Pneumatic drying of solid particle: experimental and model comparison

Antonius Indarto†, Yudy Halim, Parikesit Partoputro

1
Korea Institute of Science and Technology, PO Box 131, Cheongryang, Seoul, Korea

Abstract

This paper presents a mathematical model approchment to study the drying phenomena of solid

particle in a pneumatic (flash) dryer. The analysis is focused on the pneumatic momentum,

mass, and heat balance of the solid particle when it moves inside the reactor. A fixed bed

fluidization model was used to calculate the forces balance on the single solid particle. By

solving mass and heat balance occurred in the particle, the water/liquid removal efficiency can

be calculated. To validate the model calculations, we conducted a set of experiments and

compared the simulation with the experimental data. High moisture natural concrete sand, the

additional material for portland cement, was used and dried along a vertical cylindrical tube

with length of 2 m and diameter of 6.68 cm. The drying gas was supplied by a high capacity air

blower which was connected to the burner to produce 120 m3/hr of drying gas with maximum

temperature of 800oC.

Keywords: pneumatic drying, pneumatic transport, mass-heat balance, pneumatic drying model

†
Corresponding author: Antonius Indarto; e-mail: indarto@korea.com, Tel:+82-10-2296-3748

1
1. Introduction

Although drying process is categorized as one of the oldest technique of chemical engineering

process, it is still showing very complex and poorly understandable in the phenomena

description. In order to solve the complexity of the process, some researches have tried to bring

computer aided process to analyze and describe the overall process [1]. Many papers related

with theoretical and mathematical model have been published for some types of dryer, e.g. fixed

bed reactor [2-4] and fluidized bed [5-9].

Pneumatic (flash) dryer is one type of drying instrument which is able to handle high flow rates

solid particle in very short residence times. Among other dryers, pneumatic dryer shows the

highest removal rate of the liquid from the solid particle [10]. Recently, only few reports dealing

with pneumatic modeling or simulation have been published [11-14]. Some experimental works

on pneumatic dryer were reported also, e.g. pneumatic drying of porous alumina [15], iron ore

[16], and polypropylene [17]. However, no publication presents the comparison between

experimental data and theoretical calculation of pneumatic drying.

In this study, pneumatic drying was conducted experimentally at the pilot scale capacity.

Concrete sand was used as the object of the study to investigate the performance of the dryer.

High quality dried concrete aggregate is required before it can be used as the additional material

of Portland cement.

2. Transport Phenomena

2
When the solid particles travel along the reactor from the bottom to the top, the particles are

influenced by three different types of transport: momentum, mass, and energy, which involved

in the process simultaneously.

2.1. Momentum conservation

In the case of pneumatic transport, three kinds of mechanical force, worked on the

single solid particle: drag force (FD), buoyancy force (FB), and weight force (FW) of particle,

should be considered and calculated in the one line of equation. The arrangement of these forces

can be expressed as:

 drag force by   buoyancy force   weight force  du

∑ F =  upward moving gas  +  of solid by gas  −  of  = ms ⋅ s (1)
     particles  dt

In some references, the first two forces can be combined into single term as a drag force [18].

However, we split this term into two different variables: (i) buoyancy forces (F B), caused by the

existence of solid particle in the fluid system, and (ii) drag force (FD), caused by moving gas.

The value of buoyancy force (FB) can be assumed similar between fixed fluidized bed drying

and pneumatic dryer as FB is independent to the velocity of the drying gas. Drag force (FD) in

pneumatic dryer is the only parameter which is different from the fixed fluidized bed drying

process. For the pneumatic case, the total magnitude of FD and FB will be higher than the weight

force and this makes the solid particles flow upward.

C D ρ g ( u g − u s ) As
2

FD = (2)
2gc

3
 2
1  72 
0.5

C D =   + 1 (3)
3  Re s  


FW = m s ⋅ g (4)

Buoyancy force (FB) is equal to the weight (volumetric × density) of the displaced fluid.

However, irregular shapes and sizes of the solid particles made a difficulty of the calculation

using the conventional method. Another way to calculate buoyancy force is calculating the

forces balance at minimum velocity (umf) of drying gas when the solid particles are fixed

fluidized. At fixed bed fluidization condition, the accumulation of working forces on solid

particle will be zero and solid particle will stay at a certain point. This method was used to avoid

the different arguments related to the existence of correction factors to calculate buoyancy force

using conventional equation ([19], [20] vs. [21]-[23]) in order to approach the real condition.

