Drying

81

Beatriz C. Silvrio1 Juliana M. F. Faanha1 Edu B. Arruda2 Valria V. Murata1 Marcos A. S. Barrozo1
1

Research Article

Federal University of Uberlndia, Chemical Engineering School, Campus Santa Mnica, Uberlndia, MG, Brazil. Federal University of Uberlndia, Faculty of Integrated Sciences of Pontal, Ituiutaba, MG, Brazil.

Fluid Dynamics in Concurrent Rotary Dryers and Comparison of their Performance with a Modified Dryer
The present work analyzed aspects of the fluid dynamics of the conventional concurrent dryer equipped with lifting flights and their influence on the performance of a rotary dryer. The drying of granulated fertilizers (GTSP) in a conventional concurrent rotary dryer was experimentally investigated and compared with a modified configuration known as the roto-aerated dryer. The main feature of this new dryer is the presence of an aerated system consisting of a central pipe (encased in the drum) from which a series of mini-pipes lead hot air directly to the particle bed, flowing at the bottom (without flights). The results obtained confirm the superior performance of the roto-aerated dryer due to its more effective gas-particle contact.
Keywords: Concurrent flow, Drying, Fertilizer, Rotary dryer Received: August 6, 2010; revised: August 30, 2010; accepted: September 28, 2010 DOI: 10.1002/ceat.201000338

Introduction

The design of drying units has become a critical issue as a result of the increasing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy demand. Rotary dryers are a significant capital item for many industrial plants [1]. Conventional rotary dryers are used in many industrial sectors, including the cement, fertilizer, and mineral industries [2], because of their high processing capacity and their greater flexibility in handling a wide variety of materials than other types of dryers. If correctly designed and operated, they provide high thermal efficiencies [3]. Most of the design of a rotary dryer is dictated by experience of the product to be processed, and the application of certain theoretical principles and experimental factors. Many potential benefits can be obtained through a greater 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 particle board industry [4]. A rotary dryer consists of a long cylindrical drum rotating slowly around its own axis at a constant speed. Heat transfer is achieved in direct dryers by passing a hot gas directly over the particulate solid. Some direct dryers contain lifting flights. As

Correspondence: Prof. M. A. S. Barrozo (masbarrozo@ufu.br), Federal University of Uberlndia, Chemical Engineering School, Block 1K, Campus Santa Mnica, 38400-902, Uberlndia, MG, Brazil.

the dryer rotates, the solids are picked up by the flights and carried a certain distance around the periphery before dislodging and falling back as a raining curtain through a stream of hot air, providing intimate contact between the gas and solid streams. Most of the drying occurs during the free fall of solids from the flights because of the large gas-solids surface contact area [5]. The drum usually operates in an inclined position so that the movement of the material is produced by the combined effects of gravity from the upper to the lower end and the action of lifting during cascading of the drum [6]. Directly heated rotary dryers can operate by concurrent or countercurrent contact between the drying gas and the solids. Concurrent operations are more often used than countercurrent even though the latter mode of operation is more energy efficient. The main drawback for countercurrent applications is the higher temperature of the final product, resulting in handling problems and possible deterioration of some heatsensitive materials [7]. Rotary dryers are designed based on theoretical formulae and by modifying factors determined from operating experience. Occasionally, the required factors may be established by pilot tests if insufficient data are available. The most important factors that influence dryer design and performance are the load percentage, moisture content, air flow rate, physical properties of the solids, dryer inclination angle, rotational speed, dryer length, dryer diameter, shape and configuration of lifting flights, and residence time [8]. The residence time of particles in rotary dryers is an important parameter that directly influences mass and heat transfer. In view of stringent product quality specifications, it is necessary to simplify experimental

