epsrc thermal management of industrial …research.ncl.ac.uk/pro-tem/components/pdfs... · epsrc...

EPSRC THERMAL MANAGEMENT OF

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES

Case Study Thermal Design of a Biomass Drying Process Using Low Grade Heat from Steel Industry

(July 2011)

Report Prepared by SUWIC Sheffield University

Researcher Dr J Zhou

Investigators Professor Jim Swithenbank Professor Vida N Sharifi

Sheffield University Waste Incineration Centre (SUWIC) Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering Sheffield University

- 1 -

Executive Summary

A considerable amount of waste heat is available from process industries in the

form of cooling water and flue gases Depending on their temperatures these

sources of low grade heat can be utilised in a number of ways such as district heating

systems heat pumps condensing boilers and drying of biomass

Drying biomass increases the net heating value of the biomass material and

improves the performance of the boiler As a result the biomass consumption for a

given energy output is reduced and the boiler efficiency is increased

In accordance with our EPSRC grant proposal Sheffield University has conducted

an extensive literature review of biomass drying looking into various technologies

and the associated costs In addition calculations were carried out as part of a case

study in order to investigate the thermal design of a biomass drying system using the

waste heat from steel industry The possible use of each flue gas stream in drying

biomass was analysed Additional calculations were conducted in order to estimate

the capital and running costs of the process In addition the effects of different

initial and final moisture contents of the biomass material on the performance of dryer

and the associated drying costs were evaluated This report presents the results

obtained from the above studies

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Engineering and Physical Science Research

Council (EPSRC Thermal Management of Industrial Processes Consortium) for their

financial and technical support for this research work

- 2 -

List of Contents

1 Introduction3

2 Literature Review Biomass Drying 5

21 Drying Process and Mechanism5

22 Dryer Principle6

221 Heating Source6

222 Heating Method 8

223 Types of Dryer 9

23 Selection of Dryers 15

24 Capital and Running Costs16

25 Safety and Environmental Issues 18

3 Case Study Biomass Drying Process Design Using Low Grade Heat 20

31 Low Grade Heat from Steel Production Process 20

32 Drying System Design 25

321 Thermal Design Methodology 25

322 Dryer Capacity 28

323 Drying Curve 32

324 Dryer Parameters 36

33 Cost Estimation41

331 Capital Costs 41

332 Running Costs48

333 Profitability 49

4 Conclusions54

References55

- 3 -

1 Introduction

Biomass has some environmental advantages over fossil fuels as it generates lower

level of pollutants such as SO2 and CO2 Therefore biomass as the only significant

source of carbon-based renewable fuel can replace fossil fuels for heating power

generation and transport

The combustion of biomass can be divided into several processes ie drying

pyrolysis gasification and combustion The moisture content of biomass typically

varies between 50-63 wt (wet basis) depending on the season weather and the type

of material (Holmberg and Ahtila 2004) The high moisture content in biomass

requires more energy for evaporation of water in the combustion chamber which

cannot be utilized in the power generation Hence the energy input into the process

is decreased which consequently results in a reduced heat andor electricity

production Table 11 presents data for the combustion of wood fuel with different

moisture contents (Wimmerstedt 2006) Here it is assumed that the flue gas

temperature is constant at 150 ordmC and the feeding air temperature is 40 ordmC The

calculation is based on 1 kg of dry material

Table 11 Combustion of wood fuel with different moisture contents

Moisture contents () 65 50 15

Water amount (kgkgdm) 19 10 02

Anticipated excess air level 16 14 12

Low calorific value (MJkg) 144 165 186

Flue gas volume at 1 bar 0 ordmC (m3kg) 103 88 62

Flue gas sensible heat loss (MJkg) 21 18 13

Efficiency 085 089 093

Adiabatic combustion temperature (ordmC) 900 1200 1800

As shown in table 11 a high level of excess air ratio is required when burning a

wood fuel with high moisture content This results in lower temperatures in the

boiler which in turn is highlighted by the adiabatic combustion temperatures In

addition there is a significant increase in the amount of flue gases due to the

evaporated water and the higher level of excess air ratio Therefore the flue gas heat

loss increases at higher fuel moisture content and the boiler efficiency is decreased

Some of the main reasons for drying biomass are highlighted in the lsquoHandbook of

Biomass Combustion and Co-firingrsquo (Loo and Koppejan 2008) These are as

follows

1 The heating value of the fuel (based on NCV) is affected by its moisture content

Therefore the efficiency of the combustion system increases as the moisture content

- 4 -

decreases

2 A more complex combustion technology and process control system is required if

the moisture content of the fuel varies which will add extra investment costs

3 The moisture content of the fuel should be below 30 wt (wet basis) for

domestic applications This is because the long-term storage of wet biomass fuels

causes problems with dry-matter loss and hygiene

4 The moisture content of material should be about 10-30 wt (wet basis) for use

in a small scale furnace

5 The moisture content of the raw material must be about 10 wt (wet basis) for

production of pellets

Although it is known that drying biomass fuel provides significant benefits these

benefits must be balanced against increased capital and operating costs occurred by

the drying process

In UK a large amount of low grade heat is generated by the process industry In

July 2008 the market potential for surplus heat from industrial processes was

estimated at 65 PJ by the Governmentrsquos Office of Climate Change (BERR 2008) and

36-71 PJ in a report by McKenna (McKenna 2009) Low grade heat (ie flue gas

hot water and steam) from the process industries can be used as a source of energy for

drying biomass This is beneficial to both process industries and the industries

utilizing biomass

This report presents the results obtained from the literature review work (ie drying

mechanism and biomass drying technologies) It also presents the results obtained

from a series of calculations which were carried out in order to investigate the design

of a biomass drying process using the low grade heat from process industries as the

heating source

- 5 -

2 Literature Review Biomass Drying

21 Drying Process and Mechanism

Drying is a process that removes moisture thermally to yield a solid product It is

a complex operation involving transient transfer of heat and mass During the

thermal drying two processes occur simultaneously (1) the energy (mostly as heat) is

transferred from the surrounding environment to evaporate the surface moisture by

the means of convection conduction or radiation (2) the internal moisture is

transferred to the surface of solid and then evaporated due to the process (1) In

process (1) the removal of water as vapour from the material surface is determined by

the external conditions such as temperature air humidity and flow area of exposed

surface and pressure In process (2) the transport of moisture within the solid

depends on the physical nature of the solid the temperature and its moisture content

(Mujumdar 2006)

The drying behaviour of solids can be characterized by measuring the moisture

content loss as a function of time Figure 21 shows a typical drying rate curve of a

hygroscopic product Three stages can be distinguished during the drying process

In the first constant drying rate stage the external free water attached to the product is

removed The rate-controlling step in this drying stage is the diffusion of the water

vapour across the air-moisture interface and the rate at which the surface for diffusion

is removed Towards the end of the constant drying rate stage moisture has been

transported from the inside of the solid to the surface by capillary forces and the

drying rate may still be constant The drying rate starts to fall when the average

moisture content reaches the critical moisture content This leads to the second

falling rate stage of unsaturated surface drying The internal diffusion of water to

the surface of the product takes place in this period It proceeds until the surface

film of liquid is entirely evaporated In the following third drying stage the

controlling step is the rate at which moisture may move through the solid due to the

concentration gradients between the deeper parts and the surface The heat transfer

to the surface and the heat conduction in the product are both active and the latter

influences the drying rate increasingly The rate of drying reduces even more rapidly

than before and drying stops once the moisture content falls down to the equilibrium

value for the prevailing air humidity The second and third stages can also be

combined together since the both experience the falling drying rate

The understanding of drying process and drying mechanism is extremely important

when drying biomass It is on the one hand expected to operate the drying at high

temperature in order to accelerate the heat transfer and minimize the equipment size

but on the other hand there are concerns with regard to the ignition of the biomass

The risk of biomass being ignited usually occurs at two points during the drying

process The first one is just at the end of the constant drying rate period when the

- 6 -

surface moisture has evaporated but an appreciate amount of water has not moved

from the inside to the surface In this short period the temperature at the surface

increases quickly since there is no water vapour near the surface to keep the biomass

particles cool The second point occurs when the biomass is over dried The

biomass could be ignited when it reaches its combustion temperature or the emitted

gases reach their flash point Over drying only happens during the upset conditions

or when using unsuitable dryers

Figure 21 Typical rate-of-drying curve (Mujumdar 2006)

22 Dryer Principle

The drying system needs to meet three requirements heat source drying method

and the form of agitation to expose new material for drying (Liptaacutek 1998a) The

different methods to achieve these requirements result in different dryers These

three requirements are consistent with the principle factors suggested by Keey (Keey

1972 1978) which could be used to classify dryer manner of heat supply to the

material temperature and pressure of operation and manner to handle the material

within the dryer

221 Heating Source

Drying mediums are mostly flue gas air and steam For drying within a biomass

fired combustion plant possible sources of heating are from (1) exhaust gases from

hot furnace engine or gas turbine (2) high-pressure steam from a steam or combined

cycle plant (3) warm air from an air-cooled condenser in a steam or combined cycle

plant and (4) steam from dedicated combustion of surplus biomass or diverted

product gas char or bio-fuel (Fagernaumls et al 2010) Figures 22 and 23 show the

principles of a flue gas dryer and a superheated steam dryer in combination with a

- 7 -

boiler respectively For the flue gas dryer the flue gases after the boiler are taken

through a fuel dryer in which the fuel used in the boiler is dried For superheated

steam dryer the steam is extracted from the boiler and the evaporated water from the

dryer is recovered as low-pressure steam The superheated steam dryers have some

advantages compared to the flue gas dryers The total energy efficiency is increased

due to the possibility of reuse the latent heat of evaporation No oxidation or

combustion reaction is possible which eliminates the risks of explosions and hazards

And steam dryers have higher drying rates than flue gas dryers However steam

dryers also have some disadvantages Due to the high temperature level they have

problems with temperature-sensitive materials (Beeby and Potter 1985) For drying

biomass using steam dryer volatile organic materials contained in the biomass may be

emitted increasingly together with the water vapour at higher temperature steam

drying This would reduce the heating value of the biomass and increase the costs of

treating the exhaust steam In addition superheated steam dryers are difficult to

achieve low moisture content and the initial condensation may increase the total

drying time The systems also become more complex compared to those using flue

gas dryers

Figure 22 Principle of a flue gas dryer in combination with a boiler (Wimmerstedt

2006)

Figure 23 Principle of a superheated steam dryer in combination with a boiler

(Wimmerstedt 2006)

