CFD Predictions of Three Overlapping Sprays Discharged in Hot Turbulent Flows

G. C. S. Nhumaio1, A. P. Watkins1,*, A. J. Yule1 and R. E. M. Verdurmen2

1
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering
University of Manchester
Sackville Street, Manchester, M60 1QD, UK
2
NIZO Food Research
Department of Processing
P.O. Box 20, NL-6710 BA Ede, The Netherlands

Abstract
Overlapping sprays are used in engineering applications (e.g., spray drying) in order to enhance the agglomeration
processes. Within this perspective, the Spray3D CFD code [1,2] is used to predict three overlapping sprays issued
inside a simplified (cylinder-on-cone) geometry that represents a spray drying chamber of Anhydro A/S, one of the
8 consortium partners that participated in a EU multi-national project on spray drying processes [3]. Induced hot air
at around 150 C and flow rate of 2,633m3/s interacts with feed of solid in suspension at 40 C and leaves the
chamber from two top outlets located at 7 and 12 o'clock respectively (positions in the circumferential direction).
This wall-bounded turbulent flow case is simulated with the use of the standard - turbulence model [4]. The
computational grid is generated using a cylindrical coordinate system in which the cone section is represented by
patching together stepped blocks of unit grid line lengths in the vertical direction. The Spray3D CFD code s in-built
evaporation model for homogeneous fluids is compared with a newly incorporated drying model for fluids with
dissolved solids, which was developed by the EDECAD partners TU-Darmstadt and NIZO [5]. The numerical
calculations are extended from experiments developed by the EDECAD partner University of Bremen [3], at
ambient temperature, which leaves the need for rather difficult and onerous experiments in hotter environments.

Introduction Agglomeration in the spray drier

Various nozzles arrangements have been
proposed in spray drying systems over the years
[6,7], amongst which interacting multiple sprays are
also common. Figures 1 and 2 show a typical case in
which multiple sprays are shown to discharge at
different angles, which may be combined with
various inlet air and sprays pitch angles to yield
enhanced rates of effective particles collision
energies that lead to agglomeration.

Fines return In spray

Figure 2: A triple interacting sprays case. Courtesy of

Carlisle Process Systems (CPS)

With the responsibilities for the partner UMIST

(former University of Manchester Institute of Science and
Technology) within the EDECAD Project having been
the production of validation data for interacting sprays
(Figure 3), which should be combined with the
implementation and test of collision, agglomeration and
drying models in its in-house Spray3D CFD code, it
became clear from the onset of the EDECAD Project that
Figure 1: The triple nozzle NIZO industrial case [3]
realistic cases of interacting sprays should be addressed