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2011, 34, No. 1, 8186

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.cet-journal.com

82

B. C. Silvrio et al.

methods for the proper prediction of residence time, mass flow rate and particle holdup, and to optimize the design and operation of rotary dryers [9]. Arruda [10] compared the fluid dynamics of a countercurrent rotary dryer with two- and threesegment flights. Equations to predict the solids holdup and length of fall were evaluated and their predictions, which were compared with experimental data, showed good agreement. An optimized configuration of the countercurrent rotary dryer was proposed by this author. Puyveld [11] proposed a new model to calculate the holdup of material of different lifter geometries and to estimate the amount of material lost from those lifters in order to demonstrate the performance of these Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the experimental apparatus. lifters during rotation in a cascading dryer. Good agreement was observed when compared with ted dryer and the conventional rotary dryer considering a conexperimental results. Because of the complexity involved in escurrent operation. timating some parameters, most rotary dryers are over-deThe present work evaluated the effects of rotational speed, signed, wasting thermal energy and, hence, leading to unnecesair velocity, material flow rate, and drum slope on the mean sarily high costs. Due to these difficulties, the conventional residence time and holdup in a concurrent rotary dryer. The rotary dryer has undergone some modifications to improve its performance of the concurrent rotary dryer was then comperformance [12]. pared with that of a roto-aerated dryer. In order to improve drying efficacy, another version of the rotary dryer, known as the roto-aerated dryer, was evaluated by Arruda et al. [12]. According to these authors, the roto-aerated 2 Materials and Methods dryer provides better mass and energy transfer between the hot air and the solids than the countercurrent conventional rotary dryer. The main characteristic of the roto-aerated dryer 2.1 Materials is its aerated system, which consists of a central pipe (encased The particles used in this study were granular single super in the drum), from which a series of mini-pipes carry hot air phosphate (SSP) fertilizer [14] with 2.45-mm Sauter mean directly to the particle bed flowing at the bottom of the drum diameter, 1100 kg m3 particle density, and 0.245 kcal kg1C1 (without flights). Fig. 1 illustrates the air distribution in this heat capacity with an initial moisture content of 0.12 to new dryer, while Fig. 2 shows a schematic diagram of air distri0.15 kg water/kg dry solids. bution in the roto-aerated dryer.

2.2

Experimental Apparatus

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of air distribution in the roto-aerated dryer.

In the roto-aerated dryer, the gas-particle contact occurs as long as the solids remains in the dryer, unlike the cascading conventional dryer, where this contact occurs mostly as the particles fall from the flights. Higher heat and mass transfer coefficients were observed in previous studies, indicating the greater efficacy of the roto-aerated dryer than the conventional device operating under countercurrent flow conditions [13]. These findings motivated a more detailed study to identify and quantify the differences in performance between the roto-aera-

Fig. 2 shows the experimental apparatus, which consisted of a 5.6-kW blower, an air heating system with electrical resistances controlled by a Variac transformer, the rotary dryer (conventional or roto-aerated), and a conveyor belt to transport the solids mounted under a silo of moist fertilizer. The feed rate was adjustable by the speed of the conveyor belt. The hot air entered the rotary dryer in a concurrent flow with the solids. The rotary dryer was 1.5 m long and 0.3 m wide, and was built to allow for changes in the drums angle of inclination and rotation. It could be operated with any number and types of flights or adapted to the roto-aerated configuration.

2.3

Experimental Conditions

The mean residence time and particle holdup of a rotary dryer are associated with conditions such as rotational speed, drum slope, gas flow rate, and material flow rate. An experimental fluid dynamics study was made in a concurrent conventional

www.cet-journal.com

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2011, 34, No. 1, 8186

Drying

83

rotary dryer operating under the following conditions: rotational speed: 25 rpm; drum slope (a1)): 13; gas flow rate (vair): 1.13.9 m s1, and material flow rate (Gsu): 0.01 0.023 kg s1. To measure the particle holdup, the dryer was stopped, and the material was removed and weighed on an analytical balance. The mean residence time was determined by placing a tracer pulse (marked particles of fertilizer) directly at the inlet of the dryer and measuring its fraction at the outlet. The solids moisture content was determined by the stove method (24 h at 105 2 C). Air and solids temperatures were measured using copper-constantan thermocouples. Based on previous studies [10] and the results of the experimental fluid dynamic tests of this work, the best configuration for the conventional concurrent rotary dryer was found to be three-segment flights with dimensions of L1 = 0.02 m, L2 = L3 = 0.007 m, a drum inclination angle of 3, and a rotational speed of 3.6 rpm. The roto-aerated dryer tested here was equipped with 56 mini-pipes of 9 mm i.d. connected to the main pipe in the rotating drum. The performance of the roto-aerated dryer and the conventional rotary cascade dryer, operating under concurrent flow conditions, were compared using an experimental design. The variables analyzed were the solids flow rate (Gsu), air velocity (vair), and dry air temperature (Tf ) at several levels, chosen by a central composite design with four replicates at the central levels [15]. The levels of these variables in each experiment are shown in Tab. 1.

Table 1. Operating conditions of each experiment.

Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 vair [m s1] 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.09 3.91 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Tf [C] 75 75 95 95 75 75 95 95 85 85 70.9 99.1 85 85 85 85 85 85 GSu [kg s1] 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.020 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.012 0.022 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017

3
3.1

Results and Discussion

Fluid Dynamic Study of the Conventional Concurrent Rotary Dryer

3.1.1 Influence of Rotational Speed Fig. 3 shows the influence of rotation speed on the particle holdup (H*) and on the residence time (s) with their respective deviations. The other operating conditions of these experiments performed with the conventional rotary dryer with concurrent flow are: air flow rate of 2.5 m s1, drum slope of 3.0, and a material feed rate of 0.017 kg s1. The transport of solids through the drum occurs by the combined effect of the solids cascading from the flights and the drag force exerted by the gas acting on the particles. Each cascade comprises a cycle of lifting on a flight and falling through the air stream. The axial transport of particles occurs mainly during the falling process. The higher the rotational speed, the larger the number of falling particles and the fewer particles remain held in the drum. Thus, particle holdup and residence time decrease as rotational speed increases, as indicated in Fig. 3.

