Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Modeling
Volume 5, Issue 1
2010
Article 6
Recommended Citation:
Yadav, Praveen and Jana, Amiya K. (2010) "Simulation and Control of a Commercial Double
Effect Evaporator: Tomato Juice," Chemical Product and Process Modeling: Vol. 5: Iss. 1,
Article 6.
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1443
Abstract
This work aims to present a detailed study on a commercial double-effect tomato paste
evaporation system. The modeling equations formulated for process simulation belong to
backward feeding arrangement. Open-loop process dynamics has been studied by rigorous
simulation of the model structure. In the next, three multi-loop control schemes, namely
conventional proportional integral (PI), gain-scheduled PI (GSPI) and nonlinear PI (NLPI), have
been synthesized for the sample process. Finally, several simulation experiments have been
conducted to investigate the comparative closed-loop performance based on set point tracking and
disturbance rejection.
KEYWORDS: evaporator, double-effect, tomato paste, modeling, dynamics, control
1 INTRODUCTION
An evaporator is commonly used to concentrate a solution by removing a part of
the solvent in the form of vapor. It has various areas of application. In most of the
industrial and commercial applications, the multiple effect evaporator is used due
to its advantages over the single effect system. The first and most important
advantage is the economy. Multiple effect scheme evaporates more water per kg
of steam fed to the unit by reusing the vapor from one effect as the heating
medium for the next. Secondly, the heat transfer gets improved due to the viscous
effects of the products as they become more concentrated. The invention of the
multiple effect evaporators is the result of the demand of sugar industry. A
revolution in the sector of sugar industry was brought by Norbert Rillieux by the
development of multiple pan evaporation system for use in sugar refinery.
Literature reviews revealed that in the beginning, the study on the multieffect evaporators was based on steady state analysis. Subsequently, the research
attention was paid to develop the dynamic model of the evaporation system. In the
1960s, the mathematical model for a single effect evaporator was proposed by
Andersen et al. (1961) and the simulation was carried out after reduction and
linearization of that model to study the closed-loop control performance using an
analog computer. An empirical input-output model of a single concentration
evaporator with PID control application was described by Kropholler and Spikins
(1965). Andre and Ritter (1968) formulated the nonlinear model of a doubleeffect evaporator.
During 1970s, it was realized through the development of several process
models that the important behaviors of the evaporator system can easily be
described by its dynamic nature. Linear and nonlinear models of a generic
evaporator were discussed in detail by Newell and Fisher (1972). The simulation
study became easier with the development of a computer code which is capable of
simulating the steady state condition of a multiple effect evaporator. This
computing technique was brought by Bolmstedt and Jernquist (1976) which was
further supported by their publication in 1977 showing a dynamic simulator
through blocks which is capable of simulating more complex plants.
A mathematical model with a wide variety of its extension for plants of
different configurations, including the death-time arising due to circulation in
each effect and through the pipe within effects, was developed by Tonelli (1987).
In the past, the mathematical models were constructed for open-loop simulations
and for application of conventional control laws. But in the last decade, the state
space models suitable for designing the multivariable controllers and state
estimations (Newell and Lee, 1989) were reported. Cadet et al. (1999) formulated
a detailed evaporator model based on energy and mass balance with considering
semi-empirical equilibrium functions. This model was implemented in a sugar
steam with flow rate S and temperature T S enters Tank1. The mass holdup in the
two tanks are defined as M 1 and M 2 . V 1 and V 2 are the vapor flow rates from
the overhead of two tanks with temperature T 1 and T 2 , respectively. P1 and P 2
are the product flow rates from the two effects with product concentration X p
and X 2 , and temperature T 1 and T 2 , respectively. The steady state and parameter
values are listed in Table 1 (Runyon et al., 1991).
only the juice phase is considered for modeling. The assumptions involved in the
formulation of model are listed below.
Negligible heat losses to the surroundings
Homogeneous composition and temperature inside each evaporator
Variable liquid holdup and negligible vapor holdup
Overhead vapors considered as pure steam
Latent heat of vaporization or condensation varied with temperature
No boiling point elevation of the solution
Table 1 Steady state and parameter values.
