ScienceDirect

Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Availableonline
Available onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Energy
EnergyProcedia 142
Procedia 00(2017)
(2017)1367–1374
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

9th International Conference on Applied Energy, ICAE2017, 21-24 August 2017, Cardiff, UK

Computational fluid dynamic analysis of airflow in belt dryer:

The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling
effects of conveyor position on airflow distribution
Assessing the1,2,feasibility
Pengfei Zhang Yanbin Mu1,of using Shi
Zhenzhen the3, heat demand-outdoor
Qi Zhang 1*
, Mingjun Wei4,
temperature function for a long-term district 3,5* heat demand forecast
Majid Jaberi-Douraki
a,b,c a a b c c
I. Andrić
1.College *, A. Pina
of Mechanical , P. Ferrão
Engineering, , J. Fournier
Yangzhou ., Yangzhou,
University, B. Lacarrière , O.225127,
Jiangsu Le Corre
China
a 2.Jiangsu
IN+ Center for Innovation, TechnologyMuyang
and PolicyHolding
Research - Co., Ltd.,
Instituto Jiangsu,
Superior Técnico,225127,
Av. RoviscoChina
Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
3.Institutec of Computational Comparative Medicine, Anatomy and Physiology,
b
Veolia Recherche & Innovation, 291 Avenue Dreyfous Daniel, 78520 Kansas State University,
Limay, France
Département Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement - IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, 44300 Nantes, France
KS 66506, USA
4.Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Kansas State University, KS 66506, USA
5.Department of Mathematics, Kansas State University, KS 66506, USA
Abstract

District heating networks are commonly addressed in the literature as one of the most effective solutions for decreasing the
Abstract
greenhouse gas emissions from the building sector. These systems require high investments which are returned through the heat
BeltDue
sales. dryers
to thehave beenclimate
changed widely used in and
conditions the building
drying process,
renovation apolicies,
key process for quality
heat demand in the control,
future couldof aquatic
decrease,
feed or petthe
prolonging food. An important
investment criterion to measure the drying quality of a dryer is moisture uniformity,
return period.
which directly
The main scope of affected byisthe
this paper distribution
to assess of airflow
the feasibility field.
of using Thedemand
the heat airflow field istemperature
– outdoor determined by several
function for heatfactors,
demand
forecast. The district of Alvalade, located in Lisbon (Portugal), was used as a case study.
including conveyor position and feed thickness. In this study, effects of conveyor positions on airflow The district is consisted of 665
buildings that vary in both construction period and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) and three district
distribution in threewere
renovation scenarios types of belt(shallow,
developed dryers intermediate,
are simulated andTocompared
deep). estimate the using
error,computational fluid values
obtained heat demand dynamicwere
analysis. The simulation results show that the conveyor positions had significant
compared with results from a dynamic heat demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors. effects on airflow rate in
aThe
two-layer belt dryer.
results showed that whenFurthermore,
only weather the simulation
change provided
is considered, three
the margin of different
error could airflow fields
be acceptable forfor
somethree dryer
applications
(the errorand
models, in annual demanddryer
an optimal was lower
model than
was 20% for all weather
selected scenarios
for further considered).
analysis of air However,
velocity after introducing
on feed surface. renovation
scenarios, the error value increased up to 59.5% (depending on the weather and renovation scenarios combination considered).
©The
2017value
The of slope Published
Authors. coefficientbyincreased
Elsevier onLtd.average within the range of 3.8% up to 8% per decade, that corresponds to the
decrease inunder
Peer-review the number of heating
responsibility hours
of the of 22-139h
scientific during
committee heating
of the 9th season (depending
International Conferenceon
onthe combination
Applied Energy.of weather and
renovation scenarios considered). On the other hand, function intercept increased for 7.8-12.7% per decade (depending on the
Keywords: aquatic feed; The
coupled scenarios). drying; moisture;
values airflow;could
suggested CFD be used to modify the function parameters for the scenarios considered, and
improve the accuracy of heat demand estimations.

