts of energy (Bylund, 2003; Pisecky et

68 al., 2012).

69 Falling-film evaporation and vapour recompression are both complex processes in

70 which various transport, and heat and mass transfer phenomena occur. These

71 phenomena need to be understood for process evaluation and optimisation studies.

72 Modern computational technology such as commercial process simulators can help to

73 extend our knowledge of the field further by modelling these evaporators. Evaporator

74 process models can be used to predict process behaviour with reasonably acceptable

75 accuracy and can play a major role in optimisation and decision making without the

76 need for costly full-scale research trials that would disrupt normal plant operation.

77 Limited literature exists specifically on falling-film evaporator modelling for milk

78 powder applications. For example, Winchester and Marsh (1999) proposed a first-

79 principles model of an evaporator based on the physical laws of thermodynamics.

80 More recently, Medhat et al. (2015) developed both “lumped” and “distributed”

81 dynamic models for an industrial multi-effect whole milk evaporator. However, a

4
 82 wide variety of evaporator models can be found in the literature for other food

83 applications. For example, Russell et al. (2000) presented three types of evaporator

84 models for a general evaporation process: an artificial neural network model; an

85 analytically-derived model; and a linear regression model, and Bhargava et al. (2008)

86 presented a non-linear mathematical model for concentrating black liquor in a paper

87 mill. Moreover, various studies have investigated: flow regimes (Silveira et al., 2015);

88 heat transfer coefficient distribution (Gong et al., 2015); pressure drop and friction

89 factor modelling (Mura and Gourdon, 2017); and modelling of heat and mass transfer

90 in falling film evaporators (Bourouni et al., 1998).

91 Most of the evaporator modelling related studies cited above have developed

92 mathematical equations or used self-developed numerical modelling approaches.

93 However, there is a deficiency of literature on milk powder falling-film evaporator

94 models using modern commercial process simulators. A commercial process

95 simulator approach to model an evaporator is preferred in this study over self-

96 developed numerical modelling tools because commercial simulators have large

97 critical user bases, comprehensive thermodynamic packages, and advanced

98 computational methods. Madoumier et al. (2015) mentioned the potential of process

99 simulators for modelling evaporators. Therefore, the use of process simulators to

100 build a process simulation of a falling-film evaporator is the objective of the current

101 study.

102 In this work, a simulation approach was proposed to model both conventional falling-

103 film evaporators and those with mechanical vapour recompression. With similar

104 baseline conditions assumed, the modelling results were presented and the evaporator

105 temperatures were compared with those obtained from a typical industrial plant.

106 Detailed comparisons were made in terms of overall heat transfer and energy

5
107 consumption. Capital cost and operational cost were estimated based on the values

108 predicted by the simulations.

109 2. Materials and methods

110 2.1. Modelling of ‘pseudo’ milk

111 A milk stream with ‘pseudo’ milk components was built in a commerical process

112 simulator during the authors’ previous work e.g. Zhang et al. (2014) with some

113 advancements as described in Munir et al. (2016). In these previous studies, the key

114 components of milk such as fat, proteins, lactose, and minerals were hypothetically

115 generated by populating key fundamental properties in the simulator. Thermodynamic

116 and physical properties such as heat capacity, thermal conductivity, density, and

117 viscosity of ‘pseudo’ milk components were modelled using the process simulator and

118 were compared with experimental data. The simulation of milk as a collection of

119 ‘pseudo’ milk components in the simulator allowed us to simulate dairy processing

120 unit operations, and to predict milk process behaviour reasonably accurately relative

121 to real milk.

122 Table 1. The composition and key physical properties of the raw milk at 4 °C, 101
123 kPa. The components marked with an asterisk are hypothetical compounds.

