Engineering Analysis of A Rotary Dryer Drying of W

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/45339621
Engineering Analysis of a Rotary Dryer: Drying of Wood Particles
Article · January 1984

Source: OAI
CITATIONS READS
18 2,825
1 author:
Frederick A. Kamke
Oregon State University
133 PUBLICATIONS 3,540 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Scaling Juniper Markets: Sustainable Solutions for Rangelands and Rural Communities. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Frederick A. Kamke on 12 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
Frederick A. Kamke for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Forest Products presented on September 23, 1983 .
Title: Engineering Analysis of a Rotary Dryer: Drying of Wood
Particles
Redacted for Privacy

Abstract approved:
Dr. James B. Wilson
Rotary dryers are the most commonly used wood drying system in
the particleboard industry. These dryers also play an increasingly
important role in drying wood residues for fuel. Many potential
benefits may be realized through an improved understanding of the
rotary drying process.
A rotary dryer simulation model was developed, in the form of
a computer program, for the purpose of analyzing the drying behavior
of wood particles. The model is applicable to single pass rotary
drums, with or without a centerf ill flighting section. Modifica-
tions to the base program could be made to allow for alternative
rotary drum designs, such as multiple pass drums.
The approach used in the model development analyzed the rotary
drying process in a sequential manner. Beginning with a study of
particle residence time in a rotary drum, the process of heat
transfer, and then mass transfer, were incorporated to yield a
complete rotary dryer simulation model. The resultant computer

program does not require empirical constants or equations developed
for a particular rotary dryer system.
Experiments on a commercially manufactured rotary dryer were
performed to check the performance of the simulation model as a
predictor of overall residence time and drying behavior. The
variables tested were drum rotation rate, gas flow rate, and inlet
gas temperature. Measurements of gas temperature, particle
temperature, and particle moisture content were obtained along the
drum length. Comparison between the predictions and the measured
results were good, indicating a percent root mean square error of
22.2 in the prediction of the outlet particle moisture content.
A series of computer simulation trials were performed to check
the affect of inlet particle moisture content, blend-box gas
temperature, drum diameter, air leakage, drum length, gas volumetric
flow rate, particle size, particle sphericity, drum speed, and angle
of repose on dryer behavior. It was discovered that an optimal gas
flow rate exists at which the greatest extent of drying may be
achieved. In addition, the presence of centerf ill flights enhances
the extent of drying in a rotary dryer.
The rotary dryer simulation model developed in this study
should prove useful for optimizing process parameters in the drying
of wood particles.
C
Copyright by Frederick A. Kamke
September 23, 1983
All Rights Reserved

Engineering Analysis of a Rotary Dryer:
Drying of Wood Particles
by
Frederick A. Kamke
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Completed September 23, 1983
Commencement June 1984

APPROVED:

Prof d6r of Forest Products in charge of major
Head of Department of Forest Products

Dean of Graduat chool
Date thesis is presented September 23, 1983
Typed by Linda S. Crooks for Frederick A. Kamke

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Dr. ames B. Wilson, Associate Professor, Forest Products

Dr. Charles E. Wicks, Pro essor and Head, Chemical Engineering

Dr. Helmuth Resch, Professor and Head, Forest Products
Redacted for Privacy ,
Dr. Philipl E. Humphsista t Professor, Forest Products

Dr. oeI Davis, Associate Professor, Mathematics
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work is dedicated in memory of my father Donald Arthur
Kamke, whose understanding and support allowed me to pursue a college
education.
I owe devoted gratitude to my wife Carol. Through her love,
hard work and care we shared all of the frustrations and joys of my
graduate career.
A special thanks must go to Jim Wilson. His guidance and
friendship made the task much more bearable. As my advisor, Jim gave
me enough latitude to explore many avenues, but always kept a watch-
ful eye so I would not stray too far.
I'm also indebted to Helmuth Resch for his support, and for
allowing me to directly pursue the PhD degree with the Forest
Products program at Oregon State University.
"Doc" Wicks was very influential in my graduate studies. He
always found the time to provide his much needed advice and
instruction.
Acknowledgement must be given to the Weyerhaeuser Company for
providing the use of their rotary dryer at the Weyerhaeuser Technol-
ogy Center in Federal Way, Washington. In particular, Stan Terada's
expertise and great patience were invaluable. Stan, along with Jay
Miller, contributed many hours of enduring labor, without which this
work could not have been completed. Weyerhaeuser's Grant Karsner,
Frank Beall and Ferhan Kayihan also played notable roles toward the
successful completion of this research.

I'm grateful to have been a recipient of the Weyerhaeuser
Company Foundation Fellowship and to Jack Winjum of Weyerhaeuser
for his sincere interest in the success of the fellowship program.
Recognition was also earned by the Radiation Center at Oregon
State University for making available an excellent facility. Of
special note, Casey Bennett and Roman Schmitt provided instruction
and a helping-hand when needed most.
Finally, appreciation is due Mike Milota for unselfishly giving
of his time during the experimental stages of this work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Literature Review 4
Residence Time and Particle-Gas Stream Interactions 4
Residence Time 4
Particle-Gas Stream Interactions 9
Heat Transfer 11
Mass Transfer 15
Wood Drying Models 22
Residence Time 29
Model Development 30
Longitudinal Advance Per Cascade 30
Time Per Cascade 31
Total Residence Time 34
Allowance for Underloaded Flights 35
Equivalent Particle Diameter 36
Solution Procedure 37
Angle of Repose 39
Experimentation and Results 40
Residence Time Experiment 46

Equipment and Procedure 46
Results and Discussion 48
Comparison Between Experimental Results and Pre-

dicted Behavior 51
Residence Time Simulation Trials 57
Heat Transfer 61
Model Development 62
Energy Balance 62
Heat Loss 62
Heat Transfer During Particle Fall 66
Soaking 67
Volumetric Heat Transfer Coefficient 70
Solution Procedure 72
Results and Discussion 76

. .
179 1.03 K= 6, Through 1 Runs Test for
Output Simulation Generated Computer H. Appendix
155 Notation Program and Listing
Program (RDS) Simulation Dryer Rotary G. Appendix
. .
154 Wood in Water of Energy Sorption F. Appendix
. . .
153 Calculation Temperature Wet-bulb E. Appendix
151 Properties Wood of Evaluation D. Appendix
148 Properties Gas of Evaluation C. Appendix
146 Coefficient Transfer Heat Volumetric
the Calculating of Method Indirect B. Appendix
.
145 Wall. Drum the of Resistance Thermal A. Appendix
145 Appendices
139 Bibliography
133 Notation of List
130 Conclusions and Summary VI.
125 Model the of Applications
120 Trials Simulation Dryer Rotary
103 Behavior dicted
Pre- and Results Experimental Between Comparison
98 Discussion and Results
89 Procedure and Equipment
89 Experiment Dryer Rotary
86 Procedure Solution
83 Drying
80 Balances Energy and Material
80 Development Model
80 Transfer Mass V.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure flE!
1 Schematic Diagrams of Rotary Drum Cross Sections
Showing Typical Particle Lifting Flight Systems. 7
2 Section View of Particles in Flight. 7
3 Measured Drying Rates of Wood Particles In a Flash-

Tube Versus Wood Moisture Content (Malte et al.,
1977). 26
4 Vertical and Longitudinal Motion of Particle During a

Cascade With Cocurrent Flow. 33
5 Section View of Rotary Drum Cross Section. 33
6 Experimental Rotary Drum For Measuring The Angle of

Repose. 41
7 Experimentally Measured Angle of Repose For Wood

Particles as a Function of Froude Number and Moisture
Content. 44
8 Experimentally Measured Angle of Repose For Wood

Particles as a Function of Periphery Flight Angle
and Moisture Content. 44
9 Rotary Drum Experimental Set-up With Irradiated

Particle Detection System. 47
10 Wood Particle Size Distribution Used in Residence

Time Experiment. 49
11 Sample Strip-Chart Recorder Output Showing Detector

Response to Tagged Particles. 50
12 Experimentally Measured Residence Time Distributions. 52
13 Predicted Versus Actual Residence Time for Wood

Particles in the Experimental Rotary Drum. 55
14 Predicted Effect of Gas Velocity on Residence Time. 58
15 Predicted Effect of Drum Speed on Residence Time. 58
16 Predicted Effect of Drum Diameter on Residence Time. 59
17 Predicted Effect of Particle Size on Residence Time. 59

18 Longitudinal Cross Section View of Rotary Drum Showing
Particle Flow Path With Centerf ill Flights. 63
19 Schematic Diagram of Wood Particle Bed on Lifting

Flight, Assuming a Rectangular Cross Section. 69
20 Temperature Profile of Wood Particle Bed at End of

Time on Flight, Assuming a Rectangular Cross Section. 69
21 Longitudinal Thermal Profile of Heat Transfer in a

Rotary Drum With Cocurrent Flow. 77
22 Schematic Diagram of Bound and Free Water in the

Wood Structure. 90
23 Rotary Dryer Experimental Set-up. 91
24 Rotary Dryer Experiment Particle Size Distribution. 92
25 Inlet and Outlet Particle Temperature Measurement

Set-ups. 95
26 Sampling Device for Extracting Particle Samples From

the Drum Interior. 96
27 Comparison of Rotary Dryer Simulation With Measured

Results From Test Run No. 1, K = 1.0. 105










39 Predicted Versus Actual Outlet Particle Moisture

Content For The Rotary Dryer Test Runs, K = 1.0. 121
40 Effect of Variations of Selected Rotary Dryer Param-

eters, By Plus and Minus 50 Percent, on the Outlet
Particle Moisture Content. Base Case is Equivalent
to Conditions in Test Run No. 2. 122
41 Comparison of Rotary Dryer Simulation Results for Test

Run No. 2 With and Without Centerfill Flights. 126
42 Schematic Diagram of Triple Pass Rotary Dryer. 128

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Experimental Data for the Kinetic Angle of Repose
for Wood Particles in a Rotary Drum. Moisture
Content = 10% (dry basis). 43
2 Experimental Data for the Kinetic Angle of Repose

for Wood Particles in a Rotary Drum. Moisture
Content = 146% (dry basis). 43
3 Rotary Dryer Experimental Design. 90
4 Summary of Rotary Dryer Test Results. 99
5 Summary of Rotary Dryer Parameter Values Used in

Figure 40. 124
6 Coefficients Used in Gas Property Equations. 150

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF A ROTARY DRYER:
DRYING OF WOOD PARTICLES
I. INTRODUCTION
Rotary dryers have been the most commonly used wood drying
system in the particleboard industry since their adaptation from the
agricultural industry in the 1940's. In addition to the extensive
use of rotary dryers for drying alfalfa and other agricultural
crops, food stuff, and aggregates, these dryers also play an
increasingly important role in drying wood residues for fuel (Mohr,
1982; Vala, 1982; Oswald and Junge, 1980; Kirk and Wilson, 1983).
Until recently their effectiveness as a wood particle drying system,
as well as for other materials, has been judged primarily by
convenience rather than performance. This kind of attitude was
tolerable during the days of cheap energy and inexhaustible "wood-
waste" raw material. However, with today's strive for greater
efficiency in allmodes of production, a closer examination of this
drying process is in order.
Many potential benefits may be realized through an improved
understanding of the rotary drying process. One such benefit could
be energy savings, whose magnitude can be determined by estimating
the energy cost of drying in the particleboard industry. For
example, the annual wood consumption for particleboard manufacture
in the United States is approximately five billion kilograms on a
dry basis. About 60 percent moisture content (dry basis) must be
removed with a drying process which is about 50 percent efficient.
This amounts to an equivalent annual power requirement of over

2
450 million cubic meters of natural gas. Whereas predrying wood
fuel for the approximately 1,700 industrial boilers fired with wood
and bark residues in the United States could yield about a 10 to 15
percent increase in steam production or fuel savings (this assumes
only a 10 percent moisture content reduction). In addition,
potential benefits could be realized in improvements of dryer
control strategies and better control of dryer exhaust gas emissions.
The rotary drying process can be broken down into three parts:
momentum transfer, heat transfer, and mass transfer. All three of
these transfer processes are interdependent and occur simultaneously.
This study examines momentum, heat and mass transfer for the rotary
dryer in a sequential fashion. Beginning with momentum transfer,
in the form of a residence time analysis, a complete rotary dryer
simulation model is developed by incorporating heat. and mass transfer
into the analysis in a step by step manner. In this way, a very
thorough understanding of the wood particle rotary drying process
is attained.
Rotary dryers used for wood particles are usually direct fired,
are not sloped to the horizontal, and operate under cocurrent flow.
The wet wood particles are continuously lifted by the rotation of the
drum with the aid of particle lifting flights. The wet material
cascades off the flights and passes through the hot moving gas
stream. Each time a particle cascades, it is moved along the
length of the drum as a result of the gas-particle interaction.
Convective heat and mass transfer are the primary modes of drying.
The approach used for this analysis, contrary to other studies
reported in the literature, does not require empirical constants or

3
equations developed for a particular rotary dryer system. It
relies entirely on first principles and empirical relationships
developed independently from rotary dryers. This requires the
operation of a rotary dryer be examined in terms of its component
parts and processes. While limited in its accuracy for specific
rotary dryers, this type of an approach provides a great deal of
insight toward the affect of design and operating variations on
rotary dryer performance.
The primary objective of this study was to develop a rotary
dryer simulation model which could predict the drying behavior of
wood particles. Secondly, it was desired to study the rotary dryer
in terms of its component parts to identify the mechanisms involved.
Third, the affect of a centerfill flighting section was to be
considered in the model. And finally, experiments were to be
performed on a rotary dryer system to check the simulation
results.
The same system was used for all of the rotary dryer experi-
ments. The drum was 1.2-meters in diameter by 5.5-meters in length.
A centerf ill flighting section was included and the flow was
cocurrent. The rotary drying system was commercially designed and
manufactured, but was instrumented for experimental applications.
Use of the dryer was provided by the Weyerhaeuser Company and
access to it was limited. Therefore, all of the experiments con-
ducted were treated as mill trials.

4
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Upon review of the literature pertaining to rotary dryers, one
finds three particular topics of study: residence time in rotary
drums, heat transfer in rotary drums, and examination of the complete
rotary drying process. Each of these subjects are treated separately
in the following literature survey. In addition, a review of the
pertinent wood drying literature is also included.
Residence Time and Particle-Gas Stream Interactions
Residence Time
Momentum transfer in rotary drums is generally studied in terms
of residence time and holdup of solids inside the drum. These
quantities are related as shown by Equation 1.
t = (1)
PB
where: t = residence time, s.
S = solids feed rate, kg/s.
H = holdup, m3.
PB = bulk solids density, kg/m3.
Residence time is dependent on the particle flow path, which
consists of flow in a particle-gas stream and travel on particle
lifting flights. The arrangement and shape of particle lifting
flights will influence the particle flow path. Figure 1 shows two
typical flighting systems for rotary drums. The dotted lines
indicate possible paths for a particle cascade. Each cascade results
in longitudinal motion of a particle along the length of the drum.

5
Other factors that will influence the residence time are number of
flights, gas flow rate, particle feed rate, particle characteristics,
drum diameter, drum length, drum slope, and rate of drum rotation.
Research into residence time in rotary drums has progressed
over the last 40 years from purely empirical functions describing
the process to theoretical relationships requiring computer solutions
to complex systems of differential equations. The works presented here
summarize the progress that has been made in this area of study.
Friedman and Marshall (1949) summarized the work of Prutton,
Miller and Schuette (1942), and Smith (1942) on residence time and
holdup in rotary drums. From this earlier work the following
empirical equations were derived.
13.8 L BLG
t = 0 ± 118.1
(tan a)NC"dd
B = 0.005(d )-0.5
where: a = drum slope, degrees.
L = drum length, m.
N = rate of rotation, rev./min.
d = drum diameter, m.
d = particle diameter, m.
G = gas flow rate, kg/s.
In Equation 2 the plus sign refers to countercurrent flow and the
minus sign to cocurrent flow.
An empirical relationship for residence time in rotary drums
was also developed by Saeman and Mitchell (1954). The method

6
employed resulted in a range of predicted residence times using
Equation 4.
- 60L
f(H) ddN(sin a - KvG)
where: f = average residence time, s.
f(H) = function of drum holdup.
VG = gas velocity, m/s.
K = constant, s/m.
The limiting values for the holdup function were Tr and 2 depending
on the degree of loading.
Miskell and Marshall (1956) studied residence time in a
0.14-meter diameter by 1.0-meter long rotary drum using a radio-
active tracer technique. Results indicated that an optimal holdup
condition existed, at which the deviation from the average residence
time was minimized.
A rigorous analysis of flight geometry and drum loading was
performed by Kelly and O'Donnell (1968). For the equal angular
distribution flight shown in Figure 2, the average residence time
is calculated by Equation 5.
-
KcL t, mo
y[sin a ± f(G)] 7- kg )
where: Kc = cascade factor
= average distance of particle fall, m.
f(G) = function of gas-particle interaction
= ratio of actual to design flight holdup at 0 = O.

mo
g = acceleration due to gravity, m/s2.
7
Periphery Flights Periphery and

Centerfill Flights
Figure 1. Schematic Diagrams of Rotary Drum Cross Sections Showing

Typical Particle Lifting Flight Systems.
Equal Angular
Particles Distribution
Flight
Ns%%%soe Square Flight,

Rectangular
1.
Cross Section
0 = Flight angle to horizontal.

(/) = Kinetic angle of repose.
Figure 2. Section View of Particles in Flight.

8
The cascade factor, Kc, defines the effective length of the drum and
must be found experimentally. The gas-particle interaction function
for
was approximated using the Schiller and Naumann (1933) relation
drag forces assuming spherical particles.
v rp (1 + 0.15 Re0.687) (6)

FD = Tird
p
where: FD = drag force due to gas-particle interaction, N.
= relative particle velocity, m/s.

vr
1.1 = gas viscosity, Pas.
Re = Reynolds number.
Glikin (1978) used a similar theoretical approach to derive
Equation 7.
sT5 0.5]
Le
T =
30N
+ (--Z) (7)
Y(sin a ± Jvr2)
where: 7 = average flight angle from which a particle cascades,
degrees.
J = drag factor.
Le = effective drum length, m.
The drag factor, J, was estimated similarly to the gas-particle
interaction function, f(G), of Equation 5 using the Schiller and
Naumann equation. The average flight angle from which a particle
cascades, U, is a function of the flight geometry and the kinetic
angle of repose, see Figure 2.
Equation 7 is completely general to any flight geometry pro-
vided the relationship between the kinetic angle of repose and the
flight angle is known.

9
As a follow-up to their earlier study, Kelly and O'Donnell
(1977) modified their residence time model to allow for kiln action
and bouncing as possible modes of advance along the length of the
drum.
Particle-Gas Stream Interactions
It appears from the work reported thus far, that the particle-
gas stream interaction is an important and complex component of the
residence time analysis. The complexity is due to the possibility
of irregular particle shapes and particle-particle interactions.
The literature contains a vast collection of works dealing with fixed
orientation drag on ideally defined shapes, such as spheres and
cubes. However, the more difficult problem as expressed above, has
not yet been solved.
A rather extensive literature review on the subject of drag on
bodies in a gas stream was presented by Mason (1980). This review
included considerations of acceleration in a fluid, turbulence,
surface roughness, particle shape, and multiparticle systems. The
author concluded that none of the correlations found in the
literature proved to be reliable over an entire range of flow
conditions or particle shapes.
Mason's own work on freely-falling wood chips yielded the
following empirical relationships for estimating drag coefficients
for three different particle shapes:
For flat plates in the maximum drag orientation:
50 (8)
CD = 0.60 [0.0176 (21w) + 1.13]; 1 < (2./w)
<
10
For cylinders in the maximum drag orientation:
0.65 [0.0087 (2,/d) + 0.691; 1 < (Z/d) < 50 (9)

CD =
For freely-falling wood particles, which cannot be modeled as a flat
plate or cylinder:
(10)
CD = 0.77
where: CD = drag coefficient.
= length.
w = width.
d = diameter.
Malte et al. (1977) measured particle velocities using a radio-
active tracer technique in a vertically oriented flash-tube dryer.
Particle drag coefficients were calculated using the force balance
given by Equation 11.
1
p V (1 + X) g = pg vt2 CD Ap
pp
where: p = density, kg/m3.
V = volume, m3.
X = particle moisture content, dry basis.
A = frontal area, m2.
= terminal velocity, m/s.

vt
Results for sawdust particles were essentially independent of
Reynolds number in the range 100 < Re < 4000 and had a value of
CD = 0.65. For wood flakes the value was somewhat higher, at
CD = 0.9.
11
Heat Transfer
Heat transfer in rotary drums has been approached from two
perspectives; either an analysis based on an empirically derived
overall heat transfer coefficient, or an approximate analysis using
individual particle heat transfer coefficients. The former is
characterized by Equation 12:
q = U Vd AT
where: q = rate of heat transfer to particles, J/s.
U = volumetric heat transfer coefficient, W/m3-°C.
Vd = volume of drum, m3.
ATkm = log-mean temperature difference, °C.
The latter requires assumptions concerning the geometry of the
system, particularly concerning the dynamics of the gas-particle
interaction.
McCormick (1962) surveyed the work of Miller et al. (1942),
Friedman and Marshall (1949), and Saeman and Mitchell (1954) to
derive the relationship:
G0.67
qs = K L dd ATtm
Ad
where: K = constant.
The value of K varies with characteristics of the solids, flight
arrangement, flight capacity, drum speed, and drum holdup.
Saeman (1962) discussed the differences in the correlations
proposed by earlier investigators and questioned the accuracy of the
gas temperature measurements made by Miller et al. (1942) and Porter

12
and Masson (1960). Discounting this data and citing the work of
Friedman and Marshall (1949), Saeman concluded that the overall
heat transfer coefficient shows only a second order dependence on
the gas flow rate and is primarily governed by the cascade rate.
Porter (1963) recognized the shortcomings of the empirical
approach to establishing an overall heat transfer coefficient for
design purposes and suggested the use of an individual particle
surface-film heat transfer coefficient, which could be determined
independent of the rotary drum system. A procedure for such a
calculation was not presented.
Sharples (1964) developed a model for a rotary dryer in which
the value of U was assumed to be proportional to the cascade rate,
drum speed, and the gas flow rate raised to the 0.5 power as shown
by Equation 14:
U = K N 005. (14)
In this expression, the value of K must be found experimentally.
Turner (1966) formulated a procedure for calculating average
particle temperatures as a function of their Progress along the
length of a rotary cooler. Internal temperature profiles of the
particles were also calculated as a function of time, while allowing
for alternate periods of cooling and soaking. A procedure for
determining the individual particle surface-film heat transfer
coefficient was not given.
Kuramae and Tanaka (1977) developed a procedure for calculating
an overall heat transfer coefficient based on theoretical

13
considerations. Their analysis included analytical solutions to
heat transfer equations for individual particles falling in a gas
stream, particles cascading in curtains, and particles riding on
peripheral lifting flights. These solutions were combined to yield
changes in gas and mean particle temperatures across a segment of
a rotary drum. An overall heat transfer coefficient was then
determined by Equation 12. The authors calculated the individual
falling particle surface-film heat transfer coefficient using a
relationship by Ranz and Marshall (1952):
hd
--R = 2 + 0.6Re05Pr033 (15)
kf
where: h = convective heat transfer coefficient, Wm2.C.

Pr = Prandtl number.
kf = conductive heat transfer coefficient of the surface
film, W/m.°C.
For the particles in a falling curtain, the following equation,
adapted from S.Hayashi, was used:
h = 0.013 (pf vr) (16)
where: pf = density of surface film, kg/m3.
= mean relative particle velocity, m/s.
Kuramae and Tanaka assumed a uniform temperature profile within
a particle as an initial condition for the analytical solution.
If heat transfer is assumed to occur only during the period
of particle fall, the following relation for the overall heat
transfer coefficient was obtained:

14
U = Kdde(H/Vd)13Ne(G/A )ed g(n -I)k (17)

d p e
where: K = constant
Ad = cross sectional area of drum, m2.
ne = number of peripheral flights.
The values of the exponents in Equation 17 were assigned the
following ranges: -0.25 < a < 0.21, 0.5 < b < 0.6, 0.5 < c < 0.6,
0.0 < e < 0.55, -1.2 < g < -0.75, and 0.4 < k < 0.5. From the above
result, the authors concluded that the overall heat transfer
coefficient is not dependent on the drum diameter. The gas velocity
was shown to have only a secondary effect, concurring with the
conclusions of Saeman (1962).
Hirosue and Shinohara (1978), in their work with rotary drums,
assumed heat transfer between the gas and the particles occurred
only during the period of fall and that the particles could be
approximated as individual spheres. A surface-film heat transfer
coefficient was calculated using Equation 15. This coefficient was
then combined with a specific surface area factor, which relates the
individual particle surface area, effective number of particles in
contact with the gas stream, and the drum volume. The result was
given as a summation function of the flight angle, which could be
approximated as follows:
2
d
U= K h -11 [549.5 (H/Vd)1.37 Fr0.41 dd2 dp-3]e (18)
dd
Fr = Froude number.
e = constant.
15
The values of K and e must be found experimentally.
Mass Transfer
Studies of mass transfer in rotary dryers are handled in the
literature within the context of the overall drying process. For
drying to occur, the moist material must obtain heat from its
surroundings. Much of the experimental work mentioned previously
concentrated on the heat transfer aspects of the rotary drying
process. As such, they were really studies of simultaneous heat
and mass transfer.
Miller et al. (1942) developed an empirical equation for esti-
mating the rate of heat transfer in a rotary dryer based on
experiments with 10 to 35 mesh, wet Fullers earth in a 0.20-meter
diameter drum. The rate of heat transfer was calculated as the sum
of the sensible heat acquired by the solids and liquid water plus
the latent heat of evaporation of the water driven off. An overall
heat transfer coefficient was determined using Equation 12, by
assuming the mean driving force to be the log-mean temperature
difference between the air and solids evaluated at the inlet and
outlet of the drum. The affect of heat loss through the drum wall
was neglected.
Friedman and Marshall (1949) conducted separate experimental
studies of heat transfer and drying in a rotary drum. Overall heat
transfer coefficients were calculated using a method similar to
Miller et al. (1942), however, a heat loss allowance was made based
on exterior drum wall temperatures. Overall heat transfer coeffi-
cients calculated from drying tests agreed closely with the results
16
from heat transfer tests. The authors concluded that heat transfer
results could be used directly to predict drying behavior.
The information presented thus far has concentrated on the
development of residence time and heat transfer correlations. To
go a step further, numerous attempts have been made to combine these
efforts into a complete rotary dryer model.
Myklestad (1963) assumed a linear relationship existed between
the gas temperature and the solids moisture content to develop
Equation 19, which predicts the solids moisture content as a function
of the distance from the solids inlet to the drum.
(b -
TS) (19)
X = X0.!j + (eJ -1)
-mUAd
where: J -
AS
TG = mX + b = gas temperature, °C.
T = solids temperature, °C.
Xo = inlet solids moisture content, dry basis.
U = volumetric heat transfer coefficient, J/s.m3°C.
= distance from the solids inlet, m.
A = latent heat, J/kg.
This relationship assumes a constant solids temperature, and is
therefore restricted to the constant rate drying period. Predictions
of the solids moisture content from Equation 19 were in good agree-
ment with experimental results using pumice particles in a 0.2-meter
diameter rotary dryer with countercurrent flow. The minimum outlet
solids moisture content was approximately 17 percent on a dry
basis, and appeared to be within the constant rate drying zone. The
17
calculated volumetric heat transfer coefficients varied approximately
to the 0.8 power of the gas mass velocity per unit cross-sectional
area of the drum.
A set of four ordinary differential equations were derived
by Sharples et al. (1964) to describe the drying over a differential
drum length:
dX R
dt
dY -SR
d2.
dT UAd(TG-TS)
+-
SXR
v
7d
d
q-
L
S S
_
d2, S(cs + cwX)
cvSR
(TG-TS) - UAd(TG-TS)
dTG
d!?, G(cG + cvy)
where: R = drying rate, S1.

-
= bulk solids velocity through the drum, m/s.
Y = gas moisture content, dry basis.
cIL = heat loss through dryer wall, J/s-m2.
c = specific heat, J/kg.°C.
The volumetric heat transfer coefficient was assumed to be propor-
tional to the square root of the dry gas mass velocity. Heat losses
were estimated as being proportional to the temperature difference
between the ambient air and the average gas and solids temperature
inside the dryer. The drying rate was defined as follows:

18
R = -KXTs3
Equations 20 through 24 were solved by a computer. The required
proportionality constants must be derived through experiments.
Nonhebel and Moss (1971) presented a general design pro-
cedure for rotary dryers using mass and energy balances and esti-
mates of overall heat and mass transfer coefficients based on
previous work [Saeman and Mitchell (1954); Friedman and Marshall
(1949)]. The dryer is divided into three zones: a preheat zone, a
constant rate zone, and a falling rate zone. No experimental data
was presented. Given that information was available on a similarly
designed dryer and that it was operating under similar conditions,
this would appear to be an adequate procedure for sizing rotary
dryers.
The concept of alternating periods of falling and soaking was
analyzed by Davidson et al. (1969) by considering that a surface
film exists on a particle, whose pseudo permeability could be
estimated as:
(4tf/7Dwv)1/2
kp -
tc
where: kp = pseudo permeability of the solid structure, m-1.
D = diffusion coefficient for combined liquid and vapor

wv
within the solid structure, m2/s.
tf = time of fall, s.
tc = time per cascade, s.
In this manner, continuous drying was assumed throughout the dryer
length. The drying time is then the total residence time in thedryer.
19
Thorne (1979) extended the previous work by Kelly and O'Donnell
(1968; 1977), on residence time in rotary drums, to develop a
computer program which predicts drying behavior in a rotary dryer.
The following vapor diffusion model, proposed by Garside et al.
(1970), was adopted to describe the drying mechanism.
X m 2 2 Ti + (BiM-1)2
-v
= 6 Bim2 E exp (-D tT. /r ) -
V J p 2
j=1 T + Bim(Bim-1)
J.
sin2(T.)
(26)
4
T.
where: T cot (T) = - (Bim -1).
Bim = mass transfer Biot number.
= vapor diffusion coefficient, m2/s.

Dv
r = particle radius, m.
Drying was assumed to occur during the falling period and during the
time of travel on the lifting flights. While on the lifting flights,
the particles experienced a "soaking" period, in which moisture was
not allowed to cross the particle surface.
The residence time parameters used in Thorne's program were
treated as input and evaluated separately using a computer program
developed by Kelly and O'Donnell (1977). These parameters were
corrected before they were used in the drying program based on
experimental results by Kelly and O'Donnell.
Drying experiments were conducted using pumice particles of
approximately two millimeters in diameter and three percent mois-
ture content in a 0.30-meter diameter by 1.8-meter long rotary drum.

20
The flow scheme was countercurrent. Comparisons with Thorne's data

were good near the particle inlet to the drum. However, as the
particles neared a dry condition, the model predicted a discon-
tinuity in the particle temperature. This resulted from an inability
of the vapor diffusion model to account for drying to completion.
Thorne concluded that the gas velocity, as it affects particle
mechanics, is the most complex component of the rotary drying
process.
Kisakiirek (1982) made several major assumptions in order to
simplify his model for a rotary dryer. The drying rate relationship,
given by Equation 27, assumed the solids temperature was constant
and equal to the wet-bulb temperature throughout the drum, and that
all sensible heat affects were negligible.
hAH
-dX
dt A ""G Twb)
(27)
where: AH = particle surface area available for heat transfer, m2.

Twb = wet-bulb temperature, °C.
Kisakiirek's residence time analysis was similar to Glikin's (1978),

however, uniform cascading was assumed over the drum cross section.
Drying experiments, using 30 to 67-millimeter gypsum particles,
were carried out in a 0.8-meter diameter by 1.4-meter long rotary
dryer with both cocurrent and countercurrent flow. Good agreement
was found at moisture contents above 50 percent (from Kisakiirek's
report it is unclear if this is on a wet or dry basis), however,
severe deviations between the measured and predicted results occurred
after further drying. Kisakiirek attributed the error to an
21
increasing contribution of internal moisture diffusion, which is
not accounted for in the model.
A computer program was developed by Platin et al. (1982) to
predict drying behavior in a rotary dryer. This model assumes
external control of the drying rate. A preheat zone near the
particle inlet is accounted for using Equation 28, in which all
evaporation is governed by the rate of mass transfer at the particle
surface.
6 Mw Dw PG PvG
dX
Sh ZnPG -
dt 2 (PvG pvs) PG - pvs]
p d RT vs
pp f
where: Mw = molecular weight of water, kg/kgmole.
Dw = water diffusity in solid, m2/s.
pvG = partial pressure of vapor in the gas, Pa.
p = partial pressure of vapor at the particle surface, Pa.

vs
R = gas constant, kgmole °C/Pa.m2.
Tf = gas film temperature, K.
Sh = Sherwood number, kd/D

gp w.
PG = total gas pressure, Pa.
The rate of heat transfer to a particle was given as:
P V (TG - TS )
q p p diLqt cf
dX
Pp Vp dt cf] 1
exp [k d Nu
71.
f p
where: cf = gas film specific heat, J/s°C.
qs = rate of heat transfer to a particle, J/s.
Nu = heat transfer Nusselt number.

22
All drying was assumed to occur during the period of particle fall.
During the soaking period, heat and mass were redistributed to a
uniform condition within the particle. No experimental data was
presented along with Platin's report.
Wood Drying Models
Wood is a capillary porous hygroscopic material. It exhibits
different properties in the longitudinal, tangential and radial
directions. Wood shrinks and swells with changes in moisture
content below the fiber saturation point. In addition, wood
properties may vary depending upon its position in a tree, the site
on which it was grown, and between species. All of these character-
istics combined into one material makes mathematical modeling of the
drying process a difficult task.
A comprehensive description of how water moves in wood during
a drying process may be found in the works of Siau (1971), Skaar
(1972), Kollmannand Cote (1968), and Stamm (1964). In general, the
drying of wood occurs in three stages: a constant rate period, a
falling rate period, and a second falling rate period. During the
first stage, evaporation of moisture takes place at the surface.
Surface moisture is replenished with free water from the wood
interior by action of capillary forces. In this stage external
conditions control the drying rate. The falling rate stage begins
when the surface drops below the moisture content at fiber
saturation. The evaporation front recedes into the wood. Moisture
must now move to the surface under forces resulting from vapor,
bound water, and pressure gradients. At this point, the internal

23
resistances of the wood are becoming more critical. The last stage
of drying begins when the evaporation front has reached the wood
core, and no more free water is present. The drying continues under
internal control until an equilibrium moisture content is reached.
The drying of hygroscopic porous materials has been given
considerable attention in the literature, a thorough review of which
is beyond the scope of this paper. Some of the most notable works
are those of Luikov (1975), Gupta (1974), Mikhailov (1975),
Kisakiirek (1975), Harmathy (1969), and Berger and Pei (1973).
Of the work relating specifically to wood, Rosen (1983) surveyed
the most recent developments in wood drying models and organized
them under diffusion models, empirical models, and models based on
heat and mass transport equations. Rosen's paper discusses the
advances in basic theory and modeling of lumber drying, with special
emphasis on the last ten years. Rosen states that unknown or
arbitrary constants required in many of the drying model solutions
merely reduces those efforts to an empirical correlation of a
mathematical function. Consequently, the reliability of the model,
under conditions where no data exists, becomes questionable. The
reader is referred to Rosen's paper for a more complete description
of these wood drying models.
Special considerations encountered when drying wood particles
in rotary dryers include the use of high gas temperatures (i.e. above
100°C) and the fact the wood is in particulate form.
Hart (1966) described the fundamental difference between high
and low temperature drying. At temperatures above the normal
boiling point of water and atmospheric pressure, a slight steam

24
pressure may develop at the evaporation front within the wood.
This results in hydrodynamic flow of water vapor due to a pressure
gradient from the evaporation front to the wood surface. At low
temperatures, only water vapor and liquid water diffusion may occur
as a result of concentration gradients. This explains why high
temperature drying is much more rapid than low temperature drying
when external conditions are no longer controlling the drying rate.
Very little experimental data is available concerning the
drying behavior of wood at high temperatures. Some work with

lumber (Kollmann, 1961; Rosen and Bodkin, 1978) and veneer
(Fleischer, 1953; Atherton and Welty, 1972) has been reported.
Part of the problem associated with studying high temperature
wood drying is a lack of knowledge concerning psychrometric rela-
tionships and equilibrium conditions of wood-water systems above
100°C. Rosen (1980) discusses some of the practical problems of
psychrometric and equilibrium moisture content interactions
relating to wood. Rosen notes that there is a lack of experimental
verification of psychrometric charts above 100°C.
Simpson and Rosen (1981) devised a method of extrapolating
low temperature equilibrium moisture content data to high tempera-
tures using a model originally proposed by Hailwood and Horrobin:
K1 K 2 (Pv/Psv ) K2 (Pv/P: )
X = (30)
1 + (p /ps ) 1 - K2 (p /ps )
K1 K2 v v v v
where: K1 = 3.73 + 0.03642T - 0.0001547T2
K2 = 0.674 + 0.001053T - 0.000001714T2
W = 216.9 + 0.01961T + 0.00572T2

25
pv = partial pressure of water vapor, Pa.
= saturated vapor pressure, Pa.

pv
T = temperature, K.
Some research has been reported regarding the drying of wood
particles. The first extensive effort was by Corder (1958), which
dealt with flash-tube drying of sawdust. Wood particles were
entrained and dried in a vertically oriented tube under various
drying conditions. The highest drying efficiency was found at the
lowest gas flow rates. Increasing the inlet gas temperature had
little effect on efficiency, however, the dryer capacity was
increased proportionally with gas temperature. Decreasing the
particle size increased dryer efficiency.
The related works of Malte et al. (1977) and Plumb et al. (1977)
studied the drying rate of wood particles in a flash-tube dryer.
Sawdust of three sizes, flakes and shavings were examined. The
drying rate was determined as a function of wood moisture content.
A typical drying rate curve from their results is shown in Figure 3.
It is interesting to note that, as the gas temperature was increased,
the constant rate zone diminished, and in many cases could not be
detected. The result of these works was a computer simulation of
wood particles drying in a flash-tube.
Kayihan (1982) developed a simultaneous heat and mass transfer
model to describe two-dimensional wood particle drying. Three
internal diffusion processes were included, as represented by the
following set of partial differential equations:

26
IMI
Gas Temperature = 575°C
525°C
0.16
4750C
0.12
425°C
a)
cci
0 375°C
0.08
325°C
0.04
1
I
I I I
i
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Particle Moisture Content (%)
Figure 3. Measured Drying Rates of Wood Particles In a Flash-Tube

Versus Wood Particle Moisture Content (Malte et al, 1977).
27
DT a2T D2T P A
at = ax 2 ' aY ay 2 -
Dx Cs
BF a2XBF a2XBF
- DBF,x +
3t 2 DBF,y 2 ppw(1Es)
Dx By
DXv a2Xv a2Xv)

-1E v,x ax2
+
DV
v ay 2 p (1-ES)
DW
where: a = thermal diffusivity, m2/s.
Cs = specific heat of wet wood, J/kg-°C.
R = local drying rate, s-1.
x,y = directional coordinates, m.
BF = bound and free water.
E = local porosity.
These equations were coupled by assuming local thermal and phase
equilibrium and utilizing Equation 30 to relate XBF, Xv, and T.
A computer solution was required. Comparisons with the experimental
results on the drying of wood particles in a convection oven were
very good when the moisture diffusion coefficients in Equations 32
and 33 were allowed to vary to achieve the best fit. It is unclear
whether these results are reproducible under varying drying
conditions.
A computer simulation of the drying rate of wood particles was
also developed by Emery et al. (1983). Two approaches were used.
The first assumed that free water and bound water occupied two
distinct regions within the wood structure. Free water was not
allowed within the bound water region. The other approach assumed
free and bound water coexisted throughout the wood structure under
28
local equilibrium. The equations required for these models
included a mass balance, energy balance, sorption isotherm, Darcy's
Law, Fickian diffusion, and capillary flow. The two region model
was solved with one dimensional flow in the longitudinal direction.
The single region model was solved in cylindrical coordinates. In
both cases, the particle length in the longitudinal direction was
assumed to be less than the length of a wood tracheid. This
assumption implied that the free water had an unobstructed
passageway to the surface.
Even though the two region model was considerably more complex
than the single region model, both yielded nearly identical pre-
dictions for the drying rate. With the exception of the initial
warm-up period, good agreement between the model predictions and
experimentally measured drying rates were reported. The methods
used for deriving the necessary transport coefficients were not
presented.
29
III. RESIDENCE TIME
To date, residence time models that allow for centerfill
flights cannot be found in the literature. For reasons described
earlier, see Figure 1, this type of flighting system would behave
much differently than a system with only peripheral flights. In
this report the method of Glikin (1978) has been modified to allow
for centerf ill flights. A method has also been developed to
account for loading below the design condition.
With a rotary drum containing centerf ill flights, each particle
cascade consists of two parts, the time spent traveling on lifting
flights and the time spent falling through the gas stream. Longi-
tudinal motion along the length of the drum results from the gas-
particle interaction and the slope of the drum, see Figure 4. With
cocurrent flow the gas-particle interaction assists the particles
in their movement along the length of the drum. Countercurrent flow
retards that motion. Heat sensitive materials, such as wood,
require the use of cocurrent flow to prevent fires and scorching in
rotary dryers. The remainder of this analysis will deal only with
cocurrent flow since this is the mode of operation used with wood
particle dryers.
The following assumptions are incorporated into the development
of the residence time model:
During the period of fall the particles behave independently
of one another.
The irregularly shaped wood particles may be approximated as
spheres for purposes of analyzIng the gas-particle interaction.

