This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]

On: 20 November 2014, At: 19:02

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

Drying Technology: An International Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ldrt20

SCALE-UP OF PNEUMATIC CONVEYING DRYERS

a
I C Kemp
a
SPS (Separation Processes Service), Building 404 Harwell Laboratory , Oxfordshire, OX11
0RA, U.K
Published online: 21 May 2007.

To cite this article: I C Kemp (1994) SCALE-UP OF PNEUMATIC CONVEYING DRYERS, Drying Technology: An International
Journal, 12:1-2, 279-297, DOI: 10.1080/07373939408959957

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07373939408959957

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 DRYING TECHNOLOGY, 12(1&2), 279-297 (1994)

SCALE-UP OF PNEUMATlC CONVEYING DRYERS

1 C Kzmp
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

SPS (Sepmtion Processes Service), Building 404

Hanvell Laboratory, Oxfordshue OX1 I ORA, U.K

Key Words: agglomeration; cocurrent flow; design; feedpoint; gas velocity;

hear wnsfer; modelling; particle motion.

ABSTRACT
Scale-up of pneumatic conveying dryers has until now been !:ugely ernpiric:ll.
A theoretical model is outlined which predicts dryer performance cffectively. It
depends on some uncertain parameters, norably agglomeration and wall friction, but
these can be found more accurately by checking the predictions against resulrs from
the small-scale dryer. The mode! can then be used to scale up to the lull size dryer.
The required duct length falls as the gas velocity is reduced md rhr duct diamr~er
increased, subject to satisfactory conveying and dispersion ar the t'erdpoin~.

INTRODUCTION
The concept of pneumatic conveying dryers, somedrnes known as flash dryers.
is simple; hot gas conveys a pmiculate solid along a duct and dries it as it transports
it. Figure 1 illustrates a typical unit. However, producing a theoretical mode! of even
reasonable accuracy has proved very difficult in the past. As a result, manufacturers
have universally designed pneumatic conveying dryers by using pilot-plant tests to
evaluate the drying rate of the material and the conditions required, and then scaling
up to the full-size dryer. The scale-up procedures used have been empirical in nature,
and have varied considerably between different manufacturers. Clearly, a reliable
scale-up procedure with a clear theoretical basis is highly desirable. This paper aims
to suggest such a procedure.
The theoretical design procedures have been much improved in recent years.
However, the dryer behaviour is complex and it is very difficult to measure certain
parameters which affect drying rates considerably, such as agglomeration. Hence, it

Copyright Q 1994 by Marcel Dekker. Inc.

 KEMP

EXHAUST
AIR

B A G FILTER

Steady -state
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

,
zone
I
DRY SOLIDS
OUTLET

WET SOLIDS
INLET
::.. Acceleration
zone

- INLET
AIR

FIGURE 1. TYPICAL PNEUMATIC CONVEYING DRYER

is unlikely that pneumatic conveying dryers can be designed from theory alone in [he
foreseeable future; pilot plant tests willcontinue to be necessary. However, the theory
allows us to understand the rules that will apply to scale-up, and the uncertain
parameters can be checked by comparing theoretical predicdons with the pilot-plant
results - a "fitting mode calculation".
DRYER DESIGN MODELS
Historical models
For the basic case of a vertical drying duct, particles enter at h e feedpoint, are
entrained in the fast-moving gas saeam and are accelerated till they reach a steady-
state velocity. The gas-to-particle relative velocity is then similar to the particle
termind velocity. Heat is transferred from the hot gas to the pardcles by convection.
This heat is used to evaporate liquid from the particle surface and any surplus heat
warms up the particle. Hence a full analysis must consider panicle motion, heat
transfer and mass transfer.
 PNEUMATIC CONVEYING DRYERS 28 1

Williams-Gardner' proposed a merhod for estimating tube length based on

conditions in the steady-state zone. This was found to overestimate the length of duct
required, sometimes by an order of magnitude. This is because heat and mass transfer
are much faster in the acceleration zone, as the gas-to-pmicle relative velocity and
heat aansfer coefficient are high, and the temperature difference between gas and
pardcle is also at its maximum.
Bener results were obtained from procedures which carried our a stepwise
integrarion along the tube length and thus considered the acceleriltion zone, such as
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