Component Weight % Property Data

Water 87.0 Density (ρ), (kg·m-3) 1023.9
Fat* 4.0 Heat capacity (Cp), (J·kg-1·K-1) 3866.0
Protein* 3.4 Thermal conductivity (k), (W·m-1·K-1) 0.53
Lactose* 4.8 Viscosity (μ), (mPa·s) 3.98
NaCl 0.4
KCl 0.4
124

125

6
126

127 The composition of raw milk used in the simulation conducted here was based on that

128 reported by Bylund (1995) and Bon et al. (2010). Milk composition and simulator

129 predicted thermodynamic properties of ‘pseudo’ milk at 4 °C and 101.325 kPa are

130 presented in Table 1. Further details about modelling of ‘pseudo’ milk are provided in

131 Zhang et al. (2014), and Munir et al. (2016) .

132

133 2.2. Process simulator and process simulation

134 In this study, the software VMGSim v10.0 (Virtual Materials Group Inc., 2014) was

135 used as the process simulator. The reasons for choosing VMGSim were: 1) a user-

136 friendly interface; 2) up-to-date thermodynamic data; and 3) its ability to incorporate

137 customized calculations using external computer program routines. The simulator has

138 been widely used e.g. for improving process design (Lee et al., 2011), optimization

139 (Saber and Shaw, 2008), controller assessment (Munir et al., 2012a, b), and

140 equipment sizing (Andika and Lee, 2017). An advanced Peng-Robinson

141 thermodynamic model was chosen due to its wide application and good accuracy in

142 predicting physical properties of polar and hydrocarbon compounds (Munir et al.,

143 2016).

144 Both a conventional multi-effect falling-film evaporator and falling-film evaporator

145 with MVR were modelled in the commercial process simulator for a typical milk

146 powder production process. As the key unit operation, a falling-film evaporator uses a

147 shell-and-tube arrangement for heat transfer between the tube wall and shell, Figure 1.

148 Therefore, a vertical shell-and-tube heat exchanger was used to represent the calandria

149 of a falling-film evaporator. It should be noted that a real calandria consists of a large

150 number of tubes while the shell-and-tube heat exchanger unit operation in the

7
151 simulator only has single tube. Therefore, the single-tube approach can be considered

152 as a lumped cluster of multiple, smaller tubes. The key design parameters include heat

153 transfer factor U·A, where U is the overall heat transfer co-efficient and A is the total

154 heat transfer area. The co-efficient U can be broken down into four parts as described

155 in Equation (1), which can be further considered in detail design.

(1)

156 where, hs and ht accounts for shell and tube side film heat transfer coefficients, xw is

157 the thickness of the tube wall, kw is the heat transfer rate of the tube wall, and ft is the

158 fouling factor on the tube side.

159 The flow directions for the tube and shell sides were set to be co-current. Each

160 calandria was vertically divided into 50 sections in order to reach sufficient accuracy

161 and resolution. The energy balance in each section is given by Equation (2).

(2)
162 where, Wi is the heat transfer duty within section i and ΔTi is average temperature

163 difference in section i. The total heat transfer duty is given by Equation (3).

(3)

164 All other heat exchangers for heat recovery purposes followed Equations (2) and (3),

165 except that they consisted of only 20 sections, and the flow direction was set to

166 counter-current instead of co-current.

167 The orifice and the distributor as shown in Figure 1 generate a pressure drop for the

168 milk stream before it enters the calandria tubes, and they were represented as a valve

169 unit operation in the simulator (effectively a resistance to flow).

8
170

171

172 2.3. An industrial plant as baseline case

173 A conventional five-effect falling-film evaporator and a three-effect falling-film

174 evaporator with MRV used in an industrial milk powder production plant (Bylund,

175 2003) were modelled. The models for both the conventional falling-film evaporator

176 and the three-effect falling-film evaporator with MVR were built in both steady state

177 and dynamic modes with the common assumptions and baselines outlined below in

178 order to conduct a reasonable comparison:

179 1. The milk feed has a temperature of 4 °C, pressure of 50 kPa and flow rate of

180 30,000 kg per hour, which is a typical processing rate for a dairy plant (Bylund,

181 1995).

182 2. The heat recovery and preheating process ensures the milk enters the first

183 calandria at 81.5 °C, and 50 kPa (at its boiling point).

184 3. Each calandria has no pressure drop on the tube side and 1 kPa pressure drop on

185 the shell side.

