See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259895164

Optimisation of spray dryer designs via CFD

Conference Paper · January 2001

CITATIONS READS

2 340

5 authors, including:

K.-S. Nikas Demetri Bouris

University of West Attica National Technical University of Athens
32 PUBLICATIONS   521 CITATIONS    56 PUBLICATIONS   966 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

George Bergeles
National Technical University of Athens
121 PUBLICATIONS   3,003 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Buildings in the ABL View project

IPPAD : 'Effect of 4500bar injection pressure and supercritical phase change of surrogate and real-world fuels enriched with additives and powering Diesel engines, on
soot emissions reduction' View project

All content following this page was uploaded by K.-S. Nikas on 17 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 NATIONAL TECHNICAL
UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS

OPTIMIZATION OF SPRAY DRYER DESIGNS VIA CFD

K. Nikas1, D. Bouris1, D. Gehrmann2, M. Steinbeck2 and G. Bergeles1

1
National Technical University of Athens, 2BAYER AG

Abstract
This paper presents a CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) design tool for spray dryers by
which numerical experimentation is conducted on the effects of the various controlling parameters,
such as heat input, droplet diameter and slurry content on the efficiency of spray dryers, leading to
the conditions of optimum spray dryer performance. The spray drying processes within a
commercial spray dryer were simulated by solving numerically the 3D Reynolds-averaged
equations for the gas phase whilst the particulate phase was solved using a Lagrangian approach.
The simulations have been performed through advanced CFD techniques such as local grid
refinement, porosity, turbulence modeling, droplet and slurry evaporation and agglomeration
model development. Numerical simulation of the aerodynamic flow field, temperature field and
droplet evaporation in the BAYER AG pilot spray dryer geometry was performed using the NTUA
code. The results indicate that the buoyancy and the slurry solid content play an important role in
spray drying process.

Introduction
Computational Fluid Dynamics is a mature tool for the optimization of various fluid mechanics
processes occurring in Chemical Industry, among them the operation and optimization of spray
dryers. Improving energy use or intensifying the unit operation of spray drying involves
understanding the complicated flow pattern and the underlying processes such as droplet
evaporation and agglomeration that are present in the spray drying process. CFD is a valuable
tool for achieving these objectives and has been increasingly used in recent years (Langrish and
Zbicinski, [1994], et al., Oakley, [1994]).
CFD codes have been used to study, parametrically, the effects of such factors as swirl
velocity, air inlet geometry, liquid flow-rate and spray cone angle on the overall process intensity
and efficiency. Major challenges have been the accurate aerodynamic field simulation (Oakley et
al, [1988]) and the mathematical modeling of the droplet agglomeration and evaporation
mechanisms (Langrish and Zbicinski, [1994]).

Mathematical formulation
The NTUA CFD code is configured for the calculation of spray dryer geometries in such a way
that the aerodynamic flow field could be calculated with the desired accuracy while including the
physical mechanisms present in spray drying processes. It solves the Navier-Stokes equations
using the SIMPLE algorithm on a Cartesian collocated grid and the geometry is defined using
partially blocked cells. Turbulence is modeled using the k-ε turbulence model. Local grid
refinement is applied at the spray injection region and at areas of the geometry where high
velocity or pressure gradients are expected. Particle tracking is performed using a Lagrangian
approach with a stochastic model for the effects of turbulence on the particle motion. Models for
heat transfer, droplet evaporation, collision-coalescence and slurry droplet evaporation are
introduced into the Lagrangian particle tracking methodology.

1
Droplet evaporation model
A droplet evaporation model is introduced into the CFD code for calculation of the heat transfer
between the droplet and the surrounding gas. Heat transfer between the surrounding gas and the
droplet is assumed to be dominated by turbulent convection (Qconv). The droplet energy
conservation equation is formed assuming that the total heat transferred from the gas to the
droplet is used to increase the droplet temperature (Td) and to overcome the latent heat of
evaporation (L):
md
d
(C PT )d − L dmd = Q Conv [1]
dt dt
where Cp is the specific heat of the droplet and (md) is the droplet mass. The droplet evaporation
model allows calculation of the temperature change of the droplet as well as that of the
surrounding gas due to droplet evaporation through appropriate source terms in the gas phase
equations. The reduction in droplet diameter is also calculated and the evaporated mass is used
to calculate the droplet vapour concentration in the surrounding gas.

