7 tayangan

Diunggah oleh vignumar

- IRJET-Analysis of Working Parameters Affecting the Performance of Earth-Air Tube Heat Exchanger(EATHE): A Review
- Mobiltherm 600 Series Factsheet
- DTML.pdf
- fancher1963.pdf
- 1-s2.0-S001793100700600X-main
- Club08_SPascal
- Power Consumption Mixing Time
- OTC-23965-MS
- Module 3: Short Questions
- Segment 156 de Oil and Gas, A Practical Handbook
- Heat Transfer Direct Firing Furnace
- SCIENVP Thermodynamics.docx
- UO Lab 4 Ext. Fin
- Lecture 1 - Introduction-1
- 636-3156-1-PB.pdf
- Mod4_HT_TD_PPE
- Engineering Disciplines Flyer 100216 IY
- Review of Performance Analysis and Enhancement of Heat Transfer on Extended Surfaces
- 4.4.Heat Exchanger
- Final Poster Presentation

Anda di halaman 1dari 9

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / c o m p fl u i d

Samy M. El-Behery a,, W.A. El-Askary a, Mofreh H. Hamed b,c, K.A. Ibrahim a

a

Faculty of Engineering, Kafrelsheikh University, Kafrelsheikh, Egypt

c

Faculty of Engineering, Islamic University in Madina, Madina, Saudi Arabia

b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:

Received 29 December 2011

Received in revised form 30 June 2012

Accepted 11 August 2012

Available online 20 August 2012

Keywords:

Heat and mass transfer

Pneumatic dryer

Two-phase

Numerical simulation

a b s t r a c t

Two-dimensional EulerianLagrangian model is presented for heat and mass transfer in pneumatic conveying dryer. The model takes into account the particleparticle and particlewall collisions, lift forces,

particle rotation, turbulence modulation and turbulence dispersion (i.e., four-way coupling). The drying

simulation is based on a two-stage drying model. Different correlations for heat transfer coefcient are

tested and assessed in terms of their accuracy. The model is validated against the available experimental

data and good agreement is obtained. The model predictions are compared to other models from literature and it produces better results than existing models. It is also found that the turbulence dispersion

has greater effect on the model predictions than particleparticle collision. However, neglecting either

particleparticle collision or turbulence dispersion results in a lower heat transfer and drying rates.

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Drying is an essential process in many industrial applications

such as food, agricultural, ceramic, polymers and plastic, pulp

and paper, pharmaceutical and wood processing industries. Drying

equipments are classied according to the heat transfer mechanism to convective and conductive and according to the handling

characteristics to batch and continuous operation [1]. Pneumatic

conveying dryers which can be classied as convective and continuous drying equipment is one of the most widely used equipment.

Pneumatic dryers are characterized by simultaneous momentum,

heat and mass transfer processes between the dispersed material

and the drying agent. The large surface area for heat and mass

transfer results in higher drying rate and higher drying capacity.

In these types of dryers the contact time between the drying medium and particulate material is relatively short (usually few seconds only). Therefore, these dryers are suitable for heat-sensitive

materials and also for removing external moisture. This allows

higher inlet temperatures to be used than in many other dryers

without unduly heating the product [1]. Pneumatic dryers are simple in construction and have low capital cost. Vertical type of construction, which facilitates installation in exiting buildings, is an

advantage of pneumatic dryer systems [2]. Among other dryers,

the pneumatic dryer shows the highest removal rate of the liquid

from the solid particle [3]. Drying calculations are based on the

knowledge of air and material properties. The successful

Corresponding author.

E-mail address: s_elbehery@yahoo.com (S.M. El-Behery).

0045-7930/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compuid.2012.08.006

residence time (and hence the particle motion within the dryer),

the heat transfer coefcient and mass transfer process inside and

outside the solid. By employing a volumetric heat transfer concept,

as used for rotary dryers, simple estimation procedures have been

suggested by Williams-Gardner [4] and Moyers and Baldwin [5].

These procedures assumed that the particles are traveling at a steady velocity close to the gas velocity. Baeyens et al. [1] pointed out

that these methods can over-predict the required dryer length by

200400%.

To model the acceleration zone near the feed point a stepwise

procedure was suggested by many researchers such, Thorpe et al.

[6], Kemp et al. [7], Radford [8] and Kemp and Oakley [9]. Although

these procedures are considerable improvement on the steadystate, Kemp et al. [10] reported that they still give errors of

50100% in the tube length prediction. Further development in

the dryer simulations is the application of one-dimensional model

based on the two-uid theory. Levy and Borde [11], Pelegrina and

Crapiste [12] and El-Behery et al. [13] simulated the pneumatic

dryer using the one-dimensional steady-state model. However, this

model does not provide any information about the cross section distribution of ow properties, which may be an important aspect to be

considered in drying processes [14]. To predict the cross-sectional

distribution of ow properties Skuratovsky et al. [15,16] developed

a two-dimensional steady-state model based on the two-uid theory. The predictions of the two-dimensional model did not present

any signicant difference as compared to those provided by Levy

and Borde [11]. Recently, the computational uid dynamics (CFD)

code, Fluent, was used to perform 3-D simulation of pneumatic

160

Nomenclature

Symbols

Cp

Cl

D

Dv

dp

FD

FLR

FSL

Hfg

h

hh

hm

Ip

M

o

m

m

Nu

Pr

Prt

Rt

r

T

To

t

constant in turbulence model ()

pipe diameter (m)

diffusion coefcient (m2/s)

particle diameter (lm)

drag force (N)

Magnus lift force (N)

shear lift force (N)

latent heat of vaporization (J/kg)

enthalpy (J/kg)

heat transfer coefcient (W/m2 K)

mass transfer coefcient (m/s)

particle moment of inertia (N m)

molecular weight (kg/kmole)

mass ow rate (kg/s)

mole fraction ()

Nusselt number ()

Prandtl number ()

turbulent Prandtl number ()

turbulent Reynolds number ()

radial coordinate (m)

temperature (K)

torque (N m)

time (s)

by Mezhericher et al. [17] while EulerianEulerian approach was

used by Jamaleddine and Ray [18,19]. The model of Mezhericher

et al. [17] can not predict correctly either the gas temperature or

particle water content. On the other hand, the predictions of Jamaleddine and Ray [18,19] agree well with the experimental data.