that of Thorpe. Wint and Coggan2.However, the estimated duct lengths for a given
drylng duty could still be 50-100% in error. Consequently these models have nor
replaced the mditional procedure for dryer design of running pilot-plant tests and
then scaling up using empirical parameters.
The scale-up methods of individual manufacturers have not been published, but
suggested values for the increase in duct length required for an order of magnitude
throughput increase have ranged from zero to 50-100%. Of the very few theoretical
scale-up factors proposed in the open literature, none takes any account of the
acceleration zone and any agreement with actual results will be largely coinciden~al.
Formulation of the SPS model
The philosophy of dryer modelling and design has been discussed by Renyl.
Models for dryers can be divided into two pans:
The equipment model examines factors which are specific to the kind of drying
equipment used. These include:
Gas flow patterns
Solids transpon
Heat transfer to solids
The material model examines factors specific to the material being dried:
Dryingkinetics
Drylng equilibria
The two parts are combined to give an overall drying model.
This approach aims to dlow accurate prediction of dryer design and performance
with little or no large-scale testing. Three main tools are required:
a good theoretical model of the equipment to allow prediction af the
drying processes
small-scale tests to measure the parameters required for the theoretical model
* pilot-plant testing to verify the model and allow fine tuning.
 KEMP
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

FIGURE 2. INCREMENTAL MODEL FOR CO-CURRENT DRYER

The theoretical model not only helps design from scratch, but also allows more
accurate scale-up to be cxried out from pilot plant data where this has previously
been carried out by empirical methods.
The overall model may be an integral model or an incremental model. The
integral model is simpler; it is described by ~ a h and
u ~works well for many crossflow
dryers, such as belt, band, through-circulation and fluidised bed dryers. Drying
kinencs can be measured in small-scale tests at constant gas remperarure and scale-up
to different conditions can often be based on a multiplying factor or dimensionless
group.
However, in dryers where the gas ahd solids are in cocurrent or countercurrent
flow, the gas in contact with the solids is at different temperatures and hupidiries at
different points in the dryer, altering the driving forces for hear and mass aansfer.
This makes it virtually impossible to carry out small-scale tesrs which will exactly
reproduce the temperature and humidity history of the particle in the full-scale dryer.
Hence for such dryers, which include cascading rotary dryers, pneumatic conveying
and spray dryers, a more detailed model is needed.
Incremental models
" ~ e a described
~ ' how co-c-nt and counter-current dryers can be modelled in
a one-dimensional incremental manner as shown in Figure 2 for the case of a
co-current unit. The dryer is divided into alarge number of steps. Starting at the inlet
end, calculation proceeds by increments until the outlet moisture content is achieved.
If we consider a small element of length dz then a series of differential equations can
be written to describe the processes occumng in the dryer. In the following equacions.
W is the dry mass flowrate, T is temperature, X is the dry-basis moisture content, Y
is the absolute humidity and C, is the specific heat capaciry; subscripr C denotes gas,
S dry solids, L liquid (moisture) and Y vapour.
 PNEUMATIC CONVEYING DRYERS 283

Drying

where
h =heat uansfer coefficient from gas to solids (from equipment model)
A, = specific surface.area of solids per unit mass.

The function is found from the material model, and may be a simple correlation
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

of the drying coefficient type or a full mechanistic mode1 including drying equilibria.
Heat transfer

where h is the latent heat of evaporation.

Material transport
dz = U,dr (3)
where Us is the local value of the solids velocity though the dryer, ag:\in given
by the equipment model.
Mass balance
-w,a = wcdY
Heat balance

Ws(Cps+ C,X)Ts + WG((CP, + CPYY)TG + XY)

= Ws(Cps+ CpL(X +a))

(Ts + dTs)
(TG + dl",)+ h(Y + fl))+ d Q ,
+Wc((CpG+ Cpy(Y + 0))

dQ, is the wail heat loss term, which is normally either taken as s percentage
of the heat carried by the gas stream or calculated from appropriate correlations for
heat losses by natural or forced convection.
Rearranging and neglecting second order terms:
 2 84 KEMP

The set of equations is normally rewritten in terms of the incremental changes

in the parameters and then solved by taking steps in either moisture contenl, distance
or time. For example, if an increment of moisture content is to be used:
1. Select AX.
2. Calculate &/dl, h, and Ususing the material md equipment models.
3. Calculate changes over increment:
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

(hAs(TG- Ts)+ X(dX1dr))Ar (8)

AT, =
c, + C,, (X t Ax 12)

4. Repeat steps 1-3 until the product moisture content has been attained.
This model can be used as the basis foranalysing most continuous dryers. Where
the gas and material flows are countercumnr or cocurrent, [he gas and solids
conditions at the exit from one increment are used as the entry conditions for rhe nexr
one. In crossflow dryers, the gas e n q and exit conditions for each increment fie
found individually and their mean values can be found by summing over all the
increments along the dryer.
Application to pneumatic conveying dryers
The incremental model is particularly useful for pneumatic conveying dryers,
which can be modelled as one-dimensiond cocurrent units by tracking the path of
the particle as it moves along the drying tube. A high propomon of the drying rakes
place in the region near the feedpoint, where gas temperature is highest and
particle-to-gas relative velocity is also at a maximum, so that the heat transfer
coefficients are high. Hence a very short step length is needed in this initial region,
and the number of steps needed for accurate modelling is beyond the possibilities of
hand calculation; a computer program is needed.
 PNEUMATIC CONVEYING DRYERS 2 85