Slurry evaporation model

Evaporation of a liquid droplet in which a certain amount of solids is present can be much
different from the mechanism of evaporation of a pure liquid droplet. Depending on the amount of
initial moisture in the droplet and on the nature of the solids, there will come a point when a solid
crust will form on the outside of the droplet. The period before crust formation is called the
‘constant rate’ period while after the crust formation the ‘falling rate’ period begins. From this time
onwards the mass transfer through the crust will play an important role in the overall evaporation
rate. The basic assumption that can be made is that the evaporation rate is a function of the
moisture content (Crowe et al., [1998]):
dmw dX
= ms ~ ms X , X ~ e − kt [2]
dt dt
where mw, ms are the masses of moisture and solids in the droplet and X is the moisture mass
content defined as X= mw/ms. The second relation is a consequence of the first. At the critical point
of the crust formation the critical moisture mass (mwc) and critical moisture mass content (Xc) are
defined:
X = X c e − kt , mw = mwc e − kt [3]
If the critical moisture mass content and the time it takes for the slurry droplet to reach a dried
state can be calculated, then the evaporation rate is known and the evaporation model used for a
pure droplet can be used by replacing the expressions for the evaporation rates. Based on the
work of Masters [1974] and Elperiv and Krasovitov [1995] these can be calculated as a function of
solids’ porosity and density, initial moisture content, critical moisture content, critical particle
diameter and temperature difference with the environment. By assuming that the droplet behaves
like a pure liquid droplet up to crust formation then the subsequent 'falling rate’ period can be
modeled in the above way.

Geometry
Several cases were calculated in order to examine the effects of various parameters, such as
buoyancy, collision-coalescence, droplet diameter and slurry content on the efficiency of spray
dryers. A pilot-plant industrial scale spray dryer geometry (called the ‘Standard’ design) and two
alternative inlet arrangements (called ‘Design1’ and ‘Design1a’) were provided by BAYER AG.
Their boundary and operating conditions were also varied. Computations were performed for the
injection of a spray of water droplets and slurry particles at the top of the spray dryer. The droplets
were injected into the dryer in the form of six concentric cones of an equal number of different
diameters ranging from 9 to 70 μm. Mass loading of droplets was 1%. Local grid refinement was
applied at the spray injection region and at the outlet of the spray dryer where the velocity and
pressure gradients are expected to be high, as shown in Figure 1, in order to improve solution
accuracy. The computational grid consisted of a three-dimensional main grid of 59x34x28 nodes
2
and two local grids near the injection and the outlet regions of 45x30x27 and 23x44x27
respectively. All the grids were non-uniform and denser near walls and near the injection region
and the total number of cells was ~120000.

Results and Discussion

Numerical simulation of the aerodynamic flow field, temperature field and droplet evaporation in
the BAYER standard pilot plant spray dryer geometry was performed in order to investigate the
effect of temperature-density gradients in the flow. The density gradients lead to the presence of
buoyancy terms in the momentum equations causing hotter air to rise. The flow velocity and
temperature around the spray injection region were 0.3 m/sec and 400oK respectively while the
water droplets were injected in the form of a hollow cone spray. The droplet diameter range was
9.5-72.4μm, the temperature was 300°K and the maximum velocity was 26 m/sec. For the
calculation, the dryer wall temperature was fixed at 350°K.
Calculations without including the buoyancy terms showed that the injection of the water
droplets significantly affects the flow field in the injection region as well as further downstream.
The temperature field is also affected due to the evaporation of the droplets. Distributions of mean
droplet diameter, axial velocity and temperature and gas mean axial velocity and temperature
were calculated at 7 positions downstream of the injection nozzle. It can be seen how the droplet
velocities quickly decelerate from their initial axial velocity of 18 m/s and take on the velocity of the
gas flow. The droplet temperatures have a more interesting trend. The initial temperature of 300°K
quickly increases to about 303°K close to the injection region. However, as evaporation takes
place and the surrounding gas temperature becomes lower, the droplet temperatures near the
symmetry axis (R=0.0) decrease. At the edge of the spray cone, the droplet temperatures remain
high since the evaporation rate there is lower and the gas temperatures remain higher
The droplet temperature strives in every case during the 1st drying stage (adiabatic case which is
approximately valid in a spray dryer) to the wet bulb temperature which is only dependent on air
condition (Tair, xair). Of course the droplet temperature kinetics depends on the heat and mass
transfer.
Moreover, the droplet evaporation reduces the gas temperatures by almost 100o halfway down the
spray dryer chamber (X=4.38 m). This is because most of the heat for evaporation of the droplets
is absorbed from the surrounding gas in the form of convective heat transfer. However, only a
small portion is returned to the gas with the water vapours because it is actually used to overcome
the latent heat of evaporation without contributing to the sensible heat of the surrounding gas-
vapour mixture (Figure 2). However, the calculations including the buoyancy effects show that
because of the relatively low flow velocity, the buoyancy of the hot air causes large recirculation
zones in the spray dryer thus having a significant effect on the particle characteristics as well. The
recirculation zones lead to larger velocities at the centreline of the dryer and so a narrower cold air
region. The resulting higher temperature regions along the side of the spray lead to higher droplet
temperatures (Figure 2).
Following, the collision-coalescence and slurry droplet evaporation models were incorporated
into the NTUA CFD code and were performed in the standard design of BAYER pilot plant with the
same initial conditions for the air-flow and the spray injection. The moisture mass content of the
particles with solid burden (‘slurry’) used, which is defined as X= mw/ms (mw, ms are the masses of
moisture and solids in the droplet), had an arbitrary value of infinite and 3.0. The porosity of solids’
material according to Elperiv and Krasovitov [1995] was 0.40. The predictions indicate that the gas
temperature increases and the vapour mass concentration decreases due to the existence of the
slurry particles which have lower overall evaporation rate (Figure 3a). The introduction of slurry
particles into the spray dryer changes a lot the behaviour of the characteristics of the particles,
especially in the temperature and the diameter. In the last one of the figures, the values of
moisture content (‘slurry’) of the particles are shown along with their critical value, which is 1.55.
From this point, the evaporation rate changes from the first stage to the second stage and the
particles start to raise their temperature. Another important feature that comes out from these