- 8 -

222 Heating Method

Convection conduction and radiation are three commonly used methods in

industrial drying In most cases heat is transferred to the surface of the product and

then to the interior However using dielectric radio frequency (RF) or microwave

freezing drying methods heat is generated internally within the product and then

transfers to the exterior surface

Convection

Convection is possibly the most common mode of drying Heat for evaporation is

supplied by convection to the exposed surface of the material and the evaporated

moisture is carried away by the drying medium Air inert gas (eg N2) direct

combustion gas or superheated steam can be as the drying source Convective

dryers can also be called direct dryers During the constant drying rate period the

solid surface takes on the wet bulb temperature which is determined by the ambient

air temperature and humidity at the same location While during the falling rate

period the solidsrsquo temperature approaches the dry bulb temperature of the drying

medium It should be noted that when using superheated steam as the drying

medium the solidsrsquo temperature corresponds to the saturation temperature at the

operating pressure

Conduction

Conduction or indirect drying is more suitable for thin products or for very wet

solids Heat is supplied through heated surfaces (stationary or moving) placed

within the dryer to support convey or confine the solids The evaporated moisture

is carried away by vacuum operation or by a stream of gas as a carrier of moisture

The thermal efficiency of conductive dryers is higher than convective dryers as the

latter loses a considerable amount of enthalpy with the drying medium

Radiation

Infrared radiation is often used in drying coatings thin sheets and films Although

most moisture materials are poor conductors for 50-60 Hz current the impedance falls

dramatically at radio frequency Hence such radiation could be used to heat the

solid volumetrically Energy is absorbed selectively by the water molecules Thus

less energy is required as the material becomes drier Since the capital and operating

costs are high for radiation drying it is usually to dry high unit value products or to

finally correct the moisture profile wherein only small quantities of hard-to-get

moisture are removed

It is noteworthy that sometimes the different drying methods can be combined

together For example a fluid bed dryer with immersed heating tubes or coils

- 9 -

combines advantages of both direct and indirect heating It can be only one third the

size of a purely convective fluid bed dryer for the same duty The combination of

radiation and convection is also feasible such as infrared plus air jets or microwave

with impingement

223 Types of Dryer

The dryers can be classified according to the method of heating transfer or the

drying source Using the former classification the dryers can be divided into

convective dryers conductive dryers radiative dryers and dielectric dryers Using

the later classification the dryers can be broadly divided into airflue gas dryers and

superheated steam dryers In biomass drying the most common types of flue gas

dryers are rotary drum dryers and flash dryers And the commercial scale steam

dryers for biomass reported so far are tubular dryers fluidized bed dryers and

indirectly flash dryers (Wimmerstedt 2006 Fagernaumls et al 2010) In this section

some widely used biomass dryers will be review briefly

Rotary Dryer

Rotary dryer has been used for a long time in drying biomass and is by far the most

common dryer type in the existing large scale bioenergy plants It consists of a

slightly inclined rotating cylindrical shell fitted with a number of longitudinal flights

The flights lift the material and cascade it in a uniform curtain through the passing

gases Wet biomass is fed into the upper end of the dryer moves through it by virtue

of rotation head effect and slope of the shell and withdraws at the lower end finally

A schematic diagram of a direct co-current rotary dryer is shown in Figure 24 The

shell diameter can range from lt 1 m to gt 6 m depending on the throughput And the

drum rotating speed is varied from 2 to 8 rpm The direction of drying medium can

be either co-current or counter-current relative to the solids The biomass and hot

airflue gas normally flow co-currently through the dryer The hottest flue gas

contacts with the wettest biomass and the cooled flue gas contacts with the dried

biomass which could reduce the fire risk The exhaust gases leaving the dryer pass

through a cyclone multicyclone baghouse filter scrubber or electrostatic precipitator

(ESP) to remove any fine material entrained in the air According to the dryer

configuration an ID fan may be required which can be placed before the emission

control equipment to reduce erosion of the fan or after the first cyclone to provide the

pressure drop

Indirectly heated rotary dryers are widely used for the materials that would be

contaminated by the drying medium The heat source passes through the outer wall

of the dryer or through an inner central shaft to heat the dryer by conduction A

combined directindirect rotary dryer also exists where very hot flue gases enter the

dryer through a central shaft and initially provide heat indirectly by conduction then

the same gases pass through the dryer coming into direct contact with the wet

- 10 -

material During the second pass the indirect heating warms the flue gas and

material In this way a high flue gas temperature can be used for heating while the

fire risk is reduced by limiting the temperature of the gas in direct contact with the

biomass

Figure 24 Schematic diagram of direct rotary dryer (Krokida et al 2006)

The inlet gas temperature to rotary biomass dryer can vary from 230 ordmC to 1100 ordmC

and the outlet gas temperature varies from 70 ordmC to 110 ordmC To avoid the

condensation of acids and resins the outlet gas temperature is normally higher than

104 ordmC The retention time in rotary dryers can be less than a minute for small

particles and 10 to 30 minutes for larger material (Haapanen et al 1983

Intercontinental Engineering Ltd 1980 MacCallum et al 1981 Wardrop

Engineering Inc 1990)

The advantages of rotary dryers include (1) they are less sensitive to particle size

and can accept the hottest flue gas of any type of dryer (2) they have low

maintenance costs and the greatest capacity of any type of dryer (Intercontinental

Engineering Ltd 1980) But the material moisture is hard to control in rotary dryers

due to the long lag time for material in the dryer (Fredrikson 1984) Rotary dryers

also present the greatest fire hazard and require the most space (Intercontinental

Engineering Ltd 1980)

Conveyor Dryer

The conception of conveyor dryer (belt dryer) is simple The material is spread on

to a horizontally moving permeable belt in a continuous process and the heating

medium is forced through the bed of product by fans The drying medium is usually

either air or flue gas and its flow can be upward or downward Conveyor dryers are

very versatile and can handle a wide range of materials making them attractive for

biomass feedstocks Figure 25 is the conveyor dryer developed by Swiss Combi

(2009)

According to conveyor and airflow arrangement conveyor dryers generally have

- 11 -

three configurations that are single passsingle-stage dryers single passmulti-stage

dryer and multiple pass dryers

Figure 25 A conveyor dryer developed by Swiss Combi (1 Wet product 2 Feeding

screw 3 Pre-dried product discharge screw 4 Feeding screw 2nd layer 5 Dry product

discharge 6 Heat exchanger 7 Extraction fan 8 Cleaning brush 9 Belt cleaning

system) (Swiss Combi 2009)

Single passsingle-stage conveyor dryer is the simplest conveyor arrangement A

continuous belt runs the whole length of the dryer The advantages of this

configuration are that the heating medium temperature and velocity can be controlled

easily as the material progresses through the dryer and the bed cleaning accessories

are easy to access the bed as the bed can be returned under the dryer But its main

disadvantage is the same bed depth must be used throughout the complete drying

process

Single passmulti-stage conveyor dryer is the most versatile dryer configuration

available It overcomes the disadvantage of single passsingle stage dryer since the

bed depth can be varied during drying The single passmulti-stage dryer can adjust

the speed of beds in each stage Therefore the bed depth can be increased when the

following stage is slower than the preceding stage As a result the retention time for

a given product can be achieved in a smaller dryer Similar to the single

passsingle-stage configuration the single passmulti-stage one can also control the

heating medium temperature and velocity flexibly The only shortcoming of this

configuration is the higher cost and relatively large floor space requirement

Multiple pass conveyor dryer has same benefits as the single passmulti-stage one

but needs a much smaller footprint This is because the conveyor beds are arranged

one above the other running in opposite directions The material enters the dryer on

the top bed and cascades down to the lower beds The multiple pass dryer is the

most popular conveyor configuration in many industries due to its relatively low cost

- 12 -

small footprint and the ability to control the bed depths

The uniformity of drying in conveyor dry is very good due to the shallow depth of

material on the belt Conveyor dryers are better suited to take advantage of waste

heat recovery opportunities since they operate at lower temperatures than rotary

dryers The typical maximum drying air temperature is from 90 ordmC to 120 ordmC

Hence they can be used in conjunction with a boiler stack economizer to take

maximum advantage of heat recovery from boiler flue gas The lower temperature

also implies a lower fire hazard and lower emission of volatile organic compounds

(VOCs) from the dryer

Flash Dryer

Flash or pneumatic dryer achieves rapid drying with short residence time by fully

entraining the material in a high velocity gas flow (usually 15-35 ms) A simple

flash drying system (without scrubber) is presented in Figure 26 It includes the gas

heater the wet material feeder the drying duct the separator the exhaust fan and a

dried product collector The wet material is suspended in the drying medium

usually hot flue gas which flows up the drying tube

Figure 26 Schematic process of a flash dryer (Borde and Levy 2006)

The flash dryer is normally used for small particles and its gas stream velocity must

be higher than the free fall velocity Since the thermal contact between the

conveying gas and the solids is very short it is most suitable to remove the external

moisture The solid and gas are separated using a cyclone and the gases continue

though a scrubber to remove any entrained fine particles For wet or sticky

materials some of the dry material can be recycled back and mixed with the incoming

wet material to improve material handling Meanwhile the recirculation of the

- 13 -

material can also shorten the drying time Gas temperature of flash dryers is slightly

lower than rotary dryers but is still above the combustion point The solid residence

time in a flash dryer is typically less than 30 seconds to minimize the fire risk

The main advantages of flash dryer include (1) it can dry thermolabile materials

due to the short contact time and parallel flow (2) the dryer needs a very small area

and can be installed outside a building (3) it is easy to be controlled (4) the capital

and maintenance costs are low (5) simultaneous drying and transportation is useful

for material handling process While its main disadvantages are (1) high efficiency

of gas cleaning system is required (2) toxic materials cannot to be dried due to

powder emission but it can be avoided when using superheated steam as the heating

medium (3) lumped materials cannot be dried as they are difficult to disperse (4) it

needs to be operated carefully to avoid flammability limits in the dryer (Borde and

Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer

Cascade or sprouted dryers were extensively in Nordic Countries especially in

Sweden for drying grain but they can be used for other types of biomass It

consists of five main components fan cyclone superheater drying chamber with a

conical bottom and material inletoutlet as shown in Figure 27 Wet material is

introduced to the dryer with a high velocity flue gas stream at atmospheric pressure

and whirls around a cascading bed where the material is dried The coarse material

is removed from the drying chamber by an overflow The fine particles leave the

dryer with the exiting gas and are separated in a cyclone The typical residence time

for a cascade dryer is a couple of minutes Applications have been mainly as

pre-dryer in combination with wood-fuel boilers in saw and pulp mills

- 14 -

Figure 27 Schematic diagram of a cascade dryer (Berghel et al 2008)

Cascade dryers operate at intermediate temperatures between those of rotary and

conveyor dryers They have a small footprint than rotary and conveyor dryers A

disadvantage is that they are more prone to corrosion and erosion of dryer surfaces

and thus require high maintenance costs

Fluidized Bed Dryer

Fluidized bed dryers are used extensively for the drying of wet particulate and

granular materials that can be fluidized For drying powders in the particle size

range of 50 microm to 2000 microm fluidized bed dryers compete successfully with other

drying techniques such as rotary dryers and conveyor dryers Conventional

fluidized bed dryer using hot air or flue gas could be suitable for biomass feedstocks

