ANALYSIS OF BIOMASS DRYING UNIT AND

EXHAUST FLUE GAS WORK POTENTIAL

Submitted by
AMRIT OM NAYAK
(Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering Graduate Student)

Guided by
Mr. Amirhossein Amini (Instructor)
&
Mr. Nick Stelzenmuller (Teaching Assistant)



UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

December 9, 2013

1

Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3
1.1. Problem Description .............................................................................................. 3
1.2. Literature Review .................................................................................................. 4
2. Methodology: .............................................................................................................. 5
2.1. Flow domain design for test case ........................................................................... 5
2.2. Theory ................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Selection of suitable heat storing fluid for rapid moisture removal from
biomass slurry .......................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Evaluating work potential of exhaust flue gas .................................................. 9
2.3. Problem Sketch ................................................................................................ 11
2.4. Procedure to create the COMSOL flow domain................................................... 13
2.4.1 Flow domain for optimal heat storing fluid testing for biomass moisture
removal system ....................................................................................................... 13
3. Analytical Calculations: ............................................................................................. 21
3.1 Selection of heat storing fluid ............................................................................... 21
3.1.1 Reynolds number calculation ......................................................................... 21
3.1.2 Energy absorbed by biomass .......................................................................... 22
3.2 Available work potential in exhaust flue gas (total fluid domain is larger: 1:10
scale).......................................................................................................................... 22
3.2.1 Reynolds number calculation ......................................................................... 23
3.2.1 Maximum theoretical available work (Wmax) calculation
3.2.2 Calculation of hydrostatic energy of flue gas (Qh) .......................................... 23
3.2.3 Calculation of viscous energy in fluid pocket (Qv) ......................................... 24
3.2.4 Energy absorbed by biomass .......................................................................... 24
4. Numerical results & calculations obtained from COMSOL simulation ...................... 24
4.1 Selection of heat storing fluid ............................................................................... 24
4.1.1 Analysis for 20W50 motor oil as the heat storing fluid .................................. 25

2

4.1.2 Analysis for monoethylenglycol (20% mix) as the heat storing fluid.............. 27
4.1.3 Analysis for ammonia as the heat storing fluid ............................................... 29
4.2 Available work potential in exhaust flue gas (total fluid domain is larger: 1:10
scale).......................................................................................................................... 31
4.2.1 Analysis of 20W50 motor oil in larger domain (scale 1:10) ........................... 31
4.2.2 Calculations for evaluating work potential of flue gas .................................... 38
5. Inferences .................................................................................................................. 39
5.1 Best heat storing fluid for the given system (for domain with 1:160 scale) ........... 39
5.2 Comparison of conductive heat flux with time for the various heat storing fluids
used in section 5.1 for domain with scale of 1:160 ..................................................... 40
5.3 Flue gas work potential evaluation ....................................................................... 41
6. Comparison with past research for heat storage material and validation ..................... 41
6.1 Results from earlier research work [12] ................................................................ 41
6.1.1 Plots for use of naphthalene as phase change material to store heat ................ 41
6.1.2 Plots for use of paraffin wax as phase change material to store heat ............... 42
6.1.3 Plots for use of sodium acetate tri-hydrate as phase change material to store
heat......................................................................................................................... 43
6.2 Heat absorbed by heat storage fluids in the present COMSOL analysis. ............... 43
6.3 Selection of best heat storing material for use in biomass moisture removal system
................................................................................................................................... 44
References ..................................................................................................................... 45









3


ABSTRACT
Moisture content in biomass is one of the major reasons for drop in power generation efficiency
in biomass based power plants. Removal of this moisture is a major challenge especially during
monsoon and winter. A design is proposed to achieve moisture reduction in minimum time by
using waste heat recovery approach. A fluid bed (which can store heat) is continuously heated by
exhaust flue gas from the biomass plant. This warm bed is used as a moisture removal system.
Analysis of this system with various fluids will be carried out to obtain optimal results using
COMSOL software. A special arrangement of a high resistance fluid packet with a static cylinder
is used in the flow path of flue gas to study flow pattern and gas penetration which will help us
estimate the work potential of exhaust flue gas from the system and corroborate with
thermodynamically obtained analytical values.
Keywords: Moisure; waste heat recovery; heat storage fluid; COMSOL; work potential; flue gas
1. Introduction
1.1. Problem Description
This report deals with the study of performance of heat storage fluids in speeding up the process
of moisture removal from fuel biomass. The heat storage fluid functions like a thermal energy
storage system (TESS) for all practical purposes. Biomass plants acquire multiple grades of
naturally occurring biomass. This includes wood chips, organic waste, dead organic matter, agro-
waste etc. Majority of these contain varying degrees of moisture. The Calorific value of a fuel is
affected greatly by presence of moisture content. Moisture content in fuel is due to its interaction
with atmospheric air at higher levels of humidity. High moisture content in the fuel has a
negative impact on the combustion that takes place in the combustor or gasifier. Fuel with high
moisture content leads to a multitude of issues such as rust oxide formation, heat loss and
irreversibility due to vapor formation, explosive steam pockets during combustion, lower
combustion efficiency, uneven flame distribution, incomplete combustion resulting in emission
of carbon monoxide and particulate matter. This report proposes a cost effective moisture

