Single Effect Evaporator

I. Introduction
The objective of the experiment was to utilize a single effect evaporator to study the
effect of steam pressure on the system both under atmospheric and vacuum conditions.
Under atmospheric pressure experiments were conducted with the steam pressure at 2.5,
5, and 10 psig. For each steam pressure the volumetric flow rates of the outlet steam,
dilute liquid, and condensed water were measured. Under vacuum conditions, steam
pressure was held constant at 4psig and effect pressure at 3inHg. The volumetric flow
rates of the outlet steam, dilute liquid and condensed water were measured for two
different inlet flow rates, 6 and 4gal/min inlet feed. By observing and operating the
single effect evaporator it was important to understand the fundamentals of liquid-liquid
separations. Also observed was how the fundamental elements of pressure and vacuum
affects on heat transfer, capacity and economy.

II. Theory
The purpose of the evaporation process is the formation of a more concentrated solution
or product form a dilute feed. To obtain the concentrated product, the feed is boiled to
evaporate off water. The vapor and liquid located in the boiler are in equilibrium
therefore sharing equal outlet temperatures which is the boiler temperature. The vapor
then proceeds to the first effect to be condensed by cooling water and normally
considered a waste product or possibly purification worthy. The concentrated product
from the first effect is the final product or in large capacity operations is sent to multiple
effects. During the case study the volumetric flow rates of the outlet steam, condensed
vapor, and product liquid were recorded. The effect pressure and temperature, and the
inlet steam pressure were known. The inlet feed temperature was assumed to be room
temperature (298.15K). The above data was used to calculate the systems heat loss and
overall heat transfer. An overall energy balance for the system is shown in equation (1).
FHf + Sls = LHL + VHV
Where,
F = Feed flow rate (kg/min)

(1)

Hf = Enthalpy of the feed (kJ/kg)

S = Steam flow rate (kg/min)
L = Liquid product flow rate (kg/min)
HL = Enthalpy of the liquid product (kJ/kg)
V = Vapor flow rate (kg/min)
HV = Enthalpy of the vapor (kJ/kg)
It is then desired to calculate the theoretical output steam flow rate by rearranging
equation (1) to give equation (2).
Scalc = (1/ls) (FCp (TB Tf) + VHV)

(2)

Where,
ls = Latent heat of the steam (kJ/kg)
Cp = Heat capacity of the feed (kJ/kg K)
TB = Temperature of the boiler (K)
Tf = Temperature of the feed (K)
The outlet steam flow rate found above is used to theoretically find the overall heat
transferred of the system as seen in equation (3).
Q = Scalc*ls

(3)

The amount of heat transferred from the system is then used in equations (4) and (5) to
solve for the heat transfer coefficient.
Q = U A (TS TB)

(4)

U = Q/A (TS TB)

(5)

Where,
A = Area of the boiler (m2)
The theoretical equations behind single effect can be viewed in more detail in section IX.
Under vacuum conditions, the vapor will boil off at a lower temperature; hence,
less amount of steam is needed to obtain the desired product. Under vacuum conditions
the same equations and theoretical principals at atmospheric pressure apply. However it
is expected that the vapor enthalpy will change. For industrial processes the steam
pressure calculations are based on the desired final product concentration. The higher the
steam pressure leads to a higher product concentration. In this case study, a single effect

evaporator was observed. The use of single effect evaporators are cost efficient only
when the required capacity of operation is small2.

III. Apparatus and Procedure

Procedure:
Following the calibration steps mentioned in the appendix, the system was
allowed to reach a steady state under an undetermined steam flow rate. To implement the
trials run under atmospheric pressure, the effect pressure, PI 3, was maintained at 0 gauge
pressure. The inlet feed flow, FCV 1, was set to a constant flow of 4gph and the cooling
water to the condenser, FCV2, was set to a constant 6gpm. The inlet steam, V11,
pressure, PCV 1, was then set to 10psig to commence the first experiment. The system
was then allowed 30 minutes to reach a steady state. When sufficient amounts of liquid
and condensed vapor were exiting the system, the flow rates of the streams could be
measured. To measure the liquid in the product receiver, V 8 was opened and the liquid
was allowed to flow into a graduated cylinder for 5 minutes and then measured in mL.
To measure the condensed vapor in the distillate receiver, V 26 was closed for 5 minutes.
The distillate receiver was then isolated from the system by closing V 27. To collect the
condensed vapor, V 26 was opened and the condensed vapor was allowed to flow into the
graduated cylinder and measured in mL. After the condensed vapor was collected V 27
was opened to introduce the distillate receiver back to the system. To measure the steam,
V 18 was opened for 5 minutes and the condensate was allowed to flow into a small
container. The condensate was then transferred to the graduated cylinder to be measured
in mL. The above procedure was repeated for steam flow rates of 5 and 2.5psig
After the atmospheric pressure experiments, it was desired to run the evaporator under a
vacuum. The system was set up in the same manner as stated above, however the
vacuum pump was turned on. The system was initially opened to the atmosphere with no
vacuum effect. The inlet feed rate, FCV 1, was initially set to 6gph. The cooling water,
FCV 2, was set to a constant 6gpm. The inlet steam, PCV 1, was then set to a constant
4psig. In order to create a vacuum on the system, the product receiver, V6, was closed
from the atmosphere by the use of valves V 8 and V 10. Next the distillate receiver was
closed to the atmosphere by the use of valves V 25 and V 26. The entire system was then
placed under a vacuum of 3inHg gauge by slowly manipulating valve V 23. The system
3

