Huang 2004

This article was downloaded by: [Dicle University]
On: 04 November 2014, At: 00:56

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Drying Technology: An International Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ldrt20
Simulation of a Spray Dryer Fitted with a Rotary Disk

Atomizer Using a Three-Dimensional Computional
Fluid Dynamic Model
a b a
Lixin Huang , Kurichi Kumar & A. S. Mujumdar
a
Mechanical Engineering Department , National University of Singapore , Singapore
b
CFD Division , Institute of High Performance Computing , Singapore Science Park II ,
Singapore
Published online: 06 Feb 2007.
To cite this article: Lixin Huang , Kurichi Kumar & A. S. Mujumdar (2004) Simulation of a Spray Dryer Fitted with a Rotary
Disk Atomizer Using a Three-Dimensional Computional Fluid Dynamic Model, Drying Technology: An International Journal,
22:6, 1489-1515, DOI: 10.1081/DRT-120038737
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/DRT-120038737
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
DRYING TECHNOLOGY
Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 1489–1515, 2004
Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 00:56 04 November 2014
Simulation of a Spray Dryer Fitted with a

Rotary Disk Atomizer Using a
Three-Dimensional Computional
Fluid Dynamic Model
Lixin Huang,1,* Kurichi Kumar,2 and A. S. Mujumdar1

1
Mechanical Engineering Department, National University
of Singapore, Singapore
2
CFD Division, Institute of High Performance Computing,
Singapore Science Park II, Singapore
ABSTRACT
Spray dryers fitted with a rotary disk atomizer are widely used in many
industries requiring high throughputs to produce powders from liquid
streams. The interaction between droplets or particles and the drying
medium within the drying chamber is still not well understood and
hence difficult to model reliably. In this article CFD results are
presented to describe the behavior of the performance of a spray
dryer fitted with a rotary disk atomizer in a cylinder-on-cone chamber
geometry. Four different turbulence models, i.e., standard k ", RNG
*Correspondence: Lixin Huang, Mechanical Engineering Department, National

University of Singapore, 10, Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260; E-mail:
engp2416@nus.edu.sg.
1489
DOI: 10.1081/DRT-120038737 0737-3937 (Print); 1532-2300 (Online)

Copyright & 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com
ORDER REPRINTS
1490 Huang, Kumar, and Mujumdar
k ", Realizable k ", and Reynolds stress models were tested and
compared to simulate the swirling two-phase flow with heat and mass
transfer in the chamber. The results of this investigation can provide
further insight into turbulent swirling flow modeling. The predicted
results, such as, air flow patterns, air velocity and temperature,
distributions, particle/droplet trajectories, drying performance etc.,
are obtained using the CFD code FLUENT6.1. Comparison with
available limited experimental data shows that CFD results display
reasonable agreement. Predicted results also show that the RNG k "
model performs better in this specific case.
Key Words: CFD; Air flow pattern; Drying model; Suspension;

Swirling flow; Turbulent model; Two-phase flow.
INTRODUCTION
Over the past decade, research in the field of spray dryer modeling has
primarily dealt with the practical utility of spray dryers in various
industries.[1–3] The designs are mainly empirical in nature. However,
experiments on full-scale spray dryer present major difficulties, not only
because of their large sizes, but also because of the complex environment in
which to measure flow, temperature, and humidity, etc., within the drying
chamber. The lack of experimental data also adds to the uncertainty when
building physical models representative of real spray dryers. Full-scale spray
drying simulations by using CFD technology is one possible solution to this
problem.[4–7] On the other hand, there are always significant uncertainties
with these models due to problems associated with turbulence model closure
assumptions and numerical diffusion. The lack of experimental data also
means that predictions cannot always be validated fully. However, it is
essential to pressure this effort to guide future enhancements in spray dryer
performance and to achieve at new and novel designs.
While varying success has been achieved by different research-
ers,[6–16] they all focused on the spray dryer fitted with nozzles, in
particular, the pressure nozzle. Few studies on spray dryers with rotary disc
atomizers can be found in the literature; most are experimental in nature.
No detailed mathematical model has been reported for such a dryer.
The objective of this work is to present and discuss a set of numerical
results obtained using the CFD software Fluent 6.1 for a co-current flow
spray dryer with a rotary disk atomizer.[17] A three-dimensional
configuration, i.e., cylinder-on-cone geometry, is considered. In order to
obtain comparative results, four different turbulence models, i.e., standard
ORDER REPRINTS
Simulation of a Spray Dryer 1491
k ", RNG k ", Realizable k ", and Reynolds stress models (RSM)
were selected to simulate the complicated, swirling, and two-phase flow in
the chamber. Comparison with limited experimental data is included.
Although the simulation results are not completely validated by the
experimental data, the first attempt is made to get the understanding of the
spray dryer fitted with a rotary disc by numerical experiments. Very little
public literature is found in this area. Therefore, much more work in
numeric and experiments is still needed in the future.
NUMERICAL MODEL
The numerical computations are carried out by Euler and Lagrangian

approaches for the continuous and dispersed phases, respectively. The
continuous phase calculations are performed using the averaged Navier-
Stokes equations with different turbulent models, such as, k " and
RSM turbulence models. The two-way coupling between two phases is
considered as well.
Table 1. Governing equations for the continuous and dispersed phases.
Continuous phase
@ui
Continuity-Eq. ¼ Mm ð1Þ
@xi