Figure 28 shows a typical fluidized bed drying system zones in a fluidized bed with

its corresponding solids hold-up and types of perforated distributor plates The

drying system consists of gas blower heater fluidized bed column and gas cleaning

systems (eg cyclone bag filters precipitator and scrubber) To save energy

sometimes the exit gas is partially recycled A gas stream is supplied to the bed

through a special perforated distributor plate and is uniformly distributed across the

bed As shown in Figure 28 there are four common types of distributors that are (i)

ordinary (ii) sandwiched (iii) bubble cap tuyere and (iv) sparger The gas stream

velocity is high enough to support the weight of whole bed in a fluidized status and

makes the solids suspend in the upward flowing gas The bubbling fluidized bed is

divided vertically into two zones namely a dense phase at the bottom and a freeboard

phase above the denser phase (Figure 28 upper right side) In the freeboard phase

the solids are held up and their density decreases with height Since the gas phase

and solid phase are mixed well the fluidized bed dryer can achieve a uniform and fast

evaporation

Figure 28 Typical fluidized bed drying set up (Law and Mujumdar 2006)

Steam fluidized bed dryer can combine the advantages of superheated steam drying

and the excellent heat and mass transfer characteristics of a fluidized bed A

- 15 -

pressurized steam fluid bed dryer developed by Niro Inc has been installed in a

biofuel plant in Sweden for drying wood chips and barks (Jensen 1995) The

efficiency of this dryer is high because of the utilization of the recovered steam

And it has excellent environmental performance since the system is fully closed with

no gaseous emissions to atmosphere But the cost of this dryer is high and it is

likely only suited to relatively large-scale plant

A recently developed method for biomass drying is sub-fluid bed drying In this

dryer solid particles are brought in a fluid state by an upward-moving flow of gas in

combined with vertical mechanical shaking of the fluid bed distributor plate Thus

the gas and solids are intensively mixed resulting in high heat transfer rates and

proper drying conditions It is possible to have the residence time up to 2 hours and

the drying temperature up to 600 ordmC

The main advantages of fluidized bed dryer include high rate of moisture removal

high thermal efficiency easy material transport inside dryer easy control and low

maintenance cost And its limitations include high pressure drop high electricity

consumption poor fluidization quality of some particulate products non-uniform

product quality for certain types of fluidized bed dryers erosion of pipes and vessels

(Law and Mujumdar 2006)

23 Selection of Dryers

In the view of the enormous choices of dryer types one could possibly deploy for

most products selection of the best type is a challenging task

Drying kinetics plays a significant role in the selection of dryers Location of

moisture (whether near surface or distributed in the material) nature of moisture (free

or strongly bound to solid) mechanisms of moisture transfer (rate-limiting step)

physical size of material conditions of drying medium (eg temperature humidity

and flow rate) pressure in dryer etc should be considered for selecting the suitable

dryer as well as the optimal operating conditions (Mujumdar 2006)

In terms of the size of the material to be dried triple-pass rotary dryers can accept

larger material but may experience plugging with very large material For very

large or variable size material a single pass rotary dryer might be best choice

Cascade dryers require a very uniform particle size For flash dryers and fluidized

bed dryers a small particle size is needed so that the material can be suspended in a

moving gas or steam stream

In terms of the heat source and temperature flue gas is an efficient source of heat

but the temperature may be too low to provide enough heat for complete drying

Using a process stream for heating may be energy efficient but requires the capital

investment in a heat exchanger Superheated steam dryers require a high

temperature heat source It is necessary to determine what excess heat is available in

the system and then to design the drying system to take advantaged of it If no extra

heat can be utilized it has to install a burner with an auxiliary fuel source to provide

- 16 -

the heat for drying (Amos 1998)

In addition the product quality requirement has an overriding influence on the

selection process For high-value products the selection of dryers depends mainly

on the value of the dried products since the cost of drying becomes a small fraction of

the sale price of the product On the other hand for very low value products the

choice of drying system depends on the cost of drying so the lowest cost drying

system is selected Since the energy cost is a large part in the life cost of a dryer and

the cost of energy continues to rise in the future it is important to select an

energy-efficient dryer where possible even at a higher initial cost In return the

higher efficiency translates better environmental implications

Although the focus is to select the dryer it is noted that in practice pre-drying stages

(eg mechanical dewatering evaporation preconditioning of feed and feeding) as

well as post-drying stages (eg exhaust gas cleaning product collection partial

recirculation of exhausts cooling of product etc) are included in the drying system

The optimal cost-effective choice of dryer will depend in some cases significantly on

these stages

Based on the above discussion the selection of dryer is rather complex Several

different choices may exist but the final choice rests on numerous criteria Finally

even if the dryer is selected correctly the dryer needs to be operated properly to

achieve the desired product quality and production rate at minimum total cost

24 Capital and Running Costs

Costs of drying are varied depending on the types of dryers the material to be dried

and the plant in which the dryers are installed Table 21 lists the costs of rotary

dryers in $kgh of water removed from various sources in 1998 USD The heat

requirements were 3000 ndash 8100 kJkg of water removed with most estimates in the

range of 3500 ndash 4700 kJkg (Intercontinental Engineering Ltd 1980 Mercer 1994)

It should be noted that the first five cases only calculated the dryer unit costs but the

last four cases were the installation costs The installation costs were found to be

very site-specific

Some capital costs of flash dryers are listed in Table 22 in 1998 USD The

estimated energy requirement for flash drying is around 3700 kJkg of water removed

(Intercontinental Engineering Ltd 1980) The first two cases show the dryer unit

costs while the last two cases give the installation costs

Capital costs of three cascade dryer installations were identified from technical

articles by Bruce and Sinclair (1996) as shown in Table 23 They also compared

the capital costs of rotary flash and cascade dryers as listed in Table 24 The

material handling equipments such as conveyors feeders and bins were not included

in the cost information The heating medium is flue gas entering the dryer at 300 ordmC

and leaving at 105 ordmC As shown in these tables the flash dryer requires higher

equipment and installation costs than the rotary and cascade dryer while the costs of

- 17 -

the rotary dryer is similar to the cascade dryer

Table 21 Rotary dryer capital costs in 1998 USD (Amos 1998)

Dryer type Capital costs ($kgh) Source

Single-Pass 26 Fredrikson 1984

Triple-Pass 22 Fredrikson 1984

Stearns amp Roger 40 - 71 Intercontinental Engineering Ltd 1980

Aeroglide 24 - 46 Intercontinental Engineering Ltd 1980

Heli 37 - 106 Intercontinental Engineering Ltd 1980

Rotary 224 Frea 1984

Rotary 176 Technology Application Laboratory 1984

Flue Gas 761 Wardrop Engineering Inc 1990

Rotary 300 - 796 MacCallum et al 1981

Table 22 Flash dryer capital costs in 1998 USD (Amos 1998)


Flash 18 - 35 Fredrikson 1984

Williams Hot Hog 53 - 160 Intercontinental Engineering Ltd 1980

Bark 335 Haapanen et al 1983

Flash 550 - 1600 MacCallum et al 1981

Table 23 Cascade dryer capital costs (Bruce and Sinclair 1996)

Throughput Capital cost Source

9 th 5 million USD in 1995 Cadcades Inc East Angus Quebec

36 th 85 million CAD in 1986 Fletcher Challenge Crofton BC

32 th 63 million USD in 1992 Alabama River Pulp Claiborne AL

Table 24 Comparison of costs of flue gas dryers (Bruce and Sinclair 1996)

Dryer Moisture content Equipment costs Installed costs

type In () Out () (k$th) (k$th)

Rotary 55 40 45 ndash 80 370 ndash 160

Cascade 55 40 45 ndash 70 360 ndash 200

Flash 55 15 180 ndash 70 860 ndash 330

- 18 -

Note the first value is about 4 th and the second about 35 th

Costs of conveyor dryer in biomass drying have been calculated by Holmberg and

Ahtila (2004) Two alternative drying processes were considered multi-stage drying

and single-stage drying with multi-stage heating Air was used as the drying

medium and heat transfer from the heat source (secondary heat back pressure steam

and extraction steam) into the drying system occurred in indirect heat exchanges It

was found that for the multi-stage drying process the annual investment costs varied

from 359 keuro to 932 keuro based on the price level in 2002 For the single-stage drying

the annual investment costs varied from 323 keuro to 949 keuro They suggested that

single-stage drying could be a more economic way to carry out the drying if the

amortisation time were short otherwise multi-stage drying is generally more

economic because of the increasing running costs

According Bruce and Sinclair report (1996) installation costs of a high pressure

steam dryer developed by Imatran Voima Oy (IVO) were expected to be of the order

of 300 ndash 400 k$tevaph in 1996 USD which included a pulveriser for some size

reduction Wade (1998) provided costs of superheated steam dryers in a case study

for three dryer configurations The dryers were sized for a 55 th boiler drying

material from 60 to 40 moisture content The capital costs were 45 million

CAD for a MoDo type steam dryer 70 million CAD for a steam dryer with a heat

exchanger and 54 million CAD for a diskporcupine dryer All costs were based on

the price level in 1990 (Wardrop Engineering Inc 1990)

In addition to the equipment and installation costs the running costs are important

factors Power and maintenance costs are the main parts of running costs Power

consumptions based on the oven dry throughput are 8 ndash 14 kWht for rotary dryers

15-20 kWht for cascade dryers and 16-38 kWht for flash dryers (Bruce and Sinclair

1996) Holmberg and Ahtila (2004) estimated that the heat and electricity costs were

17-211 keuroyear for a multi-stage conveyor dryer with a throughput of 1 kgdms and

17-177 keuroyear for a single-stage conveyor dryer having the same throughput The

maintenance costs of equipment are not reported in the literature Generally an

allowance of 2 of total installation costs of the drying system is suggested as the

basis for preliminary evaluation purpose

25 Safety and Environmental Issues

A dryer fire or explosion can arise from ignition of a dust cloud if substantial

amounts of fines are present or from ignition of combustible gases released from the

drying material The combustion temperature of biomass released during drying is

in the range of 204 ndash 260 ordmC with an auto-ignition temperature of 260 ndash 288 ordmC

(MacCallum et al 1981) However most dryers can operate at much higher

temperatures The low drying temperature is beneficial to reduce the fire risk in the

dryer but decreases the drying rate

In addition the oxygen concentration in the dryer is also a serious concern In

- 19 -

most dryers the risk of fire or explosion becomes significant if the drying medium

has an oxygen concentration over about 10 vol In order to maintain a low

oxygen concentration the amount of excess air needs to be controlled or exhaust

gases can be recirculated to the dryer inlet Recirculation also increases the thermal

efficiency of the dryer Flue gas dryers typically operate at higher temperatures than

indirectly heated air dryers partly because of the lower oxygen content of the gas