Minimum velocity (umf) of drying gas can be calculated easily using Ergun equation. Ergun

equation is one of the basic and probably the most famous method which considers the factor of

the particle packing void (εs) and its spherical shape (Φs) in the reactor [24]. As it depends on

the Reynold’s number of solid particle (Res), the equations follow:

d s ρ gus
for Re s = µ
< 20 :

(φs d s ) 2
ρ s − ρ g  ε mf3 
u mf = ⋅ g 
150 µ  1 − ε mf  (5)
 

for Res > 1000:

4
 φs d s ρ s − ρ g
2
u mf = ⋅ gε mf
3
(6)
1.75 ρg

When the spherical form and the packing void of the solid particles are difficult to be measured,

or the value of εs and/or Φs is unknown, the modification of the previous expressions can be

done following Wen and Yu suggestion [25]:

for Res < 20:

d s2 ρ s − ρ g
u mf = ⋅ g (7)
1650 µ

for Res > 1000:

ds ρs − ρg
2
u mf = ⋅ g (8)
24.5 ρg

Another correlation of the momentum transport for the pneumatic drying process has been

proposed also by Debrand and Doig [26]:

us − 2
log Fr = + 0.25 ⋅ log m s (9)
28

u g2
Fr = (10)
g ⋅ ds

Moreover, Narsimhan has summaries some other models in his paper and concludes the small

differences among the models [27].

2.2. Mass and Heat Transport

5
 A model modification has been proposed to simulate the mass and heat balance of the

system in order to approach the real experimental data. In the modified model, the reaction

temperature and product solid temperature were obtained by experiment. This method will

minimize the error difference between experimental and calculation data. Some reference data

were also needed, e.g. GHV value of kerosene [28]. The global chemical reaction of combustion

process was assumed to follow:

C14H30 + 21.5 O2 14 CO2 + 15 H2O (11)

And the heat transfer of the drying process can be described as:

 Total   Heat to increase temperature of   Heat to 

  =   +   (12)
 supplied heat   particle and remain water   vaporize water 

[U aV ∆TM ] = [ mbaCp (T ' − To )] + [ maCpa ( Tw − To ) ] + [ ma ⋅ λ ] + [ maCpv (Tgas' − Tw )] (13)

The mass balance of water can be obtained from Eq. 13. Another way to measure the water

balance is by calculating the heat of the process which correlates to the residence time of solid

particle in the reactor [29]. The heat transfer process will be expressed as functions of heat of

evaporation (λ) and logarithmic mean temperature difference (∆TM):

ρ s d s2 λ W
tr =
12 k f ( ∆TM ) (14)

and the residence time of solid particle inside the reactor can be obtained from the previous

calculations or by experiment.

3. Model Algorithm

6
 The model was constructed using Matlab program which employed fmins [30] packet-

subroutine to minimize the error between model calculation and experimental data. The

complete algorithm of model is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

4. Experimental Setup

4.1. Materials

All experiment was conducted using concrete sand obtained from Cipatat Mountain,

Bandung, Indonesia. This material is usually used as addition filler for Portland cement to

increase the strong compaction between sand and cement. The moisture characteristic of the

solid particle is presented in Table 1. In order to maintain the original water content, the sample

was not exposed to the ambient atmospheric air and placed inside a chamber which has similar

moisture degree with the original area. Four different particle sizes were used: 20-35 mesh, 30-

35 mesh, 35-60 mesh, and >60 mesh.

Table 1

4.2. Instrumental Setting

The pneumatic dryer set was consisted of two main parts: burner and drying reactor. To

supply the drying gas, a 120 m3/hr gas capacity of centrifugal blower was connected to the input

of the burner. The exact flow rates of drying gas supplied to the burner were measured by an

orifice. A nozzle type burner was mainly fueled by kerosene and ignited by using LPG

7
(Liquefied Petroleum Gas). At air flow rate of 120 m3/hr, the burner was able to reach maximum

temperature about 1200oC. Some calibrated digital thermocouples were installed to measure the

output gas temperature.

The reactor was a cylindrical pipe that has length and inside diameter of 2 m and 6.68 cm,

respectively. To avoid the heat lost, the reactor was covered by isolated material (glass wool)

with thickness of 2 cm. A screw feeder was connected to the pipe reactor to feed the solid

particle. The drying gas will carry solid particle from the bottom to the top of the reactor then

particle and gas will be separated by a cyclone.