@ðui uj Þ @P @ @ui @uj 0 0
Momentum-Eq. ¼ þ þ ui uj þ MF ð2Þ
@xi @xj @xi @xj @xi

@ðcp ui TÞ @ @T 0
Energy-Eq. ¼ k ui T 0 þ Mh ð3Þ
@xi @xi @xi
Dispersed phase
dupi 18 Re g
Trajectory ¼ CD ðui upi Þ þ gi þ Fxi ð4Þ
dt p dp 24 g
Mass transfer Ni ¼ kc ðCi,s Ci,1 Þ ð5Þ

(1st and 2nd
period)
dðdp Þ 4k1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi cp,1 ðT1 Tp Þ

¼ ð1 þ 0:23 Red Þ ln 1 þ ð6Þ
dt p cp,1 dp hfg
dTp dmp
Heat transfer mp cp ¼ hAp ðT1 Tp Þ þ hfg ð7Þ
dt dt
ORDER REPRINTS
Governing Equations for Continuous Phase (Air) and

Dispersed Phase (Droplets/Particles)
The governing equations for continuous and dispersed phases are

summarized in Table 1. The interested readers are referred to Crowe
et al.,[8] Ferziger and Meric,[18] and FLUENT manual.[17]
For Newtonian fluids, the components of the stress terms in Eqs. (2)
and (3) can be written as

2 @u1
@ui @uj
u,i uj
0
¼ t þ ij ð8Þ
@xj @xi 3 @x1
t @T
u,i T 0 ¼ ð9Þ
T @xi
with the fluid viscosity t, and the volume dilation term with the
‘‘Kronecker’’ delta:

1 for i ¼ j
ij ¼ ð10Þ
0 for i 6¼ j
Equation (4) is used to obtain the particle trajectories by solving the

force balance for the particles. The relative Reynolds number is obtained
based on the relative velocity between air and the droplets. The drag
coefficient is defined as
a2 a3
CD ¼ a1 þ þ ð11Þ
Re Re2
where a1, a2, and a3 are constants.[17]
Equation (5) is used to calculate the constant rate period for droplets
evaporation. The vapor concentrations at the droplet surface and in the
bulk gas (kmol/m3) are defined as
psat ðTp Þ
Ci,s ¼ ð12Þ
RTp
pop
Ci,1 ¼ Xi ð13Þ
RT1
The heat and mass transfer coefficients in Eqs. (5) and (7) are
calculated from the Nusselt correlation.[19,20] When the droplet tempera-
ture reaches the boiling point, the boiling rate Eq. (6) is applied.[21]
ORDER REPRINTS
Turbulence Models
Four turbulent models, viz., the standard k ", RNG k ", and
realizable k " model, and Reynolds Stress Model (RSM), were used in
this study for a comparative study.
The standard k " model focuses on the mechanisms that affect the
turbulent kinetic energy. Robustness, economy, and reasonable accuracy
over a wide range of turbulent flows explain its popularity in industrial
flow and heat transfer simulations. Two of these variants are available in
FLUENT: the RNG k " model[22,23] and the realizable k " model.[24]
The RNG k " model was derived using a rigorous statistical

technique (called renormalization group theory). It is similar in form to
the standard k " model, but the effect of swirl on turbulence is included
in the RNG mode enhancing accuracy for swirling flows. The realizable
k " model contains a new formulation for the turbulent viscosity,
and a new transport equation for the dissipation rate has been derived
from an exact equation for the transport of the mean-square vorticity
fluctuation.[17]
The Reynolds Stress Model (RSM) solves transport equations for all
Reynolds stresses and the dissipation rate " and does therefore not rely on
the isotropic turbulent viscosity t. This makes the RSM also suitable to
predict even swirling flows, however, the major drawback of this model is
its computational effort. For 3D-simulations, seven additional transport
equations must be solved.
The transport equations for the standard k " model are for
transport of the turbulence kinetic energy, k, and its dissipation rate, ".
They are:

@ðkÞ @ðkui Þ @ t @k
þ ¼ þ þ Gk þ Gb " YM þ Sk
@t @xi @xj k @xj
ð14Þ
and

@ð"Þ @ð"ui Þ @ t @"
þ ¼ þ
@t @xi @xj " @xj
" "2
þ C1" ðGk þ C3" Gb Þ C2" þ S" ð15Þ
k k
The turbulence viscosity, t, is computed as follows:
k2
t ¼ C ð16Þ
"
ORDER REPRINTS
The model constants values, i.e., C1" ¼ 1.44, C2" ¼ 1.92, C ¼ 0.09,
k ¼ 1.0, " ¼ 1.3, are used.[25]
Due to the space limitation, the turbulence kinetic energy, k, and its
dissipation rate, ", for RNG k ", Realizable k ", and RSM turbulence
models are not listed. The reader is referred to FLUENT.[17]
EXPERIMENTS AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

