Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chairperson of The Committee
Chairperson of The Committee
Karlene A. Hoo
Chairperson of the Committee
Uzi Mann
Gary Gladysz
Nazmul Karim
Accepted
John Borrelli
Dean of the Graduate School
December, 2006
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am deeply grateful to my research advisor, Dr. Karlene A. Hoo, for her guidance and support during the four years that I was her graduate student. She has
shown extreme patience in helping me understand the concepts of process control
and optimization. I am also thankful to her for due diligence in proofreading all
of my manuscripts and this dissertation. Her financial support also is appreciated
for my studies and travel to the national meeting of the American Institute of
Chemical Engineering conference and technical workshops.
This work would not have been possible without my parents and their constant
love and support. This work is dedicated to them.
I would like to thank Dr. Uzi Mann for being on my committee and providing
me with the project that ultimately became central to my dissertation. I take
away the need to always define the problem.
Thanks also go to Dr. Gary Gladysz, for providing me with a rewarding internship at Los Alamos National Laboratory and for his service on my committee;
and to Dr. Naz Karim for agreeing to serve on my committee.
My academic career here has been enriched by many things including the
industrial sponsors of the TTU Process Control and Optimization Consortium;
and the faculty, helpful staff, and graduate students within our research group
and those in the Chemical Engineering Department.
ii
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1
Spray drying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2
Experimental system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3
iii
2.3.3.1
Heating step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3.3.2
Evaporation step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.3.3.3
Surface motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.5
Numerical methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.5.1 Numerical solution of the single droplet model . . . . . . 52
2.5.1.1
Mathematical formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.5.1.2
Residual minimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Hollow particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.6.2.2
2.6.2.3
Thermal efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.6.2.4
Heat loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
iv
2.7
2.6.2.5
2.6.2.6
2.6.2.7
2.6.2.8
Model validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
. . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
III OPTIMIZATION OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.1
3.2
Non-linear programming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.2.1 Unconstrained non-linear optimization . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.2.2 Constrained non-linear optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.2.3 Solution Techniques for NLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.3
3.4
3.5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.2
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
V SPRAY DRYER CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
vi
6.2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
6.3
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
VII SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
vii
ABSTRACT
Spray drying processes have a wide variety of applications in industries from
the manufacture of food to pharmaceuticals and more recently hollow polymeric
microparticles. In spite of the wide uses of the spray drying process the approach
to the design of the spray dryer has remained experiential. One reason for this is
that the spray drying process itself exhibits certain characteristics, such as rapid
heat and mass transfer and a distributed nature, that are challenging from a firstprinciples modeling perspective. Additionally, the control of these processes is
difficult since direct on-line realtime measurements of the product quality (e.g.,
particle size) are not available.
In the spray drying process, a liquid spray is brought into contact with a heating
gas to evaporate the solvent present in the solution. The product is in particle
form. The contact between the heating gas and liquid spray may be achieved in
either a co-current or a counter-current manner. In the design of the spray dryer,
the residence time of individual particles inside the spray dryer is important. A
particle should remain in the spray dryer long enough for complete evaporation of
the solvent but not too long to cause product degradation, e.g., by charring.
In this research, a rigorous first-principles based model of the spray dryer is
developed and presented. The model is in two parts: the first, studies the changes
occurring to a single droplet as it is exposed to the heating gas; the second, tracks
individual particles and calculates the total heat and mass transfer between the
droplet phase and the heating gas. The first part of the model consists of a coupled
set of parabolic partial differential equations with a moving boundary condition.
This model is solved using the Gradient Weighted Moving Finite Element Method.
To solve the second part of the model, a Lagrangian framework is used to track the
individual droplets. The flow rate of the heating gas is calculated from empirical
equations available in the literature. The models results are validated against an
existing experimental laboratory scale spray drying unit. The validated model is
used to develop an optimal design of the spray drying system.
A control structure to regulate the spray dryers product properties is developed. The two important property variables to be controlled are the mean particle
size (diameter of the particles) and the residual solvent concentration in the product. Reliable and efficient on-line, realtime measurements of these variables are
difficult to obtain. Therefore, these variables must be estimated from available
viii
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1
Left panel: Single-input single-output system. Right panel: Multipleinput multiple-output system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Model predictions at design conditions. The polymer and temperature profiles are those at the surface. : cP (polymer), 3 :
(temperature), and 2 : X (radius) [3]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2.7
Spatial polymer (top) and water (bottom) profiles during the evaporation step. : = 0.00, 2 : = 0.005, . : = 0.0057, 3 : =
0.0063, / : = 0.0080, 4 : = 0.0087, + : =0.0102, : = 0.0139
[3]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.8
2.9
2.13 Axial and tangential velocities of the droplet as it travels the length
of the spray-drying chamber [22]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.14 Polymer concentration at the surface of the droplet for the assumed
droplet distribution [22]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.15 The size distribution at the inlet (top) and the outlet (bottom) of
the spray-drying chamber [22]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.16 Temperatures of a representative droplet and the air stream as they
pass through the spray-drying chamber [22]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.17 Effect of heat loss on air temperature. ?: 50% increase from the
nominal, : 50% decrease from the nominal, 4: nominal (20% heat
loss) [22]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.18 Effect of feed flowrate on the evaporation rate. Solid line: nominal;
dashed line: 15% increase; dotted line: 15% decrease [22]. . . . . . . 77
2.19 Effect of air temperature on the evaporation rate. Solid line: nominal; dashed line: 15% increase; dotted line: 15% decrease [22]. . . . 77
2.20 Effect of collisions on the final particle size distribution [22] . . . . . 78
2.21 Effect of change in mean droplet size for a uniform inlet distribution, Uniform droplet mean size of 60 microns (solid line), Uniform
droplet mean size of 80 microns (dashed line) . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.22 Effect of changes in inlet droplet size distribution, : Uniform
droplet size of 60 microns, ?: Log-normal (std. dev. = 30 microns)
[22] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.23 Comparison of the air temperature profile inside the chamber between the experimental data: ?, /, . and 4 and the model predictions ()[22]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
xi
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
. . . . . . 162
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
xii
LIST OF TABLES
2.1
Dimensionless variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
5.1
5.2
5.3
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
Comparison of bi-level and sequential optimization strategy (optimal control) for different constraints
xiii
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
depends on the application needs. Different spray dryer designs can be obtained by
passing the heating gas either co-currently or counter-currently to the feed solution
[9], by a different choice of atomizer. Mujumdar et al. [10] have investigated
horizontal spray dryers using computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulations.
sensors, two devices used to develop an effective control strategy, are selected not
by the process control specialist but rather by the process designer.
A number of techniques are available for flowsheet synthesis. The hierarchical
design proposed by Douglas is widely followed though alternative methods also
are used [11, 12]. Mann and Hoo [13] present a variant of the Douglas approach.
In their work, they place an emphasis on the design of the reactor system and
classify the material recycle and energy integration as economic drivers rather
than requirements of the design hierarchy. Other noteworthy flowsheet synthesis
techniques are the penalty function approach of Diwekar et al. [14] and the twolevel stochastic programming approach proposed by Pistikopoulos and Acevedo
[15]. Daichendt and Grossmann [16] propose a decomposition approach within a
mathematical mixed integer non-linear programming (MINLP) framework.
The design of spray dryers usually is based on knowledge obtained through pilot
plant tests or prior experience [8]. The choice of spray dryer configuration cocurrent, counter-current or mixed-flow, is decided based on the desired qualities of
the final product [8]. The residence time and the amount of evaporation required
are the two most important factors to be considered in the spray dryer design.
These two factors are used to determine equipment size and the heat duty. The
operating conditions can be determined by knowing the throughput required, the
residence time, and the heat duty.
The use of theoretical methods for spray dryer design has been limited [17].
One of the reasons for this limitation has been the difficulty in predicting the
flow patterns of the heating gas. Another difficulty has been the estimation of
proper drying rates. The advent of commercially available CFD tools has reduced the difficulty in determining the flow patterns; and drying rates can be
calculated using suitable rate-based models. Sometimes, an experimentally determined drying curve or heating gas flow patterns is used to design the spray dryer
[1, 5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21].
In this work, a rate-based model approach will be used in conjunction with
empirical relationships for the heating gas flow pattern to determine the design
parameters for the spray dryer when the final product is the manufacture of hollow
particles [22].
Mass and energy balance models. These models are constructed based on
steady state energy and mass balances of the spray drying chamber and are
heating gas phase. The main advantage of the PSI-Cell model is that they
are not limited by the spray chamber geometry. Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) techniques are used to solve PSI models. The disadvantages
of the CFD numerical approach include: long calculation times, numerous
model parameter values that may have no physical counterparts [6], and the
generation of a very detailed grid to arrive at a solution.
Rate-based and CFD approaches represent the particle motion using a Lagrangian technique. Recently, population balance methods also have been used to
track the droplet distribution as the droplets travel through the chamber [1, 22].
Christofides et al. have modeled a spray pyrolysis process using the population
balance approach [26]. Bertling et al. have used population balance models to
describe agglomerated particles in a spray drying process [27].
system to ensure that the process is operating at the desired conditions in spite of
the transient nature of the process. Regulation is achieved by manipulating a set
of independent variables to maintain the controlled variables at the desired values.
The control action can be found from closed-loop information, that is, information from the process is applied to determine the magnitude and direction of the
control action. The control action also may be found from open-loop information
where the size and direction of the manipulated variables are determined based
only on a model of the process or said another way disregarding any current process information. Open-loop optimal control trajectory is generally found using
dynamic optimization [28].
Closed-loop control strategies can be further classified based on the control law
that is used. A control law is the rule that determines how the control action is
obtained. The most widely used control law is the proportional-integral-derivative
(PID) control law. Mathematically, the PID control law is given by [29],
Z
d
1
(t)dt + D
p(t) = p + Kc (t) +
I
dt
(1.1)
where p(t) is the controller output at time t, Kc is the controller gain, (t) is
the error between the set-point (desired value of the controlled variable) and the
current value of the controlled variable, I is the integral time or reset time, D is
the derivative time and p is the controller bias.
In the case of digital control, the PID law can be expressed in two forms, the
(1.2)
Figure 1.1: Left panel: Single-input single-output system. Right panel: Multipleinput multiple-output system.
In the last twenty years, modern control laws have been synthesized based on a
8
strategy called model predictive control (MPC). This controller has its roots in the
classical linear quadratic regulator (LQR) and linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG)
theories [32, 28]. The LQG calculates an optimal feedback control law based on
minimizing a quadratic function of the error in not driving the controlled variables
to their desired values and of the cost of using large control actions to minimize this
error. The LQGs formulation differs from the LQR in that the former is based on
statistical assumptions of the measurement and process noise. Both the LQR and
LQG are solved assuming an infinite solution horizon and using only estimates of
the outputs as feedback information. In contrast, the MPC formulation requires
that the optimal control actions be found at each sampling instant using the
current measurement of the process, and finite control and prediction horizons. A
recent review of MPC can be found in [33] and excellent textbooks on the subject
include Brosilow and Joseph [34] and Camacho and Bordens [35].
particle size for a spray dryer with a pneumatic nozzle atomizer, using on-line
measurements of the particle size. The manipulated variable chosen was the nozzle
air flowrate. Masters [8] discusses three different control schemes and has provided
some guidelines for the design of a control system for a general spray dryer. The
heating gas flowrate or heating gas temperature is chosen to regulate the amount of
solvent that remains in the particle. The application of model predictive controllers
to spray dryers are not very common. Christofides et al. [26] demonstrated one of
the earliest applications of model-based control on a spray pyrolysis process using
a population balance model of the droplets as the model. The final particle size
distribution is controlled using the wall temperature.
For producing hollow particles, the spray dryer configuration, the amount of
residual solvent in the product, and the final particle size all are important factors
to obtain the desired property known as the tap density1 . However, instrumentation to provide accurate and on-line measurements of particle size and residual
solvent concentration are either not available or expensive to purchase and maintain. In lieu of actual measurements, these variables (particle size and residual
solvent concentration) are estimated from measurable quantities using inferential
models.
There are several techniques available for estimation, including the well known
Kalman filter [28, 32]. However, the distributed nature of the spray dryer model
precludes the use of state equation-based estimators. Statistical tools such as
1
10
11
12
and coworkers have extended the approach of Grossmann and coworkers to include
design under uncertainty for simultaneous design and control [50, 51, 52, 53].
The objective of the research by Grossmann and coworkers is to design flexible
processes [48, 49]. They use a decomposition strategy to solve a simultaneous
design and operation optimization problem. The decomposition is based on separating the design stage from the operating stage. That is, during the operation of
the process, changes in the process conditions may result in changes in the thermodynamic or kinetic parameters. Thus, a process that is optimal at the original
design conditions may no longer remain optimal at the new conditions. It is assumed that the range over which the parameters may vary is known and a cost
function is minimized over that range to find the optimal design. The contribution
of this method is that it introduces a technique of incorporating operational considerations into the design optimization. It however, does not explicitly consider
the control aspects of the process. Also, the range over which the parameters
vary is fixed and the solution to the optimization may not be valid beyond this
range. Pistikopoulos provides a stochastic optimization approach to incorporate
parameter variations in the process design [54].