186 4. The condensate from each calandria is used for preheating the cold milk feed.

187 5. The final product has a water content of 50 wt. %

188 After building a model of a multi-effect falling-film evaporator with and without

189 MRV, the stream information, composition and key physical properties predicted by

190 the process simulation were compared with relevant industrial plant data. The

191 temperature profile along each calandria was also observed from the model. The

192 temperature profile is essential to study whether or not heat has been effectively

193 transferred and if the incoming temperature is outside of the acceptable range.

9
194 2.4. Energy consumption and preliminary cost analysis

195 The difference in energy consumption between the five-effect falling-film evaporator

196 without MRV and three-effect falling-film evaporator with MRV was compared in

197 this study using the process model. For the conventional five-effect evaporator, the

198 energy is mainly used for final stage preheating (“Preheater” in Figure 2) and

199 producing fresh steam (“Steam heater” in Figure 2) for calandria 1. For the three-

200 effect evaporator with MVR, the energy usage is in the two MVR compressors (CP1

201 and CP2 in Figure 3), the preheater (“Preheater” in Figure 3) and the steam heater that

202 provides fresh steam for thermo-compression (“Steam heater” in Figure 3).

203 In this study, the costs of operating the five-effect falling-film evaporator without

204 MRV and three-effect falling-film evaporator with MRV were compared using steam

205 cost. Steam used in dairy plants in New Zealand is mostly produced by burning

206 natural gas (Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, 2017). Annual savings

207 of new installations were also considered. The cost calculations were based on a gas

208 price of 3USD/GJ, and the price was taken from the average market price for gas in

209 mid-2017. Furthermore, it was assumed that gas was burned to produce the heating

210 duty required and an efficiency of 70 % was achieved in the conversion process.

211 Natural gas was used in this instance as it is currently used by industrial dairy

212 manufacturers and provides a lower base cost for heating in comparison to the use of

213 electricity or other methods.

214 3. Results and discussion

215 3.1. Baseline case results

216 A schematic of the conventional five-effect falling-film evaporator is shown in Figure

217 2.

10
218

219 Figure 2. Schematic of a conventional five-effect falling-film evaporator.

220 A total of five shell-and-tube heat exchangers (Effects 1-5) were used to represent

221 five calandria. Fresh steam at 81.5 °C, 50 kPa was fed into the first effect where the

222 external energy is provided to the evaporator system. The vapour separated from the

223 concentrated product of each calandria was fed into the shell side of the next calandria,

224 while the liquid phase was expelled through the orifice valve. The liquid expanded as

225 it was expelled and, therefore, its temperature dropped. The evaporation process was

226 then repeated in the next calandria. The vapour condensate from each calandria was

227 used to transfer heat in the preheating area, where most of the energy was recovered

228 through heat exchangers Hx 1-6. The final preheater raised the temperature to 81.5 °C,

229 and 50 kPa. The simulation calculated that for the conventional five-effect evaporator,

230 4230 kg/hr of steam is required for a 30, 000 kg/hr feed, which resulted in 0.19 kg of

231 steam required to evaporate 1 kg of water. This simulated result is slightly lower to

232 those reported in literature (0.20 kg of steam per 1 kg of water), presumably due to

233 ideal heat recovery (Hall et al., 1986).

11
234 The model for a three-effect falling-film evaporator with two-stage MVR was

235 developed. This is a generic example typical of the industry and a schematic is shown

236 in Figure 3.

237

238 Figure 3. Process flow schematic of a three-effect falling-film evaporator with MVR.

239 Similar to the model of the conventional evaporator, three shell-and-tube heat

240 exchangers (Effects 1-3) were used to represent the calandria. For Effects 1 & 2, the

241 vapour stream separated from the concentrated product of each calandria was sent to

242 its respective compressor in order to raise its energy. Therefore, the steam was

243 circulated in the calandria rather than introducing fresh steam to provide energy. For

244 process control purposes, the vapour was split into two streams, so that a degree of

245 freedom was added to Effects 1 & 2. In practice, flow controllers are in place to

246 control the amount of vapour to be circulated. For Effect 3, additional high pressure

247 steam (at 10 bar) (thermo-compression) was supplied to boost the vapour pressure

12
248 instead of using mechanical compressors. The reason for doing this is that the amount

249 of steam produced from Effect 3 is usually not sufficient to be compressed and sent

250 back to the calandria shell again. Similar to conventional evaporators, the condensate

251 streams were used for heat recovery purposes through heat exchangers Hx1-4.