Figure 2

5. Result and Discussion

Figure 3a shows the effect of variation of the drying gas velocities on the residence time of

particle in the reactor. The residence time of particle was measured from the solid particle

entered the reactor through the screw feeder until it came out from the top of the reactor. It

shows that both Ergun and Wen-Yu method gives a close result in comparison with

experimental. The small difference was found probably due to imperfection of the feeding

process through the screw feeder. Agglomeration of the particle could give a significant

contribution on the error. The previous researches show that water and other liquid materials

that existed in the solid particle could bind small particles into bigger size [31, 32].

The calculation using above model, which is similar to the fluidized bed concept, will enable us

to calculate the magnitude of forces distribution (drag, buoyancy, and weight force) on single

8
solid particle as shown in Figure 3b. Increasing superficial gas velocity will increase the value

of drag force (FD) on the particle while buoyancy force (FB) and weight force (FW) should be a

fix value. In the case of solid particle diameter of 2.5 x 10 -4 m, the minimum gas velocity to

make the particle fluidized was 0.41 m/s. At this point, the different value between F W and FD

could be FB. The contribution of drag force to the upward forces was more than 80% and it will

increase when the drying gas velocity was increased. It can also be deduced trivially that the

drag force will be higher at the higher gas dryer flow rates. Drag force will influence greater to

the pneumatic transport rather than buoyancy force in bigger size particles. At very small size

particles, such as colloid, the buoyancy force can maintain the particle flies in the ambient

atmosphere without any additional forces.

The curve of minimum superficial gas velocity (umf) versus diameter of particle (ds), related to

its surface area, is shown in Figure 3c. Bigger diameter of solid particle will increase the

minimum of superficial gas velocity required to fluidize the solid particle. The minimum

superficial gas velocity was 0.41 m/s for particle diameter of 2.5 x 10-4 m and rising to 0.7 m/s

for particle diameter of 7.2 x 10-4 m.

However, although the weight force is increased, increasing diameter of solid particle will

increase the received drag force of the particle from the moving gas. Figure 3d shows that at

bigger particle, e.g. 7.2×10-4 m, the increment trend of FD is parabolic curve while at lower

particle, e.g. 2.5×10e-4 m, it is straightly linier. Instead of particle diameter factor, drag force is

also quadratic function of velocity difference between drying gas and solid particle (Eq. 2). At

the case of bigger particle, the velocity of the solid pass through the reactor will be slower due

to its weight and it effects on the bigger difference of dying gas and particle velocity. As the

difference is a quadratic form, the curve will be a parabolic in the case of bigger solid particle,

e.g. 7.2×10-4 m, as shown in Fig. 3d.

9
 Figure 3

Following the model algorithm in Figure 2, the calculated residence time from the previous

pneumatic transport calculation will be compared with the experimental result. The drying

experimental was conducted at two different temperatures, 672oC and 727oC. The experimental

runs were repeated three times for each point to maintain the reproducibility of the data.

Moisture removal efficiency or drying efficiency is used as the comparison representation to

check the satisfaction of model with experimental data. Some data or variables were obtained

from literature reference and the method was chose carefully to approach the real condition, e.g.

Treball method was used to determine wet bulb temperature [33] which better than Huschke

method [34] because the last method gave higher wet ball temperature than real one. The wet

ball temperatures used in this calculation were 83.1oC and 86.7oC for the dryer gas temperature

of 672oC and 727oC, respectively. Dryer gas temperature and solid particle weight were

measured experimentally before and after process. The removal efficiency was calculated as:

m w,in − mw,out
η= (15)
m w,in

Figure 4a and 4b show the data comparison between experimental and model calculation at

superficial drying gas flow rate of 3 m/s. Based on our observation, the pneumatic drying

process was able to remove the water content of the particle with efficiency more than 50% at

particle residence time of 1 second. This means that the stay period of particle in the reactor

could be a sensitive and important parameter to calculate the water removal efficiency. In Figure

4a, the model simulation produces lower values of removal efficiency than the experimental

data. This was probably caused by un-correct value of residence time that used to calculate mass

10
and heat balance. In the previous figure (Figure 3a), the calculated residence time is shorter that

in the real case at superficial gas velocity of 3 m/s. Shorter residence time in the reactor will

produce lower drying efficiencies and make the curve trend bellow the experimental result. This

idea is supported by comparison result shown in Figure 4b. When the residence time obtained

by experimental was used for calculating mass and heat balance, the model results small

differences with experimental data.