*
Corresponding author: paul.watkins@manchester.ac.uk
 20th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems (Europe) – Orléans (France), 5th-7th September 2005
in depth. Figure 2, which reflects the nozzles
arrangements of triple interacting sprays appeared
most useful as an extension to the work reported by
the authors in an earlier publication [8], in which two
unbounded interacting sprays (Figure 3) were
investigated.
Figure 3: The UMIST nozzles arrangements and
experiments and CFD test cases reported in [8]
Computational geometry set-up
The industrial and academic partners of the
EDECAD Project made available various chamber
designs from which a simplified geometry of a hot
pilot plant case of the partner Anhydro A/S was
chosen as shown in Figure 4. This choice was
practical and economical in the CFD point of view
particularly when tracking the particles with the use
of the direct simulation Monte Carlo approach, which
is accommodated in the Spray3D CFD code.
Realistic industrial cases led to prohibitive CPU
requirements due to the considerable number of
particles residing within the drying chamber.
Initial and boundary conditions
As shown in Figure 4, the present study
comprises a wall bounded case in which the feed and
air inlet are roof mounted near the chamber axis. The
product outlet is at the bottom of the dryer while two
air outlets are roof positioned at 7 and 12 o'clock
respectively. The air is allowed into the chamber at
2,633m3/s flow rate, 150 C temperature (the quasi-
lower limit for Whey and Soy Base process fluids)
and turbulent intensity of 5% the mean axial velocity
component. Using data generated by the EDECAD
partner University of Bremen [3], the feed is sprayed
at temperatures of ~40 C and consists of fully
atomised plumes with DV0.9, DV0.5 and DV0.1 of
about 280, 180 and 80 m at atmospheric conditions.
Symmetry plane boundary conditions appeared to
better represent the product collection surface,
located at the bottom of the chamber, for which wall
boundary conditions were also tested. In order to
accommodate the treatment of fluidised beds in the
UMIST in-house Spray3D CFD code would require
an elaborate and difficult exercise.
Figure 4: Test geometry implemented in the study
Figure 5: Representative mapping of engine
curvilinear grids into spray drying (cylinder-on-cone)
chamber geometries
Gridding options and computational grid selection
The UMIST in-house Spray3D CFD research code
allows the use of Cartesian, cylindrical and curvilinear
orthogonal grids. It embodies stretching/compression
factors that allow to condense or expand grids at desired
locations of given computational domains. Its abilities to
model engine geometries with off-set valves [9] and
piston and cylinder roof bowls [10] would easily be
implemented to model some complex cases of spray
drying chambers, particularly the shaping of top outlets,
convex roofs and cone sections (e.g., the mapping of
bowl engine section into a dryer conical section shown in
Figure 5).
In the present research however, circumstances linked
to changes from diesel properties to water and the
necessary (but lengthy) verifications, led to the use of an
alternative gridding method. Here, improvements were
made to the latest version of the Spray3D code, earlier
verified extensively in fire suppression applications [1].
The in-built capabilities to model complex Cartesian
grids with use of rectangular blocks/stepped geometries
(Figure 6 (a)), were re-arranged so as to accommodate
cylindrical grids, which allowed the simulation of the
cone sections and convex roofs by patching together
blocks of unit length in the chamber axial direction
(Figure 6 (b)). To mention at this point in particular is
 Modelling

that immediate problems arose with this gridding
procedure when representing off-axis inlets and
outlets, i.e., injectors and gas outlets, the effects of
which are discussed later.
inhomogeneous fluids by the partner University of
Bremen [11], which required time consuming extention
into the EDECAD Project purposes so that the initial
spray data could be adequately processed from the
generated LSS, DSM and PDA data.

Figure 7: The rectangular enclosure used by the partner

(a) Spray3D code capabilities
in rectangular geometries.
NSEGX and NSEGY may be
accounted for when
representing complex 3D
geometries
(b) Spray3D code capabilities
in cylindrical geometries. The
University of Bremen to generate validation data for
cone section "C" is twin-interacting sprays [3].
represented by patching
single k-segments. Convex
roofs may similarly be
represented.

Figure 6: The preparation of cylinder-on-cone

geometry using the potentialities of Spray3D
stepping approach [1]. Note the constant line West
boundary (ISTA(K) in case (b)).
Three grids of different densities, viz. 11x20x21,
24x30x41 and 30x32x45 in the radial, circumferential
and axial directions respectively, were tested using
the geometry illustrated in Figure 4. Various
stretching factors were implemented with a view to
improve numerical accuracy in near nozzles, walls
and air inlet and outlet positions. For the chosen
injection rate of 8 parcels per nozzle per time step,
the 24x30x41 grid represented a good compromise (a) Mean velocity
between the accuracy and the CPU requirements (35
CPU hours using the aforementioned initial and
boundary conditions and the model fluid water for
which substantial number of droplets were depleted
throughout the computation time due to the effects of
high induced gas temperatures).
Numerical validation
The Spray3D Cartesian coordinate system was
used to meet the experimental conditions of the
EDECAD partner University of Bremen [3], in which
overlapping sprays issued from HP atomisers were
generated using a rectangular enclosure as shown in
Figure 7. Although different thermodynamic
conditions were established in the experiments, while
testing benchmark water sprays and other sprays
from process fluids that are typical in spray drying
processes, the present simulations only use
overlapping water sprays for numerical validations. (b) Mass flux
Limitations in the use of real process fluids derived
from the deconvulation algorithm, developed for Figure 8: Data validation using two wall bounded
overlapping sprays
 20th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems (Europe) – Orléans (France), 5th-7th September 2005

Shown in Figure 8 are the experimental data and 1/ 3

Ddn, k
the CFD predictions of mean velocity and mass flow md0 , k G
density at a distance of 155 mm downstream of the Tn Tdn, k
Ddn, k (2)
nozzle tip as generated in the experiments of [3], n
using water as process fluid. In either parameters 6 d ,k

taken for comparisons, the results are not collocated.