Pistikopoulos and coworkers extend the decomposition concept of Grossmann
and coworkers to include control aspects. In their approach they explicitly include the cost of incorporating the control structure in the objective function of
the optimization problem. Pistikopoulos and coworkers also introduce a feasibility
analysis step in the design process. The feasibility step is introduced to ensure
13
that the inequality constraints on the optimization problem are satisfied. Another
modification of the work of Grossmann is in the consideration of parameter uncertainty. Rather than evaluate the parameters over the entire range, only those
changes that are more likely to occur, are considered. This reduces the computational burden. An important limitation of the approach of Pistikopoulos and
coworkers is that the choice of the control structure has to be made a priori.
Floudas and coworkers [42, 43] use open-loop controllability measures such as
the minimum condition number or relative gain array, within the decomposition
framework proposed by Grossmann [48, 49], to account for control effects.
Ulsoy and coworkers [44, 45] use a decomposition approach to the simultaneous
problem of design and control by finding the numerical solution of both problems as
two nested dependent problems. A quantitative measure of the degree of coupling
between design and control based on optimality conditions also was provided.
Alyaquot et al. [55] extended this work to multi-disciplinary optimization (MDO)
problems. In an MDO problem, complex processes are decomposed into smaller,
more tractable problems that are optimized individually. These optimized units
are then combined through a coordination of sub-systems. Coordination is used
to imply that the design variables in one sub-system are known to other subsystems. Not surprisingly some sub-systems naturally will be more coupled than
others. The work by Alyaquot et al. [55] determines the extent of the coupling
by studying the sensitivity of different sub-system output variables to each other.
Output variables are the variables that transfer information from one sub-system
14
1.6 Organization
The dissertation is organized as follows. Chapter 2 introduces the particular problem that of producing hollow micron and sub-micron particles. Firstprinciples models that describe the mechanisms that produces a single particle
and a distribution of particles are developed, numerical solved, and validated using data from a laboratory scale experimental system. Then, the design of the
spray dryer itself is developed using the rate-based approach of Katta and Gau-
15
vin [18]. Chapter 3 reviews optimization theory by presenting the different types
of optimization problems that can be formulated and the techniques used to solve
these problems. Chapter 4, introduces the difficult problem of simultaneous design and control with the notion that the optimal design must admit an optimal
controller design from the outset. Chapter 5 design a control strategy to regulate
the spray dryer following the serial approach to design and control. The control
strategy employs an inferential control scheme to compensate for the lack of online realtime measurements of the product quality variables. Chapter 6 presents
the bi-level approach to design and control applied to the spray dryer. A comparison between the serial and bi-level approach is presented and analyzed. Lastly,
Chapter 7 summarizes the contributions of this work and provides directions for
future work.
16
CHAPTER 2
DESIGN OF A SPRAY DRYER
2.1 Background
Spray-drying technology is used extensively in many industries such as the
food industry; for example, to dry a feed solution in order to generate particular
products from the solution [5, 56]. Spray-drying technology also has been used to
manufacture hollow or solid micro-particles for different applications (e.g., lightweight composites) [3, 57]. Hollow spherical particles have a number of potential
applications, but one of the most important application is their use as fillers in
17
as described below, leads to the formation of the hollow core. As the droplets are
exposed to hot air, the solvent evaporates forming a layer of higher concentration
of polymer at the outer boundary of the droplet. As the droplet continues to
shrink an impermeable layer is formed.
Upon completion of the solvent evaporation, the temperature of the droplet
(now a particle) rises, resulting in the decomposition of the blowing agent trapped
in the center of the particle; thus forming the hollow core. The sacrificial core
method uses cores that are coated with the material of interest. These coated
cores are exposed to substances that cause the cores to dissolve leaving behind
intact hollow micro-spheres. Whilst such methods provide a greater control over
the geometry of the hollow micro-particles, care needs to be taken to ensure proper
coating. Also, these methods are not easily adapted for mass production.
The various phase separation techniques utilize surface tension forces to form
emulsions that consist of spherical globules of the material of interest [57]. A
good review of the various aspects related to hollow micro-spheres can be found
in Bertling [27]. A review of different manufacturing methods along with some
discussion on characterization of the particles and modeling of the manufacturing
process also are provided.
Here, the development of a physics-based model for the phenomena associated
with an individual particle is discussed. This model can be used to predict the
onset of skin formation on the surface of a particle.
The literature does not provide a fundamental model that describes the pro-
19
duction of hollow micro-particles. A large volume of work has been carried out
on the modeling of conventional spray drying operations (formation of non-hollow
particles) [1, 8], mainly as they apply in the food industry. However, these models
do not apply to the production of hollow particles because they do not account
for the formation of an impermeable skin and generation of gas in the core. When
considering the production of hollow particles, it is important that the temperatures and concentrations of the individual droplet be determined because spatial
variations in the temperatures and concentrations of the droplets are necessary
to allow the formation of the outer skin. Thus, the time to skin formation is an
important factor in deciding the residence time of the droplets inside the drying
chamber, which in turn affects the chamber dimensions.
Farid provides a fairly rigorous model of a single droplet, however concentration
gradients within the droplet are omitted [58]. A similar model for a slurry droplet
can be found in [59].
In the field of combustion, Sirignano and coworkers investigate different situations during the burning of individual fuel droplets [60]. They apply a number
of modeling and numerical analysis techniques to describe the burning of a single
fuel droplet and arrays of droplets.
In a spray-drying operation, there are three main phenomena:
1. Atomization of the liquid feed
2. Drying of the droplets once they are formed
20
correlations to model the flow of the gas phase can represent the particle phase accurately . However, their work neither investigated hollow particles nor combined
the entire spray (macroscale) with the droplet (microscale) to obtain the design
parameters. Palencia it et al. [24] present a mechanistic approach to spray-dryer
modeling by representing the spray dryer to be a cascade of mixing tanks. In the
present work, a droplet size distribution is assumed and the motion of a representative droplet is followed. Tracking the droplet trajectory is useful since this
information affects the chamber dimensions.
Modeling the heat- and mass-transfer rates between the gas and liquid phases,
and the particle motion are critical to the design of the spray dryer. In the case of
solid particles, it is reasonable to assume uniform temperatures and concentrations
[5, 18]. For example, Farid [58] provides a constant temperature model for crust
formation on the surface of a single droplet. Similar models have been proposed
by Cheong et al. [59] for drying slurry droplets.
When considering the production of hollow particles, it is important that the
temperatures and concentrations of the individual droplet be determined because
spatial variations in the temperatures and concentrations of the droplets are necessary to allow the formation of the outer skin. Thus, the time to skin formation is
an important factor in deciding the residence time of the droplets inside the drying
chamber, which in turn affects the chamber dimensions. In this work, the single
droplet model of the phenomena occurring on a droplet, developed by Shabde et
al. [3], is used to determine the temperature and concentration gradients within
22
the droplet.
The chapter is organized as follows: Section (2.2) provides a description of
the experimental system. This is followed by a discussion of modeling of a single
droplet in Section(2.3). Section (2.4) describes the phenomena occurring within
the spray dryer and develops a mathematical model for it. The numerical techniques used to solve the models are explained in Section (2.5). The results obtained and a discussion of the results are presented in Section (2.6). Finally, the
contributions of this chapter are summarized in Section(2.7).
Figure 2.2 shows samples of the hollow micro-particles produced by the experimental system. These hollow micro-particles are spherical in shape with impermeable skins. The mean particle diameters are between 10 to 80 microns with a
shell thickness of 2 to 10 microns.
Figure 2.2: Hollow micro-particles made using the experimental system. Left
panel: thin skin. Right panel: thick skin (Courtesy: S.V. Emets).
regresses. This change in the droplet size has to be accounted for in the description
of the model of the droplet.
25
the droplet.
Solvent vapors are released into the heating gas. There are two driving forces
for the loss of solvent to the gas phase. The major force is due to the heat that
is provided to the droplet, causing evaporation while the smaller force is the mass
transfer due to the difference in the solvent concentration in the droplet or liquid
phase and the gas phase. The entering heating gas is assumed to be carrying a
negligible amount of solvent.
Similarly, the movement of the solvent from the interior of the droplet to the
surface occurs due to diffusion. Thus, the evaporation of the solvent provides a
driving force for the diffusion of the solvent.
As the solvent evaporates, the droplet shrinks. Because of a lower polymer
mobility, the polymer concentration near the surface increases. This phenomenon
is known as skinning [62]. Thus, the polymer concentration gradient at the surface
is steeper as compared to the profile away from the surface (interior to the particle).
A sufficiently high heating rate can evaporate almost all the water leaving only
polymer at the surface that forms the impermeable shell. Thus, for the formation
of a hollow particle, it is necessary that the temperature gradient between the
heating gas and the droplet surface be sufficiently large, otherwise, the end product
will not be a hollow particle[18, 63].
As mentioned earlier, the formation of a hollow particle is divided into two
steps: (a) evaporation of the solvent (shrinking) and (b) decomposition of the
trapped blowing agent. Figure 2.3 represents an illustration of the hypothesized
26
mechanisms and the temperature and concentration profiles during droplet evaporation.
The following assumptions are made in the development of the model:
1. Because of the relatively large amount of heating gras, the conditions of the
hot gas (e.g., temperature) do not vary with time. Hence, variations in the
heating gas conditions are omitted from the model.
2. A spherically symmetric field exists in and around the droplet. Thus, internal
circulation is absent. This is reasonable since the droplet size is small.
3. There is negligible relative velocity between the droplet and the air. Hence,
the external heat and mass transfers are approximated by conduction and
diffusion, respectively.
4. There is a negligible amount of solvent in the incoming heating gas.
(Cp T )
1
= 2
t
r r
kr
2 T
27
0 r R(t), t > 0
Vapor
R(t)
Heat
Temperature
Polymer
Concentration
Water
Concentration
Figure 2.3: Temperature and concentration profiles during droplet evaporation [3].
where T is the temperature of the heating gas, k is the thermal conductivity of
the solution, is the density of the solution, Cp is the specific heat capacity of
the solution, and the independent variables are time, t, and radial distance, r. It
is assumed that k is independent of radial position and time. It then follows that
the above equation can be written as,
(T )
1
= 2
t
r r
r
2 T
0 r R(t), t > 0
(2.1)
28
(cP )
1
=D 2
t
r r
r
2 cP
0 r R(t)
(2.2)
1
(cW )
=D 2
t
r r
r
2 cW
0 r R(t)
(2.3)
The notation can be found in the nomenclature section at the end of the chapter.
29
T (r, 0) = T0
0rR
cP (r, 0) = cP,0
0rR
cW (r, 0) = cW,0
0rR
(2.4)
The boundary conditions at the center of the droplet arise due to the symmetry
of the droplet and they are unchanged during both heating and evaporations steps,
T
(0, t) = 0
r
t0
cP
(0, t) = 0
r
t0
cW
(0, t) = 0
r
t0
(2.5)
Since the droplet goes through two steps of heating and evaporation, two sets
of boundary conditions are required at the surface.
T
(R, t) = h(Tair T |R )
z
T |R < Tsat
(2.6)
where h is the external heat transfer coefficient, Tsat is the evaporation temperature
of water, and Tair is the temperature of the heating gas, which in this case is an
30
air stream.
During the heating step there is no flux of either water or polymer at the
surface of the droplet. Thus,
cP
=0
r
0 r R(0)
(2.7)
cW
=0
r
0 r R(0)
(2.8)
MP
=
t
R(t)
Z
dR(t)
cP 2
r dr + cP (R(t), t)R2 (t)
=0
t
dt
(2.9)
where R(t) is the radius of the droplet at time t and dR(t)/dt is the rate at which
the droplet surface changes. Combining Equations (2.8) and (2.9) gives,
cP
D
r
dR(t)
+ cP
= 0.
r = R(t)
dt
31
The boundary condition for water at the surface is obtained by recognizing that
water losses are proportional to the motion of the surface. Thus, the boundary
conditions at the droplet surface are given by,
T |R(t) = Tsat
dR(t)
+ cP
=0
r = R(t)
dt
W
T
cW
=
h(T |R(t) Tair k
D
r r = R(t)
cP
D
r
(2.10)
t tH
(2.11)
Evaporation step:
W
T
dR
=
(h(T |R(t) Tair ) k
dt
t > tH
32
variables.
The characteristic time constant, t0 , is defined by,
t0
R(0)2
.
D
The initial radius R(0) is the characteristic length of the droplet; thus, the characteristic time gives an estimate of how much time will be required for diffusion
from the center of the droplet to the surface. Concentrations and temperature are
made dimensionless by using the initial conditions. The non-dimensionalization
leads to different non-dimensional groups such as the Biot number (BiH : ratio
of convective heat transfer to conductive heat transfer [64]) for heat transfer, the
Lewis number (Le: ratio of the thermal diffusivity to the diffusion co-efficient
[65]), and others.