This can be attributed to the limitations of the available Eulerian

Lagrangian model in Fluent. Experimental investigations of the

pneumatic dryer were given also by NamKung and Cho [20] and

Kaensup et al. [21,22].

A critical survey of the earlier work reveals a good amount of

theoretical work on pneumatic conveying dryer. However, the

work devoted to computational uid dynamics including turbulence modeling is very scarce. In addition, the effects of many

important phenomena such as particleparticle collision, particleturbulence interaction, lift forces, particle size distribution

and turbulence modulation are limited. Chagras et al. [23], Boulet and Moissette [24], Mansoori et al. [25] and El-Behery et al.

[26] showed that these parameters have a great effect on the

gassolid heat transfer. Furthermore, experimental work on

pneumatic conveying dryer is limited. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to provide a validated computational model,

including those parameters that previously neglected, that can

be used for pneumatic conveying design and operation

predictions.

X

x

Y

axial coordinate (m)

water vapor mass fraction (kgwater/kgair)

Greek symbols

a

gas void fraction ()

b

solids void fraction ()

d

porosity ()

k

thermal conductivity (W/m K)

l

viscosity (kg/m s)

lt

turbulent viscosity (kg/m s)

q

density (kg/m3)

R

universal gas constant (J/kmole K)

sw

shear stress at wall (N/m2)

x

angular velocity (1/s)

Subscripts

Ave

average

cr

critical

da

dry air

g

gas

H2O

water vapor

p

particle

v

vapor

1. The ow model is for a 2-D/axisymmetric duct.

2. The particles are spherical in the particle tracking procedure.

3. The particles are rigid during particleparticle and particlewall

collisions.

4. The gas phase is assumed as an ideal gas-mixture of air and

water vapor.

5. Heat and mass transfer occurs between gas phase and individual particles (i.e., heat and mass transfer between particles

themselves is ignored).

The particle-to-particle heat transfer is neglected based on the

nding of Mansoori et al. [27]. They reported that the particle-toparticle heat transfer can result from three main mechanisms,

namely: heat transfer by radiation, heat transfer through the contact point, and heat exchange through the gas lens at the interface

between colliding particles. They reported also that the rst mechanism is only signicant at temperatures higher than 600 C. They

also found in their numerical efforts, using hot and cold particles

streams, that the inter-particles heat transfer does not signicantly

affect the mean gas and particles temperature, and becomes

important only when the rate of change in temperature of hot or

cold particles is important.

2.2. Gas ow modeling

2. Mathematical model

Four-way coupling EulerianLagrangian approach is used in the

present study to predict the heat and mass transfer in gassolid

ow through pneumatic conveying dryer. The gas phase is simulated using Reynolds Averaged NavierStokes Equations. The turbulent viscosity is modeled by the low-Re ke model and the

particle tracking procedure is used for the solid phase. To provide

a reasonable solution for engineering objectives some simplifying

assumptions are taken as follow.

axisymmetric, turbulent, steady, compressible and non-isothermal

two-phase ow is:

@

@/

1 @

@/

S/ S/p

aqu/ aC/

aqrv / aC/ r

@x

@x

r @r

@r

where S/ and S/p are source terms of gas and dispersed phases

respectively, while exchange coefcient, C/ is summarized in Table

1 for the dependent variable /.

161

Table 1

Governing equations of the gas phase.

Conservation of

C/

S/

Mass

Axial momentum

1

Ug

0.0

0.0

Radial momentum

Vg

leff

Energy equation

Tg

lg

Dissipation rate

leff

rk

leff

re

Y H2 O

Pr

terms D and E (see Table 1) are used instead of the wall function.

These source terms and damping functions are calculated as given

by Launder and Sharma [28].

f 2 1 0:3 exp R2t

f1 1:0;

D 2l

p!2

@ k

;

@y

E2

llt @U g

q @y

3

2

4

the wall, the expression given by Kays [29] is used as follows:

1

l

0:5882 0:228 t 0:0441

Prt

lg

lg

1 exp 5:165

lt

lg

!2

lt

The solid phase is simulated using the Lagrangian approach, a

few thousands of computational particles parcels are traced

through the oweld in each coupling iteration. After each given

time step the new position of the parcels and the new transitional

and angular velocities are calculated from the equations of motion

as in [26] through:

!

dxp !

up

dt

Ip

aG qe D

a ke C e1 f1 G C e2 f2 qe aE

0.0

description of these forces can be found in [26]. The particle

temperature is traced along the particle trajectory by the following

ordinary differential equation:

mp C pp

o

dT p

2

hh pdp T g T p md Hfg

dt

10

instantaneous gas velocity components at the particles location

are needed. The mean velocities are interpolated from neighboring

grid points, while the uctuating components are generated using

the Stochastic Separated Flow model (SSF) given by Shuen et al.