FOR SIMULATION
Experimental Apparatus and Procedure
A pilot-scale Anhydro spray dryer with a rotary disc atomizer was

used in this article. The test geometry and locations for measurement are
shown in Fig. 1. The diameter of the drying chamber is 1.0 m. The total
height of the internal chamber is 1.6 m. A rotary disc atomizer is installed
at the top of the chamber. The disc diameter is 63 mm and its rotating
speed is 20,000 rpm. The maltodextrin–sucrose solution is transported to
the atomizer by a pump. Finally, the solution is separated into fine
droplets as a spray within the chamber. The hot air at 170 C is blown into
the chamber at the top and drawn at the bottom of the chamber by a fan.
The evaporation and drying take place during the interaction between
drying air and droplets. The final product mean diameter range is from
9.39 to 136.0 mm. For further details, please refer to Truong.[26]
Within the drying chamber, eight locations were selected as the
measurement points (Fig. 1). An insulated T-type Copper-Constantan
thermocouple with a diameter of 0.51 mm was used to measure the air
temperatures in the drying chamber.
Boundary Conditions
Based on the experimental conditions. The main boundary

conditions are as follows
. Inlet air: The drying airflow rate is 0.03447 m3/s at the inlet
condition. Temperature of air at inlet is set at 443K for normal
spray dryer. Temperature of air at inlet is set at ambient
temperature, i.e., dry-bulb temperature 25 C and wet-bulb
temperature 21 C.
. Outlet conditions: The outlet pressure is set at 100 Pa, i.e., we
assume that a fan draws air out from the drying chamber.
ORDER REPRINTS

Figure 1. Geometry of the test spray dryer and measurement locations

(dimension: mm).
. Chamber wall conditions: In this case, the ‘‘escape’’ boundary

condition is used. The overall heat transfer coefficient from
the wall to the outside of the drying chamber is estimated to be
1.8 W/m2K while the chamber wall is assumed to be made of
stainless steel, 2 mm thick. This coefficient value is also
recommended for the well-insulated drying chamber.[1]
. Spray from rotary disc atomizer: Sixteen ‘‘injection’’ conditions
are defined here to specify the spray with a given droplet size
ORDER REPRINTS

Figure 2. Spray ejection points on the rotating disk used in simulations.
distribution. Every location is shown in Fig. 2. Its temperature is

set at 300K.
For every injection, the droplet diameters and percentage of the

flow rates used are shown in Fig. 3. The main spray mass flow rate is
0.00254 kg/s. The droplet size distribution is such that 10.0 mm is the
minimum droplet diameter and 138.0 mm is the maximum droplet
diameter with an average droplet diameter Dm of 70.5 mm; it is modeled
using a Rosin-Rammler distribution (Eq. (18)) with these parameters and
the spread parameter equal to 2.05.[6] Its range is also within the dried
powder size distribution range.
Yd ¼ eðdp =Dvs Þ ð17Þ

ORDER REPRINTS

Figure 3. Droplet size distribution of the atomizer.
The Sauter mean diameter from the rotating disc was calculated from
the following calculation[1]
1:4 104 ðML Þ0:24

Dvs ¼ ð18Þ
ðNdÞ0:83 ðnhÞ0:12
The tangential velocity and radial velocity of droplets from the

rotating disk are calculated as follows:
Vt ¼ dN ð19Þ
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 2
3 l N dQ
2
Vr ¼ 0:0024 ð20Þ
h2 n2
So the net release velocity of droplet at the periphery of the disc

atomizer is calculated using
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Vres ¼ Vr2 þ Vt2 ð21Þ
The total droplet release velocity at each ejection exit was fixed
at 62.8 m/s in the simulation reported here. Also, 16 spray ejection
points are defined as shown in Fig. 2 as a compromise between accuracy
and computer time. Their velocity components along x and y axis at
ORDER REPRINTS
Table 2. Velocity components along x and y axis at points 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Points 1 2 3 4
X co-ordinate 0.031 0.02864 0.0219 0.01186

Y co-ordinate 0.0 0.01186 0.0219 0.02864
Velocity along X axis 62.49 18.11 39.75 55.33
Velocity along Y axis 6.28 60.14 48.63 29.72
points 1, 2, 3, and 4 are listed in Table 2. Others are easy to obtain from
calculations based on symmetry of the figure.
Grid-Independence
The strategy of grid generation within the computational region

and density of the grid play an important role in the prediction
accuracy.[27] The grid is denser at the inlet and the outlet. The left
geometry was meshed using uniform grids. In order to obtain a grid-
independent solution, several grid sizes, i.e., 0.05, 0.01, and 0.025 m, were
used. The total numbers of grids are 23,056, 414,387 and 66,835,
respectively.
The predictions from these three grid sizes were obtained using the
commercial FLUENT version 6.1. The results of velocity and tempera-
ture profiles (not shown here) using 0.025 m and 0.05 m mesh sizes
are closer than those using 0.01 m grid size. The maximum difference
of the predicted results using these two grid sizes (0.025 m and 0.05 m)
is less than 10%. On the other hand, more meshes require more time
to compute a simulation, e.g., up to one week for high mesh runs
in three dimensions. The studies were also limited due to the massive
CPU time required per run. Therefore, the grid size 0.025 m is used in
this study.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In order to check the performance of several turbulence models for

such a strongly swirling two-phase flow, five test cases were studied for
simulation, as shown in Table 3. In case A, a suspension is used as feed.
ORDER REPRINTS
Table 3. Cases studied in CFD simulations.
Case
A B C D E
Feed Solutions Water Water Water Water
Turbulence models RNG k" RNG Realizable RSM