(Intercontinental Engineering Ltd 1980) It should be noted that a high drying

temperature could create a risk of spark development and the release of carbon

monoxide through slow pyrolysis and smouldering Carbon monoxide together with

dust creates a risk of hybrid explosion which is very dangerous With carbon

monoxide present in atmosphere the safe oxygen level needs to be decreased

substantially ie below 8 vol

In terms of the drying time the longer residence time of material exposed to high

temperature medium and the lower the moisture content the greater the fire risk

Rotary dryers have the highest fire risk because of their longest retention times

Equipments to control fires include fire detection equipment fuel and air shut-offs

deluge showers steam or water sprays and fire dumps to prevent smouldering

material from reaching fuel stockpiles (Intercontinental Engineering Ltd 1980)

Another cause of fires in biomass dryers is the condensation of resins that are

released from the wood during drying If the dryer exhaust gases cool or come in

contact with cold surfaces the resin vapours may condense and then attract dust

This dust and resin mixture is very flammable and may build up and ignite at some

later time (Mercer 1994 Lamb 1994)

For superheated steam dryers the fire risk is minimal The guaranteed absence of

air and oxygen eliminates fire and explosion risk (Deventer 2004) The only risk is

when the dried material leaving the dryer is still hot and comes in contact with air

(Haapanen 1983 Wardrop Engineering Inc 1990 Ceckler 1994)

During the biomass drying process organic compounds are released as a result of

volatilization steam distillation and thermal destruction In the directly heated flue

gas dryers since the drying temperature is relatively high the organic compounds

released are diluted in the flue gas and emitted through the chimney The installation

of flue gas clean-up equipments depends on the local regulation Solid particulates

are usually removed by cyclones or bag filters Direct-heated rotary dryers have

greater emission of VOCs and particulates than indirect-heated dryers Conveyor

dryers have lower emissions of VOCs and particulates than rotary dryers

Superheated steam dryers by nature do not have air emissions but may have

contaminated condensate that must be treated by precipitation and biological

oxidation before being led to a recipient (Vidlund 2004 Berghel and Renstroumlm

2003) The non-condensable stream can be burned in an existing boiler

- 20 -

3 Case Study Biomass Drying Process Design Using Low

Grade Heat

31 Low Grade Heat from Steel Production Process

As part of EPSRC Thermal Management programme our academic partner

Newcastle University carried out a study to identify and classify the sources of low

grade heat available from steel industry in the UK (University of Newcastle 2011)

The report prepared by Newcastle University included the data gathered from a

thermal energy audit of one of Corusrsquos steelworks This plant produces nearly 5

million tonnes of steel slabs every year

Sheffield University has used the data provided by Newcastle University in order to

carry out a series of calculations The following sections present the results obtained

form Sheffield University case study calculations

Case Study

The flue gas waste heat and cooling water streams are released from the following

individual processes in this steel plant coke oven sinter blaster furnace (BF) basic

oxygen furnace (BOF) continuous casting hot mill cold mill annealing processing

line and power plant The gas and cooling water streams identified in the above

processes were classified in terms of their exergy as shown in Tables 31 and 32

respectively

Based on the temperature and gas composition the low grade gas streams listed in

Table 31 can be further divided into three groups The first group is

non-recoverable waste heat because of their low temperature such as fume and

extraction gas from cold mill fumes from BOS primary and secondary fumes from

casthouse and sinter gas from sinter dedust The composition of these gas streams is

identical to air and their highest temperature is only 50 ordmC which is too low to be

used in drying process Hence these gas streams were excluded from our

calculations The second group is the recoverable and combustible flue gas streams

ie BOF primary gas and flare BF gas These gases must be burnt completely before

they can be recovered In order to calculate the flue gas products after combustion

following assumptions were made These were

1 - During the combustion the excess air ratio is 12

2 - 10 of the released heat is used to heat up the post-combustion products

Based on the above two assumptions the flue gas composition and temperature

after combustion were calculated as shown in Table 33 The last group is the

recoverable gas streams that can be used directly such as sinter gas NH3 combustion

gas and mixture of BF and coke oven gas Their temperatures are between 130 ordmC to

220 ordmC Table 33 lists the recoverable low grade gas streams used in our case study

- 21 -

The flare BF gas from lsquoBF arsquo and lsquoBF brsquo are combined together as their compositions

and temperatures are exactly the same Although the sinter gas 1 from the main

stack the sinter gas 2 from the end of sinter strand and the NH3 combustion gas from

the ammonia incinerator all have high oxygen content (above 17 by volume) the

gas temperatures are in the range of 403 K to 483 K hence there will be a very remote

chance of fire incident during the drying process (Roos 2008) The moisture

content in these gas streams is low (the highest one is only 85 by volume) so it

will be difficult to recover the latent heat of water vapour from them

The low grade cooling water streams temperatures varies between 33 ordmC to 50 ordmC as

shown in Table 32 Therefore it is not beneficial to use these water streams in

biomass drying process However they can be used as the boiler feed water if the

drying process is integrated with the biomass power and CHP plant

- 22 -

Table 31 Classification of low grade flue gas streams in the steel industry (University of Newcastle 2011)

Location Type Composition (by volume) Temperature Quantity Exergy

H2 O2 N2 CO2 CO SO2 NO2 H2O (ordmC) (kgs) (MW)

Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002

Cold mill Extraction gas 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 40 22 0014

BOS primary Pouring fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 50 60 0088

BOS secondary Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 50 86 0125

BOS primary BOS gas 002 0 013 015 07 0 0 0 70 32 0125

BOS secondary Pouring fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 40 191 0125

BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126


Casthouse (north) Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 50 185 0229

Casthouse (south) Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 50 185 027

Sinter dedust Sinter gas 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 50 245 027

BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036

End of sinter strand Sinter gas 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 180 36 0443

Ammonia incinerator NH3 combustion gas 0 018 068 001 001 007 0 005 210 193 0734

Coke oven gas BF and coke oven gas 0 007 072 013 0 0 0 009 220 100 0827

Main stack Sinter gas 0 017 076 004 0 0 0 003 130 388 5128

- 23 -

Table 32 Classification of low grade cooling water streams in the steel industry (University of Newcastle 2011)

Type Location Temperature (ordmC) Quantity (kgs) Exergy (MW)

Cooling water Sinter 50 9 0016

Cooling water BF b 41 257 0311

Cooling water Hot mill 38 233 0337


Cooling water BF a 35 307 0466

Cooling water Caster 3 40 200 0535

Coolingquench water Hot mill 35 444 0599





Cooling water BOS primary 35 565 0824






Cooling water Coke oven 40 556 1518

Dirty water return Hot mill 35 1827 2457

- 24 -

Table 33 Classification of recoverable low grade gas streams in the steel industry

Location Type Composition (by mass) Temperature Quantity Enthalpy

O2 N2 CO2 SO2 H2O (K) (kgs) (MW)

Main stack Sinter gas 1 0184 0731 0063 0 0021 403 388 4158

End of sinter strand Sinter gas 2 0233 0767 0 0 0 453 36 565

Ammonia incinerator NH3 combustion gas 0187 063 0014 0138 0031 483 193 334

Coke oven gas BF and coke oven gas 0079 0679 0190 0 0052 493 100 2058

BF a and b Flare BF gas 0017 0652 0320 0 0010 546 235 594

BOS primary BOS gas 1 0026 0551 0419 0 0004 5408 955 2329


- 25 -

32 Drying System Design

In this case study the low grade gas streams (Table 33) emitted from the steel

industry are used as the heating source White pine wood chip is the chosen biomass

material for this study with the net heating value of 1666 MJkg (dry basis) The

performance of each gas stream in drying biomass is calculated and analysed

Figure 31 illustrates the mass and energy balances of the adiabatic drying process

utilizing these gas streams Properties of waste flue gas are known so the next stage

of work concentrates on finding the mass flow rate of biomass during the drying

process These calculations are repeated for a range of biomass materials with

different moisture contents It is intended to dry the biomass material as much as

possible using the existing waste flue gases

Figure 31 Mass and energy balances of adiabatic drying

321 Thermal Design Methodology

As discussed in section 223 industrial conveyor dryers are the most popular

family of dryers for drying agricultural products A single passsingle stage

cross-flow conveyor dryer where the waste flue gas passes through the perforated tray

is used in this study A typical flow sheet of a conveyor dryer is presented in Figure

32 The following initial assumptions are made

1) dry mass flow of the biomass fuel through the dryer is constant

2) air velocity is constant

3) bed height does not change during drying

The wet feed at flow rate fmamp (kgdms) temperature tinf (K) and humidity uin

(kgkgdm) is distributed on the belt as it enters the dryer The dried biomass leaves

the dryer at the same flow rate fmamp (kgdms) temperature toutf (K) and moisture

content uout (kgkgdm) The belt is moving at a velocity of υc (ms) and requires an

- 26 -

electrical power Eb (kW) The air which is used for drying enters the dryer at a flow

rate of gmamp (kgdms) temperature ting (K) and humidity xin (kgkgdm) and leaves the

dryer at a temperature toutg (K) and humidity xout (kgkgdm) An electrical power Ef

(kW) is used to operate the fan

Figure 32 Side view of a continuous crossflow dryer

The mathematical model of the dryer involves heat and mass balances of flue gas

and product streams as well as heat and mass transfer phenomena that take place

during drying The total humidity balance in the dryer is given by the following

equations

( ) ( )inoutgoutinf xxmuum minus=minus ampamp (31)

The total energy balance assuming negligible heat losses is given as follows

( ) ( )goutgingfinfoutf hhmhhm minus=minus ampamp (32)

where hing is the specific enthalpy of gas stream at the dryer inlet (kJkg) houtg the

specific enthalpy of gas stream at the dryer outlet (kJkg) houtf the specific enthalpy

of fuel stream at the dryer out (kJkg) and hinf the specific enthalpy of fuel stream at

the dryer inlet (kJkg) Here the specific enthalpy of gas stream can be written as

( )[ ])()( gwrefgwprefggpg TiTTcxTTch +minussdot+minus= (33)

where cpg is the specific heat capacity of non-condensable gases cpw the specific heat

of the water vapour iw the latent heat of water and x the molar fraction of water

vapour in the flue gases And the specific enthalpy of biomass stream can be

expressed as

( )15273)( minussdot+minus= fwrefffpf TcuTTch (34)

where cpf is the specific heat capacity of dry biomass which is assumed to be 25

kJkgk cw the heat capacity of liquid water

It is assumed that the heat transfer coefficient takes a value high enough to allow the

product stream (ie biomass material after drying) leaving the dryer to be in thermal

equilibrium with the air stream leaving the product Therefore heat transfer within

the dryer is expressed by means of the following equation

- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)

Furthermore thermodynamics indicates that the moisture content of the product

stream leaving the dryer should be greater than the corresponding moisture content at

an equilibrium imposed by the air operating conditions in the dryer as proposed by

the following relation

SEout uu ge (36)

where uSE is the equilibrium moisture content (EMC) of fuel stream (kgkgdm) The

Hailwood-Horrobin equation is often used to approximate the relationship between

EMC temperature (T) and relative humidty (h) for wood (Figure 33) (Hailwood and

Horriobin 1946 Eleoteacuterio et al 1998)