*©Corresponding
2017 The Authors.authors.
PublishedQibyZhang Ltd. Majid Jaberi-Douraki
Elsevierand
E-mail address:
Peer-review qizhang@yzu.edu.cn
under responsibility and
of the Scientific jaberi@vet.ksu.edu
Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
Cooling.

Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate change

1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1876-6102 under
Peer-review © 2017 The Authors.ofPublished
responsibility by Elsevier
the scientific Ltd.of the 9th International Conference on Applied Energy.
committee
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 9th International Conference on Applied Energy.
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.12.521
1368 Pengfei Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 1367–1374
Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 2

1. Introduction

Extruded feed is widely used in aquatic feed and pet food in many developing countries due to its unique
characteristics and excellent properties. Nutrients provided by the extruded feed can be absorbed more
easily because the extrusion process can destroy anti-nutritional factors [1]. Moreover, micro-organisms are
eliminated from the feed, which is beneficial for animal’ healthy growth [1, 2] during extrusion.
Drying is used remove moisture from extruded feed and obtain uniformly dried products. Drying can
prolong the shelf-life of products and reduce the costs of transportation and storage [3-5]. Moisture uniformity
of aquatic feed or pet food is an imperative criterion to measure the drying quality of a dryer. A poor airflow
distribution in drying leads to a moisture content variation that could be detrimental to feed quality. Several
factors affect airflow field, among other things, conveyor positions and feed thickness are the two main
factors.
In this study, effects of conveyor positions on airflow distribution in three types of belt dryers are simulated
and compared using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis. Utilizing CFD simulation, airflow
velocity in a drying chamber is predicted. In previous studies, Misha et al. [6] used CFD to simulate the
airflow inside a newly developed dryer. A feasible solution is provided to verify the drying effects by
simulating the velocity of air flow [7]. Mathioulakis et al.[7] developed an industrial batch-type tray dryer for
drying fruits. CFD simulations are used to predict the air velocity in drying chamber. Mohsen et al. [8] used
CFD to simulate the drying process of deep rice with experimental verification. The feasibility of CFD
simulation was verified by the improvement deep rice. Samaneh et al. [9] established different CFD models
to simulate air flow in drying chambers. Results show that diversification of model structure provides a
guideline for experiments. Comparison between CFD simulation result and experimental data revealed that
there is a strong correlation between dryer structure and air velocity.
The objectives of this study are: (1) to simulate airflow distribution in three types of dryers and compare
the simulated results; and (2) to evaluate an optimal design with the CFD extracted data and calculate the
average value of airflow velocity on feed surface. The small standard deviation of airflow should be
achieved to obtain uniform moisture in a dryer.

2. Model setup and simulation

2.1. Numerical algorithm

A porous media formulation was used to model three-dimensional models for three types of dryers. A finite
volume method was used to solve the governing equations of the numerical model using CFD software
FLUENT (ANSYS, version 15.2, Canonsburg, PA, USA).

2.2. Porous Media

Both steel conveyors and feed on conveyors reduce the velocity of airflow. The two parts can be treated as
an integrated part and thus a model of the porous medium is employed here [9]. The calculation of the
porous medium model is achieved by adding a kinematic source term to the equation (1). The source term
is composed of two parts: a viscous loss term and an inertial loss term given by
 Pengfei Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 1367–1374 1369
Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

  
1 
Si    Dijj   cij magi  (1)
 j 1 j 1 2 
where Si is the source term for the i  th motion equation, and D and C denote the specific coefficient
matrices.

2.3. Turbulent Model

A set of measurements was obtained experimentally to validate the model. The experimental validation of
the simulation results through CFD showed that the standard ( k   ) model is an adequate turbulence
model to be applied in similar studies based on equations (2) and (3). The turbulent kinetic energy, k , and
its rate of dissipation,  , are calculated from the following equations [10]:

  t  k 
 ρ k     k ui       Gk  Gb    YM  S k , (2)
t xi x j
  k  x j 
    t     2
      ui         C1 Gk  C3 Gb   C2   S ,
  (3)
t xi x j     x j  k k
where Gk and Gb are caused by the mean velocity gradient and buoyancy, respectively. Both of them are
generating terms of the turbulent kinetic energy k. YM is the contribution of pulsating expansion
incompressible turbulence. C1ε , C2 and C3 are empirical constants.  k and   are the corresponding Prandtl
value of turbulent kinetic energy k and dissipation rate  , respectively. Sk and S are user-defined source
items. When the assumption of an incompressible fluid is made, set Gb=0, YM=0. When a user-defined
source is not considered, we set Sk = 0, S  0 . In a standard k   model, coefficients in the model should
set to the following values given by ANSYS software: C1ε = 1.44 , C2 = 1.92 , C3 = 0.09 ,  k = 1.0 ,   = 1.3 .

2.4. Model geometry

The Geometry of dryers was drawn using ANSYS design model program. The 3-D simulation model of
three dryer types and predicted airflow direction within the dryers were shown in Figures 1 (a-c). The
length, width, and height of the dryers are 3.4 m, 2 m, and 3 m, respectively. The internal dimensions are
different. Due to the company requirements of confidentiality, the specific values cannot be listed. There
are two conveyors and the feed thickness is 0.1 m on each conveyor in type A dryer. There are four
conveyors and the feed thickness is 0.05 m on each conveyor in type B and type C dryers. Compared to
type B dryer, two conveyors in type C dryer are very close and airflow is split into two paths.

2.5. Model assumption

A few assumptions were made for simplicity but without loss of generality: (1) the air flow inside the drying
chamber is a steady flow; (2) there is no heat exchange inside the drying chamber; and (3) The turbulence
viscosity of the internal airflow is isotropic.
1370 Pengfei Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 1367–1374
Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 4

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 1. Panels (a)-(c) represents the structures of type A-C chambers in belt dryer, respectively.

2.6. Boundary conditions

The boundary condition of the inlet is determined by the air volume. Air-only or single component model
with the assumptions of incompressible and steady-state flow [10] is used in this study. To simulate the airflow
distribution and airflow velocity inside the drying chamber, physical properties of air (air density and
viscosity) are not considered in this study for simplicity. The size of the fan is 0.5 m  2 m (width  length)
and a differential pressure of air volume at the fan is set to 1200 Pa.
The parameters required for the porous medium are the permeability  and inertial resistance factor C2,
which can be obtained from the equivalent diameter Dd and porosity φ. In this simulation, equivalent
diameter of feed pellet Dd and porosity of feed  can be measured by experiment. The permeability  and
inertia resistance factors C2 can be calculated by equations (4) and (5):
2
D 3 (4)
 d
150 (1 -  )3
3.5 (1 -  ) (5)
C2 
Dd  3
where Dd= 8mm,   0.3 . Thus,   2.3 10-8 , C2 = 1.134 104 were calculated from equations (4) - (5).
 Pengfei Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 1367–1374 1371
Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5

3. Result and discussion

3.1. Results of airflow velocity of three dryers

Figure 2 shows the CFD simulation results of airflow velocity and airflow field in three types of dryers. It
can be seen that the airflow velocity in type B dryer has a better uniform pattern compared to the type A
dryer and type C dryer because the streamlines crossing the conveyors are uniformly distributed.

(a) Type A (b) Type B

(c) Type
Figure 2. Simulation results of airflow fields in three dryers: Panel (a): type A; Panel (b): type B; Panel
(c): type C.

(a) (b)
Figure 3. Panel (a): Top view of selected positions of three lines on a conveyor; Panel (b): Side view of a vertical
section of a conveyor.

Figure 3 (a) shows the top view of selected three lines on a conveyor. The total length (L) of the
1372 Pengfei Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 1367–1374
Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 6

conveyor is divided into three portions. The selected three lines are located at left (1/8 L), middle (1/2 L)
and right (1/8 L). Furthermore, three vertical sections for each conveyor were selected for more analysis,
as shown in Figure 3 (b).
Table 1 shows average values of airflow velocity on a vertical section of each conveyor for three types of
dryers. Results show that the type A dryer has higher airflow velocity than that of type B or type C dryer.
Besides, the standard deviation in the type A dryer is larger than that of type B or type C dryer. This is due
to the fact that the airflow needs to penetrate two conveyors instead of four conveyors. The airflow was
from the left side (near the inlet) to the right side (near the outlet) to take away moisture from the feed.
Thus, the airflow velocity on the left side is slower than that of the right side. Overall, changes in average
value and standard deviation of the air velocity in type B and type C dryers are smaller than that of type A
dryer.