Besides the universal equations (7)-(1I), additional equations are required to

characterise the particle velocity, gas-to-particle hear aansfer and the mass transfer
within the panicle.
Particle motion
A force balance can be drawn up for a spherical particle of mem diameter rip
moving with velocity U p in a flowing gas sueam of velocity Uc, as follows:
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

Here p &notes density, subscript P is used for individual particles, and subscripr
Wis wet basis (i.e. including associated moisture). U , is the relative velocity between
gas and particles, equal to Vc-Up. The drag coefficient CDcan be obtained from the
relationships reponed by Clift, Grace and webe?. The force balance in the form
above is known as the "suspension model" and includes a particle-to-wall friction
term which depends on tube diameter D, particle velocity U pand a friction factor fp.
SPS experiments have c o n f i i e d that this term is significant, particularly for small
diameter ducts (less than about 0.2 m); this has particular implications for scde-up.
At steady state, dUp/dr=Oand the steady-state relative velocity (U,),, is given by the
equation below; wail friction can make (UR)SSmore than 1008 greater than [he
terminal velocity of a single particle U,.

Various coklations have been suggested forf,, mostly of the form fp = K,IUp ,
where K,is a (dimensional) constant. Different workers have reponed widely different
values of Kr Cornpaison has not been helped by the use of two different definirions
off,, one being four times the other; the definition used here is that advocated by
yangb,in terms of wall shear stress 7,:.

Yang also suggested an alternative formof correlation for fp which appeared to

fit experimental data better. Unfortunately, it is theoretically suspect, as pointed out
by Kemp, Bahu and Oakley7. Recent theoretical work at SPS suggests that the K,IU,
foxm is reasonable but that fp depends on a large number of parameters including
several which are specific to the individual system studied, such as particle and wall
 286 KEMP

elasticity and wall roughness. Hence, only rough estimates ofKfandfpcan be obtained
from general principles; ideally, they should be measured experimentally. For most
systems, however, K,appears to be of the order of 0.2 m-'s.
Heat transfer
The most commonly used correlation for heat transfer to particles is due to Rsnz
and ~arshall',although it was developed for experiments on evaporation from water
droplets.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

Here ReR, is the Reynolds number appropriate for heat uansfer, which is based
on gas-to-particle relative velocity U, and on Sauter mean panicle diameter d,,,.
For large particles or high fluid velocities, a turbulent outer boundary layer also
develops, particularly in the wake of the panicle. webe? added an additional term
proportional to R ~ ~ O ' to the Ranz and Marshall correlation to account for turbulent
flow at particle Reynolds numbers greater than 130:

Modelling moisture transport within the solid

~ o i s t u r removal
e from solids cannot at present be modelled from firs1 principles.
The objective in the material model is to develop relatively simple procedures for
predicting the effect of operating conditions on the drying rate of the material on the
basis of tests on small samples. An attempt can then be made to relate the results to
theoretical models. Despite the difficulty of modelling the complex diffusion and
evaporation processes occuning within solids, some simple models have been
reasonably successful. In many situations they have provided sufficient information
to allow drying rates to be calculated fairly accurately. Some important models are;
the unhindered drying assumption (an unbroken surface film of moisture), so
that drying is heat transfer connolled; this applies in the constant rate drying period
the characterisdc curve modeli0, where the basic form (shape) of the drying
curve is assumed constant but the end points can be altered to match actual condirions
the receding evaporative interface model, where a wet "front" retreats inlo the
material as drying proceeds, leaving an outer dry layer.
The first model applies above the critical moisture content X,,.Current research
suggests that the characterisac curve model is the most effective below x,,".
The drying kinetics limit the rate at which moisture can reach the particle surface
and evaporate. Any additional heat transferred to the particle surface will heat up the
particle. The drying kinetics have been built into the computer model.
 PNEUMATIC CONVEYlNG DRYERS

Reliability of the overall model

The model has been tested against experiment and has generally given good
However, the results are affected strongly by the presence of agglom-
erates and an extension to the model has been necessary to allow for this, which will
be covered in a forthcoming paper'2. This is because particle motion, heat and mass
transfer are all strong functions of particle size and size disuibution. Otherwise, the
one-dimensional model works well for the majoricy of the duct length. Near rhe
feedpoint, the conditions show significant radial variation and more detailed
modelling was required, as described below.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