Feed spray rate (kg/s) 0.000508 0.000254 0.000254 0.000254 0.000254
Moisture concentration 50 100 100 100 100
in feed (%)
Table 4. Comparison between predicted and measured temperatures at various

locations.
Levels 0.2 m
Points (0.3, 0) (0.3, 0) (0.0, 0.0) (0, 0.3) (0, 0.3)
Predicted ( C) 127.4 124.6 146.7 128.0 128.4
Measured ( C) 142.3 137.7 127.9
Levels 0.5 m
Points (0.3, 0) (0.3, 0) (0.0, 0.0) (0, 0.3) (0, 0.3)
Predicted ( C) 126.2 124.5 139.2 135.0 135.7
Measured ( C) 142.4 134.8 124.5
Levels 0.8 m
Points (0.25, 0) (0.25, 0) (0.0, 0.0) (0, 0.25) (0, 0.25)
Predicted ( C) 133.3 138.7 140.7 128.1 136.8
Measured ( C) 131.9 121.1
Levels 1.5 m
Points (0.0, 0.0)
Predicted ( C) 121.78
Measured ( C) 118.1
The solids concentration of the suspensions is 50%. Water physical

properties were used.
The predicted and experimental temperatures at the measurement
locations (Fig. 1) are summarized in Table 4. The temperatures just below
the disk were obtained by averaging the temperatures of five points
within one circle with a diameter of 0.05 m, because the measuring probe
was not actually located at the center of the drying chamber in the
experimental spray dryer.
ORDER REPRINTS

Figure 4. Temperature profiles at different levels for Case A. (a) Level 0.2 m,
(b) Level 0.5 m, and (c) Level 0.8 m.
Since the temperatures over the cut-plane are not uniform and our
predicted points are not at exactly the same locations as the measured
values, we only can check if the predicted temperatures are within the
measured temperature ranges. Table 4 shows that the simulated results
agree with the measured results reasonably well. The predicted and
measured temperatures are within the same temperature range, consider-
ing the difficulty of measuring temperatures accurately in the hostile
environment of a spray dryer. The predicted outlet temperature is slightly
higher than the measured value. It is because the ‘‘escape’’ boundary
condition is specified in the reported simulations, i.e., the particles
escape from the computation domain when they hit the wall. The residual
moisture in the particle thus does not evaporate fully.
The temperature profiles at various levels for Case A are shown in
Fig. 4. Figure 5 shows the predicted temperature contours at planes X–Z
and Y–Z, levels 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 m for Case A. Both sets of data indicate
that the temperature distributions do not vary significantly except for
that at the 0.2 m level, and near the wall due to heat transfer from the
chamber wall. It is partly because the spray from the disc atomizer travels
along the radial direction. The uniform spray at the cross plane of the
drying chamber make the evaporation rate more uniform. Huang et al.[4]
have indicated that the temperature profiles at different levels for nozzle
spray dryers are quite different in the central core region. Figure 4 also
ORDER REPRINTS

Figure 5. Temperature contours at planes X–Z and Y–Z; levels 0.2, 0.5,
and 0.8 m.
implies that the rotating disc spray dryers give a more uniform
evaporation at any cross-section plane.
Figure 6 shows the velocity vector distributions at planes X–Z and
Y–Z for Case A. It indicates that the velocity varied significantly near the
rotating disc. Then the velocity is reduced rapidly. Under the rotating
disc, there is a rapid velocity going vertically down. Beside this rapid
variation region, there are some small re-circulation zones. It makes such
a flow very difficult to simulate due to the turbulence.
Figures 7–9 present the predicted total velocity and velocity
components, i.e., axial and tangential velocities, using four different
turbulence models viz., standard k "; RNG k "; Realizable k ", and
ORDER REPRINTS