Term
Abbreviation (unit)
Value
M10 (kg)
2268
M20 (kg)
2268
F0 (kg/hr)
26103
S0 (kg/hr)
11023
P10 (kg/hr)
5006
P20 (kg/hr)
14887
V10 (kg/hr)
9932
V20 (kg/hr)
11165
Feed composition
Xf0 (kg/kg)
0.05
Tank1 composition
Xp0 (kg/kg)
0.2607
Tank2 composition
X20 (kg/kg)
0.0874
Steam temperature
Ts0 ( C)
115.7
Feed temperature
Tf0 ( C)
85.0
Temperature in Tank1
T10 (0C)
74.7
Temperature in Tank2
T20 ( C)
A1 (m )
A2 (m2)
52.0
102
412
20
5826
20
2453
U1 (kJ/hr.m . C)
U2 (kJ/hr.m . C)
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1443
(1)
Second effect: dM 2 = F P2 V 2
dt
(2)
d (M 1 X p)
= P 2 X 2 P1 X p
dt
(3)
M1
dX p
dM 1
+Xp
= P 2 X 2 P1 X p
dt
dt
(4)
M1
dX p
dM 1
= P2 X 2 P1 X p X p
dt
dt
(5)
dX p
= P2 X 2 P1 X p X p ( P2 P1 V 1)
dt
M1
dX p
= P2 X 2 P1 X p X p P2 + X p P1 + X p V 1
dt
dX p P2 ( X 2 X p ) + X p V 1
=
dt
M1
Second effect:
d ( M 2 X 2)
= F X f P2 X 2
dt
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Energy balance
The steam flow rate to the first effect is obtained through energy balance on the
first effect heat exchanger as:
S (T S ) = U 1 A1 (T S T 1)
(11)
(12)
Similarly, the vapor flow rate to the second effect is derived from the energy
balance on the second effect heat exchanger as:
V 1 (T 1) = U 2 A2 (T 1 T 2)
(13)
( )
V 1 = U 2 A2 T 1 T 2
(T 1)
(14)
First effect:
M1
M1
dt
dh(T 1 , X p )
dt
dh(T 1 , X p )
dt
+ h(T 1 , X P ) dM 1 = P2 h(T 2 , X 2) + S (T S )
dt
P1 h(T 1 , X p ) V 1 H (T 1)
(16)
= P2 h(T 2 , X 2) + S (T S ) P1 h(T 1 , X p )
dM 1
V 1 H (T 1) h(T 1 , X p )
dt
(17)
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1443
M1
dh(T 1 , X p )
dt
dh(T 1 , X p )
dt
This gives,
dh(T 1 , X p )
dt
Second effect:
d [ M 2 h(T 2 , X 2)]
= Fh(T f , X f ) + V 1 (T 1) P 2 h(T 2 , X 2) V 2 H (T 2)
dt
(21)
The enthalpy of the product (tomato juice) is represented as (Heldman and Singh,
1981):
h(T , X ) = (4.177 2.506 X ) T
(23)
(24)
For the condensate streams, the pure solvent liquid enthalpy is also found from
the steam tables as:
h(T ) = 4.177 T
(25)
(26)
Using the above correlations, the energy balance equations ((20) and (22)) have
the following final forms:
dT 1 P2 (4.177 2.506 X 2)(T 2 T 1) U 2 A2 (T 1 T 2) + U 1 A1 (T S T 1)
=
dt
M 1 (4.177 2.506 X p )
(27)
The control objectives for an evaporation system are selected taking into account
the product specifications, operational constraints and cost considerations. For the
concerned process, the primary objective is to maintain the product solids
concentration (or product viscosity) at its desired value. In order to achieve the
desired product quality in presence of disturbance and uncertainty, several
additional control schemes, as mentioned below, need to employ with the
evaporator.
To prevent the overflow or drying out of evaporator tubes, liquid mass holdup
should be controlled.
To avoid the product degradation or damage, temperature must be
maintained at the desired value.
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1443
For the example tomato paste evaporator, the followings are selected as controlled
variables: (i) final product concentration ( X p ), (ii) temperature of the inlet steam
( TS ), (iii) temperature of the second effect ( T 2 ), (iv) liquid mass holdup in first
effect ( M 1 ), and (v) liquid mass holdup in second effect ( M 2 ). In order to
regulate the process variables, the corresponding manipulated variables are
chosen as the product flow rate from first effect ( P1 ), the steam flow rate ( S ), the
vapor flow rate from second effect ( V 2 ), the product flow rate from second effect
( P2 ), and the feed flow rate ( F ). Figure 1 as well as Table 2 includes all these
control configurations.