[30].

2.4. Mass transfer model

The mass transfer in the present model is based on the twostage drying process. In the rst stage, the solid surface can be considered to be fully wetted and the resistance to the mass transfer is

located in the gas side. The evaporation rate from individual particle can be expressed as given by Levy and Borde [11] as:

o

Cl = 0.09, rk = 1.0 and re = 1.3.

mp

Prtt

lt

qDv Sc

t

leff l lt ; lt C l fl q

h

i

ap

g

@

2

@

~

@@x

@x

aleff @U

ar leff @V@xg

1r @r

@x 3 r V g

h

i

ap

g

@

@

1r @r

@@r

@x

aleff @U

aleff r @V@rg 23 r ~

Vg

@r

V

Vg

2aleff r2g 23 alr e r ~

h

i

2

1

@

@

2C pg @x aqg U g U g V 2g 1r @r

r aqg V g U 2g V 2g

leff

md hm pdp

MH2 O pv o MH2 O pv g

RT p

RT g

11

where pvo and pvg are the partial pressures of water vapor at the particle surface and the gas phase.

Mezhericher et al. [17] introduced the following differential

equation to calculate the time change of particle radius during

the constant rate period.

o

dRp

1

md

dt

qw 4pR2p

12

!

!

!

!

dup !

F D F LS F LR F g

dt

!

dxp !

T

dt

!

!

3

!

To pldp 0:5r U g x p

! !

!

where x p is the particle position vector, U g ; u p are the gas and par!

ticle velocity vectors, x p is the particle angular velocity vector, To is

2

!

ment of inertia and mp is the particle mass. F D ; F LS ; F LR and F g

are the components of the forces arising from drag, shear lift, Mag-

162

calculate the instantaneous particle diameter as a function of dry

particle diameter do, and the instantaneous solid water content,

X, as follows:

dp do

1=3

qs

X X cr 1

qw

13

surface becomes no longer wetted and evaporation must occur

from within the pores and dry porous crust starts formation

around the wet core, as shown in Fig. 1. This is assumed to occur

at solid water content, X, less than the critical solid water content,

Xcr. The particle diameter, do will no longer changed during this

stage while the radius of the wet core recedes to the particle center. Heat is conducted from the particle surface through the dry

crust to the interface and water evaporates and diffuses back to

the particle surface. The rate of vapor diffusion from the wet core

to the particle surface decreases as the dry crust thickens increases. This process is called falling rate period. By introducing

the resistance in the dry porous crust given by MaxwellStefan

type diffusion, the mass transfer rate can be calculated as given

by Skuratovsky et al. [15,16] as:

o

md

1

1

4pd Ro Ri

1

M H2 O D v P P P v i

ln

P Pv o

RT av e

14

The mass transfer rate from the wet core, Eq. (14), must be equal

to that from particle surface to the gas, Eq. (11). Eliminating the partial pressure of water vapor at the dry crust, pvo from Eq. (14) using

Eq. (11) yields an implicit equation for the evaporation rate:

o

md

1

1

1

4pd Ro Ri

ln

P

1

M H2 O D v P

RT av e

P Pv i

o

RT p

MH

h

2O m

d2po

md pv g T pg

15

the ambient gas and then by conduction through the dry crust.

Assuming quasi-steady state conditions, the temperature of the

wet core can be calculated by:

T g T p

!1

1

2

hh pdo

Tg Ti

do di

2

hpdo 2pdo di ks

!1

16

where Tp, Ti are temperatures of the outer dry crust and the inner

wet core, respectively, and Tave = (Tp + Ti)/2.

In general, during the second drying period, the outer shape of

the particle might be changed due to shrinkage of both outer and

core diameters. However, to simplify the model, it is assumed that

the particle outer diameter remains constant during the second

drying period. Thus, only the change of the wet core diameter, Di

is considered.

dDi

2 o

md

dt

dpD2i

17

The convective heat transfer coefcient, hh, was calculated from

Nusselt number, Nu, which is expressed as a function of Reynolds

number, Rep and Prandtl number, Pr, which are dened as:

Nu

hdp

;

kg

Rep

!

qg dp j !

ug u p j

lg

transfer coefcient. The following published correlations have

been tested in the present study:

Pr

l g C pg

kg

0:667

Nu 0:015Re1:6

p Pr

0:667

Nu 0:16Re1:3

p Pr

20

Nu 0:035Re1:15

Pr0:333

p

21

The correlation was developed for a large scale pneumatic

dryer.

Nu 0:15Rep

22

The correlation was developed for single droplet/wet particle and it

takes into account the resistance of the liquid vapor around the

particle to the heat transfer by Spalding number, B.

Nu

0:333

2 0:6Re0:5

p Pr

1 B0:7

C pH2 O T g T p

Hfg

23

24

An additional term proportional to Re0:8

was added to Ranz

p

Marshall correlation to account for turbulent ow.

0:8

Nu 2 0:5Re0:5

Pr0:333

p 0:06Rep

25

In analogy to the heat transfer coefcient, hh, the mass transfer

coefcient, hm, is calculated from Sherwood number, Sh, which is

equivalent to Nusselt number, Nu. It is often expressed as a function of the particle Reynolds number, Rep, and Schmidt number,

Sc, which is equivalent to Prandtl number, Pr, and they are dened

as:

Sh

hm dp

;

Dv

Sc

lg

qg Dv

26

Eqs. (19)(25) have been tested and used to calculate the mass

transfer coefcient in the present study.