++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)

274 10448106347910 TTkminusminus timesminustimes+= (39)

254

1 1035910757346 TTk minusminus timesminustimes+= (310)

252


where Meq is the EMC (percent) T the temperature (ordmF) h the relative humidity

(fractional)

This equation does not account for slight variation with wood species state of

mechanical stress andor hysteresis In this case study equation 37 is used to

calculate the EMC of white pine wood chips when the temperature T and the relative

humidity h are known

In order to obtain the maximum drying throughput the flue gas at the dryer outlet is

expected to be saturated However since the saturated state is difficult to achieve

the maximum relative humidity can be estimated as 90

- 28 -

Figure 33 Equilibrium moisture content of wood versus humidity and temperature

according to the Hailwood-Horrobin equation (Eleoteacuterio et al 1998)

322 Dryer Capacity

Based on the assumptions made and the mass and energy balance equations in

section 321 the dryer capacity was calculated using Microsoft Excel Two group

cases were investigated In group 1 the initial moisture content of biomass is 15

kgkgdm and the final moisture content changes between 04 03 02 to 01 kgkgdm

In group 2 the initial moisture content is 10 kgkgdm and the final moisture content

changes from 04 03 02 to 01 kgkgdm The biomass throughput capacity and the

evaporation rate of water from biomass for each gas stream heating source are shown

in Figures 34 and 35 respectively

It can be seen that lsquosinter gas 1rsquo from main stack stream has the maximum dry

biomass throughput and the highest water evaporation rate among the gas streams

from steel industry due to its large quantity The gas streams in order of the drying

capacity from high to low are lsquosinter gas 1rsquo lsquoBOS gas 1rsquo lsquoBF and coke oven gasrsquo

lsquoBOS gas 2rsquo lsquoflare BF gasrsquo lsquosinter gas 2rsquo and lsquoNH3 combustion gasrsquo The drying

capacities for these streams are consistent with their enthalpy levels This implies

that the energy content of the gas stream determines its performance in the drying

process Even though the temperature level of some gas streams is relatively low

they can still possess a large amount of energy because of their considerable quantity

In addition it is clear that for a fixed initial moisture content of biomass the increase

in final moisture content will increase the throughput of biomass However this will

slightly reduces the evaporation rate of water When comparing two group cases with

different initial moisture contents it is noted that group 1 cases with higher initial

moisture content (15 kgkgdm) process less biomass whereas there is not much

change in terms of the evaporation rates of water for these cases This is because all

the gas streams are supposed to be nearly saturated when leaving the dryer

- 29 -

(a) Initial fuel moisture 15 kgkgdm

(b) Initial fuel moisture 10 kgkgdm

Figure 34 Dry biomass throughput varies with the final moisture content using

different heating sources at (a) initial moisture content of 15 kgkgdm and (b) initial

moisture content of 10 kgkgdm

- 30 -



Figure 35 Evaporation rate of water varies with the final moisture content using



The biomass power plant sizes using different gas streams in the drying process are

also calculated and presented in Figure 36 It can be concluded that using the waste

heat of steel industry to dry the biomass is promising in practical application The

input heating value of power plant can be varied from 13 MW to 187 MW and 20

MW to 334 MW at initial moisture content of 15 kgkgdm and 10 kgkgdm

- 31 -

respectively Assuming that the efficiency of the power plant is 30 we can

generate up to 100 MW electricity



Figure 36 Biomass power plant size varies with the final moisture content using



- 32 -

323 Drying Curve

Drying curve is an important characteristic curve for designing a conveyor dryer as

discussed in section 21 Each material at a specific condition has its distinct drying

curve The drying rate and the variation of moisture with time are normally obtained

from the experiments The drying rate curve is also important for determining the

residence time of solid materials in the dryer which is an essential parameter in dryer

design However in the current study due to the time limitation it is not possible to

carry out the experiments in order to obtain the drying curve of white pine wood chips

For this reason the drying curve used in this study was taken from literature

Gigler et al (2000) carried out thin layer forced convective drying experiments on

willows chips and simulated the drying process for the same chips Two bed heights

were tested one with 1 cm height and the other with 8 cm height Their

corresponding superficial velocities of the air were 012 ms and 017 ms

respectively The drying curves shown in Figure 37 indicated that a good fit was

achieved between the simulated and experimental drying curves Two drying stages

(constant drying rate stage and falling drying rate stage) can be observed from Figure

37 At the constant drying rate stage (from 0 s to 05times105 s approximately)

convective heat transfer dominates the drying process leading to a fast drop of

moisture content with time As the drying process continues there is less water

contact at the surface and the internal diffusion of water inside the solid becomes

more significant hence slowing down the drying rate The drying process enters

into the falling drying rate stage after around 05times105 s Figure 37 also suggests that

with an increase in the bed height the drying process was retarded during the constant

drying rate stage But at the falling drying rate stage the drying curves at two bed

heights are nearly identical

Figure 37 Comparison of simulated (continuous line) and experimental (discrete

symbols) drying curves for willow chips at the bed height of 1 cm () and 8 cm ()

(Gigler et al 2000)

They also carried out deep bed drying experiments and simulations The total

- 33 -

quantity of willow chips was 1440 kg and the bed height was 1 m The air velocity

used for the simulation was 055 ms The drying air left the chip bed fully saturated

until the EMC was nearly reached The measured and simulated average moisture

content of the willow chips bed as a function of time is shown in Figure 38 It is

found that the drying model described the drying curve well except for the time

interval 90 ndash 120 h

Figure 38 Measured () and simulated (continuous line) chip bed moisture content

for a chip bed of 1 m (Gigler et al 2000)

Holmberg et al (2004 2005) investigated the drying of regularly shaped wood

particles in a fixed-bed reactor The flow sheet of the reactor is shown in Figure 39

The initial moisture of the particles was 15 kgkgdm and the dry mass flow rate of the

material through the dryer was 1 kgdms The temperature difference between the dry

bulb temperature (tdb) and the wet bulb temperature (twb) in the test were 32 ordmC 46 ordmC

61 ordmC 78 ordmC 95 ordmC and 100 ordmC respectively The dry bulb temperature can be

expressed as a function of wet bulb temperature as follows (Lampinen 1997)

)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)

where x is the air moisture at dryer inlet and )( wbtxprime is the saturated air moisture

According to the equations 312 ndash 314 the corresponding dry bulb temperatures

were 54 ordmC 74 ordmC 93 ordmC 115 ordmC 134 ordmC and 152 ordmC respectively The bed height

was kept at 200 mm and the air velocity through the bed was constant at 065 ms

The drying time was determined by measuring the values of the inlet and outlet air

moistures as a function of time as shown in Figure 310 In addition the regression

- 34 -

curves (Figure 311) provided the correlation between drying time and the

temperature difference tdb-twb which were determined based on Figure 310

Figure 39 Test rig used for the determination of drying curves (x air moisture

transmitter t thermocouple m mass flow control) (Holmberg et al 2005)

Figure 310 Drying curves determined from experiments for various temperature

differences tdb-twb (Holmberg et al 2005)

For a certain fuel moisture decrease uin-uout the correlation can be expressed as

follows

BttA wbdbdry +minus= )ln(τ (315)

where A and B are two coefficients Figure 311 presents four examples of

regression curves and the corresponding correlation equations

In this case study since the initial moisture contents of the biomass are assumed to

be 15 kgkgdm and 10 kgkgdm it is feasible to use the drying curves provided by

Holmberg et al (2004 2005) to calculate the drying time However as shown in

Figure 311 the lowest final fuel moisture content available in the correlation equation

is only 04 kgkgdm and the temperature difference (tdb-twb) is at the range of 32 ordmC to

110 ordmC Considering the final moisture contents and the temperatures of gas streams

- 35 -

used in this case study we had to extrapolate the regression curves in Figure 311

The regression curves for the final moisture contents of 03 02 and 01 kgkgdm are

added as shown in Figure 312 And their corresponding correlation equations are

as follows

12768)ln(82469 +minusminus= wbdbdry ttτ for 01 kgkgdm final moisture (316)



Figure 311 Regression curves and correlation equations (Holmberg et al 2005)

Figure 312 Calculated regression curves used to calculate the drying time at the initial


- 36 -

As shown in Figure 312 the biomass material with higher final moisture content

requires less drying time whereas the material with lower final moisture content

needs more drying time Furthermore for a given moisture reduction the required

drying time decreases with an increase of drying temperature difference It also

implies that the effect of drying temperature difference on the drying time becomes

limited as the drying temperature difference increases further In other words it is

believed that the drying time for a certain fuel moisture reduction will not be

decreased further when the drying temperature difference is high enough Under this

circumstance the correlation equation 315 is not valid In this case study since the

gas stream temperature can rise as high as 345 ordmC (which corresponds to a drying

temperature difference of 297 ordmC) some assumptions have to be made in order to

calculate the drying time Here it is assumed that when the drying temperature

difference is higher than 120 ordmC the drying time will not be affected So the drying

time equations can be expressed as follows

BttA wbdbdry +minus= )ln(τ for tdb-twb le 120 ordmC (319a)

BAdry += )120ln(τ for tdb-twb gt 120 ordmC (319b)

But this equation is only valid when the initial moisture content of biomass is 15

kgkgdm and the bed height is 200 mm It is not applicable to the cases with the

initial moisture content of 10 kgkgdm Hence in the following sections only the

group with the initial moisture content of 15 kgkgdm will be calculated and

discussed

324 Dryer Parameters

In sections 322 and 323 the properties of the biomass and flue gas at the dryer

inlet and outlet and the drying time results were presented In this section other dryer

parameters such dryer size mass hold up will be analysed

The mass holdup Mf and volume holdup Vf of the conveyor dryer can be written as

follows

)1( infdryf umM += ampτ (320)

dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)

where ε is the volume fraction of air in the bed and ρdm the dry biomass density

The geometrical distribution of the volume holdup on the conveyor can be expressed

as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -

where B is the width of the conveyor L the length of the conveyor Z the bed height

(loading depth) In this case study the volume fraction of air ε is set as 05 the dry

biomass density ρdm as 700 kgm3 and the loading depth Z as 02 m The bed width

is changeable to make sure that the ratio of bed length to bed width is realistic The

bed height is the same as the one reported in the fixed-bed experiment study so that

the drying curves obtained from the experiments are applicable to the conveyor dryer

In addition the study by Holmberg and Ahtila (2004) indicated that the bed height

should not be too high or too small Too high bed height will cause a high pressure

drop as the pressure drop is proportional to the bed height whereas too small bed

height cannot ensure the flue gas reaches its saturation point before the end of the bed

The selection of 02 m bed height has been verified in Holmberg and Ahtila

experiments (2004) Once the volume holdup bed width and bed height are known

the conveyor length L can be obtained from equation 322

The cross-sectional area of conveyor dryer Ab is easy to calculate using the bed

width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)