30
3. Particle lifting flights are rectangular in cross section,
or at least can be approximated as such.
Model Development
Longitudinal Advance Per Cascade
A force balance equation for a particle falling in a rotary
drum was presented by Schofield and Glikin (1962). From left to
right the terms in Equation34 represent the inertial force, force
due to gravity, and the drag force on a particle, all in the
longitudinal direction.
2
dv ir
Tr 3 X Tr 3 2 (VG-Irld
d p - -7.7d p g sina + C 7rd (34)
p p p p pD G 4 P 2
where: = longitudinal particle velocity, m/s.

vx
Equation 34 may be integrated twice to yield Equation 35 for
determining the longitudinal advance of a particle per cascade.
[ cos[tan-1(vG/a)]
x = v t + 9.11
G f K
cos[-aKtf + tan-1(vG/a)]
10.5
[g sin a
where: a =
PG
K =0.75
CD d p
pp
tf = time of particle fall, s
x = longitudinal advance per fall, m.
The drag coefficient, CD, is estimated by combining Equation 6
with Equation 36 (Welty et al., 1976).
(vG - vx)2
FD = CD Atl pG 2
31
to yield:
24
C
D= (1
Re
+ 0.15 Re0.687 )
Since the drag coefficient is a function of the relative particle
velocity, Equations 35 and 37 must be solved iteratively.
Time Per Cascade
For a rotating drum with a flighting system consisting of both
periphery and centerf ill flights, the time spent traveling on lifting
flights consists of travel on periphery flights and travel on
centerfill flights. This would be between points D and A and points
B and C in Figure 1. Likewise, the time of fall through the gas
stream consists of falling from the peripheral flights and falling
from centerfill flights. This would be between points A and B and
points C and D in Figure 1. Positions A, B, C and D represent the
radial positions in the travel of an "average" particle. These
positions are evaluated using an averaging technique presented by
Glikin (1978) for peripheral flights and modified for this study to
account for centerf ill flights.
Equation 38 may be used to evaluate position A in Figure 1.
*
7 *1 r h (0) 0 dh*
J 0
h (0)
_
where: 0 = peripheral flight angle at which an average particle is
released, degrees.
*
h (0) = design flight holdup at 0 = 0.
*
To integrate this equation a relationship between 0 and h must be
found from the knowledge of the flight geometry and the kinetic angle
32
of repose. For the square flight shown in Figure 2 this relationship
was derived by Glikin (1978).
Position C in Figure 1 is similarly obtained as shown by Equa-
tion 39.
1 h (T.)
1 (39).
' h(Ti)
C
10c Tdhc
where: = centerf ill flight angle at which an average particle
is released.
h(Pi) = centerf ill flight holdup when cascading begins.
The relationship between T and hc for square flights is given
by Equations 40 - 42. The angles and other dimensions referenced
are illustrated in Figures 2 and 5.
For T < (90-180/nc + w) or y < (f) :
1 2 2)
hc =
2c + + bc tan(360/nc-w) tan( m)/
[tan(360/nc-w) + tan( max)])(40)
For T > (90-180/nc + w) and y > (I) and T < (4) + 180-360/nc + w)
1
hc =cbc +c2 + bc2) tan(360/nc-w)
tan(4) + 180-360/nc + w - T)/
[tan(360/nc-w) + tan(4) + 180-360/nc + w-T)]) (41)
For T > (90-180/nc + w) and y > (I) and T > (4) + 180-360/nc + w)
1
hc = 2c /tan(T - - 180+360/nc) (42)
33
Figure 4. Vertical and Longitudinal Motion of Particle During a

Cascade With Cocurrent Flow.
Figure 5. Section View of Rotary Drum Cross Section.

34
The average angle of entry onto the centerf ill flights, Te, and
the average angle of entry onto the peripheral flights, %, are
represented by points B and D respectively in Figure 1. If a
completely vertical fall is assumed these angles may be determined
by plane geometry. For a more rigorous technique the radial dis-
placement due to the angular momentum transferred from the moving
flight to the particle should be taken into account. In practice,
with rotation rates below ten revolutions per minute and drum
diameters of three meters or less, this allowance is negligible.
The angles and 711-e are used to calculate the vertical
distances of fall, y and for both stages of the falling period.

yc,
The time of fall per cascade, tf, is then given by:
0.5 0.5
tf = (2gy) + (2gyc) (43)
The time of travel on the flights is given by Equation 44.
t = [(360 + 77) - 1%) + a - e)1/36N (44)
Total Residence Time
The total residence time is calculated as shown by Equation 45,
where the number of cascades, C, is determined by dividing the
length of the drum by the longitudinal advance per cascade, x, from
Equation 35.
(45)
tT = C(t + tf)
In practice, rotary drum dryers with centerf ill flights will have
short segments ahead and behind the centerf ill section to allow for
35
a smooth particle infeed and outfeed. These segments are treated in
a similar manner as outlined above but without the centerf ill
flights. The total residence time in the drum must then include
the time spent in these unobstructed segments.
Allowance for Underloaded Flights
Up to this point the analysis has been based on the assumption
that the drum is fully loaded. This means at 0 = 0 the flight has
just become filled to capacity and cascading begins. This condition
generally would not be achieved in a wood particle drying operation.
Material feed rates are often limited by burner capacity and drying
rates. Overloading is undesirable since this would cause an
accumulation of particles on the bottom of the drum that do not
participate in continual cascading. The result is a decrease in the
gas-particle interaction, requiring additional residence time to
achieve the desired degree of drying. For these reasons rotary drum
dryers used for drying wood particles are operated below the design
holdup of the flights.
If the drum holdup is less than the design drum holdup, the
cascading is not initiated at 0 = 0, but occurs at some greater
peripheral flight angle. Underloading will therefore result in a
larger value for 0, which is the basis for the residence time calcu-
lation.
To account for underloading an iterative procedure is proposed.
First, the residence time and drum holdup are calculated as outlined
previously. The calculated drum holdup, H, is then compared to the

36
design drum holdup, H*, and a fractional drum holdup, m, is
determined as follows:
m = H/H* (46)
If m is less than one an iteration is required. Assuming m is
linearly related to the peripheral flight holdup, a new value for
the flight holdup when cascading begins, h(0), is calculated as:
h(0) = m h (0) (47)
This value is then compared to successive values of h (0) as 0 is
increased until h(01) just exceeds h (0), at which point the
peripheral flight angle when cascading begins will be identified.
Equation 38 then becomes:
0 dh
h(0i) 0
The procedure for calculating the total residence time and the drum
holdup is then repeated and successive iterations performed until
convergence of the total residence time and the fractional drum
holdup is achieved.
Equivalent Particle Diameter
When dealing with fluid dynamic properties of irregularly
shaped particles it is common practice to approximate them as spheres
and calculate an equivalent particle diameter. A method proposed by
Levenspiel (1980) is given by:
(a + 1) d
- 2
37
where: ds = mean aperature size of two screens defining a particle
size.
a = sphericity, the ratio of the surface area of a sphere
to the surface area of the particle of an equivalent
volume.
Other methods of dealing with irregularly shaped particles are
available in the literature (Torobin and Gauvin, 1960; Heywood,
1962; Coulson and Richardson, 1978; Mason, 1980). The above method
was chosen because of its ease of application in a closed form
equation.
Solution Procedure
A computer simulation program called RESTIME has been developed
to predict the average residence time in single-pass rotary drums
with or without centerfill flights. The output contains a complete
description of the particle flow path, including: distances of
particle fall, time of fall, time of travel on lifting flights,
longitudinal advance per fall, drum holdup, and the average residence
time. The following is a step by step solution procedure used by
the program RESTIME:
Drum dimensions, gas flow rate, particle feed rate, and
particle characteristics are input to the program.
Preliminary calculations are performed in order to
determine the flighting geometry within the drum.
As a first estimate, design drum loading is assumed.
An equivalent particle diameter is estimatedwith Equation 49.

38
Equation 38 is used to calculate the peripheral flight
angle at which an average particle is released.
A check is made to determine if centerf ill flights are
present. If centerfill flights are involved, Equation 39
is solved for the centerf ill flight angle at which an
average particle is released. This calculation is dependent
on the cascading pattern of the peripheral flights as
defined by h(0).
Through considerations of the flighting geometry calculated
in step 2, the average angles of entry on to the peripheral
flights and the centerfill flights are calculated. These
are points D and B respectfully in Figure 1.
The time of particle fall is calculated by Equation 43.
If centerfill flights are absent, yc = 0.
Knowing the distance and time of particle fall, the longi-
tudinal advance is estimated from Equations 35 and 37. This
involves an iterative solution, since the drag coefficient
may not be solved for explicitly.
The time of travel on the lifting flights is calculated by
Equation 44. The total time per cascade is then the sum of
the falling time and the time on the lifting flights.
The total number of cascades is determined by dividing the
drum length by the longitudinal advance per cascade. If a
centerf ill flight section was involved, the number of
cascades in the drum sections without centerf ill must be
evaluated separately.
39
The overall residence time is then the product of the number
of cascades in the centerf ill section and the associated
time per cascade, plus the product of the number of cascades
in the unobstructed sections and the associated time per
cascade.
The drum holdup is now calculated by Equation 1 and
compared to the value estimated in step 3. If they are in
sufficient agreement (one percent deviation is allowed in
the program) the program terminates with an output
listing. If the calculated drum holdup is greater than the
design drum holdup, the program terminates with a warning
message that the drum is loaded beyond its capacity. If
none of these criteria are met, a new estimate of the drum
holdup is made using an average value of all the iterations
made thus far. Equation 48 is then used to estimate the
new peripheral flight angle at which an average particle is
released. Steps 6 through 13 are repeated until the
termination criteria is met. Usually less than five
iterations are required.
Angle of Repose
The angle of repose, cO, for particles carried in lifting
flights was illustrated in Figure 2 as simply the angle the
particle bed surface makes relative to the horizontal. When the
particle bed is in motion, this is known as the kinetic angle of
repose.
40
A force balance was presented by Schofield and Glikin (1962)
which specifies the kinetic angle of repose for free flowing
particles based on frictional resistance, gravitational and
centripetal forces. The resultant relationship for (1) is shown in
Equation 50.
n - nFr sin 0 + Fr cos 0

tan (I) = (50)
1 - nFr cos 0 - Fr sin 8
where: Fr = Froude number, rdve2/g.
n = friction factor.
V0 = angular velocity, s-1.
rd = drum radius, m.
Kelly and O'Donnell (1968) experimentally verified this behavior
using pumice particles in a rotary drum with fully enclosed
cylinders for flights.
Experimentation and Results
The angle of repose for wood particles was photographically
examined using the experimental rotary drum pictured in Figure 6.
A total of 713 measurements were taken. The parameters examined
included: wood particle moisture content, drum speed and drum
diameter. Because the flights were square as shown in Figure 2,
and not fully enclosed cylinders as used by Kelly and O'Donnell,
measurements of (1) and 8 were made only in the upper half of the
drum where normal cascading occurs.
Direct measurement of the angle of repose was not possible
since the particle bed surface was irregular and seldom contained in
a single plane. It was decided to graphically calculate the flight

Repose. of Angle The Measuring For Drum Rotary Experimental 6. Figure
-
5,2
41
-
42
holdup from the photographs and then back-calculate an effective
angle of repose using the tip of the flight lip as a reference
point. Tables 1 and 2 tabulate the effective angle of repose data
for wood particles with moisture contents of 10 and 146 percent on a
dry basis.
Values of (PI from Tables 1 and 2 are plotted as a function of
Froude number in Figure 7. As shown, there is no apparent correla-
tion of ci) with the Froude number in the range studied. The
variation about the mean was high, with an average standard deviation
of approximately 12 degrees.
Figure 7 does show an effect of moisture content on the angle
of repose. The 146 percent moisture content particles exhibited a
mean angle of repose of approximately eight degrees higher than the
10 percent moisture content particles. This difference was sig-
nificant at a 99 percent confidence level.
Figure 8 is a plot of the angle of repose versus the flight
angle for a Froude number of 0.019. There is an apparent relation-
ship, however, the trend does not conform to the curve predicted by
Equation 50, which, with a negligible Froude number, would predict
a horizontal line.
The above arguments suggest that Equation 50 does not apply to
wood particles. Wood particles cannot be considered a free-flowing
material as assumed for Equation 50. Observations of wood particles
cascading in a rotary drum revealed that there is not an even flow
of material from the lifting flights but rather an intermittent
release of particles. This was most apparent at flight angles

43
Table 1. Experimental Data for the Kinetic Angle of Repose for Wood
Particles in a Rotary Drum. Moisture Content = 10 %
(Dry Basis).
Drum Drum Froude Mean Angle Standard

Diameter Speed Number of Repose Deviation
(m) (rpm) (103) (degree) (degree)
0.46 2.7 1.88 77.6 10.6

6.1 9.58 77.9 12.0
14.0 50.04 76.9 10.1
0.61 2.7 2.49 75.2 18.7

6.1 12.70 78.1 15.2
14.0 66.89 80.3 14.2
0.91 2.7 3.71 84.1 10.0
6.1 18.95 86.8 9.3
14.0 99.79 85.1 10.6
Table 2. Experimental Data for the Kinetic Angle of Repose for Wood
Particles in a Rotary Drum. Moisture Content = 146 %
(Dry Basis).
Drum Drum Froude Mean Angle Standard

Diameter Speed Number of Repose Deviation
(m) (rpm) (103) (degree) (degree)
0.46 2.7 1.88 84.9 8.9

6.1 9.58 89.3 7.9
14.0 50.04 85.8 9.3
0.61 2.7 2.49 85.4 9.6

6.1 12.70 87.6 12.9
14.0 66.89 90.9 14.2
0.91 2.7 3.71 89.6 11.5

6.1 18.95 95.9 10.6
14.0 99.79 85.3 12.7
44
0 0 = 146 % Moisture (Dry Basis)

95 0= 10 % Moisture (Dry Basis)
k 90
op 0
0
85 8
0
0
t-I 0
AO 80
0 0
0
75
0 25 50 75 100
Froude Number (103)
Figure 7. Experimentally Measured Angle of Repose For Wood Particles

as a Function of Froude Number and Moisture Content.
140
0= 146 % Moisture (Dry Basis)
0= 10 % Moisture (Dry Basis)
0
0
0 0 0 00
0
0 c8
60 1
30 60 90 100
Flight Angle (degree)
Figure 8. Experimentally Measured Angle of Repose For Wood Particles

as a Function of Periphery Flight Angle and Moisture Content.
45
greater than 90 degrees when typically almost the entire flight
holdup would fall in one lump.
Particle geometry and moisture content appear to be controlling
factors in determining the angle of repose. Wood particles form a
bridging matrix as they rest on a flight. Partial collapse of the
matrix occurs when its weakest component fails, thus initiating a
cascade of particles. The ability of the matrix to stay intact
depends on the particle geometry. Long and curly particles, such as
planer shavings, tend to interlock and strengthen the matrix, leading
to a high angle of repose. Whereas, granular particles, like saw-
dust, approach a more free flowing state with a lower angle of
repose.
Moisture content apparently affects the angle of repose as the
result of two factors: the presence of surface moisture and a change
in the bulk density. Conceivably, a cohesive force is developed
between the particles when sufficient surface moisture is present.
This is a combined result of hydrogen bonding between the water and
the wood and surface tension effects. An increase in the amount of
surface moisture results in a greater influence of these surface
effects. Higher particle moisture contents also result in higher
bulk densities. This could cause more intimate contact between the
particles on the flights due to greater compaction, possibly
resulting in more interlocking between the particles. The effect of
moisture content on the angle of repose is shown in Figures 7 and 8.
A statistical analysis indicated the higher moisture content
particles had a significantly greater angle of repose.

46
Residence Time Experiment
Equipment and Procedure
Residence time was measured experimentally using a radioactive
tracer technique. The rotary drum used was a commercial model,
1.2-meters in diameter by 5.5-meters in length. A centerf ill
flighting section was included, and the gas-particle flow was
cocurrent. Drum speed and particle size were the independent
variables examined.
The principle behind the radioactive tracer technique is
simply to tag a particle with a radioactive isotope of sufficient
energy, such that the tagged particle may be "seen" using detection
equipment, which is sensitive to the presence of radioactivity.
A diagram of the experimental setup is shown in Figure 9. Two
gamma ray detectors were positioned inside the dropout hopper at
the exit end of the drum. The signal from each detector was
individually processed through a separate preamplifier and amplifier
circuit. The resulting two signals were then joined and routed
through a single rate meter, and the output transmitted to a scaler
and a strip-chart recorder. A remote switch at the particle inlet
controlled the strip-chart recorder and initiated the starting time
for each run.
An aqueous NaNO3 solution was exposed to a neutron bombardment
in the nuclear reactor on the Oregon State University campus. The
resultant solution contained Na24. This nuclide was selected
because of its relatively energetic gamma rays at 1.37 and 2.75 MeV
Exhaust gas and fines Particles
to cyclones
Test particles
NaI(T1) detector
Power
/ Remote Source
Baffles 7 f Switch
Drop-out
hopper --1
Inlet air
NaI(T1) detector
7 Particles
Pre- Amp. Rate

amp. --OP Meter
Scaler
Pre- Amp. 1
amp.
Chart
Recorder
olStrip-
Figure 9. Rotary Drum Experimental Set-up With Irradiated Particle
Detection System.
48
per disintegration and the fact that the test site location and
travel time were in keeping with the 15 hour half-life.
The wood particles used were commercially prepared and exhibited
the size distribution shown in Figure 10. Representative test
particles were selected from three size classes defined by a sieve
analysis. A total dry weight of 1.2 grams per size class was used.
Enough particles for six test runs were prepared, with the number of
test particles used per run varying from 46 to about 300 depending
on the particle size class.
Test particles were tagged with a predetermined amount of the
Na24 solution. They were then dried to approximate equilibrium with
ambient conditions using a heat lamp and a weight scale. Approxi-
mately 20 hours elapsed from the time the test particles were
tagged and the first experimental run was begun.
At the start of each run, test particles were simultaneously
injected through an access port at the particle inlet immediately
ahead of the rotating drum. These particles became mixed with the
bulk particle feed. The temperature of the gas stream approximated
the ambient temperature and all the particles used were previously
dried.
Results and Discussion
Individual tagged particles were detected at the drum exit. A
portion of the readout from the strip-chart recorder is shown in
Figure 11. The peaks shown were interpreted as individual particles
as they passed very near a detector.

0.5 "I.
0.4
Median = 1.63 mm
Mean = 2.06 mm
0
0.3 -
w Relative Frequency = Weight Fraction
0
0- Incremental Screen
w
44 Opening
w
m
0.2 -
w
p4
0.1
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Actual Screen Opening (mm)
Figure 10. Wood Particle Size Distribution Used in Residence Time Experiment.
Particles. Tagged to Response
Detector Showing Output Recorder Strip-Chart Sample 11. Figure
[III I, , tiff mi
,
_L, 'r L
. 2,1or,.,'1,-1,1 *". ,
1
, r, iliiiP1w iv-111,1' qm. iirr_.111'i ,
,rir ,
iiiii.,
11 LA ,a.1 ALT
ji ,Hr 1,
,
,,, ,,
, - - '
,
1
NI ,I _1 !,-
,ir ,11,11411 Ii!
,
,
'4; 1
i- ,
- -
1
do, - 1,-.' ikr
- J, .-,
, , ,
1
1 ,
Iii I
-_-_[ ,
1 I - s ni
1 i':- 11
1 1111'I
iii , ,
it Ilaili
1
4
,
,- _1
,
ti iiii 1
1_
ItI _,_,A
, m_
- ,
[
14 _1
,
i
I ,,-,
, ,
,
LL
,
I I - Ii, ..
,
,
ill
,
,
,
,__
,
1
,
[
,
'
,
,.., L
1
IL
1, f -1-, --!--.--r-T11-111-
50
51
From the strip-chart recorder output, frequency histograms were
prepared, see Figure 12. With the exception of the smallest
particles at a drum speed of 7.2 revolutions per minute, all of the
distributions tailed off to the right. The one exception resulted
because that test run was terminated early due to a clogged outlet
screwfeed conveyor.
Comparison Between Experimental Results
and Predicted Behavior
Means and standard deviations from Figure 12 are plotted in
Figure 13 along with the mean residence time predictions from the
computer program RESTIME. The 45 degree line indicates what would
be an ideal fit between actual and predicted results.
The affect of drum speed is readily apparent from Figure 13.
Increasing the drum speed decreased the average residence time. The
change in the residence time was not proportional to the change in
the drum speed.
Of particular interest in Figure 13 is the effect of particle
size. RESTIME predicted a much more significant effect of particle
size than was shown by the actual data. RESTIME assumes that the
particles act independently. Experimentation showed that this was
not the case. The lesser affect of particle size becomes apparent
when one recalls the test procedure. Test particles of discrete
size were injected into the rotary drum and mixed immediately with
the bulk particle flow. The size distribution of the bulk
particles was shown in Figure 10. During a cascade the particles
fall in curtains, separated by relatively particle free areas-, as

25
Mean = 8.3
20 Mean = 14.4
Std = 1.6
Std = 3.2
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Residence Time (min) Residence Time (min)
a. Drum Speed = 7.2 rpm b. Drum Speed = 3.0 rpm

Particle Size = -1.88 Particle Size = -1.88
+1.53 mm +1.53 mm
Figure 12. Experimentally Measured Residence Time Distributions. Gas Velocity = 1.58 m/s
Feed Rate = 0.334 dry kg/s.
25
20 Mean = 7.9
Std = 2.0 = 15.3
Std = 3.4
_r-
ri-1 11
5 10 15 5 10 15 20 25 30
c. Drum Speed = 7.2 rpm d. Drum Speed = 3.0 rpm

Particle Size = -3.35 Particle Size = -3.35
+1.88 mm +1.88 mm
Figure 12. Continued.

25
20 = 8.6 Mean = 17.2

Std = 2.5 Std = 3.6
15
0
cu
1-1
44
10
IL
4-1
4-1
0 I I n 1 171
0 5 10 15 5 10 15 20 25 30
e. Drum Speed = 7.2 rpm f. Drum Speed = 3.0 rpm

Particle Size = - 5.14 Particle Size = -5.14
+3.35 mm +3.35 mm
Figure 12. Continued.

55
Particle Size (mm) Drum Speed (rpm) Symbol
-1.88 3.0
+1.53 7.2
-3.35 3.0
+1.88 7.2 A
-5.14 3.0 0
+3.35 7.2 0
3.0 0
mean = 2.06 7.2 0
I 0
2500
2000
Ideal Fit
cu
H 1500
cu
<1.)
-o
co
r=4
-cl 1000
cu
-o
cu
Gas Velocity = 1.58 m/s
$.4 Feed Rate = 0.33 dry kg/s
= one std. dev.
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Actual Residence Time (s)
Figure 13. Predicted Versus Actual Residence Time for Wood Particles
in the Experimental Rotary Drum.
56
shown in Figure 6. Within a curtain, particle contact and shielding
with the bulk particles can affect the flow. The denser the curtain,
the more interaction that occurs. As a result, individual particle
flow characteristics are influenced by the bulk particle flow.
Assuming the particles do behave as a group, in regards to the
gas-particle interaction, a representative particle dimension would
be the mean particle size as given in Figure 10. The residence time
predictions using a mean particle size are shown in Figure 13, in
which the measured residence time is averaged over each drum rotation
rate.
Based on the test particle size, the combined percent root mean
square error for all of the test runs was 109.6. Based on the mean
particle size, the combined percent root mean square error for all of
the test runs was 14.2. This may be compared to the accuracy of the
model developed by Kelly and O'Donnell (1977) who recorded a value
of 23.2 applied to their own data.
The experimental rotary drum used by Kelly and O'Donnell did
not contain centerf ill flights and was only 0.31 meters in diameter.
Residence time data was taken in a short test section of the drum
that was less than one half meter in length. Both the test particles
and the bulk particles used were of a discrete size. All of these
conditions would tend to decrease the variability of the process.
Kelly and O'Donnells' study, however, did incorporate the
affects of kiln motion and particle bouncing, both of which result
from a sloped drum. The rotary drum used in the current study was
not sloped.
57
The accuracy of Kelly and O'Donnells' model declined as the air
velocity was increased. At 1.61 meters per second the percent root
mean square error was 34.1. The air velocity used in the current
study was approximately the same velocity at 1.58 meters per second,
for a percent root mean square error of 14.2, based on the mean
particle size.
Residence Time Simulation Trials
A series of computer simulated trials were conducted to examine
the effects of various process parameters on residence time as
predicted by the program RESTIME. The results of these trials are
shown in Figures 14 through 17.
Residence time is plotted as a function of gas velocity in
Figure 14. The three lines represent different drum holdups, H, as
a fraction of the design drum holdup, H . As would be expected
with cocurrent flow, residence time decreases as the gas velocity
is increased. This relationship is a direct result of Equation 6,
which established the drag force due to gas-particle interaction.
Figure 15 plots residence time versus drum speed. As shown,
increasing the rate of rotation decreases the residence time. This
effect is very pronounced at drum speeds of less than four revo-
lutions per minute for a 1.2 meter diameter drum.
Residence time as function of drum diameter is shown in
Figure 16. At constant drum speed, an increase in the drum diameter
decreases the residence time. This is a result of a longer distance
of particle fall per cascade, which allows more time for the gas-
particle interaction. The greater this interaction the more

58
400
.0
200
1.5 2.0 2.5

Gas Velocity (m/s)
Figure 14. Predicted Effect of Gas Velocity on Residence Time.
3000
0.1
co
2000
a)
H =0.4
1.4 1000
H/H =1.0
H/H =0.6
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Drum Speed (rpm)
Figure 15. Predicted Effect of Drum Speed on Residence Time.

59
600
H/H =0.4
IM1
H/H =0.6
H/H =1.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Drum Diameter (m)
Figure 16. Predicted Effect of Drum Diameter on Residence Time.
3000
c° 2000
a)
v.)
Equivalent Particle Diameter (mm)
Figure 17. Predicted Effect of Particle Size on Residence Time.

60
longitudinal motion that will occur per cascade, resulting in a
shorter residence time.
Figure 17 indicates the effect of particle size on residence
time. Theoretically, increasing the particle size should signifi-
cantly increase the residence time. As illustrated in Figure 13
this was not shown to any great extent experimentally for reasons
mentioned previously. If the average size of all particles (not
just test particles) in a system is varied, it is expected that the
relationship in Figure 17 would be a better fit.
In all the cases examined in Figures 14 through 17 the
fractional drum holdup was inversely related to the residence time.
Increasing the fractional holdup resulted in a decrease of the
residence time. This is not readily apparent from Equation 1 which
would indicate a direct relationship between the residence time
and drum holdup. However, in order to increase the drum holdup the
feed rate must be increased, given that other parameters remain
constant. The increase in the feed rate is proportionally greater
than the increase in the drum holdup, resulting in a decrease in
the residence time.

61
IV. HEAT TRANSFER
As an intermediate step between the residence time analysis
and the development of a complete rotary dryer simulation model, an
analysis of the heat transfer process is appropriate. In this
chapter the particle flow path characteristics defined in the
residence time analysis are used as a basis to develop the heat
transfer relationships. Mass transfer is neglected in this
development.
In addition to the assumptions given in Chapter III, the
following assumptions are pertinent to the heat transfer analysis:
Heat transfer to the particles occurs only during the
falling period.
While the particles are riding on lifting flights no heat
is transferred across the particle surface. However,
internal heat transfer is allowed.
For purposes of the internal heat transfer analysis, the
particles are approximated as cylinders, with the
longitudinal direction corresponding to the grain direction.
Thermal conductivity is dependent on direction.
The gas temperature is uniform relative to the drum cross
section.
62
Model Development
Energy Balance
The drum length is divided into segments and defined as one
cascade length, as shown in Figure 18. An energy balance over one
drum segment can be presented as:
Gco(Toi+1 - Toi) + Scs(Tsi+1 - Tsi) = (51)
The thermal properties of the particles and the gas are assumed to
be constant over each segment.
Heat Loss
Heat loss from the rotary drum is defined as the net energy
lost from the combined gas-particle stream between the inlet and
outlet of the drum. Air leakage into the system is assumed to occur
prior to the drum inlet. This loss is accounted for within the
calculation of the inlet bulk gas temperature and flow rate.
Consequently, all heat loss from the drum occurs as a result of
combined conduction, forced-convection, free-convection, and
radiation heat transfer through the drum wall.
The thermal resistance of the drum wall is evaluated as follows:
RT = Rw + Ro + RI (52)
where: RT = total thermal resistance, °C/W.
Rw = thermal resistance of wall components, °C/W.
R = thermal resistance of outside wall surface-film, °C/W.

0
R = thermal resistance of inside wall surface-film, °C/W.

Cascade Length
Gas
Flow
Figure 18. Longitudinal Cross Section View of Rotary Drum Showing Particle Flow Path With
Centerfill Flights.
64
The heat loss for each drum segment then becomes:
qL = (TG - TA)/RT (53)
A complete derivation of the thermal resistance of the wall
components is given in Appendix A. External and internal flow
conditions of the drum will control the surface resistances, in
addition to any radiation effects.
At the outside drum wall surface heat is transferred from the
wall to the ambient surroundings by combined forced convection,
natural convection, and radiation. The thermal resistance at the
outside wall surface is evaluated as:
Ro = 1/(hu + h r) (54)
where: hu = combined natural and forced surface-film convective
heat transfer coefficient, J/s.m2.C.
hr = effective radiation heat transfer coefficient,
J/s.m2-°C.
For a rotating cylinder with crossflow, Kays and Bjorklund
(1958) developed Equation 55 for determining the combined natural
and forced convection Nusselt number.
2 0.33
Nu = 0.135 [(0.5 Re + Re + Gr) Pr] (55)
where: Nu = hdd/k
u f'
Rew = rotational Reynolds number, ddpfvw/ilf.
Re = ddpfvA/pf.
Gr = Grashof number.
= rotational velocity of the drum, m/s.

vw
65
VA = ambient air velocity, m/s.
An effective radiation heat transfer coefficient may be
estimated as (Welty, 1974):
)
WO4 - TA4
hr = 5.729 x 10-8 (T6
)
(TWO - TA
where: 6 = emissivity of the surface.
The interior wall surface heat transfer coefficients are much
more difficult to analyze, due to the complex geometry of this
system. The affect of natural convection for internal flow within
a rotating cylinder is probably not significant, and was therefore
neglected. Forced convection inside a rotating cylinder with
extended surfaces (particle lifting flights) presents a more
complicated problem. An empirical relationship could not be found
in the literature. Extended surfaces would tend to enhance the
rate of heat transfer. On the other hand, Tscheng and Watkinson
(1979) suggest that rotation of the drum tends to stabilize laminar
flow, such that transition to turbulent flow occurs at higher
Reynolds numbers. Neither of these claims have been satisfactorily
evaluated in a quantitative manner. A compromise was struck by
adopting the empirical relationship of Dittus and Boelter, as
outlined by Welty et al. (1976). Equation 57 was developed for
internal forced convection in a stationary cylinder with Reynolds
numbers above 10,000 and a length to diameter ratio exceeding 60.
.8 .3
Nu = 0.023 Re() Pr °
where: Nu = h dd/kG.
66
For the drum used in this study, the length to diameter ratio was
approximately 4.6. Therefore, a correction factor, as recommended
by Deissler (Welty et al., 1976), was incorporated into the
analysis.
= 1 + (dd
07 (58)
h.
where: h co = surface-film convective heat transfer coefficient
predicted by Equation 57, J/s.m2-°C.
The effect of radiation from the gas to the drum wall was
examined using the procedure outlined by Perry and Chilton (1975).
This method considered the contribution to radiation of the water
vapor and carbon dioxide components of the gas. A conservative
calculation revealed that only about five percent of the total heat
transferred to the drum wall could be attributed to radiation from
the gas. Furthermore, after comparing the contribution of the
inside surface to the total thermal resistance of the wall, the
allowance for an internal radiation affect is negligible.
Heat Transfer During Particle Fall
During the time of particle fall through the gas stream the
heat transfer into the particle is represented by:
9T 32T 1T D2T
(59)
9t ar ' ar Dr ' az
Dr2 9z2
m2/s.
where: ar = thermal diffusivity in radial direction,
m2/s.
az = thermal diffusivity in longitudinal direction,
67
At the centerline of the cylinder, r = 0, the term (l/r)
3Tar tends to the value of2T/Dr2 at r = 0 (Smith, 1978).
Equation 59 then becomes:
,2 2
3T
= 2 ° T
Dt ar 2 az a
Dz
T2
At the particle surface the boundary condition is:
ar 3r9T= hcp(T G - T ) s
where: Ts = temperature of particle at surface, °C.
The surface-film heat transfer coefficient is estimated using
Equation 15, in which an equivalent particle diameter must be
defined in terms of a sphere. This procedure was shown in Chapter
Soaking
During the time the particles are riding on the lifting
flights they are effectively insulated from the drum wall and the
gas stream, with the exception of the surface layer of particles in
the particle bed. As such, the mean particle temperature remains
nearly constant during this period. However, the interior particle
temperature profile tends toward a uniform distribution, which at
infinite time would be the mean particle temperature. This period
is called "soaking".
To check the soaking hypothesis an analysis was done assuming
a rectangular bed of particles as shown in Figure 19. Two sides
of the bed are exposed to the gas stream, across which heat is
68
transferred by convection. The drum wall and a lifting flight
border the other two sides.
The equation governing the heat transfer to the particle bed is:
3T [D2T (62)
4. D2T]
Dt = a 2
9x Dy2
Assuming there is no resistance to heat transfer at the drum wall
and lifting flight border, the boundary conditions are:
T(x = 0,y) = Tw
T(x,y = 0) = TF
T(x,y,t = 0) = To
DT
k (x = L,y) = h (TG -
DT
k (x,y = B) = h (TG - Tly.B)
Equation 62 was solved using an explicit finite difference
method. The values of and To were assumed constant. The

TW' TF'
particles were initially uniform in temperature. The resulting
temperature profile is shown in Figure 20 and represents a section
taken along line EF in Figure 19.
Even by this conservative analysis, the temperature gradient
obtained is extremely steep, indicating that the total amount of
heat transferred to the particle bed is negligible.
Based on the above result and the conclusions reached by other
investigators (Porter, 1963; Turner, 1966; Kuramae and Tanaka, 1977),
the soaking period of heat transfer was incorporated into the model.
The redistribution of the interior particle temperature profile may

69
TF = f(x)
Ts = f(x,y,t)
TG
x=0,y=B) (x=L,y=B)
Flight
(x=0,y=0) (x=L,y=0)
TG
Figure 19. Schematic Diagram of Wood Particle Bed on Lifting Flight,
Assuming a Rectangular Cross Section.
1.0
h = 178 W/m2 C
k = 0.158 W/ m C
c = 982 .1/kg C
p = 200 kg/m3
t = 4.6 s
B = 0.12 m
L = 0.208 m
0
I 0.5
C.7
0
0 0.5 1.0
y/B
Figure 20. Temperature Profile of Wood Particle Bed at End of Time

on Flight, Assuming a Rectangular Cross Section.
70
then be calculated using Equations 59, 60, and 61, with h =
0.
The appropriateness of Equations 59, 60, and 61 within the
overall framework of the rotary dryer model will be addressed in the
next chapter. At this point, it suffices to say the inclusion
of a transient heat affect within an individual particle may be an
unnecessary refinement. Considerable computational effort could be
saved by neglecting thermal gradients within the particles.
Volumetric Heat Transfer Coefficient
The development of the heat transfer model presented here
did not require the determination of an overall heat transfer
coefficient. However, for purposes of comparison, this calculation
was performed. Two methods are used for estimating a volumetric
heat transfer coefficient, an indirect and a direct method. The
first is based on the known temperature changes of the bulk gas and
solids. The total amount of heat transferred from the gas over a
differential length of the drum is given as:

2
[
7dd
dqG = U (TG - Ts) + 7dd dx (63)
where: qG = heat transferred from gas, J/s.
qL = heat loss through drum wall, J/sm2.
dx = differential drum length, m.
The total heat transferred from the gas may also be equ.ated as
follows:
71
dqG = G.cG dTG (64)
and
dqG = S.cs dTs + q 7dd dx (65)
Solving Equation 63, 64, and 65 over a drum segment defined as
one cascade length, Ax, yields Equation 66 (see Appendix B for
complete solution):
UE AT2 + F I
1 0
(66)
U = AxE -n UE + F
AT2 - AT1 - qL/GcG

where: E = Vd
dqG -
[ AT2 - AT1 - /GC

L G
F -
dqG Ax/q - Ax Ax Sc
AT = °C.
TG - TS'
Vd = volume of drum segment, m3.
Ax = length of segment, m.
If there was no heat loss, qL = 0, Equation 66 could be
simplified to the familiar expression:
qG
U- )
(67)
Vd (ATZm
AT2 - AT1
where: ATtm - logarithmic mean temperature difference,
ATI
in [
°C.
AT1
The direct method for estimating a volumetric heat transfer
coefficient, without requiring knowledge of the temperature change,
is based on a similar approach used by Hirosue and Shinohara (1978).