However, in both experimental and model trends, it can be concluded that bigger particle

diameter tends to decrease the drying process efficiency. In our experiment, this phenomenon

could be affected by two factors. The first factor is caused by the differences of received heat

from the dying gas to solid particle due to particle surface area difference. Smaller particles

produced higher solid temperature rather than that of bigger size particles. It means smaller

particle could receive more heat and the removal process of water or liquid would be better. The

second factor is due to internal property of the concrete sand used in this experiment. As shown

in table 1, smaller size particles has lower water contents and when it is assumed that the water

removal rate is same for each particle size, the smaller size particles will have better drying

efficiency that that of bigger ones.

Figure 4

6. Conclusion

The pilot scale pneumatic drying study was done by analyzing the pneumatic, mass and heat

transports phenomena. The experimental data was used to compare the result from the

established model calculation. In the case of pneumatic transport, drag force has a significant

11
factor on fluidizing particle which contributed around 80% of the total upward forces. Bigger

particles will receive more drag force from surround moving gas compared to smaller particles.

Water removal efficiency calculation shows that lower temperature of bigger particle will

reduce the drying efficiency. The satisfaction comparison between experimental and calculation

data which is presented in this paper could be useful to predict the pneumatic drying

performance.

Acknowledgments

The author greatly thanks to people that kindly help on this experiment, especially to:

1. Ir. Yazid Bindar, M.Sc, Ph.D., as the owner of the furnace and his advice during the

experiment.

2. Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST) and KOSEF for the support.

Nomenclature
CD = drag coefficient, dimensionless
Cp = heat capacity of mixed solid + water at fix pressure (kJ/kg-oC)
Cpa = heat capacity of water at fix pressure (kJ/kg-oC)
Cpv = heat capacity of water vapor at fix pressure (kJ/kg-oC)
ds = particle diameter (m)
FB = buoyancy forces (kg-s2/m)
FD = drag force (kg-s2/m)
Fr = Froude number, dimensionless
FW = weight (gravitational) force (kg-s2/m)
g = gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
gc = gravitational conversion factor, dimensionless
kf = heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-oC)
mba = solid + remain (un-vaporized) water mass (kg)

12
ms = input solid particle rate (kg/s)
ma = vaporized water mass (kg/s)
mw,in = water content at input solid particle (kg/s)
mw,out = water content at output solid particle (kg/s)
Res = Reynold number of solid particle, dimensionless
T′ = temperature of solid product (oC)
T′gas = temperature of gas product (oC)
To = temperature of solid input (oC)
Tw = wet bulb temperature (oC)
tr = residence time (s)
Ua = volumetric heat transfer coefficient (kJ/m3-oC-s)
ug = superficial gas velocity (m/s)
umf = minimum superficial gas velocity (m/s)
us = superficial solid particle velocity (m/s)
V = Volume of drying column (m3)
W = weight of removed moisture per dry-basis solid, dimensionless

Greeks
λ = heat of vaporization (kJ/kg)
∆TM = Logarithmic mean temperature difference between solid particle and gas (oC)
εs = fractional void space, dimensionless
εmf = fractional void space at umf, dimensionless
Φs = spherical factor of solid particle, dimensionless
η = water removal efficiency, dimensionless
ρs = solid particle density (kg/m3)
ρg = fluid gas density (kg/m3)
µ = gas viscosity (kg/m-t)

References
[1] N. V. Menshutina and T. Kudra, Computer Aided Drying Technologies, Drying Technol.,
vol. 19, pp. 1825-1849, 2001.
[2] Z. H. Wang and G. Chen, Heat and Mass Transfer in Fixed-Bed Drying, Chem. Eng. Sci.,
vol. 54, pp. 4233-4243, 1999.
[3] M. A. Sfredo, J. R. D. Finzer, and J. R. Limaverde, Heat and Mass Transfer in Coffee
Fruits Drying, J. Food Eng., vol. 70, pp. 15-25, 2005