Modelling using computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

CFD allows flow patterns in a fluid to be modelled on a microscopic scale by
solving the Navier-Stokes equations for small elements of fluid, and by summing rhe
effects over a large gridof these elements. As described by Oakley "*14, SPS has used
CFD extensively for studying spray dryers, using the FLOW3D program developed
at Hanvell. SPS has also used FLOW3D to model the feedpoint region of pneumatic
conveying dryers. The program calculared the path taken by p;uticlss of various sizes
andtheir temperature and moisture content at various points on the path. Gas velocity.
temperature and humidity were also evaluated. The CFD modelling was most
successful, revealing the reasons for some unexplained phenomena and predicting a
significant "dead zone" near the feedpoint; the results were reported by Kemp, Oakley
and ~ahu''.
SCALE-UP METHODS AND RESULTS
Proposed scale-up procedure
The integral model is inadequate for pneumatic conveying dryers, so scale-up
using a simple multiplying factor is not possible. Moreover, the relationships at any
point in the dryer between drying rates, heat and mass transfer, particle motion and
gas and solids conditions are complex and non-linear. Hence it will be difficult to
link the variables by means of dimensionless groups and almost impossible to ensure
dynamic similarity between small and large dryers at all points. Instead, we will need
to use the incremental model. This must fmt be tailored to ensure that it correctly
predicts the performance of the existing pilot plant. The procedure is therefore:
1. Carry out a series of runs on the pilot plant, collecting as much information as
possible about temperatures and drying rates at the beginning, end and intermediate
points.
2. Use the theoretical mode1 to predict the performance of the pilot plant.
3. Compare the predicted and observed results, deduce the variables which are
incorrect and modify the theoretical model to match the observations.
 KEMP

4. Remn the new model at the conditions for [he full-size plant and predict its
performance.
5. Check areas where the design is especially sensitive, such as the feedpoint. using
CFD or similar tools.
Let us consider each step in more depth.
Step 1 requires a pilot plant or exisang dryer with sufficient insnumenution.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

The essential information is as follows:

gas mass flowrate and/or inlet gas velocity
solids mass flowrate and inlet moisture content
gas temperarures at inlet and outlet
gas outlet humidity and/or solids outlet moisture content (linked by
mass balance)
It is useful if conditions at intermediate points are also available - particularly
gas temperature and humidity - but it is rare for dryers to be sufficiently well
instrumented to allow this. In a pneumatic conveying dryer, however, i t is highly
desirable to find the conditions at the transition between [he drying duct and the
cyclone if at all possible, as the scale-up rules for the two sections :we very different.
Step 2 involves running a PC computer program to perform the incrcn~rntal
calculadon. Most of the input data shouid be known. but besi estimates may have to
be made for some parameters. Usually, the foIlowing data is easily available:
Dryer dimensions and basic geomeuy
Gas inlet conditions - flowrate, temperature, humidity
Solids inlet conditions - flowrate, temperature, moisture content
Feed system specifications e.g. s c ~ wgeomeuy, slinger speed
The following data required for the simulation is usually more uncenain:
Degree of agglomeration (usually assume single particles for initial run)
Flow patterns near feedpoint and likelihood of choking
Magnitude of wall friction
Drying mechanisms within solid.and proportion of moisture at surface
In Step 3 the results from the computer model are compared with those observed
in practice. In many cases, they will not match particularly well. The usual reason is
that some of the input data which was uncenain has been wrongly estimated. The
solution, therefore, is to improve the estimate of the parameters we are Least sure of.
If the observed drying is less than that predicted, the cause is probably rhat the
internal drying rate has been overestimated. The very short residence time does not
allow moisture to diffuse significantly from the interior of the particle and if the
proportion of surface moisture has been underestimated, drying may vinually cease;
 PNEUMATIC CONVEYING DRYERS

the panicle then simply heats up to the gas temperature. The solution is to change the
numbers used in the built-in drying kinetics model; for example, by increasing rhe
value given for the critical moisture content X,, which marks the transition between
unhindereddrying ("constant-rate") and hindered drying ("falling-rate") regimes. The
pro- is re-run until a good fit is obtained. It may also'be possible to measure the
drying kinetics more accmtely using a thin-layer test as described by Langrish, Bahu
and Reayl'. The very rapid drying makes this difficult with present techniclues, bur
development is continuing.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