Figure 6. Velocity vectors profiles at planes X–Z and Y–Z.
RSM. They show that the different turbulence models do not predict the
same results under the same conditions. The swirling flow is very
complex; note that no swirling component is added at the inlet. But we
should note that the disc tangential velocity is about 15 times greater than
the air inlet velocity. It therefore induces a very high swirling flow.
Figure 7 shows that the velocity profiles at different levels vary
significantly. It is due to the high swirling introduced by the rotating disc.
Figure 8 shows that there is a reverse flow near the cylinder wall. It
indicates that there is a re-circulation region from level 0.2 m to 0.8 m
near wall.
From the tangential velocity profiles at different levels (Fig. 9), we
find that this velocity component varies significantly from level 0.5 m to
level 0.8 m. It is possibly because additional smaller vortexes are formed
in these regions, although they are not clear from the figures shown.
Since we know that the RSM model should give more reasonable
results, here we believe that the results predicted by RSM model are
probably closer the real condition. Under this assumption, we can
ORDER REPRINTS
compare the predicted results by different turbulence models. However,

use of the RSM model to simulate such flows consumes massive CPU
time. Also, the accuracy and CPU time are dependent on the mesh
number. For example, in this article, we needed up to one week to finish
one case. Computation time is still a concern in 3D and RSM simulations
of spray dryers.
Figure 7. Velocity distributions at different levels for different turbulence

models. (a) Level 0.2 m, (b) level 0.5 m, and (c) level 0.8 m.
ORDER REPRINTS

Figure 7. Continued.
From the Figs. 7–9, we find that the realizable k " model cannot
predict a two-phase highly swirling flow well. So we will not discuss these
results further.
If we compare the results of other three turbulence models, Figs. 7–9
shows that all turbulence models predict similar trends of the velocity
profiles. But if we check the figures carefully, they indicate that results
obtained by RNG k " model are closer to those of the RSM model than
those obtained using the standard k " model.
On the other hand, RNG k " model seems to over-predict the total
velocity profiles and standard k " model seems to under-predict. It is
possibly because the standard k " model does not consider the swirling
effects on the flows. The high swirling velocity can induce strong vortex
regions in some locations within the drying chamber.
The predicted gas temperature profiles for different turbulence
models at different levels are shown in Fig. 10. It shows that the
temperature variation is quite large in the central region only at level
0.2 m. It is because of the high evaporation rate obtained when the initial
sprays meets the hot air. On the other hand, we find that the temperature
profiles are not symmetric even with the specified axi-symmetric
boundary conditions.
If we consider the results given by different turbulence models, Fig. 8
also indicates that the RNG k " model can predict the results well closer
ORDER REPRINTS
to those of the RSM model. The standard k " model can predict the
temperature profiles but it does not give sufficiently accurate results for
such a highly swirling flow. Hence, the RNG k " model can be used
instead of the RSM model in such a highly swirling two-phase flow.
It saves computer-running time.
Figure 8. Axial velocity distributions at different levels for different turbulence

models. (a) Level 0.2 m, (b) level 0.5 m, and (c) level 0.8 m.
ORDER REPRINTS

Particle trajectory profiles for Cases A and C for sprayed suspensions

and pure water are shown in Fig. 11. It shows that the volume of the
drying chamber is almost fully occupied by particles or droplets when a
suspension is used as the spray. If we use the new defined parameter viz.,
the volumetric effectiveness of chamber by Huang et al.,[4] we find that
this parameter is only about 50–60% when pure water is used as
sprayed liquid. This occurs because water sprays are finally evaporated
completely and cannot occupy the total volume of the chamber. It also
shows that spray dryers with rotary disc will have a higher volumetric
effectiveness of the chamber than that using a pressure nozzle.[4,5]
On the other hand, we find that the particle residence time (PRT) in
the chamber is also quite different as well for the two types of liquids. For
suspensions, the maximum PRT is about 47.2 s but it is only 2.90 s when a
water spray is used. It is also because the water spray evaporation takes
place and droplets can disappear finally. Solid particles will not go out
of the drying chamber until they reach the outlet or wall if the escape
boundary condition is used. Thus the solid particle will have a longer
PRT than that of pure water droplets.
In Table 5, we also summarize the overall drying performance of
a rotating disc spray dryer when water and a suspension are used as
spraying liquid, i.e., Cases A and C. From Table 5, we find that only
ORDER REPRINTS
about 5% particles for Case A hit the ceiling wall. It is less than the
measured result of 19.86%. The cylinder wall deposit percentages are
over-predicted by the simulations for both Cases A and C.
If we compare the predicted results for Case A with Case C in Table 5,
few deposits are found for Case C as pure water spray evaporates
Figure 9. Tangential velocity distributions at different levels obtained using

different turbulence models. (a) Level 0.2 m, (b) level 0.5 m, (c) level 0.8m.
ORDER REPRINTS

completely. But from the percentage of evaporation rate, the evaporation

rate for spraying pure water is lower than that for spraying a suspension.
It is probably because water spray has a shorter residence time than
suspension spray.
On the other hand, note should be taken that heat loss from the wall
is very large. It is almost half of the total energy consumption for the case
simulated. Maybe it is due to small drying chamber and less spray rate.
Lower spray rates will lead to higher outlet temperatures and larger
temperature differences between the wall and the ambient.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The first attempt is made to develop and investigate a computational

fluid dynamics model for 3D and rotating disc spray dryers. Reasonable
agreements with limited experimental data are obtained considering
complexity of the system studied.
The results obtained from the 3D CFD model are presented in terms
of the velocity magnitudes, velocity components, temperature profiles
and particle trajectories. It is observed that a greater proportion of the
chamber is utilized in a spray dryer with a rotary disc atomizer than in
one with pressure nozzles.
ORDER REPRINTS
A comparison of four turbulence models tested shows that the