Table 2 Control pairings and controllers used.
Controlled variable
Xp
TS
Manipulated variable
P1
S
Controller type
PI, NLPI and GSPI
PI, NLPI and GSPI
T2
M1
M2
V2
P2
F
In this paper, a comparative control study is presented. For this, three types of
multi-loop controllers, namely PI, NLPI and GSPI, have been designed in this
9
section for the example evaporator. The ISE performance criterion has been used
in selecting the controller tuning parameter values and they are reported in Table
3.
U = U 0 + K [(Y sp Y ) +
(Y
sp
Y )dt ]
(29)
Here, K is the proportional gain, the integral time constant, U 0 the bias signal
and Y sp the set point value of Y .
Parameter
Kf
1000 hr -1
0
GSPI
KV2 , KV20
1250 kg/hr. C
1250 kg/hr. C
1550 kg/hr.0C
KS , KS0
15 kg/hr.0C
15 kg/hr.0C
15 kg/hr.0C
KP1, KP10
30000 kg/hr
20000 kg/hr
20000 kg/hr
-1
KP2
800 hr
V 2
0.03 hr
0.01 hr
0.01 hr
0.35 hr
0.52 hr
0.52 hr
P1
0.05 hr
0.01 hr
0.01 hr
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1443
10
U = U 0 + K [(Y sp Y ) +
(Y
sp
Y )dt ]
with K = K 0 (1 + a Y sp Y )
(29)
(30)
where, K 0 is the initial fixed gain. It is obvious that if there is no integral term,
the controller output is effectively proportional to the square of the error.
U = U 0 + K (Y )[(Y sp Y ) +
(Y
sp
Y )dt ]
(31)
K (Y ) =
K (Y0 ) K P (Y 0)
K P (Y )
(32)
The gain of the GSPI scheme used has the following forms:
(i) When Y > Y0 ,
1 Y0
K (Y ) = K 0
1Y
(33)
where, K P (Y ) = 1 Y and K (Y 0) = K 0 .
(ii) When Y < Y0
K (Y ) = K 0
(34)
11
Matlab codes have been developed to generate simulation results. The 4th order
Runge-Kutta method is used to solve the differential equations contained in the
model. In the subsequent discussion, the open-loop followed by the closed-loop
evaporator performance is presented.
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1443
12
Figure 2 Effect of a pulse input change in Tank2 product flow rate (changed from
14887 to 15200 kg/hr at time = 5 hr and then from 15200 to 14887 kg/hr at time
=10 hr).
4.1 Open-loop performance
Figure 2 illustrates the effect of Tank2 product flow rate on the main product
composition. Two consecutive step changes have been introduced in the product
flow rate (step increase: 14887 15200 kg/hr at time =5 hr; step decrease: 15200
13
14887 kg/hr at time =10 hr). As a consequence, the final product purity gets
disturbed and the process attains a new steady state against a change. This result
shows the interactive behavior of the process variables and it confirms that the
sample evaporator is open-loop stable.
4.2 Comparative closed-loop performance
4.2.1 Disturbance rejection
2.16x10-6
4.93x10-7
4.97x10-7
0.0052
7.23x10-4
5.76x10-7
1.73x10-7
6.89x10-8
7.25x10-8
1.65x10-8
1.65x10-8
2.11x10-4
0.0017
0.0011
1.73x10-4
2.33x10-4
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1443
TS
0.2505
0.2030
0.0762
TS
0.0044
0.0026
0.0024
14
Figure 3 Effect of a pulse input change in feed concentration (changed from 0.05
to 0.0525 kg/kg at time = 5 hr and then from 0.0525 to 0.05 kg/kg at time = 15
hr).
15
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1443
16
Figure 5 displays a comparative servo performance between PI, NLPI and GSPI
control algorithms against a pulse change in set point value of the final product
composition (step increase: 0.2607 0.27 kg/kg at time = 5 hr; step decrease:
0.27 0.2607 kg/kg at time = 15 hr). This simulation experiment confirms that
the PI controller shows relatively poor performance compared to other two PIs.
The performance in terms of ISE values is analyzed in Table 6. Overall, the GSPI
showed best performance due to its ability of timely changing the gain.
Table 6 ISE values corresponding to Figure 5.