252

253 3.2. Simulated stream information and comparison with plant data

254 One of the outputs from the model was that it can present stream information, such as

255 composition and key physical properties. The simulated stream information is

256 especially important for evaporating milk since some physical properties are used as

257 an indication of total solid content so they are a major index of the product. For

258 example, the viscosity of milk concentrate is used to control the atomisation process

259 in the spray dryer (Pisecky et al., 2012). This information can also be used for process

260 control.

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

13
270 Table 2. Compositions and key physical properties of the concentrate from each effect
271 for a conventional five-effect evaporator.

Effect 1 Effect 2 Effect 3 Effect 4 Effect 5

Stream name in
Feed 2 Feed 3 Feed 4 Feed 5 Milk product
PFD
Key physical properties
T (°C) 70.8 66.2 61.4 55.6 49.8
P (kPa) 32 26 21 16 12
F (kg·hr-1) 24559 18944 13289 9954 7810
ρ (kg·m-3) 1009 1021 1041 1064 1091
Cp (kJ·kg-1·K-1) 3.771 3.595 3.329 3.032 2.778
k (W·m-1·K-1) 0.594 0.572 0.531 0.486 0.440
μ (mPa·s) 0.490 0.561 0.731 1.045 1.708
Compositions
Water (wt. %) 0.841 0.794 0.707 0.608 0.501
Fat (wt. %) 0.049 0.063 0.090 0.120 0.154
Protein (wt. %) 0.042 0.054 0.077 0.102 0.130
Lactose (wt. %) 0.059 0.008 0.108 0.145 0.184
NaCl (wt. %) 0.005 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015
KCl (wt. %) 0.005 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015

272 The compositions and key physical properties of the concentrated product are shown

273 in Table 2 for the conventional five-effect evaporator and in Table 3 for three-effect

274 evaporator with MVR. The temperatures of the concentrated product after each effect

275 with respect to the boiling point curve of simulated milk are shown in Figure 4.

276

277

278

14
279 Table 3. Compositions and key physical properties of the concentrate from each effect
280 for a three-effect evaporator with MVR.

Effect 1 Effect 2 Effect 3

Stream name Feed 2 Feed 3 Milk product
Key physical properties
T (°C) 67.1 61.4 54.3
P (kPa) 27 21 15
-1
F (kg·hr ) 11355 9526.9 7814
ρ (kg·m-3) 1050 1067 1090
Cp (kJ·kg-1·K-1) 3.249 3.052 2.785
-1 -1
k (W·m ·K ) 0.512 0.482 0.442
μ (mPa·s) 0.733 0.966 1.518
Compositions
Water (wt. %) 0.657 0.591 0.500
Fat (wt. %) 0.106 0.126 0.154
Protein (wt. %) 0.090 0.107 0.131
Lactose (wt. %) 0.127 0.151 0.184
NaCl (wt. %) 0.011 0.013 0.015
KCl (wt. %) 0.011 0.013 0.015
281

282

283

284

15
 90

80
1
Boiling point (°C)

70 2
3
1
60 4 2
5
50 3

40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Pressure (kPa)
285

286 Figure 4. The temperatures of the concentrated product after each effect for both
287 conventional five-effect evaporator (Red squares) and three-effect evaporator with
288 MVR (Blue circles)

289 Both types of evaporators demonstrated similar trends across effects, due to the nature

290 of evaporation. The pressure decreased with each effect and the product temperature

291 dropped accordingly, from an initial value of around 70 °C to 50 °C. The water