Realizable k " model cannot be used to simulate a highly swirling two-
phase flow. We find that the predicted results using the RNG k "
turbulence model can give adequate accuracy at reasonable computer
Figure 10. Temperature profiles at different levels in the spray chamber for
different turbulence models. (a) Level 0.2 m, (b) level 0.5 m, and (c) level 0.8 m.
ORDER REPRINTS

Figure 11. Particle trajectories for Cases A and C.
time. Although RSM model can give more accurate results, the RNG
k " model is more appropriate for this case than the RSM and standard
k " turbulence models, if the computer running time is considered for
RSM model and the accuracy for the standard k " model.
ORDER REPRINTS
Table 5. Overall heat and mass transfer characteristics of cases A and C.
Cases A C
Percentage of Outlet 19.46 (measured) 9.4375 2.6875

droplets hitting Cylinder 22.25 (measured) 46.375 31.6875
the wall (%) Conical 38.43 (measured) 38.8125 2.1875
Ceiling 19.86 (measured) 5.0 0.0
Mass transfer (kg/s) 2.318 104 2.208 104
Heat transfer to droplet for drying (J/s) 593.33 506.611
Heat loss from the wall (W) 561.22 567.45
Total heat transfer (W) 1154.55 1074.061

Percentage of evaporation rate 91.26 86.93
Energy consumption per unit evaporation rate (kJ/kg) 4980.8 4864.4
On the other hand, more experimental data are needed to help refine
CFD models for pilot as well as industrial spray dryers. Modeling of the
atomization zone created by a disc atomizer is a particularly challenging
area for future research.
NOMENCLATURE
Ap The surface area of the droplet (m2)

B1, B2, B3 Empirical parameters for k " turbulence model
CD Drag coefficient
Cs Moisture concentration at the droplet surface
(mol/m3)
Cg Moisture concentration in the bulk gas (mol/m3)
Dm The diffusion coefficient of vapor in the bulk (m2/s)
cp The heat capacity of the droplet (J/k K)
dp Droplet diameter (m)
d The Rosin-Rammler mean droplet diameter (m)
dmp/dt The rate of evaporation (kg/s)
E Enthalpy of gas phase (J/kg)
g~ Gravity vector (m2/s)
Gk The production of turbulence kinetic energy due to the
mean velocity gradients
G" The production of turbulence kinetic energy due to
buoyancy
h Convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K)
hfg The latent heat (J/kg)
ORDER REPRINTS
H Enthalpy of moisture (J/kg)

J The diffusive mass flux of moisture (kg/s)
k The turbulent kinetic energy (m2/s2)
kc Mass transfer coefficient (m/s)
keff The effective thermal conductivity of gas (W/m K)
kg The thermal conductivity of the hot medium (W/m K)
mp Mass of the droplet (kg)
mp Average mass of the droplets in the control volume (kg)
mp Change in the mass of the droplet in the control
volume (kg)
mp,0 Initial mass of the droplet (kg)

m_ p,0 Initial mass flow rate of the droplet injection
tracked (kg/s)
Mm Source term in continuity equation
!
MF Source term in momentum equation
Mh Source term in energy equation
Ni Molar flux of vapor (mol/m2 s)
psat(Tp) The saturated vapor pressure at the particle droplet
temperature (Pa)
pop The operating pressure (Pa)
P Pressure (Pa)
Q Volumetric flow rate of liquid (kg/s)
R The universal gas constant (J/mol K)
Sk User-defined source term
S" User-defined source term
t Time (s)
T Temperature (K)
Tg Gas temperature (K)
!
ug Gas velocity vector (m/s)
!
up Droplet velocity vector (m/s)
X The local bulk mole fraction of moisture
Yd The mass fraction of droplets with diameter greater
than dp
Greek Letters
The spread parameter for the Rosin-Rammler distribution

function
Surface tension (N/m)
l Liquid density (kg/m3)
ORDER REPRINTS
Liquid viscosity (kg/m s)

Droplet density (kg/m3)
g Gas density (kg/m3)
Stress tensor (N/m2)
Viscosity (kg/m s)
" The energy dissipation rate (m2/s3)
k The turbulent Prandtl number for k
" The turbulent Prandtl number for "
t The turbulent viscosity
Nondimensional Number

Re Reynolds number (Re ¼ ðdp !ug !
up Þ=)
NuAB The Nusselt number (kcdp/Dm)
Nu The Nusselt number (kdp/k1)
Sc The Schmidt number (/Dm)
Pr The Prandtl number of gas (cp/kg)
Subscripts
g Air
p Droplet
l Liquid
eff Effective
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to Dr. Bhesh. Bhandari and Dr. Vinh
Truong of University of Queensland, school of land and food sciences,
for providing us with some of the data which are referenced in this article
for a comparative analysis with our simulation model.
REFERENCES
1. Masters, K. Spray Drying Handbook; Longman Scientific &