If the observed drying is more than the prediction, this is almost cenainly due
to agglomeration. Recent SPS research has revealed the surprising fact that, for 3.
given gas veIocity, agglomeration of the solid feed actually tends to increase the
drying in a given length of duct. This is because the upward velocity and the heal and
mass aansfer rates both decrease for large agglomerates as compared with single
particles, but the increased residence time in any section of tube is found to ourweigh
the slower drying rates. Details of the model will be published in a forthcoming
paper1'.
An alternative possibility is that more drying than predicted is occumr~gin the
cyclone. Much less is known about panicle motion and heat and mass transfer in the
cyclone than in the main drying duct. Residence times can be compuablr or geatrr.
Although the gas and panicles are usually close to thermal equilibrium in the cyclone
and driving forces are low, drying can still continue, especially where there is :I
significant amount of moisture diffusing from within the panicles.
Step 4 requires data on the solids flownte and moisture content of the full-scale
system. The gas inlet temperature, gas velocity and duct diameter must also be
selected; a possible method is outlined in the next section. The simulation can then
be performed using thecomputerprogram. It is important toidenrify any orherchanges
between the pilot plant and the full-size one. For example, achange in the feed system
may change the degree of agglomeration or the distribution of moisture between the
particle surface and interior, affecting the results considerably.
Step 5 allows for some particular problems of large diameter ducts. Dispersing
the feed uniformly into the gas smearn is a particular problem with luge dryers and
a number of different feedpoint configurations have been tried, including venruris.
slingers, twin or multiple feedpoints and impinging sueams. Poor dispersion can
seriously reduce the drying occurring in the all-important acceleration zone.
Moreover, choking and recirculationeffects can be serious. It is advisable to use CFD
to check the design of the feedpoint region of a scaled-up dryer.
Implications for design
The model reveals many of the reasons why the empirical scale-up procedures
work. The empirical ruie that tube length should increase with diameter is shown to
be largely due to wall friction. Compared with a 20 rnrn or even 100 mm diameter
 290 KEMP

TABLE 1. EFFECT OF GAS VELOCITY AND DUCT DIAMETER

Duct diameter: 0.02 m 0.1 m 1.0 m Overall

increase
Gas velocity 10.51 d s
Particle velocity at steady state 6.88 d s 8.19 d s 8.73 m / s 27%
Duct length required for drying duty 5.5 1 m 6.40 m 6.69 m 21%
Gas velocity 15 d s
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

Particle velocity at steady state 10.66 4 s 12.43 d s 13.18 ds 24%

Duct length required for drying duty 10.34 m 12.02 m 12.73 m 23%
Gas velocity 20 d s
Pardclevelocityatsteadystate 14.97mfs 1 7 . 1 6 d s 1 8 . 1 4 d s 21%
Duct length required for drying duty 14.41 m 16.48 m 17.41 m 21% '

pilot plant tube, panicles in a I m duct on the full-size plant will have higher panicle
velocity (reducing their residence time) and higher relative velocity (reducing the
heat transfer rate). Hence, to achieve a-given-amount of dry-tng, the ducr will need to
be longer than that on the pilot plant.
The significance of wall friction is revealed by Table I . This gives culculated
ducr lengths for drylng of 350 pm particles from a moisture content of 0.3 to 0.15
kg/kg (dry basis), with the solids-gas loading (phase density) held constanr at 0.1 kg
dry solids/kg dry gas. The table shows that the length of duct required to perform the
duty increases by 20-25% when scaling up from an experimental apparatus of 20 mm
tube diameter to a 1 mdiameter production plant, entirely due to wall friction effects.
It has been assumed that Kf=0.2. SPS has observed a few cases for which K,appears
to be considerably higher and the predicted increase in duct length on scale-up is
50-100%.
Overall, the wall friction term is proportional to Up.Hence, in the acceleration
zone, wall effects have only a minor effect on particle velocity. For very fast-drying
materials, e.g. small particles lightly wetted on the surface only, most of the drying
takes place in the acceleration zone. Little or no increase in tube length will then be
requiredduring scale-up. Drying kinetics experiments may be used to try to determine
the proportion of fast-drying surface moisture present. The use of the rheoreacal
model should allow more accurate scale-up than is provided by simply using an
empirical factor to increase tube length by 20-50%.

It is often believed that when scaling up a pneumatic conveying dryer, it is

necessary to increase the gas velocity; and that if the dryer is nor performing to
 PNEUMATIC CONVEYING DRYERS 29 1

- Blocking velocity for single particle

20 -..............-..-.-..-.................................................................................................
Blocking velocity for agglomerate
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

I
I
L
t I I . I I I I
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Gas velocity, m/s
-----
Single panicle Agglomerate