Here a 5 extra width and length is taken into consideration in the design The

moving velocity of the conveyor υc is also available

dryc L τυ = (324)

The cross-sectional area of the covering is 10 larger than that of the conveyor

The height and the wall thickness of the covering are assumed to be 6 m and 35 mm

respectively

In order to size the fan the flue gas velocity and the pressure drop of flue gas

through the loaded bed should be known The equations calculating these two

parameters are listed here

dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)

where υg is the gas velocity ρdg the dry flue gas density ∆p the pressure drop of flue

gas and k1 and k2 the fitted parameters which depend on the size and shape of the

drying material The both parameters can be determined from experimental data

Gustafsson (1988) Kofman and Spinelli (1997) and Nellist (1997) derived values of

the fitted parameters for wood chips In the size range 10 ndash 25 mm average values

of the fitted parameters are k1 = 1755 and k2 = 167 In the ldquoHandbook of Industrial

Dryingrdquo (Mujumdar 2006) k1 = 20000 and k2 = 2 for an unknown material

Holmberg and Ahtila (2004) estimated the pressure drop for regularly shaped spruce

particles during each drying stage is 500 Pa In this case study the pressure drop is

- 38 -

estimated to be 400 Pa

Table 34 lists the summary of conveyor dryer design parameters at the initial

moisture content of 15 kgkgdm It is found that the throughput of biomass and the

drying rate (ie the water evaporation rate) determine the size of the dryer The

dryer using lsquosinter gas 1rsquo as the heating source has the highest drying rate in

comparison to other dryers As a result its mass and volume holdup are also larger

than others as well as its dryer size which may lead to a higher capital and running

costs The dryer using lsquoNH3 combustion gasrsquo as the heating source provides the

lowest drying rate Therefore dryer size and the biomass massvolume holdup on the

conveyor are much smaller than other dryers

- 39 -

Table 34 Conveyor dryers design parameters

Final moisture content 04 kgkgdm

Heating source Sinter gas 1 Sinter gas 2 NH3 combustion gas BF and coke oven gas Flare BF gas BOS gas 1 BOS gas 2

Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation

The cost of conveyor dryer was evaluated as part of our case study The overall

total cost (also known as lifetime costs) consists of the capital running and

maintenance costs The capital costs cover the costs associated with design

materials manufacturing (machinery labour and overhead) testing shipping

installation and depreciation The running costs consist of the costs associated with

the energy costs including heat and electricity warranty insurance maintenance

repair cleaning lost productiondowntime due to failure and decommissioning costs

It should be noted that it is very difficult to find accurate cost data for drying system

and the costs are variable depending on where the drying system is installed Some

researchers (Holmberg et al 2004 and 2005 Mujumdar 2006) have calculated the

drying costs using their own data sources

The following sections present the results obtained from cost calculations using the

methods provided by Holmberg et al (2004 2005) and from the lsquoHandbook of

Industrial Dryingrsquo (Mujumdar 2006)

331 Capital Costs

Capital costs are usually divided into direct and indirect costs which can be

expressed as

IDCDCC CostCostCost += (327)

where CCost is the total capital costs DCCost the direct capital costs IDCCost the

indirect capital costs Direct capital costs are calculated by multiplying purchased

equipment costs by a given factor (termed as ldquoLang factorrdquo (Brennan 1998)) Then

it is can be written as

eqDC CostGCost sdot= (328)

where G represents the Lang factor and eqCost the equipment costs The Lang

factor is a sum of several factors which are applied for the estimation of costs such as

instrumentation electrical erection structures and lagging It can be expressed as

sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)

where g is the individual factor and m the number of the factors The value of

individual factor depends on the purchased equipment costs Some approximate

values for these factors are listed in (Brennan 1998) The Lang factor in this case

- 42 -

study is assumed to be 16 which is determined based on the following factors

electrical 01 instrumentation 01 lagging 005 civil work 015 and installation 02

(Brennan 1998) However it should be noted that the actual values of these factors

are heavily site dependent and can deviate considerably from those used in the current

case study In order to estimate the factors more precisely detailed formation about

the investment costs concerning the dryer projects should be known However such

information is not available easily

Purchased equipment costs are usually presented in chart form and are correlated

with a capacity factor using the relationship as follows

b

eq kYCost = (330)

where k is the proportionality factor Y the capacity parameter and b the exponent

Exponent b is typically within a range of 04 ndash 08 (Brennan 1998) In drying

systems the main pieces of equipment are conveyors heat exchanges (if required) air

ducts covering and fans Without considering the original capacity factor of each

piece of equipment (eg cross-sectional area in the case of conveyors) they are all

dependent on the dry mass flow of drying medium (ie hot air or flue gas) Hence

the flue gas mass flow is selected as the capacity factor Y for each piece of

equipment in equitation 330 in the current case study The cross-sectional area of

the air ducts and the covering of the dryer are also proportional to the air mass flow

If the length of the air ducts and the height of the dryer are known their costs can also

be calculated as a function of air mass flow Cost data for dryer equipment are

obtained from published data sources equipment seller quotations and constructors

(Holmberg and Ahtila 2004) Proportionality factor k and exponent b are

determined on the basis of the cost data

In this case study the purchased costs (in Euros) of the main equipment are

calculated using the relationships shown in Table 35 which are taken from Holmberg

and Ahtila (2004) The relationships for conveyor and fan are based on the cost

information from Finnish equipment seller quotations The relationships for air

ducts and covering are defined by assuming that they are black iron with the density

of 9500 kgm3 and the price of 35 eurokg The length and the wall thickness of the air

ducts are assumed to be 30 m and 35 mm respectively Since these relationships

were obtained in 2000 and 2002 a 5 annual increase in price has been added to the

original prices

Substituting equations 329 and 330 into equation 328 and using gas mass flow as

the capacity parameter the direct capital costs of the dryer can be expressed as

follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j

iDCimkgCost amp (331)

where n is the number of the pieces of equipment purchased

- 43 -

Table 35 Cost functions for main components of the dryer (Holmberg and Ahtila

2004)

Equipment Relationship Capacity parameter Y Year

Conveyor 2700Y Cross-sectional area 2000

Air duct 3770Y05 Air mass flow 2002

Fan 09∆pY07 Air mass flow 2002

Covering 1200Y05 Cross-sectional area 2002

Note ∆p is the pressure drop of drying stage

Indirect costs include engineering and project management as well as a

contingency allowance which can be considerable in pilot plans Indirect capital

costs are not dependent on the dimension of the dryer In order to simplify the

calculations they are usually added as a percentage of direct capital costs Here the

indirect costs are defined as 5 of direct costs

Assuming the life time of the dryer lf is 10 years and the interest rate ir is 5

The capital recovery factor can be calculated from the following equation

1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)

The capital costs of conveyor dryer at different operating conditions are listed in

Table 36 It can be seen that due to the large size of dryer and high biomassgas

flow rate the dryer using lsquosinter gas 1rsquo as the drying source has a relatively higher

capital cost The annual capital costs for ldquosinter gas 1 dryerrdquo are about 18 times

higher than the costs for the smallest dryer using lsquoNH3 combustion gasrsquo Analysing

the data presented in Table 36 indicates that the conveyor costs are the dominate part

of the total capital costs The final moisture content of biomass does not affect the

capital costs significantly As shown in Table 36 the lower the final moisture

content of the biomass the higher the capital costs

- 44 -

Table 36 Costs analysis of conveyor dryer at different final moisture contents



Capital costs

Conveyor costs (keuro) 253978 19855 11535 65014 20252 79405 34370

Air duct costs (keuro) 11520 3509 2568 1380 2835 5717 3196

Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602

Covering costs (keuro) 4579 1280 976 2317 1293 2560 1684

Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160

Direct costs (keuro) 437922 40529 24835 119332 39823 142465 63763

Indirect costs (keuro) 21896 2026 1242 5967 1991 7123 3188

Total capital costs (keuro) 459818 42555 26076 125298 41814 149589 66952

Annual recovery factor 013 013 013 013 013 013 013

Annual capital costs (keuro) 59546 5511 3377 16226 5415 19372 8670

Running costs

Electrical load (kW) 315618 10159 6582 65537 9860 94980 26809

Electricity costs (keuro) 291631 9387 6081 60556 9110 87762 24771

Maintenance costs (keuro) 21896 2026 1242 5967 1991 7123 3188

Other costs (keuro) 4379 405 248 1193 398 1425 638

Annual running costs (keuro) 317906 11818 7571 67716 11500 96310 28597

Total annual costs (keuro) 377455 17330 10948 83942 16915 115682 37268

- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs

During the drying process the running costs cover all those costs associated with

the operation of the dryer The most important running costs include the use of heat

and electricity and maintenance costs The former is dependent on the annual

running time of the dryer and the price of energy while the latter is usually estimated

as a percentage of direct capital costs Typically its value is in the range of 2 to

11 averaging around 5 to 6 (Brennan 1998) Personnel costs and insurance

costs are also considered in the running costs However since they are heavily site

dependent it is difficult to define them accurately If the running time of the dryer is

τ hyear the annual running costs become

xmehRUN CostCostbEbCost +++Φ= ττ (333)

where Φ is the heat consumption (W) E the electricity consumption (W) bh the price

of heat be the price of electricity Costm the maintenance costs and Costx all other

running costs Here Costm and Costx are assumed to be 5 and 1 of the direct

capital costs respectively And the annual running time of the dryer is assumed to

be 8400 hyear Since the heating source is the waste heat from steel industry the

price of heat is defined as zero The main consumers of electricity are fan and belt

driver and their electricity consumptions can be calculated as follows (Mujumdar

2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)

finb muLeE amp)1(1 += (335)

bf EEE += (336)

where Ef is the required electrical power to operate the fan Eb the required electrical

power to move the belt ∆p the pressure drop of the dryer η the mechanical efficient

of the fan which is 70 in this case study and e1 the constant defined as 2

Once the capital costs the capital recovery factor and the annual running costs are

known the total annual costs (TAC) can be calculated as follows

RUNC CosteCost +=TAC (337)

The running costs and the total annual costs of conveyor dryers at different final

moisture contents are also listed in Table 36 The dominant contributor to the

running costs is the energy costs 80 ndash 90 of running costs are spent for electricity

consumption And the annual running costs are found to be about 2 ndash 5 times of the

annual capital costs when the lifetime of dryer is 10 years and interest rate is 5

- 49 -

The total annual costs for each dryer at different final moisture contents are presented

in Figure 313 The total annual costs of the lsquosinter gas 1rsquo dryer can go up to 3700

keuro while it is only about 110 keuro for the lsquoNH3 combustion gasrsquo dryer Even though

the lsquosinter gas 1rsquo dryer can provide the highest drying capacity among the dryers

investigated here its total annual costs are significantly higher than others hence

making its profitability questionable The profitability of each dryer will be

discussed in the next section Figure 313 also shows that the total annual costs at

different final moisture contents of biomass are similar indicating that the final

moisture content has very limited influence on the capital and running costs

Figure 313 Total annual costs of dryers at different final moisture contents

333 Profitability



given energy output is reduced and the boiler efficiency is increased In addition

recovering the waste heat is also beneficial to the steel industry

Based on the cumulative cash flow the profitability can be evaluated in terms of

time cash and percentage return on the investment Payback period is generally the

main concern for investors Sometimes it is taken as the time from commencement

of the project to recovery of the initial capital investment Normally it is taken as

the time from the start of production to recover the fixed capital expenditure only