4

removal system for biomass such that heat trapped from exhaust flue gas can be reused for useful
work. This research also attempts to analyze the available work potential of exhaust flue gas to
propose effective heat reuse for useful work. A fluid pocket containing viscous fluid with
relatively high specific heat capacity and high thermal conductivity is placed in the path of
exhaust flue gas for this express purpose. The system for moisture removal from biomass was
designed for Shriram biomass power plant in Vandavasi, Tamilnadu, India by considering both
energy conservation and economy. This power plant has a capacity of 7.5 MW capacity provided
with 12 stage turbine and bleed circuit.
1.2. Literature Review
Study of past research in the field essentially helped choose the heat storage fluids best suited for
analysis of the test cases in the proposed system. Regin et al. [1] proposed a paper that analyzes
the characteristics of a packed bed latent heat thermal energy storage system (TESS). The
packed bed consists of spherical capsules filled with paraffin wax as phase change material
(PCM). Zhang et al. [2] found that expanded graphite composite phase change material had a
large thermal storage capacity and improved thermal conductivity. He obtained a thermal
conductivity value higher than that of paraffin. Sari et al. [3] determined the amount of paraffin
absorbed into expanded graphite to obtain form-stable composite as phase change material. Pabis
et al. [4] proposed a mathematical nonlinear model for first period drying and verified the same
experimentally. Sathiamurthi et al. [5] has studied the feasibility of recovering waste heat from
air conditioning units for heating water. Jankes et al. [6] proposed a method for utilizing the
waste heat from paper and cardboard industry, and also calculated the quantity of waste heat
available in the industry. Meunier [7] proposed a system which cascades the zeolite- water
absorption and activated carbon-methanol storage system for higher system efficiency. Ringler
et al. [8] analyzed the potential of Rankine cycle to generate power using waste heat from IC
engines. Shudo et al. [9] utilized exhaust-gas heat effectively to improve the overall thermal
efficiency. Bundela et al. [10] has proposed to install a 9 MW power plant using waste heat
recovery system in the cement industry. Amrit et al. [11] carried out a software aided
performance analysis on use of various PCM material such as paraffin wax, sodium acetate tri-
hydrate and phenolphthalein in TESS for optimal reuse of waste heat from automobile engine
coolants and validated the same with experimentally obtained results. Gowtham et al. [12]

5

analyzed performance of PCM such as paraffin wax, sodium acetate tri-hydrate when coupled
with high speed moisture removal systems in biomass plants and validated the research findings
by successful implementation of the proposed system in Shriram Biomass Power Plant in
Vandavasi, Tamil Nadu, India. The analysis and design were based on time taken to dry 2.5 tons
of biomass in 5 minutes if the amount of fuel supplied per hour is 30 tons.
2. Methodology:
The system for removing the moisture content in the biomass was designed by considering both
energy conservation and economy. Data collection for design of the system was done at Shriram
biomass power plant in Tamilnadu, India. This power plant has a capacity of 7.5 MW capacity
provided with 12 stage turbine and bleed circuit. Amount of fuel supplied per hour was
calculated as 30 tons. So the bed of area, 50m
2
was designed based on time taken for drying 2.5
tons of biomass is 5 minutes. This system was modeled in COMSOL for feasibility and
verification of predicted output. This drying unit was provided with conical fins containing heat
storing fluid for enhancement heat transfer. Exhaust flue gas from the economizer passes through
chimney at 430 K. This waste heat can be recovered by creating the warm bed filled with heat
storing fluid. Waste heat from the flue gases was absorbed by the dryer bed for optimum drying
of biomass. The selection of material for the warm bed is studied using simulation results of
COMSOL. Selection of heat storing fluid was based on the thermal properties and availability.
Heat transfer between the flue gas and heat storing fluid and biomass was studied. Further,
available work potential of exhaust flue gas after passing through the biomass drying unit is also
evaluated using a combination of thermodynamic analytical method and COMSOL simulation
results.
2.1. Flow domain design for test case
The problem analysis is divided into two parts namely,
i) Selection of best heat storing fluid for rapid moisture removal from biomass slurry.
ii) Evaluating work potential of exhaust flue gas
Software used for problem analysis: COMSOL

6

A suitable flow domain is created in COMSOL software for analyzing the various test cases.
Preliminary simulation efforts highlighted the need for creating two separate flow domain
models to analyze each of the above two cases separately.
Analysis for the first of the above two mentioned cases is done on a flow domain which is in
1:160 scale of the original unit size. Choice of such a small scale was influenced mainly by the
limitations imposed by computational resources (which were evident by the enormous time taken
by COMSOL to analyze a 1:1 scale flow domain model of the actual test case).
The work potential of exhaust flue gas was evaluated by analyzing a flow domain of 1:10
scale of the original. A larger scale was chosen for this since convective heat transfer, conductive
heat transfer, internal energy, total energy flux, viscous energy and the flow penetration graphs
yielded unrealistic values for a scale smaller than 1:10.