The CFD calculations under-predict the mean 3
(3)
Tn F E Ddn, k Tdn,k
velocity at nearly all the range of radial distances
while in the mass flow density, over-predictions k

occur away from the axis of the flow domain.
The main reason thought to cause the
disagreements is the spray cone angle, which had to
be limited to 40 in the computations, while in the
experiments was ~62 . The numerical solution using
angles greater than 40 led to code crashing in 30ms
where, at each new time levels n, the Newton-Raphson
algorithm suffices to solve for the gas temperature T n ,
and the temperatures and diameters Td,k and Dd,k of
n n
droplet parcels d,k respectively [13]. In Equations (1) to
(3), md,k denotes the mass of droplet parcels at old time
0

real time as the expanding cloud of inclined spray

level 0, d,k, the density of droplet parcels and A, B, C, E,
n
wetted the lateral and bottom faces of the near-nozzle
injection cell. Double surface wetting in the injection F, and G are discretisation derived terms detailed in [12].
cell required local rearrangements in the handling of As for the inhomogeneous fluids, the subject of the
the Spray3D continuity and momentum equations, EDECAD Project, the equivalent discretised relations for
matter that could not be addressed within the the droplets external heat and mass transfer and the gas
EDECAD Project lifetime. energy equations are given by [13]
Another factor contributing to the differences is n
H dp
the random injection of droplet parcels at the nozzle T pn
n
(4)
CP ,dp C P , wcdp
exit. It proved costly to introduce a sufficient number
of droplet parcels per time step (i.e. more than 8 dc p 1 d 2 dc p
r D (5)
parcels per nozzle) in order to reduce the uneven dt r 2 dr dr
spray distribution at the nozzles exits. Combined with n
H da xan H ev
this, a fully atomised spray downtream of the nozzle Tan (6)
CP , a xan CP , wv
exit was assumed, which had its effects in the gas
entrainment characteristics in the injection cell. where c p and c dp denote moisture contents of sticky and
n