292 content decreased accordingly and finally reached 50 wt. % for both types of

293 evaporators. As a result, the key physical properties showed a clear trend whereby

294 liquid density (ρ) and viscosity (μ) increased while specific heat (Cp) and heat

295 conductivity (k) decreased, which agrees with the data reported by Zhang et al. (2014),

296 Madoumier et al. (2015), and Munir et al. (2016). However, it can be seen from

297 Figure 4 that a wider pressure range is required for the conventional five-effect

298 evaporator than the three-effect evaporator with MVR as a certain amount of pressure

299 drop should be guaranteed in each effect to create a temperature difference for heat

300 transfer inside the calandria. The pressure drop, temperature drop and amount of

301 water evaporated across each calandria are shown in Table 4.

16
302 Table 4. Pressure drop, temperature drop and amount of water vaporized across each
303 calandria for conventional five-effect evaporator and three-effect evaporator with
304 MVR.

Effect 1 Effect 2 Effect 3 Effect 4 Effect 5

Conventional five-effect evaporator
ΔP (kPa) 18 6 5 5 4
ΔT (°C) 10.7 4.6 4.8 5.9 5.9
ΔF (kg/h) 5441 5614 5674 3330 2140
Three-effect evaporator with MVR
ΔP (kPa) 23 6 6
ΔT (°C) 14.4 5.7 7.1
ΔF (kg/h) 18107 2958 1134
305

306 The amount of water evaporated in each effect appears to be evenly distributed for the

307 conventional five-effect evaporator but the majority of the water was evaporated in

308 the first-effect in a three-effect evaporator with MVR. This difference can be

309 explained by the mechanism of MVR: the evaporated vapour from the first-effect was

310 compressed and sent back to the shell side of calandria 1. Due to the large flow rate of

311 the vapour, it can release a significant amount of energy as well, with the compression

312 ratio for the compressor CP1 only as low as 1.4. However, the MVR for the second

313 effect does not have a vapour flow rate as large as the first calandria; therefore it can

314 evaporate much less water even though the compression ratio for the compressor CP2

315 was 1.6.

316 Since the three-effect evaporator with MVR was developed based on a real production

317 plant, a comparison of the stream temperature was made between the simulation

318 results and real plant data. It should be noted that the plant data is in real time but the

319 time axis has been rescaled for confidentiality reasons. The sensor locations are

320 shown in Figure 3 and the comparison results are shown in Figure 5.

17
321

322 Figure 5. Comparison of temperature (T) sensor readings and simulation results; data
323 shown for 24 hours.

324

325 3.3. Calandria temperature profile and heat transfer factor

326 As one of the key outputs of the model, the temperature profile along each calandria

327 can be viewed directly from the model. The temperature profile is essential to study

328 whether or not heat has been effectively transferred and if the approaching

329 temperature is outside of the acceptable range. The temperature profiles of calandria 1,

330 3 and 5 for the conventional five-effect evaporator are shown in Figure 6.

18
331

332 Figure 6. Temperature profile of calandria 1, 3 and 5 for a conventional five-effect

333 evaporator. “T” stands for tube side temperature and “S” stands for shell side
334 temperature.

335 For falling-film type evaporators, the heat is transferred by condensing steam on the

336 tube side and evaporating of liquid product on the shell side so the latent heat of

337 vaporization (or condensation) is the main energy source rather than that stored by

338 heat capacity. Therefore, the temperature on both sides of the tube walls should

339 remain stable, which was accurately predicted by the model. The reason that the shell

340 side temperature showed a minor drop is due to the assumption of 1 kPa pressure drop

341 on the shell side, causing condensing temperature to decrease accordingly.

342 The temperature profiles of calandria 1, 2 and 3 for the three-effect evaporator with

343 MVR are shown in Figure 7.

19
344

345 Figure 7. Temperature profiles of the 3 calandria for a three-effect evaporator with
346 MVR. “T” stands for tube side temperature and “S” stands for shell side temperature.

347 Some interesting results can be observed from Figure 7. First of all, the shell side

348 temperature appears to be above the condensing temperature at the first three sections

349 for calandria 1 and 2, indicating the steam is superheated as a result of compression.