2.2. Theory
Heat transfer in heat storing fluid based TESS is characterized by a moving fluid-fluid interface,
generally referred to as the moving boundary problem. It is a transient, non-linear
phenomenon. Analytical solutions are only known for a couple of physical situations which
possess a simple geometry and simple boundary conditions, as nonlinearity poses major
difficulties in moving boundary problems. Neumann originated the most well-known precise
analytical solution for a one-dimensional moving boundary problem, called the Stefan problem.
Some analytical approximations for one-dimensional moving boundary problems with different
boundary conditions are the quasi-stationary approximation, perturbation methods, the Megerlin
method and the Heat-balance-integral method. It has been assumed here the specific heat
capacity of the heat storing fluid remains constant throughout the simulation in order to boost
computational speeds. However these problems are usually solved with finite difference or finite
element methods in accordance with the numerical approach. Very high temperature cases may
sometimes lead to phase change in the heat storing fluids. The phase change phenomenon has to
be then modeled separately due the non-linear nature of the problem. A wide range of different

7

kinds of numerical methods for solving such problems exist. The most common methods used
are the enthalpy method and the effective heat capacity method [11].
2.2.1 Selection of suitable heat storing fluid for rapid moisture removal from biomass slurry
Selection of a suitable heat storing fluid depends on the amount of heat captured by it from
exhaust flue gas and the time taken by it to transfer the same to biomass. This can be done by
comparing and combining the analytical solutions with the numerically obtained values.
Analytical solution can be obtained by using the following equation.
Q = m Cp T [Equation 2.2.1a]
Where, Q = energy absorbed by heat storing fluid from exhaust flue gas in kJ
m = mass in kg
Cp = specific heat capacity at constant pressure in J/kg.K
T = temperature difference in K (this is obtained from COMSOL simulation results)
This equation will suffice here since we are dealing with low inlet temperature of 430 K of the
exhaust flue gas. This low relatively low value of inlet temperature does not cause any kind of
phase change in the heat storing fluid. Therefore, we do not need to consider the latent heat of
vaporization while dealing with any of the heat storing fluids. This greatly simplifies the analysis
and helps speed up computation in the flow domain during COMSOL simulation. We know that
the heat storing fluid which absorbs the maximum amount of energy, Q, in the least amount of
time is essentially the most effective fluid for the system.
We also calculate the Reynolds number in all the cases. It is given by the equation:
Re = ( v DH)/ [Equation 2.2.1b]
Where, DH is the diameter of the pipe or diameter of cylinder for flow past cylinder (in m).
v is the mean velocity of the fluid (in m/s).
the dynamic viscosity of the fluid (Pa s or N s/m or kg/(m s)).
is the density of the fluid (kg/m).




8

The three heat storing fluids used as test cases are listed below along with their properties.
i) 20W50 Motor Oil
TABLE 1. Properties of 20W50 motor oil

ii) Monoethylenglycol (20% mix)
TABLE 2. Properties of monoethylenglycol (20% mix)

iii) Ammonia gas
TABLE 3. Properties of ammonia






9

Properties of flue gas and biomass are listed below:
TABLE 4. Properties of flue gas and biomass
Property Flue Gas Biomass
Density ()(in kg/m
3
) 0.748 1250
Dynamic Viscosity () (in
Pa.s)
24.5 13.82
Thermal Conductivity (k) (in
W/m.K)
0.0384 0.105
Heat Capacity at constant
pressure (Cp) (in J/kg.K)
1097 1545
Ratio of specific heats () 1.3767 1.1

2.2.2 Evaluating work potential of exhaust flue gas
The maximum available thermodynamic work potential of the exhaust flue gas (or its reversible
work potential) is evaluated analytically using thermodynamic relations. We term this work
potential as Wmax. This value is taken as the reference value. We evaluate the energy given by
flue gas to biomass by analyzing the system in COMSOL for the simulation and numerical
analysis. Let us call this heat energy as Qfb. Now COMSOL analysis helps us plot streamlines
which help us figure out the flue gas penetration into the viscous fluid pocket. We obtain the
pressure graph and calculate the hydrostatic force acting at the interface between flue gas and
viscous fluid in the pocket. The flow penetration of flue gas is given by the recirculation zone
length observed from the streamline plot. The product of this length and the hydrostatic force
give us the hydrostatic energy of exhaust flue gas. Let us term this hydrostatic energy as Qh. We
then evaluate the internal energy change in flue gas by plotting the graph in the post processing
section of COMSOL. Let us term this change in internal energy as Qie. The line integral of the
domain outlet helps us obtain the viscous drag force value in the domain. The product of viscous
drag force and the flow penetration length give us the value of energy lost by flue gas due to
viscous forces. We term this viscous energy loss as Qv. We also know that every system has
irreversibility associated with it. We term this irreversible work lost as Qi. But for simplicity and

10

also due to lack of computational resources (since lots of new variables are generated due to this
term), we assume the processes to be ideal and therefore neglect irreversibility. Also let us term
the actual available work potential of flue gas in the system (before heat transfer to biomass) as
Wa1. Also let us term the actual available work potential of flue gas in the system after heat
transfer to biomass as Wa2. Now ideally,
Wa1 = Qfb + Qh
And Wa2 = Qh [Equation set 2.2.2a]
Ideally, we should observe that Wa1 < Wmax. This is due to the work potential lost by the system
due to irreversibility (Qi). But since we neglect irreversibility, our Wa1 Wmax
Now, after neglecting irreversibility, we deduce that:
Qie = Wmax + Qv (Qfb + Qh)
Hence, Wmax = (Qie + Qfb + Qh) - Qv [Equation set 2.2.2b]
We calculate Wmax by using exergy analysis approach [15]. Exergy is defined as the maximum
amount of useful work that a system can perform when brought into thermodynamic equilibrium
with its surrounding by reversible processes. The theoretical maximum power production
available can be calculated by using the classic exergy equation (Wmax, physical exergy):
Wmax = (e eo) = (h ho To (s so) [Equation 2.2.2c]
Where is the mass flow, e the initial exergy of a stream of substance, eo the exergy of a stream
of substance in the state of the surroundings, h the initial enthalpy, s the initial entropy, To is
temperature [K] of the surroundings. Flue gas is assumed to follow the equation of state for a
perfect gas. Hence, for flue gas physical exergy is calculated using:
Wmax = [Cp (T To) To {(Cp ln (T/To)) ((R/M) (ln (p/po))}] [Equation 2.2.2d]
Where T is the temperature [K] of the excess heat, Cp the average specific heat capacity between
the temperatures T and To, R the molar gas constant, M the molar mass of the gas, p the pressure
of the stream and po the pressure of the surroundings.
This approach helps us combine the analytical thermodynamic results with the numerical results
obtained from COMSOL simulation and thereby enables us to test the stability of the solution.