was then allowed to reach steady state for 30 minutes. After a sufficient amount of
distillate and liquid product were noticed, recordings were taken under a time period of 5
minutes. To collect the liquid product, the product receiver was isolated from the system
by closing valve V 6. The product receiver was then isolated from the vacuum by closing
valve V 9. The receiver was then opened to the atmosphere by valve V 10 and the liquid
product was allowed to flow into a graduated cylinder by opening V8 and subsequently
measured in mL. The product receiver was reintroduced to the vacuum by the order of
closing valves V 8, V10 and opening valves V 9, V6. The distillate was measured in the
same manner by the order of closing V 27, V24 and opening V 25, V26. The distillate
was then collected and measured in a graduated cylinder. To reintroduce the distillate
receiver to the vacuum by the order of closing V 26, V 25 and opening V24, V 27. To
collect the outlet steam, V 18 was opened and collected in a small container then
transferred to the graduated cylinder to be measured in mL. Following the recordings
taken at an inlet feed flow rate of 6gph, the flow rate was decreased to 4gph to start the
next set of identical experiments.
To conclude the experiment, the system was shut down by slowly introducing the entire
system to the atmosphere by opening V 23. The product receiver and distillate receiver
were also opened to the atmosphere by opening valves V 10, V 8 and V 25, V26. The
pump was then turned off. Steam flow was discontinued by closing V11. Valve 15 was
subsequently closed removing all remaining steam from the effect. The cooling water
and inlet feed water continued to flow for 10 minutes to allow the system to cool down.
The inlet feed and cooling water were discontinued by closing FCV 1 and FCV 2. The
above shut down procedure allowed for the equipment to be left safely.

IV. Results
The following shows in detail the raw data and calculated data obtained during
the experiment. The data presented in this will be discussed in the following section.
Sample calculations are shown in the sample calculations section.
Table 1 Shows in detail the raw data obtained during the experiments run under
atmospheric pressure. The recorded data for the inlet, outlet and overall system are
shown.
Table 1: Raw data for atmospheric effect pressure experiments

Table 2 summarizes the raw data obtained during the experiments run under a
vacuum. The recorded data for the inlet, outlet and overall system are shown.
Table 2: Raw data for vacuum experiments

Table 3 Shows in detail the calculated data obtained during the experiments run
under atmospheric effect pressure.
Table 3: Calculated data for atmospheric effect pressure experiments

Figure 2 describes the relationship between inlet steam pressure and the outlet
liquid, vapor, and steam mass flow rates at atmospheric effect pressure.
7

Figure 2
Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between the inlet steam pressure and system
heat transfer and heat transfer coefficient.

Figure 3

Table 4 Shows in detail the calculated data obtained during the experiments run
under a vacuum.
Table 4: Calculated data for vacuum experiments

V. Discussion
Heat Loss:

Table 5 shows the percent error calculations on the outlet steam flows under atmospheric
conditions. In theory, it is expected that the calculated steam flow rates should be smaller
than the experimental flow rates. For this particular case study, the experimental steam
flow rates were lower than the calculated steam flow rates. As the steam was being
collected form the trap, it was noticed that the steam was evaporating off. It was also
noted that some of the steam that was condensed was not fully exiting the pipe. Due to
steam evaporating during the collection process, the transfer of the steam, and losses in
the exiting pipe the experimentally recorded flow rates for the outlet steam were lower
than the calculated steam flow rates. Since the actual steam flow rates were lower, heat
losses could not be calculated.
Table 5: % error calculations on steam flow rates for atmospheric conditions

Heat Transfer Coefficient:

The experiment run at 2.5psig and atmospheric effect pressure show deviations in heat
transfer coefficients. The experiment was run twice due to inadequate data collected
during the first trial.

The liquid product collected was significantly lower then

theoretically expected.

By examining Figure 3, the heat transfer coefficient, U,

noticeably decreased at 2.5psig steam pressure. In theory, the heat transfer coefficient
should remain relatively constant for the system even under steam pressure changes 2.
The heat transfer coefficient is dependant upon system geometry, fluid properties, flow
viscosity, and temperature differences. In experimentation, it is expected that the heat
transfer coefficient will deviate slightly due to the temperature difference. By observing
the inconsistencies in the data described by Table 3 and Figure 3 it could be concluded
that running the system at a steam pressure of 2.5psig leads to inaccurate results.

Economy:

10

The economy of a single effect evaporator, in theory, should be less than 1. Under
atmospheric conditions, as seen in Table 3, the steam economy is greater than 1. This
could be due to the system only evaporating water and not producing an actual
condensate product. Using the calculated steam flow rates, the appropriate values for
steam economy would be achieved. This again shows a large error in experimental steam
collection. However under vacuum conditions the steam economy was less than 1.
During experimentation, it was found that the evaporator could not function properly at
effect pressure higher then 3inHg. Effect pressures higher then 3inHg would result in
total vaporization of product. Under general conditions, multiple effects, the vacuum
would be used with a lower steam temperature and pressure.

VI. Conclusion
The physical process of running and maintaining a single effect evaporator under
atmospheric and vacuum conditions was established. A single effect evaporator was run
at three different pressures with the outlet liquid product, condensed vapor, and steam
volumetric flow rates being recorded. This allowed for a realistic observation of the
effects of steam pressure on the evaporation process. The theory behind heat transfer was
applied to real situations to compare expected values with actual results. The inlet steam
had more effect on the process than any other element. It was discovered that the system
should be ran at steam pressures above 3psig to maintain a level of accuracy in the
results. Running the evaporator under a vacuum allowed for the observation of boiler
temperature and inlet feed flow rate effects on the system. By successfully running the
evaporator under a vacuum, it can be deducted that the system can be run as a multiple
effect evaporator (i.e. lower steam pressure fed to the second effect).

11

12