350 In real applications of MVR, desuperheaters are used to improve heat transfer, and the

351 excess heat is usually recovered. In the model, the desuperheater was simplified and

352 integrated into the calandria while the recovered heat was considered to be released to

353 the calandria tubes. Otherwise the temperature profile behaved similarly to that of a

354 conventional evaporator.

355 The overall load Q and the heat transfer factor, U·A can be obtained from the model

356 directly. By assuming a constant U of 2200 W·m-2·K-1, the total heat transfer area can

357 be estimated therefore the size of the calandria can be indicated. The results from

358 simulations and are shown in Table 5.

20
359 Table 5. Heat transfer factor and estimated heat transfer area of each calandria for the
360 conventional five-effect evaporator and the three-effect evaporator with MVR,
361 assuming U = 2200 W·m-2·K-1

Effect1 Effect2 Effect3 Effect4 Effect5 Total

Conventional five-effect evaporator
Q (MW) 2.75 3.57 3.67 2.14 1.38 13.51
5 5 5 5 5
U·A (W·K) 2.65×10 8.37×10 8.87×10 4.24×10 2.82×10 2.70×106
A (m2) 120 380 403 193 128 1225
Three-effect evaporator with MVR
Q (W) 10.97 1.90 0.70 13.57
U·A(W·K) 1.47×106 1.86×105 1.12×105 1.77×106
A (m2) 668 84.5 50.9 804
362

363 It can be observed that with the same total heat transfer load, the three-effect

364 evaporator with MVR required a 35 % lower heat transfer factor (and therefore heat

365 transfer area) than the conventional five-effect evaporator to achieve the same degree

366 of evaporation. However, it should be noted that the first effect of the MVR appears

367 to be an order of magnitude larger than the other two effects.

368 3.4. Energy consumption results

369 The heating loads for the five-effect evaporator without MRV and the three-effect

370 evaporator with MRV are summarized in Table 6. The three-effect evaporator with

371 MVR used one third of the energy required for the five-effect evaporator. This result

372 is consistent with values reported in the literature (Bylund, 1995; Pisecky et al., 2012).

373

374

375

21
376 Table 6. Summary of unit operation loads for the conventional five-effect evaporator
377 and the three-effect evaporator with MVR.

Five-effect evaporator Three-effect evaporator with

without MVR MVR
Preheater 1.055 MW Compressor 1 0.345 MW
Steam heater 2.833 MW Compressor 2 0.079 MW
Preheater 0.812 MW
Steam heater 0.064 MW
Total 3.89 MW Total 1.30 MW
378

379 Conventional five-effect evaporators are less efficient because the residual energy in

380 low pressure, low temperature streams cannot be effectively recovered, for example

381 the “steam residual” and “milk steam 5” streams in Figure 3. In contrast, these low

382 pressure, low temperature streams were compressed in evaporators with MVR and

383 reused either by compressors or steam jets, so that the overall efficiency was much

384 higher. However, the installation of large-scale compressor and steam jets requires

385 higher capital investment and maintenance.

386 3.5. Preliminary cost analysis results

387 3.5.1. Operating expenses

388 The major economic variables considered in this study and a preliminary operating

389 cost analysis are presented in Table 7. The proposed three-effect evaporator with

390 MVR system will contribute to a noticeable reduction in operating expenses

391 compared with a conventional five-effect evaporator, since the proposed system uses

392 50 % less energy than the conventional system.

393

22
394 Table 7. Major economic variables and preliminary cost analysis

Major economic variables Preliminary cost analysis

Without With
Natural gas cost* 3 USD/GJ MVR MVR
Efficiency of steam Annual steam
generation 60 % requirement (MW/h) 33368 11180
Power required for Annual steam
evaporator without MVR 3.89 MW requirement (GJ) 120125 40248
Power required for
evaporator with MVR 1.3 MW Total gas required (GJ) 200208 67080
Cost of annual steam
Power requirement MVR (USD) 600624 201240
8600 h per Total saving (USD) ~ 400,000
Plant uptime annum
395 * 2017 data

396 As illustrated in Table 7, installing a MVR system at an industrial plant similar to the

397 one considered here can save ~400,000 USD per annum in operating expenses. This

398 saving can be considered significant for a single plant. Some plants used other types

399 of power such as electricity. The cost of power is a substantial component of the

400 overall cost so higher priced power is likely to produce an even greater financial

401 incentive to use the MVR.