11

We use the larger flow domain and use only one fluid, 20W50 motor oil to do this (since
available work potential of flue gas will remain the same irrespective of any heat storing fluid
that is used for testing during the course of COMSOL simulation).
2.3. Problem Sketch

Figure 1(a) Flow domain for analysis

Figure 1(b) Section highlighted in blue represents biomass

12


Figure 1(c) Section highlighted in blue represents flue gas

Figure 1(d) Section highlighted in blue represents relatively high viscosity, high thermal conductivity heat
storage fluid

Figure 1(e) Section highlighted in blue represents static cylinder

13

2.4. Procedure to create the COMSOL flow domain
2.4.1 Flow domain for optimal heat storing fluid testing for biomass moisture removal system
Non-Isothermal flow:
This physics module is selected for solving the flow domain created. This physics solver is
chosen when a fluid is subjected to a temperature change such that its material properties, such
as density and viscosity, change accordingly. In some situations, these changes are large enough
to have a substantial influence on the flow field. Since the fluid transports heat, the temperature
field is affected by changes in the flow field. Hence, a non-isothermal flow is always a two-way
coupling between fluid flow and heat transfer [13].
This physics can be added to the model by right clicking on the model builder tree and
selecting add physics option. Non-isothermal physics for laminar flow is chosen for the present
analysis. Time-dependent study condition is chosen such that flow of heat into or outside the
system can be studied over a period of time.
Geometry of the flow domain:
Dimensions of fluid pocket:

Figure 2(a) Fluid pocket dimensions

14

Dimensions of static cylinder:

Figure 2(b) Static cylinder dimensions
Dimensions of flue gas domain:

Figure 2(c) Flue gas domain dimensions

15

Dimensions of biomass domain:

Figure 2(d) Biomass domain dimensions
Dimensions of heat storage fluid domains (rectangular and prismatic domains):

Figure 2(e) Heat storage fluid domain (rectangular) dimensions

16


Figure 2(f) Heat storage fluid prismatic domain dimensions
Flow domain settings and parameters (inlet, outlet, boundary and initial conditions):

Figure 3(a) Non-isothermal flow domain

Figure 3(b) Fluid domain (highlighted in blue)

17


Figure 3(c) Thermal insulation layer

Figure 3(d) Wall with slip condition (since we neglect viscous forces at flow domain boundary for faster
computation). We are mainly interested in viscous forces inside the flow domain.

Figure 3(e) Initial values (Temperature = 300 K) of biomass domain and fluid pocket

18


Figure 3(f) Inlet condition of flue gas (inlet mass flow rate)

Figure 3(g) Outlet at fluid pocket (avoids violation of conservation of mass principle during simulation)

Figure 3(h) Flue gas inlet temperature = 430 K

19


Figure 3(i) No slip wall condition at static cylinder boundary

Figure 3(j) Initial values of flue gas domain

Figure 3(k) Interior wall settings to prevent diffusion of flue gas, heat storage fluid and biomass into each
other.

20


Figure 3(l) Highly conductive layer settings for interior boundary interface between flue gas & heat
storage fluid, flue gas & biomass, heat storage fluid & biomass. Aluminium is chosen as the material for
the highly conductive layer with a minimal thickness of 0.0001 m in order to enhance rate of heat
conduction and thereby reduce computation time.

Figure 3(m) Initial values (Temperature = 300 K) of heat storing fluid domain

Figure 3(n) Heat outflow from outlet (to simulate the effect of heat and mass transfer)

21


Figure 3(o) Extra fine mesh in the entire domain
3. Analytical Calculations:
3.1 Selection of heat storing fluid
3.1.1 Reynolds number calculation: [Refer equation 2.2.1b]
Reynolds number of flow in the flue gas domain is given by:
Refg = (0.748 0.0167 0.002)/24.5 = 1.019722449E-6
Reynolds number of flow in the fluid pocket while passing over static cylinder is given by:
*Refp = (0.748 0.0167 0.006)/24.5 = 3.059167347E-6
*NOTE & INFERENCE:
This theoretical value of Reynolds number for flue gas flow over the static cylinder is obtained
by assuming zero resistance flow path for flue gas inside fluid pocket domain. This is done
because in reality the Reynolds number will change continuously from the inlet of fluid pocket up
to its outlet due to continual flow resistance (as we have high viscous medium in fluid pocket in
the actual simulation set up) resulting in changing flow velocities. But we observe that the very
small ideal Reynolds number value and very small inlet flow velocity values as well as the very
small dimensions of the flow domain can help us safely assume that Reynolds number will

22

remain fairly low throughout the simulation and the flow will therefore be laminar for all
practical purposes during the course of this simulation work.
3.1.2 Energy absorbed by biomass [Refer equation 2.2.1a]
Qfb = m Cp T = m 1545 T (in Joules) [Equation 3.1.2a]
We now, calculate mass of biomass in the system.
Area of biomass domain = (Area of rectangle) (Area of prismatic domain)
[Referring to figures 2(d) & 2(f)]
= (0.037 0.01) {(40.5 0.0065 0.004) + (3 0.5 0.003 0.001)}
= 3.135E-4 m
2