2.7. Coupling between the two phases

The particles occupy the computational cell and reduce the gas

volume fraction. They also exert interaction forces on the surrounding gas phase. Thus, the two phases are coupled through

the gas volume fraction and through the total source/sink term,

S/P that accounts for the momentum, heat and mass exchange between continuous and dispersed phases. The void fractions of dispersed phase, b and gas phase, a are calculated respectively using

trajectory method as depicted in [32] by:

X N k Dt k V k

traj

18

19

V Cell

a1b

27

where Nk is the number of actual particles in the computational particle parcel (k), Vk is the volume of the particle, Vcell is the volume of

163

traj means summing over all trajectory

passing through the computational cell. The source term of dispersed phase in the gas momentum equation is calculated as in

[33] by:

SUp i

1 X

mk N k

V Cell traj

"

! #

Nt

X

q

n1

n

upi k upi k g i 1

Dt L

qp

n1

28

where DtL is the Lagrangian time step used in the solution of Eqs.

(3)(8), and summing over n indicates averaging along particle trajectory (time average).

The energy source term, STS , which represents the convective

heat exchange between the dispersed phase and the continuous

phase as well as the energy transferred to the gas phase by water

vapor, is given by:

STp

Nt h

i

X

o

1 X

2

Nk

hh pdp T g T p md hH2 O DtL

C pg V Cell traj

n1

29

Smass

S

In order to solve the above set of equations several supplementary equations, denitions and empirical correlations are required.

These will be presented subsequently. It should be noted that both

the gas and solid phases are mixtures and hence their thermodynamic properties are calculated using the mixture theory.

Mole fraction of water vapor in the gas stream.

mH2 O

P

Rg T g

35

R

;

Mg

36

is known as turbulence modulation. El-Behery et al. [26] compared

the performance of four commonly used turbulence modulation

models and they found that the model of Lain and Sommerfeld

[33] gives the best agreement with experimental data. This model

has the following form and is adopted in the present study:

kg Y H2 O kH2 O 1 Y H2 O kda

31

34

where

Rg

30

Y H2 O

Y H2 O 1 Y H2 O M H2 O =M da

The mole fraction of water vapor is used together with the ideal

gas equation to calculate the density of the gas phase as follows:

qg

The mass source term (i.e., the source term in continuity and

water vapor mass fraction equations) is calculated as:

Nt

X

o

1 X

Nk

md Dt L

V C traj

n1

wall-collision.

37

38

39

e

Sp C e3

e

k

Skp

32

where Ce3 is a model constant, its value varies in the literature from

1.1 to 2. Zhang and Reese [34] accounted for the reduction in the gas

turbulence length scale due to the presence of a second phase in Ce3.

Therefore, this model is adopted in the present study:

"

C e3

6b

1:95 1

pbm

1=3 #

33

Cpp

X

1

Cpw

Cps

1X

1X

40

qp qsa 1 X qs 1 d1 X

41

The thermodynamics properties of water vapor and dry air are

calculated as a function of temperature from formulas given by

Reynolds [37].

2.10. Boundary conditions

2.8. Particleparticle and particlewall collisions

In the present study the particles are traced one by one and the

colliding partner is generated numerically based on the average solid properties in the cell enclosing the particle. The collision probability is calculated as proposed by Oesterl and Petitjean [35]. If the

collision takes place, the post-collision velocities are calculated

using the hard sphere model described by Crowe et al. [32]. The particle trajectory after impact with the wall is greatly affected by the

wall morphology. As a result of the surface roughness, the particle is

generally hits a local surface slightly inclined to the ow direction

by a small angle. The virtual-wall model developed by Sommerfeld

[36] is adopted in the present study to calculate the roughness contribution angle. The particleparticle and particlewall collision

models used in the present study are presented in details in Ref.

[26]. The particleparticle and particlewall restitution coefcients

are taken to be 0.75 and 0.9, respectively. The friction coefcient is

In the present study, there are four types of boundary conditions. At inlet, the gas velocity, temperature, mass fraction of water

vapor and turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation rate are

specied. In compressible ow computations, the gas mass ow

rate is specied at inlet instead of the gas velocity. The inlet velocity prole is assumed to be uniform and the turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation rate are calculated by:

3=2

ein C3=4

l

kin

0:03D

42

to zero, except the axial gas velocity which is corrected to satisfy

the overall mass balance. At the wall, the no-slip boundary conditions are imposed for the momentum equation, while for the energy equation; adiabatic wall boundary condition is considered.

At the centerline, the symmetric boundary conditions are applied.

164

400

Modified Weber [7]

Baeyens et al. [1]

Modified Ranz-Marshall [11]

Tg (K)

380

Table 3

Coefcient of determination of the tested heat and mass transfer correlations.

Debrand [31]

Frantz [9]

Coefcient of determination, R2

Correlation

De Brandt [1]

Frantz [27]

De Brandt [1,11]

Debrand [20]

Baeyens et al. [1]

Modied RanzMarshall [11]

Modied Weber [17]

360

340

Gas temperature

0.4836

0.8172

0.7237

0.9927a

0.9795

0.9227

0.1268

0.7121

0.4163

0.9866a

0.8186

0.8916

320

a

300

10

15

20

25

x (m)

400

0.4

390

Present 2D Num.