Using the dimensionless variables in Table 2.1, the differential equations in
(2.1) to (2.3) and initial conditions in(2.4) become,
1
cW
(
cW )
= 2 (x2
)
x x
x
cW (x, 0) = cW,0
(
cP )
1
cP
= 2 (x2
)
x x
x
cP (x, 0) = cP,0
= Le 2 (x2 )
x x
r
(x, 0) = 0
33
(2.12)
Symbol
Definition
Dimensionless time
t
t0
Characteristic time
t0
R(0)2
D
x( )
r(t)
R(0)
X( )
R(t)
R(0)
cW (x, )
cW (x, t)
0
cP (x, )
cP (x, t)
0
Dimensionless temperature
(x, )
T (x, t) T (x, 0)
Tair (0) T (x, 0)
Hevap
Lewis number
Le
/D
Nusselt number
Nu
h dp
kair
Sherwood number
Sh
kx dp
cW Dair
Biot number
BiH
h dp
k
Reynolds number
Re
Schmidt number
Sc
Prandtl number
Pr
34
dp v air
air
air
air Dair
Cp
kair
cW
(0, ) = 0, 0
cP
x=0
(0, ) = 0, 0
(0, ) = 0,
0
x
(2.13)
R(t)
cP
x = X( ) =
=0
R0
x
cW
=0
x
(2.14)
|X( ) = sat
R(t)
cP
dX
x = X( ) =
=
c
P
R(0)
d
x
cW
dX
= (1 cW )
x
d
(2.15)
X( ) = 1.0
35
(2.16)
dX
(2.17)
Nu
hdp
kair
The Sherwood number (ratio of total and molecular mass transfer) is defined by
Sh
kx dp
cW Dair
36
Since the diameter of the droplet is small, the relative velocity between the droplet
and the gas (air) is small. It then follows that the Re is small ( 102 ). Thus,
the values of h and kx can be found by,
h2
kair
dp
(2.19)
kx 2
cW Dair
dp
Symbol
Value
D
kx
h
kair
Dair
Re
Sc
Pr
1.25 109 m2 s1
1.265 m s1
1640 Wm2 K1
1.824107 m2 s1
0.0328 Wm1 K1
0.375 104 m2 s1
1.65 102
2.5102
1.7
37
Figure 2.5: Left: Simple schematic of a spray dryer with co-current liquid feed
and drying gas. Center: Schematic of the liquid spray inside the dryer. Right:
Zones in a spray shower [22].
38
It has been shown that the Eulerian formulation results in numerical errors when
tracking particulates [60]. Additionally, the computational burden is reduced in
the Lagrangian formulation because the trajectory of an individual droplet rather
than the trajectories of the entire ensemble of droplets are followed.
Since the gas is introduced tangentially, the geometry of the flow pattern within
the spray-drying chamber has a spiral shape as shown schematically in the right
panel of Figure 2.5. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the droplets are traveling
in a centrifugal field [8].
Following Masters [8], tangential, radial, and axial components of the droplet
velocity are considered. Using the notation in [18], the momentum balances for a
representative droplet are given by,
dVt
dt
r
4di
dVr
dt
+
r
4di
m
(2.20)
dVv
3CD g Vf (Vv Vgv )
= g
dt
4di
where
Vf =
is magnitude of the relative velocity between the particle and the gas phase; Vt , Vr ,
and Vv are the tangential, radial, and axial velocities of the droplet, respectively;
and Vg represents the drying gas velocity. The reader is referred to the nomenclature section for the definition of the variables and parameters. The initial velocities
40
of the droplets are usually determined by the velocity at which the droplets are
ejected from the atomizer and the air velocity.
The variable FL represents the shear lift force on the droplets and is a function
of the gas density and the radius of the droplet,
while in the entrainment zone, the sprays velocity is influenced by the drying
gas. In this work, it is assumed that the atomizer creates sprays with very low
velocities. Thus, only changes to the sprays velocity in the entrainment zone are
assumed non-negligible.
At any vertical distance from the liquid sprays entrance, for a tangentially
introduced gas in a chamber with a circular cross-section [18], the radial variation
in the tangential velocity of the gas stream is given by,
0 r Rx
(2.22)
where the radius of the chamber (Rx ) is a function of the axial distance, x, as
measured from the entry point of the liquid feed.
The radial variation in the axial velocity of the gas stream is given by,
0 r Rx .
(2.23)
The coefficients, C1 and C2 , in Equations (2.22) and (2.23) are found experimentally. The above relations were obtained in a system very similar in geometry and
gas flow pattern to the one under consideration [18].
To model the heat and mass transfer between the droplet phase and the air
phase, the following assumptions are made:
1. The solution is well-mixed and all droplets contain the same amount of
42
(2.24)
dm
= Dv g Sh di ni (cS c)
dt
where ni is the number of droplets, kg is the thermal conductivity of the gas, Dv is
the solvent-gas binary diffusion coefficient, cS is the solvent concentration at the
surface of the droplet, and c is solvent concentration in the gas surrounding the
droplet.
The Nusselt number, N u, represents the ratio of heat transferred due to convection and conduction [64]. The Sherwood number, Sh, represents the ratio of
mass transferred by convection and diffusion [64]. Both the Nusselt and Sherwood
numbers can be determined from the Reynolds number, Re, which is a ratio between the inertial and viscous forces. The following equations are used to calculate
the N u and Sh numbers [64],
43
The Schmidt number, Sc, is a ratio between kinematic and diffusive viscosities
and the Prandtl number, P r, represents a ratio between momentum diffusivity
and thermal diffusivity. It is found that the contribution to the Nusselt and
Sherwood numbers from the Reynolds and Prandtl numbers is negligible, hence
both N u and Sh are approximately equal to two. This finding implies that the
main mechanisms of mass and heat transport in the reactor are diffusion and
conduction, respectively.
The amount of gas, Wg , required to dry the droplet is found by taking an
overall energy balance over the spray dryer,
1 dq dm
+
.
dt
dt
In the entrainment zone, the gas temperature at any distance x from where
the liquid feed entered the chamber can be determined analogously to the nozzle
zone,
Tx = Tgi
44
(2.27)
In the case where the solvent is water, the average humidity in the gas surrounding the droplet is obtained from,
c=
nozzle zone
Ex
+ c Si
Me
entrainiment zone
Ex
+ c Si
Wg
(2.28)
where cSi is the humidity of the gas (in this case air) at the inlet of the chamber,
Me is the entrainment rate, and the ratios, Ex /Me and Ex /Wg , represent the
fraction of water that is added to the air due to evaporation.
1
(Td )
= 2
t
rd rd
(cA )
1
=D 2
t
rd rd
(cB )
1
=D 2
t
rd rd
Td
rd2
rd
2 cP
rd
cB
rd2
rd
0 rd R(t), t > 0
(2.29)
0 rd R(t), t > 0
(2.30)
0 rd R(t), t > 0
(2.31)
45
T (rd , 0) = T0
0 rd R
cA (rd , 0) = cA,0
0 rd R
cB (rd , 0) = cB,0
0 rd R
(2.32)
The boundary conditions at the center arise due to the symmetry of the droplet
and are unchanged during the heating and evaporation steps,
T
(0, t) = 0
r
t0
cA
(0, t) = 0
r
t0
cB
(0, t) = 0
r
t0
(2.33)
The boundary conditions at the surface of the droplet are different in the
heating and evaporation steps. In the heating step, there is no mass flux of either
the solvent or the polymer but there is convective heat transfer from the bulk gas
46
T
(R, t) = h(Tg Ts ) T |R < Tsat
rd
D
cA
= 0
rd
0 rd R(0)
cA
= 0
rd
0 rd R(0)
(2.34)
The boundary conditions for the evaporation step must account for the decrease
in the droplet size. Since evaporation occurs on the surface, the area around the
droplet remains cool and prevents super-heating of the droplet surface. Thus, the
droplet surface temperature must be equal to the saturation temperature. The
boundary conditions on the components are obtained by a species balance on the
concentration of A around the droplet,
+ cA dR(t)
=0
dt
rd = R(t)
T
cB
B
D
=
(h(T |R(t) Tg ) kg
rd rd = R(t)
rd
cA
D
rd
(2.35)
T |R(t) = Tsat
The boundary condition for the rate at which the surface regresses is given by,
t tH
(2.36)
dR
s
T
Evaporation step:
= (h(T |R(t) Tg ) k
dt
t > tH
47
vent).
48
N (X, t)
N (X, t)
N (X, t) (Ex N (X, t))
+ Vav
+ Var
+
= B(X)
t
x
r
dp
(2.37)
where B(X) represents the birth and death of the particles due to collisions. Since
design is the purpose of this work, the first term on the left hand side of Equation
(2.37) is zero.
Since experimental data accounting for collisions is not available, certain assumptions have to be made. The first assumption is that only binary collisions
are considered. Secondly, since the heating phase is very small, collisions between
droplets and particles are not considered. It is assumed that collisions between
droplets do not lead to breakage of the droplets. However, the collisions between
particles is assumed to cause breakage. This assumption is justified since particles
have a solid skin, coalescence is unlikely to occur. Thus, two types of collisions
are assumed to occur.
During the heating stage, some of the droplets collide with each other. It is
assumed that collisions between two droplets lead to coalescence and that
the droplet formed due to the collision has a volume equal to the sum of
the colliding droplets. While such an assumption may not be completely
accurate, this simplification assists in maintaining a tractable problem.
It is assumed that collision between the hollow particles results in breakage
of the particles and thus a loss in the total number of particles.
49
The following equation describes the birth and death of the particles due to
collisions [69],
1
B(X) =
2
ZX
a(X X0 )N(X X0 , t) dX
N (X, t)
(2.38)
a(X, X0 )N(X0 , t) dX
a(X, X0 ) =
(2.39)
The boundary conditions associated with Equation (2.37) result from the zero flux
assumption at the boundary,
N (X, t)X = 0
(2.40)
This condition corresponds to no flux of the particles across the boundary of the
particle phase space [69].
50
(2.20) to (2.27). The equations for the droplet are given by (2.1) to (2.36). The
approach to obtain the design parameters for the spray dryer can be summarized
as follows:
1. Choose a design criterion.
The criterion selected is that the largest particle contains 10% water. To
compare to existing laboratory data, a binary liquid mixture of polymer and
water with air as the drying gas is selected.
2. Choose the atomizer type and spray-drying chamber geometry.
An atomizer and a chamber geometry of a cylindrical top and conical bottom are selected to provide a comparison to the results obtained from a
similar laboratory scale unit. The choice of the atomizer fixes the droplet
size distribution.
3. Track the largest droplet as it passes through the chamber by solving the
resulting spray-dryer design and droplet equations simultaneously. The position of the largest particle reaches less than 10% moisture gives the dimensions of the spray chamber. The axial distance of the particle from the
atomizer at this point gives the length while the radial distance gives the
radius of the spray drying chamber.
4. The residence time of the particles is also obtained from the velocity equations.
The numerical solver must be able to account for the moving boundary of the
51
particle to obtain accurate estimates of the chamber size, the gas flowrate and
the heating requirements. The process of obtaining the design parameters is an
iterative process.
52
53
ment method is one such variation of the MFE where the weighting is the normal
component of the velocity of the nodes [71, 78].
(2.41)
j Uj (t)
(2.42)
be an approximate solution to the above equation. It then follows that the motion
of U is given by
U (x, t) =
j U j (t)
where j are the basis functions. In this work, the set j is chosen to be piecewise
54
j =
x xj1
xj xj1
xj1 x xj
x x
j+1
xj+1 xj
xj x xj+1
(2.43)
Other choices of basis functions can be used. However, in this work, higher order
basis functions do not increase the accuracy of the solution.
The normal motion with this assumed function is then given by,
n = u n =
x j ( j n1 ) + u j ( j n2 )
where
q
q
2
2
n (n1 , n2 ) 1/ 1 + Ux , Ux / 1 + Ux
is a unit normal vector, xj are the nodal motions, and Uj are the nodal amplitudes
(value of approximation (U (x, t)) at every node).
(n K(u))2 dS
55
carried out by setting the derivatives of the residual with respect to the nodal
velocities and amplitudes to zero.
1
=
2 xj
1
=
2 Uj
(n K(u)) j n1 dS = 0
(n K(u)) j n2 dS = 0
56
From the figure, it is observed that initially when only the sensible heat is
being transferred to the droplet, only the temperature of the droplet increases.
57
There is no change in the concentration of the polymer at the surface. The evaporation temperature is reached at =0.005 dimensionless time units (t=0.0144 s
for t0 =2.88 s). Simultaneously, the surface (2) of the droplet begins to recede due
to the evaporation of the water. A polymer concentration profile () is developed
as the water evaporates; the temperature at the surface remains constant at the
evaporation temperature.