By giving a step aside from perfectionism, one

would allow some degree of resolution as far as the
Spray3D CFD code set-up is concerned. For
example, the highest error of the mean velocity
profile verified at the radial position 10 mm (Figure 8
(a)) is of order ~38%, which can be improved in
accordance with possible improvements in the
aforementioned deficiencies.
The evaporation and drying sub-models in brief
The existing Spray3D water (i.e., homogeneous
fluid) evaporation model devised in reference [1] was
modified with a view to account for evaporating
droplets with dissolved solids as addressed in the
EDECAD Project [3]. Basically, and leaving details
available in [3] and [5], the commonality between the
existing and the modified Spray3D heat and mass
transfer models is shown in Equations (1) through to
(6). In the case of homogeneous fluids, the
discretised forms of the differential equations for the
droplets external heat transfer, internal mass transfer
and the gas energy source term are given by
A C
Tdn, k T n Tdn, k B (1)
Ddn, k
2
Ddn,k
dry particles at new time level n respectively, CP,a, CP,dp,
CP,w, and CP,wv, the specific heat capacities (at constant
pressure) of air, dry particle, water and water vapour,
H da,
n
H dp
n
and Hev, the enthalpies of dry air, dry particle
and water evaporation and Ta and Tp the air and
n n
particle temperatures at the new time level n.
The differential form presented in Equation (5)
requires introduction of approximations to solve for the
particle moisture content, cp, in which case a quasi-
sequential solution procedure is implemented at each
computational time step [13].
Results and discussion
The partner Anhydro A/S, the Danish EDECAD
industrial partner, provided the geometry of one of their
smaller/pilot tower cases, which consisted of ~1.6 m
diameter by ~2.7 m hight (Figure 4). Although
discussions were held in connection with the testing of
the agglomeration model [6] in various industrial/realistic
configurations, only the effects of the drying model are
presented in this report. The agglomeration model
requires time consuming verifications in the Spray3D
code.
Shown in Figure 9 are the gas temperature and axial
velocity contours by 30ms real time, which is one of the
early stages of the flow development. The choice of this
reporting time step derived from the fact that it clearly
depicts the early sequence of events at all regions for
 Modelling
which different boundaries conditions were
implemented (e.g., the 100 C fixed temperature at the
top air outlet, which was assigned on the basis of
typical spray drying experiments [6,7], and the
highest temperatures residing near the chamber axis
where the highest gas tumble motion is present). The
gas was allowed to flow for 2s real time before the
liquid/feed was sprayed and the time counter re-
initialised for the evaluation of multi-phase flow.
(a)
(b)
Figure 9: Gas temperature and axial velocity
contours at a state in which the flow had not reached
some steadiness
The development of interacting water
(homogeneous fluid) sprays in a time station ~360ms
of the spray events is shown in Figure 10. Particles
shown here are only those identified on a vertical
plane cutting through the chamber axis, as generated
using the GMV graphics package [14]. Here, the
spray leading edge, located near the dryer axis, was
found to stabilise at the higher positions of the cone
section, which is a result of continuous depletion of
water droplets at elevated temperatures.
In Figure 11, the droplets were assumed to contain
30% solids contents, which caused dry particles to remain
after the complete removal of moisture. Noting that only
a few of the injected particles were depleted, the number
of residing particles within the computational domain
became excessive, hence leading to considerable CPU
time (35 CPU hours for the ~360ms real time with each
of the 3 nozzles injecting 8 particles per time step of ~10-
5
s). Unlike in Figure 10 in which the spray hangs at early
sections of the cone region, the presence of solids
contents, as shown in Figure 11, allowed the
droplets/particles to progress further towards the products
collection zone
Figure 10: Test of in-built Spray3D evaporation model
using homogeneous fluid water
Figure 11: Test of Spray3D newly incorporated drying
model for fluids with dissolved solids
Higher evaporation rates were found to take place
near the axis of the spray drier given that the injected
lower momentum (smaller) droplets obey the highest gas
tumble motion located near the chamber axis as depicted
in Figure 9(b), while a considerable number of higher
momentum (larger) droplets are projected to larger radial
displacements.
 20th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems (Europe) – Orléans (France), 5th-7th September 2005
Conclusions
CFD predictions were carried out using three
converging sprays that interacted within wall
bounded hot turbulent industrial cases that are typical