0.3

Tg (K)

380

2D Num., Ref. [15]

370

360

0.2

350

340

0.1

330

0.0

10

15

20

25

Rocha

[43]

Case I

Case II

1.25

25.0

190 700

PVC

140

1195

980

400

0.26

0.125

12.81

1.25

25.0

190 700

PVC

180

1116

980

399

0.4

0.125

12.9

0.0525

4.0

100 150

Sand

380

2622

799.7

382.4

0.0468

0.0381

0.03947

20

25

1.58

1.85

0.00474

300

0.01

300

0.01

312.9

0.0469

Finite volume discretizations using the hybrid scheme for all

variables, expect the density which is interpolated using the rst

order upwind scheme, are applied. The iterative solution based on

the SIMPLE algorithm of Patankar [38] is used for the solution of

the gas phase with an extended technique to compressible ow

according to Karki [39]. The equations of motion of each particle

along with its temperature equation are integrated using fourth

0.25

Table 2

Flow conditions and physical properties of drying test cases.

Solid inlet temperature, Tp,in (K)

Mass fraction of water vapor at inlet

Y H2 O;in

25

0.30

experimental data of Baeyens et al. [1] (Case I).

20

15

x (m)

x (m)

Pipe length, L (m)

Computational grid (radial axial)

Particle material

Particle diameter, dp (lm)

Solid density, qs (kg/m3)

Solid specic heat, Cps (J/kg/K)

Inlet gas temperature, Tg,in (K)

Inlet water content of solid, Xin

Critical water content, Xcr

10

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

10

15

x (m)

Fig. 3. Comparisons between present predictions and predictions of Refs. [11,15,18]

with experimental data of Ref. [1] (Case II).

non uniform in the radial direction. Thus, the grid is very ne near

the pipe wall and gradually expanded to the pipe centerline. The

computational grid is selected based on grid independence study

and the dimensionless wall distance, y+ is less than unity in all

the tested cases. Furthermore, the number of computational parcels

and the time step used in the integration of Eqs. (6)(10) are selected to insure independent results. The FORTRAN code used in

the present study was originally developed by El-Behery et al.

[40,41] to calculate gassolid ow in curved ducts. The code is extended by El-Behery et al. [26] to include four-way coupling. Heat

transfer and the compressibility effects were implemented by ElBehery et al. [42]. In the present study the code is modied to include mass transfer between both phases. The solution procedure

for the uid and particulate phases is as follows:

165

390

322

Exp., Ref. [43]

Present 2D Num.

380

320

Tp (K)

Tg (K)

3D Num., Ref. [18]

370

318

316

360

314

350

312

0

x (m)

x (m)

0.054

0.05

0.04

0.052

0.050

0.03

0.02

0.048

0.01

0.046

0.00

0

x (m)

x (m)

Fig. 4. Comparisons between present prediction and predictions of Refs. [11,16,18] with experimental data of Ref. [43].

term of the dispersed phase and with gas void fraction, a of

unity. The solution is converged when the normalized residuals

are less than 0.001.

2. By numerically integrating the transitional and rotational equation of motion for each parcel, a large number of discrete parcels are traced through the oweld. In the rst iteration, the

particle motion is obtained without particleparticle collision

and information is stored for each cell to calculate the collision

probability in the next iteration.

3. The void fraction for dispersed phase, b and for gas phase, a as

well as the source terms are calculated.

4. The gas oweld is recalculated taking into account the source

terms and void fractions resulting in step 3.

5. Repeat steps 24 until the maximum change in the axial gas

velocity between two successive coupled iterations is less than

0.001 of the mean gas velocity.

by Skuratovsky et al. [15,16], Mezhericher et al. [17] and Jamaleddine and Ray [18], the wall temperature is varied linearly form

325 K at inlet to 320 K at outlet. Other conditions for this test case

are given in Table 2.

For direct comparison with experimental data, mass weighted

average technique is used to obtain the average value of various

solution properties (except temperature), Refs. [15,16], as follows:

2p

RR

2p

qU/r dr

qUr dr

0

R0 R

43

The average temperature of each phase (the mean bulk temperature) can be calculated as given [15,16] as:

2p

RR

qUC p Tr dr

2p 0 qUC p r dr

0

RR

44

The present model was thoroughly validated by El-Behery et al.

[26,42] for hydrodynamics and thermal elds. The results presented herein concern only with heat and mass transfer processes.

Six popular correlations for heat and mass transfer coefcients are

tested in the present study (i.e., Eqs. (19)(25)). Fig. 2 shows a

comparison between present model predictions and experimental

data of Baeyens et al. [1] (Case I) using different correlations for

heat and mass transfer coefcients. Following the suggestion given

RanzMarshall correlations under-predict the gas temperature

and the solid water content at the dryer outlet. On the other hand,

Frantz and De Brandt correlation over-predict them. Baeyens et al.

[1] correlation gives the best overall performance. For quantitative

assessment of these correlations, the coefcient of determination,

R2 is calculated for each correlation and presented in Table 3. The

coefcient of determination, R2 is a measure of the goodness of a

model and it can be dened as the ratio between residual sum of

166

0.4

Present 2D, r = 0.0 m

Present 2D, r = 0.62 m

Exp., Ref. [1]

0.3

3D Ref. [17], r = 0.62 m

0.2

0.1

0.0

10

15

20

25

20

25

x (m)

400

Tg (K)

380

360

340

320

10

15

the one-dimensional model. The main advantage of 2D and 3D

models is that the cross-sectional distribution of ow parameters

can be obtained.

To assess the accuracy of the present model for the radial variation of ow properties, the present predictions are compared with

the 3D EulerianLagrangian predictions of Mezhericher et al. [17]

using FLUENT CFD code, as shown in Fig. 5. The results are presented for two radial positions namely; pipe center (r = 0.0 m)

and near periphery (r = 0.62 m). The experimental data of Baeyens

et al. [1] are also presented in the same gure for direct comparison.