Figure (2.7) shows the corresponding spatial profiles of the polymer and the
water concentrations, respectively. As the evaporation starts, the droplet surface
regresses as shown in the figure. Also, it can be seen that a sharp front is being
developed at the surface due to the extremely large difference in the temperatures
of the droplet surface and the air. Thus, more and more nodes are pushed in
to the region of the shock and the polymer and water concentration surface can
be described accurately. The time at which the surface concentration of polymer
reaches 1.00 is called the time to skin formation. The model predicts the concentration and temperature variations that take place during the operation (cf.
Figure 2.3).
The effects of different operating conditions on the droplet are also studied.
The inlet concentration of the droplet is varied to investigate its effect on skin
formation. For changes of 10 % in the inlet concentration of the polymer there
appears to be negligible changes in the thermal and mass transfer characteristics
of the droplet. However, it is observed that a decrease in the initial polymer
concentration increases the time required for skin formation. This is due to the
58
fact that a lower polymer concentration means a greater amount of water in the
droplet. At a given constant heat transfer rate, the time required to evaporate
the additional water is more than the nominal, which in turn results in a longer
time for skin formation. It can be seen that if the polymer concentration were to
decrease further, more time would be required until, in the limit, hollow particle
wouldnt be formed at all unless an even higher inlet temperature of air was used
[63]. The effect of changes in the polymer concentration on the time to skin
formation is shown in Figure( 2.8).
The inlet droplet temperature and the gas temperature are varied to study
their effect on skin formation. A 10o C change in the inlet temperature of the
droplet did not produce a significant change in the time to skin formation. This
indicates that the air supplied is at a sufficiently high temperature to compensate
for reasonable fluctuations in the inlet droplet temperature. However, variations
in the air temperature have significant effect on the time for skin formation. This
is observed when changes of 8% (50o C) to the air inlet temperature of air is
made. The results are shown in Figure (2.9) The response shows that the time for
skin formation varies inversely with increases in the inlet air temperature. The
inlet air temperature determines the heat transfer rate to the droplet. Thus, an
increase in the inlet air temperature increases the amount of heat transferred to
the droplet. This leads to faster evaporation rates and therefore shorter times for
skin formation.
The effect of uncertainty in the heat transfer parameters inside the droplet is
59
studied by changing the heat transfer coefficient by 15% and 25% from its
nominal value. The resulting polymer concentration profile is shown in Figure
(2.10). It can be seen that the time to skin formation is sensitive to the rate of
heat transferred. The dependence on the amount of heat transferred is non-linear.
That is, when the heat transfer coefficient is increased by 15 and 25%, the time
for skin formation does not change by the same amount when decreased by the
same amount. It is not surprising that beyond a certain point, increasing the
heat transfer rate does not affect appreciably the time for skin formation and that
decreasing the heat transferred will retard the rate of skin formation.
Similar simulations are carried out for changes in the diffusivity coefficient.
The polymer concentration profiles are shown in Figure (2.11) From the graph, it
is observed that as the diffusion coefficient increases, the time required for skin
formation decreases. The relationship between the binary mass diffusivity and
the time for skin formation is non-linear with shorter lengths of time when the
diffusivity is increased than when the diffusivity is decreased by the same amount.
60
Droplet size,
Fraction of particles
1
2
3
4
5
6
microns
20
30
45
60
80
100
in the bin
0.10
0.10
0.30
0.15
0.15
0.20
Value
The main chamber design criterion is that the largest size (100 microns) particle
should contain 10% moisture in the final product. The spray-dryer and droplet
Value
0.68 m
0.32 m
0.30 m
0.38 m
9 KW
40.77 g/s
57%
61
models are solved iteratively until this requirement is achieved. The chamber size
(axial and radial parameters) is obtained by calculating the distance a representative droplet travels from the point at which it is injected into the spray-drying
chamber to the point where it is completely dry ( 10% moisture). The length
of the chamber is calculated based on the final particle moisture content and the
final air temperature. The radius of the chamber is determined by the criterion
that none of the droplets hit the chamber wall.
The results show that the cylindrical length of the chamber is 50% smaller
than the conical length. The axial and radial trajectories of a 60 droplet are
shown in Figure 2.12. The distance covered by the droplet at 2.4 s gives the
dimensions of the chamber. The axial distance covered provides the length of the
chamber and the radial distance, the radius of the chamber.
Figure 2.13 shows the tangential and axial velocities of a representative droplet
as it travels the length of the chamber. It is observed that the axial velocity
becomes extremely large while the tangential velocity decreases in the conical
section because the conical shape acts as a converging nozzle. The hump in the
tangential velocity profile is when the geometry of the spray dryer changes from
cylindrical to conical.
62
forms [3]. However, the inside of the droplet has to meet the criterion of 10%
final moisture. Drying is either convective mass-transfer controlled or diffusion
controlled. Until the boiling temperature of the solvent is reached, the removal of
water from the droplets occurs due to convective mass transfer only. Thus, the
evaporation is mass-transfer controlled, which causes the polymer concentration
to change linearly. Once the evaporation temperature is reached, the removal of
water is controlled by the rate of diffusion of water to the surface of the droplet.
The rate at which water can be brought to the surface by diffusion is less than the
rate at which water can be removed when it is at the surface. This effect along
with the effect of the curvature of the particle causes the polymer concentration
change to be nonlinear. The nonlinear change in the polymer concentration is
present at all droplet sizes but is not as pronounced in the smaller droplet sizes
since their water content is less as compared to the larger droplets.
63
or with each other. Since all the droplets are assumed to be exposed to identical
temperature conditions, the reduction in size of the droplets is almost the same
except at the larger sizes where the amount of water evaporated is slightly greater.
Ww
.
Wg (Tgi Tw ) Cs + Wf (Tf Tw ) Cf
(2.44)
The results show that for the present chamber design (cf. Table 2.5), the thermal
efficiency is 57%. The efficiency may be improved by lowering the exit temperature of the product. However, by so doing, the chamber length will increase.
Figure 2.16 contrasts the temperatures of a representative droplet and the air
stream as both pass through the length of the spray-drying chamber.
64
the nominal design if greater heat loss is assumed. The opposite is true for smaller
heat losses.
65
12.54
12.67
5.11
8.19
4.02
5.04
The collisions between the droplets can lead to either coalescence or breakage.
The reduction in the number of droplets indicates that most collisions occur when
the skin has already been formed, i.e. in the evaporation zone. This evidence
also is supported by the fact that the droplets of a larger size, greater than 100
microns (6th bin) are not formed, which may have been expected if there had been
coalescence.
The percentage of droplets in each bin that are destroyed due to collisions is
listed in Table 2.6. From the values in this table the number of droplets that are
lost as debris because of interparticle collision is significant. This has important
implications in the control of the final product size distribution, which is crucial
in some manufacturing processes.
66
67
tap = (1 ) part
where is the porosity of the packed bed and part is the density of the
particle. For a packed bed of spheres, = 0.45 [79]. The experimental tap
density varied between 0.05 to 0.5, whereas the tap density predicted by the
model for similar experimental conditions was found to be between 0.17 to
0.23. The predicted values are well within the range of the experimental tap
densities.
2.7 Summary
The modeling and design of a spray-drying chamber that manufactures hollow micro-particles was accomplished using a rate-based approach coupled with
a fundamental model of the heat- and mass-transfer processes that describe the
formation of hollow micro-particles. The different physical phenomena occurring
inside a representative were described. A first-principles model of these different
phenomena was developed. Due to the evaporation of the solvent, such a model
leads to a moving boundary problem with steep fronts. Therefore the model was
solved using a Gradient Weighted Finite Element technique. The time to skin formation was determined by solving the model at nominal conditions. The model
was further exercised to test the effects of different operating conditions (inlet
polymer concentration, inlet air temperature) and parameter uncertainty ( heat
68
69
Figure 2.6: Model predictions at design conditions. The polymer and temperature
profiles are those at the surface. : cP (polymer), 3 : (temperature), and 2 : X
(radius) [3].
70
0.8
Increasing time
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Dimensionless radial distance
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.4
Increasing time
0.2
0
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Dimensionless radial distance
Figure 2.7: Spatial polymer (top) and water (bottom) profiles during the evaporation step. : = 0.00, 2 : = 0.005, . : = 0.0057, 3 : = 0.0063, / : =
0.0080, 4 : = 0.0087, + : =0.0102, : = 0.0139 [3].
71
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.01
Dimensionless time
0.02
0.025
Figure 2.8: Polymer concentration profile at the surface for changes in the inlet
feed concentration. : +10%, 2 : +5%, 3 : nominal, 4 : -5%, and / : -10% [3].
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.005
0.01
0.015
Dimensionless time
0.02
0.025
Figure 2.9: Polymer concentration profile at the surface for changes in the air
temperature. : +50o C, 2 : +25o C, 3 : nominal, 4 : -25o C, and / : -50o C [3].
72
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.005
0.01
0.015
Dimensionless time
0.02
0.025
Figure 2.10: Polymer concentration profile at the surface to changes in the heat
transfer coefficient. : +25%, 2 : +15%, 3 : nominal, 4 : -15%, and / : -25% [3].
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.01
Dimensionless time
0.02
0.025
Figure 2.11: Polymer concentration profile at the surface for changes in the diffusivity coefficient. : +25%, 2 : +15%, 3 : nominal, 4 : -15%, and . : -25
[3].
73
Figure 2.12: Axial and radial trajectories of a 60 droplet starting from the point
of injection [22].
Figure 2.13: Axial and tangential velocities of the droplet as it travels the length
of the spray-drying chamber [22].
74
Figure 2.14: Polymer concentration at the surface of the droplet for the assumed
droplet distribution [22].
Figure 2.15: The size distribution at the inlet (top) and the outlet (bottom) of
the spray-drying chamber [22].
75
Figure 2.16: Temperatures of a representative droplet and the air stream as they
pass through the spray-drying chamber [22].
Figure 2.17: Effect of heat loss on air temperature. ?: 50% increase from the
nominal, : 50% decrease from the nominal, 4: nominal (20% heat loss) [22].
76
Figure 2.18: Effect of feed flowrate on the evaporation rate. Solid line: nominal;
dashed line: 15% increase; dotted line: 15% decrease [22].
Figure 2.19: Effect of air temperature on the evaporation rate. Solid line: nominal;
dashed line: 15% increase; dotted line: 15% decrease [22].
77
Figure 2.20: Effect of collisions on the final particle size distribution [22]
Figure 2.21: Effect of change in mean droplet size for a uniform inlet distribution,
Uniform droplet mean size of 60 microns (solid line), Uniform droplet mean size
of 80 microns (dashed line)
.
78
Figure 2.22: Effect of changes in inlet droplet size distribution, : Uniform droplet
size of 60 microns, ?: Log-normal (std. dev. = 30 microns) [22]
Figure 2.23: Comparison of the air temperature profile inside the chamber between
the experimental data: ?, /, . and 4 and the model predictions ()[22].
79
NOMENCLATURE
80
84
di Diameter of droplet, cm
m Mass of droplet, g
Vv Axial velocity of the representative droplet, cm s1
Latent heat of vaporization of solvent, 2260 J g1
D Diffusion coefficient between solvent and solute in the droplet, 1.25 109
m2 s1
Density of droplet, g cm3
Density of solution, kg m3
g Density of gas, 1.265 kg m3
s Density of solvent, 995 kg m3
tap Tap density of hollow particle, g cm3
Half angle of the spray with the vertical axis, degrees
Porosity of the packed bed
r Radial distance, m
X Particle state space vector
The thermal diffusivity of the solution, m2 /s
The thermal diffusivity of the solution
85
86
CHAPTER 3
OPTIMIZATION OVERVIEW
Design for a chemical process involves choosing the right equipment, sizing the
equipment to obtain an optimal size, flowsheet synthesis, and identifying operating
conditions under which the process will generate maximum profit.
Once a flowsheet has been selected, the optimum design parameters and operating conditions for the process to operate at maximum profit usually are determined
by solving an appropriately formulated optimization problem.
The chapter is organized as follows. In section 3.1, the basics of optimization
are introduced and the different types of optimization are classified. Section 3.2
deals with non-linear optimization problems. Section 3.3 provides a discussion on
mixed integer programming (MIP) and section 3.4 follows with a similar discourse
on dynamic optimization. A summary of the chapter follows in section 3.5.
87
88
4. Design variables.
Design or decision variables are variables whose values are changed to arrive at the optimal solution [81]. The design variables may be continuous
quantities like mass, volume, etc., or discrete quantities such as the number
of trays in a distillation column. The discrete variables may be integers or
non-integers. Examples of integer design variables include, the number of
trays in a distillation column, number of catalyst beds, etc. Design variables
may also be logical or boolean (0 or 1), generally referring to the presence
or absence of a particular unit [82].