Table 1. Airflow velocity on vertical plane at each conveyor for three-type dryers.

Velocity (m/s)
Left Middle Right Avg (Standard Deviation)
Conveyor 1 2.46 1.83 1.39 1.89 (0.538)
Type A
Conveyor 2 1.71 1.92 2.16 1.93 (0.225)
Conveyor 1 1.06 1.15 1.23 1.15 (0.085)
Conveyor 2 0.72 0.92 1.32 0.99 (0.306)
Type B Conveyor 3 0.93 1.0 1.06 1.00 (0.065)
Conveyor 4 0.70 0.83 1.19 0.91 (0.253)
Conveyor 1 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.14 (0.020)
Conveyor 2 1.12 1.15 1.16 1.14 (0.021)
Type C
Conveyor 3 1.14 1.15 1.18 1.16 (0.021)
Conveyor 4 1.12 1.16 1.17 1.15 (0.026)

3.2. Results of airflow velocity on the first feed layer in type B dryer

In Section 3.1, the airflow velocity of a vertical section of each conveyor has been analyzed. Taking into
account the complexity of the model, this paper focused on the analysis of airflow velocity of first feed
layer (integrated with conveyor 1) in a type B dryer. Figure 4 (a) shows that the feed thickness (0.05m)
was divided into three layers (top, middle, and bottom). Figure 4 (b-d) shows that the distribution of airflow
velocity at each layer. The shades of red regions represent the highest airflow velocity. As demonstrated in
Figure 4 (b), The airflow velocity approaches the bottom layer at 8/s and the airflow direction is toward to
air outlet (right side). The airflow velocity reduced as the airflow passed through the feed. The slowest
airflow velocity (as denoted in the blue region near the outlet) is close to 1.8 m/s. Figure 4 (c) shows the
distribution of airflow velocity at middle layers of the feed. The airflow receives resistance while
penetrating the feed but a similar distribution of airflow velocity appears as observed in Figure 4 (b). The
highest airflow velocity was close to the air inlet and the airflow velocity declined as air flows away from
the inlet. The airflow velocity tends to be stabilized at 2.2 m/s. Figure 4 (d) shows the distribution of airflow
velocity at top layers of the feed. The airflow velocity is reduced to 1 - 1.7 m/s after penetrating the feed.
Interestingly, similar simulated results were also obtained in type A and type C dryers. Overall, the airflow
velocity remains in an unsteady state before passing through the feed. When the airflow penetrates the feed,
 Pengfei Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 1367–1374 1373
Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 7

the airflow velocity is gradually reduced and eventually stabilized. Moreover, the airflow velocity is high
near the inlets and evenly distributed on both sides near the outlet.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 4. Panel (a): Three horizontal layers of feed on conveyor 1; Panel (b): Cross section of airflow velocity
distribution at bottom layer of feed; Panel (c): Cross section of air velocity distribution at middle layer of feed; and Panel
(d): Cross section of air velocity distribution at top layer of feed.
In order to clearly analyze Figure 4, the feed thickness (0.05 m) on conveyor 1 is further divided into three
layers. Three lines (according to the line positions in Figure 3 (a)) on each layer were selected. The average
value of airflow velocity on each line was calculated, as shown in Table 2. Results are consistent with
Figure 4. The airflow direction travels from left (inlet) to right (outlet). Thus, the airflow velocity on the
right-hand side is higher than that of the left side. For the left side, the airflow velocity has an obvious
reduction from 2.89 m/s at the bottom layer to 0.87 m/s at the top layer. Besides, the airflow velocity on
the right-hand side has a small increase from 1.05 m/s at the bottom layer to 1.32 m/s at the top layer after
penetrating the feed.
Table 2. Airflow velocity of horizontal three lines for each layer.
Velocity(m/s)
Left Middle Right Avg (Standard Deviation)
Top 0.87 1.06 1.32 1.08 (0.226)
Middle 1.72 1.18 1.15 1.35 (0.321)
Bottom 2.89 1.36 1.05 1.77 (0.985)
Avg (Standard Deviation) 1.82 (1.014) 1.20 (0.151) 1.17 (0.137)