3
figures is that for this type of slurry-particles the dryer used seem to be too big, since they have
been dried before reaching the position of 4.38m of the dryer (Figure 3b).
The pilot plant industrial scale spray dryer with different inlet arrangements provided by
BAYER with agreed boundary and operating conditions was revisited in order to assess the
effects of the ‘slurry’ particles in the flow and efficiency. Except from the standard design, two
alternative designs were arranged in a conical shape spray tower with the air enters at the conical
surfaces of the dryer. The operating and inlet conditions remain the same for all the examined
designs. The mass flow rate of the inlet air was 2830kg/h. The initial temperature of the air and
spray was 348°K and 298°K respectively while the walls were assumed to be adiabatic. The initial
value of the moisture mass content used was arranged, as milk powder, to be 1.084 and the
critical value was approximately 0.3. The initial droplet size distribution was agreed to be a Rosin-
Rammler type with a D50 of 75μm and an n of 2. Two groups of calculations were applied, in
which the only difference was the initial conditions of the particles, in order to investigate the effect
of the characteristics of the spray injection. In the first computations, the initial velocity of the
particles was 200m/s with an angle of the spray at 90°, while the second one had values of 45m/s
and 45°.
The first predictions showed an asymmetric flow field as shown in Figure 4a. This type of flow
seems to begin a few millimeters below the nozzle and destroys the symmetrical and steady-state
flow field which seems to appear in the calculations of the second case with the same geometry
arrangement, but quite slower spray velocity (Figure 4b). These unsteady phenomena seem to
exist due to the very high spray velocity and minor numerical errors. Moreover, for the second
group of calculations, the HDIN number (see previous paper: ‘A heat damage Index Number as an
indicator of spray dryer suitability’) was calculated and it showed that the standard design seems
to be the best solution of all the geometries tested, since the temperature of the dried product
remains in the lower temperature and also the product seems to be destroyed in higher
temperature that the other two Designs 1 and 1a (Figure 5).

Conclusions
The results indicate that:
1. Buoyancy effects are important and should be incorporated into the transport equations for the
simulation of the spray dryer operation.
2. The spray injection induces high velocities into the gas and cannot be ignored.
3. Slurry solid content has primary influence of the spray dryer operation.
4. The developed CFD code can be used as a design tool at arriving to optimum spray dryer
configurations.

Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was carried out as part of the EU-project: Energy efficient,
intensified spray drying funded by the European Commission.

References
Crowe C., Sommerfeld M. and Tsuji Y. (1998) “Multiphase Flows with Droplets and Particles”.
CRC Press LLC.
Elperin T. and Krasovitov B. (1995) “Evaporation of Liquid Droplets Containing Small Solid
Particles”. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol. 38, No. 12, pp. 2259-2267.
Langrish T.A.G. and Zbicinski I. (1994) “The effects of air inlet geometry and spray cone angle on
the wall deposition rate in spray dryers” Trans. I. Chem. Eng., Vol. 72, Part A, pp 420-430.
Masters K. (1974) “Spray Drying Handbook”, 4th Edition, J. Wiley and Sons Inc.

4
Oakley D.E. (1994) “Scale up of spray dryers with the aid of computational fluid dynamics”. Drying
Technology, Vol. 12 (1&2), pp. 217-233.
Oakley D., Bahu R. and Reay D. (1988) “The aerodynamics of co-current spray dryers” Proc. 6th
Int. Drying Symposium (IDS ’88), Versailles, OP.3373-OP.3378.
Rodi W. (1980) Turbulence models and their applications in hydraulics - a state of the art review.
IAHR, Netherlands.
Spalding D.B. (1955) “Some Fundamentals of Combustion”, Academic Press, N. York,
Butterworths Scientific Publications, London.
Wilcox D. (1994) Turbulence modeling for CFD. DCW Industries, Inc.