Figure 3. Influence of rotational speed on particle holdup (H*) and on residence time (s).

3.1.2 Influence of Air Velocity (vair) Fig. 4 shows the variation in particle holdup (H*) and residence time (s) as a function of air flow rate with their respective deviations, in the conventional rotary dryer with concurrent flow operating at a drum slope of 3.0, rotational speed of 3.6 rpm, and a material feed rate of 0.017 kg s1. As Fig. 4 indicates, particle holdup (H*) decreases as the air flow rate increases. The drag force exerted by the gas on the particles becomes more pronounced with increasing air flow rate, which can cause axial displacement of the particles. The same mechanism causes the residence time to decrease with increasing air flow rate.

1) List of symbols at the end of the paper.

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2011, 34, No. 1, 8186

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.cet-journal.com

84

B. C. Silvrio et al.

Figure 4. Influence of air velocity (vair) on particle holdup (H*) and on residence time (s).

Figure 6. Influence of drum slope (a) on particle holdup (H*) and on residence time (s).

3.1.3 Influence of Material Feed Rate (Gsu) Fig. 5 illustrates the variation in H* and s as a function of the feed rate and their respective deviations. The other operating conditions of these experiments were: air flow rate of 2.5 m s1, drum slope of 3.0, and a rotational speed of 3.6 rpm.

conventional rotary dryer with concurrent flow operating at an air flow rate of 2.5 m s1, rotational speed of 3.6 rpm, and material feed rate of 0.017 kg s1. Fig. 6 indicates that particle holdup and residence time decreased as the drum inclination angle increased. The main effect of the drum slope is the axial distance through which particles are carried downstream during each cascade. When the drum slope increases, the component of the gravitational force of a single particle in the axial direction also increases. Hence, there is an increment in the particles axial velocity, which reduces particle holdup and residence time.

3.2

Comparison of the Performance of Conventional Concurrent Rotary Dryer and Roto-Aerated Dryer

Figure 5. Influence of material feed rate (Gsu) on particle holdup (H*) and on residence time (s).

At a low feed rate, the gas flow exerted a strong drag force on the particles, which were more easily entrained in the direction of the flowing gas. This explains the result depicted in Fig. 5, i.e., particle holdup increased with increasing feed rate. The results in Fig. 5 indicate that the increase in feed rate exerted only a small effect on residence time. The residence time can be predicted by the following Eq. (1): s H Gsu 1 (1

The figures below show the experimental results of residence time, drying rate, and solids and air temperatures in each configuration studied here, i.e., the conventional rotary dryer with concurrent flow and the roto-aerated dryer. The experimental conditions are described in Tab. 1. Residence time (s) is plotted in Fig. 7. In the roto-aerated dryers, s was 36 % shorter than in the conventional concurrent dryer. Hence, the processing capacity of this new equipment is also expected to be better than that of the conventional rotary cascade dryer. In the conventional rotary dryer, the action of particles lifted by the flights, sliding and rolling through them, then falling in

As can be seen in the previous figure, H* increased almost linearly in response to increasing feed rate (Gsu). Thus, as the denominator increased, the numerator increased in the same proportion, leaving the residence time almost unchanged.

3.1.4 Influence of Drum Slope (a) Fig. 6 shows the variation in H* and s as a function of the drum inclination angle, and their respective deviations, in the
Figure 7. Residence times (s) of the roto-aerated and conventional concurrent rotary dryers (see experimental conditions in Tab. 1).

www.cet-journal.com

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2011, 34, No. 1, 8186

Drying

85

spreading cascades through an air stream and re-entering the bed at the bottom, possibly bouncing and rolling [16] determines the s levels. Particle motion in the roto-aerated dryer is simpler, thus providing a shorter residence time. Fig. 8 shows the drying rates obtained in the conventional concurrent and roto-aerated configurations in all the experiments of this study. Note that the drying rate in the roto-aerated dryer was 3.8- to 5.8-fold higher than in the conventional concurrent rotary dryer. These results clearly show the superior performance of the new dryer.

Figure 10. Difference between inlet and oulet air temperatures (Tf ) in the roto-aerated and conventional concurrent rotary dryers (see conditions in Tab. 1).

drying performance is due to the better gas-particle contact in the roto-aerated dryer. In this novel device, the gas-particle contact persists as long as the solids remain in the dryer, unlike the conventional cascade dryer in which this contact occurs mostly while the particles fall from the flights.