We note that the entire flow domain is in 2-D. But all the other property parameters are for 3-D
material. Moreover, to calculate mass of biomass, we require volume and density. Hence, we
assume that the above domain has a unit width of 1 m (for simplicity).
Hence, volume of biomass domain, V = (3.135E-4 1) m
3
= 3.135E-4 m
3

Hence, mass of biomass in the domain = V = (1250 3.135E-4) kg = 0.391875 kg
Hence equation 3.1.2a can be rewritten as,
Qfb = 0.391875 1545 T (in Joules) = (605.446875 T) in Joules [Equation 3.1.2b]
3.2 Available work potential in exhaust flue gas (total fluid domain is larger: 1:10 scale)
A unit width of 1 m (for simplicity) is used throughout to obtain 3-D values in the 2-D domain as
discussed earlier.

23

3.2.1 Reynolds number calculation: [Refer equation 2.2.1b]
Reynolds number of flow in the flue gas domain is given by:
Refg = (0.748 1.67 0.02)/24.5 = 1.019722449E-3
Reynolds number of flow in the fluid pocket while passing over static cylinder is given by:
**Refp = (0.748 1.67 0.06)/24.5 = 3.059167347E-3
**NOTE & INFERENCE:
This theoretical value of Reynolds number for flue gas flow over the static cylinder is obtained
by assuming zero resistance flow path for flue gas inside fluid pocket domain. This is done as
Reynolds number will change continuously from the inlet of fluid pocket up to its outlet due to
continual flow resistance (as we have high viscous medium in fluid pocket in the actual
simulation set up) resulting in changing flow velocities. But we observe that the very small ideal
Reynolds number value and very small inlet flow velocity values as well as the very small
dimensions of the flow domain can help us safely assume that Reynolds number will remain
fairly low throughout the simulation and the flow will therefore be laminar for all practical
purposes during the course of this simulation work.
3.2.1 Maximum theoretical available work (Wmax) calculation: [Refer equation 2.2.2d]
This calculation is carried out at the inlet boundary of the entire test domain to obtain maximum
available work potential of flue gas. Hence, for all practical purposes, p = po here. Further, a unit
width of 1 m is considered throughout the flow domain for simplicity.
Wmax = 4,700,000 J approximately = 4,700 kJ [Equation 3.2.1a]
3.2.2 Calculation of hydrostatic energy of flue gas (Qh):
Hydrostatic energy (Qh) = Hydrostatic force (Fh) Flow penetration length (dpl) (in joules)
= Fluid pressure at flue gas-fluid pocket interface (pi) Area of interface (Ai) dpl
Qh = pi Ai dpl = pi 0.02 dpl (in Joules) [Equation 3.2.2a]

24

3.2.3 Calculation of viscous energy in fluid pocket (Qv):
The line integral using COMSOL of the entire domains outlet provides us with the viscous drag
force per unit length value.
Viscous energy (Qv) = Drag per unit length (Fd) Cross-sectional area of fluid pocket (Afp)
Qv = Fd (0.3 0.1) = 0.03Fd (in Joules) [Equation 3.2.2b]
3.2.4 Energy absorbed by biomass [Refer equation 2.2.1a]
Qfb = m Cp T = m 1545 T (in Joules) [Equation 3.2.4a]
We now, calculate mass of biomass in the system.
Area of biomass domain = (Area of rectangle) (Area of prismatic domain)
[Referring to figures 2(d) & 2(f)]
= (0.37 0.1) {(40.5 0.065 0.04) + (3 0.5 0.03 0.01)}
= 3.135E-2 m
2

We note that the entire flow domain is in 2-D. But all the other property parameters are for 3-D
material. Moreover, to calculate mass of biomass, we require volume and density. Hence, we
assume that the above domain has a unit width of 1 m (for simplicity).
Hence, volume of biomass domain, V = (3.135E-2 1) m
3
= 3.135E-2 m
3

Hence, mass of biomass in the domain = V = (1250 3.135E-2) kg = 39.1875 kg
Hence equation 3.1.2a can be rewritten as,
Qfb = 39.1875 1545 T (in Joules) = (60544.6875 T) in Joules [Equation 3.2.4b]
4. Numerical results & calculations obtained from COMSOL simulation
4.1 Selection of heat storing fluid
All simulations in COMSOL in this sub-section have been carried out for a uniform inlet mass
flow rate value of 0.00000005 kg/s for exhaust flue gas. The time dependent analysis was carried

25

out for 540 seconds for each of the test cases. Time constraints and computational power
limitations do not allow for a larger time period of study which would have otherwise yielded
better results.
4.1.1 Analysis for 20W50 motor oil as the heat storing fluid
4.1.1.1 Temperature profile

Figure 4(a) Temperature profile at 0 seconds Figure 4(b) Temperature profile at 0.42 seconds

Figure 4(c) Temperature profile at 1.5 seconds Figure 4(d) Temperature profile at 100.03 seconds

Figure 4(e) Temperature profile at 250.05 seconds Figure 4(f) Temperature profile at 540 seconds

26

Inference:
After 540 seconds, Average temperature of biomass domain = 370 K
Qfb = 605.446875 (370 303) = 40564.94063 J [Refer Equation 3.1.2b]
4.1.1.2 Conductive heat flux