A typical steady-state optimization problem may be formulated as follows,
min e(d)
d
(3.1)
g(d) 0
where d is the vector of design variables, e(d) is the objective function, h(d) and
g(d) are the equality constraints and inequality constraints, respectively. The
domain defined by the design variables is known as the design space. The region
within the design space which satisfies the set of constraints is called the feasible
region. The point within the feasible region where the objective function attains
its optimum value is called the optimum point. If the optimum lies outside the
feasible region then the solution is said to be infeasible.
89
90
the constrains are linear in the design variables. In many cases, the QP is
solved successfully using a least-squares minimization method and a unique
optimum is guaranteed.
Optimization problems can be further classified depending on the type of
design variables. For example, optimizations involving integer variables are
known as integer programming (IP) problems. When the design variables
consists of integer and continuous variables, the optimization is called a
mixed integer problem (MIP) which is further classified according to whether
the continuous problem is linear (MILP mixed integer linear programming)
or non-linear (MINLP mixed integer non-linear programming) in the design
variables.
If the process models or the objective function is dependent on time, the
optimization is said to be dynamic optimization (DP) [83].
Of the various types of optimization problems, the NLP, MINLP and DP problems
are the most common in chemical engineering. A classification of the different
optimization problems is shown in Figure 3.1.
91
Optimization
Dynamic
Steady state
Continuous
LP
Discrete
NLP
MILP
MINLP
(3.2)
g(d) 0
If both e(d) and g(d) are convex functions and h(d) is linear in d, the problem
is a convex NLP. The convex problem has the useful property that the solution is
unique and further, the local solution also is the global solution. If however, the
equality constraints are non-linear, the solution is not unique and multiple local
(minima) optima may exist. In this case, special techniques are used to solve this
class of global optimization problems, however these techniques do not guarantee
finding the global solution.
Another sub-class of the NLP problem is the LP problem. These are problems
92
min e(d)
d
(3.3)
subject to: A d = 0,
d dd .
where, A is the matrix of coefficients of the design variables and d` and du denote
the lower and upper bounds on the design variables respectively. Such problems
are usually solved using for example the simplex algorithm [80].
A number of methods have been developed to handle LP problems. The most
common is the simplex algorithm in its various forms, barrier methods [80] and
interior point methods [83]. The barrier or interior point methods are discussed
in subsection 3.2.3.
(3.4)
The necessary optimality conditions for unconstrained NLP problems are [84],
e(d) = 0
Second-order necessary conditions:
zT 2 e(d)z 0,
93
y <n
sk+1 = e(dk+1 ) + sk
T e(dk+1 )e(dk+1 )
T e(dk )e(dk )
Two directions si and sj are said to be conjugate if, given a positive-definite matrix Q,
(si )T Qsj = 0.
94
k
k T
k k k k T
k+1 = H
k + y (y ) (H d )(H d )
H
k dk
(dk )T yk
dk H
min e(d)
d
(3.5)
95
(3.6)
d,,
(3.7)
The Lagrange function provides the necessary optimal conditions for constrained
optimization problems (Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) optimality conditions). If
the vector of points d is the optimum then the KKT conditions are,
(3.8)
h(d ) = 0
(3.9)
g(d ) 0
(3.10)
Tj g(d ) = 0,
j = 1, 2, . . . , p
(3.11)
j 0,
j = 1, 2, . . . , p
(3.12)
zT 2 L(d, , )z 0
97
min e(d)
d
(3.13)
(3.14)
98
min e(d)
d
(3.15)
B(d) = e(d)
1
ln(g(d))
r
(3.16)
As the value of the inequality g(d) approaches zero (approaches the boundary) the barrier function becomes larger and thus pushes the solution away
from the boundary.
Gradient projection methods. The previous methods relied upon transforming the constrained optimization problem into an unconstrained problem or a series of unconstrained problems. The gradient projection methods
function by generating the negative gradient of the objective function. The
gradient provides a search direction for the optimum solution. The gradient
is projected onto the null space of the gradients of the equalities and inequalities [84]. The gradient projection methods may not result in a feasible
search direction if the constraints are non-linear.
Generalized reduced gradient (GRG) methods. The GRG methods are
99
based on the algorithm proposed by Wolfe [81]. The method finds the search
directions using the gradient of the objective function. By moving along the
gradient with an appropriate stepping procedure the optimal point is reached
[80]. The equality constraints are handled by converting one variable in terms
of another and using the objective function thus obtained to solve an unconstrained optimization problem. Inequality constraints are converted into
equality constraints through the use of slack variables [81].
Consider the non-linear optimization problem shown in Equation (3.1). The
inequality constraints can be converted into equality constraints by using
slack variables [81].
min e(w)
w
(3.17)
w` w wu
where w is the new set of variables including the slack variables and w` and
wu signify lower and upper bounds on w. The variables w are partitioned as
basic and non-basic variables, w = [wnb wb ]. The reduced search direction
is obtained as follows,
T
e
e
s=
Jwb
wnb
wb
(3.18)
where s is the search direction, wnb are non-basic variables, wb are basic
variables, and J denotes the Jacobian.
100
Successive linear programming methods The successive linear programming methods use a first-order Taylors series approximation around an initial point to convert the non-linear functions into approximate linear functions. The original variables are replaced by the deviations around the initial
point [80]. The resulting LP problem is solved until there is an improvement
in the value of the objective function. The values of the design variables thus
obtained now become the initial point for further linearization and resolving
of the resulting LP problem. This process is repeated until an optimum is
reached. The optimum for the successive LPs will be the optimum of the
original NLP if the original NLP is not highly non-linear. If it is highly
non-linear, the linear approximations may lead to totally incorrect search
directions.
Successive quadratic programming methods. Analogous to successive
linear programming methods, successive quadratic programming (SQP) methods exist that generate a quadratic approximation to the objective function.
The SQP approach also generates linear approximations to the constraints.
The approximate quadratic problem then can be solved in a number of ways.
The inequality constraints can be converted to equality constraints by the
use of slack variables [81].
101
min e(d, y)
d,y
(3.19)
g(d, y) 0
102
more difficult to solve than their counterparts and usually require a large computational effort due to the combinatorial nature of the discrete variables [80]. Any
value of the integer variable leads to an LP problem. Thus, as the number of
integer variables increase so does the complexity and solution time.
min cT d + f T y
d,y
subject to: A d + b y 0
where c and f are vectors of parameters; d and y are continuous and binary
variables, respectively; and A and b are coefficients associated with the inequality
constraints.
A brute force approach to examine all LPs formed due to the combinatorial
nature of the discrete variables is almost always an intractable problem. Thus,
different methods have been developed to solve MILP problems. The two most
popular approaches are the branch-and-bound algorithms and the cutting plane
algorithms.
Branch-and-bound methods. In this approach, the integer variables are
103
104
min e(d)
d
(3.21)
This problem is said to be in the primal form. The dual objective function of this
problem is obtained from the Lagrange function of the primal objective function.
That is,
max inf L(d, , )
,0
(3.22)
105
The class of MIPs where either the objective function or the constraints is nonlinear is called a mixed-integer non-linear programming (MINLP) problem. Nonlinearity can be exclusively in the integer domain (quadratic assignment model
[84]), exclusively in the continuous domain (input-output relationships between
flows, temperatures, etc.), or in a joint integer-continuous domain.
MINLP problems arise in chemical engineering processes. For example, the
integration of design and control [52, 15, 42, 50], batch process design [84], and
the design of multi-product plants [48, 49].
These problems combine the complexity arising due to the combinatorial tendency of the discrete variables with the non-linearity in the continuous variables
[84] and therefore are quite difficult to solve. However, a few algorithms have had
success with solving this problem. These algorithms are based on decomposition
approaches that make use of the duality of the optimization problem. Two of the
more common approaches are outlined.
106
problem is not.
3. A well known structure of the problem results, for which efficient algorithms already are available to find a solution.
In the GBD, at each step, the original problem is split into the dual problem
and the primal problem using the duality of the original problem. The primal
problem generates upper bounds on the solution while the dual problem
generates the lower bounds.
Consider the original MINLP problem given by,
(3.23)
g(d, y) 0
The primal problem is obtained by fixing the y-variables and solving the resultant problem only in the d-space. The primal problem at the k th iteration
can be stated as,
min e(d, yk ) d <n
d
107
(3.24)
<
min
y
subject to:
e(dk , yk ) + y e(dk , yk ) (y yk ) +
(3.25)
g(dk , yk ) + y g(dk , yk ) (y yk )
k
k g(dk , yk ) + y g(dk , yk ) (y yk ) 0
d <n
108
problem. Update the upper bound. If the difference between the upper
and lower bounds are smaller than some user-defined error criterion,
terminate the program, the solution found at this iterate is the optimal
solution. If the criterion does not hold, the solution of the primal
problem is used in the next iteration of the master problem. If the
solution of the master problem is found to be infeasible, solve instead a
feasible problem i.e., the primal problem is re-solved at the point where
it became infeasible using certain minimization procedures [90]. Once
a feasible solution to the primal problem is obtained, the Lagrange
multipliers are found and the master problem is resolved.
Other variations on the procedure associated with applying the GBD are
available based on the calculation of the Lagrangian in the master problem
(3.25) and on whether the master problem objective function can actually
be calculated. The interested reader is referred to Floudas [84] for further
information.
Outer Approximation (OA). The outer approximation method and its
variants are based on decomposing the initial problem into primal and master
problems. The OA methods exploit the convexity of the objective function
(if present or the objective function is transformed to a convex problem)
and the constraints to generate an outer approximation (linearization) to
the original problem. The convex problem is an MILP and provides lower
109
bounds on the original problem. The MILP forms the master problem while
the primal problem is obtained by choosing particular values of the discrete
variables. The steps in the OA algorithm are as follows:
The primal problem (Equation (3.24)) is solved for different constant
values of the discrete variables.
Using the solution of the primal problem, the master problem is formulated by linearizing the objective function and constraints and using
the duality of the original problem.
<
min
y
d d
k
yy
(3.26)
d dk
0
g(d , y ) + g(d , y )
y yk
k
d <n
The solution of these problem gives the corresponding values of both
discrete and continuous variables. The master problem provides the
lower bound on the solution while the primal problem provides the
upper bound and both the dual objective function and the primal objective function are non-decreasing and non-increasing (monotonic), respectively. Therefore, after a finite number of iterations, the upper and
110
tf
F(x, d, u, p)dt
0
x0 = 0
g(x, d, u, p) = 0
(3.27)
xL x xU
dL d dU
uL u uU
tf ` tf tf u
where tf is the final time, F is the objective function, is the objective function
at the final time, x are the state variables, u are the control variables, and p are
parameters of the system, such as the heat transfer coefficient, etc. There are
usually two approaches to solve this class of problems. The first is the variational
111
approach based on the variational principle [28, 91] and the other is the full or
partial discretization approach [28, 92].
(3.28)
where (t) are time-dependent multipliers [28]. The above equation is often referred to as the Hamiltonian. The necessary conditions for optimality of the solution to Equation (3.28) are given by the weak maximum principle [28],
Theorem 3.4.1. Weak Maximum Principle
In order for a control u to be optimal, the Hamiltonian H must be maximum
along the unconstrained portions of the control trajectory,
H
= 0, with the timeu
(tf ) =
x
is the objective function defined in Equation (3.27). Using the maximum
principle, a boundary value problem is developed, which is solved along with
the constraints. The variational method is computationally expensive and not
112
feasible for larger problems [83]. Therefore, discretization techniques have been
formulated based on discretizing the control variables or both the control and the
state variables in the time domain. Partial discretization methods are classified
as either dynamic programming or direct sequential methods.
ui (t) =
s
X
aij ij (t)
j=1
Using an NLP solver, the values of aij are determined to optimize the objective function. The choice of trial functions is important because the trial
functions also determine the functional form of the control variables. This
113
ui (t) =
s
X
aij ij (t)
j=1
The variables aij form one set of unknowns. The other set of unknowns is
the state variables. Thus, at every stage, the differential-algebraic system
is solved for the values of the coefficients and the state variables. While at
every stage, the constraints have to be satisfied, between different stages, the
solution may not remain feasible. This infeasibility is handled by specifying
using interior point penalty (barrier) functions (Equation(3.16)).
Collocation Methods. In this method, the state and control variables are
discretized in time using appropriate trial functions [94]. Biegler et al. have
114
used Lagrange polynomials to approximate the state variables [95]; Mahadevan et al have used wavelets to approximate the state and control variable
variables [96]. The advantages of the collocation methods are that the methods (i) allow the control variables to be discretized to the same accuracy as
differential and algebraic state variables, (ii) can address unstable modes and
(iii) can be used in conjunction with moving finite element methods [76] for
accurate DAE solutions [83]. Applications of these methods have been in the
area of model order reduction and model-based control [97] and parameter
estimation [98].
3.5 Summary
This chapter provided a review of different types of optimization problems
and the techniques that may be used to solve these problems. This sets the
background for a later chapter where both steady-state optimization and dynamic
optimization are used to obtain the optimal design and the optimal controller of
a spray dryer. The study of the methods used for solving MINLP problems is
useful to understand the different decomposition techniques used for handling the
problem of simultaneous design and control.