However the payback period analysis method has serious limitations as it does not

consider the time value of money risk financing and other important issues Thus

it should not be used in isolation for investment decisions

Alternatively in this case study the earnings of the drying are calculated using net

- 50 -

present value (NPV) which takes into account both incoming and outgoing cash

flows during the economic lifetime of the dryer It is an indicator of how much

value an investment can add The capital and running costs are considered as

negative cash flows the NPV for the dryer is

C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)

where NI is the net income of drying in a time unit ir the interest rate t the individual

year and k the total number of years If NPV gt 0 it means that the investment would

add values to the investors and the project is profitable Otherwise the investment

would subtract the values from the investors and the project is not deserved to be

invested economically

The NI in this case study can be defined as hourly price in saved fuel When the

water content in biomass is reduced the net heating value of the biomass will be

increased and the energy required to evaporate the water in the fuel will be reduced

As a result marginal fuel can be replaced with biomass The saved marginal fuel

consumption can be considered as a positive cash flow which can be written as

( ) fuelwoutinf biuum minus= ampNI (339)

where iw is the latent heat of water (MJkg) bfuel the marginal fuel price (euroMWh)

The marginal fuel price is dependent on the type of fuel time and other factors

Here peats are assumed as the marginal fuel and its price is set as 14 euroMWh which

includes cost of emission trade

Figure 314 shows the net present values as a function of dryer operation duration at

different final moisture contents It can be seen that the NPVs for most of dryers

turn to be positive within two years except the lsquosinter gas 1rsquo dryer which needs at

least ten years to return the costs This suggests that the lsquosinter gas 1rsquo dry is not

economically applicable on account of its large investment costs and slow return of

money However for the lsquoBOS gas 1rsquo dryer and lsquoBF and coke oven gasrsquo dryer they

become profitable after 12 yearsrsquo operation and the increase rates of earnings are

much higher than other dryers In addition both of them have relatively large drying

capacities which could process 6 ndash 7 kgs dry biomass Therefore they are more

attractive to be used The change of final moisture content from 04 kgkgdm to 01

kgkgdm has little effect on the NPV as shown in Figure 314a and d

The NPVs of each dryer at 10 years lifetime are shown in Figure 315 As shown

the lsquoBOS gas 1rsquo dryer and lsquoBF and coke oven gasrsquo dryer have much more profits than

other dryers The former earns more than 8000 keuro and the latter earns more than

7500 keuro after 10 yearsrsquo operation However the lsquosinter gas 1rsquo dryer in spite of its

large drying capacity produces very limited profits in its lifetime Therefore it is

believed that among these waste gas streams released from steel industry the gas

streams with relatively high temperature and large quantity (eg BOS gas 1 and BF

and coke oven gas) can not only dry a large amount of biomass but also bring

- 51 -

considerable profits to the investors Using the flue gas streams such as BOS gas 2

flare BF gas and sinter gas 2 in biomass drying can also generate the profits over

2900 keuro in the dryerrsquos 10 years lifetime

(a) Final moisture content 04 kgkgdm

(b) Final moisture content 03 kgkgdm

For caption see overleaf

- 52 -

(c) Final moisture content 02 kgkgdm

(d) Final moisture content 01 kgkgdm

Figure 314 Net present value as a function of dryer operation duration

- 53 -

Figure 315 Net present value as a function of final moisture content at economic

lifetime of 10 years

- 54 -

4 Conclusions

The main conclusions from this case study are as follows

1 It is feasible to use the low grade heat from steel industry to dry biomass

material

2 The energy (enthalpy) that the gas stream contains determines its performance in

the drying process Since the lsquosinter gas 1rsquo from main stack has the largest quantity

the dryer using this flue gas stream as the heating source produces the highest biomass

throughput and water evaporation rate The dried biomass can be used as the fuel in

a power plant with a capacity of up to 100 MW The gas streams in order of the

drying capacity from high to low are as follows lsquosinter gas 1rsquo lsquoBOS gas 1rsquo lsquoBF and

coke oven gasrsquo lsquoBOS gas 2rsquo lsquoflare BF gasrsquo lsquosinter gas 2rsquo and lsquoNH3 combustion gasrsquo

3 The thermal design of a single passsingle stage conveyor dryer shows that the

throughput of biomass and the drying rate determine the size of the dryer The

higher the throughput of the biomass the larger the size of the dryer will be

4 The estimated capital costs for dryers range from 3377 keuro to 70181 keuro and the

annual running costs from 7571 keuro to 317906 keuro The NPVs of dryers at 10 years

lifetime indicate that most of dryers turn to be profitable within two years except the

lsquosinter gas 1rsquo dryer which needs at least ten years to return the costs Therefore the

lsquosinter gas 1rsquo dry is not economically applicable on account of its large investment

and slow return of money The main benefits of using the lsquoBOS gas 1rsquo dryer and

lsquoBF and coke oven gasrsquo dryer are i) their relatively large drying capacities ii) their

short payback period and iii) high profits resulted from their use

- 55 -

References

Amos WA Report on biomass drying technology National Renewable Energy

Laboratory Golden Colorado Report NRELTP-570-25885 1998

Beeby C Potter OE Steam drying In Drying rsquo85 Selection of papers from 4th

International Drying Symposium Kyoto Japan Toei R Mujumdar AS editors

Hemisphere Washington 1985 p 41-58

Berghel J Nilsson L Renstroumlm R Particle mixing and residence time when drying

sawdust in a continuous spouted bed Chemical Engineering and Processing 2008 47

p 1246-1251

BERR Heat call for evidence Department for Business Enterprise amp Regulatory

Reform London 2008

Brennan D Process industry economics United Kingdom Institution of Chemical

Engineers 1998

Bruce DM Sinclair MS Thermal drying of wet fuels opportunities and technology A

report prepared by H A SIMONS Ltd 1996 Available from

httpmydocsepricomdocspublicTR-107109pdf

Deventer van HC Industrial superheated steam drying TNO-report R2004239 2004

Eleoteacuterio JR Cloacutevis RH Nestor PG A program to estimate the equilibrium moisture

content of wood Ciecircnicia Florestal 1998 8 1 p 13-22

Fagernas L Brammer J Wilen C Lauer M Verhoeff F Drying of biomass for second

generation synfuel production Biomass and Bioenergy 2010 34 p 1267-1277

Fredirkson RW Utilisation of wood waste as fuel for rotary and flash tube wood dryer

operation In Biomass Fuel Drying Conference Proceedings 1984 University of

Minnesota p 1-16

Gustafsson G Forced air drying of chips and chunk wood In Production storage and

utilization of wood fuels Proceedings of IEABE Conference Task III 6-7 December

Uppsala Sweden vol II Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Garpenberg

Sweden 1988 p 150-162

Haapanen AP Heikkila L Ijas M Valkamo P Enso uses flash-dried pulverized bark

to replace coal as boiler fuel Pulp and Paper 1983 p 70-77

Hailwood AJ and Horriobin S Absorption of water by polymers analysis in terms of

a simple model Transactions of the Faraday Society 1946 42B p 84-102

Holmberg H Ahtila P Comparison of drying costs in biofuel drying between

multi-stage and single-stage drying Biomass and Bioenergy 2004 26 p 515-530

Intercontinental Engineering Ltd Study of hog fuel drying systems Canadian

Electrical Association Prepared by Intercontinental Engineering Ltd 1980

Jensen A Industrial experience in pressurised steam drying of beet pulp sewage

- 56 -

sludge and wood chips Drying technology 1995 13 p 1377-1393

Keey RB Drying Principles and Practice Pergamon Press Oxford 1972

Keey RB Introduction of industrial drying operations Pergamon Press New York

Chapter 2 1978

Kofman PD Spinelli R Storage and handling of willow from short rotation coppice

Elsamprojekt Fredericia Denmark 1997

Krokida M Marinos-Kouris D Mujumdar AS Rotary drying In AS Mujumdar

editor Handbook of Industrial Drying Chapter 7 CRC press 3rd edition 2006

Lampinen MJ Chemical Thermodynamics in Energy Engineering Publications of

laboratory of applied thermodynamics Finland Helsinki University of Technology

1997 [in Finish]

Law CL Mujumdar AS Fluidized bed dryers In AS Mujumdar editor Handbook of

Industrial Drying Chapter 8 CRC press 3rd edition 2006

Liptaacutek B Optimizing dryer performance through better control Chemical

Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114

Loo SV Koppejan J Handbook of biomass combustion amp co-firing Earthscan UK

2008

MacCallum C Blackwell BR Torsein L Cost benefit analysis of systems using flue

gas or steam for drying of wood waste feedstocks Final Report DSS Contact

42SSKL229-0-4002 Work performed by Sandwell amp Company Ltd Vancouver

British Columbia Canada 1981

Maroulis ZB Saravacos GD Mujumdar AS Spreadsheet-aided dryer design In AS

Mujumdar editor Handbook of Industrial Drying Chapter 5 CRC press 3rd edition

2006

McKenna RC Industrial energy efficiency Interdisciplinary perspectives on the

thermodynamic technical and economic constraints PhD thesis Department of

Mechanical Engineering University of Bath 2009

Mujumdar AS Principles classification and selection of dryers In AS Mujumdar


Nellist ME Storage and drying of short rotation coppice ETSU BW200391REP

ETSU Harwell UK 1997

Poirier D Conveyor dryers In AS Mujumdar editor Handbook of Industrial Drying

Chapter 17 CRC press 3rd edition 2006

Roos CJ Biomass drying and dewatering for clean heat amp power WSU Extension

Energy Program WSUEEP08-015 Northwest CHP Application Centre 2008

Swiss Combi Swiss Combi belt dryer Available from

httpwwwswisscombichfilesdownloadsenSWISS_COMBI_Belt_Dryerpdf

University of Newcastle National sources of low grade heat available from the

- 57 -

process industry EPSRC Thermal Management of Industrial Processes UK 2011

Vidlund A Sustainable production of bioenergy product in the sawmill industry

Licentiate thesis Stockholm Sweden Dept of Chemical Engineering and

TechnologyEnergy Processes KTH Royal Institute of Technology 2004 57

Wardrop Engineering Inc Development of direct contact superheated steam drying

process for biomass Report of Contact File No 34SZ23283-7-6040 Bioenergy

Development Program Energy Mines and Resources Canada Work performed by

Wardrop Engineering Inc Winnipeg Manitoba Canada 1990

Wimmerstedt R Drying of peat and biofuels In AS Mujumdar editor Handbook of


- 1 -

Executive Summary

A considerable amount of waste heat is available from process industries in the

form of cooling water and flue gases Depending on their temperatures these

sources of low grade heat can be utilised in a number of ways such as district heating

systems heat pumps condensing boilers and drying of biomass



given energy output is reduced and the boiler efficiency is increased

In accordance with our EPSRC grant proposal Sheffield University has conducted

an extensive literature review of biomass drying looking into various technologies

and the associated costs In addition calculations were carried out as part of a case

study in order to investigate the thermal design of a biomass drying system using the

waste heat from steel industry The possible use of each flue gas stream in drying

biomass was analysed Additional calculations were conducted in order to estimate

the capital and running costs of the process In addition the effects of different

initial and final moisture contents of the biomass material on the performance of dryer

and the associated drying costs were evaluated This report presents the results

obtained from the above studies

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Engineering and Physical Science Research