Figure 5 Graphs showing change in conductive heat flux with time

27

4.1.2 Analysis for monoethylen glycol (20% mix) as the heat storing fluid
4.1.2.1 Temperature profile

Figure 6(a) Temperature profile at 0 seconds Figure 6(b) Temperature profile at 0.60 seconds

Figure 6(c) Temperature profile at 1.5 seconds Figure 6(d) Temperature profile at 10.02 seconds

Figure 6(e) Temperature profile at 150.02 seconds Figure 6(f) Temperature profile at 540 seconds
Inference:
After 540 seconds, Average temperature of biomass domain = 390 K
Qfb = 605.446875 (390 303) = 52,673.87813 J [Refer Equation 3.1.2b]


28

4.1.2.2 Conductive heat flux




Figure 7 Graphs showing change in conductive heat flux with time




29

4.1.3 Analysis for ammonia as the heat storing fluid
4.1.3.1 Temperature profile

Figure 8(a) Temperature profile at 0 seconds Figure 8(b) Temperature profile at 3.03 seconds

Figure 8(c) Temperature profile at 15 seconds Figure 8(d) Temperature profile at 50.05 seconds

Figure 8(e) Temperature profile at 150.02 seconds Figure 8(f) Temperature profile at 540 seconds

30

Inference:
After 540 seconds, Average temperature of biomass domain = 385 K
Qfb = 605.446875 (385 303) = 49,646.64375 J [Refer Equation 3.1.2b]
4.1.3.2 Conductive heat flux




Figure 9 Graphs showing change in conductive heat flux with time

31

4.2 Available work potential in exhaust flue gas (total fluid domain is larger: 1:10 scale)
All simulations in COMSOL in this sub-section have been carried out for a uniform inlet mass
flow rate value of 0.0005 kg/s for exhaust flue gas. The time dependent analysis was carried out
for 1080 seconds for each of the test cases. Time constraints and computational power
limitations do not allow for a larger time period of study which would have otherwise yielded
better results.
4.2.1 Analysis of 20W50 motor oil in larger domain (scale 1:10)
4.2.1.1 Temperature profile

Figure 10(a) Temperature profile at 0 seconds Figure 10(b) Temperature profile at 0.06 seconds

Figure 10(c) Temperature profile at 0.12 seconds Figure 10(d) Temperature profile at 0.18 seconds

Figure 10(e) Temperature profile at 0.3seconds Figure 10(f) Temperature profile at 150 seconds

32


Figure 10(g) Temperature profile at 500 seconds Figure 10(h) Temperature profile at 1080 seconds
Inference:
After 1080 seconds, Average temperature of biomass domain = 385 K [Refer Equation 3.2.4b]
Qfb = 60544.6875 (330 303) = 1,634,706.563 J [Equation 4.2.1.1]

4.2.1.2 Velocity profile and Cell Reynolds number



Figure 11 Graphs showing change in flow velocity with time

33

Inference:
Reynolds number calculation: [Refer equation 2.2.1b]
We observe that in 1080 seconds, maximum velocity of 2.1947 m/s is reached at 0.06
seconds.
Hence, Reynolds number of flow for the flow over static cylinder is given by:
Re = (0.748 2.1947 0.06)/24.5 = 4.02033E-3
Clearly, the flow is laminar throughout the analysis.

Figure 12 Cell Reynolds number at time = 1080 seconds
INFERENCE & NOTE
Cell Reynolds number or Peclet Number is the ratio of convective to diffusive fluxes
across the cell. Hence, at low Peclet number, diffusion of a property is of higher
importance than convection of that property across the cell. A low peclet number hints at
insignificant convective currents and higher degree of diffusive forces. This explains the
lack of convective energy currents observed in all the simulation cases. Clearly, domain
size has a direct bearing on the peclet number or cell Reynolds number values.




34

4.2.1.3 Pressure profile




Figure 13 Graphs showing change in pressure with time
INFERENCE
Inlet pressure of flue gas = 3000 Pascal = 0.03 bar
Max pressure = 6606.9 Pascal = 0.06069 bar [Equation 4.2.1.3]
Low values of pressure can be attributed to the extremely small size of the test domain.

35

4.2.1.4 Streamline profile



Figure 14 Graphs showing streamline plot variation with time
INFERENCE
We see the recirculation zone clearly and observe that recirculation zone develops with
the flow as time passes. We infer that the direction of recirculation is anti-clockwise.
Velocity is very less in recirculation zone as evident from velocity and streamline
profile graphs.





36

4.2.1.5 Shear rate

Figure 15(a) shear rate vs arc length (all time steps) Figure 15(b) shear rate vs arc length (time = 0 s)

Figure 15(c) shear rate vs arc length (time = 0.3 s) Figure 15(d) shear rate vs arc length (time = 0.6 s)

Figure 15(e) shear rate vs arc length (time = 1.02 s) Figure 15(f) shear rate vs arc length (time = 1080 s)
INFERENCE
After comparing figure 13 and figure 14, we obtain,
Flow recirculation zone length = 0.22 m (at 1080 seconds)
Flow penetration length, dpl = 0.22 m [Equation 4.2.1.5]


37

4.2.1.6 Drag per unit length

Figure 16 Drag per unit length (N/m)
INFERENCE
Average drag per unit length from above figure, Fd = 40 N/m [Equation 4.2.1.6]
4.2.1.7 Total internal energy



38


Figure 17 Graphs showing change in internal energy with time
INFERENCE
Change in internal energy of the system, Qie = (9E6 6E6) J/kg = 3E6 J/kg
[Equation 4.2.1.7]