5
 Figures

8.00

7.00

Mass Loading=1%
6.00
6 Spray Cones of Water Droplets
Total of 5•105 Droplets Injected
5.00 Diameter Range: d=9.5~72.4 μm
V = 0.3 m sec
 gas,in
X (m)

4.00 Main Grid: 51x34x28 Vmax,drop,in = 26 m sec

Local Grids: 45x30x27 Tgas,in=400K
Tdrop,in=300K
3.00

1.00

2.00 0.50
R (m)

0.00
1.00
-0.50

-1.00
0.00 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00
-1.00 0.00 1.00
R(m)

Figure 1: The geometry, the boundary and the operating conditions of the tested pilot plant
industrial scale spray dryer, provided by BAYER

8 x=8.33 m
8 8 8 Tgas -5
(°C)
-10
7 7 7 7 x=8.28 m
-5
130
6 6 6 125 6 -10
x=8.18 m
115 -5
Gas Axial Velocity (m/sec)

5 5 5 105 5 -10
95
X (m)
X (m)
X (m)

X(m)

-5
x=7.88 m
85 4
4 4 4
75 -10

65 x=7.38 m
3 3 3 3 -5
55
-10
45
2 2 2 2 x=6.38 m
35 -5

25 -10
1 1 1 1
-5
x=4.38 m

0 0 0 0 -10
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
-1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -1.0-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
R (m) Y (m)
R (m) R(m) R(m) R(m)

Figure 2: The effects of buoyancy in the flow-field and temperature distribution of BAYER
Standard spray Dryer

6
 No Collision Collision Slurry (3.0)
8.00 8.00 8.00

7.00 7.00 7.00

6.00 6.00 6.00

5.00 5.00 5.00

X (m)

X (m)

X (m)
4.00 4.00 4.00

3.00 3.00 3.00

2.00 2.00 2.00

1.00 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

-1.00 0.00 1.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00
R (m) R (m) R (m)

Vapour (kg/kg)
0.000 0.006 0.012 0.018 0.024
Figure 3a: Vapour mass Concentration of BAYER Spray Dryer Standard Design including
collision-coalescence and slurry models

120 3
375
x = 8.33m x = 8.33m x = 8.33m
80 2
350
no collision no collision
325 collision 40 collision 1
slurry (3.0)
300 slurry (3.0) slurry (3.0)
0 0

120 3
375
x = 8.28m x = 8.28m x = 8.28m
80 2
350
325 40 1
300
0 0

390 120 3

364 x = 8.18m x = 8.18m x = 8.18m

80 2
338
40 1
312
Moisture content ('slurry')

0 0
Droplet Temperature (K)

Droplet Diameter ( m)

120 3
375
x = 7.88m x = 7.88m x = 7.88m
80 2
350
325 40 1
300
0 0

120 3
375
x = 7.38m x = 7.38m x = 7.38m
80 2
350
325 40 1
300
0 0

120 3
375
x = 6.38m x = 6.38m x = 6.38m
80 2
350
325 40 1
300
0 0

120 3
375
x = 4.38m x = 4.38m
80 2
350
325 x = 4.38m 40 1
300
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Y(m) Y(m) Y(m)

Figure 3b: Droplet characteristics distributions of BAYER Spray Dryer Standard Design

7
 9.00

8.00 8.00 8.00

7.00 7.00 7.00

6.00 6.00 6.00

5.00 5.00 5.00

X (m)
X (m)

X (m)
4.00 4.00 4.00

3.00 3.00 3.00

2.00 2.00 2.00

1.00 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

-1.00 0.00 1.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00
R (m) R (m) R (m)
Standard Design 1 Design 1a

Figure 4a: Vector Plots of BAYER Spray Dryer Standard Design and Designs 1 & 1a (Pred. no. 1)
9.00
Tgas
(°C)
8.00 8.00 8.00

7.00 7.00 7.00

75
6.00 6.00 6.00
65

5.00 5.00 5.00 55

X (m)
X (m)

X (m)

45
4.00 4.00 4.00

35
3.00 3.00 3.00
25
2.00 2.00 2.00
15
1.00 1.00 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

-1.00 0.00 1.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00
R (m) R (m) R (m)
Standard Design 1 Design 1a

Figure 4b: Gas Temperature of BAYER Spray Dryer Standard Design and Designs 1 & 1a
1.0
Standard
Design 1
0.8
Design 1a
HDIN

0.5

0.3

0.0
25 35 45 55 65

Tcritical (°C)

Figure 5: HDIN Number for BAYER Spray Dryer Standard Design and Designs 1 & 1a
8

View publication stats