This gure indicates that gas temperature is lower near the pipe

wall due to the lower wall temperature. This results in low drying

rate and hence higher solid moisture content near the pipe wall.

The gure indicates also that the present results are more realistic

than those of Mezhericher et al. [17] as it compared with experimental data. This may be due to the relatively coarse grid used by

Mezhericher et al. [17]. Another improvement in the present model

over that of Mezhericher et al. [17] is the use of variable turbulent

Prandtl number. This parameter has a great effect on the heat transfer rate through the wall as reported by El-Behery et al. [26].

In order to understand the relative inuence of turbulence dispersion and particleparticle collision, numerical simulation is carried out neglecting either of these parameters. A comparison

between the complete model prediction and the predictions without either turbulence dispersion or particleparticle collision for

Baeyens et al. [1] (Case I) is shown Fig. 6. It can be seen from this

gure that the particleparticle collision is less important for this

case. This can be attributed to the low solid void fraction

x (m)

Fig. 5. Comparisons between present prediction and predictions of Ref. [17] with

experimental data of Ref. [1] (Case I) at different radial positions.

R2 1 Pi1

n

360

/i;num /i;exp

i1 /i;exp

Complete model

Without particle-particle collision

Without turbulence dispersion

380

/exp 2

45

The results presented in Table 3 indicate that the best prediction (the highest R2) is obtained when Baeyens et al. correlation

is applied. In addition, modied RanzMarshall and modied Weber correlations can be applied to the cases involving heat transfer

only. Overall, however, the correlation proposed by Baeyens et al.

[1] is recommended in the present study for the heat and mass

transfer coefcients.

Figs. 3 and 4 present comparisons between present predictions

and experimental data of Baeyens et al. [1] (Case II) and Rocha

[43], respectively. The experimental data of Rocha are reported in

Refs. [11,1418]. The pipe wall temperature for Rocha test case is

falling linearly from 360 K at inlet to 354 K at outlet. Other conditions for these test cases are given in Table 2. The gures also present direct comparison between the present predictions and other

computations from literature. The selected numerical results for

comparison are the one-dimensional prediction of Levy and Borde

[11], two-dimensional numerical results of Skuratovsky et al.

[15,16] and FLUENT three-dimensional predictions of Jamaleddine

and Ray [18]. These models are based on EulerianEulerian approach. The gures show that the present model agrees well with

experimental data for both cases. In addition, the present model

predicts the temperature and water content better than other

two-dimensional and three-dimensional EulerianEulerian models.

340

320

10

15

20

25

20

25

x (m)

0.4

Pn

Tg (K)

squares and explained sum of squares (i.e., total variation in experimental data), see Cameron and Windmeijer [44]. R2 can be calculated by:

400

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

10

15

x (m)

Fig. 6. Effect of particleparticle collision and turbulence dispersion on the model

predictions.

has a great effect on the gas temperature and solid water content.

4. Conclusion

A steady-state two-dimensional four-way coupling Eulerian

Lagrangian model is presented. The model takes into account

momentum, heat and mass exchange between both phases. Several

correlations for heat transfer coefcient are tested in the present

study. The model is validated with experimental data from previous

investigators under different conditions. The present results are

also compared to other published computations. It is found that

the correlation proposed by Baeyens et al. [1] performs better than

other correlations. The comparisons with experimental data

showed that the present model is able to predict heat and mass

transfer in gas ow with a good accuracy. In addition, the present

model performs better than other models available in the literature.

It is found also that neglecting the particleparticle collision or turbulence dispersion results in lower heat transfer and drying rates.

References

[1] Baeyens J, Gauwbergen DV, Vinckier I. Pneumatic drying: the use of large-scale

data in a design procedure. Powder Technol 1995;83:13948.

[2] Borde I, Levy A. Pneumatic and ash drying. In: Mujumdar AS, editor.

Handbook of industrial drying. New York: CRC Press; 2006.

[3] Indrato A, Halim Y, Partoputro P. Pneumatic drying of solid particle:

experimental and model comparison. Exp Heat Transfer 2007;20:27787.

[4] Williams-Gardner. Industrial drying. London, UK: Leonard Hill; 1971.

[5] Moyers CG, Baldwin GW. Psychrometry, evaporative cooling, and solids drying.

In: Perry RH, Green DW, Maloney JO, editors. Perrys chemical engineers

handbook. McGraw-Hill, Inc.; 1997.

[6] Thorpe GR, Wint A, Coggan GC. The mathematical modelling of industrial

pneumatic driers. Trans Inst Chem Eng 1973;51:33948.

[7] Kemp IC, Bahu RE, Pasley HS. Model development and experimental studies of

vertical pneumatic conveying dryers. Dry Technol 1994;12:132340.

[8] Kemp IC, Oakley DE. Simulation and scale-up of pneumatic conveying and

cascading rotary dryers. Dry Technol 1997;15:1699710.

[9] Radford RD. A model of particulate drying in pneumatic conveying systems.

Powder Technol 1997;93:10926.

[10] Kemp IC, Oakley DE, Bahu RE. Computational uid dynamics modelling of

vertical pneumatic conveying dryers. Powder Technol 1991;65:47784.

[11] Levy A, Borde I. Two-uid model for pneumatic drying of particulate materials.

Dry Technol 2001;19:177388.

[12] Pelegrina AH, Crapiste GH. Modelling the pneumatic drying of food particles. J

Food Eng 2001;48:30110.