4.2.2 Calculations for evaluating work potential of flue gas
4.2.2.1 Calculation of Qh: [Refer equations 3.2.2a, 4.2.1.3 & 4.2.1.5]
Qh = 6606.9 0.02 0.22 = 29 J [Equation 4.2.2.1]
4.2.2.2 Calculation of viscous energy in fluid pocket (Qv): [Refer equations 3.2.2b & 4.2.1.6]
Qv = 0.03 40 = 1.2 J [Equation 4.2.2.2]
4.2.2.3 Available work potential of flue gas (before heat transfer to biomass) (Wa1): [Refer
equations 2.2.2a, 4.2.1.1 & 4.2.2.1]
Wa1 = (1,634,706.563 + 29) J = 1,634,735.563 J = 1,634.706563 kJ [Equation 4.2.2.3]
4.2.2.4 Work potential of flue gas (after heat transfer to biomass) (Wa2): [Refer equations 2.2.2a
& 4.2.2.1]
Wa2 = Qh = 29 J [Equation 4.2.2.4]


39

4.2.2.5 Result Validation for work potential of flue gas
Analytical vs. Numerical (from simulation) value of Wmax: [Refer equation set 2.2.2b]
Wmax,numerical = 4,634,734.363 J = 4,634.7344 kJ < Wmax,analytical (= 4700 kJ) [Equation 4.2.2.5]

Error % = 1.38863% [Equation 4.2.2.5]

5. Inferences
5.1 Best heat storing fluid for the given system (for domain with 1:160 scale)
Table 5 Best heat storing fluid comparison

20W50
motor oil
Monoethylen
glycol (20% mix)
Ammonia
Energy absorbed by biomass (in) Joules
when heat storing fluids are used at the
boundary interface
40,564.94063
52,673.87813

49,646.64375
Clearly, for time period of 540 seconds, maximum heat of 52.673 kJ of heat energy is transferred
to biomass when Monoethylen glycol (20% mix) is used as the heat storing fluid.
Monoethylen glycol (20%) mix is chosen as the suitable fluid for the biomass moisture
removal system.

40

5.2 Comparison of conductive heat flux with time for the various heat storing fluids used in
section 5.1 for domain with scale of 1:160

Figure 18 Conductive heat flux vs. time for various heat storing fluids
We observe a steady decrease in conductive heat flux values for monoethylen glycol (20%
mix) and ammonia with passage of time. However, there are abnormal spikes in the graph for
20W50 motor oils conductive heat flux. This can be attributed to the high viscosity of the
motor oil. This results in higher viscous heat energy. Vortices develop in the flow as the flue
gas flows past the cylinder. The vortices and viscous flow resistance lead to heat energy
pockets and viscous energy dissipation. These discontinuous energy pockets give sudden
boosts to the conductive heat flux in the motor oil. However, with the passage of time, as the
system approaches steady state, the temperature gradient continually decreases thereby
resulting in the steady decrease of conductive heat flux in the last section of the graph.



41

5.3 Flue gas work potential evaluation: [Refer equation 4.2.2.5]
Wmax,numerical = 4,634,734.363 J = 4,634.7344 kJ < Wmax,analytical (= 4700 kJ)
As discussed earlier, we find that Wa1 is slightly lower than Wmax. Since, irreversibility is
neglected, the minor discrepancy can be attributed to computational errors during iteration. We
note that these high values can be attributed to the unit width of 1 m we used everywhere
whereas the other dimensions were much smaller. This normalization is responsible for the high
values of work potential in exhaust flue gas even for the small test domain.
Error % = 1.38863% [Equation 4.2.2.5]
Clearly, this error is within acceptable limits.

6. Comparison with past research for heat storage material and validation
6.1 Results from earlier research work [12]
In the earlier research work, phase change materials were used to store heat and transfer it to
biomass. A comparison based on the amount of heat absorbed by each of the materials will
reveal the best substance for use in the moisture removal system for biomass.
6.1.1 Plots for use of naphthalene as phase change material to store heat
Fluent was used in this earlier analysis. The domain size used was same as the one used in the
present COMSOL analysis. The simulation was carried out for 500 seconds.

Figure 19 (a) Inlet zone for naphthalene; (b) Outlet zone for naphthalene

42

Inference:
After 500 seconds, Average temperature of naphthalene domain = 411 K
Hence heat absorbed by naphthalene is given by,
Q = m Cp T = V Cp T [Refer Equation 2.2.1a]
Q = 1140 5.65E-5 1720 (411 303)
Q = 11,964.8016 J

6.1.2 Plots for use of paraffin wax as phase change material to store heat
Fluent was used in this earlier analysis. The domain size used was same as the one used in the
present COMSOL analysis. The simulation was carried out for 500 seconds.

Fig. 20. (a) Inlet zone for Paraffin wax; (b) Outlet zone for Paraffin wax
Inference:
After 500 seconds, Average temperature of paraffin wax domain = 405 K
Hence heat absorbed by paraffin wax is given by,
Q = m Cp T = V Cp T [Refer Equation 2.2.1a]
Q = 900 5.65E-5 2900 (405 303)
Q = 15,041.43 J


43

6.1.3 Plots for use of sodium acetate tri-hydrate as phase change material to store heat
Fluent was used in this earlier analysis. The domain size used was same as the one used in the
present COMSOL analysis. The simulation was carried out for 500 seconds.