402 3.5.2. Capital expenditures

403 Unlike the operating expense calculation, calculating the capital expenditure for the

404 two systems is significantly more difficult. To get a reasonable estimate, one really

405 needs a detailed design and vendor quotes; not feasible for a study such as this.

406 However, upon closer inspection we can see the following differences in plant design

407 should be factored in when calculating the relative capital expenditure of the two

408 systems.

409  The proposed system uses only three evaporators and heat exchangers as

410 opposed to the five used by the conventional system.

23
411  The area required for heat exchange (indicator of cost of production) for the

412 proposed system is 20 % lower than the conventional system.

413  The proposed system required the additional of a MVR loop.

414 From a capital expenditure point of view, the proposed MVR structure will be cheaper

415 to build only if the cost of installing an MVR is lower than building two extra

416 separators and heat exchangers. However, with significant savings in operating

417 expenses, the higher costs of installing an MVR system may be offset by the potential

418 savings that can be gained during operation.

419 4. Conclusions

420 In this paper, process models were built using a commercial process simulator for two

421 types of falling-film evaporators in order to concentrate milk: a conventional five-

422 effect evaporator and a three-effect evaporator with mechanical vapour recompression.

423 These models were successfully used to do cost analysis of both types of evaporators

424 and to validate established facts such as MVR evaporator consumed only one third of

425 the energy compared with a conventional evaporator, given sufficient energy

426 recoveries. Furthermore, developed models were able to predict the process variables

427 trends. It was found that for the conventional evaporator, the evaporation rate is more

428 evenly distributed among calandria while the majority of the water was evaporated in

429 the first effect in the MVR evaporator. The reason was that the energy in the low

430 pressure, low temperature streams of the conventional evaporator could not be

431 recovered efficiently.