[13] El-Behery SM, El-Askary WA, Ibrahim KA, Hamed MH. Porous particles drying

in a vertical upward pneumatic conveying dryer. Int J Aerospace Mech Eng

2011;5:11025.

[14] Narimatsu CP, Ferreira MC, Freire JT. Drying of coarse particles in a vertical

pneumatic conveyor. Dry Technol 2007;25:291302.

[15] Skuratovsky I, Levy A, Borde I. Two-uid two-dimensional model for

pneumatic drying. Dry Technol 2003;21:164568.

[16] Skuratovsky I, Levy A, Borde I. Two-dimensional numerical simulations of the

pneumatic drying in vertical pipes. Chem Eng Process 2005;44:18792.

[17] Mezhericher M, Levy A, Borde I. Three-dimensional modelling of pneumatic

drying process. Powder Technol 2010;203:37183.

[18] Jamaleddine TJ, Ray MB. Numerical simulation of pneumatic dryer using

computational uid dynamics. Ind Eng Chem Res 2010;49:590010.

167

[19] Jamaleddine TJ, Ray MB. Drying of sludge in a pneumatic dryer using

computational uid dynamics. Dry Technol 2011;29:30822.

[20] NamKung W, Cho M. Pneumatic drying of iron ore particles in a vertical tube.

Dry Technol 2004;22:87791.

[21] Kaensup W, Kulwong S, Wongwises S. A small-scale pneumatic conveying

dryer of rough rice. Dry Technol 2006;24:10513.

[22] Kaensup W, Kulwong S, Wongwises S. Comparison of drying kinetics of paddy

using a pneumatic dryer with and without a cyclone. Dry Technol

2006;24:103945.

[23] Chagras V, Oesterl B, Boulet P. On heat transfer in gassolid pipe ows: effects

of collision induced alterations of the ow dynamics. Int J Heat Mass Transfer

2005;48:164961.

[24] Boulet P, Moissette S. Inuence of the particleturbulence modulation

modeling in the simulation of a non-isothermal gassolid ow. Int J Heat

Mass Transfer 2002;45:420116.

[25] Mansoori Z, Saffar-Avval M, Tabrizi HB, Ahmadi G. Modeling of heat

transfer in turbulent gassolid ow. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2002;45:

117384.

[26] El-Behery SM, El-Askary WA, Hamed MH, Ibrahim KA. Hydrodynamic and

thermal elds analysis in gassolid two-phase ow. Int J Heat Fluid Flow

2011;32:74054.

[27] Mansoori Z, Saffar-Avval M, Tabrizi HB, Dabir B, Ahmadi G. Inter-particle heat

transfer in a riser of gassolid turbulent ows. Powder Technol

2005;159:3545.

[28] Launder BE, Sharma BI. Application of the energy-dissipation model of

turbulence to the calculation of ow near a spinning disc. Lett Heat Mass

Transfer 1974;1:1318.

[29] Kays WM. Turbulent Prandtl number where are we? J Heat Transfer

1994;116:28495.

[30] Shuen JS, Chen LD, Faeth GM. Evaluation of a stochastic model of particle

dispersion in a turbulent round jet. AIChE J 1983;29:16770.

[31] Debrand S. Heat transfer during a ash drying process. Ind Eng Chem Process

Des Develop 1974;13:396404.

[32] Crowe C, Sommerfeld M, Tsuji Y. Multiphase ow with droplets and

particles. Florida, USA: CRC Press; 1998.

[33] Lain S, Sommerfeld M. Turbulence modulation in dispersed two-phase ow

laden with solids from a Lagrangian perspective. Int J Heat Fluid Flow

2003;24:61625.

[34] Zhang YH, Reese JM. Gas turbulence modulation in a two-uid model for gas

solid ows. AICHE J 2003;49:304865.

[35] Oesterl B, Petitjean A. Simulation of particle-to-particle interactions in gas

solid ows. Int J Multiphase Flow 1993;19:199211.

[36] Sommerfeld M. Modelling of particlewall collisions in conned gasparticle

ows. Int J Multiphase Flow 1992;18:90526.

[37] Reynolds WC. Thermodynamic properties in SI: graphs, tables and

computational equations for forty substances. Published by the Department

of Mechanical Engineering. Stanford, CA 94305: Stanford University;

1979.

[38] Patankar SV. Numerical heat transfer and uid ow. New York, USA: McGrawHill; 1980.

[39] Karki KC. A calculation procedure for viscous ows at all speeds in complex

geometries. Ph.D. thesis. University of Minnesota; 1986.

[40] El-Behery SM, Hamed MH, El-Kadi MA, Ibrahim KA. CFD prediction of airsolid

ow in 180 curved duct. Powder Technol 2009;191:13042.

[41] El-Behery SM, Hamed MH, Ibrahim KA, El-Kadi MA. CFD evaluation of

solid particles erosion in curved ducts. ASME J Fluids Eng 2010;132:

07130313.

[42] El-Behery SM, El-Askary WA, Hamed MH, Ibrahim KA. Numerical and

experimental studies of heat transfer in particle-laden gas ows through a

vertical riser. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 2012;33:11830.

[43] Rocha SCS. Contribution to the study of pneumatic drying: simulation and

inuence of the gasparticle heat transfer coefcient. Ph.D. thesis. Sao Paulo:

EPUSP, Sao Paulo University; 1988.

[44] Cameron AC, Windmeijer FAG. An R-squared measure of goodness of t for

some common nonlinear regression models. J Economet 1997;77:32942.