Fig. 21. (a) Inlet zone for Sodium acetate tri-hydrate; (b) Outlet zone for Sodium acetate tri-hydrate
Inference:
After 500 seconds, Average temperature of sodium acetate tri-hydrate domain = 398 K
Hence heat absorbed by sodium acetate tri-hydrate is given by,
Q = m Cp T = V Cp T [Refer Equation 2.2.1a]
Q = 1450 5.65E-5 1088 (398 303)
Q = 8,467.768 J
6.2 Heat absorbed by heat storage fluids in the present COMSOL analysis.
i) For 20W50 motor oil, Q = 884 5.65E-5 22473.45 (377 303) = 83,061.9611 J
ii) For Monoethylen glycol (20% mix), Q = 1030 5 .65E-5 3900 (416 303)
= 25,646.5365 J
iii) For Ammonia, Q = 0.717 5.65E-5 2190 (420 303) = 10.3800542 J



44

6.3 Selection of best heat storing material for use in biomass moisture removal system
Table 6 Best heat storing material comparison for use in biomass moisture removal system

20W50 motor
oil
Monoethylen
glycol (20%
mix)
Ammonia Naphthalene
Paraffin
Wax
Sodium
Acetate
Tri-
hydrate
Energy
absorbed
in Joules
83,061.9611

25,646.5365 10.38 11,964.8016 15,041.43 8,467.768
Clearly, from the above table, 20W50 motor oil absorbs the maximum amount of heat from
exhaust flue gas. However, on comparing these results with that of Table 5 in section 5.1 of the
report, we observe that even though Monoethylen glycol (20% mix) absorbs lesser amount of
heat as compared to 20W50 motor oil, it is better at transferring heat to biomass in the system as
evident from the values of energy absorbed by biomass. This will result in faster and more
effective moisture removal from biomass. It is important to note that 20W50 motor oil has a
much lower value of thermal conductivity as compared to monoethylen glycol (20% mix). This
low thermal conductivity is a major reason for poor heat discharge at lower temperature
gradients. We therefore, conclude that:
Heat storing fluids are much better compared to phase change materials for use in
thermal energy storage systems as they are effective and efficient [11] [12] [14].
Monoethylen glycol (20 % mix) is the most suitable substance for use in the biomass
moisture removal system.




45

References

[1] A. Felix Regin, S.C. Solanki, J.S. Saini, An analysis of a packed bed latent heat thermal energy storage system
using PCM capsules: Numerical investigation, Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 17651773.
[2] Zhengguo Zhang, Xiaoming Fang , Study on paraffin/expanded graphite composite phase change thermal energy
storage material , Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 47, Issue 3, February 2006, Pages 303-310
[3] Ahmet Sar, Ali Karaipekli, Thermal conductivity and latent heat thermal energy storage characteristics of
paraffin/expanded graphite composite as phase change material, Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 27, Issues
8-9, June 2007, Pages 1271-1277
[4] S. Pabis; M. Jaros, The First Period of Convection Drying of Vegetables and the Effect of Shape-dependent
Shrinkage, Biosystems Engineering (2002) 81 (2), 201 to 211
[5] P. Sathiamurthi, PSS. Srinivasan, Design and Development of Waste Heat Recovery System for air
Conditioning Unit, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.54 No.1 (2011), pp.102-110
[6] Goran G. Jankes, Nikola D. Tanasi, Mirjana S. Stanmani, And Vuk M. Adzi, Waste heat potentials in the drying
section of the paper machine in umka cardboard mill, Thermal Science, Year 2011, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 735-747
[7] F. Meunier , Theoretical performances of solid adsorbent cascading cycles using the zeolite-water and active
carbon-methanol pairs: four case studies, Journal of Heat Recovery Systems, Pages 491-498
[8] J. Ringler, M. Seifert, V. Guyotot , W. Hbner, Rankine Cycle for Waste Heat Recovery of IC Engines, SAE
International Journal of Engines, October 2009 vol. 2 no. 1 67-76
[9] T Shudo1, K Toshinaga1, Combustion control for waste-heat recovery system in internal combustion engine
vehicles: Increase in exhaust-gas heat by combustion phasing and its effect on thermal efficiency factors,
International Journal of Engine Research, April 1, 2010 vol. 11 no. 2, pp 99-108.
[10] P. S. Bundela, Vivek Chawla, Sustainable Development through Waste Heat Recovery, American Journal of
Environmental Sciences, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 83-89
[11] Amrit Om Nayak, G. Ram Kumar, T. Manoj, R. Vinod, Comparative Study Between Experimental Analysis
and CFD Software Analysis of PCM material in Thermal Energy Storage System, International Journal of Chemical
Engineering and Applications, Vol.2, No. 6, Pages 400 407, December 2011 (ISSN 2010-0221)

[12] M. Gowtham, Amrit Om Nayak, T. Manoj, G. Ram Kumar, Design and analysis of biomass drying unit with
waste heat recovery and storage, Procedia Engineering, Elsevier, Volume 38, 2012, Pages 11611165
[13] COMSOL website: http://www.comsol.com/multiphysics/nonisothermalflow/
[14] M. Gowtham, Amrit Om Nayak, Simulation studies of Solar water heater with Vapor Adsorption material,
proceedings of International Conference on Simulation Modeling and Analysis, held jointly by Amrita University
and National Institute of Technology at Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India in December 2011
[15] Tiina E. K. Jarvinen, Henrik Holmberg, Pekka Ahtila, Theoretical Potential to Convert Excess Heat into
Mechanical Work in the Finnish Industry, Chemical Engineering Transactions, Volume 35, 2013, Pages 253 - 258