72
If the individual surface-film convective heat transfer coefficient
and the effective surface area of the particles falling through the
gas stream can be estimated, then Equation 68 may be used to
establish a volumetric heat transfer coefficient.
h A
U - ---2t (68)
Vd
where: A = surface area of particles falling through the gas

Pf
stream at any instant within a drum segment, m2.
The effective surface area of the particles is calculated using
relationships developed during the residence time analysis.
A = 6 H pB tf (69)
pf d P
d t
Pc
where: tf = time of particle fall, s.
tc = time per cascade, s.
Hd = holdup in drum segment, m3.
Solution Procedure
A computer program called HEAT was developed for calculating
the particle and gas temperature profiles along the length of a
rotary drum. This program works interactively with the program
RESTIME developed in Chapter III. RESTIME calculates the mean
particle residence time in any section of a rotary drum, in addition
to estimates of time of particle fall, time of travel on lifting
flights, length of a cascade section, and the drum holdup. The
variables determined in RESTIME are dependent on the gas flow rate,
which is in turn dependent on temperature. This temperature
dependence is slight. As a result, calculations using RESTIME need

73
not be made for each drum segment, but only when a sufficient
temperature change is encountered. In this way, a significant amount
of computational time is saved. The maximum temperature change
allowed, before a new set of residence time calculations are
made, was selected as five percent.
A separate program listing of HEAT is not included with this
report, because the complete rotary dryer simulation program,
developed in the next chapter, will perform the same results if the
inlet particle moisture content is given as zero.
The steps followed for the rotary drum heat transfer calcula-
tion are as follows:
The interior particle temperature profile entering the
first drum segment is initialized.
Inlet gas composition and temperature are determined by
component mass and energy balances knowing the combustion
gas and blend-air conditions.
A similar calculation to the above is performed to account
for air leakage through the particle infeed and front-end
rotary gas seal. Air leakage is expressed as a fraction of
blend-box gas flow and must be determined outside the
program.
An initial value is assumed for the gas temperature exiting
the segment, from which an average gas temperature for the
segment is calculated.
The average gas temperature of the segment is used to
evaluate the bulk gas properties, see Appendix C.

74
The thermal properties of the particles are calculated
based on the inlet particle temperature to the segment, see
Appendix D.
As the particles progress along the drum, a check is made
of the defined drum geometry to establish whether center-
fill flights are present in the drum segment. This will
have a bearing on the calculations performed by RESTIME.
If the first drum segment is being considered, or the gas
temperature change is sufficiently large (greater than five
percent), or a new flight configuration is encountered, the
subroutine RESTIME is called to determine time of travel
on lifting flights, time of fall, cascade length, and
fractional holdup of the drum segment.
Particles enter the soaking period, in which the interior
particle temperature profile moves toward a uniform state.
Equations 59, 60, and 61 are used for this calculation,
where h = 0.
Particles enter the falling period, in which all heat
transfer to the particle is assumed to occur. Equations
59, 60, and 61 are used for this calculation, with h
defined by Equation 15. Steps 9 and 10 use an explicit
finite difference method for solving the partial differen-
tial equations. The thermal properties of the particles
are assumed constant for each drum segment.
If centerfill flights are present in the drum segment being
considered, a repeat of steps 9 and 10 is performed.

75
The average particle temperature exiting the drum segment
is calculated by numerically integrating over the interior
particle temperature profile.
Heat loss through the drum wall is determined using Equa-
tion 53. The average gas temperature for the segment,
determined in step 4, is assumed.
The exiting gas temperature from the segment is then
calculated using the energy balance in Equation 51. This
calculated exit gas temperature is compared to the tempera-
ture guessed in step 4. If these temperatures are not in
sufficient agreement (within five percent), an iteration
of steps 4 through 14 is performed until convergence is
achieved. Depending on the quality of the initial guess,
usually less than three iterations are required.
A volumetric heat transfer coefficient is calculated as
outlined in Equation 68.
The outlet particle and gas temperatures from the segment
are redefined as the inlet temperatures for the next
segment.
A test is made to determine if the end of the drum has been
reached. If not, steps 4 through 17 are performed for the
next segment.
Output from the program HEAT includes cascade length,
fractional holdup, residence time, average particle
temperature, gas temperature, heat loss, and the volumetric
heat transfer coefficient. All of these are tabulated
for each drum segment.

76
Calculations were performed using the computer program HEAT
on the rotary drum system described in Chapter III. The results
are shown in Figure 21 giving gas temperature, bulk particle
temperature, heat loss through the drum wall, and the volumetric
heat transfer coefficient.
The temperature curves follow a classical cocurrent heat
exchanger flow pattern. In this example, nearly 90 percent of the
heat transfer to the particles occurs within the first 35 percent
of the drum length.
Heat loss is greatest at the hot gas inlet due to the large
temperature driving force between the conveying gas and the
surrounding air. The heat loss drops proportionately with the gas
temperature until both level off and remain essentially constant
throughout the rest of the drum length. In this example the heat
loss is negligible.
Since there is no centerf ill flighting over the first 0.2-meters
and the last 1.6-meters of the drum, the volumetric heat transfer
coefficient calculation resulted in a discontinuous function at the
points where the centerf ill flighting begins and where it ends.
The volumetric heat transfer coefficient is larger in the center-
fill section because the holdup is greater in this region. This
means there. is a larger particle surface area available for heat
transfer per cubic meter of drum volume when centerf ill flights are
present.
GAS FLOW RATE = 3.0 M3/S
PARTICLE FEED RATE = 1.0 KG/S
INLET PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT = 0.0 %
41)
CENTERFILL FLIGHT SECTION
HEAT LOSS
SAS TEMPERATURE
VOLUMETRIC HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT
PARTICLE TEMPERATURE
0.000E-01 1.100E+00 2.200E+00 3.300E+00

DISTANCE FROM DRUM INLET CM)
Figure 21. Longitudinal Thermal Profile of Heat Transfer in a Rotary Drum With Cocurrent Flow.
78
Experiments to confirm the performance of the above procedure
were not possible due to the difficulty of heating wood in a large
scale rotary drum without incurring a significant sorption heat
effect. Even at moisture content changes of only two to three
percent on a dry basis, calculations revealed the latent heat of
vaporization would substantially alter the heat balance measure-
ments. Thus, no experimental data was obtained for this process.
Without experimental data, comparisons with the correlations
of other authors is difficult due to the presence of empirical
constants in those relationships. In addition, most correlations
available were developed for a countercurrent flow situation and
their applicability to a cocurrent flow system is questionable.
However, comparisons can be made for heat transfer coefficients
based on the experiments of some of these authors. Typical
volumetric heat transfer coefficients reported for cocurrent systems
are: 506 to 612 W/m3°C (Saeman and Mitchell, 1954) and 186 to 727
W/m3°C (Friedman and Marshall, 1949). As shown in Figure 21, the
calculated volumetric heat transfer coefficient varied as a function
of the flighting configuration, with a maximum value of about 1250
W/m3°C, and an average value, based on the overall log-mean
temperature difference, of about 790 W/m3°C.
An average volumetric heat transfer coefficient calculated in
this manner is misleading, since any temperature profile having the
same end points as shown in Figure 21 will yield identical average
volumetric heat transfer coefficients. The results from Saeman and
Mitchell were based on an overall log-mean temperature difference,

79
indicating that their values reported for the volumetric heat
transfer coefficient are questionable.
Friedman and Marshalls' results were based on particle
temperature measurements and heat loss calculations along the
length of their test drum. Their findings indicated a relatively
uniform volumetric heat transfer coefficient with drum length when
centerf ill flights were not present.

80
V. MASS TRANSFER
By adding the process of mass transfer to the residence time
and heat transfer models already developed, a complete rotary dryer
simulation will be obtained. The assumptions outlined at the
beginning of Chapters III and IV will still apply, along with the
following:
Drying occurs only during the period of particle fall.
During the soaking period no heat or mass crosses the
particle surface. This period is sufficiently long, such
that a uniform temperature and moisture content profile is
reached within a particle.
Particles do not change dimensions due to changes in
moisture content.
External conditions control the drying process.
Model Development
Material and Energy Balances
Mass transfer was incorporated into the overall model in a
manner analogous to the development presented for heat transfer.
A control volume is defined as one drum segment. Each drum segment
is defined by one cascade length, as shown in Figure 18. Steady
state conditions are assumed within each drum segment. Exit
conditions from one drum segment are equivalent to the inlet con-
ditions for the next segment.
A material balance for one drum segment is as follows:

81
G(1 + Y1) + S(1 + X1) = G(1 + Y2) + S(1 + X2) (70)
where: G = dry gas mass flow rate, kg/s.
S = dry wood mass flow rate, kg/s.
Y = absolute gas humidity, kg/kg.
X = dry basis wood moisture content, kg/kg.
Similarly, an energy balance across the segment yields:
GHG1 + SH51 = GHG2 + SH52 + qL (71)
where: HG = specific enthalpy of the gas stream, J/kg.
H = specific enthalpy of the wet wood, J/kg.
qL = heat loss through dryer wall, J/s.
If a reference condition is specified as liquid water at 0°C, then
the enthalpy terms may be evaluated as:
HG = (ce-Ycv)(TG TRef) YARef

(72)
Hs = (cs + Xcw)(Ts
TRef)
(73)
Equations 71, 72, and 73 may be combined to give the final
expression for the energy balance.
G(cGi + Ylcvl) TG1 + YiGARef + SCsi (1 + X1) Tsi =
G(cG2 + Y2cv2) TG2 + Y2GARef + SCs2 (1 + X2) T52+ (74)
The rate of heat transfer to the particles in each segment
is evaluated as:
82
q +
= S(cS2 TS2 -Si TS1) + S(X2 cw2 TS2 - X2 cwl TS1)
(75)
(X1 - X2) SXS1 + (X1 - X2) S(cv2 TG2 - cvl TS1)
where: q = rate of heat transfer to particles in drum segment,
S.
Xs = latent heat plus heat of wetting, J/kg.
The terms on the right-hand-side of Equation 75 are the sensible
heat gain of the dry wood, sensible heat gain of the moisture
remaining in the wood, latent heat of moisture removed (evaluated
at the inlet particle temperature), and the sensible heat gain of
the water vapor removed, respectively.
The rate of heat transfer to the particles may also be
evaluated using a volumetric heat transfer coefficient:
q (76)
= UVd(TG - TS)
In a segment containing centerf ill flights, the two heat transfer
quantities, resulting from a two part period of particle fall, are
combined for the total rate of heat transferred for the segment as
follows:
q = (t q + t q )/(t + t ) (77)
fEI SEI fIE SIE fEI fIE
where: El = exterior to interior flight particle fall.
IE = interior to exterior flight particle fall.

83
Drying
Evaluating the extent of drying within each drum segment
requires that some type of drying model be incorporated into the
overall rotary dryer simulation. As selection criteria for the
drying model, the conditions inside the rotary drum were con-
sidered, along with the feasibility of a solution to any particular
drying model within the framework of the overall task.
Under the control volume approach adopted, each drum segment
has a unique set of boundary conditions imposed on the particles.
Furthermore, assumption 8 stipulates that drying occurs only during
the period of particle fall. If centerf ill flights are present, two
falling periods will occur within each drum segment. Recalling
from Chapter III that a particle may undergo as many as 100 or more
cascades during its travel through a drum, well over 200 solutions
to the drying model selected may be required. This constraint
would preclude the use of drying models requiring time consuming
solutions.
The geometry of wood particles is extremely variable, even
within a given screen size classification. Their irregular shape
is not suitable for direct solution of spatial equations. Therefore,
the particle shape must be approximated with some standard shape.
Combined with the fact wood is a nonisotropic material, this type
of approximation would heavily influence the results of a drying
model in which internal diffusion of heat or mass plays a major
role. Therefore, any accuracy gained by considering internal
diffusion could be lost as a result of particle shape approximations.

84
Fortunately, the drying time (i.e. time of particle fall) is
very short. For a distance of particle fall of four meters or less,
which is approximately the diameter of the largest commercial rotary
dryers available, the time of drying is less than one second. For
the drum used in this study, the time of fall was usually less than
one-half second. Under assumption 9, and considering the short
drying time, external conditions to the particle will control the
drying rate. Particle geometry then becomes less significant, since
only an estimate of the particle surface area is required.
With these considerations in mind, the empirical wood drying
model proposed by Rosen (1982) was selected. The two parameter
model shown by Equation 78 was solved in the form of an infinite
series in Equation 79 for 0 < t < m.
. t
E = 1 -
Eo
f ,
exp k-atl/b ) dt (78)
0
where: E = (X - Xe)/(X0 - Xe)
t = time, s.
Eo = initial drying rate at t = 0, s-1.
a = rate factor.
b = bend factor.
e = equilibrium.
o = initial.
w (-1)n an tn/b
E = 1 -EtE
o n=0 (n/b + 1) n!
(79)
Rosen related the initial drying rate, Eo, to the rate and bend
factors as:
85
ab
E - (80)
o br (b)
The initial drying rate may be determined from the knowledge of
external drying conditions at the start of each period of fall.
Since a, b and Eo are related through Equation 80, only one of the
two parameters need be evaluated independently of the rotary
dryer simulation. It is postulated that the bend factor, b, is a
function of the particle geometry and species. Furthermore, by
assuming a and b are independent of one another, Equation 78
essentially becomes a one parameter model. By specifying the bend
factor, the rate factor may be readily calculated by Equation 80.
Rosen (1982) presented an alternative solution to Equation 78
for short drying times. If the dimensionless time, as defined below,
is less than 0.5, then the infinite series solution is closely
approximated as:
E = 1 - t (1 L7T__
(81)
1+b
where: s = dimensionless time = atl/b
With external heat transfer as the controlling mechanism of
moisture removal, Equation 82 may be used to estimate the initial
drying rate.
fUVd (TG - Twb)

- (82)
o X
Hpf pB (Xo - Xe)
where: f = factor relating mass transfer surface area to the
total surface area of a particle.
Hf holdup involved with particle falling period at any

P =
instant in a drum segment, m3.

86
Twb = wet-bulb temperature, °C.
The evaluation of the volumetric heat transfer coefficient is
identical to the method proposed in Chapter IV. The surface area
factor, f, is a function of bound water moisture content as follows:
XB
f - (83)
Xfsp
where: XB = bound water moisture content of wood.
Xfsp = moisture content at fiber saturation.
At moisture contents above the fiber saturation point, the bound
water moisture content is equivalent to the moisture content at
fiber saturation, with the remaining moisture present as free
water. Referring to Figure 22, the presence of free water does not
affect the superficial particle surface area, since it is restricted
to void spaces within the wood structure. At the surface, evapora-
tion may take place from the walls of the void spaces at a rate
proportional to the cross sectional area of the void exposed at the
particle surface.
Solution Procedure
A computer program called RDS_(Rotary Dryer Simulation) was
developed for predicting the drying behavior of wood particles in
rotary dryers. This is an extension of the program HEAT and works
interactively with the program RESTIME referenced as a subroutine.
With mass transfer added to the model, the variables in RESTIME
are now dependent on gas temperature and particle moisture content,
since these parameters affect the gas flow rate and the particle
87
mass. As stated in Chapter IV, calculations using RESTIME need not
be made for each drum segment, but only when a sufficient change in
the gas temperature, particle moisture content or a change in the
flighting configuration is encountered. Experience with the program
execution has shown that the affects of changing gas temperature
and particle moisture content are nearly off-setting. Therefore,
drastic changes (i.e. ATG> 50°C or AX > 0.5) must occur before the
variables estimated by RESTIME are significantly affected.
The steps followed by the program RDS for the rotary dryer
simulation are as follows:
Set inlet conditions to the drum:
Blend-box gases: flow rate, temperature, and composi-
tion.
Air leakage: flow rate, temperature, and composition.
Particles: flow rate, temperature, moisture content,
and size.
Initialize the cascade number count.
Evaluate all bulk gas properties at the inlet bulk gas
temperature to the segment.
Perform a residence time analysis for the first drum
segment. This will define the segment length, holdup, and
particle flow path. Subsequent segments may require a
reevaluation of the residence time variables if one or more
of the following conditions are met: gas temperature
changes by more than 50°C, particle moisture content changes
by more than 0.5, or a different flighting configuration is
encountered.
88
Guess the exit gas temperature for the segment. Estimate
TG2 = 0.95 TG1 for the first segment. Thereafter, use the
past history of previous segments for the estimate.
Evaluate the relative particle velocity for heat transfer
by resolving the velocity components in the longitudinal
and vertical directions.
Calculate a volumetric heat transfer coefficient using
Equation 68.
Calculate the amount of drying for a particle fall using
Equations 81 and 82.
Calculate the rate of heat transfer to the particles using
Equation 76, and, if necessary, Equation 77.
Use the material balance in Equation 70 to get the exit gas
humidity for the segment.
Estimate the heat loss through the dryer wall using
Equation 53.
Solve Equations 74 and 75 simultaneously to get the exit
bulk gas and particle temperatures for the segment.
Compare the calculated exit bulk gas temperature with the
value guessed in step 5. If they are not in sufficient
agreement, use the calculated value as a new guess and
repeat steps 6 through 13 until agreement is met.
Check if the end of the drum has been reached. If not, use
the exit conditions for the last segment as the inlet
conditions to the next segment. Repeat steps 5 through
14 until the end of the drum has been reached.
Record the outlet drum conditions.

89
A source code listing of program RDS is contained in Appendix
G. A list of program notation is also included. RESTIME is listed
as a subroutine in RDS. An example of the computer generated output
is contained in Appendix H.
Rotary Dryer Experiment
Equipment and Procedure
The drying behavior of wood particles in a rotary dryer was
examined using the same rotary drum described in Chapter III. Inlet
gas temperature, drum speed, and gas flow rate were the independent
variables investigated. A diagram of the experimental setup is
shown in Figure 23. A total of six test runs were performed using
the experimental design shown in Table 3. The purpose of the
experiment was to obtain temperature and moisture content profiles,
for both the gas and particle streams, along the length of the
rotary dryer. These results are then compared to predictions made
by the computer program RDS.
The wood particles tested were commercially prepared Douglas-fir
sawdust obtained from the same source as the particles used for
the residence time and the angle of repose experiments. The
particle size distribution, as determined by a screen analysis, is
shown in Figure 24. Inlet particle moisture contents were
approximately 140 percent (dry basis) for all six test runs.
The hot inlet gases were a mixture of combustion products, from
a natural gas burner, and dilution air. These gases were mixed in
the blend-box and then routed to the drum inlet. A temperature

90
Superficial Surface Area
Bound Free
Water Water
Figure 22. Schematic Diagram of Bound and Free Water in the Wood
Structure.
Table 3. Rotary Dryer Experimental Design.
Test Run Number
Independent Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
Blend-Box Gas Temperature, °C. 550 550 750 750 750 750
Volumetric Gas Flow Rate, m3/s. 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5
Drum Speed, rpm. 5.5 5.5 5.5 2.8 2.8 5.5

Exhaust
Gas to
Drop-out
Fan
Hopper
Combustion
Air
Dilution -
Air
Dry Particles
Figure 23. Rotary Dryer Experimental Set-up.

0.5
0.4
Median = 1.47 mm
Mean = 1.81 mm
Relative Frequency = Weight Fraction

Incremental Screen
Opening
0.1
0 1.0 2.0 3 . 0 4 . 0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Actual Screen Opening (mm)
Figure 24. Rotary Dryer Experiment Particle Size Distribution.

93
measurement of the blend-box gases was taken at point J using a
shielded thermocouple, refer to Figure 23. The major source of air
leakage occurred through the inlet particle screw-feed conveyor,
since it was not equipped with a rotary air lock.
Gas temperatures at positions C, D, E and F inside the drum
were measured using 3-wire resistance temperature detectors (RTD's).
These were mounted approximately 340 millimeters from the center-
shaft of the drum. The output from these RTD's was routed through a
rotary coupling at the exit end of the drum. Outlet gas temperature
was measured using a series of five RTD's mounted in the drop-out
hopper and arranged diagonally to the drum cross section. Wet-bulb
and dry-bulb temperatures were taken at the fan, point N, for
purposes of an outlet humidity reading.
The total gas flow exiting the drum was measured by a venturi
at point L. Air leaks after the drum outlet were assumed to be
negligible since the outlet rotary seal was in good working order
and the outlet particle screw-feed conveyor and multiclone-separator
were both equipped with rotary air locks. Combustion air flow and
dilution air flow were measured using a standard pitot tube traverse
at points 0 and P, respectively. From these measurements, along with
the metered fuel flow rate and the measured amount of evaporated
moisture from the wood, the amount of air leakage was calculated.
Gas samples were extracted at points J and K for a determination
of the oxygen and carbon dioxide content. This was done using an
Orsat method of volumetric analysis involving chemical absorption
of a gas sample in a portable Fyrite tube device (Bacharach
Instrument Company). These measurements were used as a backup for

94
calculating the amount of air leakage by performing a component
material balance for oxygen and carbon dioxide over the entire drum.
Outside drum wall temperatures were measured with an infrared
pyrometer (Thermodot) at points B, C, D, E, and F. These were used
for estimating heat loss through the drum wall.
Inlet and outlet wood particle samples were taken for each
test run for purposes of a later moisture content determination by
an oven drying method. On a continuous basis, in-line infrared
moisture meters monitored the inlet and outlet particle moisture
content. Particle temperatures were also obtained at the inlet
and outlet. Thermocouples were placed within the moving particle
bed at the inlet particle conveyor-belt and in a specially con-
structed damper apparatus inside the drop-out hopper. These setups
are shown in Figure 25. The damper in the drop-out hopper was
manually controlled such that the thermocouple could be completely
covered by the wood particle stream.
Wood particle samples and temperature measurements were also
taken at points B, C, D, E, and F along the length of the drum.
Five access ports mounted in the drum wall were fitted with a
sampling device as shown in Figure 26. The devices were bolted in
place and rotated with the moving drum. When not in use, the sample
port opening was sealed with a spring-loaded trap door on the
interior side and with a removable plug on the outside. When a
sample was being taken, the sampling can acted as its own plug, see
Figure 26.
The sampling can was fitted with a 30 gauge chromel-alumel
thermocouple mounted through a centershaft inside the sampling

95
To Millivolt Tube
Recorder
Thermocouple
Particle Flow
\\\\\\
Inlet Particle
Conveyor Belt
Particle Inlet
To Thermocouple
Millivolt
Recorder
Access
Port
Particle Outlet
Figure 25. Inlet and Outlet Particle Temperature Measurement Set-ups.

96
Plug
Baffle
Spring-
Clip
Spring-Loaded
Trapdoor
Inside View Outside View
Baffle Asbestos
Plywood
Side View
SAMPLE
PORT
SAMPLE
DEVICE
CAN
(116 Scale)
Ale (1/2 Scale)
Sample Can
Opening
Thermocouple
Plunger
Figure 26. Sampling Device For Extracting Particle Samples From the
Drum Interior.
97
cavity. A heavy lead plunger slid freely along the centershaft, such
that a collected sample was compressed around the thermocouple
junction. The thermocouple leads were fastened to a quick-release
thermocouple connector.
Three particle samples were extracted from each of the five
sampling devices for each test run. Samples were obtained by
removing the sample port plug, inserting the sampling can, and
securing with the spring-clips. As the sampling can rotated through
the lower half of the drum, the plunger remained in the open
position, allowing particles to enter the sampling can opening.
As the sampling device rotated through the upper half of the drum,
the plunger moved into the closed position and compressed the
particle sample around the thermocouple junction. Usually one
revolution of the drum was sufficient to collect a large enough
sample (about a third of the sample can volume when compressed).
The sampling can was then removed, the sample port plug replaced,
and a millivolt recorder was immediately linked to the thermocouple
circuit to obtain a temperature reading. Manual pressure was also
applied to the plunger to ensure a good particle to thermocouple
contact. The particle samples were then placed in polyethylene bags
for a later moisture content determination by an oven drying method.
All six test runs were conducted in one day. An initial
warmup period of about two hours was required before the start of
the first test run. Steady-state operation was assumed when the
exit particle moisture content did not change by more than one
percent over a fifteen minute time span. Each test run required
about thirty minutes of steady-state operation.

98
A summary of the test results is shown in Table 4. Additional
plots of the gas temperature, particle temperature and particle
moisture content data points along the length of the drum are given
in Figures 27 through 38.
The blend-box gas temperature is not the condition at which the
wet particles first come in contact with the gas stream. The actual
inlet bulk gas condition is a product of mixing blend-box gas with
air leakage at the inlet. The inlet bulk gas temperature was not
a measurable quantity because the mixing was not instantaneous.
Therefore, a calculation was required to establish this value.
One of the objectives behind the experimental design was to
control the outlet particle moisture content by adjusting the inlet
gas temperature, while keeping all other dryer conditions constant.
It was mistakenly assumed that the blend-box gas temperature was a
good indicator of the inlet gas temperature. Blend-box gas
temperature was controlled by adjusting the fuel flow rate, with
relatively good results. Total gas flow could be closely controlled
with damper adjustments. However, dilution air flow, which enters
ahead of the blend-box gas temperature measurement point, and air
leakage, which enters behind this point, were not controllable.
Consequently, an unstable dilution air to air leakage ratio resulted
in poor control of the inlet bulk gas temperature.
Fortunately, the main objective of the experiments was still
achieved. This was simply to obtain a range of gas and particle

Table 4. Summary of Rotary Dryer Test Results.
TEST RUN NUMBER: 1 2 3 4 5 6
GAS TEMPERATURES:
Blend-Box, Point J, °C. 541 548 720 730 751 752
Point C, °C. 74.8 86.9 116.2 120.8 107.0 103.8
Point D, °C. 106.6 147.0 193.7 191.4 145.7 151.9
Point E, °C. 98.6 117.0 154.8 160.5 141.9 134.5
Point F, °C. 69.5 79.1 106.4 109.5 97.6 94.5
Drum Outlet, Point K, °C. 60.4 66.4 91.1 94.7 82.3 83.0
Blend-Box, Point J, Calculated, °C. 542 512 764 743 746 768
Drum Inlet, Point I, Calculated, °C. 161.8 156.7 200.7 212.0 267.3 247.3
Point C, Calculated, °C. 100.9 114.1 135.2 146.4 173.3 135.9
Point D, Calculated, °C. 87.5 102.0 115.9 123.7 143.5 112.7
Point E, Calculated, °C. 74.8 85.8 87.3 99.9 118.5 83.3
Point F, Calculated, °C. 75.2 79.7 75.7 88.3 107.8 75.6
Drum Outlet, Point K, Calculated, °C. 62.4 64.2 65.5 74.5 96.5 65.0
OUTSIDE DRUM WALL TEMPERATURES:
Point B. 33.0 37.7 56.2 57.9 58.3 61.8
Point C. 40.4 43.8 58.6 60.0 61.3 64.5
Point D. 27.2 32.6 44.3 47.3 47.9 49.7
Point E. 23.2 28.7 40.5 44.1 44.1 45.2
Point F. 21.1 25.2 37.7 40.0 40.4 42.5
DRUM AND BURNER OPERATION:
Drum Speed, rpm. 5.5 5.5 5.5 2.8 2.8 5.5
Dry Particle Feed Rate, kg/hr. 280 283 283 286 287 294
Fuel Flow Rate, kg/s.1 0.00596 0.00670 0.00900 0.00900 0.00810 0.00830
Excess Air, percent. 61.0 35.0 14.0 12.0 13.0 9.0
1 Natural gas, lower heating value = 38540 kJ/m3, specific gravity = 0.58.
Table 4. Continued.
TEST RUN NUMBER: 1 2 3 4 5 6
PARTICLE TEMPERATURES:
Inlet Screw-Feed Conveyer, Point A, °C. 18.6 17.7 18.9 21.3 23.4 24.1
Point B, °C. 41.5 43.3 50.1 41.4 42.0 42.4
Point C, °C. 47.6 49.5 54.5 49.4 49.2 48.0
' Point D, °C. 45.0 45.5 53.0 49.6 50.0 48.4
Point E, °C. 42.3 43.9 52.5 48.3 48.8 48.6
Point F, °C. 36.8 38.6 47.2 41.4 46.1 44.5
Drum Outlet, Point G, °C. 33.7 38.6 52.3 49.3 44.5 51.9
PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT (DRY BASIS):
Inlet Screw-Feed Conveyer, Point A. 1.401 1.405 1.425 1.399 1.390 1.352
Point B. 1.192 1.247 1.136 1.110 1.053 0.947
Point C. 0.987 1.057 0.887 0.875 0.779 0.671
Point D. 0.857 0.925 0.695 0.658 0.552 0.498
Point E. 0.731 0.743 0.403 0.418 0.357 0.267
Point F. 0.727 0.668 0.276 0.295 0.266 0.201
Drop-Out Hopper, Point H. 0.603 0.497 0.173 0.160 0.170 0.122
GAS FLOWS:
Combustion Air, kg/s. 0.165 0.167 0.169 0.173 0.153 0.165
Dilution Air, kg/s. 0.230 0.300 0.249 0.258 0.230 0.219
Total Gas, Point L, kg/s. 1.660 2.040 1.940 1.930 1.540 1.540
Leakage Air at Inlet, kg/s. 1.194 1.492 1.411 1.388 1.048 1.044
GAS COMPOSITION:
02, Point J, mole percent. 17.5 17.4 15.9 16.1 16.3 15.8
02, Point K, mole percent. 20.1 20.3 19.5 20.3 19.3 19.0
CO2, Point J, mole percent. 2.0 2.4 3.5 3.9 3.8 3.8
CO2, Point K, mole percent. 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 0.8
101
conditions along the length of a rotary dryer to be used as a basis
of comparison with the rotary dryer simulation results.
An additional problem occurred with the gas temperature
measurements inside the drum. The gas temperature indicated at
point C in Table 4 was obviously in error. The past history of this
rotary dryer system revealed that the gas temperature reading at
point C has always been abnormally low. This is attributed to a
nonhomogeneous gas mixture. The gas temperatures recorded at points
D, E and F in Figure 23 appeared to be in line with expectations.
However, an energy balance analysis revealed that these temperatures
were too high, but tended to agree more closely with calculated
values as the measurement points got closer to the drum outlet.
Apparently the gas stream was nonhomogeneous throughout the length
of the drum.
Similar findings are reported in the literature. Friedman and
Marshall (1949) reported considerable temperature striation occurs
through a rotary drum cross section. As a result they abandoned
any attempt of obtaining meaningful gas temperature measurements
inside their experimental drum. Measurements by Tscheng and
Watkinson (1979) of a radial gas temperature profile in a 0.19 meter
diameter rotary kiln (no lifting flights) showed a variation of 20°C
from the centerline to the drum wall, at approximately nine diameters
from the gas inlet. This was with an estimated bulk gas temperature
of only 136°C. Saeman and Mitchell (1954) made a similar measure-
ment in a 1.8-meter diameter drum, and recorded a gas temperature
differential of 17°C from top to bottom of the drum at two diameters
from the gas inlet. This was with an estimated bulk gas temperature
102
of 74°C. Based on these observations, it is likely the gas tempera-
ture measurements taken inside the drum were unrepresentative of the
bulk gas condition.
Gas temperatures inside the drum were estimated using the
energy balance given by Equation 74. The amount of heat loss
through the drum wall was estimated from the outside drum wall
temperature measurements, along with Equations 55, 56 and 84.
+ hr) A (T - T ) (84)
qL = (hu WO A
where: A = outside drum wall surface area for a given distance
along its length, m2.
The calculated gas temperature values are given in Table 4.
Gas flow measurements were checked using a component material
balance from the data on the oxygen and carbon dioxide measurements.
Whereas the agreement was not perfect, the comparison did support
the results of the gas flow measurements within the accuracy of the
gas sampling procedure. Measurements of the dilution air flow
corresponded well with past experience on this rotary dryer system.
In addition, dilution air flow measurements were used to calculate
the blend-box gas temperature. As seen in Table 4, the agreement
was good between the calculated and measured blend-box gas
temperatures. These results indicate the gas flow measurements
are probably a good indicator of the actual flow conditions.
Particle temperature measurements within the drum were repro-
ducible, judging from the three repetitions performed at each
sample port. However, these measurements may not be representative
of the true bulk particle temperature, but rather the particle

103
surface temperature. Whether or not this measurement is a good
indicator of the bulk particle temperature would depend on the
particle size and moisture content. Small particles with a complete-
ly wetted surface would be more uniform in temperature than larger
particles with partially dried surfaces. In either event, this
measurement technique can only be regarded as an approximation of
the bulk particle temperature.
It is interesting to note that the measured particle temperature
reached a peak near the drum inlet in all six test runs. A possible
explanation for this phenomenon was given by Sharples at al. (1964)
and presented here with some modification. The particle temperature
reaches a peak somewhere above the wet-bulb temperature when the
rate of heat transfer from the gas to the particles is high and the
diffusion of moisture to the particle surface is relatively slow.
Then, when the particle surface temperature is high and the rate of
heat transfer is low, evaporation from the particle surface uses
all of the available energy, and the particle temperature falls as
it approaches the wet-bulb temperature. Once sufficient moisture
is removed, the evaporation rate will drop, and the particle will
again be free to increase in temperature toward the gas condition.
Comparison Between Experimental Results
and Predicted Behavior
Results from the rotary dryer experiment were compared to a set
of rotary dryer simulations generated by the computer program RDS.
Drying profiles were prepared, which contrasted the predicted gas
temperature, particle temperature, and particle moisture content

104
values with the measured values taken along the drum length, for all
six test runs. These profiles are plotted in Figures 27 through 32,
with the solid lines representing the simulation result. The
predicted gas temperature, particle temperature, and particle
moisture content profiles all follow the same trends as their
measured counterparts. However, while the agreement is good, the gas
temperature and particle moisture content predictions are, for the
most part, higher than the experimental results, indicating the
extent of drying is underestimated. This suggests either the
predicted rate of heat transfer is too low, or the predicted resi-
dence time is too short, or a combination of both.
Conjecture about the accuracy of the predicted rate of heat
transfer is difficult without the aid of experimental evidence.
Comparing the volumetric heat transfer coefficient predicted in
Chapter IV with the values reported in the literature would indicate
this value is close, but inconclusive. Different rates of heat
transfer could yield identical gas temperature and particle
moisture content profiles if the residence times were also
different, in a compensating manner. In other words, a high rate of
heat transfer for a short period of time, could yield an identical
result as a low rate of heat transfer for a long period of time.
Solid conclusions in this regard must be supported with both
residence time and heat transfer data.
The implications of assumptions 8 and 9 should also be con-
sidered, since these imposed conditions restrict the time allowed
for drying to only the period of particle fall. At the end of the
period of particle travel on the lifting flights, the particles are

A GAS TEMPERATURE
111 PARTICLE TEMPERATURE
() PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT

_
A -
I'
n
I I I I
0.000E-01 1.100E+00 2.200E+00 3.300E+00 4.400E+00
Figure 27. Comparison of Rotary Dryer Simulation With Measured Results From Test Run No. 1,
K = 1.0.
GAS TEMPERATURE
p PARTICLE TEMPERATURE
0 PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT f

0
0
a p
I
ta '.1
4-10-
csi
0.000E-01 1.100 +00 2.200E+00 3.30 + +00 . S 0 -1-1-Eira

K = 1.0.
AGAS TEMPERATURE
0 PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT
n
0
H
0
Q
03
rx
e
z
1.-
rz
4.1
o
LI
w
m
D
I-
0
H
ox
tjH
t--
X
..:t
X
a)
1
la
1
at
I I
4.400E+00 5.500E+00
I
0.000E-01 1.100E+00 2:200E+00 3.300E+00

K = 1.0.
A GAS TEMPERATURE
D PARTICLE TEMPERATURE
C) PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT
r-,
U)
H
4)
<
M
>.-
X
e
,z
......
.
C)
w
n
I-
'I)
H
2
lj
H
I-
X
<
IL
0.000E-01 I .100E+00 2.200E+00 3.300E+00 4.400E+00 5.500E+00

DISTANCE FROM DRUM INLET (M)
K = 1.0.
zeis\ GAS TEMPERATURE
El PARTICLE TEMPERATURE
0.000E-01 1.100E+00 2.200E+00 3.300E+00 4.400E+00 5.500E+00

Figure 31. Comparison of Rotary Dryer Simulation With Measured Results From Test Run Mo. 5,
K = 1.0.
A GAS TEMPERATURE
0.000E-01 1.100E+00 2,200E+00 3.300E+00 4.400E+00 5.500E+00

DISTANCE-FROM DRUM INLET CM)
K = 1.0.
111
assumed to be uniform in moisture content and temperature as a result
of a relatively long period of time for internal movement of moisture
and heat. Certainly a potential for drying does occur as the
particles ride on the lifting flights, particularly for the particles
exposed on the surface of the particle bed. Calculations were
performed in Chapter IV and elsewhere (Kuramae and Tanaka, 1977),
which suggest the amount of heat transfer across a particle surface
during the time on the lifting flights is insignificant compared to
the amount of heat transfer during the falling period. However,
there is no experimental evidence to lend support to these findings.
The affect of an erroneous residence time prediction can be
evaluated based on the results of the residence time measurements
presented in Chapter III. Recalling from Figure 13, different
degrees of error were encountered in the residence time prediction
depending on the particle size and drum speed. For the weight mean
particle size used in the rotary dryer experiment (see Figure 24),
a linear interpolation was performed to estimate the expected error
in the residence time prediction at the two test drum speeds. These
values were then averaged to yield an expected overestimate in the
residence time prediction of 3.2 percent.
Based on the residence time data collected, it is unclear
whether the error occurs entirely in the estimate of the gas
particle interaction or in the estimated time of travel on the
particle lifting flights. Since the greatest area of uncertainty in
the residence time analysis was associated with the affect of the
gas-particle interaction, all of the expected error was assumed to
occur in the prediction of the drag coefficient from Equation-37.