Figure 8. Drying rate (Rw) in the roto-aerated and conventional concurrent rotary dryers (see conditions in Tab. 1).

Conclusions

Fig. 9 shows the change in solids temperature, i.e., the difference between inlet and outlet solids temperatures in each dryer configuration. In the roto-aerated dryer, the changes in solids temperature were 1.4- to 3.6-fold greater than in the conventional concurrent rotary dryer. These results confirm the better gas-particle contact in the roto-aerated dryer, presumably due to the higher heat transfer coefficients obtained in this nonconventional rotary dryer. The results of the difference between inlet and outlet air temperature are plotted in Fig. 10. It can be observed, as for solids temperature, that the air temperature changes in the roto-aerated dryer configuration were 1.1- to 1.7-fold greater than in the conventional dryer. All the results of the present work confirm the superior performance of the roto-aerated dryer. This improvement in

In this work, the fluid dynamic behavior of the conventional rotary dryer with concurrent flow was investigated experimentally. The effects of rotational speed, air velocity, material feed rate, and drum slope on particle holdup and residence time were analyzed. The performance of two rotary dryer configurations, i.e., the conventional cascade dryer with concurrent flow and the rotoaerated dryer, were compared based on experimental results. The roto-aerated dryer showed a 36 % shorter residence time (on average) than the conventional concurrent cascade configuration, thus indicating that its processing capacity is higher than that of the conventional cascade dryer. The difference between inlet and outlet solids temperature was 1.4- to 3.6-fold higher in the roto-aerated dryer than in the conventional concurrent rotary dryer. Similarly, the air temperature changes were 1.1- to 1.7-fold greater than in the conventional dryer. Moreover, the drying rate in the roto-aerated dryer was 3.8- to 5.8-fold higher than in the conventional concurrent rotary dryer. All these results confirm the better gas-particle contact in the roto-aerated dryer, resulting in higher rates of heat transfer and mass in this non-conventional rotary dryer.

Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful for financial aid from Fundao de Amparo Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento (CNPq), Brazil.
Figure 9. Difference between outlet and inlet solids temperature (Ts) in the roto-aerated and conventional concurrent rotary dryers (see conditions in Tab. 1).

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2011, 34, No. 1, 8186

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

www.cet-journal.com

86

B. C. Silvrio et al.

Symbols used
G H* L Rw T vair [kg s1] [kg] [m] [103 s1] [C] [m s1] solids flow rate particle holdup length of the segment drying rate temperature gas velocity

Greek letters a s Subscripts su f s w 1 2 3 solids humidity fluid solid water first segment second segment third segment [] [s] drum slope residence time

References
[1] N. J. Fernandes, C. H. Ataide, M. A. S. Barrozo, Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2009, 26, 331.

[2] P. F. Britton, M. E. Sheehan, P. A. Schneider, Powder Technol. 2006, 165, 153. [3] M. H. Lisboa et al., Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2007, 24, 365. [4] F. Geng et al., Powder Technol. 2009, 193, 50. [5] A. Lee, M. E. Sheehan, Powder Technol. 2010, 198, 395. [6] Q. Xu, S. Pang, Drying Technol. 2008, 26, 1344. [7] F. A. Kemke, Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon State University, Oregon 1984. [8] F. S. Lobato, Jr., V. Steffen, E. B. Arruda, M. A. S. Barrozo, J. Phys:. Conf. Ser. 2008, 135, 12063. [9] J. Konides, M.Sc. Dissertation, University of Concordia, Montreal, Qubec, CA. 1984. [10] E. B. Arruda, Ph.D. Thesis, Federal University of Uberlndia, Uberlndia, Brazil (in Portuguese) 2008. [11] D. R. V. Puyveld, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2009, 87, 226. [12] E. B. Arruda et al., Chem. Eng. Process. 2009, 48, 1414. [13] E. B. Arruda, F. S. Lobato, A. J. Assis, M. A. S. Barrozo, Drying Technol. 2009, 27, 1192. [14] L. G. M. Vieira, E. A. Barbosa, J. J. R. Damasceno, M. A. S. Barrozo, Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2005, 22, 143. [15] M. J. Box, W. G. Hunter, J. S. Hunter, Statistics for experiments: An introduction to design, data analysis and model building, John Wiley and Sons, New York 1978. [16] Proc. of the 14th Int. Drying Symposium (Eds: M. A. Silva, S. C. S Rocha), So Paulo, Brazil 2004.

www.cet-journal.com

2011 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

Chem. Eng. Technol. 2011, 34, No. 1, 8186