115
NOMENCLATURE
116
117
CHAPTER 4
SIMULTANEOUS DESIGN AND CONTROL
4.1 Introduction
The design of the process is a steady state concept that results in a process
flowsheet of connected unit operations. On the other hand, the operation of the
process at the designed conditions is not a steady state proposition. Rather, the
process is subjected constantly to disturbances in the feed operating conditions,
utility conditions, and infrequent phenomena such as fouling, catalyst poisoning
or inactivity, and product requirement changes. An approach to account for these
disturbances during the design phase is to employ safety factors, which are typically based on experiential knowledge. Often, these safety factors are overdesigns
of a release valve or capacity of a vessel; or redundancy in the number and type
of unit operation. These add-ons, in many instances, drive the process economics
to less than the true optimum, which may lead to discarding the process flowsheet for the wrong reasons than for the right ones. Another means to address
disturbances is during the controller synthesis phase that serially follows process
design.
Traditionally, design and control have been developed in a sequential manner
with the control structure synthesis following the design. A simplified list of the
decision steps involved in generating a sequential design and control strategy once
the process flowsheet is known, is shown in Figure 4.1. In a design project, differ-
118
119
120
4.2 Introduction
Consider the following design problem,
g(d) 0
(4.1)
Here, d are design variables, e(d) is the objective function, and h(d) and g(d)
represent the equality and inequality constraints, respectively [80, 81].
121
min
L(x(t), u(t)) dt
(x(T), T) +
u(t),x(t),t0
t0
(4.2)
subject to: x(t)
= f (x(t), u(t), t)
(u(t), t) 0,
(x(T), T) = 0,
x(t0 ) = x0
where u(t) are the manipulated variables; x(t) are design variables; and (u(t), t)
and (x(T ), T ) are constraints; (x(T ), T ) is the terminal cost function; L(x(t), u(t))
is the running cost, x0 is the initial state of the process; and T represents time
horizon for the process to meet the endpoint constraints. For continuous processes, T is selected to be a multiple of the largest open-loop time constant, while
for batch processes, T is usually the final batch time [42].
The design and control problems in Equations (6.1) and (6.2) are solved sequentially in a traditional framework. Thus, the optimal values of the design
variables that affect the process flowsheet are found first. The design variables are
fixed at these optimal values and a control structure is developed in response to
these design variables. Since the design variables are fixed, any dynamic coupling
between the design and control variables only can be addressed on the control
side. It is possible that a process design that may be optimal in the steady state
sense may not admit a feasible control structure. If however, control issues are
considered during the design phase, infeasibility may be avoided.
Simultaneous optimization of design and control is a multi-objective optimiza-
122
tion problem which may be stated by combining Equations (6.1) and (6.2). Thus,
the simultaneous design and optimization problem can be formulated as follows
[28, 45, 91],
ZT
min
L(x(t), u(t)) dt
e(d) + (x(T), T) +
u(t),x(t),t0 ,d
t0
subject to:
x(t)
= f (x(t), u(t), t, d)
(u(t), t) 0,
h(d) = 0,
(x(T), T) = 0,
(4.3)
x(t0 ) = x0
g(d) 0
123
parameters are assumed to vary within a known range. This distinction between
the design and operating stages leads to a decomposition. In the operating stage,
the optimization problem is solved by fixing the design variables over a range of
uncertainty. The control variables found for an optimum operating stage are then
used as parameters in the optimization of the design stage. The decomposition
approach of Grossmann and coworkers has been extended by others to incorporate
dynamic aspects, for example, the work by Pistikopoulos and coworkers [52, 50, 51]
to incorporate a dynamic analysis of the process design and controller synthesis.
Floudas et al. considered open-loop controllability measures such as the minimum singular value, relative gain array or the Integral Squared Error (ISE) within
the framework of a multi-objective design optimization problem to account for the
effect of design and control [42]. Floudas et al. make use of several controllability criteria in the design phase. Thus, the objective function in the formulation
of the optimization problem reflects the controllability measures chosen. The constraint method [84], where the control objective is treated as a constraint, is
used to convert the multi-objective optimization formulation to a single objective optimization. The resultant optimization problem is solved using generalized
Benders decomposition and outer approximation methods [90].
Narraway and Perkins propose a back-off method that involves generating a
set of optimal plants. It is expected that the optimum can be found at one of the
constraints. Then, the set of plants are backed away from the active constraints;
the candidate process that requires the least costs in the new sub-optimal location
124
the solution obtained from the operating stage is minimized over the range of
uncertain parameters.
Let represent a vector of parameters (L
U ) with bounded
(4.4)
where it is assumed that a feasible design can be found. The optimal solution,
C (d, ), represents the optimal operation of the process over a bounded range of
uncertainty [49].
In the design stage, C (d, ) is minimized over the range of parameters. The
design stage optimization problem is formulated as,
min C (d, )
d
(4.5)
jJ
The condition (d) 0, implies that at critical values of , points at which the
126
constraints are most likely violated, there exists a feasible design. To reduce the
computational burden, the cost function is discretized over the parameter space.
The important contributions of the approach of Grossmann and coworkers are
the decomposition technique and the incorporation of process flexibility [48, 49].
However, their approach (i) does not include control effects during the design and
(ii) is restricted to multi-period but steady-state problems, i.e. the assumption
that the transients between different operating stages are negligible [48]. Pistikopoulos et al. [50] and Floudas et al. [43] extended the decomposition technique
to simultaneous design and control problems.
Mohideen et al. [52] addresses control effects by using a similar decomposition
to that proposed by Grossmann [48, 49] wherein a particular type of control structure is assumed and related costs of implementing the control scheme are used
in the objective function of the multi-objective optimization. Another important
feature of the work by Mohideen is the addition of a check on dynamic feasibility
of the process design. The simultaneous design and control optimization strategy
developed by Mohideen et al. [52] are shown in Figure 4.2.
The multi-period optimization problem is formulated in a manner similar to
Grossmann [49]. However, Mohideen et al. choose discrete values of the parameters to generate a finite number of scenarios as opposed to Grossmann [48, 49],
who considered all possible values of the parameters. Choosing discrete scenarios reduces the computational burden of solving the optimization problem. The
cost function in the current case (Equation (4.6)) , explicitly considers the costs
127
Initialization
Assume critical
scenarios
Determine Optimal Design
and Control Scheme
Update Critical
Scenarios
Figure 4.2: Steps in the simultaneous design and control approach of [52].
incurred due to a control structure along with the cost function proposed by Grossmann [49]. The simultaneous optimization problem is then given as,
d,y,vv
(4.6)
where xa (t) are algebraic variables, y are integer variables, vv (t) are the setpoints
and are parameters.
128
vv
max
jJ,t[0,tf ]
129
130
ables found for the leader optimization problem parameterize the follower
problem. The follower problem is then optimized to find a set of optimal
decision variables for both the design and control problems.
To solve the leader problem, initial estimates of the control decision variables
are required. Care has to be taken that the initial control decision variables
are feasible.
In the nested optimization framework, the problem is formulated as follows,
ZT
L(x(t), u(t)) dt
t0
g(d) 0
ZT
Follower:
min
(x(T ), T ) +
L(x(t), u(t)) dt
(4.7)
u(t),x(t),t0
t0
(x(T ), T ) = 0 x(t0 ) = x0
where wp and wc are vectors of weights used to specify the relative importance of
the process design to the controller design. The strategy is illustrated schematically in Figure 4.3.
Ulsoy and coworkers have shown that there is some degree of coupling between
the design and the control. Their approach is based on solving the proposed
bi-level optimization problem, thus, they quantify the coupling term based on
the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions for optimality and Pontryagins maximum
132
133
134
(4.8)
The reactor effluent stream (product B and unreacted A) is the feed to the flash
drum where A and B are separated at a constant pressure. Unreacted A is returned
to the reactor while the product B is removed from the system. A schematic of
the flowsheet is shown in Figure (4.4).
= F0 F
d(V CA )
= F0 CA0 F CA V kCA
dt
d(V T )
dt
V kCA U AH (T TJ )
= F0 T0 F T
CP
CP
TJ
dt
FJ (TJ0 TJ ) U A(T TJ )
+
VJ
J VJ CJ
136
(4.9)
Flash drum
2
P
j=1
2
P
xj
= 1
yj
= 1
j=1
Fv
= f Fin
Fl
= (1 f ) Fin
(4.10)
j=1
2
P
xj M wj
j=1
where subscripts J and f stand for the jacketed CSTR and the flash drum, respectively; and subscripts l and v stand for liquid and vapor phases, respectively.
All of unreacted A recovered from the flash is recycled back to the reactor,
F0 = Ff resh + Fv
138
Definition
Heat transfer area
Feed mole fraction of A
Heat capacity of coolant
Heat capacity of process liquids
Feed composition of A
Flash drum diameter
Reactor exit flowrate
Feed flowrate
Reactor inlet flowrate
Steam flowrate
Flash drum vapor flowrate
Flash drum liquid flowrate
Vapor product molecular weight
Molecular weight of component j
Reactor temperature
Initial feed temperature
Jacket temperature
Inlet jacket temperature
Overall heat transfer coefficient
CSTR volume
Fraction of feed that is vaporized
Reaction rate
Flash drum fluid
Liquid mole fractions of component j
Initial liquid mole fraction of component A
Vapor mole fractions of component j
Heat of vaporization
Density of the process liquids
Liquid and vapor densities
Coolant density
Variable
A
CA
CP
CP
CA0
Df
F
Fin
F0
FJ
Fv
Fl
Mv
M wj
T
T0
TJ
TJ0
U
V
f
k
v
xj
xo
yj
l , v
j
Units
ft2
Dimensionless
Btu-(lbm-o R)1
Btu-(lbm-o R)1
lbmol-ft3
ft
ft3 h1
ft3 h1
ft3 h1
ft3 h1
ft3 h1
ft3 h1
lb-(lbmol)1
lb-(lbmol)1
o
R
o
R
o
R
o
R
Btu-(s-ft2 -o R)1
ft3
Dimensionless
s1
ft h1
Dimensionless
Dimensionless
Dimensionless
Btu/lbmol
lbm-ft3
lbm-ft3
lb-ft3
500 TJ 725
(4.11)
XA 0.7
r
Mv Fv
Df 1.27
45 v v
Conversion of A
0 Fl 100
0 FJ 200
0.8 yB 1.0
Fl ,FJ
((XA XA )2 + (f f )2 ) dt
t0
z [CA , T, TJ ]
fF (Fl , Fv , x, y, Df ) = 0
(4.12)
500 T 725
500 TJ 725
XA 0.7
0.8 xB 1.0
0 Fl 100
0 FJ 200
The optimization results for the sequential procedure are given in Tables 4.2
and 4.3) while the results for the nested optimization procedure are given in Tables
4.4 and 4.5. Since the optimum value of the control objective functions are much
smaller than that of the design objective functions, a normalization is appropriate. Let each of the sequential objective functions have a value of 1. The bi-level
objective functions are taken to be whatever fraction they are of their corresponding sequential objective function i.e. the leader objective function corresponds to
the sequential design objective function since both optimizations are carried out
over the design variables; while the follower objective function of the bi-level optimization is taken to be correspond to the sequential dynamic optimization. The
normalized bi-level objective function is about 15% of the sequential objective
function. This shows that the two solutions are very different. The bi-level optimization strategy can provide better results especially when the coupling between
140
Variable
Design variable
Design variable
Objective function
Optimum
V
39.0 ft3
f
0.2905
0.5 (V 2 + Df6 ) 3.707e5
Variable
Optimum
FJ
Fl
Control variable
Control variable
Ztf
Objective function
((XA XA )2 + (f f )2 ) dt 5.45e-4
t0
4.7 Summary
In this chapter, the integration between process design and controller design
was introduced. The consideration of the controller design during the process
design stage itself was motivated. Different techniques for integration of design
and control were discussed.
The bi-level strategy proposed by Ulsoy et al. [44, 45] was compared to the
traditional serial strategy on a simple example that of a combined continuous
stirred-tank reactor and flash drum. The results indicate the potential of the bilevel strategy when there is strong coupling between the process design and the
controller design. The bi-level strategy is preferred over the simultaneous optimization of the design and control problems because of the reduced computational
141
Variable
Optimum
Design variable
Design variable
Objective function
V
f
0.5 (V 2 + Df6 )+
48.23 ft3
0.2425
1.035e5
Ztf
((XA XA )2 + (f f )2 )dt
t0
Variable
Optimum
FJ
Fl
Control variable
Control variable
Ztf
Objective function
((XA XA )2 + (f f )2 ) dt 3.27e-7
t0
Dynamic obj
Norm sum
Product purity
5.45e-4
3.27e-7 (follower)
2
0.3
0.91
0.91
burden.