112
In program RDS this error was accounted for through the following
relationship:
= (85)
D K.CD
where: CD = unadjusted drag coefficient from Equation 37.
CD = adjusted drag coefficient.
K = correction factor.
Since the residence time error results in an overestimate of the
time spent in the dryer, the correction factor, K, is simply equal
to 1.0 plus the expected error in fractional form. In this case,
K = 1.03.
Figures 33 through 38 represent gas temperature, particle
temperature, and particle moisture content profiles generated by the
computer program RDS. These simulations contain the drag coefficient
adjustment from Equation 85. No significant difference was found
between the predictions made with K = 1.0 and K = 1.03. The computer
generated output for the simulations with K = 1.03 is contained in
Appendix H.
The greatest deviation from the measured results occurred in
the simulation of test run 3, shown in Figure 35. In this case the
extent of drying is underestimated throughout the drum. However,
with the exception of the first meter of the drum, the drying rate
prediction is very close to the measured result. This is seen by
comparing the shape of the predicted drying curve to the data, from
1.1 meters to the drum exit. In test run 3, the calculated inlet
gas temperature was lower than expected, due to a high amount of air
leakage. It is possible the actual inlet gas temperature for this

A GAS TEMPERATURE
0.000E-01 1.100E+00 27-0567-b0 3.300E+00 4.400E+00 .500E+00

K = 1.03.
A GAS TEMPERATURE
_
a
0 PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT _ ii
a
o
-
Di 5 i
1
1
ai
I I
0.000E-01 1.100E+00 2.20 +00 3.300E+00 4.400E+00 5.500E+00
K = 1.03.
22s, GAS TEMPERATURE
D PARTICLE TEMPERATURE
el
1
1
ci
Zs;
1
la
I
I
ai
0.000E-01 1.100E+00 2.200E+00 3.300E+00 4.400E+00 5.500E+00

K = 1.03.
GAS TEMPERATURE
t;
1.1 0E+00 2.200E+00 3.300E+00 4.400E+00 5.500E+00

K = 1.03.
A SAS TEMPERATURE
C) PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT
0.000E-01 1.106E+00 2.206E+00 3.306E+00 4744E+00 5.500E+00

K = 1.03.
A GAS TEMPERATURE
0.000E-01 1.100E+00 2.200E+00 3.300E+00 4.400E+00 5.500E+00

DISTANCE FROM DRUM INLET CC)
K = 1.03.
119
test run was higher. If the outside drum wall temperature varies in
proportion to the gas temperature in the drum, then a comparison of
the outside drum wall temperatures near the drum inlet between test
runs 3, 5 and 6 indicate the calculated inlet gas temperatures for
test run 3 was too low. This discrepancy could be the result of an
erroneous gas flow measurement, however, this explanation could not
be verified.
Predictions for the particle temperatures were good for test
runs 1, 2, 3 and 4. The simulation accurately predicted a particle
temperature peak near the drum inlet as discussed previously. Pre-
dicted particle temperatures increased at a decreasing rate near
the drum inlet up to a value slightly above the wet-bulb temperature,
then remained fairly constant. If the particles were still well
above fiber saturation, the predicted particle temperature dropped
in the last half of the drum. If the particles were dried below
fiber saturation, as predicted in test runs 5 and 6, the particle
temperature increased near the drum exit.
The predicted particle temperatures in test runs 5 and 6 were
too high throughout the length of the drum. This is a result of an
overestimated rate of heat transfer to the particles. Since the
heat capacity of the particles is small in relation to the evapora-
tive load, a small error in the rate of heat transfer predicted
would result in a large error in the predicted particle temperature.
This affect would be most prevalent near the drum inlet, as shown
in Figures 37 and 38, since this is where the greatest rate of heat
transfer occurs.
120
Predictions of the gas temperature profiles are closely
associated with the particle moisture content predictions, since
material and energy balances must be satisfied throughout the drum.
In all six test runs, the heat loss through the dryer wall and the
sensible heat load of the particles were small in comparison to the
evaporative load. Therefore, underestimating the drying rate
resulted in a corresponding overestimate of the gas temperature.
The important difference between the simulation results with
K = 1.03 and K = 1.0 is not the overall residence time in the drum,
but rather the total number of cascades that a particle makes
through the gas stream. Additional time spent on the lifting
flights does not significantly increase the extent of drying. This
is seen by comparing test runs 3 and 4 in which a 94 percent
decrease in the drum speed resulted in only a 7.5 percent decrease
in the measured amount of outlet particle moisture.
Figure 39 is a plot of the predicted outlet particle moisture
content versus the measured values for all six test runs. Any points
lying on the 45 degree line would indicate perfect agreement between
the predicted and measured results. The overall percent root mean
square error for all six test runs is 22.2. The worst prediction
was for test run 3, in which the calculated inlet gas temperature
was lower than anticipated.
Rotary Dryer Simulation Trials
Throughout the discussion of the last three chapters it should
be apparent there are a great number of factors which influence the
drying behavior in a rotary dryer. Figure 40 summarizes the

121
cI
m 0.80
Ideal Fit
0 0.60
0
4.)
0
0.40
.1"
3
114
4
0.20
.0 Six Test Runs

05
.0
0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Actual Outlet Particle Moisture Content (Dry Basis)
Figure 39. Predicted Versus Actual Outlet Particle Moisture Content

in the Experimental Rotary Drum, K = 1.0.
Outlet Particle Moisture Content (dry basis)
N.)
° co N.)
00 0
0 HI
H
M CD
rPPI Inlet Particle Moisture Content
0 CD
0 rt.
rt. 0 Blend-Box Gas Temperature
H.0 CD
0 W
(1)
1./)
Drum Diameter
0W CD
M
M 1--.
M
0 0 Air Leakage
M
(DID CD 0 CD
ID-
0 CD
o pci Drum Length
0 o II II II
CD
c-Pc-P
0 t7:1
CD
0M 43 CC
tm. `-4
M Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
(DID 0 CD
II M 11
k.4 CP
U)
0 0(D
CI)
CD
11 cp 0 0rt
CD
Particle Size
CD
11:1
0. 1-6
CD 11 CD 0
P) n n Partic18.grericity
M 5 1-1
CD
CrP a) a)
o m CO CO
0 es M
Drum S eed
0. CO
l-h
Angle of Repose
Bend Factor
ZZT
123
predicted effects of some selected independent rotary dryer
parameters on the outlet particle moisture content. The base case
conditions for all the comparisons were taken from test run 2. A
simulation using program RDS was performed for each variation of a
base case condition of plus and minus 50 percent, while all other
conditions were held constant. The actual values used for the
simulation trials are shown in Table 5.
Within the range of conditions examined, the inlet particle
moisture content had the greatest affect on the predicted outlet
particle moisture content. Next, in decreasing order of importance,
came the blend-box gas temperature, drum diameter, air leakage, drum
length, gas volumetric flow rate, particle size, particle sphericity,
drum speed, angle of repose, and the bend factor. Changes in the
drum diameter were combined with a proportional change in the
lifting flight dimensions. Similarly, changes in the drum length
were combined with proportional changes in the length of the center-
fill section.
Of special interest is the affect of the gas volumetric flow
rate. Both positive and negative variations from the base case
caused a reduction in the extent of drying. This indicates there
is an optimal value for the gas volumetric flow rate. The peak
occurs as a result of the combined affect the gas flow rate has on
the particle drag force and the convective heat transfer coefficient.
Increasing the gas flow causes a particle to pass through the drum
quicker (i.e. fewer cascades). However, an increased gas flow
enhances the convective rate of heat transfer. These are

124
Table 5. Summary of Rotary Dryer Parameter Values Used in Figure 40.
1
Base Lower Upper
Parameter Case Value Value
Inlet Particle Moisture

Content (Dry Basis). 1.4 0.7 2.1
Blend-Box Gas Temperature,

oc.
548 274 822
Drum Diameter, m. 2 1.2 0.6 1.8
Air Leakage, kg/s. 1.49 0.75 2.24
Drum Length, m. 2 5.5 2.75 8.25
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate,

m3/s. 1.1 0.55 1.65
Particle Size (- Screen Passed,

+ Screen Caught), m. -0.002 -0.001 -0.003
+0.0014 +0.0007 +0.0021
Particle Sphericity. 0.75 0.375 1.125
Drum Speed, rpm. 5.5 2.7 8.2
Angle of Repose, degrees. 3 82.6 41.3 90.0
Bend Factor. 0.75 0.375 1.125
1 Base case conditions taken from test run no. 2.

2 Other related drum dimensions were varied proportionally
(ie. flight length and length of centerf ill section).
3 Maximum angle of repose is 90 degrees.
125
counteracting affects on the extent of drying, and thus an optimal
gas flow rate must exist.
Also of note is the bend factor affect from Rosen's (1982) wood
drying model. As alluded to in Chapter IV, influences of internal
diffusion have a small affect on the extent of drying incurred in a
rotary dryer. This is due to the relatively long soaking periods
compared to the drying periods within the range of conditions
studied. This would seem to be justification for overlooking the
affects of internal temperature and moisture gradients within the
rotary dryer simulation. And that accounting for internal diffusion
through the use of an empirical drying model is quite adequate.
One final simulation trial was performed, in which the center-
fill flighting section was removed and all other conditions held
constant. Under this situation, the predicted gas temperature,
particle temperature, and particle moisture content profiles are
shown in Figure 41, along with the simulation results in which
centerf ill flighting was included. The number of cascades predicted
without the centerf ill section was only 37, compared to 56 cascades
when centerfill was included. As shown, the outlet particle
moisture content was predicted to be 13 percent less, on a dry
basis, when centerf ill flights were present.
Applications of the Model
The computer program RDS is applicable to single pass rotary
drums with cocurrent flow. A centerf ill flighting section need not
be present. The particle lifting flights must be rectangular in

. CENTERFILL FLIGHTS
NO CENTERFILL FLIGHTS
PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT
GAS TEMPERATURE
I I
I
4.400E+00 5.500E+00
I
ø0Eø1 1.100E+00 2.200E+00 3.300E+00

Figure 41. Comparison of Rotary Dryer Simulation Results for Test Run No. 2 With and Without
Centerf ill Flights.
127
cross section, as shown in Figure 2, or at least be able to be
approximated as such.
Other dryer configurations can also be analyzed by proper
manipulation of the computer program RDS. Triple pass rotary dryers,
for example, are sometimes used for drying wood particles, see
Figure 42. Inlet gas and particles enter at point A of the diagram.
The first pass of the particle-gas stream is through the center
shell. At point B the stream changes direction and enters the
intermediate shell, point C, for its second pass. The stream
changes direction once more at point D and makes a final pass along
the drum length in the outer shell until it finally exits at point
E. The gas velocity in the center shell is greatest due to its
small cross section. The velocity drops off in the other shells,
with the lowest gas velocity occurring in the outer shell.
Because centerf ill flights are accounted for in the residence
time model, a modification could be made to allow for a multiple pass
drum. As shown in the drum cross section of Figure 42, the inter-
mediate and center shells have particle lifting flights on both sides
of their walls. The outer lifting flights on these interior shells
contribute to the cascading action in the same manner as the
centerf ill flights shown in Figure 1. With a modification to account
for the different centerfill flight geometry, a triple pass drum
could be analyzed in three parts. The first pass through the center
shell has no centerf ill and is modeled simply as an open center
drum. The second and third passes, through the intermediate and
outer shells respectively, are modeled as centerf ill drums. An

Center Shell
Intermediate
Shell
Outer Shell
Cross Section
Center Shell Side View

Intermediate
Shell Outer Shell
Figure 42. Schematic Diagram of Triple Pass Rotary Dryer.

129
allowance probably would be required to account for end effects
when the particle-gas stream changes direction between passes.
A modification to RDS to allow for multiple pass drums was not
made in this study. However, the modifications required would be
applied to Equations 40, 41 and 42, which define the centerf ill
flight holdup function. Also, a change would be needed in the heat
loss calculation, since the interior shells are not directly exposed
to the surrounding. Pressure drop through a multiple pass drum
may also be a problem when estimating the gas flow rate. A
separate analysis of the pressure drop affect may be required.

130
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A sequential analysis was performed of the rotary drying
process in terms of residence time, heat transfer, and mass transfer.
Special consideration was given to the drying of wood particles.
The first step was the development of a computer simulation
program which predicts the residence time in rotary dryers. This
program was applicable to single pass drums, with and without
centerfill flights. The simulation results were compared with
experimental measurements of the residence time. The overall
percent root mean square error was 14.2.
The next step added a heat transfer analysis to the overall
model. The result was a computer simulation program which predicts
the thermal profiles along the length of a rotary drum. No
experimental verification was performed for this step.
A complete rotary dryer simulation program called RDS was then
developed with the addition of the mass transfer process. Rotary
dryer experiments were conducted and the results compared to the
simulation predictions. With reference to the outlet particle
moisture content, the overall percent root mean square error was
22.2.
Additional rotary dryer simulation trials were performed in
order to examine the affect of varying some selected rotary dryer
parameters. Comparisons were made based on the outlet particle
moisture content, with rotary dryer test run number 2 as the base
case. In decreasing order of importance the parameters examined
were the inlet particle moisture content, blend-box gas temperature,

131
drum diameter, air leakage, drum length, gas volumetric flow rate,
particle size, particle sphericity, drum speed, angle of repose, and
bend factor. A final rotary dryer simulation trial was performed to
check the affect of the centerf ill flighting section.
The following conclusions can be derived from this study:
A rotary dryer simulation model has been developed which
is capable of predicting the drying behavior of wood
particles in a rotary dryer with a measured error of
approximately 22 percent.
The gas-particle interaction controls both the number of
cascades a particle makes through the gas stream and the
local rate of heat transfer to a particle.
There is an optimal volumetric gas flow rate which will
yield the greatest amount of drying. For the rotary dryer
examined in this study, the optimal bulk gas velocity was
predicted to be approximately 1.0 m/s.
The affect of internal diffusion of heat or mass appears
to be of minor importance when predicting drying behavior
of wood particles within the range of rotary dryer
conditions examined.
The presence of centerf ill flights enhance the drying
process if all other conditions are held constant. The
simulation results shown in Figure 41 indicated that the
addition of centerf ill flights improved the extent of drying
by 19 percent over the case when no centerf ill flights were
present.
132
Wood particles do not behave independently when the
cascade through the moving gas stream, but rather are
influenced by the bulk particle flow.
Drag coefficients predicted by the Schiller and Naumann
relationship (Equation 6) are probably not representative
of the actual condition, since that equation assumes the
particles behave independently in the gas stream. However,
when this relationship uses the weighted mean particle
size as the characteristic dimension, the measured and
predicted results of the residence time are in close
agreement.
The rotary dryer simulation model developed in this study
may be used as a tool toward better understanding of the
rotary drying process.

133
VII. LIST OF NOTATION
a = rate factor, sb.
A = area, m2.
AH = particle surface area available for heat transfer, m2.
A = projected frontal area, m2.
= bend factor, eqs. 78-81.
b = length of flight lip, m.
Bim = mass transfer Blot number.
c = specific heat, J/kg-°C.
C = wet specific heat, J/kg-°C.
C = number of cascades, eq. 45.
= drag coefficient.
CD
CD = adjusted drag coefficient.
d = diameter, m.
= diffusion coefficient, m2/s.
= dimensionless moisture content, eq. 78.
= initial drying rate, s-1, eq. 80.

Eo
= factor relating mass transfer surface area to total particle
surface area, m2.
f(G) = gas velocity function.
f(H) = drum holdup function.
= drag force on particle, N/m2.

FD
Fg = gravitational force on particle, N/m2.
Fr = Froude Number.
acceleration due to gravity, m/s2.
= dry gas mass flow rate, kg/s.

134
Gr = Grashof number.
h = flight holdup, m3, Chapter III.
surface-film convective heat transfer coefficient, W/m2.C.
= combined natural and forced surface-film convective heat

hu
transfer coefficient, W/m2.°C.
effective radiation heat transfer coefficient, W/m2..C.

hr
= drum holdup, m3.
specific enthalpy, J/kg, eqs. 71-73.
= drag factor.
= thermal conductivity, W/m°C.
kp = pseudo permeability, m-1, eq. 25.
= surface-film convective mass transfer coefficient,
kg/m2.s.(kg/kg).
= various constants in Equations 4, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 24.
= cascade factor.
Kc
= flight length, m.
= distance from drum inlet, m, eqs. 19-23, 58.
= drum length, m.
= effective drum length, m.

Le
= ratio of actual to design holdup.
= molecular weight, kg/kgmole.
= number of flights.
= drum rotation rate, rev/min.
Nu = Nusselt number.
= partial pressure, Pa.
= total pressure, Pa.
Pr = Prandtl number.
135
= rate of heat transfer to particles, J/s.
= rate of heat loss through drum wall, J/s.

qL
= heat flux through drum wall, W/m2.

qL
= radius, m.
= gas constant, kgmole. °C/Pa.m3, eq. 28.
= thermal resistance, °C/W.*
= drying rate, s-1, eqs. 20-24 and 31-33.
Re = Reynolds number.
= rotational Reynolds number, eq. 55.

Rew
= dimensionless time, eq. 81.
= dry solids feed rate, kg/s.
Sh = Sherwood number.
= time, s.
= temperature, °C, K in eqs. 28, 30, 95, 96 and 102.
= volumetric heat transfer coefficient, W/m3.°C.
= velocity, m/s.
= terminal velocity, m/s.

vt
V = volume, m3.
= particle width, m.
= directional coordinate, m.
= longitudinal advance of a particle per cascade, m, eq. 35.
X = particle moisture content, dry basis, kg/kg.
= vertical distance of particle fall, m, eq. 43.
= mole fraction in gas phase.
= gas moisture content, dry basis, kg/kg.
136
= drum slope to horizontal, degrees, Chapter III.
cc = thermal diffusivity, m2/s.
(3, = coefficient of thermal expansion, K-1.
= angle defined in Figure 5, degrees.
= gamma function.
AT = logarithmic mean temperature difference, °C.
Ax = cascade length, m.
= emissivity.
1-1 = friction factor for particles moving on a flight.
8 = peripheral flight angle, degrees.
= peripheral flight angle of entry, degrees.

0e
= residence time correction factor, eq. 85.
= latent heat of vaporization, J/kg.
= heat of wetting, J/kg.

w
= sorption energy, J/kg.
Xs
1-1 = viscosity, Pa.s.
= kinematic viscosity, m2/s.
= porosity.
7 = 3.1426
= density, kg/m3.
a = sphericity.
= kinetic angle of repose, degrees.
centerfill flight angle, degrees.
centerf ill flight angle of entry, degrees.

Te
= angle defined in Figure 5, degrees.

137
Subscripts
A = air.
b = normal boiling point.
B = bulk
B = bound water.
c = centerfill flight.
c = cascade.
d = drum.
e = equilibrium.
e = peripheral flight.
El = exterior (peripheral) to interior flight period of fall.
f = particle fall.
f = gas film.
fsp = fiber saturation point.
F = free water.
G = gas.
I = inside drum.
IE = interior (centerfill) to exterior flight period of fall.
mix = gas mixture.
o = initial.
0 = outside drum.
p = particle or solids.
p = constant pressure.
pf = particle fall.
r = relative to a moving gas stream.
s = surface. '
138
S = dry solids or particles.
T = total.
v = water vapor.
w = liquid water.
wb = wet-bulb.
W = drum wall.
x = directional coordinate.
y = directional coordinate.
z = directional coordinate.
8 = angular.
co = fully-developed flow.
Superscripts
o = pure component.
s = saturated.
* = design condition.
= average.
139
VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atherton, G.H. and J.R. Welty. 1972. Drying Rates of Douglas-Fir

Veneer In Superheated Steam at Temperatures to 800°F. Wood
Science 4(4):209-218.
Berger, D. and D.C.T. Pei. 1973. Drying of Hygroscopic Capillary

Porous Solids--A Theoretical Approach. International Journal
of Heat and Mass Transfer 16:293-302.
Bramhall, G. 1979. Mathematical Model for Lumber Drying I.

Principles Involved. Wood Science 12(1):14-21.
Brown, H.P., J. Panshin and C.C. Forsaith. 1952. Textbook of Wood

Technology, Vol. II. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Corder, S.E. 1958. Suspension Drying of Sawdust. Forest Products

Journal 8(1):5-10.
Coulson, J.M. and J.F. Richardson. 1955. Chemical Engineering,

Volume Two. p. 505. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Davidson, J.F., M.W.L. Robson, and F.C. Roesler. 1969. Drying of

Solids Subject to Alternating Boundary Conditions. Chemical
Engineering Science 24:815-828.
Emery, A.F., B. Dorri, and P.C. Malte. 1983. The Drying of Wood
Particles: Analysis and Experiments. Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Numerical Methods in Thermal
Problems. Vol. III. Seattle, Washington. Pine Ridge Press,
Swansea, U.K.
Fleischer, H.O. 1953. Drying Rates of Thin Sections of Wood at

High Temperatures. Yale University, School of Forestry,
Bulletin No. 59.
Friedman, S.J. and W.K. Marshall. 1949. Studies in Rotary Drying,

Part I--Holdup and Dusting. Chemical Engineering Progress
45:482-493.
Friedman, S.J. and W.K. Marshall. 1949. Studies in Rotary Drying,

Part II--Heat and Mass Transfer. Chemical Engineering Progress
45:573-588.
Garside, J., L.W. Lord, and R. Regan. 1970. The Drying of Granular
Fertilizers. Chemical Engineering Science 25:1133-1145.
Glikin, P.G. 1978. Transport of Solids Through Flighted Rotating

Drums. Transactions, Institution of Chemical Engineers
56:120-126.
140
Gupta, L.N. 1974. An Approximate Solution of the Generalized

Stefan's Problem in a Porous Media. International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer 17:313-321.
Harmathy, T.Z. 1969. Simultaneous Moisture and Heat Transfer in

Porous Systems with Particular Reference to Drying. Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry, Fundamentals 8(1):92-103.
Hart, C.A. 1966. The Drying of Wood. North Carolina Agricultural

Extension Service, Extension Circular 471.
Heywood, H. 1962. Uniform and Non-uniform Motion of Particles in

Fluids. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Interaction Between
Fluids and Particles. IChemE Symposium Series No. 9.
Hirosue, H. and H. Shinohara. 1978. Volumetric Heat Transfer

Coefficient and Pressure Drop in Rotary Dryers and Coolers.
Proceedings of The First International Symposium on Drying.
McGill University, Montreal, Canada. A.S. Mujumdar, Editor.
Science Press, Princeton.
Kayihan, F. 1982. Simultaneous Heat and Mass Transfer With Local

Three-Phase Equilibria in Wood Drying. Proceedings of The
Third International Drying Symposium. University of
Birmingham, Birmingham, England. J.C. Ashworth, Editor. Drying
Research Limited, Wolverhampton.
Kays, W.M. and I.S. Bjorklund. 1958. Heat Transfer From a

Rotating Cylinder With and Without Crossflow. Transactions of
the ASME, January, pp. 70-78.
Kays, W.M. and M.E. Crawford. 1980. Convective Heat and Mass
' Transfer. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York.
Kelly, J.J. and J.P. O'Donnell. 1968. Dynamics of Granular

Material in Rotary Dryers and Coolers. IChemE Symposium
Series No. 29, pp. 33-44.
Kelly, J.J. and P. O'Donnell. 1977. Residence Time Model for

Rotary Drums. Transactions, Institution of Chemical Engineers
55:243-252.
Kirk, R.W. and J.B. Wilson. 1983. Analysis of Drying Wood Waste
Fuels With Boiler Exhaust Gases--Simulation, Performance, and
Economics. Engineering Experiment Station, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Kisakiirek, B. 1982. Retention Time in a Rotary Dryer. Proceedings

of the Third International Drying Symposium, Vol. 2. University
of Birmingham, Birmingham, England. J.C. Ashworth, Editor.
Drying Research Limited, Wolverhampton.
141
Kisakilrek, B., R.D. Peck, and J. Cakaloz. 1975. Generalized Drying

Curves for Porous Solids. Canadian Journal of Chemical
Engineering 53:53-59.
Kollmann,F.F.P. 1961. High Temperature Drying, Research, Applica-

tion, and Experience in Germany. Forest Products Journal
11:508-515.
Kollmann, F.F.P. and W.A. Cote. 1968. Principles of Wood Science

and Technology.. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Kuramae, M. and T. Tanaka. 1977. Analysis of the Volumetric Heat

Transfer Coefficient for a Rotary Dryer. Heat Transfer,
Japanese Research. 6(1):66-80.
Levenspiel, O. 1980. The Flow of Ugly and Exotic Fluids. Class

Notes, Chemical Engineering Department, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon. To be published in Fluid Flow and Heat
Exchange. Plenum Press, New York.
Luikov, A.V. 1975. Systems of Differential Equations of Heat and

Mass Transfer in Capillary-Porous Bodies. International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 18:1-14.
Malte, P.C., R.J. Robertus, M.D. Strickler, R.W. Cox, W.J. Kennish,
G.R. Messinger, and S.C. Schmidt. 1977. Experiments on the
Kinetics and Mechanisms of Drying Small Wood Particles. Thermal
Energy Laboratory Report TEL-76-8. College of Engineering,
Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
Mason, M.A. 1980. Drag on Freely-Falling Wood Chips and Other

Irregularly-Shaped Bodies. M.S. Thesis, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
McCormick, P.Y. 1962. Gas Velocity Effects on Heat Transfer in

Direct Heat Rotary Dryers. Chemical Engineering Progress
58(6):57-61.
Mikhailov, M.D. 1975. Exact Solution of Temperature and Moisture

Distributions in a Porous Half-Space With Moving Evaporation
Front. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
18:797-804.
Miller, C.O., B.A. Smith and W.H. Schuette. 1942. Factors

Influencing the Operation of Rotary Dryers. Transactions,
American Institution of Chemical Engineers 38:841-864.
Miskell, F. and W.R. Marshall, Jr. 1956. A Study of Retention

Time in a Rotary Dryer. Chemical Engineering Progress
52(1):35-38.
Mohr, M. 1982. Willamette Industries' Rotary-Drum Bark Dryer.

PIMA Magazine, June.
142
Myklestad, O. 1963. Heat and Mass Transfer in Rotary Dryers.

Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series 59(41):129-137.
Nonhebel, G. and A.A.H. Moss. 1971. Drying of Solids in the

Chemical Industry. Butterworth and Company Ltd., London.
Oswald, K.D. and D.C. Junge. 1980. Drying Wood and Bark Fuels
With Boiler Exhaust Gases. The Energy Research Development
Institute, Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Perry, R.H. and C.H. Chilton. 1975. Chemical Engineers' Handbook,

Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Platin, B.E., A. Erden, and O.L. Guider. 1982. Modelling and Design
of Rotary Dryers. Proceeding of the Third International
Drying Symposium, Volume 2. J.C. Ashworth, Editor. Drying
Research Limited, Wolverhampton, England.
Plumb, 0.A., P.C. Malte, and R.J. Robertus. 1977. A Numerical

Model of Convective Drying of Wood Particles. Thermal Energy
Laboratory Report TEL-77-19. College of Engineering,
Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
Porter, S.J. 1963. The Design of Rotary Dryers and Coolers.

Transactions, Institution of Chemical Engineers 41:272-280.
Porter, S.J. and W.G. Masson. 1960. Rotary Coolers and Dryers--
Some Related Aspects of Design. Proceedings of the Fertilizer
Society 61:5-38.
Prutton, C.F., C.O. Miller, and W.H. Schuette. 1942. Transactions,

American Institution of Chemical Engineers 38:123-141.
Ranz, W.E. and W.R. Marshall. 1952. Evaporation From Drops--Part I

and Part II. Chemical Engineering Progress 48(3):141-146,
173-180.
Rosen, H.N. 1980. Psychrometric Relationships and Equilibrium

Moisture Content of Wood at Temperatures Above 212 F. Wood
and Fiber 12(3):153-171.
Rosen, H.N. 1982. Functional Relations and Approximation

Techniques for Characterizing Wood Drying Curves. Wood
Science 15(1):49-55.
Rosen, H.N. 1983. Recent Advances in the Theory of Drying Lumber.

Forest Sciences Laboratory, North Central Forest Experiment
Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale,
Illinois.
143
Rosen, H.N. and R.E. Bodkin. 1978. Drying Curves and Wood
Quality of Silver Maple Jet Dried at High Temperatures. Forest
Products Journal 28(9):37-43.
Saeman, W.C. 1962. Air-Solids Interaction in Rotary Dryers and

Coolers. Chemical Engineering Progress 58(6):49-56.
Saeman, W.C. and T.R. Mitchell. 1954. Analysis of Rotary Dryer

and Cooler Performance. Chemical Engineering Progress
50(9):467-475.
Schiller, L. and A. Naumann. 1933. Uber die grundlegenden

Berechnungen bei der Schwerkraftaufbereitung. Verein Deutscher
Ingenieure Zeitschrift 77(12):318-320.
Schofield, F.R. and P.G. Glikin. 1962. Rotary Driers and Coolers
for Granular Fertilizers. Transactions, Institution of
Chemical Engineers 40:183-190.
Sharples, K., P.G. Glikin, and R. Warne. 1964. Computer Simulation

of Rotary Driers. Transactions, Institution of Chemical
Engineers 42:T275-T284.
Siau, J.F. 1972. Flow in Wood. Syracuse University Press,

Syracuse.
Simpson, W.T. and H.N. Rosen. 1980. Equilibrium Moisture Content

of Wood at High Temperatures. Wood and Fiber 13(3):150-158.
Skaar, C. 1972. Water in Wood. Syracuse University Press,

Syracuse.
Smith, B.A. 1942. Factors Influencing Rotary Dryer Performance.

Transactions, American Institution of Chemical Engineers
38:251-257.
Smith, G.D. 1978. Numerical Solution of Partial Differential

Equations, Second Edition. Clarendon Press, Oxford. p. 41.
Smith, J.M. and H.C. Van Ness. 1959. Introduction to Chemical

Engineering Thermodynamics, Second Edition. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York. p. 122.
Stamm, A.J. 1964. Wood and Cellulose Science. Ronald Press,

New York.
Thorne, B. 1979. The Computer Simulation of the Rotary Drying

Process. PhD Thesis, University College, Dublin, Ireland.
Torobin, L.B. and W.H. Gauvin. 1960. Fundamental Aspects of

Solids-Gas Flow. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering
38(5):142-152.
144
Treybal, R.E. 1980. Mass-Transfer Operations. McGraw-Hill Book

Company, New York.
Tscheng, S.H. and A.P. Watkinson. 1979. Convective Heat Transfer

in a Rotary Kiln. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering
57:433-443.
Turner, G.A. 1966. The Thermal History of a Granule in a Rotary

Cooler. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 44:13-16.
Vala, T. 1982. Fuel Predryer Improves Wastewood Boiler Operations,

and Efficiency. Pulp and Paper, March, pp. 154-157.
Welty, J.R. 1974. Engineering Heat Transfer. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Welty, J.R., C.E. Wicks, and R.E. Wilson. 1976. Fundamentals of

Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer, Second Edition. John Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Weichert, L. 1963. Investigations on Sorption and Swelling of

Spruce, Beech, and Compressed Beech Wood Between 200 and 100°C.
Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff 21(8):290-300.
sapiatiaaav xi
145
APPENDIX A. THERMAL RESISTANCE OF THE DRUM WALL
The thermal resistance of the drum wall is considered as a
summation of the individual resistances of its components. Knowl-
edge of the type of materials which make up the wall, their
thickness and thermal conductivity, is required to estimate the total
thermal resistance as shown by Equations 86 and 87.
Rw =
(T
WI
- Two) 1 1 f r.
1+1 dr
(86)
27rAx
L i=1 kWi r.
Integrating Equation 86 yields:
1 1
Rw - /r ) (87)
27Ax .E
1=1 Ni kn(r.1i
1+
where: Twi = inside wall temperature, °C.
TWO = outside wall temperature, °C.
kw = thermal conductivity of wall component, J/s.m.°C.
r = radius, m.
i = index referring to a multilayer wall.
If the drum wall is insulated, in most cases only the thickness and
the thermal conductivity of the insulation need be considered in the
calculation.
TG2-TG1-qL/GcG (.4cG -
(91) d(AT)
I ciL(TS2-T51) AT2-AT1-qL/GcG dqG
becomes: rearrangement
upon which 89, Equation into substituted is expression This
T51) (T52 csSc
(90) L
Ax q" Trdd - TG1) - GcG(TG2
Ax: length,
cascade finite a over solved and combined are 65 and 64 Equations
Sc GcG -
(89) d(AT)
dx) Trdd - (dqG dqG
yield: to 88 Equation into substituted are 65 and 64 Equations
(88) dTs - dTG = d(AT)
force:
driving temperature differential a define and TS' - TG = AT Let
(65) dx Trdd qL + dTs Scs = dqG and
(64) dTG cG G = dqG
(63) dx Trdd qL + TS) - (TG = dqG
4d
Trd [U
2
segment: drum differential a across balances energy three
with Starting dx. drum, rotary a of length differential a for
determined be may U, coefficient, transfer heat volumetric A
COEFFICIENT TRANSFER HEAT VOLUMETRIC THE
CALCULATING OF METHOD INDIRECT B. APPENDIX
146
147
Since qG = GcG(TG2 -TG1) and Scs(T S2-TS1) = c1G- then Equation 91
becomes:
[ AT2-AT1-q L/GcG 1 qi,

+ (92)
d(AT) = dqG _
qG qL S
Substituting Equation 63 for dqG, Equation 92 is rearranged to yield
the following separable differential equation:
(93)
d(AT) = (UEAT + F) dx
[AT2-ATi-qL/GcG
where: E = V
(1G
AT2-AT1-qL/GcG q
L
F
=Ax/ qG
Ax/q
L
- Ax Ax Sc
S
AT = TG - TS
Integrating Equation 93 across the drum segment, and solving for
U yields:
1
UEAT2 + F
(94)
U - tn
AxE UEAT1 + F
Since Equation 94 may not be solved explicitly for U, an iterative
solution technique is required.

148
APPENDIX C. EVALUATION OF GAS PROPERTIES
The gas properties of density, specific heat, thermal con-
ductivity, and viscosity must be evaluated as a function of
temperature and composition for the conveying gas along the length
of the rotary drum. With wood particle drying systems this gas
could consist of combustion products from fossil fuels or wood, or
exhaust stack gases. In addition, a considerable portion of the
total gas flow could consist of air. As such, gas composition must
be accounted for when determining temperature dependent properties.
The viscosity of pure gases may be estimated as:
[ T2
3/2 [T1 + 1.47 Tbl
o
/12 111 + 1.47
T1 T2 Tb
where: Tb = normal boiling point, K.
Tl = reference temperature, K.
po = viscosity of pure gas at reference temperature, Pas.
1
At a given reference temperature Equation 95 becomes:
T3121
p =a T + b
The major combustion products of fossil fuels and wood, along
with their corresponding values for a and b are listed in Table 6.
The resultant viscosity of a gas mixture is given by:
E Y. Poi (4.)1/2
=
1.1mix
E yi (Mi)1/2
where: y = mole fraction.
M = molecular weight.
149
Specific heats of pure gases at constant pressure are evaluated
as:
co = c + dT + eT2 (98)
where T is evaluated in degrees Kelvin. Values of c, d and e are
found in Table 6 (Smith and Van Ness, 1959).
For a gas mixture:
cp,mi x
= E y. c0.
1 pi i y. M.
1 1
(99)
Thermal conductivity of pure gases can be estimated as:
o o 10381,
k° = p (c + m )
For a gas mixture:
E y. k. (M,)1/3
k 1 1
mix
E
yi (Mi)1/3
The uncertainties of Equations 95 and 100 have been evaluated
by Perry and Chilton (1975) as ±6 percent and ±5 to 25 percent
(depending on the molecular polarity and linearity), respectfully.
The heat capacity equation has an uncertainty of about one to three
percent.
Gas density was evaluated using a standard ideal gas relation-
ship assuming air at one standard atmosphere of pressure.
For the ambient air surrounding the exterior drum wall a
Grashof number is required to estimate the effect of natural con-
vection on the heat loss through the drum wall. This was evaluated
using the following power curve fit to the data tabulated by Kays
150
and Crawford (1980) for the temperature dependent portion of the
Grashof number:
T-4372 (102)
-8L3-2 = 8.85 x 1018
v
where: T = temperature, K.
Gr = P.
g dd3 AT/v2.
Equation 102 produced an r2 value of 0.999.
Table 6. Coefficients Used in Gas Property Equations.
Carbon Water
Coefficient Oxygen Nitrogen Dioxide Vapor
a 1.71 1.42 1.68 1.62
b 132.4 113.6 286.0 548.5
c 803.9 971.4 590.0 1686.7
d 0.4056 0.1861 0.9886 0.5342
e -1.21x10-4 -1.50x10-7 -3.37x10-4 6.58x10-5

151
APPENDIX D. EVALUATION OF WOOD PROPERTIES
Wood properties are affected by temperature and moisture
content.
The specific heat of dry wood may be estimated as (Stamm, 1964):
c = 1113.0 + 4.85 T
S
where: T = temperature, °C.
c = specific heat of dry wood, J/kg°C.