FIGUFG 3. EFFECT OF GAS VELOCITY ON DRYLNC

specification. this may again be cured by increasing the gas velocity. Table 1, however,
shows that when the gas velocity is increased, a longer tube is needed to achieve the
same amount of drying. Conversely, for a given length of tube, if the gas velocity is
increased, less drying is achieved. Further evidence is provided by Figure 3.
The plot in Figure 3 shows the tube length required to achieve a given drying
duty. The same 350 prn particles were being simulated; rube diameter was 0.857 m,
solids flowrate 0.5 kg/s (1800kgh),gas inlet temperature 150'C and moisture content
was being reduced from 0.3 kg/kg to 0.15 kglkg. It can be seen that, over virrually
the entire range, an increase in gas velocity necessitated an increase in duct length.
In other words, the decrease in pamcle residence rime due to the higher gas velocity
ourweighed the more rapid drying due to increased relative velocity between gas and
particles.
Calculaaons show that at a gas velocity U, of 2 nl/s (very close ro the terminal
velocity) the panicles cannot be conveyed up the tube and it blocks at the feedpoint.
It is not yet cleat whether this blocking velocity is the same as the choking velocity
reported and correlated by other workers; research on this is continuing. However,
 KEMP

the simulation shows that uconsiderably higher velocity is required to make the dryer
work; as the gas velocity is decreased, the required tube length re~lches;i minimum
at UG = 4.5 d s and then climbs rapidly, reaching an asymptots nt 4.1 m/s. The
explanation is simple; the gas is running out of heat. As gas velocity decreases, the
gas mass flowrate decreases proponionally, as does its heat content. When this falls
below the constant heat load required to evaporate the moisture in the feed, the dryer
becomes infeasibte. So Uc should not be decreased too far. However, ir should be
noted that the optimum Ucis very close to the minimum feasible value U,,, at the
asymptote, and the latter is easily calculated by heat balance. The best dryer
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

performance is thus achieved by setting I/,just above Uo,. It is advisable to add a

safety margin to UGto allow the dryer to cope with any fluctuations in solids feedrate;
nevertheless, this dryer could easily operate with velocities in the 7 - 10 m/s region.
well below values normally found in pneumatic conveying dryers.
What if tlie feed is agglomerated? The simulation has been repcited for 3.5 mm
agglomerates (10 times the diameter of the single particles and with neuly 1000 times
the mass). The drying rate of agglomerates is very sensitive to their porosity, bur
typical resuIts are shown as the broken line in Figure 3. The blocking velocity is, not
surprisingly, much higher than for the single panicles, at 12 m/s. It is also clear thar
the agglomerate will dry to the required level in a shorter tube than the single particle.
Again, the required tube length for drying falls if the gas velocity is dccrexsed; no
asymptote is visible this time 3s i t comes below the blocking velocity. Clrurly, [he
ideal here is to find the blocliing velocity and set UG far enough above ic to provide
sufficient safety margin to convey any extra-large agglomerates thar may enter.
Fluctuations in solids feedrate are now unimponant, as the hear available from the
gas is ample for the drying duty. A gas veloci:y of maybe 20 m/s could be used.
Selection of conditions in full-scale dryer
The parameters which must be selected initially are the diameter of rhe drying
duct D, the inlet gas velocity Urnand the inlet gas temperature T,,.All are related to
the required drying duty and to each other by the heat balance.
In general, TG,should be as high as possible, the limit usually being the danger
of overheating the solids. It should always be remembered that, because the dryer is
cocurrent, the hot gas initially comes into contact with wetted solids and there is litrle
danger of overheating. By the time the solids have begun to dry on the surface, [he
gas ternperarure wilI have fallen. If the proponion of surface moisture is known, the
Tclcorresponding to an acceptable gas temperature contacting the dry solids can again
be calculated by heat balance.
It is important to find the ratio of easily accessible surface moisture to internal
moisture if at all possible. The short residence times in pneumatic conveying dryers
mean that very little internal moisture will have time to diffuse to the surface and be
nmoved. rhis is particularly important if the feed to the full-scale dryer is to be wetter
than that to the piIot plant. If the additional moisture is present as surface moisture,
 PNEUMATIC CONVEYING DRYERS 293

T,, can safely be increased, increasing the thermal efficiency of the dryer and
minimising the increase in gas flowrate and dryer size. However, if the additional
moisture is internally bound, *ere will be a danger of overheating if To is increased.
There is no merit in increasing the gas velocity above the minimum required
either to provide the heat needed toperform the required evaporation duty or to convey
agglomerates. In the latter case, high velocities are only inninsically necessary near
the feedpoint, as the agglomerates break up; hence a venturi is likely to be beneficial.
The one proviso is that the feed must disperse effectively across the larger diameter
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

drying duct. CFD can be used to model the feedpoint region.