13
[4] E. Herman, G. C. Rodríguez, and M. A. García, Mathematical Modeling for Fixed-Bed
Drying Considering Heat and Mass Transfer and Interfacial Phenomena, Drying Technol.,
vol. 19, pp. 2343-2362, 2001.
[5] S. Syahrul, F. Hamdullahpur, and I. Dincer, Thermal Analysis in Fluidized Bed Drying of
Moist Particles, Appl. Thermal Eng., vol. 22, pp. 1763-1775, 2002.
[6] S. Syahrul, I. Dincer, and F. Hamdullahpur, Thermodynamic Modeling of Fluidized Bed
Drying of Moist Particles, Int. J. Thermal Sci., vol. 42, pp. 691–701, 2003
[7] S. Soponronnarit, Fluidized-Bed Paddy Drying, ScienceAsia, vol. 25, pp. 51-56, 1999.
[8] J. F. A. Vitor, E. C. Biscaia Jr, and G. Massarani, Modeling of Biomass Drying in
Fluidized Bed, Proc. of the 14th International Drying Symp., vol. B, pp. 1104-1111, 2004.
[9] M. C. Palancar, J. M. Aragon, and J. A., Castellanos, Neural Network Model for Fluidized
Bed Dryers, Drying Technol., vol. 19, pp. 1023-1044, 2001.
[10] APV Separation Group, Dryer Handbook, Tonawanda, New York, pp. 8-10, 1990
[11] A. H. Pelegrina and G. H. Crapiste, Modeling the Pneumatic Drying of Food Particle, J.
Food Eng., vol. 48, pp. 301-310, 2001.
[12] I. Skuratovsky, A. Levy, and I. Borde, Two-fluid, Two-Dimensional Model for Pneumatic
Drying. Drying Technol., vol. 21, pp. 1645 – 1668, 2003.
[13] I. Skuratovsky, A. Levy, and I. Borde, Pneumatic Drying of Solid Particles, Proc. of the
14th International Drying Symp., vol. A, pp. 366-373, 2004.
[14] C. Fyhr and A. Rasmuson, Fluid Mechanics and Transport Phenomena Mathematical
Model of a Pneumatic Conveying Dryer. AIChE J., vol. 43, pp. 2889 – 2902, 1997.
[15] C. P. Narimatsu, M. C. Ferreira, and J. T. Freire, Drying of porous alumina particles in a
vertical pneumatic dryer. Proc. of the 14th International Drying Symp., vol. A, pp. 549-
556, 2004.
[16] W. Namkung and M. Cho, Pneumatic Drying of Iron Ore Particles in A Vertical Tube.
Drying Technol., vol. 22, page 877 – 891, 2004
[17] C. P. Narimatsu and M. C. Ferreira, Vertical Pneumatic Conveying in Dilute and Dense-
Phase Flows: Experimental Study of the Influence of Particle Density and Diameter on
Fluid Dynamic Behavior. Braz. J. Chem. Eng., vol. 18, 2001.
[18] D. Kuni and O. Levenspiel, Fluidization Engineering, Wiley, New York, pp. 72, 1969.
[19] R. Di Felice, P. U. Foscolo, L. G. Gibilaro, and S. Rapagna, The Interaction of Particles
With A Fluid—Particle Pseudo—Fluid, Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 46, pp. 1873-1877, 1991.
[20] L. A. M. Van Der Wielen, M. H. H. Van Dam, and K. C. A. M. Luyben, On the Relative
Motion of A Particle in A Swarm Of Different Particles, Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 51, pp.
995-1008, 1996.
[21] R. Clift, J. P. K. Seville, S. C. Moore, and C. Chavarie, Comments on the Buoyancy in