S
For wet wood, Siau (1971) suggests:
X + CS
C -
S 1 + X
where: X = dry basis moisture content fraction.
Cs = specific heat of wet wood, J/kg°C.
The thermal conductivity of wood is dependent on the direction
relative to the grain, as well as temperature and moisture content.
For dry wood (Brown et al., 1952):
(105)
kr = 2.00 x 10-4 ps + 2.38 x 10-2
kz = 2.5 kr (106)
where: p = dry wood density, kg/m3.

S
kr = thermal conductivity perpendicular to grain direction,
W/m°C.
k thermal conductivity parallel to grain direction,
W/m°C.
x 2.38 + X) x 5.48 + x (2.00 pS = kr
10-2 10-4 10-4
0.40: > X
(107) x 2.38 + X) x 4.04 + x (2.00 pS = kr
10-2 10-4 10-4
0.40: < X
wood: wet For
152
153
APPENDIX E. WET-BULB TEMPERATURE CALCULATION
The wet-bulb temperature is a steady-state temperature reached
by a small amount of liquid evaporating into a large amount of an
unsaturated water vapor-gas mixture (Treybal, 1980). Equation 108
represents the wet-bulb relationship.
(Ywb YG) Awb

Twb = TG - (108)
h/ky
where: h/ky = psychrometric ratio, J/kg.°C.
The absolute humidity of the gas at the wet-bulb temperature is
calculated as:
Pv,wb I w
Y = (109)
wb s
P MA
G Pv,wb
where: = saturated vapor pressure at the wet-bulb

pv,wb
temperature, Pa.
Equations 108 and 109 are solved simultaneously to obtain the wet-
bulb temperature.
154
APPENDIX F. SORPTION ENERGY OF WATER IN WOOD
Water is held in wood with varying energies depending on the
wood moisture content. Free water contained in the cell lumens
requires approximately the same evaporation energy as does ordinary
liquid water. Bramhall (1979) suggested the use of Equation 110 for
estimating the latent heat of vaporization of liquid water.
A = 2.50 x 106 - 2.48 x 103 T (110)
where: T = temperature, °C.
A = latent heat, J/kg.
For bound water within the wood structure,additional heat, above
what is required for free water, must be added to break the wood-
water bond. This is called the heat of wetting. Experimental
measurements by Weichert (1963) were used by Bramhall (1979) to
derive the following relationship for the heat of wetting, Aw:
= 1.17 x 106 exp (-15X)

w
The total sorption energy, As, is estimated by combining Equations
110 and 111 to yield:
As = 1.17 x 106[2.14 - 2.12 x 10-3T + exp (-15X)] (112)

155
APPENDIX G. ROTARY DRYER SIMULATION (RDS) PROGRAM LISTING
PROGRAM RDS (INPUTOUTPUT,TAPE54NPUTJAPE6=OUTPUT)

0134*******000**MOIVOIMI*******MOMO************************0
* THIS PROGRAM SIMULATES THE DRYING BEEAVIOR OF 20D PARTICLES IN A ROTARY *
* DRYER. IT WAS DEVELOPED BY FREDERICK A. KAMKE IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF t
j * THE REOUIREMENTS FOR THE PH.D. WITH THE DEPAF.THNT OF FOREST PRODUCTS AT *
t
, t OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, CORVALLIS! OREGON! SEPTEMBER 23, 1983.
7 * t.
t THE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IS OUTLINED IN KAMKE'S THESIS. AN ALPHABETICAL t
* LISTING OF THE PROGRAM NOTATION IS CONTAINED IN 1RDSDOCI. *
10 t t
11 * EXECUTION OF 1RDS' REHIRES ACCESS TO THE SUBROUTINE IZSPOW' CONTAINED IN *
4-,
1- t THE INTERNATIONAL MATHEMATICS STATISTICAL LIBRARY. t
13 Unt***001114****/300***130010011314tUttn**********MMUOMM
14
ir.; ***M*0*********0 INITIALIZATION ********************
16
17 DIMENSION CI6(4/2),CG(4),GLOSS(400),TIME(400),TR(400),X(400)
lE 1tC1JPF(400),CMP(4,4),FRH(400)7T6(400)tCP(404),CV6(4001RH(400)
9 DIMENSION WK(21),PAR(13),GX(3),M5),WIG(4),COEF(5,4)
fo
:.:' EXTERNAL FCN
,., CHARACTER*10 DAYtHOUROATE,CLOCK
23 REAL MW,HS
24 INTEGER CF,CFC
COMMON/EINS/ DIAIDIAOIRWELtFLENtFLINFLENItFLIPItULltUL2
727 ItALPHArBETWEINDEM
20 COMMON/ZWEI/ RPM,RPS,REIRREIREOAREO,FRHUNED,APCHOLDrII
5 COMMON/DREI/ TWAVEL
3;) COMMON/VIER/ CIGtATMVEL,CGIVG,SHG,CKGICHPF
31 COMMON/TUNE/ PDENtBDENtREPOSEIPHIISPHERICISCREEN1tSCREEN2IFEED
12 ItAIBIRTCF,GAMMABODIA
33 COMMON/SECHS/ COEFOW
34 COMMON/SIEBEN/ ERZJWBIFAICPEtHS,TWBINJGINITGG
35 COMMON/ACHT/ TWOtTWI
36
37 DATA MW/32.0,28.1,44.0,18.0129.0/
36 DATA COEF/1.71,132.41803.910.4056,-1,207E-4,1,42,113.61971.40,1861
-0 11-1.489E-7,1.63,286.0,590.90#98867-3.371E-4,1.62,54B.5116860
40 2,0.5342, 6.578E-51
41
42 OPEN(2yFILE=TCAL')
43 OPEN(7FFILE='FDRY')
44
45 0444010044$1040t* READ INPUT ****04301300t*t*
46,
47 READ(5,504°) DIAIWitatULIFUL2tALPHAtRWIRPM
4E READ;575001) EM,FLENIFLIP,FLENIIFLIPI,NEtNi
49 READ(5,5CH) TAIAAVEL,ALEAK
50 READ(5f500(2) (CISITI)yi.ltC
51 READ(5p50K) (CIG(Ip2),I:.174)
'.'
uu.
77
READ(51.5°00) TGINtGVF
-.0 READC5,H) PDENtBDENITPIMPINtFEEDISPHERICISCREEN1ISCREEN2
54 READ(5,5000) REPOSE,PHIATCFtlitGAMMAB
rC
J*2 READ(5t5002) LIST
56
57 t******t************ WRITE INPUT *****01313000314
r&
.2: WRITE(6/5033)
WRITE(66020) DIAIEL'ULltUL2
:,. ZITE615021) FLEN,FLINFLENItFLIPI
-
62
:A
WRITE(b5022) NEtNItALPHARPM
JRITE(65023) WItRWtEM
64 WRITE(615031)
,... WRITE(615024) TWAVELPALEAK
66 WRITE6,5025) TGINIGVF
67 WRITE(615032)
156
WRITE 6! 5026 ) PDEN, BDEN, TPIN CPIN, FEED, SPHERIC, SCREEN'? SCREEN2, B
69 WRITE(65027) REPOSE,PHI
70 WRITE(6,5028) RTCF
t SET INLET CONDITIONS. t
73
74 II=1
75 X(1)=010
TIME(1)=0.0
17 CP(1)=CPIN
70 TF(1)=TPIN
79 CFC=(-1)
80 CALL CONDIN(TGIN,TA,CIG,CG,ALEAK,GYFIMW,TGCIN,GMVIN,GNVIN
21 1,WIMVOINITWBIN,CPIN)
DO 1 1=1,4
07 CMNI,1)=CI6(I11)
84 CMP(It2)=CIG(1,2)
1 CMF(I,3)=CG(I)
CVG(1)=CVGIN
Or TG(1)=TOCIN
8S RH(1)=RELH(CGOW,T0(1))
P9 DIA0=2*WT+DIA
90 DAY=DATE()
91 HOUR=CLOCK0
72 DGMV=6MYIN/(1+CVGIN)
93 ATGOLD=T6(1)
ACPOLD=CP(1)
WRITE(75O13) II-1,X(II),TIME(II),TP(II),TG(II),CP(I1),CVG(II)
96 1,RH(II),GLOSS(II),CUPF(II)
97
* INITIALIZE ITERATION FOR CALCULATION OF THE EXIT CONDITIONS FOR EACH DRUM *
99 * SEGMENT. THE LENGTH OF A DRUM SEGMENT IS SPECIFIED BY THE CASCADE LENGTH,*
100 t WHICH IS DETERMINED IN SUBROUTINE 'RESTIME'. THE COUNTER, II, INDICATES t
t
101 t THE CASCADE NUMBER. ALL BULK GAS PROPERTIES ARE EVALUATED AT THE INLET
102 t SAS TEMPERATURE TO THE DRUM SEGMENT IN QUESTION.
103
104 TGO=0.99TG(1)
105 ICOUNT=0
106
107 4105 II=II+1
IF(II GT: 2) TGG=TG(II-1)-(TG(II-2)-TG(II-1))
109
110 ACP=CP(II-1)
111 ATP4P(II-1)
112 ARH=RH(II-1)
ACYG=CVOI:-1)
114 CALL COMP(ACPIGMVIN,GNVIN,CPINIWIGNICG)
115 4110 ATG=T6(II-1)
116 CALL PROPS (ATGOO,SHGICK6,00)
117 6MV=DGMV*(1+CVG(II-1))
6VEL=GMV/(GDEN(ATG)*3.14*DIA**2/4)
r,i9
120 IF((X(II-1) .LT. UL1) .0R. (X(II-1) GT: (EL-OL2))) THEN
011
i4.1 CF=0
'1't
li-i. ELSE
4i7
Li.... rF:L
124 END IF
125
126 t CHECK FOR THE PRESENCE OF CENTERFILL FLIGHTS AND THE CHANGE IN GAS TEMP- t
t ERATURE AND SOLIDS MOISTURE CONTENT. THIS CHECK DETERMINES IF RESIDENCE $
ilo TIME PARAMETERS NEED TO BE REEVALUATED FOR THE REMAINING DRUM SEGMENTS. *
*
129
.:30 IF(((ATG :LE. (ATGOLD-50)) 0R. (CF. NE. CFC))
131 1.0R. (ACP .LE. (ACPOLD-0.50))) THEN
132 CALL RESTIKE(ACP,CF,YEMIE,YUITFEI,TFIE,TFUJC,TEITI,CL)
133 IIOLD=II
134 ATGOLD=ATG
135 ACPOLD=ACP
136 END IF
157
137 CFC=CF
13G
139 t CALCULATE THE AMOUNT OF DRYING OCCURING IN THE CURRENT DRUM SEGMENT USING *
140 t SUBROUTINE 'PDRY'. IF CENTERFILL FLIGHTS ARE PRESENT (IE. CF=1)t THEN t
141 * TWD CALLS TO 'PDRY' ARE REQUIRED. ALL HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER ACROSS A 4
142 t PARTICLE SURFACE IS ASSUMED TO OCCUR ONLY DURING THE PERIOD OF FALL. *
143 * DURING THE SOAKING ER 'ID, UHEN THE RARTICLES ARE RIDIN6 ON THE LIFTING *
FLIGHTS: INTERNAL HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER REDISTRIBUTES THE PARTICLE t
144 *
TEMPRATURE AND MOISTURE CONTENT TO A UNIFORM STATE. t
145 *
146
147 4120 IF(CF .CT. 0) THEN
148 CALL PDRY(ATP,TFEI,YEI,ARHIACVG,ACPIX(II-1),APCHOLDIOTSEIIDEEI)
149 CALL PDRY(ATPITFIE,YIEIARHFACVG,ACPIX(II-1)1APCHOLD,OTSIE,OEIE)
150 TF=TFEI+TFIE
151 QTG=(TFEIMTSEI+TFIEUTSIE)/TF
irn
sJi.. QE=.(TFEItGEEI+TFIE*OEIE)/TF
icl
,,L, ELSE
154 CALL PDRY(ATP,TFU,YUORWCV6,ACPIX(II-1),APCHOLD/OTS10E)
155 TF=TFU
156 END IF
157
PARTICLE AND GAS TEMPERATURES EXITING THE CURRENT DRUM SEGMENT ARE *
,,,
15?
.J7 4'
CALCULATED BY SOLVING MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCES ACROSS THE DRUM *
THIS PROCEDURE USES THE IMSL'S SUBROUTINE 'ZSPOW'r ALONG *

160 t SEGMENT.
WITH SUBROUTINE IFCN', TO SOLVE A SYSTEM OF NONLINEAR EQUATIONS. t
161 t
162
167 4130 LOSS(II)=QLOST(CL7X(II-1))/(3.14*DIA*CL)
I,P, VOLD=3.14*DIA**214*CL
i.----.
CUPF(II)=GTS/(VOLDCATG-ATP))
166 CP(II)=ACP
167 CYG(II)=CVG(II-1)-FEED/DGMV*(CP(II)-CP(II-1))
168 PAR(1)=QTS
.'07
''' PAR(2)=OLOSS(II)
,np
PAR(3)=CP(II-1)-CNII)
,,7,
..,.i. PAR(4)=FEED
I:,
4 '7';
PAR(5)=SHWV(ATP)*ATP
173 PAR(6)=CP(II)
174
., . PAR(7)=CP(II-1)
175 PAR(8)=-SHNATP,CP(II))*ATP
176 PAR(7)=HS
177 PAR(10)=DGMV
7.,! PAR(11)=(SHICTEII-1))+CVG(II-1)*SHWV(TEII-1)))*TG(II-1)
179 PAR(12)=CVG(II)
180 PAR(13)=2.5E+6*(CV6(II-1)-CVS(II))*DGMV
181
182 3X(1)=TP(II-1)
123 GX(2)=TG(II-1)
181 IK
185 NSIG=3
136 ITMAX'200
187 CALL ISPOW(FCNINSIGIIN,ITMAXIPARtOX,FNORMIWKrIER)
1GG
1S9 TP(II)=GX(1)
19e; TGOUT=GX(2)
191
in: IFNTGOUT LT. TGG*0.98) .0R. (TGOUT .GT. TH*1.02)) THEN
ie_77
ICOUNT=ICOUNT+1
194 IF(ICOUNT .GT. 10) THEN
195 GO TO 4150
196 END IF
197 TGG=TGOUT
195 GO TO 4120
1c,F END IF
2.00 TG(II)=TG9UT
,w,
X(II)=X(II-1)+CL
'Iv
,..:. TIME(II)=TIME(II-1)+TC
20] FRHcII-1)=FRHT:
2011 RH(II)=RELH(CGPMWITG(II))
205
158
206) * H.S THE END OF THE DRUM BEEN REACHED ? 3
207
,(LI) .GE, EL) GO TO 4150
IF:TO(II) ,GTf (1EI1-131405)) THEN
210 WRITE;675005)
GO 4150
IF
r-N PTO
117
2:4 *0030*Ilttiltint WRITE OUTPUT *********WOM****
215
iaV WRITE(2?5003) II-1,6MVYNELYCHPF,HS,0TS,OE,FAYCPErTWOFTWIrTWB
14 7
WRITE(7!5013
11C.
AL': 1,RWIDI0L0SS(II),CUPF(II)
11C, 60 10 4105
17A
221 4150 REWIND(2)
REWINDU
223
IF(LIST ,EO. 1) THEN
WRITE(6,5035).
ZITE(6!5010) DAYIHOUR
WRITE(65011)
71, WRITE(6,5012)
4RITE(6/5013) (K-11PK),TIME(K),TPN,TGA)tCP(K),CVG(K)
230 11RHOO,OLOS5(K),CUPF(K),K=1,II)
ELSE
WRITE(6,5014) II+1,II
177 END IF
234
235 WRITE(6E035)
II,: WRITE(6,5034)
237 WRITE(6:5030) TP(II),T6(I1),CP(II),CV6(II),TIME(II),II
235 WRITE(65029) ((CMP(I,J),I=1,4),J=1,3),(C6(1),I=1,4)
239 WRITE(6,5035)
240
241 5000 FORMAT(BF10f5)
242 5001 FORMAT(5F10.5f2I10)
243 5002 FORMA1(i3)
TV 5003 FOR4AT(13fT1OFF5.21T20/F542,T301F5,1,T40PE8.2,T50,E8,21T60,E8.2
245 1J70,F512,T30rE8.2,T90,F6.1,T100,F6.11T110fF6f1)
246 5005 FORMAT('ERRORM*0*. TEII) ) TG(II-1)')
2C 5010 FORMAT(T5WROTARY DRYER SIMULATION RESULTS'afT50,31(T)
245 1r/hT57I'DATE : 11AY/fT57tITIME : ',A,///)
249 5011 FORMAT(T630BULMIT750BULKY,T37r1BULMIT50,'BULIOFT630AVERAGE'
22 1rT7511AVERAGE1,T101,1HEAT LO6S',/,T13,1DISTANCE',T370AVERAGE'rT50
1-,71
2J'AVERAGE'IT630PARTICLE'rT750ABSOLUTE',T890RELATIVE',T101,
'252 31THROUGH',T113?'VOLUMETRIC't/IT4OCASCADE',T130FROM DRUM'IT25/
'-r
i.J..,"7. 41CUMULATIVE1fT37t'PARTICLE'IT50:'GAS',T630MOISTURE'rT75,
254 5GAS HUMIDITY'JB9OHUMIDITY',T10111DRU1 WALL1j113,
7,..c
,,,,_ , 61HEAT TRANSFER',/,T4ONUMBER'013,'INLET',T250TIME'd370TEMPERAT
256 7URE'7750,1TEMPERATURE',T63,'CONTENTI,T750FRACTION'IT890FRACTION'
SYT101,1SEGMENT'IT113,1COEFFICIENT',/,T130(M)',T2571(S)1,T37,1(C)'
i- ,
257
9,T50,1(C)17T6311(DB)1FT750(DB)1YT101,1(J/S)1IT113,1(J/S*M*11)1)
17,
-6.. 5012 FORMAT(T417('-T13110('-'),T25t100-1),T37110('-'),T50,10('-')
260 lyT63t10('-'),T75,10(1-1),T89,10,T101110('-')yT113,1W-'))
261 5013 FORMAT(T6rI3,1157F6,3,T27,F6f1IT39,F6.1,T521F6.11T65rF6,3
1Ln
.6.., IlT77!F6.4,T91,F6,4,T1037F6,1,T115,F641)
263 5014 FORMATI,/,'DRUM PARAMETER PROFILE OUTPUT IS CONTAINED IN FILES
264 1 FDRY OF SIZE ',I3/' BY 10 AND FCAL OF SIZE ',I3,* BY 12.')
265 5020 FORMATWYT7,1ROTARY DRUM DIMENSIONS :',/,T7, 'INTERIOR DRUM DIAMET
.,:ocy lER1I61(',1),F8.11T104,'METERS'
267 27/fT7,10VERALL DRUM LENGTH',67(Y),F8f1YT104,'METERS'phT7,
268 31DRUM LENGTH AHEAD OF CENTERFILL SECTION',47('.1)
269 4,F8.11T104/1METERS'ild7t'DRUM LENGTH BEHIND CENTERFILL SECTION'
272 5149'')F8,1,1104, 'METERS'
271 5021 FORMAT(T7,'EXTERIOP FLIGK LENGTP.'76('')sF:3,T10t,!1METERE'
272 1r/J771EXTERIOR FLIGHT LIP LENGTH°,60(1.1),F8.3,11047'METERS'
i77
..,,, 2,/,37,1INTERIOR FLIGHT LENGTH°,64(1.1)IFS,3,T1041'METER5'!!!T7
17A
.,-t`w 371INTERIOR FLIGHT LIP LENOTH1,60('''),F9.3,T104,1METERP)
159
5022 FORMAT(T7,'NUMBER OF EXTERIOR FLI6TS'760('''),IWIT7

l'INUMBER OF INTERIOR FLIGHTS',60(1,1),I851,T7
277il 21'DRUM SLOPE TO H8RIZONTAL'762(1.1),F8.111IO4,'DEGREES'
,7P 31/rT7'BRUM SPEED1060.1),F841,TI04,'REVOLUTI0NS/MINUTE')
i-b-,
.,./7 5027 FORMAT(T7Y'DRUM WALL THICKNESS',67(1i1),T93,F8#3,T104,4ETERS'Y
28c 1/!T771THERMAL RESISTANCE OF WALL',60(Y),T73,F8.4,T104,
2'DEG C*SECONDS/JDULEY,T7,'EMISSIVITY OF EXTERIOR DRUM WALL',
,16.-,
,..,. 354(.,')!T93fFS,2)
263 5024 FORMA1(T7t'AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE'163(1.'),T93FFS.17T10411DE6 C'Y
284 11,T7,'AMBIENT AIR VELOCITY'166(1.'),T93F841,T104,1METERSISECONIO!
lo.=.
:Ii.11.' 2/J7y'RATIO OF AIR LEAKAGE TO GASES FROM BLEND BOX1'42(1,i),T93i
286 3F8.21T104 'NGRAM/KGRAMI1
5025 FORMAT(T7,'INLET GAS TEMPERATURE FROM BLEND BOX'r50('.1),T931F8.1y
15..SR . 1T104,1DEG C',/,T7,`INLET GAS VOLUMETRIC FUR RATE'!56(''),T935
26? 2F8.2,T104, 'METERS**31SECOND')
292: 5026 FORMAT(T7r1SOLID WOOD DENSITY1,68(1.1),T93,F8.11T104,1KGRAMS/METER
2,,,i
1514.3.7117!'BULIc DENSITY DE PARTICLES'761(1.'),193/F8.1J104,1KGRA
29V7: 2MS/METERS**31tifT7I'INLET PARTICLE TEMPERATURE'760('.1),T93,FEtif
;ft? 3T104,'DEG C'yhT711INLET PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION (DRY D
7g4 4ASIS)`!34(,')773sFMTIFT7t'PARTICLE FEED RATE (DRY BASIS)1,56('
25-5 5,,T737FE1.4,7104,1K6RAMS/SECOND'yhT7,1PARTICLE SPHERICITY',67(1,
l'OL
,,, 61),T931F8.3rirT7r1ACTUAL OPENING OF AVERAGE SIZE CLASS SCREEN PASS
2?7 7E1',36(1,i),193,F8t5t1104,1METERS1011-7,1ACTUAL OPENING OF AVERAGE
irr:
c.7, S SIZE CLASS SCREEN NOT PASSED1,32(".1),T9MSZTT104,1METERSW,T7
-,
4:.,7r, ?'BEND FACTOR',75(1.1)IT931F8,3)
300 5027 FORMAT(T7,'EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF REPOSE'155(1.1),T93pF8i1,T104,
301 I.DE6REE3'7hT7,'INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF REPOSE1,55(1.1),T93,F8,1
302 2,1104, 'DEGREES':
..,-,
JV,:, 5028 FORMAT(T7,'DRAG COEFFICIENT CORRECTION FACTOR',52(1.1),T93,F842)
304 5029 FORMATUIT7,'GAS COMPOSITION IN MOLE FRACTIONS:',/,T45,102s1T51,
305 11N21,T57t1CO21,T63,1H2019hT44,4('-'),T50,4('-'),T56,4('-'),T62,
306 24('-'),//11.25r1FROM BLEND BOX :',T42,4(F6f3),/,72511AMBIENT AIR :'
307 31T42r4(F6.3)1/fT25r1DRUM INLET :',T42t4(F6.3),/,T25,'DRUM OUTLET
308 41,T42,4(F6.3))
309 5030 FORMAT(T7,10UTLET PARTICLE TEMPERATURE'159(1.'),T93vF8.1,T104,
312 I'DEG C't/IT7,10UTLET GAS TEMPER4TURE'164011):T93,F81lfT104,
311 21DEG C',/,T7t'OUTLET PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION (DRY BASIS
71.-:
,...._ 3)',33(1.1),T9W8+2,/tT7I'OUTLET ABSOLUTE GAS HUMIDITY FRACTION (D
313 4RY BAS/S)",37(1.1),T937F813,/,T7,1TOTAL RESIDENCE TIME'166(`.1)
314 51T93,F8.1d1040SECONDS',/,17l'TOTAL NUMBER OF CASCADES'
315 6,62(1,1),T93,I8)
316 5031 FORMAT(hT7I'INLET GAS CONDITIONS')
317 5032 FORMAT(/rTh'INLET WOOD PARTICLE CONDITIONS:')
312 5033 FORMAT(//r130(1r)1/730(11),T101,30(41),/,30(1'),T54
31? 1,1ROTARY DRYER SIMULATION'IT101,30(11),/,30(11),T101
32C 2y30('*'),/,130('*1))
321 5034 FORMAT(hT771DRYER OUTLET CONDITIONS : ')
71-,
,,,, 5035 FORMAT(/////)
323 STOP
324 ENL
1 t *
2 ******************** SUBROUTINE FCN ********************
3 * EXTERNALLY SPECIFIED SUBROUTINE USED BY SUBROUTINE 'ZSPOW. *
4 * t
,
El SUBROUTINE FCN(X,FrN,PAR)
INTEGER N
REAL X(N)tF(N),PAR(13)
9 F(1)=PAR(1)-PAR(3)*PAR(4)*PAR(9)-PAR(4)*(SHP(X(1),PAR(6))
10 1*(1+PAR(6))*X(1)-PAR(8)*(1+PAR(6))-PAR(3)*(SHWV(X(2))*X(2)-
2PAR(5)))
IL F(2)=PAR(10)*(PAR(11)-(SHDEX(2))+PAR(12)*SWAX(21)AX(2))+PAR
1(13)PAR(4)VISHP(X(1),PAR(6))t(l+PAR(6))101(1)PAR(8)*(1+PAR(7)))
14 2-PAR(2)
RETURN
16 END
160
3 44444444444*4******4 SUBROUTINE CONDIN **********4********44

t CALCUL, INS INLET GAS CONDITIONS TO THE FIRST SEGMENT OF THE DRUM. t
SUBROUTINE CONDIN(TOINITAYCIGICG,ALEAK,GVF,MWYTMMVINyGNVIN
lyVIG,CVOINyTWEINyCPIN
I '..:IMENSION PAR(4)1WBX(2)1WK(21)1CIG(412),CG(4),M1(5)106(4)
10 EXTERNAL WETBULP
REAL MW,MOLWT
12
.1 CALL PROPS(TA,VAISHAICKAYCIG(1,2))
CALL PROPS(TGIN,VGIN,SHGINYCKGIN,CIG(1,1))
.. 73,-(SHOINtIGIN+ALEAK4S444TA)/(SHOIN+ALEAK4SHA)
I}, DO 1 1=1,4
:,
.:( 1 CO(I)=(CIG(I11)+CIG(Iy2)*ALEAK)/(1+ALEAK)
12 GMVIN=GVF4GDEN(TGIN)*(1fALEAK)
19 U(5)=M3LWT(CGIMW)
20 GNVIN=GMVIN/MW(5)
-,.
#44 TA 2 1=1,4
2 WI6(I)=CG(1)*MW(I)/MW(5)
2VGIN=WI6(4)/(1-WIG(4))
PAR(1)=CVGIN
25 PAR(2)=CPIN
26 ,-, PAR(3)=TGIN
2( PAR(4)=18/(M4(5)-CI6(411)418)
4,
-p- ..,
IN =2
29 ITMAX=200
30 NSIG=3
31 WEX(1)=0.144T6IN+18
WBX(2)=0.04
M CALL ZSPOW(WETBULB,NSIG,IN,ITMAX,PARIUBX,FNORMYWKlIER)
34 TWEIN=4BX(1)
75 IF(TUBIN .GT. 100) TWBIN=100
36 RETURN
37 END
1 *
******044444444440 SUBROUTINE PDRY ***************44414
CALCULATES THE AVERAGE PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT AT THE END OF A PERIOD 4
*
4 t OF PARTICLE FALL BASED ON H.N. ROSEN'S EMPIRICAL DRYING MODEL. THE BEND 4
FACTORy By IS ASSUMED TO BE KNOWN. THE RATE FACTOR, At AND THE INITIAL *
6. t RELATIVE DRYING RATE ARE CALCULATED IN THE SUBROUTINE.
SUBROUTINE PDRY(ATFtTFyYtARHyACVG,ACP,XPAPCHOLD,OTSOE)
§
10 DIMENSION 2.(8),W(6),CIG(4,2),CG(4),PAR(4),MW(5),COEF(5y4)
i1
... ly0X(2)4K(21)
..1 4 EXTERNAL WETBULB
.,
11
0 .A COMMON/VIER/ CIGyATMVELYCGIVOrSHMKGYCHPF
.,
i,,, COMMON/FUNF/ PDENIBDENIREPOSEIPHIISPHERIC,SCREEN1tSCREEN2tFEED
16 1rAYB,RTCF,GAMMAB,PDIA
i 1
,. COMMONISECHS/ COEFAW
18 COMMON/SIEBEN/ ERZITWB,FAICPEYHSyTWBINITGINYTGG
REAL HS,HSORP,MW
12?0
*
21 * ESTIMATE RELATIVE PARTICLE VELOCITY
717
CALL PARTVEL(ACPyIl1yRPVELX,D20,D3)
24 RPVELY=9.81*TF/2
4
,-).,, RPVEL=(RPVELX412+RPVELY442)440.5
CALCULATE SURFACE-FILM HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT WITH GAS PROPERTIES t

ic t
4
20 * EVALUATED AT THE FILM TEMPERATURE.
161
30 ATPF=CATP+ATO)12
31 CALL PROPS(ATPF,VGFISHGF,COFICO)
72 REPGDEN(ATPF)*RPVEL*PDIA/VGF
33 PR=VGF*SHGF/CKGF
34 2HE'F=(COF/POIA)*(2+0.6*REP00.5*PR**0.333)
7r
L- HS=HEORP(ATPIACP)
7 CPE=EMC(ATGIARH)
17 CPFSP=FSP(ATP)
3i
' 39 IF(AC .GE. OPFSP) THEN
FA=1
4i ELSE
42 FA=ACP/CPFSP
43 END IF
41
45 T CALCULATE THE UET-BULD TEMPERATURE.
47 9ARI)=ACVG
42 PAR(2)=ACP
19 PAR(3)=AT6
50 PAR(4)=18/(MV(5)-CG(4)t18)
cl
J. 111=2
ITMAX=200
NSIG=3
54 WBX(1)=0.14tATG+18
2X(2)=0.04
CALL NFU (UETBULB, NM, ITMAX,PARy thXy FNORM, IER)
TWB=WBX(1)
IF(TUE 'ST. 100) TUB=100
J7
60 t CALCULATE THE TOTAL HEAT TRANSFEREE' TO THE PARTICLES IN THE SEGMENT
61 )1 :FS, THE INITIAL RELATIVE DRYING RATE, ERZ, AND THE DIMENSIONLESS
62 t MOISTURE CONTENT, E.
63
64 APF=APCHOLDCBDEN/PDENA6/PDIA
OTS=CHPF*APFCATG-ATP)
66 OE=FAUTSCATG-T2)/(ATO-ATP)
67 RETURN
IF(ATP ,GT. ATG )
IF(AOP .E0. 0.0) RETURN
69 ERZ=GEMHS+SHWV(TGG)ITGG-SHWV(ATP)tATP)*(ACP-CPE)tAPCHOLD*BDEN)
70 A=EXP(LOG(B*GAMMAB*ERD/B)
71 E=1-ERNTF*(1-(AIB*TF**(11B)/(1+B)))
ACP=Et(ACP-CPE)+CPE
77
), RETURN
74 END
1 *
2 *******************t SUBROUTINE WETBULD ***********Uttt****
3 t CALCULATES THE WET-BULB TEMPERATURE GIVEN THE AVERAGE GAS TEMPERATURE *
4 t AND GAS WATER VAPOR CONTENT. ASSUMES A VALUE OF 950.0 J/KG*C FOR THE t
t PSYCHROMETRIC RATIO. EXTERNALLY SPECIFIED FOR USE WITH SUBROUTINE

t IZSPOW.
SUBROUTINE WETBULEX,F,N,PAR)
9
10 INTEGER N
11 REAL X(N),F(N)tPAR(4)
12 F(1)=X(1)+CX(2)-PAR(1))*1.053E-3*HSORP(X(1),PAR(2))-PAR(3)
F(2)=X(2)-PMX(1))*PAR(4)/(1f0133E+5-PMX(1)))
14 RETURN
15 END
162
******************** SUBROUTINE PROPS ******************n

* ESTIMA74THF TE:RAIURE DEPENDENT PROPERTIES OE iHE GAS STREAMt
VISCOSITY(PA*S),SPEP:7_CIFIC HEAT(J/KG*C)tAND THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY(J/S*MtC). t
* THE EQUATIONS USED COME FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE CHEMICAL ENGINEERS *
* HANDBOOK. *
SUBROUTINE PROPS (ATErVO,SHOrCKGrCIO)
10 DIMENSION MW(5),CIE4),SHGA(4),CKGA(4),VGA(4),COEF(5,4)
11 COMMON/SECHS/ COEFIMW
12 REAL. NW
13 TK=ATG+273.1
14
4C
SVD=0.0
SVN0,0
SCKD=0.0
18 SCKW-0.0
i9 DO 1 I=1,4
SEISA:1)=COEF(3yI)+COEF(41I)*TK+COEF(5,I)*TKU2
21 SHG.SHBA(I)*CIG(1)*MW(I)+SHO
V6A(I)=COEF(1:1)1.0E-6*(T)**1.5/(TN+COEF(21I)))
SVD=CIEI)*MW(I)**0.54-SYD
2-4 SVN=CI6(I)*MW(I)**0.5*VGA(I)+SVN
lc CNOA(I)=VGA(I)*(SHGA(I)+10383.0/N(I)
26 SCKD=CIG(I)*MW(I)00.33+SCKD
".7
SCKN=CIS(I)*MW(I)00.33*CKGA(I)+SCIT
1 CONTINUE
'10 SH6=SH6IMW(5)
30 VG=SVN/SVD
31 CKG=SCKN/SCKD
RETURN
3 END
******************** SUBROUTINE COMP ******************0

* CALCULATES THE GAS COMPOSITION IN MOLE FRACTIONS.
5 SUBROUTINE COMP(ACPrOMVIN,GNVIN,CPINYWIGIMW,CG)
DIMENSION WI6(4),CG(4)r MW(5)

8 COMMON/FUNF/ PDENIBDEN, REPOSE,PHI,SPHERICtSCREENlySCREEN2tFEED
9 l'AIBIRTCFPGAMMAB,PDIA
REAL MW
11 SUM.----'0.0
12 C1=FEED*(CPIN-ACP)/18
13 DO 1 i=113
14 CO(I)=WIG(I)*OMYINAMV I)*(ONVIN+C1))
1' 1 SUM=SUM+CG(I)
re, CG(4)=1-SUM
17 RETURN
12 END
163
* *
******************0 SUBROUTINE RESTIME ******************0
* CALCULATES THE RESIDENCE TIME FOR AN AVERAGE PARTICLE IN ONE CASCADE *
' .
SEGMENT OF THE DRUM, ALSO COMPUTES: CASCADE LENGTH! DISTANCE 07 FALL! t
* AND TIME OF TRAVEL ON LIFTING FLIGHTS,