Council (EPSRC Thermal Management of Industrial Processes Consortium) for their

financial and technical support for this research work

- 2 -

List of Contents

1 Introduction3



22 Dryer Principle6

221 Heating Source6











323 Drying Curve 32




332 Running Costs48


4 Conclusions54

References55

- 3 -

1 Introduction

































follows



- 4 -

decreases












the drying process







utilizing biomass





heating source

- 5 -













(Mujumdar 2006)



























- 6 -









22 Dryer Principle







within the dryer

221 Heating Source








- 7 -

















gas dryers


2006)


(Wimmerstedt 2006)

- 8 -

222 Heating Method






Convection











operating pressure

Conduction







Radiation











- 9 -




with impingement

223 Types of Dryer










Rotary Dryer


















pressure drop







- 10 -




biomass
















Conveyor Dryer







(2009)


- 11 -













process















- 12 -










Flash Dryer















- 13 -













Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 2 -

List of Contents

1 Introduction3



22 Dryer Principle6

221 Heating Source6











323 Drying Curve 32




332 Running Costs48


4 Conclusions54

References55

- 3 -

1 Introduction

































follows



- 4 -

decreases












the drying process







utilizing biomass





heating source

- 5 -













(Mujumdar 2006)



























- 6 -









22 Dryer Principle







within the dryer

221 Heating Source








- 7 -

















gas dryers


2006)


(Wimmerstedt 2006)

- 8 -

222 Heating Method






Convection











operating pressure

Conduction







Radiation











- 9 -




with impingement

223 Types of Dryer










Rotary Dryer


















pressure drop







- 10 -




biomass
















Conveyor Dryer







(2009)


- 11 -













process















- 12 -










Flash Dryer















- 13 -













Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 3 -

1 Introduction

































follows



- 4 -

decreases












the drying process







utilizing biomass





heating source

- 5 -













(Mujumdar 2006)



























- 6 -









22 Dryer Principle







within the dryer

221 Heating Source








- 7 -

















gas dryers


2006)


(Wimmerstedt 2006)

- 8 -

222 Heating Method






Convection











operating pressure

Conduction







Radiation











- 9 -




with impingement

223 Types of Dryer










Rotary Dryer


















pressure drop







- 10 -




biomass
















Conveyor Dryer







(2009)


- 11 -













process















- 12 -










Flash Dryer















- 13 -













Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 4 -

decreases












the drying process







utilizing biomass





heating source

- 5 -













(Mujumdar 2006)



























- 6 -









22 Dryer Principle







within the dryer

221 Heating Source








- 7 -

















gas dryers


2006)


(Wimmerstedt 2006)

- 8 -

222 Heating Method






Convection











operating pressure

Conduction







Radiation











- 9 -




with impingement

223 Types of Dryer










Rotary Dryer


















pressure drop







- 10 -




biomass
















Conveyor Dryer







(2009)


- 11 -













process















- 12 -










Flash Dryer















- 13 -













Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 5 -













(Mujumdar 2006)



























- 6 -









22 Dryer Principle







within the dryer

221 Heating Source








- 7 -

















gas dryers


2006)


(Wimmerstedt 2006)

- 8 -

222 Heating Method






Convection











operating pressure

Conduction







Radiation











- 9 -




with impingement

223 Types of Dryer










Rotary Dryer


















pressure drop







- 10 -




biomass
















Conveyor Dryer







(2009)


- 11 -













process















- 12 -










Flash Dryer















- 13 -













Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 6 -









22 Dryer Principle







within the dryer

221 Heating Source








- 7 -

















gas dryers


2006)


(Wimmerstedt 2006)

- 8 -

222 Heating Method






Convection











operating pressure

Conduction







Radiation











- 9 -




with impingement

223 Types of Dryer










Rotary Dryer


















pressure drop







- 10 -




biomass
















Conveyor Dryer







(2009)


- 11 -













process















- 12 -










Flash Dryer















- 13 -













Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 7 -

















gas dryers


2006)


(Wimmerstedt 2006)

- 8 -

222 Heating Method






Convection











operating pressure

Conduction







Radiation











- 9 -




with impingement

223 Types of Dryer










Rotary Dryer


















pressure drop







- 10 -




biomass
















Conveyor Dryer







(2009)


- 11 -













process















- 12 -










Flash Dryer















- 13 -













Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 8 -

222 Heating Method






Convection











operating pressure

Conduction







Radiation











- 9 -




with impingement

223 Types of Dryer










Rotary Dryer


















pressure drop







- 10 -




biomass
















Conveyor Dryer







(2009)


- 11 -













process















- 12 -










Flash Dryer















- 13 -













Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 9 -




with impingement

223 Types of Dryer










Rotary Dryer


















pressure drop







- 10 -




biomass
















Conveyor Dryer







(2009)


- 11 -













process















- 12 -










Flash Dryer















- 13 -













Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 10 -




biomass
















Conveyor Dryer







(2009)


- 11 -













process















- 12 -










Flash Dryer















- 13 -













Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 11 -













process















- 12 -










Flash Dryer















- 13 -













Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 12 -










Flash Dryer















- 13 -













Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 13 -













Levy 2006)

Cascade Dryer











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 14 -






Fluidized Bed Dryer




















evaporation




- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 15 -









































- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 16 -
















these stages













very site-specific












- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 17 -






























- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 18 -









































- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 19 -








































- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 20 -


Grade Heat











Case Study






respectively



















- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 21 -













- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 22 -




Cold mill Fume 0 021 079 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 0002






BF a Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 3 0126





BF b Flare BF gas 003 0 058 013 026 0 0 0 200 10 036





- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 23 -






















- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 24 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 25 -


























- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 26 -









equations












expressed as








- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 27 -

goutfout tt = (35)





SEout uu ge (36)





++

++

minus=

22

211

22

211

1

2

1

1800

hkkkkhk

hkkkkhk

kh

kh

WM eq (37)

20041504520330 TTW ++= (38)


254


252



(fractional)








- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 28 -



322 Dryer Capacity

























- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 29 -






- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 30 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 31 -








- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 32 -

323 Drying Curve



























(Gigler et al 2000)


- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 33 -
















)()(

wbv

pa

wbwbdb tl

c

xtxtt

minusprime+= (312)

( )( )

( )( )230

64997811

5

230

64997811

5

10

106220)(

+

minus

+

minus

minus

=prime

wb

wb

wb

wb

t

t

o

t

t

wb

ep

etx (313)

wbwbv ttl 23402501000)( minus= (314)







- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 34 -








follows










- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 35 -




as follows







- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 36 -





















discussed






follows


dm

f

f

MV

ρε )1( minus= (321)



as

BLZV f = (322)

- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 37 -















width and length

)51()51( +sdot+= LBAb (323)



dryc L τυ = (324)



respectively




dg

g

gBL

m

ρυ

amp= (325)

2

1

k

gZkp υ=∆ (326)










- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 38 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 39 -




Drying rate (kgs) 1316 193 112 633 197 773 334

Dryer length (m) 4989 975 1133 2128 994 2599 1688

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3491966 272989 158597 893886 278443 1091749 472558

Volume holdup (m3) 9977 78 453 2554 796 3119 1350

Belt area (m2) 49885 3900 2266 12770 3978 15596 6751

Gas velocity (ms) 060 072 062 060 042 041 030

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1325 194 113 639 199 779 338

Dryer length (m) 5354 1054 1228 2310 1078 2817 1832

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3747868 295045 171889 970135 301827 1183257 512869

Volume holdup (m3) 10708 843 491 2772 862 3381 1465

Belt area (m2) 53541 4215 2456 13859 4312 16904 7327

Gas velocity (ms) 056 066 057 055 039 038 028

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 40 -

Table 43 continued



Drying rate (kgs) 1332 195 114 644 200 785 341

Dryer length (m) 5671 1123 1311 2470 1152 3009 1959

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 3969580 314348 183591 1037225 322422 1263673 548394

Volume holdup (m3) 11342 898 525 2964 921 3610 1567

Belt area (m2) 56708 4491 2623 14818 4606 18052 7834

Gas velocity (ms) 053 062 054 051 036 036 026

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02



Drying rate (kgs) 1338 196 115 649 202 790 343

Dryer length (m) 5940 1181 1382 2605 1214 3170 2066

Dryer width (m) 10 4 2 6 4 6 4

Mass holdup (kg) 4158215 330540 193465 1093968 339809 1331379 57846

Volume holdup (m3) 11881 944 553 3126 971 3804 1653

Belt area (m2) 59403 4722 2764 15628 4854 19020 8264

Gas velocity (ms) 050 059 051 049 034 034 024

Loading depth (m) 02 02 02 02 02 02 02

- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 41 -

33 Cost Estimation















331 Capital Costs


expressed as










sum=

+=m

j

jgG1

1 (329)




- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 42 -










b

eq kYCost = (330)























original prices



follows

)()1(11

sumsum==

sdot+=n

i

b

dgi

m

j



- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 43 -


2004)














1)1(

)1(

minus+

+=

f

f

l

r

l

rr

i

iie = 013 (332)










- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 44 -




Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 45 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 46 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 47 -

Table 36 continued



Capital costs



Fan costs (keuro) 3624 686 443 1403 509 1359 602


Lang factor 160 160 160 160 160 160 160






Running costs







- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 48 -

332 Running Costs


















2006)

dg

dg

f mp

E ampηρ

∆= (334)


bf EEE += (336)












- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 49 -











333 Profitability














- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 50 -





C

k

tt

r

RUN Costi

Costminus

+

minussdot=sum

=0 )1(

)NI(NPV

τ (338)



































- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 51 -







- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 52 -




- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 53 -



- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 54 -

4 Conclusions



material



















- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 55 -

References








p 1246-1251


Reform London 2008


Engineers 1998











Minnesota p 1-16




Sweden 1988 p 150-162










- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 56 -




Chapter 2 1978







1997 [in Finish]




Engineering 1998 105 2 p 110-114


2008







2006















- 57 -











- 57 -











epsrc thermal management of industrial …research.ncl.ac.uk/pro-tem/components/pdfs... · epsrc...

Documents