The dryer performance is very sensitive to agglomerate size and porosity, but
there is currently no easy and reliable way of measuring these in a wet solid. Hence,
during the small-scale tests, agglomerates as close as possible in structure to the final
feed should be fed in and the minimum velocity required to achieve reliable conveying
should be established experimentally.
A systematic procedure for pilot-plant tests and selection of conveying velocity
and duct diameter can therefore be suggested;
1. Run the pilot plant with the values ofX, and TGlto be used in the futl-scale dryer
and determine by experiment the minimum gas velocity (I,,,, to allow effective
conveying of agglomerates.
2. Choose U,, to be greater than U,,, by a suitable safety factor, maybe 20%. 508
or 100% depending on the variability of the feed.
3. Calculate by heat balance the gas flowrate W, required to achieve the given
evaporation duty, allowing a safety factor sufficient lo handle any likely flucruacions
in solids feedrate or inlet moisturecontent. It will be necessary roestimnte the exhaust
gas temperature Tm.The overall heat balance is:

The outlet gas humidity Yo is found from an overall mass balance analogous to
equation (4):

WC(YO- Y,) = w, = W,(X,-X0) (18)

4. Calculate the diameter D required for the main duct:

5. Check that the new duct diameter is acceptable. If it is considered to be

impracticably large, reduce it and increase U,,.
 294 KEMP

6. Select the feedpoint geomeay (including a venturi or slinger if desired). Use

CFD to calculate gas and particle flow patterns near the feedpoint to check that the
particles disperse uniformly across the tube. Check by experiment if possible. If
dispersion is not satisfactory, use a different feedpoint configuration, or decrease D
and increase (Icr
7. Use the model to calculate the required length L of the duel for the configuration
fi'ndly selected, making a rough estimate of the likely drying in the cyclone.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

8. If the dryer is very short and fat, its configuration can be changed by reruming
to step 5.
9. If the drying duct is impracticably long, consider the possibility of an cvrn
narrower venturi throat at the feedpoint to give a localised high velocity sufficient to
break up agglomerates. D for the main tube can then be increased and U, reduced,
which should give a shorter dryer. If this is not possible. a ring dryer will often be
the best solution.
It should be noted that this procedure is new and has not .been med by manu-
facturers in practice. However. tesdng on indusmd d u a is currently under way.
The problem of the cyclone /

The equations above only apply to the main drying duct. The scale-up of the
cyclone is still very much a black art.The cyclone is generally designed to keep solids
emissions down to an acceptable level, and little thought is given to the drying which
occurs there. In any case, there is no way of calculating it at present because there is
virtually no published information on solids residence time, heat uansfer and drying
rates.
SPS is currently beginning experimental work in this area, with the aim of
formulating a model similar to that for the main duct. One possibility is to treat the
cyclone as an exaa length of duct if the particle residence time can be estimated.
However, three clear differences from the main duct have been observed already.
Firstly, the particles do not move in plug flow; there appears to be considerable mixing
in the cyclone. Secondly, there is considerable solids-solids interaction, so that the
Ranz and Marshall heat amsfer correlation is unlikely to apply. Thirdly, the solids
are mainly in a layer very close to the wall; they will be in the boundary layer rather
than the main gas flow, and even solids-to-wall conduction could be significanr.
Experiments so far suggest that holdup of solids in the cyclone increases wirh
particle size and density and with gas velocity, presumably due to increased
centrifugal forces. One implication is that a reduction in gas velocity in the cyclone
may reduce the residence time and the drying achieved there, so that cyclone diameter
should be as small as possible - the opposite conclusion to that for the main duct.
However, many other factors come into play, including solids carryover, pressure
drop and particle attrition.
 PNEUMATIC CONVEYING DRYERS

CONCLUSIONS
1. There is currently no consensus on scale-up methods for pneumatic conveying
dryers.
2. The SPS model offers a most promising method for scale-up with a fm
theoretical basis.
3. The model predicts the effect on drying rates of changing gas temperature and
velocity and other parameters, and thus allows the effect of design variations to
be calculated rapidly.
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

4, The model predicts that minimising gas velocity will minimise dryer length,
subject to the constraints of the heat balance and of conveying the solids.
5. CFD is an effective tool for modelling flow patterns and particle dispersion near
the feedpoint.
6. Further practical testing of the model is highly desirable.
7. The major remaining uncertainties are; (a) the drying kinetics of small panicles
in high-velocity gas streams; (b) the cohesive forces and break-up mechanisms
in agglomerates; (c) the drying taking place in the cycIone. Research is required
in all these areas and is currently being performed by SLS:
-
NOMENCLATURE
A, Specific surface area of solids mZkg"
CD Drag coefficient of particle in gas s & e m
CpG Specific heat capacity of dry gas J kg'lK"
Cp, Specific heat capacity of liquid (moisture) J kg"~"
Cp, Specific heat capacity of dry solid I kg"K.'
Cp, Specific heat capacity of vapour J kg"K"
D Tube or duct diameter m
dp Particle diameter (on weight average basis) m
d,,,, Particle diameter (Sauter mean basis) m
fp Particle-to-wall friction factor (Yang definition)
fs Particle-to-wall friction factor (alternative definition) -
&! Acceleration due to gravity m s"
h Heat transfer coefficient between gas and particles W m'*K"
K, Factor in wall friction equation m-'s
Nu Nusselt number (based on particle diameter), Mp(SM,J~ -
Pr Prandtl number for gas, pCpJK
Qm Heat lost through walls of drying tube W
Re, Reynolds number for heat transfer basedon U, -
anddplsM1
TG Gas temperature (local value) 'C
Tc,TGo Gas temperature at inlet/outlet of drying tube 'C
Ts Particle temperature (local value) 'C
 KEMP