* t
SUBROUTINE RESTIME (ACPICFIYEIIYIEtUrTFEIrTFIErTFU!TCITErTI!CL)
LIMENSION YOL(360)1THOLD(360)!FVOL(360),FRHOLD(30)!CHOLD(360)
lDMON COEF(5,4)rM14(5)!C6(4)1CIG(412)
11 COMMON/EINS/ DIArDIAO,RUYELJLENIFLIPIFLENI,FLIPDULIIUL2
..,. l'ALPHAtBETArNErNI,EM
13 COMMON/NEI/ RPMIRPSIRErRREIREOIRREOrFRHUPfEDIAPCHOLDrII
14 COMMONIDREI/ TArAAVEL
Ir,
COMMON/VIER/ CIBIATG,GVEL,C5,VGISHMKGrCHPF
16 COMMON/FUNF/ PBEN,BDEN,REPOSErPHIrSPHERICISCREEN1tSCREEN2rFEED
17 11A7B,RTCFPGANMADODIA
18 COMMON/SECHS/ COEFr&
19
REAL MAEL:
INTEGER CF
M=0
.4 5= 9,81
-, ttt***************** PRELIMINARY COMPUTATIONS ********************
26 FEEDVFEED/BDE
i,
,, BETA=ATAN(FLIPADIA/2-FLEN))*57,3
s., A0=360/NE-BETA
-4,
.., 20 DE= DIA-2*FLEN
30 C1=UDIA/2)**2-(0IA/2*SIND(A0))**2)**0,5
il
C2=ATAN(DIA/2*SIND(A0)/ABS(FLEN-(DIA/2-C1)))*57,3
3;
L. IFFLEN ,GT, (0IAl2-C1)) THEN
14 C3=C2
35 ELSE
-LL
C3=18O-C2
37 END IF
38
39 ANGLE=0
40 OHAN6=AN6LE+C3
41
:12 IF(REPOSE ,GT, OHANG) THEN
43 TVOVER (ANGLEtA0tVOVER)
4'4 VZERO=VOVER+FLIP*FLEN*((.5*(DIA-FLEN)/(0,5*DIA-FLEN))4.(0,5*FLEN
45 1**2,0tTAND(OHANG))
46 ELSE
47 VZERO= FLIP*FLEN*(0,5*(DIA-FLEN)/(0,5*DIA-FLEN))+(0.5*FLEN**2.0*
An
I.:. 1TAND(REPOSE))
45 END IF
r4.,
71 40 HIA=SPHERICCSCREENIJSCREEN2)/2
52 PMASS= PDEN*3.14*PDIA**3,0/6*(14-ACP)
53 RPS= RPM/60
54 AMAX=90+REPOSE+BETA
55 IBETA=ANINT(BETA)
-,
57 IF(CF Ea, 1) THEN
'lc A1=(120/NI)-BETA
57A2=(180/NI)+BETA
60 A3=(360/NI)+BETA
61 44=(360/NI)-BETA
y-,
A5=(540/NI)-PETA
63 OMEGA=ATAN(FLIPI/FLENI)*57.3
64 A6=360/NI-OMEGA
65 A220=ATAN(FLENI*SIND(BETA)/((DIA/2-FLEN)-FLENICOSD(BETA)))*57,3
X11=(FLIFIn2,04-FLENIU.2.0)00.:
.-67 X12.(FLIPItt2,0+2FLEND42,01.(1-XlI4OST(A6)))0M
PHIMAX=ACOSC(FLIPIO2,0+X12**2,0)/(2*X12*)(11))*57,3
7.0:11 IF
164
70
7i
.....,
ttittttttttt**Ottttt
.;,
RESIDENCE TIME COMPUTATION tt*tat*OttlittlUtt
,._ .
PERIPHERAL FLIGHT HOLDUP t
73 FANGLE LLCULOION .4.:
j,
'i,
^A
TVOL=C
Tr
DO 1 J=1,AMAX
ANGLE= j
OHANG=AN6LE+C3
78
79 IN REPOSE .GT. OHANG) THEN
80 CALL TVOVER (ANGLEtAMOVER)
91 ELSE
82 VOYER=0.0
33 ;ND IF
50 INANGLE .LE. REPOSE) GOTT 100

86 60 IN(ANCLE-REPOSE) .LT. BETA) GOTO 200
87 70 I(TANNANGLE-REPOSE-BETA) 4L !FLT GOTO 300
88 GOTO 400
99 100 IF(REPOSE GE. OHANG) 60 10 130
70 110 YOL(J)=FLENtFLIP)(0.5t(DIA-FLEN)/(0.5tDIA-FLEN))+(0.5tFLEN**2t
7. iTAND(REPOSE-ANGLE))
92 GO 10 500
0: 130 Y0L(J)=FLENFLIP*(045*(DI4-FLEN)/(0.5*DIA-FLEN))+((.5*FLENt42t
74 1TAND(OHAND-ANGLE))+VOYER
or
iJ GO TO 500
96 200 V0L(J)=FLENtFLIP*(0.5t(DIA-FLEN)/(0.5*DIA-FLEN))-(0.5tFLENtt2t
1TAND(ANGLE-REPOSE))
GO TO 500
79 300 VOL(2)=FLEN*FLIP*(0.5t(DIA-FLEN)/(0.5tDIA-FLEN))-(0.5*FLENO2
1CTAND(BETA)+TAND(AN6LE-REPOSE-BETA)))
GO TO 500
102 400 VOL(J)=05*FLIPM/TAND(AN6LE-REPOSE-BETA)
103 500 IF(J .GT. 1) 60 TO 530
iO4 DVOL=VZERO-VOL(J)
105 GO TO 540
126 530 DVOL=V0L(J-1)-V0L(j)
107 540 TVOL=TY0L+DV0LtAN6LE
109 1 CONTINUE
109 600 FANGLE=IYOUVZERO
lin 62;2 IF(CF 1) GO TO 1600
111 CENTERFILL FLIGHT HOLDUP t
FPSI CALCULATION
TCHOLD=0
114 TDHOLD=0
115 HOLM
116 K=0
117 PSIMAX=PHI-360/NI+270
i17 DO 3 JC=17PSIMAX
-119. DV0L=0
120 PSI=JC
IF(PSI 180-180/NE)) THEN
122 JCLIM1=ANINT(AC0S(FLENItCOSIOSI/2/DE)*57.3)
127 JCLIM2=ANINT(ACOS(FLENItCOSD(PSI+360/NI)*2/DE)*57.3)
IL , J=ANINT(JC+BETA)
:7;J 46T. jCIIM1) THEN
126 JDIR=(-1)
JLIM=MAX(MfJCLIM1)+360/NE
128 ELSE
jDIR=1
I32 JLIM=MAX(M,JCLIM1)
'74 END IF
DO 4 jE=j1jUM7JDIRt360/NE
133 4 CONTINUE
134 DC 2 JE=JEYJCLIM2,360/NE
'Tc DVOL=VOLUE-1)-YOLJE)iTVOL
2 CONTINUE
137 END IF
131 800 3AMMA=PHIMAX-180+A6+P2I
165
17 IF((PSI .11. (91.0-0.5tA6)) .0R. (MANNA .LT. PHI)

140 1.kNI, ;PSI .ST. (?1,0-0.5*A6)))) THEK
21,. 812 MAXHOLD=0.5*(FLENI*FLIPI4((FLIPI**240+FLENItt2.0)*TANI(360/NI-
142 10ME6WABS(TANNPHIMAX)))/(TAND(A6)+ABS(TAND(PHIMAX))))
143 ELSE './- ((PHT4190) .5T. J'SI+360INI-OME0A)) THEN
144 810 MAXHOLD=0.5*(FLENIVLIPIWFLIPIU2,0+FLENI**2.0)*TAND(360/NI-
145 10ME6A)*ABS(TAND(180-PSI+PHI-360/NI+0ME6A)))/(TAND(360/NI-OMEGA)+
146 lABE7AND(180-PSI+PHI-360/N1+0MEGA))))
147 ELSE
148 805 MAXHOLD=0.5*FLIPI**2.0/ADS(TAND(PSI+360/NI-PHI-130))
145 =NO :F
IF(JC .ED. 1) THEN
-,- THOLD(JC)=DVCL
irn
,,.. ELSE IF(MAXHOLD +GT. 7OLDjC-1)+DVOL) THEN
THOLD(JC)=TH0LD(38-1)+DVOL
'rA =LSE
I.J',
irr IF(K .ED: 0) THEN
156 HZERO=MAXHOLD
Aq7
PSIZEF=JO
158 Ni=
irc END IF
160 THOLDJC)=64,H8LD
161 DHOLD=THOLD( JC-1).001.-THOLD(A)
'0 TDHOLD=DHOLD+TOHOLD
163 TCHOLD=TCHOLD+DHOLIIPSI
164 END IF
165 3 CONTINUE
,-.., FPSIHOLD/TDHOLD
AL7
168 IF((FANGLE .LT. ACOS(2*FLENI/DE)*57,3) 0R. (FANGLE ,GT. 180-

169 1ACOS(2*FLENI/DE)t57.3)) THEN
170 CF=-1
I 74
iI i TFEI= ,r:
172 TFIE=0
172 GC TO 1600
174 END IF
175
176 * DISTANCE OF FALL *
177 * CENTERFILL SECTION t
178 * ENTPSI CALCULATION *
i1,.
7G SYEI=C
186 NF=0
181 SPSI4
182 DO 9 I=1,1+NE/NI
182, PSI=ANINT(FAN6LE-BETA-(I-1)*360/NE)
184 IPSI=ANINT(PSI)
tOc IFM(FAN6LE-A220 .LT. 90.0) .AND. (I .E0. 1)) .0R.
136, 1((FANGLE-A220 ,SE. 90.0) .AND. (I Ea. 1+NE/NI))) .0R.
2(PSI LE. 0)) THEN
,nn 'I' i=0
L0,7.
1P? ELSE
190 YEI=FYEI(PSIIFANGLEIDEITHOLD(IPSI))
.,-
1Q1
16-,
SYEI=YEI+SYEI
-,, SPSI=PSI+SPSI
l': NF=F+1
194 END IF
C 0 NT I NUE
7W7
YEISY=I/NF
197 ENTPSI=SPSI/NF
198 CALL PARTVEL (ACP,CEIIRPVELEIIREEDYEDX6)
in,7 YIE=(FLENICCOSD(FPSI+360/NI-OMEGA-90))+((DIA/2-FLEN)**2.0+
7-.,:,;
.61, 1FLENI**2.0*((COSD(FPSI+360/NI-OMEGA-90))**2.0-1))**0.5
".:;'. 2)/COSNALPHA).
...v, CALL PARTVEL (ACPtCIE,RPVELIErREIEIYIEIX13)
'- X CALCULATION
TFEI=(2*YEIfe)**0.5
IFIE=(2tYIE/G)**0.5
IF(ALPHA M) GO TO 1090
-4)7 X16-1,X6/(6KIND(ALPHA)))**0,
166
103 XEI,--.3VEL*TFEI+(L0ECOSATANiKELV,16))/16*X6*TFEIi-
20F 1ATAN(GVEL/X16))))/X6
v'7-;',13!(G2I1D(ALPHA)))**0,5
L.. -r :..is_ 1C0-1,171Y.13*TFIE4.
.,. .ATANGVEL/X17))))/X13
GO TO 109:
.,,
nic
1070 XEI:,GVEL*TFEI=1,0/AL*TFEI*GVEL+1,):1X6
,..,J XIE=OVEUTFIE4-(1.06(1.0/(X13*TFIEKVEL+1.0)))/X13
216 1005 CL4,'
."-IXIE
.
,I-,
,, ,,.
4, ENTANS CALCULATION*.
21E 1200 A747.3*ACOSMDIA/2-FLEN)**2.0+FLENI**2.0-YIE**2.0)
7IQ: 1/(2*(bIA/2-FLEN)*FLENI))
inr
...A., 120: IF(A7 .GE(180/NI+OMEGA)) GO TO 1225
..,
111
,y7,-,
1210 IF(A7 :GE. OMEGA) GO TO 1220
...,_ 1215 ENTAN6=FPSI+180/NI=OMER
223 GO TO 1230
221220 ENTANG...FP51,360/NI+OilEi1t.
11r
...., GO TO 1230
226 1:25 ENTAN6=FPSI+540/NI+OME65:
222 * TIME PER CASCADE *
225 t CENTERFILL SECTION t
.., ,7,-.
1.-1,-
123. -E.,., :=3601-FANGLE-ENTANG)/(360tRPS)
L TI-APS(FFS1+360/NI-ENTPSI)/(360tRPS)
,74
..J. TC=TI+TE+TFIE+TFEI
232 GO TO 2000
* RESIDENCE TIME UITH *
,,,
233
.,,., t NO CENTERFILL t
,7c.
...., 1600 YU=DE*SIND(FANGLE)/COSNALPHA)
":
,,,:,6 TFU=(2*YU/G)**0.5
../
')7", TE-,--FAN6LE1(180*RPS)
....,:
'17,,- ENTANG=360-FAN6LE
239 CALL PARTVEL (ACP,CAPVELIREaU,X15)
wr
4.4l, X19=(G*SIND(ALPHA)/X15)**0.5
241 INALPHA GT. 0.2) GO TO 1640
242 CL=OVELATFU+(LOG(1.0/(X15$TFU*6VEL+1.0)))/X15
243 GO TO 1650
244 1640 CL=GVEL*TFU4-(LOG(COS(ATAN(6VEL/X19))/(COS(419*X15*TFU+
245 1ATAN(GVEL/X19)))))1X15
246 1650 TC.TFUE
247 * ADJUSTMENT FOR HOLDUP *
245 ,, LESS THAN DESIGN *
245 7200 CHOLDUP=TC*FEEDV
,r,.
c..)1, ' IF(No .GE. 1) GO TO 2015
,r4
.:J1 TVZERMIZERO
,,,,
.,,,, CEHOLD=0
,,,...7
DO 5 L=360/NE,AMAX:360/NE
CEHOLD=CEHOLD+VOL(L)
255 5 CONTINUE
2,7. CEHOLD=2*(CEHOLMZERO)
ici
..,
ntl IF( CF .EO, 0) THEN
FULHOLD=CEHOLD*CL
260 ELSE
261 CIHOLD=0
NI 1L DO 6 L=1,PSIMAX9360/NI
263 CIHOLD=CIHOLD+THOLD(L)
264 CONTINUE
'iLr
L,. FULHGLII.CEHOLD*CL+CIHOLD*CL
iws END IF
267
265 2015 N=N41
Itc,
.v. FRHOLD(N)=CHOLDUP/FULHOLD
INN .LE, 1) GO TO 2017
,,,
270
::/. IF((TC ,GE.(0.99*OLDTIME)) .AND. (TC .LE. (1.01*OLDTIME)))
272 IGO TO 2060
273 2017 AFRHOLD=1.0
,-,
..:, 2 I.irN
'.-.,
-.,- AFRHOLD=FRHOLD(I)+AFRHOLD
...:t 22NTINUE
167
277 AFRHOLD=AFRHOLD/(N+1)
".1":
201r-' OLDTIME=7C
,70
_
220 IF:N .3E. 20; THEN
281 I*7-cz*500r-
2S: 5000 F9RMAT('WARNINGMITERATION LIMIT EXCEEDED IN SUBROUTINE RESTIME')
283 GO TO 2060
284 END IF
285
286 IF(AFRhOLD 1.0) THEN
287 WRITE(675001) AFRELI
75: 5001 FORMATIWARNINGMHOLDUP EXCEEDS DESIGN CAPACITY OF FLIGHTS.'
.5.2? l,/,'HOLDUP FRACTION OF FLIGHT CAPACITY = ',F5,2)
290 Go
ENT:
293 VZERO=AFRHOLUTVZERO
294 M=0
295 2020 M=M+1
IF(VOL(M) .LE. VZSRO) GC TC 207I
237. FVOL(M)=VOL(M)
GO TO 2020
2030 PTYOL=0
IF( M .EG* 1) GC TO 2060
301 DO 7 L=11M-1
302 ANGLE=L
INL *31.1; Oci TO 2035
304 TDVOL=VZERO-FVOL(L)
305 GO TO 2040
306 2035 TDVOL=FV0L(L-1)-FVOL(L)
707 2040 PTVOL=PIVOL+TDVOL*ANGLE
302 7 CONTINUE
30? 2045 ATVOL=TVOL-PTVOL
310 FANGLE=ATVOUVZERO
311 GO TO 620
31: 2060 FRHUP=CHOLDUP/(3414tDIA02/4)
314 IF(CF LT. 1) THEN

315 TF=TFU
316 ELSE
TF=TFEI+TFIE
END IF
710
720 APCHOLD=TF/TUCHOLDUP
ANGZERO=M
322
WRITE(673000) II-1
7.74. WRITE(673001) FANGLE,EKTANGIANGZERO;AMAX
Y2-5
71 I
Ot.0 IF(CF *LT, 1) THEN
707 IF(CF 4E0. -1 ) WRITE(613010)
128 WRITE(613002) YUITE,TFUtCL
700 ELSE
330 WRITE(673003) FPGIYENTPSIOSIZEROIPSIMAX
331 WRITE(6y3004) YEIIYIE,TE,TI
-77n
WRITE(673005) TFEIITFIEIXETAIE
333 END IF
331
335 WRITE(673012) FULHOLD,CHOLDUNFRHOLD(N)
336
337 3000 FORMAT(//,T7,1PARTICLE FLOW PATH FROM CASCADE NO, ',HY' ;')
338 3001 FORMAT(T7,'EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF RELEASE'
334 1737(..1),F8,10104,1DEGREES',/!T7I'EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AYERAS
344 2E POINT OF ENTRY'739('.1)7F8.17T10471DEGREES17/7T77'EXTERIOR FLIGH
341 31 ANGLE OF INITIAL CASCADE'746(1.')7F8.17T104,'DE6REES17/7T7
342 47',EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF FINAL CASCADE',48('');F8,lyT104
343 -1711jEGREES')
344 300: FORMAT(T77'DISTANCE DF PARTICLE FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL'712(1,1),
345 1F8.27110471METERS17/7T771AVERAGE TIME OF TRAVEL ON EXTERIOR FLIGHT
168
46 22 PER CASCADE WITHOUT CENTERFILL1v13(1.')!F8.17T1O4,'SECONDS',/,T7

347 3,'AVERACE TIME GE FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL',47('')!F8.2fT1041
41SECONDS',/!T7''LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE TRAVELED PER CASCADE WITHOUT
li.!
..,.,. 5 CENTERFILL'125('.1),F8.2,T1OWNETERS')
YJO 3003 F5RNAT(T7,'INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF RELEASE',
35 137('.1)!FS.1,T104,IDEGREES',/,T7T'INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE
352 2 POINT OF ENTRY',39(1.1);F8.1,T104,IDEGREES',/,T7!'INTERIOR FLIGHT
'MT
,,,_ 3 ANGLE OF INITIAL CASCADE'746(1.1)1F8.1,T1OWDEGREESWIT7
354 4, 'INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF FINAL CASCADE'74S('.1),FS.10.104
715 5Y'DEGREE2')
756 3004 FORMAT(T7,'DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FL:
57, iGHTE'J27('4'7F8.2tTlOWNETERSWIT7,1DISTANCE OF PARTICLE
358 2ROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS1,27('.1),F82JT104,1METERS'yl.T7,
359 31AVERAGE TIME OF TRAVEL ON EXTERIOR FLIGHTS PER CASCADE',32(1.1).
4F8.1,T10411SECONDS',/,T7I'AVERAGE TIME OF TRAVEL ON INTERIOR FLIGH
361 ITS PER CASCADE';321),FS.1)T104;'SECONDS')
762 3005 FORMAT(T7y'AVERA6E TIME OF FALL FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS'
36: 1,32(1.'),FS.21T104,1SECONDS'IhT7,1AVERAGE TIME OF FALL FROM INTER
:IOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS',32(1.1),F8.27T1041'SECONDS'YhT7,1LONGITU
765 3DINAL DISTANCE TRAVELED PER CASCADE FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FUG
-,,
.2..y.,
4HTS'ylO(';'),FS.2rT104,'METERS',/fT7I'LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE TRAVEL
367 SEC PER CASCADE FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS',10('.')!F8.2
163 67T104?'METE:')
7. 7 3010 FORMAT(T7?(NOTE: CENTERFILL FLIGHTS ARE BYPASSED)')
301.1 F0RMATU,T7,'HOLDUP CONDITION1!'s/sT7!'FULLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT X
371 1OLDUP',54('.1),F8.4,T104/1METERS**3',/,T7,1CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT
372 2 HOLDUP1/56(1.1),F8.41T104,1METERS**3',/,T7,1FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGE
373 3NT HOLDUP OF DESIGN1,46(1.'),F8.2d104,'METER**3/METERI*31)
374 RETURN
375 END
*******************1 FUNCTION FYEI ********************

3 * CALCULATES THE DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL FROM THE EXTERIOR TO THE
4 t INTERIOR FLIGHTS.
6 FUNCTION FYEEPSI,FANGLEOEITHOLD)
7
COMMON/EINSI DIA,DIAD,RW,ELIFLENtFLIPYFLENIFFLIPIYULifUL2
l'ALPHA,BETA,NErNI,EM
10 IF(P3I+100/NI LE. 90) THEN
11 PSIA=PSI
12 PSIB=PSI+360/NI
13 K=-1
14 ELSE
15 PSIA=PSI+360/NI
16 PSIP=PSI
17 K=1
18 END IF
,Q
YB=FLEN/*SIND(PSIA)
20 XP=FtENI*COSEPSIA)
XC=2*K*THOLD/(YP-XICAND(PSID*0.999))
-r)
YC=XDTAND(PSIB*0.999)
27 SLP=M-IT)/(XP-X)
YINT=YD-SLP*XD
FYEI=0.5*DECSIND(FANGLE)-SLP*COSD(FANGLE))-YINT
RETURN
27 END
169
******0********4.W. SUBROUTINE TVOVEF ******************0

* CALCULATES FLIGHT HOLDUP IN EXCESS OF DESIGN FLIGHT HOLDUP.
SUBROUTINE TVOVER ANGLETAOYVOVER)
COMMON/EINS! DI4,DIA0yRWIELfFLENYFLIFIFLENIfFLIPITULl:UL2
1rALPHA,BETAINEYNI!EM
7Y/FUNFI ''1iENIBDEN,REPOSE,PHI!SPHERIC,SCREEN17SCREEN2fFEED
10 1,A,B,RICFIGAM1ABIPDIA
X7=FLIUSIND(BETAASIND(A0)/SIND(REPOSE-ANGLE-A0)
XE=DIA/2-X7*SIND(180-REPOSE+ANGLE)/SIND(A0)
P.:X7**2.0+2102.0-2*X7*XMOSEI80-REPOSE+AN6LE40))*t0.5
X10=0.5*(X74.01,9
YOVER=(X1OCX104,7)*(X1048)M10-X9))00.5
lt RETURN
17 ENT:
tt****************** SUBROUTINE PARTVEL ****************Mt

t CALCULATES C,RPVELOND RE BASED ON THE EQUATION BY SCHILLAR AND NAUMANN. *
SUBROUTINE PARTVEL (ACPIC,RPVELJREIY,X)
DIMENSION CIG(4,2C0(4)
COMMON/VIER/ CIGIATG,GVELICGOG,SHG,CKGtCHPF
COMMON/FUNF/ RDEN,BDENIREPOSEIPHI6PHERIC,SCREENIYSCREEN2tFEED
lIATBATCFPGAMMABODIA
11 REG=GDEN(ATG)*PDIAtGVEL/VG
12 1300 GO TO 1320
13 1310 REG=-RE
14 1320 C=24tRTCF*(1.0+0.15*REG**0.687)/REG
15 X5=0.75*C*GDEN(ATG)t(2tY/9.81)**0.5/(PDEN*P1hIAt(1+ACP))
16 RPVELL1.0+3VELV45)00.5-1.032/X5
ii
4-,
RE=GDEN(ATG)tPDIA*RPVEL/VG
18 1370 IN(RE ,3T, (1.05tRE6)) .0R. (RE .1.T. (0.95*RE6))) 60 TO 1310
1,:
-: X=0.75*C*GDEN(ATG)/(PDEN*PDIA*(14CP))
RETURN
21 END
170
*
it*********10****** FUNCTION GLOST ******************0
* EflIMATES THE HEAT LOST THROUGH THE DRUM WALL FOR EACH DRUM SEGMENT: t
* t
FUNCTION OLOST(CL,DL)
DIMENSION CI6(4,2),C13(4)
COMMON/EINS/ DIA,1iIAO,RW,EL,FLEN,FLIPIFLENI,FLIPI,ULitUL2
1,ALPHA,BETWEINI,EM
COMMONIZWEI/ RPMAPSIREIRRE'REMREO,FRHUP,ED,APCHOLD,II
COMMON/PREP TWAVEL
COMMON/VIER/ .CIGrATG/GVEL,CGIVG,SHG,CKG,CHPF
CCMMON/ACHT/
14 TWO8=(ATUTA)**0.5
-!
IC2UNT=0
le/
4
305 TWO=TWCS
47
ICOUNI=l+ICOUNT
IP TWOF6=(TOTWO)/2
'ALL PROPS (TWOF6,V6W0F,SH6WOF,CKWOFICG)
ED=DIA*(1-FRHUP)**0t5
21 RPS=RPM/60
RE=GVEL*GDEN(ATG)*ED/VS
'::n=ED**2tRP3*6.23t5DEN(AT6)/V6
.24 PR=VG*SHG/CNG
REO=AAVELAGDEN(TWOFG)*DIAO/VGWOF
RRE0=3,14*DIA002*RP8tODEN(TWOF8)/V6W0F
PRO=VGWOF*SHGWOF/CKWOF
28 CHWO=0.135C(0.5PRE002+REMR(TWOFG))*PRO)**0,333*CKWOF/DIAO
2? CHWOR=EMt5.729E-8*(TWOU4-TAtt4)/(TWO-TA)
30 CHWI=0.023tREtt0.8*PR**0+3*(1+(DIA/(DL+CL))00.7)
71 TW8=(AT6+(R0-1/(CHWIt3.14*DIA))*(CHWO+CHWOR)*3.14*DIAOtTA)
1/(1+(RW+11(CHWIt3,14*DIA))*(CHWO+CHWOR)*3.14*DIA0)
:FLTO LE. (1,05*TWOG)) AND. (TWO GE, (0.95tTWOG))) GO TO 315
34 TWOG=TWC
lr IF( ICOUNT L.T. 10) GO TO 305
36 WRITE(6:5011)
37 5011 FORMAT('TWO AND TWOG DO NOT CONVERGE !')
v, 3I3 OLOST=(CHWO+CHWOR)*3.14*DIAO*CL*(TWO-TA)
3? TWI=ATO-OLOST/(3.14*DIAtCLCHWI)
40 RETURN
41 END
FUNCTION HEN **************0***1

3 rITOTITNNSITY ASSUMING AIR IN AN IDEAL STATE AT ONE ATMOSPHERE, f
4 * K6/M**3,
*
FUNCTION GDEN(TC)
8 TK=7C+273.1
c 6DEN=354/Tt,
16 RETURN
11 ENI:
**********tt*****t FUNCTION SHP tt******4**********ti

* CALCULATES THE SPECIFIC HEAT OF WOOD AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE AND *
t MOISTURE CONTENT, J/KG*C,
FUNCTION SHP(ATP,CP)
SH=(CP+(0.266+0.00116tATP))/(1+CP)*4186,1
SHP=SH
RETURN
END
171
**************MM FUNCTION GR ********************

t CALa:LE'T'.C. THE. GP.W6HgF NjqER ASSUMING PROPERTIFS OF AIR.
FUNCTION SEAM
COMMON/EINS/ DIAtDIADIRWYELrFLFNIFLIPIFLENIIFLIPI,DIIUL2
1,ALPHAIDETAINE,Nl7a
20M2N/DREI/ -17AVEL.
10 TK=AT6+273.1
6R=1,73E10*EXP(-0,0163tTrADIAOtt3t(4TG-TA)
RETURN
END
******************** FUNCTION EMC **************WM

* CALCULATES THE EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION OF 0011 AS A
t FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMUDITY,
FUNCTION EMC(TCYRH)
5
S TK=TC+273.1
9 A1=-5,012E-4tTKO2+0.322*TK-45472
,. A2---f,1:53E-LgTKI3:2+4,734E-31C1K-0,174
1
i:. W=1.853E-NTN**2-9.437*TR+1418.3
4,1
.i.i. F1=1-A2tRH
47
i, F2=14-A1*A2tRH
14 EMC=18/0A2*RH*(1/F1+A1/F2)
4C
Lsi IREMC .LT.0.0) EMC=0.0
16 RETURN
17 END
t *
******************** FUNCTION HSORP ********************
* CALCULATES THE HEAT REQUIREMENT TO REMOVE ONE KILOGRAM OF MOISTURE FROM t
t WOOD AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE AND MOISTURE CONTENT. A HEAT OF t
,7
-.: * WETTINS COMPONENT IS INCLUDEDY JAG. *
6 t t
,
FUNCTION HSORP(TC,CP)
REAL HSORP
HSORP=((597.9-0.592*TC)+280*EXP(-1,5*CP))*4186.1
44
RETURN
41
END
******************** FUNCTION FSP **********4*********

* CALCULATES THE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION AT FIBER SATURATION FOR WOOD *
4 * AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE,
6 FUNCTION FSP(TC)
FSP,-(34.1-04133*TC)/100
7 RETURN
10 END
172
*******************1 FUNCTION MOLT ********************

* CALCULATES THE MDLECULAR FIGHT OF A GAS hIXTUREt KG/KOMOLE+
FUNCT/ON MDLWT(C6IM:1)
7 DIMENSION C6(4)1M0(5)
C.
C, REAL MWIMOLWT
fl
7 SUM=0,0
lu PC 1 i=1,4
11 1 SUM=CO(I).NW(I)+SUM
14 MOLWT=SUM
RETURN
Ic END
******************** FUNCTION RELH *******************;

* CALCULATES THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY FRACTION
4 * *
FUNCTION RELH(CG,N7TC)
6
7 DIMENSION CO(4),W5
REAL MW,MOLWT
%=TC+273.1
RH=S314.0*C6(4)*GDEN(TC)*TKAMOLUT(C6/MW)*PVS(TC))
RELH=RH
12 RETURN
13 ENO
*
******************** FUNCTION PUS M******M***1Tht
* CALCULATES THE SATURATION VAPOR PRESSURE AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE, *
t PASCALS,
FUNCTION PVS(TC)
TK=TC+273.1
B=16.373-282#6/TK-1,6908*L0610(TO-5,7546E-3M+4#0073E-6*TK**2
PV=13Z.:410**E
PVS=PV
RETURN
END
i
2 ****************00 FUNCTION RV ********************
3 * CALCULATES THE SPECIFIC HEAT OF WATER VAPOR t J/KG*C *
4 t *
5 FUNCTION SHUY(TC)
6
7 DIMENSIONCG(4)YCOEF(5Y4)tMW(5),CIG(4,2)
2. COMMON/VIER/ CIGIATMVELFCGIVG,SHMKG,CHPF
9 COMMON/SECHS/ COEF,MW
REAL MU
'il
,. TK=TC+273,1
12 SHWV=COEF(3,4)+COEF(4,4)*TY4COEF(5,4)*TM
13 RETURN
14
173
I * *
,
, *0*****MOMM4 FUNCTION SNY.:' *********M1***tint
UICULATES THE SPECIFIC FAT Y- THF DF:Y PUL'/. 3A]l ,Ar.. A
4 ; t
FUNCTION SHICTC)
DIMENSION CO(4)yCOEF(5I4),MW(5)yCI6(4,2),SH5A(4)
COMMON/VIER/ CIGFATTAVEL,COOMHSICKG,CHPF
COMMONISECHS/ COEFiMW
16 REAL N
TK=TC+273.1
SHDC=0,0
DO 1 1,-1!3
SHGA(1)=COEF(3,I)+COEF(4/I)*TK+COEF(5,IJTKO2
i=I SHPG=SHGA(I)*CVDOW(I)+SHLE
SHDS=SHBGACEIIMU(1)4CE2)*MU(2)+CG(3)*MW(3))
17 RETURN
12 END
1 74
******************** RDSDOC ********************

*
LIST OF NOTATION FOR PROGRAM "RDS" , SI UNITS. *
*
******************************************************************************
* *
* A = RATE FACTOR. *
* AAVEL = AMBIENT AIR VELOCITY (MIS). *
* ASP = AVERAGE PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION IN *
* DRUM SEGMENT (DRY BASIS). *
* ACPOLD REFERENCE PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION FOR *
* "RESTIME" EXECUTION. *
* ACVG = AVERAGE ABSOLUTE GAS HUMIDITY IN DRUM SEGMENT *
* (DRY BASIS). *
* ALEAK = RATIO OF AIR LEAKAGE AT THE DRUM INLET TO FLOW *
* OF GASES FROM BLEND-BOX (KG/KG). *
* ALPHA = ANGLE DRUM AXIS MAKES WITH HORIZONTAL (CEO). *
* AMAX = ANGLE AT WHICH EXTERIOR FLIGHT BECOMES EMPTY (DEG). *
* ANGLE = EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE (DEG). *
* APCHOLD = PORTION OF DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP INVOLVED IN *
* CASCADING (M3). f
* APF = SURFACE AREA OF PARTICLES CASCADING IN A DRUM *
* SEGMENT ((12). *
* ARH = AVERAGE RELATIVE HUMIDITY FRACTION IN DRUM *
* SEGMENT. *
* ATG = AVERAGE GAS TEMPERATURE IN DRUM SEGMENT (C). *
* ATGOLD = REFERENCE GAS TEMPERATURE FOR "RESTIME" EXECUTION *
* (C). *
* ATP = AVERAGE PARTICLE TEMPERATURE IN DRUM SEGMENT (C). *
* ATPF = PARTICLE SURFACE-FILM TEMPERATURE (C). *
* ATVOL = ADJUSTED TOTAL WEIGHTED VOLUME OF PARTICLES *
* CASCADED FROM EXTERIOR FLIGHTS FOR AN UNFULLY- *
* LOADED CONDITION (M4*DEG). *
* A0121A013, *
* A023,A110, *
* A220 = ANGLES DEFINING FLIGHT GEOMETRY (DEG). *
* *
* B = BEND FACTOR. *
* BETA = ANGLE EXTERIOR FLIGHT LIP MAKES RELATIVE TO THE *
* DRUM AXIS (DEG). *
* BEN = BULK DENSITY OF PARTICLES (KG/M3). *
* *
* C = DRAG COEFFICIENT. *
* CEHOLD = THEORETICAL EXTERIOR FLIGHT HOLDUP (M3/M). *
* CEI = DRAG COEFFICIENT FOR EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHT *
* CASCADE. *
* CF = PARAMETER IDENTIFYING PRESENCE OF CENTERFILL *
* FLIGHTS. *
* CFC = PARAMETER IDENTIFYING PRESENCE OF CENTERFILL *
* FLIGHTS. *
* CFL = LENGTH OF CENTERFILL SECTION ((1). *
* CG = GAS COMPOSITION ARRAY IN MOLE FRACTIONS (02,N2, *
* CO2,H20). *
* CHOLDUP = TOTAL HOLDUP BASED ON FEED RATE AND RESIDENCE *
* TIME (M3/M). *
* CHPF = SURFACE-FILM HEAT TRANSFER COEFFIENT TO PARTICLE *
* DURING FALLING PERIOD (W/M2*C). *
* CIE = DRAG COEFFICIENT FOR INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHT *
* CASCADE. *
* CIHOLD = THEORETICAL INTERIOR FLIGHT HOLDUP (M3/M). *
* CIG = INLET GAS COMPOSITION ARRAY IN MOLE FRACTIONS *
* (BLEND-BOX GAS: 02,N2,CO2,H20; AMBIENT AIR: 02, *
* N2,CO2,H20). *
* CKG = THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF GAS (W/M*C). *
* CKGF = THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF SURFACE GAS FILM *
* CL = CASCADE LENGTH (M). *
* COEF = COEFFICIENT ARRAY FOR GAS PROPERTIES/ CORRELATING *
* EQUATIONS (COEFFICIENTS 1 TO 5; 02,N2,002,H20). *
175
* CP = PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION ARRAY AS A *

* FUNCTION OF CASCADE NUMBER (DRY BASIS). *
* CPE = EQUILIBRIUM PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION *
* (DRY BASIS). *
* CPFSP = PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION AT FIBER *
* SATURATION (DRY BASIS). *
* CPIN = INLET PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION (DRY BASIS).*
* CU = DRAG COEFFICIENT FOR CASCADING WITHOUT CENTERFILL. *
* CUPF = VOLUMETRIC HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT (W/M3*C). *
* CVG = ABSOLUTE GAS HUMIDITY FRACTION ARRAY AS A FUNCTION *
* OF CASCADE NUMBER (KG/KG). *
* CVGIN = INLET ABSOLUTE GAS HUMIDITY FRACTION (KG/KG). *
* CI,C2 = CONSTANTS IN PROGRAM "RDS". 4
* 4
* DE = EFFECTIVE DRUM DIAMETER (M), IN SUBROUTINE "RESTIME".*
* DIA = INTERIOR DRUM DIAMETER (M). *
* DIA° = EXTERIOR DRUM DIAMETER (M). *
* DVOL = VOLUME OF PARTICLES CASCADING FROM EXTERIOR *
* FLIGHT FOR EACH FLIGHT ANGLE INCREMENT (M2). *
* DVOL1,DVOL2, *
* DVOL3 = CONTRIBUTION FROM DVOL OF THE THREE EXTERIOR *
* FLIGHTS DEPOSITING PARTICLES IN EACH INTERIOR *
* FLIGHT (M2). *
* D1,D2,D3 = CONSTANTS IN SUBROUTINE "PDRY". *
* *
* E = DIMENSIONLESS PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT. *
* EL= DRUM LENGTH (M). *
* ENTANG = AVERAGE POINT OF ENTRY ON EXTERIOR FLIGHTS (DEG). *
* ENTPSI = AVERAGE POINT OF ENTRY ON INTERIOR FLIGHTS (DEG). *
* EPSI = INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE USED FOR CALCULATING ENTPSI *
* (DEG). *
* ERZ = INITIAL DRYING RATE AT START OF CASCADE (1/S). *
* *
* FA = RATIO OF WETTED PARTICLE SURFACE AREA TO THE *
* TOTAL PARTICLE SURFACE AREA. *
* FANGLE = ANGLE OF EXTERIOR FLIGHT AT WHICH AN AVERAGE *
* PARTICLE IS RELEASED (DEG). . *
* FEED = PARTICLE MASS FLOW RATE (DRY KG/S) *
* FEEDV = PARTICLE FEED RATE (M315). *
* FLEN = LENGTH OF EXTERIOR FLIGHT (M). *
* FLENI = LENGTH OF INTERIOR FLIGHT (M). *
* FLIP = LENGTH OF EXTERIOR FLIGHT LIP (M). *
* FLIPI = LENGTH OF INTERIOR FLIGHT LIP (M). *
* FNORM = ERROR SUM OF SQUARES OUTPUT BY EXTERNAL SUBROUTINE *
* "ZSPOW", *
* FPSI = ANGLE OF INTERIOR FLIGHT AT WHICH AN AVERAGE *
* PARTICLE IS RELEASED (DEG). *
* FRH = FRACTIONAL HOLDUP OF DRUM SEGMENT ARRAY AS A *
* FUNCTION OF CASCADE NUMBER (M31M3). *
* FRHOLD = FRACTIONAL HOLDUP (M3/M3). *
* FULHOLD = FULLY-LOADED HOLDUP (M3/M). *
* FVOL = THEORETICAL EXTERIOR FLIGHT HOLDUP FOR EACH ANGLE *
* AFFECTED BY AN MALY-LOADED CONDITION (M3/M). *
* *
* G = ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY (M/S2}. .*
* GAMMA = ANGLE DEFINING MAXIMUM LOADING OF INTERIOR FLIGHTS *
* (DEG). *
* GAMMAB = GAMMA FUNCTION VALUE FOR B. *
* GEN = GAS DENSITY (KG/M3). *
* GMV = WET GAS MASS VELOCITY (KG/S). *
* GMVIN = INLET WET GAS MASS VELOCITY (KG/S). *
* GNVIN = INLET WET GAS MOLAR VELOCITY (KGMOLE/S). *
* GVEL = BULK GAS VELOCITY (MIS). *
* GVF = BULK GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE (M315). *
* GX = APPROXIMATION AND BEST FIT VECTOR INPUT AND OUTPUT *
* BY EXTERNAL SUBROUTINE "ZSPOW". *
* *
* HS = SORPTIONAL HEAT REQUIREMENT TO REMOVE MOISTURE *
* FROM WOOD (J/KG). *
176
* HZERO = INTERIOR FLIGHT HOLDUP WHEN CASCADING BEGINS *