14
 Fluidized Beds. Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 42, pp. 191–194, 1987.
[22] L. S. Fan, R. S. Han, and R. S. Brodkey, Comments on the Buoyancy Force on a Particle
in Fluidized Suspension. Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 42, pp. 1269–1271, 1987.
[23] R. H. Jean and L. S. Fan, On the Model Equations of Gibliaro and Foscolo with Corrected
Buoyancy Force. Powder Technol., vol. 72, pp. 201–205, 1992.
[24] S. Ergun, Fluid Flow Through Packed Columns, Chem. Eng. Prog., vol. 48, pp. 89-94,
1952.
[25] C. Y. Wen and Y. H. Yu, A Generalized Method for Predicting the Minimum Fluidization
Velocity, AIChE J., vol. 12, pp. 610-611, 1966.
[26] A.S. Mujumdar, Handbook of Industrial Drying Technology, Marcel Dekker, New York,
pp. 516-617, 1995.
[27] G. Narsimhan, On a Generalized Expression for Prediction of Minimum Fluidization
Velocity, AIChE J., vol. 11, pp. 550-554, 1965.
[28] MSDS. Kerosene, MSDS number: U8012, MSDS Date: 01-31-99, 1999.
[29] J. H. Perry and D. Green, Perry’s Chemical Engineers Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1997.
[30] Mathworks. MATLAB Reference Guide, the Mathworks Inc., Massachusetts, 1994.
[31] P. B. Linkson, J. R. Glastonbury, and G. J. Duffy, The Mechanism of Granule Growth in
Wet Pelletising. Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng., vol. 51, pp. 251, 1973.
[32] P. J. T. Mills, J. P. K. Seville, P. C. Knight, and M. J. Adams, The Effect of Binder
Viscosity on Particle Agglomeration in a Low Shear Mixer/Agglomerator, Powder
Technol., vol. 113, pp. 140–147, 2000.
[33] R. E. Treybal, Mass-Transfer Operations, McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1981.
[34] R. E. Huschke, Glossary of Meteorology. Amer. Meteor. Soc., Boston, pp.638, 1959.

15
Table 1. Size, particle density, and moisture contents of solid particle

Mess Average Particle Diameter Density Moisture Content

Size [cm] [g/cm 3] [% water/solid]
20 - 30 0.072 2.09 16.35
30 - 35 0.055 2.10 14.55
35 - 60 0.038 2.11 12.41
> 60 0.025 2.10 8.94

16
 thermocouple

cyclone
dryer
reactor
compressed
air

Oil flow
meter

screw
burner
feeder

oil storage

thermocouple

orifice LPG

blower

17
Figure 1. Experimental Setup

18
 uk, GHV,Ts,0,
µg, ρg, ug, ρs,
Input Data 1 2 Input Data T' s, Tg,0, T' g,0,
ds, g, gc, φs, εs
λ, ms, mw

calculation calculation

Drag force Supplied heat

equation 2,3,5- 8 uk x GHV
(F D at ufmin) (Twb)

Weight force Wet bulb temp.

equation 4 psycometri chart
guess (F Weight ) (Tw)
residence time
(tr) Buoyancy force mass and heat
equation 1 equation 14, 15
(F B) balance
guess
removed water
residence time (tr) equation 1 drying efficiency ε=(mw,0 - mw,t)/ mw,0

error calculation abs(tr,model - tr,guess)

Experimental
Data

Experimental
Data

1 2

19
Figure 2. Algorithm of the model calculation

20
 3 .0
(a ) B u o y a n c y fo rc e
(b)
2 .5 0 .0 3
W e ig h t fo r c e
E x p e r im e n ta l D ra g fo rc e

Residence time (s)

E rg u n m e th o d

Force (x10-5 N)
2 .0
W e n - Y u m e th o d
0 .0 2
1 .5

1 .0
0 .0 1

0 .5

0 .0 0
1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 3 .5 4 .0 0 .1 0 .1 5 0.2 0 .2 5 0 .3 0.3 5 0 .4
S u p e r f ic ia l g a s v e lo c ity ( m /s ) S u p e r f ic ia l g a s v e lo c ity ( m /s )

1 .0 0 .4
(c ) 7 .2 e -4 m
(d )
0 .8 5 .5 e -4 m
0 .3 3 .8 e -4 m

Force (x 10-5 N)
2 .5 e -4 m
umf (m/s)

0 .6
0 .2
0 .4

0 .1
0 .2

0 .0 0 .0
3 4 5 6 7 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 3 .5 4 .0
P a r tic le d ia m e te r ( x 1 0 -4 m ) S u p e r f ic ia l g a s v e lo c ity ( m /s )

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

-7
P a r t ic le s u r f a c e a r e a ( x 1 0 m 2)

21
Figure 3. (a) Effect of superficial gas velocity on residence time of solid particle in the drying reactor, (b) Distribution of working forces at particle
diameter of 2.5 x 10-4 m, (c) Effect of solid particle diameter on minimum superficial gas velocity, (d) Effect of superficial gas velocity and particle
diameter on working drag force on solid particle.

22
 1.4 1.4
Experimental
(a) Experimental
(b)
1.2 Ergun method 1.2
Wen-Yu method Calculation
Drying efficiency

Drying efficiency
1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008
Particle diameter (m) Particle diameter (m)

Figure 4. Comparison result of the drying efficiency (a) using calculated residence time and (b) experimental residence time

23