142
NOMENCLATURE
143
y Integer variables
(x, t) Terminal cost function
(x(T), T) End point constraints on the state variables
(u(t), t) Constraints on the manipulated variables
Vector of uncertain parameters
144
CHAPTER 5
SPRAY DRYER CONTROL
In this chapter, it is assumed that the spray dryer design is complete and a
control strategy is to be designed to regulate the product properties.
In spray drying, the control objective is to regulate the moisture content in
the final product and the final particle size. If on-line particle size measurements
are available, these measurements can be used directly for controller synthesis.
One such control scheme has been demonstrated by Allen et al. [36] where they
used on-line particle size measurements to develop a cascaded proportional-integral
(PI) control strategy to regulate the average particle size for a spray dryer. The
reliability of the on-line sensor was not discussed. The manipulated variable chosen
was the nozzle air flowrate. Other, control schemes are discussed by Masters [8].
On-line measurements of the solvent concentration in the product and product
particle size are difficult to obtain [107]. Since the simplest of control strategy,
feedback regulation, relies on measurements of the controlled variables, then estimates of these variables must be obtained from other measurements.
This work discusses three different control schemes in brief and provides some
guidelines for the synthesis of a control strategy for the spray dryer introduced in
chapter 2. A way to regulate the product quality is to maintain the outlet temperature of the product. The product quality is inferred from the outlet temperature.
The regulation of the outlet temperature can be achieved either by varying the feed
145
146
output. The control structure is implemented on the spray dryer system and the
closed-loop performance in the face of disturbances are presented and analyzed.
The remainder of the chapter is organized as follows: The next section 5.1
explains the concept of inferential modeling. Section 5.2.1 develops two principal
component regression (PCR) models to estimate the final particle size (particle
diameter) and residual moisture content (fraction of solvent in particles). The
control structure used for the regulation of the spray dryer is discussed in section
5.3 along with results for disturbance rejection. A summary of the work done is
given in section 5.4.
147
(PCR), and multiple linear regression (MLR) [39, 114, 115]. Related methods
include the class of ARMA (auto-regressive moving average) models [116] and
NARMA (non-linear auto-regressive moving average) models of which artificial
neural networks is a special class [117, 118].
If first-principles models of the process are available, then state estimation
techniques that can be used to develop a state estimator include the Kalman filter
and its variants [32], and the Luenberger observer [119]. The Kalman filter is a
stochastic state estimator which seeks to reduce the variances in the unmeasured
output variables [28]. The primary limitations on the Kalman filter are the assumed distributions on the process and measurement noise and the convergence
of the covariance of the state errors.
In some cases however, using a state estimator is not possible or feasible. For
instance, if the measurement of the primary variable has a large delay or if the
amount of computational effort in synthesizing the estimator is prohibitively high,
as is the case for distributed systems, then statistical process control methods such
as PCR and PLS may be used to provide estimates of desired variables from other
available measurements. For example, Rokhlenko et al. [120] developed a robust
estimator for a continuous-stirred tank system.
148
k = 1, . . . , n
(5.1)
149
the data set quite accurately, especially if the data are collinear. The PCs are found
in an ordered manner, with the first PC accounting for the greatest direction of
variability, the second PC for the second greatest direction of variability and so
on. By selecting only the first few this reduces the dimensionality of the data.
The neglected PCs are usually process noise.
The projection of the set X is given by
X = TPT + E
(5.2)
where P Rnl is a matrix whose columns are the eigenvectors of the covariance
matrix of X. The matrix P also is called the loadings matrix. The matrix T
Rml is called the scores matrix and consists of coefficients that also are the
coordinates of the X variables in the principal component space. The error vector,
E, is due to considering less than n number of PCs [38].
150
(5.3)
B = (TT T)1 TT Y.
(5.4)
In the spray dryer studied, the measurable output variables are the air temperatures. The nominal operating conditions are the design conditions listed in
Chapter 2 and tabulated in Table 5.1 for the readers convenience.
Table 5.1: Nominal Operating Conditions
Operating parameters
Value
Value
1
2
3
4
451.95
100.54
1.1
0.06
Figure 5.1 compares the temperatures reconstructed from the first two PCs to
the data.
Using the scores obtained from the projection of the temperature data onto
the first two PCs, PCR models of the residual moisture content and final particle
size are developed. The PCA scores are regressed against the residual moisture
content and final particle size data, respectively. The models obtained are,
Dp = 3.67 10
where RMC is the residual moisture content, Dp is the final droplet size and Ti
152
153
Figure 5.3: Predictions of final particle size (diameter). Comparison of the PCR
model predictions to data. Solid line: Full model. Dashed line: PCR predictions.
154
y*
yp
Controller
Plant
yest
Inferential
model
ys
0.6914 0.3086
RGA =
0.3086 0.6914
where
(5.6)
u=
y=
155
The selected pairing is checked for structural stability using the Niederlinski
index [30]. If the Niederlinski index (N ) is less than zero then the pairing is structurally unstable. This result is both necessary and sufficient for a 22 system. The
Niederlinski index for this system is 1.45. Thus the proposed control-manipulated
pairing is structurally stable.
The velocity form of the PI control law is implemented. The form was presented
in Chapter 1 but is repeated here for the readers convenience,
D
t
pk = Kc (k k1 ) +
k +
(k 2k1 + k2 )
I
t
The two PI loop parameters, the gain (Kc ) and the reset time (I ) are selected
to reject disturbances in the feed composition and the feed flowrate. The values
of the tuning parameters for both controllers are listed in Table 5.3. The particlesize controller is a reverse acting controller, i.e. the output increases as the input
increases while the residual moisture content controller is a direct acting controller.
The performance of the controllers is shown in Figures 5.5 and 5.6. Figure
5.5 shows the closed-loop performance for a 10% decrease in the polymer feed
concentration. The residual moisture content initially decreases before returning
to its nominal value. The controller responds by decreasing the air flowrate. Due to
the decrease, less water is evaporated and therefore, the residual moisture content
remains constant. The process takes about 26 seconds to return to the nominal
value from the time the disturbance occurs. The maximum overshoot is 0.023. A
156
decrease in the feed concentration of the polymer means there is more water in
the droplets. To keep residual moisture content constant, the air flowrate should
increase. This is shown in Figure 5.7.
Figure 5.6 shows the closed-loop performance of the particle size loop. As can
be seen from the RGA, there is some cross-interaction between these two loops.
Hence, the controllers are de-tuned to diminish some of the cross-interaction. The
settling time is about 40 seconds for the mean particle diameter. The maximum
overshoot is 0.76103 cm. The inlet particle diameter is shown in Figure 5.8. As
the feed concentration decreases, the inlet droplet size decreases to adjust for the
final particle size becoming larger.
Table 5.3: The PI controller parameters.
Loop
Kc
I
Particle size
Residual moisture
Figure 5.6: Closed-loop performance of the mean particle diameter to a 10% decrease in polymer feed concentration. Dashed line: desired setpoint.
158
Figure 5.7: Air flowrate response to a 10% decrease in polymer feed concentration.
Figure 5.8: Inlet droplet mean diameter to a 10% decrease in polymer feed concentration.
159
overshoot is 0.0525 for the residual moisture content and 1.15103 for the mean
particle diameter. As the feed flowrate increases, the air flowrate also increases as
more water also is fed to the spray dryer. At the same time, an increase in the
amount of water leads to an increase in the feed droplet size. Figure 5.11 shows
the response of the air flowrate while Figure 5.12 shows the response of the feed
droplet size.
5.4 Summary
In this chapter, a simple feedback control strategy that uses a proportionalintegral (PI) control law was used to regulate product residual moisture content
and the mean particle size. The manipulated variables used were the input droplet
size and the inlet air flowrate. It was noted that the controlled variables cannot be
directly measured on-line in realtime. To address this problem, linear inferential
sensors using principal component regression (PCR) were developed. The PCR
models predictions appear to capture the relationship between the air temperature measurements and the controlled variables satisfactorily. The PCR models
were used in an inferential control strategy. Proportional-integral controllers were
synthesized and tuned to reject disturbances in the feed composition and feed
flowrate. Due to multivariable interactions between the input and output variables, the PI controllers were de-tuned, providing sluggish closed-loop responses.
160
Figure 5.12: Inlet droplet mean diameter response to a 15% increase in feed
flowrate.
162
CHAPTER 6
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BI-LEVEL OPTIMIZATION STRATEGY
In this chapter, the bi-level optimization strategy is applied to the spray dryer
system and compared to the solution found using the sequential strategy.
The chapter is organized as follows. Section 6.1 re-iterates the concepts of sequential optimization. The bi-level optimization concepts are discussed in section
6.2. The spray dryer problem as a case study is presented in section 6.3 and the
results obtained by using the sequential and bi-level optimization strategies are
compared. The results are summarized in section 6.4.
subject to:
h(d) = 0
(6.1)
g(d) 0
where d are design variables, e(d) is the objective function, and h(d) and g(d)
represent the equality and inequality constraints, respectively.
163
min
L(x(t), u(t)) dt
(x(T), T) +
u(t),x(t),t0
t0
(6.2)
subject to: x(t)
= f (x(t), u(t), t)
(u(t), t) 0,
(x(T), T) = 0,
x(t0 ) = x0
where u(t) are the manipulated variables; x(t) are design variables; and (u(t), t)
and (x(T), T) are constraints; (x(T ), T ) is the terminal cost function; L(x(t), u(t))
is the running cost, x0 is the initial state of the process; and T represents time
horizon for the process to meet the endpoint constraints.
The design and control problems in Equations (6.1) and (6.2) are solved sequentially in a traditional framework. The design problem is solved first subject to
the steady state model of the process and other equality and inequality constraints.
The optimal control problem pertains to choosing the operating conditions to minimize some objective function. Since any coupling between design and control is
neglected, it is possible that a process design that is optimal in the steady state
sense may not admit a feasible control structure [45, 46]. One technique of trying
to improve the process and controller optima is to iterate between the design and
control optimizations [44]. In the iterative technique an initial plant and controller
design is available. The design objective is then optimized without compromising
the control objective. Thus, the control objective appears as a constraint in the
design problem. Next, the control objective, Equation (6.2), is optimized with the
164
optimum design variables parameterizing the control problem. The two optimization problems are solved repeatedly until there is further improvement in either
objective functions.
The effect of design on control can be accounted for explicitly by solving the
design and control problem simultaneously. Simultaneous optimization of design
and control is a multi-objective optimization problem which may be stated by combining Equations (6.1) and (6.2). Thus, the simultaneous design and optimization
problem can be formulated as follows [28, 45, 91],
ZT
min
e(d) + (x(T), T) +
L(x(t), u(t)) dt
u(t),x(t),t0 ,d
t0
subject to:
x(t)
= f (x(t), u(t), t, d)
(u(t), t) 0,
h(d) = 0,
(x(T), T) = 0,
(6.3)
x(t0 ) = x0
g(d) 0
Leader:
ZT
L(x(t), u(t), d) dt
t0
g(d) 0
ZT
Follower:
min
L(x(t), u(t)) dt
(x(T ), T ) +
(6.4)
u(t),x(t),t0
t0
(x(T ), T ) = 0 x(t0 ) = x0
where wp and wc are vectors of weights used to specify the relative importance of
the plant design to the controller design.
166
of operating the equipment, i.e. the cost of utilities and the cost of the feedstock.
The utility costs are obtained from [80]. A reliable source for the product pricing wasnt available. Hence, the product price has been estimated from various
supplier catalogs. The objective function for the design problem is given by,
The dimensions of the chamber, the residence time and the hot gas inlet temperature are chosen as the design variables. The solvent is water while the heating
gas is air. Thus, the steady state design optimization problem for the spray dryer
is formulated as follows,
Design problem:
subject to:
max
Lc ,Dc ,T1 ,r
e(Lc , Dc , T1 , r )
Design Model = 0
(6.5)
where FRateW is the amount of water in the spray, Water is the price per unit of
water, FRateA is the air flowrate, Air is the cost per unit of air, FRateP is the
amount of polymer used and Polymer is the cost per unit of polymer. Production Rate, ProdRate, is the amount of product obtained while D is the cost of
a unit mass of product (micro-particles). The optimization is carried out using
c
gPROMS
(PSE, Inc., UK) software environment. The results of the optimiza-
tion are tabulated in Table 6.1. The residence time obtained from the sequential
167
Symbol
Optimal value
Air temperature
Length of the chamber
Diameter of the chamber
Residence time
Objective Function
T1
Lc
Dc
r
640 K
0.61 m
0.55 m
2.55 s
0.0056 $/s
168
din ,Wg
t0
subject to:
Lumped Model
(6.6)
where RMC is the residual moisture content, Dp is the final particle size, and Wg
is the air flowrate. The manipulated variables are the inlet mean droplet size and
the inlet air flowrate. The optimization is carried out over a horizon of 50 seconds
and the manipulated variables are discretized into five regions of 10 seconds each.
The manipulated variables are assumed to be piece-wise constant in each region.