4. Conclusion

In this study, the distribution of airflow velocity in three different structures of drying chamber was
1374 Pengfei Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 1367–1374
Zhang et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 8

simulated and analyzed. The airflow field of dryer chambers was investigated and demonstrated using
heatmaps. Based on the simulated results, the following conclusion can be drawn: 1) type C dryer and type
B dryer have more uniform airflow distribution than type A dryer when the total feed thickness is the same.
However, four conveyors in B and C lead to higher production cost. 2) The airflow velocity is reduced
when penetrating the feeds; 3) The direction of airflow travels from the left (inlet) to the right (outlet).
Different airflow velocities may appear on different conveyors due to their positions.
Compared to one chamber used for the dryers in this study, a dryer is typically composed of 3-5
chambers in the real industrial application. In order to ensure a uniform moisture distribution of aquatic
feed, the inlets of chambers are not assembled on the same side. In other words, the left side of chamber 1
is an inlet and the left side of chamber 2 is an outlet. To further investigate these complicated structures of
dryers, experimental verifications are required. Moreover, heat exchange and energy consumption may also
be considered and analyzed in the future study.

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by JiangSu Science Fund award BK20140486 and JiangSu University Fund
14KJB480007, China Postdoc Fund2014M560448, Yangzhou University student innovation program
yzucx2016-3C and Yangzhou University Graduate English Course. This work is also supported by Kansas
Bioscience Authority.

References

[1] Behnke, K.C., Feed manufacturing technology: current issues and challenges. Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 1996. 62(1): p. 49-57.
[2] Jones, F., K. Anderson, and P. Ferket, Effect of extrusion on feed characteristics and broiler chicken performance.
Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 1995. 4(3): p. 300-309.
[3] Wang, C., Research on Characteristics of Expanded Feed and Airflow Field Simulation in the Belt Cross-Flow
Dryer. Huazhong Agricultural University: Wuhan, China, 2010.
[4] Thomas, M. and A. Van der Poel, Physical quality of pelleted animal feed 1. Criteria for pellet quality. Animal
Feed Science and Technology, 1996. 61(1-4): p. 89-112.
[5] Zhang, Q., Z. Shi, P. Zhang, Z. Li, and M. Jaberi-Douraki, Predictive temperature modeling and experimental
investigation of ultrasonic vibration-assisted pelleting of wheat straw. Applied Energy, 2017. 205: p. 511-
528.
[6] Suhaimi, M., M. Sohif, M. Afzanizam, M. Rosli, R. Mohd Hafidz, S. Kamaruzzaman, and S. Elias, Simulation of
air flow distribution in a tray dryer by CFD. 2015.
[7] Mathioulakis, E., V. Karathanos, and V. Belessiotis, Simulation of air movement in a dryer by computational fluid
dynamics: application for the drying of fruits. Journal of Food Engineering, 1998. 36(2): p. 183-200.
[8] Ranjbaran, M., B. Emadi, and D. Zare, CFD simulation of deep-bed paddy drying process and performance.
Drying technology, 2014. 32(8): p. 919-934.
[9] Keshani, S., M.H. Montazeri, W.R.W. Daud, and M.M. Nourouzi, CFD modeling of air flow on wall deposition
in different spray dryer geometries. Drying technology, 2015. 33(7): p. 784-795.
[10] Tekasakul, P., R. Dejchanchaiwong, Y. Tirawanichakul, and S. Tirawanichakul, Three-dimensional numerical
modeling of heat and moisture transfer in natural rubber sheet drying process. Drying technology, 2015.
33(9): p. 1124-1137.