M1
M2
Xp
T2
Controller
PI
NLPI
GSPI
-5
2.77x10
2.22x10-5
2.25x10-5
0.01917
0.0090
-6
2.59x10
2.09x10-6
1.03x10-6
TS
0.1866
0.1381
0.0568
5 CONCLUSIONS
17
Figure 5 Effect of a pulse set point change in final product composition (changed
from 0.2607 to 0.27 kg/kg at time = 5 hr and then from 0.27 to 0.2607 kg/kg at
time = 15 hr).
NOMENCLATURE
A
F
h(T)
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1443
18
H(T)
K
M
P
S
t
T
U
V
X
Subscripts
f
p
S
sp
0
1
2
Feed
Final product
Steam
Set point
Steady state
First effect
Second effect
REFERENCES
Andersen, J.E., Glasson, L.W., Lee, F.P., The Control of Single Concentration
Evaporator, Transactions of the Society of Instrument Technology, Vol.
13, 121 (1961).
Andre, H., Ritter, R.A., Dynamic Response of a Double-Effect Evaporator,
Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 46, 259 (1968).
Balkan, F., Colak, N., Hepbasli, A., Performance Evaluation of a Triple-Effect
Evaporator with Forward Feed using Exergy Analysis, International
Journal of Energy Research, Vol. 29, 455-470 (2005).
Bequette, B.W., Process Control: Modeling, Design, and Simulation, PrenticeHall, New Delhi (2003).
Bolmstedt, U., Jernquist, A., Simulation of the Steady-state and Dynamic
Behaviour of Multiple Effect Evaporator Plants, American Institute of
Chemical Engineers Journal, Vol. 17, 1080 (1976).
Bolmstedt, U., Jernquist, A., Simulation of the Steady-state and Dynamic
Behavior of Multiple Effect Evaporation Plants, Computer Aided Design,
Vol. 9, 29-40 (1977).
19
Cadet, C., Toure, Y., Gilles, G., Chabriat, J.P. Knowledge Modelling and Nonlinear Predictive Control of Evaporators in Cane Sugar Production Plants,
Journal of Food Engineering, Vol. 40, 59-70 (1999).
Cheung, T.F, Luyben, W.L., Nonlinear and Nonconventional Liquid Level
Controllers, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, Vol.
19, 93 (1980).
Heldman, D.R., Singh, R.P., In: (2nd edn. ed.), Food Process Engineering, AVI
Publishing Company, Westport, Connecticut (1981).
Jutan, A.A., Nonlinear PI(D) Controller, Canadian Journal of Chemical
Engineering, Vol. 67, 485-493 (1989).
Kam, K.M., Tad, M.O., Simulated Control Studies of Five-Effect Evaporator
Models, Computers and Chemical Engineering, Vol. 23, 1795-1810
(2000).
Kaya, D., Sarac, H. I., Mathematical Modeling of Multiple-Effect Evaporators
and Energy Economy, Energy, Vol. 32, 1536-1542 (2007).
Kropholler, H., Spikins, D., Principles of Control for Chemical Engineers. Part
3, Chemical Process Engineering, 558-567 (1965).
Miranda, V., Simpson, R., Modeling and Simulation of an Industrial Multiple
Effect Evaporator: Tomato Concentrate, Journal of Food Engineering,
Vol. 66, 203-210 (2005).
Mohanty, B., Khanam, S., Development of an Efficient Linear Model for the
Analysis of Multiple Effect Evaporator System, International Conference
on Advances in Energy Research, 724-730 (2007).
Newell, R.B., Fisher, D.G., Model, Development, Reduction, and Experimental
Evaluation for an Evaporator, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Process Design and Development, Vol. 11, 213 (1972).
Newell, R.B., Lee, P.L., Applied Process Control: A case study, Prentice-Hall,
Australia (1989).
Rugh, W.J., Design of Nonlinear PID Controllers, American Institute of
Chemical Engineers Journal, Vol. 33, 1738-1742 (1987).
Runyon, C.H., Rumsey, T.R., McCarthy, K.L., Dynamic Simulation of a
Nonlinear Model of a Double Effect Evaporator, Journal of Food
Engineering, Vol. 14, 185-201 (1991).
Tonelli, S., Estudio dinmico y control de evaporadores de mltiple efecto,
Tesis de Doctorado en Ingeniera Qumica. Universidad Nacional del Sur.
Baha Blanca, Argentina (1987).
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1443
20