432 Acknowledgments
433 The authors thank and acknowledge Fonterra for providing information and advice.

24
434 References
435 Andika, R., Lee, M., (2017). Techno-economic study of enhanced absorber–
436 regenerator configurations for improving an industrial Sulfinol-M-based acid gas
437 removal processes. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry.
438 Atkins, M.J., Walmsley, M.R.W., Morrison, A.S., (2010). Integration of solar thermal
439 for improved energy efficiency in low-temperature-pinch industrial processes. Energy
440 35(5), 1867-1873.
441 Bhargava, R., Khanam, S., Mohanty, B., Ray, A.K., (2008). Simulation of flat falling
442 film evaporator system for concentration of black liquor. Computers & Chemical
443 Engineering 32(12), 3213-3223.
444 Bon, J., Clemente, G., Vaquiro, H., Mulet, A., (2010). Simulation and optimization of
445 milk pasteurization processes using a general process simulator (ProSimPlus).
446 Computers & Chemical Engineering 34(3), 414-420.
447 Bourouni, K., Martin, R., Tadrist, L., Tadrist, H., (1998). Modelling of heat and mass
448 transfer in a horizontal-tube falling-film evaporator for water desalination.
449 Desalination 116(2), 165-183.
450 Bylund, G., (1995). Diary Processing Handbook. Tetra Pak Processing Systems AB,
451 S-221 86 Lund, Sweden.
452 Bylund, G., (2003). Dairy processing handbook. Tetra Pak Processing Systems AB.
453 Gong, L., Shen, S., Liu, H., Mu, X., Chen, X., (2015). Three-dimensional heat
454 transfer coefficient distributions in a large horizontal-tube falling film evaporator.
455 Desalination 357, 104-116.
456 Hall, C.W., Farrow, A.W., Rippen, A.L., (1986). Encyclopedia of Food Engineering,
457 2nd Edition. AVI Publishing Co., Westoirtm, Connecticut, USA.
458 Lee, S., Posarac, D., Ellis, N., (2011). Process simulation and economic analysis of
459 biodiesel production processes using fresh and waste vegetable oil and supercritical
460 methanol. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 89(12), 2626-2642.
461 Madoumier, M., Azzaro-Pantel, C., Tanguy, G., Gésan-Guiziou, G., (2015).
462 Modelling the properties of liquid foods for use of process flowsheeting simulators:
463 Application to milk concentration. Journal of Food Engineering 164, 70-89.
464 Medhat, B., Fateme, Fanaei, M.A., Zohreie, H., (2015). Mathematical modelling and
465 dynamic simulation of multi-effect falling-film evaporator for milk powder
466 production. Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems 21(4),
467 336-358.
468 Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, (2017). Energy in New Zealand,
469 Energy and Building Trends. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment,, pp.
470 http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/energy/energy-data-
471 modelling/publications/energy-in-new-zealand/documents-images/energy-in-nz-
472 2017.pdf.
473 Munir, M.T., Yu, W., Young, B.R., (2012a). Recycle effect on the relative exergy
474 array. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 90(1), 110-118.
475 Munir, M.T., Yu, W., Young, B.R., (2012b). A software algorithm/package for
476 control loop configuration and eco-efficiency. ISA Transactions 51, 827-833.
477 Munir, M.T., Zhang, Y., Wilson, D.I., Yu, W., Young, B.R., (2014). Modelling of a
478 falling film evaporator for dairy processes.
479 Munir, M.T., Zhang, Y., Yu, W., Wilson, D.I., Young, B.R., (2016). Virtual milk for
480 modelling and simulation of dairy processes. Journal of Dairy Science 99(5), 3380-
481 3395.

25
482 Mura, E., Gourdon, M., (2017). Pressure drop in dairy evaporators: Experimental
483 study and friction factor modelling. Journal of Food Engineering 195, 128-136.
484 Pisecky, J., Westergaard, V., Refstrup, E., (2012). Handbook of milk powder
485 manufacture. GEA Process Engineering A/S Copenhagen.
486 Ramírez, C.A., Patel, M., Blok, K., (2006). From fluid milk to milk powder: Energy
487 use and energy efficiency in the European dairy industry. Energy 31(12), 1984-2004.
488 Ruan, Q., Jiang, H., Nian, M., Yan, Z., (2015). Mathematical modeling and
489 simulation of countercurrent multiple effect evaporation for fruit juice concentration.
490 Journal of Food Engineering 146, 243-251.
491 Russell, N.T., Bakker, H.H.C., Chaplin, R.I., (2000). A Comparison of Dynamic
492 Models for an Evaporation Process. Chemical Engineering Research and Design
493 78(8), 1120-1128.
494 Saber, N., Shaw, J.M., (2008). Rapid and robust phase behaviour stability analysis
495 using global optimization. Fluid Phase Equilibria 264(1-2), 137-146.
496 Silveira, A.C.P., Tanguy, G., Perrone, Í.T., Jeantet, R., Ducept, F., de Carvalho, A.F.,
497 Schuck, P., (2015). Flow regime assessment in falling film evaporators using
498 residence time distribution functions. Journal of Food Engineering 160, 65-76.
499 Virtual Materials Group Inc., (2014). VMGSim V. 8.0 User's Manual.
500 Winchester, J., (2000). Model based analysis of the operation and control of falling
501 film evaporators, School of Engineering & Advanced Technology Massey University,
502 Palmerston North, New Zealand.
503 Winchester, J.A., Marsh, C., (1999). Dynamics and Control of Falling Film
504 Evaporators with Mechanical Vapour Recompression. Chemical Engineering
505 Research and Design 77(5), 357-371.
506 Zhang, Y., Munir, M.T., Yu, W., Young, B.R., (2014). Development of hypothetical
507 components for milk process simulation using a commercial process simulator.
508 Journal of Food Engineering 121, 87-93.
509

26