T,,,T,, Solids temperature at inledoutlet of drying tube 'C

UG Gas velocity m s''
UG,, Minimum gas velocity required to convey agglomerates rn s"
U,,, Minimum gas velocity required to satisfy heat balance rn s"
UG,.UGoGas velocity at inlet/outlet of drying tube rn s'l
Up Particle (absolute) velocity m s"
U s Particle velocity at steady state m s'l
UR Relative (slip) velocity between gas and particle m s"
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

(UJ, Slip velocity at steady state m s"

U, Terminal velocity of an isolated panicle rn s"
W, Evaporation rate of moisture from soIids kg s"
WG Gas mass flowrate (dry basis) kg s '
W, Solids mass flowrate (dry basis) kg s"
X Solids moisture content (dry basis) kg kg"
X,, Solids critical moisture content kg kg-'
X,Jo Solids moisture content at inledoutlet of dryer kg kg"
Y Gas humidity (dry gas basis) kg kg"
Yl,Yo Gas humidity at inledoudet of dryer kg kg'!
z Distance along dryer m
Greek symbols
K Thermal conductivity8'of;gas W m-'K'
A Latent heat of evaporaaon 1 kg"
pc Gas density kg m"
p,, Density of wet pamcle kg rn-'
P Gas viscosity kg m"s"
REFERENCES
I. Williams-Gardner, A. (1971) Industrial drying. Leonard Hill.
2. Thorpe, G.R., Wint, A. and Coggan, G.C. (1973) The mathematical modelling
of indusnial pneumatic dryen. Trans.1.Chem.E.. (51), pp. 339-348.
3. Reay, D. (1989) A scienafic approach to the design of conunuous flow dryers
for paniculate solids. Multiphase Science and Technology, (4). pp. 1-102.
4. Bahu. R.E. (1992) Fluidised beddryer scale-up. Drying Technology, this issue.
5. Clift, R., Grace, J.R. and Weber, M.E. (1978) Bubbles, drops and particles,
Academic Press. pp. 111-114.
6. Yang, W-C. (1978) A correlation for solids friction factor in vertical pneumatic
conveying lines, AIChEJ, (24):3, pp. 548-552.
7. Kemp, I.C., Bahu, R.E. and Oakley, D.E.(1991). Modelling of vertical
pneumatic conveying dryers. In A.S. Mujumdar (ed), Drying '91. Paper
originally presented at IDS '90, Prague.
8. R a k , W.E. and Marshall, W.R. (1952) Evaporation from drops. Chern. Eng.
h g r . (48):3, pp. 141-146 and (48):4, pp. 173-180.
 PNEUMATIC CONVEYING DRYERS 297

9. Weber. M.E. (1973) Private communication. Reported by Kemp, Bahu and

0akley7.
10. Keey, R. (1978) lnuoducrion to indusmal drying operations. Pergarnon Press.
11. Langrish, T.A.G., Bahu, R.E. and Reay, D. (1991). Drying kinetics of particles
from thin-layer drying experiments. Trans.I.Chem.E., (69-A), pp. 417-424.
12. Kemp, I.C. (1992). Modelling agglomeration effccrs in verrical pneurnnric
conveying dryers. Paper submitted to IDS '92, Monneal.
13. Oakley, D.E. and Bahu, R.E. (1991). Spray-gas mixing behaviour in spray
Downloaded by [McGill University Library] at 19:02 20 November 2014

dryers. In A.S. Mujumdar (ed), Drying '91. Paper originally presented at LDS
'90, Prague.
14. Oaktey, D.E. (1992). Scale-up of spray dryers with the aid of computational
fluid dynamics. Drying Technology, this issue.
15. Kemp, I.C., Oakley, D.E. and Bahu, R.E. (1991). Computational fluid dynamics
modelling of vertical pneumatic conveying dryers. Powder Technology, 65, pp.
477-484.