in spray drying processes. A symmetry plane
boundary condition was implemented for the
products collection zone, which in principle should
be simulated as quasi-fluidised bed. Numerical
validations were carried out in accordance with the
experiments carried out in the EDECAD project [3]
with sensible agreements having been achieved.
However, experimental limitations (e.g., difficulties
associated with the droplet drying and droplet-droplet
impaction experiments when temperatures above
80 C are involved [3]) still leave further work for
improved validation involving a range of real process
fluids such as those used in spray drying processes.
The main observation from the study is that, the
multi-nozzle, hot and turbulent industrial case
investigated here is a challenging one as far as the
CFD predictions are concerned, particularly when the
cylindrical coordinate system is used. A few of the
problems that arise with the use of this coordinate
system include (i) a limited window for inclined off-
axis spray injections as the sprays impinge on the
front and lateral faces of the injection cells, which
require improvements into the solution of the
continuity and momentum equations within the
Spray3D CFD code, and (ii) the approximation of
circular air outlets through use of equivalent area arc-
trapezoidal orifices, which cause some loss of
numerical accuracy.
An additional observation from the study is that,
for the ~360ms "economic" real time of spray event
and the chosen chamber size and gas and feed
injection flow rates, the use of homogeneous fluid
water leads to massive depletion of droplets, which is
consistent with the expectations. The solution using
the drying model leads to increased CPU time to
simulate the same window of real time as the model
fluid, since the number of in-chamber residing
droplets becomes prohibitive due to low particle
depletion rate (i.e., solids remain after water
evaporates completely from the droplets).
References
1. S. Walmsley, A Computational and
Experimental Study of Sprays Produced by Fire
Suppression, PhD Thesis, UMIST, UK, 2000.
2. A. P. Watkins, 3D Modeling of Gas Flow and
Sprays in Diesel Engines, Computer
Simulations of Fluid Flow, Heat and Mass
Transfer and Combustion in Reciprocating
Engines, Markatos, N.C. (ed.), Hemisphere,
Washington DC, 193-237, 1989.
3. EDECAD (Efficient DEsign and Control of
Agglomeration in spray Drying processes)
Project, EU Project GRD1-2000-25681, 2000.
4. B. E. Launder and D. B. Spalding,
Mathematical Models of Turbulence, Academic
Press, 1972.
5. R. E. M. Verdurmen, P. Menn, J. Ritzert, S. Blei, G.
C. S. Nhumaio, T. Sonne S rensen, M. Gunsing, J.
Straatsma, M. Verschueren, M. Sibeijn, G. Schulte,
U. Fritsching, K. Bauckhage, C. Tropea, M.
Sommerfeld, A. P. Watkins, A. J. Yule and H.
Sch nfeldt, Simulation of agglomeration in spray
drying installations: the EDECAD project, Drying
Technology, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp1403-1461, Marcel
Dekker, 2004.
6. A. S. .Mujumdar, Handbook of Industrial Drying,
2nd Ed., Vols 1-2, Marcel Dekker Inc., NY, 1995.
7. K. Masters, Spray Drying: An Introduction to
Principles, Operational Practice and Applications,
Leonard Hill Books, London, 1972.
8. G. C. S. Nhumaio, A. P. Watkins and A. J. Yule,
Experiments and CFD Predictions of Two
Overlapping Water Sprays Issued from Air-Assist
Atomizers, Proc. ILASS-Europe '04, Nottingham,
UK, 2004.
9. C. M. Diomataris, Simulation of In-Cylinder Flows
in Twin-Intake Valve Internal Combustion Engines,
M.Sc. Thesis, UMIST, 1991.
10. A. P. Watkins, S. Dessipris and H. Khaleghi, The
Combined Effects on Fluid Flow During
Compression of Piston Bowl Shape and Offset, and
Swirl Ratio, SAE Technical Paper 870595, 1987.
11. M. Mitschke, G. Schulte, J. K ser, M. Zorn and T.
Wriedt, Reconstruction of Velocity-Diameter
Relations Obtained from PDA Measurements
During Atomisation of Inhomogeneous Liquids,
Proc. ILASS-Europe '99, Toulouse, France, 1999.
12. H. Khaleghi, Three-Dimensional Modelling of
Sprays and Gas Flow in Test Rigs and Diesel
Engines and Comparison with Experiments, PhD
Thesis, UMIST, UK, 1990.
13. J. Straatsma, G. Van Houwelingen, A. E.
Steenbergen, and P. De Jong, Spray Drying of Food
Products: 1. Simulation Model, Journal of Food
Engineering 42, pp. 67-72, 1999.
14. Los-Alamos National Laboratory, (2001), GMV
(General Mesh Viewer) Graphics Package, V2.9,
Release of December 2001.
Acknowledgments
Thanks are due to the 5th EU Growth Program, contract
number G1RD-CT-2000-00340, and all the partners
involved in the EDECAD Project (Efficient DEsign and
Control of Agglomeration in spray Drying machines).
Acronyms
CPS: Carlisle Process Systems
DSM: Difraction Size Measurement
EDECAD: Efficient DEsign and Control of
Agglomeration in spray Drying processes
LLS: Laser Light Sheet
PDA: Phase Doppler Anemometry
TUDarmstadt: Technical University of Darmstadt
UMIST: (Former) University of Manchester Institute of
Science and Technology