The optimal trajectory for the residual moisture content is shown in the Figure
6.3. The remaining results are tabulated in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: Sequential optimal control of the spray dryer
Name
Air flowrate
Inlet droplet size
Objective Function
39.7 g/s
0.006 cm
0.1158
169
The choice of 1/2 means that both the design and control problems are of equal
importance.
The leader problem is:
ZT
max
Lc ,Dc ,T1 ,r
0.5e(Lc , Dc , T1 , r ) 0.5
t0
subject to:
Lumped Model
0.005 cm din 0.012 cm
20 g/s Wg 90 /s
360 K Tout 450 K
(6.7)
The results from the leader problem parameterize the follower problem which
is a pure optimal trajectory problem. The results from the leader problem are
170
Symbol
Optimal value
Air temperature
Length of the chamber
Diameter of the chamber
Objective Function
T1
Lc
Dc
800 K
0.52 m
0.48 m
0.054
tabulated in Table 6.3. The residence time obtained from the nested optimization
is 1.88 s. The optimal trajectory is shown in the Figure 6.4. It can be seen
that the manipulated variable in the nested strategy does not make large moves
as compared to that in the sequential strategy. This may be due to the higher
temperature the bi-level design is operating at as seen in the Table 6.3.
Table 6.4: Bi-level optimal control of the spray dryer: Follower
Name
Symbol
Air flowrate
Inlet droplet size
Objective Function
Wg
din
-
32.01 g/s
60e-6 m
0.1023
171
An alternative is to subtract the objective function value of the follower problem from the leader problem. The difference roughly represents the weighted
design objective function. In this problem, the choice of the weights makes this
easier. These design objective function values are presented in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5: Comparison of bi-level and sequential optimization strategy (design)
Name
Optimal Value
0.0058
0.0056
The optimal control objective functions of the two strategies can be compared
directly (see Table 6.6).
Table 6.6: Comparison of bi-level and sequential optimization strategy (optimal
control)
Name
Optimal Value
0.1023
0.1158
172
increase). These results indicate that the controller in the bi-level optimization
works less than the controller in the sequential strategy. While the bi-level design
is a little less profitable, it is more controllable and more flexible. Table 6.7 lists
the controller objective functions for different constraints.
Table 6.7: Comparison of bi-level and sequential optimization strategy (optimal
control) for different constraints
Constraint
0.1205
0.1932
0.3954
0.2452
0.3252
0.4401
6.4 Summary
In this chapter, a bi-level optimization strategy was applied to the spray dryer
system. The bi-level strategy was compared to the traditional sequential strategy
and was found to be superior to the sequential strategy. The bi-level was also found
173
to be more flexible than the sequential design and control strategy. In addition,
the bi-level strategy is guaranteed to obtain the optimum if it is initialized from
a feasible point [44]. This is not the case with a sequential optimization strategy.
Indeed, it is possible in a sequential optimization to arrive at a design which admits
no feasible controller but has great return on investment. In the bi-level strategy,
since the control is considered along with the design itself, the design will always
have a feasible controller associated with it.
174
Figure 6.1: Comparison between lumped model (dashed line) and full model (<)
for final mean particle size.
Figure 6.2: Comparison between lumped model (dashed line) and full model (<)
for residual moisture content.
175
Figure 6.3: Optimal trajectory for residual moisture content (top) along with
trajectory for air flowrate (bottom).
176
Figure 6.4: Optimal trajectory for residual moisture content (top) along with
trajectory for air flowrate (bottom) for the bi-level strategy.
177
178
NOMENCLATURE
179
180
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK
This work has contributions in the area of modeling and design of spray dryers,
spray dryer control and integration of design and control. These will be summarized in the following sections.
181
were modelled using empirical expressions. This model was validated against
experimental data of the air temperatures taken along the length of the spray
dryer. The heat and mass transfer between the droplet phase and air also was
modelled. This model, known as the design model, consisted of a system of five
partial differential equations. These equations were solved in a Lagrangian frame
of reference to actually track individual particles. his model was then used to
develop a design of a spray dryer to manufacture hollow micro-particles.
182
7.5 Contributions
A first-principles model for phenomena on a single droplet was developed.
This model was solved using a Gradient Weighted Moving Finite Element
(GWMFE) method. This work resulted in a refereed publication.
V.S. Shabde, S.V. Emets, U. Mann, K. A. Hoo, N.N. Carlson and G.M.
Gladysz (2005) Modeling a hollow particle production process, Computers
and Chemical Engineering, 29: 2420-2428, 2005.
A theoretic approach to design of spray dryers was developed based on first
principles modeling of the spray drying process. This work resulted in a
184
refereed publication.
V.S. Shabde and K.A. Hoo(2006) Design and Operation of a Spray Dryer
for the Manufacture of Hollow Micro-particles, Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Research, 2006.
An inferential control strategy for regulating the product moisture and mean
particle size of a spray drying system was developed. This work will be
submitted for refereed publication.
A bi-level optimization strategy was presented for the integration of design
and control. This strategy was applied to the spray dryer system to demonstrate its efficacy. This work will be submitted for refereed publication.
185
APPENDIX A
Lumped model of the spray dryer
The lumped model of the spray dryer is obtained by taking energy and mass
balances across the liquid (droplet) and gas (air) phases and neglecting the distributed nature of the events that occur between the entrance and exit of the
chamber.
An energy balance around the air phase leads to an equation for the air temperature at the exit of the spray dryer,
(Ta Tf )
d Ta
= (Tain Ta )/ ka N u di ni
dt
W g Cs
(1.1)
Species balance for the solvent (water) around the liquid phase:
d Cw
(Cwin Cw )
(Ta Tf )
=
ka N u di ni
dt
W p w
(1.2)
d
di =
dt
main ma
4 Cp (Ta Tf )
(Ta Tf )
ka N u
2
w di
di
186
(1.3)
APPENDIX B
c
Computer code for Matlab
c
Matlab
(v 7.0 R14) has been used extensively in this work to simulate the
spray dryer model. This spray dryer model code is also the basis for generating
the principal components. Some of this code has been shown in this appendix.
187
188
189
190
191
BIBLIOGRAPHY
192
[7] N.V. Menshutina and T. Kudra. Computer aided drying technologies. Drying Technology, 19(8):18251849, 2001.
[8] K. Masters. Spray Drying Handbook. John Wiley and Sons., New York, NY,
5th edition, 1991.
[9] I. Zbicinski and R. Zietara. CFD model of counter-current spray drying
process. In 14th International Drying Symposium, volume A, pages 169176,
2004.
[10] L. Huang, K. Kumar, and A.S. Muzumdar. Use of computational fluid
dynamics to evaluate alternative spray dryer chamber configurations. Drying
Technology, 21(3):385412, 2003.
[11] E.M. Vasbinder and K.A. Hoo. A decision based approach to plantwide
control structure synthesis. Ind. & Eng. Chem. Res., 42:45864598, 2003.
[12] E.M. Vasbinder. Design based approach to integration of chemical process
design and control structure synthesis. Doctor of philosophy, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock,TX, 2004.
[13] S. Emets. An examination of modified heirarchical design structure for chemical process. Master of science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,TX, 2002.
[14] U.M. Diwekar and P.D. Chaudhari. Process synthesis under uncertainty: A
penalty function approach. AIChE Journal, (3):742752, 1996.
193
[15] E. N. Pistikopoulos and J. Acevedo. Stochastic optimization based algorithms for process synthesis under uncertainty. Computers and Chemical
Engineering, 22(4):647671, 1998.
[16] M.M Daichendt and I.E. Grossmann. Integration of hierarchical decomposition and mathematical programming for synthesis of process flowsheets.
Computers and Chemical Engineering, (1-2):147175, 1998.
[17] R.B. Keey and Q.T. Pham. Behavior of spray dryers with nozzle atomizers.
Chemical Engineer, 311:516521, 1976.
[18] S. Katta and W. Gauvin. Basic concepts of spray dryer design. AICHE
Journal, 22(4):713724, 1976.
[19] J. Nijdam, B. Guo, D. Fletcher, and T. Langrish. Lagrangian and eulerian
models for simulating turbulent dispersion and agglomeration of droplets
within a spray. In 3rd International conference on CFD in minerals and
process industries, 2003.
[20] L. Ozmen and T.A.G. Langrish. A study of the limitations to spray dryer
outlet performance. Drying Technology, 21(5):895917, 2003.
[21] D.E. Oakley, R.E. Bahu, and D. Reay. The aerodynamics of cocurrent spray
dryers. In Sixth International Drying Symposium, pages 373378, 1988.
194
[22] V.S. Shabde and K. A. Hoo. Design and operation of a spray dryer for the
manufacture of hollow microparticles. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research, 2006.
[23] R.A. Goffredi and E.J. Crosby. Limiting analytical relationships for prediction of spray dryer performance. Industrial and Engineering Process Design
and Development, 22:665672, 1983.
[24] C. Palencia, J. Nava, E. Herman, G. Rodrguez-Jimenes, and M. GarcaAlvarado. Spray dryer dynamic modeling with a mechanistic model. Drying
Technology, 20(3):569586, 2002.
[25] C.T Crowe. Modelling spray-air contact in spray drying systems, volume 1
of Advances in Drying, chapter 3. Hemisphere Publishing, New York, NY,
1980.
[26] P.D. Christofides. Model-based control of particulate processes. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norvell, MA, 2002.
[27] J. Bertling, J. Blomer, and R. K
ummel. Hollow microspheres. Chemical
Engineering Technology, 27(8):829837, 2004.
[28] W.H. Ray. Advanced Process Control. Butterworths, Boston, MA, 1989.
[29] D. Seborg, T. F. Edgar, and D. A. Mellichamp. Process Dynamics and
Control. John Wiley, New York, NY, 2nd edition, 2004.
195
[30] B.A. Ogunnaike and W.H. Ray. Process Dynamics, Modeling and Control.
Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1994.
[31] P. Grosdidier and M. Morari. Closed loop properties from steady-state gain
information. Industrial Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 24:22235,
1985.
[32] R.E. Kalman. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems.
Transactions of the ASMEJournal of Basic Engineering, 82(Series D):35
45, 1960.
[33] D. Zheng. System Identification and Model-based Control for a Class of
Distributed Parameter Systems. Doctor of philosophy, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, TX, 2002.
[34] C. Brosilow and B. Joseph. Techniques of Model-based Control. Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002.
[35] e. Camacho and C. Bordons. Model Predictive Control. Springe-Verlag,
London, UK, 2nd edition, 2004.
[36] R.M. Allen and H.H.C. Bakker. Spray dryer control based on online particle
size analysis. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 72(A2):251254,
1994.
196
[37] K. A. (Hoo) Kosanovich, K. S. Dahl, and M.J. Piovoso. Improved understanding using multiway principal component analysis. Ind. & Eng. Chem.
Res., 35(1):138146, 1996.
[38] B. M. Wise, N. B. Gallagher, S. W. Butler, D. White, and G. G. Barna.
Development and benchmarking of multivariate statistical process control
tools for a semiconductor etch process: impact of measurement selection
and data treatment on sensitivity. In IFAC SAFEPROCESS97, pages 35
42.
[39] K. A. (Hoo) Kosanovich and M.J. Piovoso. Applications of multivariable
statistical methods to process monitoring and controller design. Int. Journal
of Control, 59(3):743765, 1994.
[40] P. Nomikos and J. McGregor. Batch control using multiway principal component analysis. AIChE Journal, 40:13611375, 1994.
[41] J. G. Zeigler and N. B. Nichols. Process lags in automatic-control circuits.
In Transactions of the A.S.M.E., volume 65, pages 433444, 1943.
[42] M. L. Luyben and C. A. Floudas. Analyzing the interaction of design and
control- I & II. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 18:933993, 1994.
[43] C.A. Schweiger and C.A. Floudas. Interaction of design and control: optimization with dynamic models. In W. Hager and P. M. Pardalos (Editors),
197
198
199
200
203
204
205
[115] J.S. Jackson. A Users Guide to Principal Components. John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY, 1991.
[116] G. Box, G. Jenkins, and G. Reinsel. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and
Control. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 3rd edition, 1994.
[117] J. Hertz, A. Krogh, and R. Palmer. Introduction to The Theory of Neural
Computation. Addison Wesley, Redwood City, CA, 1991.
[118] K. A. Hoo, E. D. Sinzinger, and M.J. Piovoso. Improving the predictions of
neural networks. J. Process Control, 12(1):193202, 2001.
[119] D. Luenberger. Observers for multivariable systems. In IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, volume AC-11, pages 190197, 1066.
[120] V. Rokhlenko, A. Guez, K. A. (Hoo) Kosanovich, and M.J. Piovoso. Nonlinear adaptive control with parameter estimation of a cstr. J. Process Control,
5(3):137148, 1995.
[121] J. Hwang and D. Nettleton. Principal components regression with datachosen components and related methods. Technometrics, 45(1):7079, 2003.
[122] I. Jolliffe. Principal Component Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY,
1986.
207