* ((13/M). *
* *
* IBETA = INTERGER ROUNDOFF OF BETA (DEG). *
* IER = OUTPUT ERROR PARAMETER FROM EXTERNAL SUBROUTINE *
* "ZSPOW". *
* II = CASCADE NUMBER. *
* IN = NUMBER OF EQUATIONS SOLVED SIMULTANEOUSLY BY *
* BY EXTERNAL SUBROUTINE "ZSPOW". *
* IPSI = INTEGER ROUNDOFF OF PSI (DEG). *
* ITMAX = MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ITERATIONS ALLOWED IN EXTERNAL *
* SUBROUTINE "ZSPOW". *
* *
* MAXHOLD = MAXIMUM INTERIOR FLIGHT HOLDUP (M3/M). *
* MW = MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF GAS ARRAY (02,N2,CO2,H20, *
* MIXTURE). *
* *
* NE = NUMBER OF EXTERIOR FLIGHTS. *
* NI = NUMBER OF INTERIOR FLIGHTS. *
* NSIG = NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT DIGITS OF ACCURACY USED BY *
* EXTERNAL SUBROUTINE "ZSPOW". *
* OFRHOLD = FRACTIONAL HOLDUP OF PREVIOUS ITERATION. *
* OHANG = EXTERIOR ANGLE OF REPOSE ABOVE WHICH DESIGN HOLDUP *
* IS EXCEEDED (DEG). *
* OLDTIME = RESIDENCE TIME OF PREVIOUS ITERATION (5). *
* OMEGA = ANGLE INTERIOR FLIGHT LIP FACE MAKES RELATIVE *
* TO THE DRUM AXIS (DEG). *
* *
* PAR = PARAMETER SET PASSED TO EXTERNAL SUBROUTINE *
* "ZSPOW". *
* PR = PRANDTL NUMBER. *
* PHI = ANGLE OF REPOSE ON INTERIOR FLIGHTS (DEG). *
* PHIMAX = ANGLE DEFINING MAXIMUM INTERIOR FLIGHT HOLDUP (DEG). *
* PHOLD = INTERIOR FLIGHT HOLDUP (M3/M). *
* PMASS = PARTICLE MASS (KG). *
* PSI = INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE (DEG). *
* PSIE = INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE ASSOCIATED WITH AN EVEN *
* EXTERIOR FLIGHT (DEG). *
* PSIMAX = ANGLE AT WHICH INTERIOR FLIGHT BECOMES EMPTY (DEG). *
* PSIO = INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE ASSOCIATED WITH AN ODD *
* EXTERIOR FLIGHT (DEG). *
* PSIZERO = INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT WHICH CASCADING BEGINS *
* (DEG). *
* PTVOL = PARTIAL WEIGHTED VOLUME OF PARTICLES CASCADED *
* FROM EXTERIOR FLIGHTS (M3*DEG/M). *
* *
* QE = RATE OF HEAT TRANSFER TO PARTICLES FOR EVAPORATION *
* IN A DRUM SEGMENT (W). *
* QEEI = RATE OF HEAT TRANSFER TO PARTICLES FOR EVAPORATION *
* DURING FALL FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS (W). *
* QEIE = RATE OF HEAT TRANSFER TO PARTICLES FOR EVAPORATION *
* DURING FALL FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS (W). *
* QLOSS = RATE OF HEAT LOSS THROUGH DRUM WALL ARRAY AS A *
* FUNCTION OF CASCADE NUMBER (W). *
* QTS = RATE OF HEAT TRANSFER TO PARTICLES IN A DRUM *
* SEGMENT (W). *
* QTSEI = RATE OF HEAT TRANSFER TO PARTICLES DURING FALL *
* FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS (W). *
* QTSIE = RATE OF HEAT TRANSFER TO PARTICLES DURING FALL *
* FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS (W). *
* *
* RE = REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR GAS FLOW IN DRUM. *
* REEI = REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHT *
* CASCADE. *
* REIE = REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHT *
* CASCADE. *
* REO = REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR AMBIENT AIR FLOW NORMAL TO *
* DRUM AXIS. *
177
* REP = REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR PARTICLE IN GAS STREAM. *

* REPOSE = ANGLE OF REPOSE ON EXTERIOR FLIGHTS (DEG). *
* REU = REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR CASCADING WITHOUT CENTERFILL. *
* RH = RELATIVE HUMIDITY FRACTION ARRAY AS A FUNCTION *
* OF CASCADE NUMBER. *
* RPM = DRUM SPEED (REVOLUTIONS PER MINUTE). *
* RPS = DRUM SPEED (REVOLUTIONS PER SECOND). *
* RPVEL = RELATIVE PARTICLE VELOCITY ALONG DRUM AXIS (MIS). *
* RPVEL = RELATIVE PARTICLE VELOCITY RESOLVED FROM *
* HORIZONTAL AND VERTICLE MOTION (M/S),IN SUBROUTINE *
* "PDRY". *
* RPVELEI = RELATIVE PARTICLE VELOCITY FOR EXTERIOR TO *
* INTERIOR FLIGHT CASCASE (MIS). *
* RPVELIE = RELATIVE PARTICLE VELOCITY FOR INTERIOR TO *
* EXTERIOR FLIGHT CASCADE (MIS). *
* RPVELU = RELATIVE PARTICLE VELOCITY FOR CASCADING WITHOUT *
* CENTERFILL (MIS). *
* RPVELX = RELATIVE PARTICLE VELOCITY IN HORIZONTAL DIRECTION *
* (M/S). *
* RPVELY = RELATIVE PARTICLE VELOCITY IN VERTICAL DIRECTION *
* (MIS). *
* RRE = ROTATIONAL REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR GAS FLOW IN DRUM. *
* RREO = ROTATIONAL REYNOLDS NUMBER FOR AMBIENT AIR FLOW *
* ON DRUM EXTERIOR. *
* RW = THERMAL RESISTANCE OF DRUM WALL (C/W). *
* *
* SCREEN1 = ACTUAL OPENING OF SCREEN PASSED IN SIEVE ANALYSIS *
* OF PARTICLES (M). *
* SCREEN2 = ACTUAL OPENING OF SCREEN NOT PASSED IN SIEVE *
* ANALYSIS OF PARTICLES (M). *
* SHG = SPECIFIC HEAT OF OAS (J/KG*C). *
* SHGF = SPECIFIC HEAT OF SURFACE GAS FILM (J/KG*C). *
* SPHERIC = PARTICLE SPHERICITY. *
* *
* TA = AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE (C). *
* IC = TEMPERATURE (C). *
* TC = TIME PER CASCADE (S), IN PROGRAM "RDS". *
* IC = TIME PER CASCADE WITH CENTERFILL (S), IN SUBROU- *
* TINE "RESTIME". 4
* TCHOLD = TOTAL WEIGHTED VOLUME OF PARTICLES CASCADED FROM *
* INTERIOR FLIGHTS (M3*DEG/M). *
* TDHOLD = TOTAL VOLUME OF PARTICLES CASCADED FROM INTERIOR *
* FLIGHTS (M3/M). *
* TDVOL = VOLUME OF PARTICLE CASCADING FROM EXTERIOR FLIGHT *
* FOR EACH FLIGHT ANGLE INCREMENT AFFECTED BY AN *
* UNFULLY-LOADED CONDITION (M3/M). *
* TE = TIME OF TRAVEL PER CASCADE ON EXTERIOR FLIGHTS (S). *
* TF = TIME OF FALL (5). *
* TFEI = TIME OF FALL FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHT (S). *
* TFIE = TIME OF FALL FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHT (S). *
* TFU = TIME OF FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL (S). *
* TO = BULK GAS TEMPERATURE ARRAY AS A FUNCTION OF *
* CASCADE NUMBER (C). *
* 'MIN = INLET GAS TEMPERATURE CALCULATED (C). *
* TGIN = BLEND-BOX GAS TEMPERATURE (C). *
* TGOUT = OUTLET BULK GAS TEMPERATURE FROM DRUM SEGMENT (C). *
* THOLD = INTERIOR FLIGHT HOLDUP AS A FUNCTION OF PSI (KIM). *
* TI = TIME OF TRAVEL PER CASCADE ON INTERIOR FLIGHTS (8). *
* TIME = CUMULATIVE RESIDENCE TIME ARRAY AS A FUNCTION OF *
* CASCADE NUMBER (S). *
* WIN = INLET PARTICLE TEMPERATURE (C). *
* TVOL = TOTAL WEIGHTED VOLUME OF PARTICLES CASCADED FROM *
* EXTERIOR FLIGHTS (M3*DEG/M). *
* TWERO = VOLUME OF PARTICLES IN EXTERIOR FLIGHT WHEN *
* CASCADING BEGINS FOR A FULLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT *
* (M3/M). *
* TWB = WETBULB TEMPERATURE (C). *
* TWI = INTERIOR DRUM WALL TEMPERATURE (C). *
* TWO = EXTERIOR DRUM WALL TEMPERATURE (C). f
178
ULI = LENGTH OF DRUM SECTION AHEAD OF CENTERFILL (M).

UL2 = LENGTH OF DRUM SECTION BEHIND CEWERFILL (M).
VG = BULK GAS VISCOSITY (PA*8).

VGF = VISCOSITY OF SURFACE GAS FILM (PA*S).
VOL = EXTERIOR FLIGHT HOLDUP AS A FUNCTION OF DRUM
HOLDUP (M3/M).
VOLD = DRUM SEGMENT VOLUME (M3).
VOVER = EXTERIOR FLIGHT HOLDUP IN EXCESS OF DESIGN LOADING
(M3/M).
VZERO = VOLUME OF PARTICLES IN EXTERIOR FLIGHT WHEN
CASCADING BEGINS (M3/M).
WBX = APPROXIMATION AND BEST FIT VECTOR INPUT AND OUTPUT

BY EXTERNAL SUBROUTINE "ZSPOW".
WIG= INLET GAS WEIGHT FRACTION ARRAY (02,N270027H20).
WK= WORK VECTOR USED BY EXTERNAL SUBROUTINE "ZSPOW".
X = DISTANCE FROM DRUM INLET ARRAY AS A FUNCTION OF

CASCADE NUMBER (M).
XEI = LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE OF TRAVEL FOR A PARTICLE
FALLING FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS (M).
XIE = LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE OF TRAVEL FOR A PARTICLE
FALLING FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS (M).
Y = DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL (M).

YEI = DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR
FLIGHT (M).
YEIE = DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR
FLIGHT FOR AN EVEN EXTERIOR FLIGHT (M).
YEIO = DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR
FLIGHT FOR AN ODD EXTERIOR FLIGHT (M.
YIE = DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR
FLIGHT (M).
YU = DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL (M).
********************-****************4H1.**************4********+***************
APPENDIX H. COMPUTER GENERATED SIMULATION OUTPUT FOR TEST RUNS 1 THROUGH 6, K = 1.03.
ttillItttlIttlIttIttlttiltItttttttiltttilttttitttM13141111313*MiltiltttlttilttttUttt*******Stionttttiltrntilt*Mttttttttilt
t**IttttilttiltttIttiltitttilt Miltt**1411***1313341313**It
*ItIctl**11313113***M13141314 ROTARY DRYER SIMULATION ttt*M13111311311313131411113*
mummtsimmtummt mmt******************1**n
smstnitommuntstmttsmsttsmsmits******mmuttmststuntsmutstsmmtmtutustsmmitntstmunts***
ROTARY DRUM DIMENSIONS
INTERIOR DRUM DIAMETER 1,2 METERS
OVERALL DRUM LENGTH 5.5 METERS
DRUM LENGTH AHEAD OF CENTERFILL SECTION .2 METERS
DRUM LENGTH BEHIND CENTERFILL SECTION 1,6 METERS
EXTERIOR FLIGHT LENGTH .208 METERS
EXTERIOR FLIGHT LIP LENGTH .029 METERS
INTERIOR FLIGHT LENGTH #290 METERS
INTERIOR FLIGHT LIP LENGTH #000 METERS
NUMBER OF EXTERIOR FLIGHTS 12
NUMBER OF INTERIOR FLIGHTS 6
DRUM SLOPE TO HORIZONTAL .0 DEGREES
DRUM SPEED 5.5 REVOLUTIONS/MINUTE
DRUM WALL THICKNESS .025 METERS
THERMAL RESISTANCE OF WALL .5000 DEG CtSECONDS/JOULE
EMISSIVITY OF EXTERIOR DRUM WALL .90
INLET GAS CONDITIONS:
AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE 14.0 DEG C
AMBIENT AIR VELOCITY .0 METERS/SECOND
RATIO OF AIR LEAKAGE TO GASES FROM BLEND BOX 3.02 KORAN/KORAN
INLET GAS TEMPERATURE FROM BLEND BOX 541.0 DEG C
INLET GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE .92 METERSM/SECOND
INLET WOOD PARTICLE CONDITIONS:

SOLID WOOD DENSITY 450.0 KGRAMS/METERStt3
BULK DENSITY OF PARTICLES 200.0 KGRAMS/METER913
INLET PARTICLE TEMPERATURE 18.6 DEG C
INLET PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION (DRY BASIS) 1.40
PARTICLE FEED RATE (DRY BASIS) .0778 KGRAMS/SECOND
PARTICLE SPHERICITY #750
ACTUAL OPENING OF AVERAGE SIZE CLASS SCREEN PASSED .00200 METERS
ACTUAL OPENING OF AVERAGE SIZE CLASS SCREEN NOT PASSED .00140 METERS
BEND FACTOR #750
EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF REPOSE 82.6 DEGREES
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF REPOSE 82.6 DEGREES
DRAG COEFFICIENT CORRECTION FACTOR 1.03
PARTICLE FLOW PATH FROM CASCADE NO. 1:
EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF RELEASE 98.4 DEGREES
EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF ENTRY 261.6 DEGREES
EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF INITIAL CASCADE 74,0 DEGREES
EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF FINAL CASCADE 176.8 DEGREES
DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL .78 METERS
AVERAGE TIME OF TRAVEL ON EXTERIOR FLIGHTS PER CASCADE WITHOUT CENTERFILL 6.0 SECONDS
AVERAGE TIME OF FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL AO SECONDS
LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE TRAVELED PER CASCADE WITHOUT CENTERFILL .11 METERS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FULLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0193 METERS143
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0025 METERS/43
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .13 METERS$3/METER**3
PARTICLE FLOW PATH FROM CASCADE NO. 4

INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF RELEASE 154.5 DEGREES
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF ENTRY 2840 DEGREES
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF INITIAL CASCADE 62.0 DEGREES
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF FINAL CASCADE 29246 DEGREES
DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS .21 METERS
DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS .15 METERS
AVERAGE TIME OF TRAVEL ON EXTERIOR FLIGHTS PER CASCADE 6.4 SECONDS
AVERAGE TIME OF TRAVEL ON INTERIOR FLIGHTS PER CASCADE 5.7 SECONDS
AVERAGE TIME OF FALL FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS .21 SECONDS
AVERAGE TIME OF FALL FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS .17 SECONDS
LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE TRAVELED PER CASCADE FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS .03 METERS
LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE TRAVELED PER CASCADE FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS .02 METERS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FOLLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0173 METERS03
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0048 HETERS*S3
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .28 METER$43/METERtt3
EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF INITIAL CASCADE 30.0 DEGREES
EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF FINAL CASCADE 1764 DEGREES
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF ENTRY 29.0 DEGREES
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF FINAL CASCADE 292.6 DEGREES
DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS 415 METERS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FOLLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0178 METERS**3
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0048 METERS**3
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .27 METERIN3/METE:413

EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF ENTRY 26466 DEGREES
AVERAGE TIME OF FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL .40 SECONDS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0024 METERS*I3
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .12 METERM/METERS$3
ROTARY DRYER SIMULATION RESULTS
110113141MUMMUI********
DATE : 83/12/09,
TIME : 04.33,15,
BULK BULK
BULK BULK AVERAGE AVERAGE HEAT LOSS
DISTANCE AVERAGE AVERAGE PARTICLE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE THROUGH VOLUMETRIC
CASCADE FROM DRUM CUMULATIVE PARTICLE GAS MOISTURE GAS HUMIDITY HUMIDITY DRUM NAIL HEAT TRANSFER
NUMBER INLET TIME TEMPERATURE TEMPERATURE CONTENT FRACTION FRACTION SEGMENT COEFFICIENT
(M) (S) (C) (C) (DB) (DB) (J/S) (MOM)
0 .000 .0 18,6 158.2 1,401 .0170 .0046 -I -I
1 .112 6,4 24,1 152,1 1,367 .0187 4054 66.7 503,3
2 .224 12.8 28,7 146.7 1.333 .0203 .0069 63,8 502,4
3 .337 19.2 32.5 1414 1.302 4219 .0086 61,2 501.5
4 .392 31,7 35.2 137,6 1.275 .0232 .0104 58,8 868,4
5 .448 44,1 37,5 133,9 1,250 .0244 .0122 56,9 866.3
6 .504 56.6 39,4 130.4 1.226 .0256 .0143 55.1 864.2
7 .559 69.0 41,1 127.1 1.202 .0268 .0165 536 862.2
8 .615 81,4 42.4 124,1 1.179 .0279 .0189 51.9 860.3
9 .670 93.9 43,5 121.1 1.157 .0290 ,0216 50,5 858,3
10 .726 106.3 44,5 118.4 1.136 .0301 .0244 49.1 856.5
11 ,782 118,7 45,2 115.8 1.115 4311 .0275 47,8 854.8
12 .837 131,2 45,8 113.3 1.095 .0321 4308 46.6 853.2
13 .893 143.6 46.3 110.9 1.076 ,0330 .0344 45,4 851.6
14 .949 156,1 46.6 108.7 1.057 ,0339 4381 44,3 850.0
15 1.004 168,5 46.9 1066 1,039 .0348 .0421 43,2 848.5
16 1.060 180.9 47.1 1046 1,022 .0357 .0464 42.2 847.1
17 1.116 193,4 47.2 102,5 1,005 .0365 .0509 41,3 845.7
18 1.171 205,8 47,3 100,6 .989 .0373 .0557 40,3 844.4
19 1,227 218.3 47.3 98,8 .973 .0381 .0607 39.4 843,0
20 1.283 230.7 47.3 97.0 .958 .0388 4659 38,6 841.8
21 1,338 243.1 47.3 95,3 .943 .0396 .0715 37.8 840.5
22 1.394 255,6 47,2 93.7 .928 .0403 ,0772 37,0 839,3
23 1.450 268,0 47.1 92,1 .915 .0410 .0833 36,2 838.2
24 1,505 280.5 47,0 90,6 .901 ,0416 4896 35.5 837,0
25 1,562 292.9 46,9 89,2 ,888 .0423 4962 34,8 811.0
26 1.619 305.3 46,8 87.8 .875 .0429 ,1030 34.1 810.0
27 1.677 3170 46.6 86.4 .863 .0435 ,1101 33.4 808.9
28 1.734 330.1 46,5 85.1 .851 .0441 ,1174 32,8 808.0
29 1.791 342,6 46.4 83,8 .840 .0446 .1250 32.2 807.0
30 1.848 355.0 46,2 82.6 .829 .0452 .1329 31,6 806.1
31 1.905 367.4 46.1 81.4 .818 .0457 .1410 31.0 805.2
32 1.962 379,8 45,9 80.3 .808 .0462 .1493 306 804.3
33 2,019 39242 45.8 79.2 .797 .0467 .1579 29.9 8036
34 2.077 404,7 45,7 78.1 .788 .0472 .1668 2914 802.7
35 2.134 417.1 45.5 7710 .778 .0477 ,1758 28.9 801.9
36 2.191 429,5 45.4 76,0 .769 10481 .1851 28.4 801.1
37 2#248 441.9 45.3 75.0 .760 .0486 .1946 28.0 800.4
38 2.305 454,3 45.2 74.1 .751 ,0490 .2044 276 7994
39 2.362 466.8 45.1 73.2 .743 10494 .2143 27.1 798.9
40 2.419 479.2 45.0 72.3 035 .0498 .2244 26,6 798.3
41 2.477 491.6 44.9 71.4 .727 .0502 .2347 26.2 797.5
42 2.534 504.0 44,8 70,5 .719 .0506 .2452 25.8 796,8
43 2.591 516.4 44.7 69.7 .711 .0509 .2558 25,4 796.2
44 2.648 528.9 44.6 68.9 .704 .0513 .2666 25,0 795.6
45 2.705 541.3 44.5 68.2 .697 .0516 .2776 24.7 795.0
46 2.762 553.7 44.4 67.4 .690 .0520 .2887 244 794.4
47 2.819 566.1 44,4 66.7 .684 .0523 12999 24,0 793,9
48 2,877 578.6 44.3 66.0 .678 .0526 .3112 23,6 793.3
49 2,934 591.0 44.2 653 .671 .0529 #3227 23.3 792.8
50 2.991 603,4 44,2 64,7 .665 .0532 .3342 23.0 792.3
51 3.048 615.8 44.1 64.0 .659 #0535 .3458 22.7 791.8
52 3.105 628,2 44.0 63.4 .654 .0538 .3575 22.4 791.3
53 3.162 640,7 44.0 62.8 .648 .0541 .3692 22.1 790.8
54 3.219 653,1 43.9 62.2 .643 .0543 .3810 21.8 790.4
55 3.277 665.5 43.9 61,6 .638 #0546 .3928 21.6 789,9
56 3.334 677,9 43,9 61.1 .633 .0548 .4047 21.3 789,5
57 3.391 6903 43.8 60.5 .628 .0551 #4165 21,0 78961
58 3.448 702.8 43.8 60,0 .623 .0553 #4284 20.8 788.7
59 3.505 715.2 43,7 59.5 .619 .0555 .4403 20.6 788.3
60 3.562 727.6 43,7 59.0 .614 .0557 .4522 20.3 78749
61 3.619 740.0 43,7 58.6 .610 ,0559 .4640 20.1 787.6
62 3.676 752.4 43.6 58.1 .606 .0561 .4759 19.9 787.2
63 3.734 764.9 43,6 57,6 .602 .0563 #4876 19.7 786.9
64 3.791 777.3 43.6 5762 .598 .0565 .4994 19,5 786,5
65 3.848 789.7 43.6 56.8 .594 .0567 ,5110 193 786.2
66 3,905 802.1 436 56.4 .590 .0569 .5227 19.1 785.9
67 3,962 814.5 43.5 56.0 #587 .0571 #5342 18.9 785.6
68 4.078 820.8 43.5 55.5 .583 4573 .5477 18.7 466,4
69 4.194 827.0 43.5 55,1 .579 60575 .5614 18,5 466.2
70 4.311 833.2 43,5 54.7 4575 .0577 #5750 183 466,1
71 4,427 8396 43.4 54.2 .571 .0579 .5884 HA 466.0
72 4,543 845.7 43.4 5368 .568 .0580 .6016 17.9 465.9
73 4,659 851.9 43,4 53,5 .564 .0582 .6147 17.7 465.13
74 4.775 858,2 43.4 53,1 .561 .0584 .6277 17.5 465.7
75 4.891 864.4 43.4 52.7 .557 .0585 .6404 1764 465.6
76 5,007 870.6 43.4 52.4 .554 .0587 16530 17,2 465.5
77 5.123 876.9 43.3 52.0 6551 .0588 .6653 17.1 465.4
78 5,239 883.1 43,3 51.7 .548 .0590 .6775 16.9 465.4
79 5.356 889,3 43.3 51,4 .546 .0591 .6894 16.8 465.3
80 5.472 895.6 43.3 51.1 .543 .0592 17012 16.6 465.2
81 5.588 901.8 43.3 50.8 #540 .0594 .7127 164 465.1
DRYER OUTLET CONDITIONS

OUTLET PARTICLE TEMPERATURE 43.3 DEG C
OUTLET GAS TEMPERATURE 504 DEG C
OUTLET PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION (DRY BASIS) #54
OUTLET ABSOLUTE GAS HUMIDITY FRACTION (DRY BASIS) 1059
TOTAL RESIDENCE TIME 901.8 SECONDS
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASCADES 82
GAS COMPOSITION IN MOLE FRACTIONS:

02 N2 CO2 1420
FROM BLEND BOX : .175 .731 4020 .074

AMBIENT AIR 1 #207 .782 400 #011
DRUM INLET : .199 .769 .005 .027
DRUM OUTLET 1 .187 .722 .005 .087
***********************************M0*****************************************M*MMIIMMUMM******************13**
****************************** t*Mtitt********M**0*****0
*0**0*********************** ROTARY DRYER SIMULATION ****Mtt***************M***
********0**************14**** $13********Mt**0*********tt
*It*****0******13*****************MUM***1314*******************************13*****13M***********0*********************14

OVERALL DRUM LENGTH 5,5 METERS
DRUM LENGTH AHEAD OF CENTERFILL SECTION .2 METERS
INTERIOR FLIGHT LENGTH .290 METERS
INTERIOR FLIGHT LIP LENGTH .000 METERS
DRUM SLOPE TO HORIZONTAL ,0 DEGREES
DRUM SPEED 5,5 REVOLUTIONS/MINUTE
THERMAL RESISTANCE OF WALL .5000 DEG C*SECONDS/JOULE
EMISSIVITY OF EXTERIOR DRUM WALL ,90
INLET OAS CONDITIONS:

AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE 14.5 DEG C
RATIO OF AIR LEAKAGE TO GASES FROM BLEND BOX 3,19 KGRAM/KGRAM
INLET GAS TEMPERATURE FROM BLEND BOX 548,0 DEG C
INLET OAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE 1,10 METERS**3/SECOND
INLET WOOD PARTICLE CONDITIONS!

SOLID WOOD DENSITY 450,0 KGRAMS/METERS**3
BULK DENSITY OF PARTICLES 200.0 KGRAMS/METERS**3
INLET PARTICLE TEMPERATURE 17,7 DEG C
INLET PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION (DRY BASIS) 1,41
PARTICLE FEED RATE (DRY BASIS) 4786 KGRAMS/SECOND
PARTICLE SPHERICITY .750
ACTUAL OPENING OF AVERAGE SIZE CLASS SCREEN PASSED 40200 METERS
BEND FACTOR .750
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF REPOSE 82,6 DEGREES
DRAG COEFFICIENT CORRECTION FACTOR 1,03
PARTICLE FLOW PATH FROM CASCADE NO, 1:
EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF RELEASE 98,9 DEGREES
EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF ENTRY 261,1 DEGREES
AVERAGE TIME OF TRAVEL ON EXTERIOR FLIGHTS PER CASCADE WITHOUT CENTERFILL 6,1 SECONDS
LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE TRAVELED PER CASCADE WITHOUT CENTERFILL ,15 METERS
HOLM CONDITIONS:
FULLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0259 METERS*113
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP 4025 HETERS*43
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN ,10 METER143/METERM

EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF FINAL CASCADE 176,8 DEGREES
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF RELEASE 154,5 DEGREES
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF ENTRY 30,0 DEGREES
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF INITIAL CASCADE 62,0 DEGREES
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF FINAL CASCADE 292,6 DEGREES
AVERAGE TIME OF TRAVEL ON EXTERIOR FLIGHTS PER CASCADE 6,4 SECONDS
AVERAGE TIME OF TRAVEL ON INTERIOR FLIGHTS PER CASCADE 5,6 SECONDS
LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE TRAVELED PER CASCADE FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS ,03 METERS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP ,0049 METERS*13
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .21 METERtt3/METER133
EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF ENTRY 2146 DEGREES
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0051 METERS*13
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .20 METERU3/METERV13

HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FULLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0283 METERSU3
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .09 METERn3/METERt$3
SUO******USIMSOMMUI
DATE : 83/12/09.
TIME : 04.11.24.
BULK BULK
CASCADE FROM DRUM CUMULATIVE PARTICLE GAS MOISTURE OAS HUMIDITY HUMIDITY DRUM UALL HEAT TRANSFER
(M) (S) (C) (C) (DB) (DB) (J/S) (J/StMl$3)
0 .000 .0 17,7 154.6 1.405 .0136 .0041 -I -I

1 .150 6.4 23.2 149.6 1.370 .0150 .0047 64.8 393.2
2 .299 12.9 27.9 145.1 1,336 10164 .0058 62,4 3926
3 .375 25.3 31.3 141.3 1.308 .0175 .0070 60.2 679.4
4 .451 37,8 34,2 137.8 1.280 .0187 .0083 58,4 677.8
5 .528 50.2 360 134.6 1.253 .0198 .0097 56.8 676.2
6 .604 62.7 38.7 1316 1.226 10208 .0112 55.2 674.6
7 .680 75.1 406 128.6 1.201 .0218 .0129 530 673.1
e .756 87.5 41,9 125,8 1.176 .0228 60147 52.4 671.7
9 .832 100.0 43.1 123.2 1.152 .0238 .0166 51.1 670.3
10 .908 112.4 44,1 120.7 1.129 .0247 .0187 49.8 669,0
11 .985 124,9 44.9 118.4 1.106 4256 .0209 48.7 667.7
12 1.061 137.3 45,5 116.1 1.084 .0265 .0233 47.6 666.4
13 1.137 149.7 464 1119 1,062 .0274 .0259 46.5 665,2
14 1.213 162.2 46.4 111.9 1,042 .0282 .0286 45.5 664.0
15 1,289 174.6 46.7 109.9 1.021 .0290 .0314 44,5 662.8
16 1.365 187.1 46.9 108,0 1.002 .0298 .0345 43.6 661.7
17 1,442 199.5 47.0 106,1 .982 .0306 40377 420 660,5
18 1.518 211.9 47.1 104.4 .964 .0313 .0411 41.8 659.4
19 1.594 224.4 47.1 102.6 .946 .0321 .0446 41,0 658.3
20 1.670 23618 47.1 101,0 .928 .0328 .0484 40,2 657.3
21 1.746 249.3 47,0 99.4 .911 .0334 .0523 39.4 6563
22 1.822 261.7 4619 97.8 .894 .0341 .0564 38.6 655.3
23 1.899 274.1 46.8 9663 .878 .0348 .0608 37.9 654,4
24 1.975 286.6 46,7 94.9 .863 #0354 .0653 37.2 653.5
25 2.068 299.5 46.6 93.4 .846 .0361 .0702 36.5 573.5
26 2.162 312.4 46.4 91.9 .830 .0367 40755 35.8 572.6
27 2.255 325.3 46.2 90.5 .815 +0373 .0811 35,1 571.8
28 2.349 33812 46.1 89.1 .799 .0379 .0869 34.5 571.1
29 2.442 351.1 4519 87.8 .785 .0385 .0929 33.8 570.3
30 2.536 364.0 45.7 866 .771 .0391 .0991 33.2 569.6
31 2.629 37710 4515 85.2 .757 .0396 .1056 32.6 56809
32 2.723 389.9 45.4 844 .743 .0402 .1123 32.0 568.2
33 2.816 402.8 45.2 82.8 0730 .0407 .1192 31.4 567.5
34 2.910 415.7 4560 8147 .718 .0412 .1264 3009 566.8
35 3.003 428.6 44.9 80.5 0705 .0417 .1338 303 56612
36 3.097 441.5 440 79.5 .693 .0422 01414 2918 565.6
37 3.190 454.4 44.6 78.4 .682 .0426 .1492 293 56500
38 3.283 467.3 446 77.4 .670 10431 .1573 2808 56404
39 3.377 480.2 44.3 76.4 .660 .0435 .1655 28.4 563.8
40 3.470 49341 44.2 75.4 .649 .0440 .1740 2709 563.2
41 3.564 506.0 44.1 74.5 .639 .0444 .1827 27.4 562.7
42 3.657 519.0 44.0 73.6 .629 .0448 .1915 2700 562.2
43 3.751 53119 43.9 72.7 .619 .0452 .2005 26.6 561.6
44 3.844 544.8 43.8 7148 .609 00455 .2098 26.2 561.1
45 3.938 557.7 4307 71.0 .600 .0459 .2192 25.8 560.6
46 4.100 564.2 4316 70.1 .591 .0463 .2293 25.4 347.3
47 4.261 570.7 43.5 69.3 .581 .0467 .2397 254 347.1
48 4.423 577.1 43.4 684 .572 .0470 .2503 24.6 346.9
49 4.584 583.6 43.3 67.7 .564 .0474 .2611 24.2 346.7
50 4.746 59041 43.3 66.9 .555 .0477 .2720 23.9 346.5
51 4.908 596.6 43.2 66.2 .547 .0481 .2831 23.5 346.4
52 5.069 603.1 43.1 65.4 1539 .0484 .2943 23.2 346.2
51 5.231 60906 43.1 64.7 .531 .0487 .3056 22.8 346.0
54 5.393 616.1 43.0 64.1 .524 .0490 .3170 22.5 345.9
55 5.554 622.6 42.9 63.4 .516 .0493 .3285 22.2 345.7
.073 .005 ,733 .189 1 OUTLET DRUM
.022 .006 .774 ,199 1 INLET DRUM
.011 .000 .782 .207 : AIR AMBIENT
.055 .024 047 .174 BOX BLEND FROM
H20 CO2 N2 02
FRACTIONS: MOLE IN COMPOSITION GAS
56 CASCADES OF NUMBER TOTAL
SECONDS 622,6 TIME RESIDENCE TOTAL
.049 BASIS) (DRY FRACTION HUMIDITY GAS ABSOLUTE OUTLET
.52 BASIS) (DRY FRACTION CONTENT MOISTURE PARTICLE OUTLET
C DEG 63.4 TEMPERATURE GAS OUTLET
C 0E6 42.9 TEMPERATURE PARTICLE OUTLET
CONDITIONS OUTLET DRYER
CKIMM*************************************************************MMIUMMOMM********************Mit***********
t****************************t t*****************************
*************0*********U**** II1V108 113ANd NOI1V1dWIS **********************0******
*014******************M**** t***4**********t**************
*********************MMM**************************************MMUMMMWM*******MMUMMt*******M*0**0
Asvios wnma SNOISN3WIll :
801831Y1 wnsa 83I3WVI0 Z'T SHAW

11V83A0 wrist] HION31 S'S SHIN
wnsa H10/131 0V3HV JO 111A831N33 N01133S Z' S83134
wnsa HiON31 4NIH30 111J831N33 MIMS 91 013W
801831X3 114011.1 HAND 80Z' 88313W
801831X3 1H9113 d11 H10N31 6Z0' 88313/4
UI831NI 1110113 HION31 06Z' SHAW
SOI831NI IHOI12 d11 HI0N31 000 8813W
830AN JO 80183IX3 SIHOIld ZT
soawnw JO SOIN31NI S1110113 9
WMG 3,1019 01 1VINOZI80H S33803d
O.
W118G 0334 3111N1W/SNOI11110638
WMG ilvn
S93NN3IH1 5R, S83I3W
IVA/NI 33NVI9IS38 20 11VM 000S. 030 Tinousallons*o
IIIAI9SIW3 JO 80183IX3 wnsa 11vn 06'
131NI SO :8N0III0N00
8IV 388083dW31 SILT 93d 3
iwmawv siv AII0013A 0' 0033S/S8313W
01IV8 JO 8IV 30VNV31 01 S3SVO W083 QN310 xoa 8E'E WV8ON/WV80N
131NI SVO 38111V83dW31 WO8A aw31a X00 O'OZL 0311
131N1 SVO 3I813Wd1OA MO1A 31V8 OZ'I GNO33S/E0S83134
131NI GOO 31311d :SN0III0N00

0I109 GOON AlISNE O'OSV E**S8313W/SWV801
ulna AlISN3G JO S313118Vd 0.00Z £14S8313W/SWV89X
131/1I 3131I8Vd 388083031 681 0311 3
131NI 31311d unislow IN3INO3 NOII3VNA (SISV0 EV'T
313II8Vd 033J 31V8 Asa) (sisva 98Z0' QNO33S/SNV894
3101INVd A113183HdS
1V113 ONIN3d0 20 383AV 3ZIS SSV13 N3383S (13SS1Jd 00Z00' 88313W
lvniov ONIN3d0 JO 30VM3AV 32IS SSV13 N3380S ION 113SSVd 0100' 883134
atm 80I3VA OSZ'
801831X3 1H9I13 31ONV JO 3S0d38 918 S338934
80181K IH0I1J 31ONV JO 3S0d38 9'Z8 238011
ovsa 1N31313J303 N011338803 8013VA EO'I
HOLDUP CONDITIONS!
FULLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0268 KETERSU3
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0025 METERSO3
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN 409 METERt$3/HETER**3

LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE TRAVELED PER CASCADE FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS 46 METERS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FULIY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0246 METERS**3
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0051 METERS03
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN +21 METERM/METERS*3
PARTICLE FLOW PATH FROM CASCADE NO, 16
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FULLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0262 METERS*N3
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .19 METERN3/METER143
PARTICLE FLOW PATH FROM CASCADE NO. 45 :

HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FULLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0312 METERS**3
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN ,08 METER**3/METERN*3
,133313101111114413*****SUM1
DATE : 83/12/09.
TIME : 04.150450
BULK BULK
CASCADE FROM DRUM CUMULATIVE PARTICLE GAS MOISTURE GAS HUMIDITY HUMIDITY DRUM UALL HEAT TRANSFER
(M) (8) (C) (C) (DB) (DB) (J/S) (J/S*M1$3)
0 .000 .0 18.9 198.9 1.425 .0121 .0013 -I -I

1 .155 6.4 2608 191.7 1.378 .0141 .0015 84.4 3854
2 .311 12.8 33.3 185.1 1.333 .0160 .0020 8019 38441
3 .402 25.7 38.3 179.3 1.291 60178 .0026 7767 622,3
4 .494 38,7 42.5 173,9 1.251 40195 .0033 754 620.2
5 .585 51.6 45,9 169.0 1.211 .0212 .0040 72.4 618.3
6 .677 64,5 48.6 164,4 1.173 00228 .0049 704 616.4
7 .768 77.4 5018 160.0 1.136 10244 .0059 6748 614.6
8 .860 90.4 52.6 156.0 1,101 .0259 .0070 65.8 612.8
9 .951 103.3 53.9 152.2 1.066 .0273 .0082 63.9 611,1
10 1.043 11612 5419 14816 1.033 .0288 .0095 6241 609.5
11 1.134 129.1 55.6 145.2 1,001 .0301 .0109 60.4 607.9
12 1.226 142,0 56.1 141.9 .969 .0315 .0125 58.7 606.2
13 1.317 155.0 56.4 138.8 .939 .0327 .0143 57.2 604.7
14 1.409 167.9 56,5 135.9 .910 10340 .0161 55.7 60313
15 1,500 18008 5605 133.0 .881 .0352 .0182 54.3 601.9
16 1.584 193.3 56.4 130.5 .856 .0363 .0202 53.0 603.5
17 1.669 205,7 56.2 128.1 .831 .0373 .0224 51.8 602.2
18 1.753 218.2 56,0 125.8 .807 .0383 .0247 5007 601.0
19 1.837 230.6 55.7 123.5 .784 .0393 .0272 49.6 599.7
20 1.922 243.0 55.4 121,4 061 .0403 .0299 48.5 59815
21 2.006 2556 55.1 119.2 .739 .0412 .0327 47.5 597.3
22 2.090 267.9 54.8 117.2 .718 .0421 .0356 4645 596.2
23 2.175 280.4 54.4 115.2 .697 .0430 .0388 45.5 595.1
24 2.259 292.8 54,0 113.3 .677 .0439 .0421 4416 594,0
25 2.343 305.3 53.7 111.5 .657 .0447 .0457 43,7 592,9
26 2.427 317.7 53.3 109.7 .638 .0455 .0494 42.8 591.9
27 2.512 330,2 53.0 107.9 .620 .0463 .0533 42.0 590.8
28 2.596 34206 52.6 106.2 .602 .0471 .0574 41.2 589.8
6Z 089'Z T'SgE. E'ZS 9*VOT PBS' 81V0' 1190' V404 6'88S
OE S9L'Z S'19£ O'ZS 0101 89g' S90* £990' 9*6£ 6*LBS
TE 6V8'Z 6'61£ LIS VIOT TSS' ZOO' 0110' 6'8£ O'LBS
ZE £E6'Z SeZ6E VIS 6'66 SES' 66t0' 0910* T'BE 1'98S
EE BTO'E 81,0V PIS V*86 61S' 90S0' 1180' V'LE Z*S8S
VE Z011 E'Llt B'OS O'16 VOS' MO' S980' L'9£ E'VBS
SE 9811 L'6ZV S'OS 9'S6 0610 81S0' TZ60' 1'9£ S'EBS
9£ 0LZ'E Z'PP E'OS Ell6 Sao VZSO' 6160' t'S£ L'US
LE Sal 910 O'Og 016 Z9V* 0ES0' OVOT' 811 6'18G
8E 691 I*19V 8'6V L'16 8Vie 9ES0' ZOTT' Z'VE 118S
6£ EZS'E S*61V 9'6V t'06 SEV* TVS0' OTT' 91£ V*08S
00 809'E 0.Z6t V.6V Z'68 ZZt* CVO' VEZT. 01£ 9'6LS
IV Z69'E V'VOS Z*61, 1'88 OT4' MO' EOEI' IOU 6'81S
ZV 9LL'E 6'9IS 0'66 6'98 86E' ISSO* VIET' 6*1E Z*85
EV 1981 £'6ZS 6'8V B'SB 98E' Z9S0' LVVT' VIE S'iLS
tt St6'£ ['TVS L'BV L'VB SLE' 190' ZZST* 6*0£ 6'9LS
SP EZ11, I'BVS 9'8V SIB Z9E' ZLSO' 091* V'OE ZITE
9t ZOE't VIZ V14 E*Z8 OSE EILSO' ZOCI' B*6Z 6'S1E
a 08V't EIV ZI8 Lb/I'
8V
6V
691
LEWV
8'09S
TIL9S
S'ELS
118V
0'84
1'08
0'6/
9'
BEE'
STE'
EBSO'
88S0*
Z6S0'
V681'
V661'
Z1Z
L'8Z
VIE
/*STE
t'STE
Z*STE
OS 910'S 8'65 6.0 O'BL VOE' 16S0* 960Z* L'IZ O'S1E
IS V6I'S Z'98S BILV O'LL £6' Z090' 00ZZ' ZeLZ /*VIE
ZS ZLE'S SIZ6S L'Llf IlL EBZ' 9090' 90EZ* 8'9Z S*VIE
ES KS'S 6'86S 9./V 1'SL ELZ' 0190* VIVZ* £'9Z E'VIE
OUTLET PARTICLE TEMPERATURE 47,6 DEC C
OUTLET GAS TEMPERATURE 7561 DEG C
OUTLET PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION (DRY BASIS) .27
OUTLET ABSOLUTE GAS HUMIDITY FRACTION (DRY BASIS) .061
TOTAL RESIDENCE TIME 598,9 SECONDS

02 N2 CO2 1420
FROM BLEND BOX : .159 .756 .035 .050

AMBIENT AIR : .207 .783 .000 .010
DRUM INLET : .196 .777 .008 /019
DRUM OUTLET : .182 .722 .007 .089
**4*******01313***********M******Mt******MUMU*****M**MMUMUMMUMMMU*******************************
11***Mt********1(************* It****41*************Milt***
13******4********Mt***ItM* AEV108 83AN0 tows wo **************W*******100*
Ic***********************Mtt* Ottit*****0*********MOIM
tn******MMIAMMUMUMMUMUMM*M13*******M**********30****MMUM************MMM**************3
18V108 SNOISN3WIQ
80I891NI wma 8313WVI0 Z'T 98313W
11V83A0 wma H1ON31 S'S 58313W
WilNQ H19N31 0V3HV 30 11IJS31N33 N011339 Z' 98313W
WA88 H1ON31 0N1H38 11I3831N33 N011339 9'1 58313W
80I831X3 1H9I1A HI0N31 80' S8313W
SOI831X3 1HOI13 dIl H19N31 604 98313W
80I821NI 1H9I1J H19N31 06Z' 98313W
80I831NI 1H9I1d dIl H19N31 000' S8313W
8380 30 80I831X3 S1H9114 ZT
838WAN 30 80I831N1 91H9114 9
wma 3619 01 1V1NO2I80H 0' S338030
wma 033dS 8'Z 31MNIW/SN0I1M10A38
wnsa livm SS3N43IH1 SZO' S8313W
1VW83H1 33NV15I934 40 livn 000S' 938 311101798NO3393
A1IMISSI43 30 80I831X3 woo 11VM 06'
131NI SVO :SN0I1IGNO3

1N3I84V 8IV 3881V83dW31 0'8T 930 3
1N3I8WV SIV A1I3013A 0' 0033S/98313W
0I1V8 JO 8IV 39N31 01 S390 wosi aula xoa ZZIE WV89N/WVS0N
131NI S9 38111V83N31 HOU asla
X08 O'OEL 93Q 3
121N1 9V9 31813WM10A 1013 308 SZ'T QNO339/E**S8313W
131NI mon31311)3d ISNOIlIONO3

arm aoon AlISN38 O'OSt £1398313W/SMON
Nina AlISN38 30 9313I18Vd 0'00Z tt*S8313W/SWV89N
131NI 313118Vd 3801V83dW31 E'TZ 938 3
131NI 313I18Vd unisiow 1N31NO3 N0I13V33 (SISV8
313I18Vd 0334 308 Aaa) coma V6L0' 4/40339/SWVSO4
313I1)34 AII3I83Hd9 OSL.
lciov ONIN3d0 JO 39V83AV 32I5 SSV13 N3383S G3SSVd 0000' 98313W
ivniov ONIN3d0 30 39V83AV 32I5 SSV13 N33839 ION 83SSVd OVT00' S8313W
amou OSL'
80I831X3 1HOI14 310NV JO 3S0d38 9'Z8 9338938
80I831NI 1H9114 319NV JO 39048 918 S338038
9V80 1H313133303 N0I1338803 8013V3 £0'T
DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL ,78 METERS
LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE TRAVELED PER CASCADE WITHOUT CENTERFILL ,16 METERS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FULLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0276 METERM3
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0044 HETERS133
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN ,16 METER**3/METERU3
PARTICLE FLOW PATH FROM CASCADE NO, 3 :

DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS ,22 METERS
DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS ,15 METERS
AVERAGE TIME OF FALL FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS al SECONDS
AVERAGE TIME OF FALL FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS ,17 SECONDS
LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE TRAVELED PER CASCADE FROM EVERTOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS ,05 METERS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FULLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP ,0253 METERS143
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0094 METERSO3
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN ,37 METERM/METERU3
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE AT AVERAGE POINT OF RELEASE 1546 DEGREES
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0094 KETERS*13
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN ,35 METER143/METERCI3
PARTICLE FLOU PATH FROM CASCADE NO, 42 t

HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FOLLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP 4311 METERS**3
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP 4094 METERSO3
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN ,30 METERWMETER**3

EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE Al AVERAGE POINT OF ENTRY 266.5 DEGREES
DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL #7B METERS
AVERAGE TIME OF FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL #40 SECONDS
LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE TRAVELED PER CASCADE WITHOUT CENTERFILL ' ,19 METERS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FULLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP 4328 METERSO3
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP 4046 METERS443
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN ,14 HETER03/METER143
01144013t13000143100**0
DATE : 83/12/09,
TIME : 04.24.33.
BULK BULK
(M) (8) (C) (C) (BB) (DB) (JS) (J/SVO*3)
0 .400 .0 21,3 209,6 1,399 .0138 .0012 -I -I

1 .161 11.2 29,7 201.7 1,349 .0160 .0014 88.9 379.1
2 .322 22.4 36.6 194.6 1.301 .0181 .0019 85.2 378.1
3 1404 46.1 41.6 188,8 1.259 .0199 .0024 81.8 656.7
4 .487 69.9 45.7 183,4 1,219 .0216 .0029 79.0 654.5
5 .569 93.7 49.0 178.4 1.180 .0233 .0036 76.4 652.4
6 .651 117.5 51.7 173.8 1.142 .0250 .0043 74.1 650.4
7 .733 141,3 53.9 169.4 1.105 .0266 .0051 71.8 648.4
8 .815 165.0 55.7 165.3 1,069 .0281 .0060 69.8 6466
9 .897 188.8 57.0 16101 1.035 .0296 +0070 67.8 644.7
10 .980 212.6 58.0 157.7 1.001 .0311 .0081 66.0 642,8
11 1.062 23644 58.7 154.3 .968 .0325 .0092 6442 641.1
12 1.144 260.2 59.2 150,9 .937 .0338 .0105 62.6 639.4
13 1.226 283.9 59.5 147.8 .906 .0352 .0119 61.0 637.8
14 1,308 307.7 59.6 144.7 .877 .0364 .0135 59.5 636.2
15 1,390 331,5 59.6 141.8 .848 .0377 .0151 58.0 634.6
16 1.478 355.2 59.5 139.0 .820 .0389 .0169 56.7 593.1
17 1.565 379.0 59.3 136.4 .793 ,0401 .0188 55,4 591.7
18 1.652 402.7 59.0 133.8 .767 .0412 .0208 54.1 590.3
19 1.740 426.5 58.7 131.3 .741 .0423 .0230 52,9 589.0
20 1.827 450.2 58.3 128.9 .717 .0434 .0254 51.7 587.1
21 1,914 473.9 57,9 126,6 .693 .0444 60279 5066 58601
22 2.002 497.7 57.5 124.4 .669 .0454 .0305 49,5 585.2
23 2.089 521,4 57.1 122.2 .647 4464 .0334 48.4 5844
24 2.176 545.1 56,6 120.1 .625 .0473 ,0364 47,4 582.8
25 2.264 568.9 56.2 118.1 .604 .0482 .0396 4644 581.7
26 2.351 592.6 55.8 116,1 .583 .0491 .0430 45,5 580.5
27 2.438 616.3 55.4 114.2 .563 .0500 .0466 44.5 579.4
28 2.526 640.1 54.9 112.3 .544 .0508 .0503 43.6 578.4
S'ZOE 9'LZ LIZZ' L90' 00' 6'8L Z'VS VIZIT 89'S fg
MOE 0'8Z 61' £90' 80' 8'61 S'Eg 61III 69V'S Zg
8'Z0E g'8Z 6E0Z' 090' LIZ' L'08 L'Zg V'OOTI 18'S IS
L418
6'Z0E 6'8Z LV6I' 9,90' 9ZZ' 61S 6'8801 Z60'S Og
I'EOE S'6Z VS8I4 TV90' 9' L'Z8 I% V'LLOT V061 6V
84E8
E'E01 O'OE 0911' LE90' IVZ' t'OS 6'g901 91LI 8t
9'E0E 9'0E 9991' TE90' 6' 0'S8 O'Og VINT LZS1 0
8'EOE Z'IE VLSI' 990' ZLZ' Z'98 O'Og 6'ZV0T 6EE'V 94
TIOE 81E gfiVI' 0Z90' g8Z' S'L8 Z'Og V'TEOT OgI'V 0
I'I6V EsZE 0011' V190' 66' 8'88 E'Og 6'6101 Z96'E Vt
116V 6'ZE 8ZE1' 6090' TIE' 0'06 S'Og Z'966 1981 EV
V.Z6V gaff LSZT4 t090' EZE' Z16 L'OS V'ZL6 1911 ZV
9'99S I'VE 6811' 860' 9EE' S'Z6 6'0g L'8V6 1991 IV
t'L9g I'VE EZIT' Z6g0' OSE' L'E6 Z'Ig 6'tZ6 ELVE OV
Z'89S E'SE 6g01' 98S0' E9E' O'g6 V'Ig Z'I06 98t1 6E
0'69g 0'9E 8660' 080' La' t'96 91g V'118 66E'E 8£
8'69S 9'9E 6£60' V50' Z6E' 8'16 6'Ig L'ES8 IIE'E LE
['Oa E'LE 1880' 89S0' LOt' Z'66 Z.ZS 0'0E8 VZZ'E 9E
9'I1.S 0'8E LZ80' I9S0' ZZV' L'OOT g'Zg Z'908 CETI SE
g'Zig 8'8E VLIO OgS0' 8£10 Z'Z01 8'Zg S'Z8L 6V0'E VE
V'ELS S'6E EZLO' CVO' Vgt' 8'E0I Ilg 8'8S1 Z96'Z EE
E'tLg EIOV SL90' 0tg0' ILV' V'g01 t'ES O'SEL gal ZE
EISLG TIV 6Z90' ZES0' 68V' O'LOT 8'ES EITL 18L' IE
Nig 61O SSW' SMO' 90' L'80I Z'Vg 9'189 00L'Z OE
PIN 8'ZV EVS0' LIU' gZS' g'OIT g'Vg 8'E99 E19'Z 6Z
OUTLET GAS TEMPERATURE 78.9 DEG C
GAS COMPOSITION IN MOLE FRACTIONS!

02 N2 CO2 H20
FROM BLEND BOX : .161 .740 .039 .060

AMBIENT AIR : .207 .783 .000 .010
DRUM INLET : .196 .773 .009 .022
DRUM OUTLET : .181 .715 /009 .095
******Mt3M***************************MOMM**34013****Mtt***Mt********Mt*********13*************UM***M*M*11
*****************************t *************MM*********1
*It40**13013*****13********* ROTARY DRYER SIMULATION miamm****t*****no*****
33mitounonstm*******, mtnum***ammunton
onmitmunmuntosnottsommumitmt******tommonomonnttmumnommon****mommummt
DRUM LENGTH AHEAD OF CENTERFILL SECTION ,2 METERS
DRUM SLOPE TO HORIZONTAL .0 DEGREES

AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE 20,0 DEG C
RATIO OF AIR LEAKAGE TO GASES FROM BLEND BOX 2,34 KORAN/KORAN
INLET GAS TEMPERATURE FROM BLEND BOX 751.0 DEG C
INLET GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE 1,13 METERSM/SECOND
INLET WOOD PARTICLE CONDITIONS:

SOLID WOOD DENSITY 4504 KGRAMS/METERS**3
BULK DENSITY OF PARTICLES 200.0 KGRAMS/METERS*13
INLET PARTICLE TEMPERATURE 23,4 DEG C
PARTICLE FEED RATE (DRY BASIS) .0797 KRAMS/SECOND
BEND FACTOR .750
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF REPOSE 82.6 DEGREES
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0043 METERS**3
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN ,22 METER*83/METER**3

LONGITUDINAL DISTANCE TRAVELED PER CASCADE FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS 42 METERS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FULLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0170 MEFERS**3
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .56 METER03/METER**3
AVERAGE TIME OF FALL FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS ,21 SECONDS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0095 KETERS03
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN ,54 HETER03/METERU3
PARTICLE FLOU PATH FROM CASCADE NO, 26:

DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL FROM INTERIOR TO EXTERIOR FLIGHTS 15 METERS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .50 METER03/METER**3

DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL dB METERS
AVERAGE TIME OF FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL,..li '
.40 SECONDS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .20 METER**3/METERt*3
itUttUtt***0$1**U**00111411
DATE : 83/12/09.
TIME 1 04.34.15.
BULK BULK
CASCADE FROM DRUM CUMULATIVE PARTICLE GAS MOISTURE GAS HUMIDITY HUMIDITY DRUM WALL HEAT TRANSFER
(11) (S) (C) (C) (GB) (GB) (J/S) (J/S*M1113)
0 .000 10 2364 265.7 1.390 .0148 .0005 -I -I

1 .113 1009 3502 251.4 1.328 .0186 .0006 114,8 525.8
2 .226 21.7 44.4 238.6 1.269 .0223 .0009 107.9 524.1
3 .339 32.6 5106 227.3 1.213 .0258 .0013 101.8 5226
4 .395 56,4 56.4 2186 1.166 10287 .0018 96.3 911.3
5 .451 80.2 60.2 210.5 1.121 .0315 .0024 92.1 9073
6 .507 10309 63.1 20301 1,078 .0342 $0030 8813 903.4
7 .563 127.7 65.4 1963 1.036 .0368 .0038 84.7 899.8
8 .619 151,5 67.0 189.9 .996 .0392 .0046 814 896.3
9 .675 175.3 68.1 184.1 .958 .0416 .0056 7865 893.1
10 .730 199,1 68.8 178.6 .922 .0439 .0067 75.7 8894
11 .786 222,9 69.2 173.4 .886 .0461 *0080 73.1 886.9
12 .843 246.6 6914 16816 .852 .0482 .0094 70,6 861.2
13 .901 270,4 69.2 164,0 .820 40502 .0110 6803 8586
14 .958 29411 6900 1590 .789 4521 .0127 66,2 855.8
15 1.015 317.9 686 155.6 .759 .0540 .0147 64.1 853.3
16 1.072 341.7 68.0 151.7 .730 60558 .0168 62.2 850.8
17 1.129 365.4 67.4 148.0 002 /0575 .0191 60.3 848.4
18 1.186 389.2 66.7 144.4 .675 .0591 .0217 58,6 8464
19 1.244 412.9 66.0 141.0 .650 .0607 .0245 56.9 843.7
20 1.301 43647 653 137.8 .625 .0623 .0276 55.3 841.5
21 1.358 460,5 6415 134.7 .601 .0637 .0309 53.8 839.4
22 1.415 484,2 63.8 1310 .578 10652 .0345 52.3 837.3
23 1.472 508.0 63.1 128.8 .556 .0665 .0384 50,9 835.3
24 1.529 531.7 62.4 126.0 .535 .0678 .0426 49.5 833.4
25 1.586 555.5 61,7 123.4 .515 .0691 00471 48.2 8316
26 1.648 579.3 61.0 120,8 .495 .0703 .0519 47.0 770.9
27 1.710 60301 60.4 118.3 .476 .0715 .0571 45,8 769.2
28 1.772 626.9 59.8 115.9 .457 .0726 .0626 44.6 767.7
29 1.833 6500 59.2 113,6 .440 00737 .0685 43.5 766.1
30 1.895 674.5 58.6 111.4 .423 .0748 .0747 42,4 764.6
O'SVV 611Z 86810 SV60' POT' Z'89 S'19 0'1091 9VS'S 91
cm I'SVV 9'IZ 0£0' 0/601 LOT' S'89 9'19 I'06SI UV'S S/
Z'Stft LIZ 090' EV60' 601' 8'89 9'19 l'6/S1 86Z'S VI
"c) £114 6'IZ 6896' IV60' III. 1'69 9'19 te890 VIII EL
E'Strt O'ZZ ST9r 060' EII' V'69 9'19 g'LSSI 6V0'S ZL
teS0 ZIZZ Oglo 8£60' 911' 8'69 9'19 91VS1 SZ61 IL
S'Strt toZZ £990 9£60' 611' VOL 9'19 B'SESI 1081 OL
9'S*V SIN E8Eto SE60' IZI' TOL 9'19 61ZST 1L9'6 69
9'Strt L'ZZ IOEV. E£60' VZI. 6'0/ 9'19 I'VIST ESS4 89
L'Stt 6'Z2 LIZte 1E60' LZI' VIC S'I9 ZIOSI 6ZV't 19
8'SOV TIZ OLD' 6Z60' 1E1' 8'IL S'I9 EIZ6VI 1,0£1 99
6.S0 VIZ IVO' L60' VEI. Z'ZL toI9 S'I8VT 0811 S9
0'9Vt 912 0g6E. gZ60' LEI' L'Zi £'19 9'001 9g0'V t9
S'OVL BIZ L8£' EZ60' IVI. Z'Et Z'I9 L'6SVI Z£61 £9
8'0V/ O'VZ ME' I60' VVI' [IL 1'19 6ISEVI 0181 Z9
019/ ZIZ 969£' 8160' 8V1' Ili 0'19 T'ZIVI 8081 19
EIVI SIZ Z19£' 9160' TO' 94L 6'09 £'88E1 LVL'E 09
9'IVL L'VZ LZSE' VI60' SSI' l'SL L'09 S19E1 S89'E 6
O'ZVL O'SZ 6EVE' Z1601 6S1' t'SL S'09 WOVET EZ91 8S
E'ZVL E'gZ 6VE£' 6060' £91' Z'9/ £'09 O'LIET WE IS
9ZVL 9'SZ CUE' 9060' 191' 6'9/ 1'09 Z16Z1 OWE 9g
O'EVL 612 £91E' V060' UT' SW 8'6S V'69ZI 8EVI SS
VIV/ Z.9Z COE' 1060' 911' Zli S'a 9'SVZ1 9LE1 VS
81V1 9'9Z 696' 8680' TEIT' 6'8/ Z'6g WIZZI SIPE ES
Z'Vt/ 6'9Z 698Z' V680' 18I' 9'6/ 8.8g 0'8611 ESZ'E ZS
91VL E'LZ 99/Z' 1680' Z6I' 1008 VIS ZILII 1611 IS
1%11 /*CZ Z99Z' 1880' 861' £18 6'1S Vigil 6Z11 Og
9'SVL VIE 9SSZ' £880' VOZ' Z'ZB tea 9'9ZI1 8901 6V
I'9111 L'8Z 8VVZ' 6180' I1Z' Z18 6'9g 8'Z011 9001 et
9'9VL Z'6Z 6£EZ' S/80' 8IZ' Z18 £'9g 0'610I VV6'Z 0
E'LV/ L'6Z 6' 0180' 9ZZ' E'S8 B'SS Z'SGOT £88'Z 9V
6'LVL E'OE 811Z' S980' VEZ' V'98 Z'Sg VIEOT 18'Z St
L'01 6'0£ 900Z' 0980' EtZ' L'a 84S 91LOOT 6SeZ tt
S'6V1 VIE 9681' VS80' ZSZ' 0'68 VIG 8186 /69'Z EV
VC& Z'ZE LBLI' 080' Z9Z' £'06 E'Vg 0'096 9E9'l ZV
VISL 6'ZE 0891' 480' ELZ' 8'16 S'Vg l'9£6 VLS'l It
t'ZSI 91£ Ligl' VE801 V8Z' Z16 e'Vg V'Z16 ZIg'Z OP
V'ESL E'VE 801' 1280' 96' 8't6 Tigg 9'888 OStoi, 6£
SIVSL TIE ZBET. 6180' 80E' V'96 t'SS 8198 68E'Z BE
9'SSL 61g£ 68Z1' 1180' OZE' 0'86 L'Sg 0'48 LZPZ LE
8.9S/ 1'9E 001' £080' fEE' L'66 0'9S 'LIB S9Z'Z 9f
0'8SL 9./E &III' g610' OE' S'IOI V% 10£61 VOZ'Z SE
NS/ SIE VE01' 9810' WE' E'EOI 8'9S L'691 ZVT'Z VE
S'09L te6E Lg60' MO' 9LE' £10T Zqg 6'SVI 080'Z E£
8'191 t'Ot £880' 8910' 16E' Z*101 9'LS I'ZZL EITO'Z ZE
Z19L tett, £180' 8SLO' 90' £'601 I'Bg £'869 LS6IT TE
OUTLET GAS TEMPERATURE 68.2 DEG C

02 N2 CO2 H20
FROM BLEND BOX : .163 049 .038 .050

AMBIENT AIR : .206 082 .000 .012
DRUM INLET : .193 .772 .011 .023
DRUM OUTLET : .172 .686 .010 .132
t**0***M13***Milt********MMUMMMUMMMUMMUMMUMM***MMMUMMUMMI*******************
MIt*****************33****** tUttt*Utict**430113*******0
*1**MX*MM*I********M*** ROTARY DRYER SIMULATION *Mttint*****************13*
t**00011Mt**************0 *****t****1***********MaMt
34140**Mvoc*****mtostmountottmumummummummtnnon**********msomutnummutmonnwa

INTERIOR DRUM DIAMETER 1.2 METERS
DRUM LENGTH AHEAD OF CENTERFILL SECTION ,2 METERS
DRUM SLOPE TO HORIZONTAL ,0 DEGREES

ANBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE 20,0 DEG C
RATIO OF AIR LEAKAGE TO GASES FROM BLEND BOX 2,72 KGRAM/KGRAM
INLET GAS TEMPERATURE FROM BLEND BOX 7520 DEG C
INLET GAS VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE 1,13 METERS03/SECOND
INLET WOOD PARTICLE CONDITIONS!

SOLID WOOD DENSITY 450,0 KGRAMS/METERS**3
BULK DENSITY OF PARTICLES 200,0 KGRAMS/METERS**3
INLET PARTICLE TEMPERATURE 24.1 DEG C
PARTICLE FEED RATE (DRY BASIS) .0817 KGRAMS/SECOND
BEND FACTOR ,750
INTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF REPOSE 82,6 DEGREES
EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE Al AVERAGE POINT OF ENTRY 264,0 DEGREES
DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL ,78 METERS
AVERAGE TIME OF FALL WITHOUT CENTERFILL ,40 SECONDS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FULLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP 4215 METERS133
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0026 NETERS443
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .12 METERM/METERO3

DISTANCE OF PARTICLE FALL FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS ,21 METERS
HOLM CONDITIONS:
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP 4051 METERS03
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN ,26 METERNS3/METER**3
PARTICLE FLOY PATH FROM CASCADE NO. 11 :
AVERAGE TIME OF FALL FROM EXTERIOR TO INTERIOR FLIGHTS ,21 SECONDS
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
CALCULATED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP 0051 METERS**3
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .26 METER**3/METER**3
PARTICLE FLOU PATH FROM CASCADE NO. 27:

EXTERIOR FLIGHT ANGLE OF FINAL CASCADE 1764 DEGREES
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .24 METER**3/METER**3
HOLDUP CONDITIONS:
FOLLY-LOADED DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP .0244 METERSM
FRACTIONAL DRUM SEGMENT HOLDUP OF DESIGN .11 METERW/METERM
t$114$01411,1413011131******#
DATE : 83/12/09.
TIME : 04.29.45.
BULK BULK
(M) (8) (C) (C) (DB) (DB) (J/S) (J/S*M#3)
0 4000 .0 2401 243.1 1.352 .0185 .0008 -I -I

I .125 6.3 34,4 231.2 1.295 .0217 .0010 104.2 489.0
2 .250 12,5 42,6 220.6 1.241 .0248 .0015 98.5 487.5
3 .312 254 48.2 21214 1.196 .0274 .0020 93.4 85502
4 .374 37.4 52.7 204.8 1.152 .0299 .0025 89.5 851.4
5 .435 49.9 5603 197.9 1.110 .0323 00032 85.9 8484
6 .497 62.3 59.2 191.5 1.070 .0346 .0039 82.6 844.7
7 .559 74.7 61.4 185.6 1.031 .0369 .0048 796 841.6
8 .620 87.2 6360 180.1 .994 .0390 00058 76.7 8384
9 .682 99.6 64.2 174.9 .958 .0411 .0069 74,1 835.8
10 .743 112.0 65.0 170,1 .923 .0431 .0081 71.6 83310
11 .807 1246 65.6 165.5 .890 60450 .0095 69.3 806.3
12 .871 136.9 6518 16102 .857 .0468 .0110 67.1 80318
13 .934 149,4 65,8 157.1 .826 10486 .0127 65.1 801.4
14 .998 161.8 65.7 153.2 .797 .0503 .0146 6312 799.1
15 1.061 1743 65,4 149.5 .768 .0520 .0166 61.3 796.8
16 1.125 186.7 65.1 146.0 .740 .0536 .0189 59.6 794.5
17 1.188 199.1 64.6 1420 .713 60551 .0213 5709 792.4
18 1.252 21106 64.1 139.5 .687 .0566 .0240 56.3 7903
19 1.315 2244 63.5 13604 1663 .0580 .0269 5418 788.3
20 1.379 236.5 62.9 133.4 .639 .0594 60300 53.4 786.3
21 1.443 248.9 62.3 130.6 .615 .0607 .0333 52.0 784.5
22 1.506 261.4 6107 127.9 .593 10620 .0369 5006 782.6
23 1.570 273.8 61.1 125.2 .572 .0632 .0408 4903 780.8
24 1.633 286.2 6045 122.7 .551 .0644 .0450 48.1 779.1
25 1.697 2980 59.9 120.2 .531 .0655 .0494 46,9 777.4
26 1.760 311.1 59.4 117.9 .512 .0666 .0542 45.8 775,8
27 1.829 323,6 58.8 115.6 .493 10677 .0592 44.6 712.5
28 1.898 336.0 58,3 113.4 .475 00687 .0646 43.6 711.1
29 1.968 349.5 57.8 111.3 1458 .0697 .0703 42,6 709.7
30 2.037 360.9 57.3 109.3 .441 .0707 .0763 41,6 708.4
31 2.106 373.4 56.9 107.3 .425 .0716 .0826 40.6 707.1
32 2,175 385.8 56.4 105.4 .409 .0725 .0893 39.7 705,9
33 2.244 398,3 56.0 103.6 .394 60734 .0963 38.8 704.7
34 2.313 410.7 55,7 1014 .379 .0742 .1036 37,9 703.5
35 2.382 423.2 55.3 100;1 .365 .0750 .1113 37.1 702.4
36 2.451 435,6 55,0 98.4 .352 .0758 .1193 36.3 7013
37 2.520 448.1 54.7 96,8 .339 .0766 .1276 356 700.2
38 2,590 460.5 54.4 9513 .326 .0773 t1363 34,8 699.2
39 2,659 473.0 54.1 93.8 .314 .0780 .1453 34,1 698,2
40 2.728 485.4 53.9 92,3 .302 .0787 .1546 33.4 697,3
41 2.797 497.9 53.7 90.9 .291 .0793 .1642 32,7 696.3
42 2,866 510.3 53.4 89,6 .280 .0799 .1742 32,0 695.4
43 2,935 522.7 53.2 88.3 .269 .0805 .1844 31,4 694.6
44 3,004 535.2 53.2 87.0 .259 .0811 .1949 30.8 693.7
45 3.073 547.6 53.4 85.8 .250 .0817 .2055 30.2 6934
46 3.142 560.1 53,8 840 .241 .0822 .2163 2947 692.3
47 3.212 57245 543 83.6 .233 .0826 .2270 29.1 691.6
48 3,281 5854 54.8 82.6 .225 .0831 .2377 28.6 691.1
49 3.350 597.4 55,4 81.6 .218 .0835 .2482 28,2 6906
50 3.419 609,9 55.9 80.7 .211 .0839 .2587 27.7 690.0
51 3.488 622.3 56.4 79.9 .205 .0842 .2689 273 689.6
52 3,557 634.8 56.8 79.0 .199 .0846 .2790 26.9 689.1
53 3.626 647.2 5763 78.3 .193 90849 .2890 26.5 688.7
54 3.695 659.7 57.7 77.6 .188 .0852 .2987 26.2 688,3
55 3.764 672,1 58.0 76.9 .183 .0855 .3082 25.8 688.0
56 3,834 684.6 58.3 76.2 .178 .0858 .3175 25.5 687.6
57 3.903 697.0 58,6 75.6 .173 .0860 .3266 25.2 687.3
58 3,972 709.5 58.9 75.1 .169 .0863 .3356 24.9 686.9
59 4.111 715.9 59,1 74.4 .164 60866 .3458 24.7 408.2
60 4,251 722.2 59.4 73.8 .159 .0868 .3560 24.4 40841
61 4.390 728,6 59.5 73.2 .155 .0871 .3659 24.1 408.0
62 4.530 7354 59.7 720 .150 60873 .3755 23.8 4074
63 4,670 741.4 59.9 72.1 .146 .0876 .3849 23.6 407.8
64 4.809 747.7 60.0 71.6 .143 .0878 .3940 23,3 407.7
65 4.949 754.1 60,1 71.2 .139 .0880 .4028 23.1 407.6
66 5.088 760.5 60.2 70,7 .135 .0882 .4114 2219 407,6
67 5.228 766.9 60.2 70.3 .132 .0884 .4198 22.7 4076
68 5.368 773.3 603 69.9 .129 .0886 .4279 22.5 407.4
69 5.507 779.6 60.3 69.5 *126 .0887 .4358 223 407.3
OUTLET PARTICLE TEMPERATURE 60,3 DEG C
OUTLET GAS TEMPERATURE 69,5 DEG C
OUTLET PARTICLE MOISTURE CONTENT FRACTION (DRY BASIS) ,13
OUTLET ABSOLUTE GAS HUMIDITY FRACTION (DRY BASIS) ,089

02 N2 CO2 H20
FROM BLEND BOX : .158 .729 ,038 .075

AMBIENT AIR : .206 .782 .000 ,012
DRUM INLET : .193 .768 .010 ,029
DRUM OUTLET : .174 ,692 ,009 .125
View publication stats

Engineering Analysis of A Rotary Dryer Drying of W

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Analysis of A Rotary Dryer Drying of W

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Engineering Analysis of a Rotary Dryer: Drying of Wood Particles

Article · January 1984

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Frederick A. Kamke for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in

Forest Products presented on September 23, 1983 .

Title: Engineering Analysis of a Rotary Dryer: Drying of Wood

Redacted for Privacy

the particleboard industry. These dryers also play an increasingly

important role in drying wood residues for fuel. Many potential

benefits may be realized through an improved understanding of the

rotary drying process.

A rotary dryer simulation model was developed, in the form of

a computer program, for the purpose of analyzing the drying behavior

of wood particles. The model is applicable to single pass rotary

drums, with or without a centerf ill flighting section. Modifica-

tions to the base program could be made to allow for alternative

rotary drum designs, such as multiple pass drums.

The approach used in the model development analyzed the rotary

drying process in a sequential manner. Beginning with a study of

particle residence time in a rotary drum, the process of heat

transfer, and then mass transfer, were incorporated to yield a

complete rotary dryer simulation model. The resultant computer

for a particular rotary dryer system.

Experiments on a commercially manufactured rotary dryer were

performed to check the performance of the simulation model as a

predictor of overall residence time and drying behavior. The

gas temperature. Measurements of gas temperature, particle

temperature, and particle moisture content were obtained along the

drum length. Comparison between the predictions and the measured

results were good, indicating a percent root mean square error of

22.2 in the prediction of the outlet particle moisture content.

A series of computer simulation trials were performed to check

the affect of inlet particle moisture content, blend-box gas

temperature, drum diameter, air leakage, drum length, gas volumetric

of repose on dryer behavior. It was discovered that an optimal gas

flow rate exists at which the greatest extent of drying may be

achieved. In addition, the presence of centerf ill flights enhances

the extent of drying in a rotary dryer.

The rotary dryer simulation model developed in this study

should prove useful for optimizing process parameters in the drying

All Rights Reserved

Drying of Wood Particles

Oregon State University

Completed September 23, 1983

Commencement June 1984

Redacted for Privacy

Redacted for Privacy

Head of Department of Forest Products

Redacted for Privacy

Date thesis is presented September 23, 1983

Typed by Linda S. Crooks for Frederick A. Kamke

Redacted for Privacy

Redacted for Privacy

Redacted for Privacy

Redacted for Privacy ,

Dr. Philipl E. Humphsista t Professor, Forest Products

Redacted for Privacy

This work is dedicated in memory of my father Donald Arthur

Kamke, whose understanding and support allowed me to pursue a college

I owe devoted gratitude to my wife Carol. Through her love,

A special thanks must go to Jim Wilson. His guidance and

me enough latitude to explore many avenues, but always kept a watch-