Technical and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, 1991; 725.
ORDER REPRINTS
2. Filkova, I.; Mujumdar, A.S. Industrial spray drying systems. In

Handbook of Industrial Drying, 2nd Ed.; Mujumdar, A.S., Ed.;
Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, 1995; Vol. 1, 263–308.
3. Huang, L.; Mujumdar, A.S. Classification and selection of spray
dryers. Chemical Industry Digest (India).; 2003a, 7–8, 75–84.
4. Huang, L.; Kumar, K.; Mujumdar, A.S. Use of computational fluid
dynamics to evaluate alternative spray chamber configurations.
Drying Technology 2003b, 21 (3), 385–412.
5. Huang, L.; Kumar, K.; Mujumdar, A.S. A parametric study of the
gas flow patterns and drying performance of co-current spray dryer:

results of a computational fluid dynamics study. Drying Technology
2003c, 21 (6).
6. Kieviet, F.G. Modelling Quality in Spray Drying. Ph.D. thesis,
Endinhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands, 1997.
7. Langrish, T.A.G.; Kockel, T.K. The assessment of a characteristic
drying curve for milk powder for use in computational fluid
dynamics modeling. Chem. Eng. J. 2001, 84, 69–74.
8. Crowe, C.; Sommerfeld, M.; Tsuji, Y. Multiphase Flows with
Droplets and Particles (60–65); CRC Press: Boca Raton, Fla.,
1998; 456.
9. Ducept, F.; Sionneau, M.; Vasseur, J. Superheated steam dryer:
simulations and experiments on product drying. Chem. Eng. J.
2002, 86, 75–83.
10. Huang, L.; Kumar, K.; Mujumdar, A.S. In Numerical Experiments
with Evaporation of Water Droplets in a Mixed Flow Spray Chamber,
2nd Nordic Drying Conference, June 25–27, 2003; 2003d.
11. Huang, L.; Kumar, K.; Mujumdar, A.S. Effects of Air Infiltration
and Heat Losses on Spray Evaporation in a Cylinder-on-Cone
Spray Dryer Chamber, 3rd Asia-Pacific Drying Conference,
September 1–3, 2003; 2003e.
12. Huang, L.; Kumar, K.; Mujumdar, A.S. Design of spray dryers.
Chemical Industry Digest (India), 2003f; 11–12, 95–102.
13. Langrish, T.A.G.; Zbincinski, I. The effects of air inlet geometry
and spray cone angle on the wall deposition rate in spray dryers.
Trans. I. Chem. E. 1994, 72 (A), 420–430.
14. Levi-Hevroni, D.; Levy, A.; Borde, I. Mathematical modeling of
drying of liquid/solid slurries in steady state one-dimensional flow.
Drying Technology 1995, 13 (5–7), 1187–1201.
15. Southwell, D.B.; Langrish, T.A.G. Observations of flow patterns in
a spray dryer. Drying Technology 2000, 18 (2), 661–685.
ORDER REPRINTS
16. Wu, Z.H.; Liu, X.D. Simulation of spray drying of a solution

atomized in a pulsating flow. Drying Technology 2002, 20 (6),
1101–1121.
17. Fluent Manual. Chapter 10: Turbulence Models and Chapter 19:
Discrete Phase Models, www.fluent.com, 2002.
18. Ferziger, J.H.; Meric, M. Computational Methods for Fluid
Dynamics, 2nd Ed.; Springer: Berlin, New York, 1999; 375.
19. Ranz, W.E.; Marshall, W.R., Jr. Evaporation from drops: part I.
Chemical Engineering Progress 1952a, 48 (3), 141–146.
20. Ranz, W.E.; Marshall, W.R., Jr. Evaporation from drops: part II.
Chemical Engineering Progress 1952b, 48 (4), 173–180.

21. Kuo, K.K.Y. Principles of Combustion; John Wiley and Sons:
New York, 1986; 320.
22. Choudhury, D. Introduction to the Renormalization Group Method
and Turbulence Modeling; FLUENT Inc., Technical Memorandum
TM-107, 1993.
23. Yakhot, A.; Orszag, S. Renormalisation group analysis of
turbulence: I. Basic theory. Journal of Scientific Computing 1986,
1 (1), 1–51.
24. Shih, T.; Liou, W.; Shabbir, A.; Zhu, J. A new k " Eddy-viscosity
model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows-model develop-
ment and validation. Computers Fluids 1995, 24 (3), 227–238.
25. Launder, B.E.; Spalding, D.B. Lectures in Mathematical Models of
Turbulence; Academic Press: London, England, 1972; 175.
26. Truong, V. Modeling of the Glass Transition Temperature of Sugar-
Rich Foods and Its Relation on Spray Drying of Such Products.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Queensland, Australia, 2003.
27. Lin, S.; Griffiths, A.J. In CFD Simulation of Cooling Air Flows
Within Shrouded Finned Heater/Cooler Systems Used on Barrel
Extruders, Proceedings of the Joint ASME/JSME Fluid
Engineerings Annual Conference, Hilton Head Island, South
Carolina, USA, August 13–18, 1995.
Request Permission or Order Reprints Instantly!
Interested in copying and sharing this article? In most cases, U.S. Copyright
Law requires that you get permission from the article’s rightsholder before
using copyrighted content.
All information and materials found in this article, including but not limited
to text, trademarks, patents, logos, graphics and images (the "Materials"), are
the copyrighted works and other forms of intellectual property of Marcel
Dekker, Inc., or its licensors. All rights not expressly granted are reserved.
Get permission to lawfully reproduce and distribute the Materials or order