- IRJET-Analysis of Working Parameters Affecting the Performance of Earth-Air Tube Heat Exchanger(EATHE): A ReviewDiunggah olehIRJET Journal
- Mobiltherm 600 Series FactsheetDiunggah olehJessica Chandler
- DTML.pdfDiunggah olehDaniel González Juárez
- fancher1963.pdfDiunggah olehLuis Vargas
- 1-s2.0-S001793100700600X-mainDiunggah olehhsemarg
- Club08_SPascalDiunggah olehGigarostom Alger
- Power Consumption Mixing TimeDiunggah olehgambitfluent
- OTC-23965-MSDiunggah olehFélix Gallo Cruz
- Module 3: Short QuestionsDiunggah olehcaptainhass
- Segment 156 de Oil and Gas, A Practical HandbookDiunggah olehMouloud Had
- Heat Transfer Direct Firing FurnaceDiunggah olehengbonom9945
- SCIENVP Thermodynamics.docxDiunggah olehNoah Sison
- UO Lab 4 Ext. FinDiunggah olehJack Favazza
- Lecture 1 - Introduction-1Diunggah olehVictor Seo
- 636-3156-1-PB.pdfDiunggah olehDevinaacs
- Mod4_HT_TD_PPEDiunggah olehShaheen S. Ratnani
- Engineering Disciplines Flyer 100216 IYDiunggah olehMari Lopes
- Review of Performance Analysis and Enhancement of Heat Transfer on Extended SurfacesDiunggah olehdropoutengineer iitb
- 4.4.Heat ExchangerDiunggah olehShailesh Patel
- Final Poster PresentationDiunggah olehPinjala Anoop
- Numerical Simulation and Comparison With Experiment of Natural Convection Between Two Floors of a Building Model via a StairwellDiunggah olehVicky Rajasekharan
- Heat Transfer Week 1Diunggah olehSiskal Dd
- Heat ExchangerDiunggah olehDennis Alba
- Ch 1 IntroductionDiunggah olehapi-3765936
- Multi-scale Time Integration for Transient Conjugate Heat TransferDiunggah olehwael
- 10.1115@OMAE2016-55137Diunggah olehthlim19078656
- Heat TransferDiunggah olehDea
- Publications 001Diunggah olehManoj Manivasagam
- IJREI_Numerical simulation model of solar air heater using ansys-14Diunggah olehIjrei Journal
- Effective potentials of dissipative hard spheres in granular matterDiunggah olehCarlos Pacheco

- BSI 16 Pay in Slip 1st Phase Main BAJADiunggah olehvignumar
- BrakesDiunggah olehmjais
- BrakesjipDiunggah olehvignumar
- 13894.0001Diunggah olehKerem Can Aynagöz
- 13894.0001Diunggah olehKerem Can Aynagöz
- teamkashpiers-130923024553-phpapp02Diunggah olehDeepak Lamba
- Brake CalculationsDiunggah olehArpit Dhupar
- GDFGDiunggah olehvignumar
- GDFGDiunggah olehvignumar
- BrakesjipDiunggah olehvignumar
- Agri.app(Anna Maalai)Diunggah olehvignumar

- CLAPOTIS Engg. Pvt. Ltd.training Session --1Diunggah olehManoj Kumar Pal
- E_Index_5th_56Diunggah olehsagitawidiyastuti
- Buckling AnalysisDiunggah olehYogesh Khairnar
- Application of CNT Nanofluids in a Turbulent HEDiunggah olehKhalid Siddiqui
- Cyclic Shear Loading Response of Fraser River Delta Silt -Maria Victoria SaninDiunggah olehYariceli Bernal Neri
- Ecological Powder Coating Technology Based on Innovative SolutionsDiunggah olehIAEME Publication
- chapter4periodictable-Diunggah olehCikFasyareena Mao
- Msds Feran IcsDiunggah olehTrinhTruong
- 2mark with answer UCM M.E 6004.pdfDiunggah olehl8o8r8d8s8i8v8
- Unit 3Diunggah olehMazzello Francis
- Tratamente termice F4Diunggah olehandreeaoana45
- Abs_approved Welding Consumables ‐ Submerged Arc WeldingDiunggah olehgeorgekc77
- Investigation of Formation of Silica-coated Magnetite Nanoparticles via Sol-gel ApproachDiunggah olehPrijanto Agoes
- The Discovery of ExxonMobil's M41S Family of Mesoporous Molecular SievesDiunggah olehHenrique Souza
- BS 5911-230-1994Diunggah olehlaurentiu
- Eudragit Rs 100 PDFDiunggah olehMaria
- CH2 Transition Metals Unit v A2 LevelDiunggah olehbillaljaved
- Hydro Turbine Bearings N American[1]Diunggah olehapi-3803863
- Paper 32Diunggah olehA Mahmood
- 37_PoweTransformeEnglishDiunggah olehAmresh Singh
- Hydrogen-plasma etching of thin amorphousDiunggah olehtumballisto
- falk97bDiunggah olehahagen00
- prEN 1555_2_EDiunggah olehTeodosio Zapana
- Compressive Strength Test WorksheetDiunggah olehLloyd R. Ponce
- Poster DenmarkDiunggah olehDiener Volpin
- L6 - Shear and Moment Diagrams.pdfDiunggah olehjayanthan
- Coarse versus Fine- Graded Superpave Mixtures: Comparative Evaluation of Resistance to RuttingDiunggah olehProf. Prithvi Singh Kandhal
- shurjointa6handboek50087312018-11en.pdfDiunggah olehioan cristian cotorobai
- 20 Solved Problems in Soil MechanicsDiunggah olehZairah Ann Borja
- Bogie Technical RequirementsDiunggah olehAmit shah