reprints quickly and painlessly. Simply click on the "Request Permission/
Order Reprints" link below and follow the instructions. Visit the
U.S. Copyright Office for information on Fair Use limitations of U.S.
copyright law. Please refer to The Association of American Publishers’
(AAP) website for guidelines on Fair Use in the Classroom.
The Materials are for your personal use only and cannot be reformatted,
reposted, resold or distributed by electronic means or otherwise without
permission from Marcel Dekker, Inc. Marcel Dekker, Inc. grants you the
limited right to display the Materials only on your personal computer or
personal wireless device, and to copy and download single copies of such
Materials provided that any copyright, trademark or other notice appearing
on such Materials is also retained by, displayed, copied or downloaded as
part of the Materials and is not removed or obscured, and provided you do
not edit, modify, alter or enhance the Materials. Please refer to our Website
User Agreement for more details.
Request Permission/Order Reprints
Reprints of this article can also be ordered at

http://www.dekker.com/servlet/product/DOI/101081DRT120038737

Huang 2004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Huang 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Dicle University]

On: 04 November 2014, At: 00:56

Drying Technology: An International Journal

Simulation of a Spray Dryer Fitted with a Rotary Disk

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/DRT-120038737

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Simulation of a Spray Dryer Fitted with a

Lixin Huang,1,* Kurichi Kumar,2 and A. S. Mujumdar1

*Correspondence: Lixin Huang, Mechanical Engineering Department, National

DOI: 10.1081/DRT-120038737 0737-3937 (Print); 1532-2300 (Online)

1490 Huang, Kumar, and Mujumdar

Key Words: CFD; Air flow pattern; Drying model; Suspension;

Simulation of a Spray Dryer 1491

The numerical computations are carried out by Euler and Lagrangian

Table 1. Governing equations for the continuous and dispersed phases.

Mass transfer Ni ¼ kc ðCi,s Ci,1 Þ ð5Þ

1492 Huang, Kumar, and Mujumdar

Governing Equations for Continuous Phase (Air) and

The governing equations for continuous and dispersed phases are

Equation (4) is used to obtain the particle trajectories by solving the

Simulation of a Spray Dryer 1493

The RNG k " model was derived using a rigorous statistical

1494 Huang, Kumar, and Mujumdar

EXPERIMENTS AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Experimental Apparatus and Procedure

A pilot-scale Anhydro spray dryer with a rotary disc atomizer was

Based on the experimental conditions. The main boundary

Simulation of a Spray Dryer 1495

Figure 1. Geometry of the test spray dryer and measurement locations

. Chamber wall conditions: In this case, the ‘‘escape’’ boundary

1496 Huang, Kumar, and Mujumdar

Figure 2. Spray ejection points on the rotating disk used in simulations.

distribution. Every location is shown in Fig. 2. Its temperature is

For every injection, the droplet diameters and percentage of the

Yd ¼ eðdp =Dvs Þ ð17Þ

Simulation of a Spray Dryer 1497

Figure 3. Droplet size distribution of the atomizer.

1:4 104 ðML Þ0:24

The tangential velocity and radial velocity of droplets from the

So the net release velocity of droplet at the periphery of the disc

1498 Huang, Kumar, and Mujumdar

Table 2. Velocity components along x and y axis at points 1, 2, 3, and 4.

X co-ordinate 0.031 0.02864 0.0219 0.01186

The strategy of grid generation within the computational region

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In order to check the performance of several turbulence models for

Simulation of a Spray Dryer 1499

Table 3. Cases studied in CFD simulations.

Turbulence models RNG k" RNG Realizable RSM

Table 4. Comparison between predicted and measured temperatures at various

The solids concentration of the suspensions is 50%. Water physical

1500 Huang, Kumar, and Mujumdar

Simulation of a Spray Dryer 1501

1502 Huang, Kumar, and Mujumdar

Figure 6. Velocity vectors profiles at planes X–Z and Y–Z.

Simulation of a Spray Dryer 1503

compare the predicted results by different turbulence models. However,

Figure 7. Velocity distributions at different levels for different turbulence

1504 Huang, Kumar, and Mujumdar

Simulation of a Spray Dryer 1505

Figure 8. Axial velocity distributions at different levels for different turbulence

1506 Huang, Kumar, and Mujumdar

Particle trajectory profiles for Cases A and C for sprayed suspensions

The spread parameter for the Rosin-Rammler distribution

Liquid viscosity (kg/m s)