Determination of Heat and Mass Transfer Coefficients Associated of

Convective Drying of Calcium Carbonate / Water Slurry

Sophie Lee Landau, Emmy Kuo, Joseph Stern

Professor Brazinsky
Spring 2015

Abstract
An Armfield Tray Dryer was used to separate a mixture of calcium carbonate and
water by convective drying. The heat and mass transfer coefficients associated with the
process were calculated using two methods: a given equation correlated with the heat
transfer coefficient and empirical data regarding humidity by using the moisture content
of the calcium carbonate slurry. These were done over three trials at different temperature
settings. For the first method, the average heat transfer coefficient was calculated to be
24.14 0.85 W/m2K, and the average mass transfer coefficient was 5.05E-05 4.32E-05
kg/m2s. For the second method, the average heat transfer coefficient was 9.35E+03
6.92E+03 W/m2K. The average mass transfer coefficient was 0.02 0.01 kg/m2s. The
difference in magnitudes between the two methods indicates a lack of accuracy in either
or both of the calculation methods, although their precision can be accepted due to the
relatively small standard deviations associated with the coefficients. It is recommended
that a new psychrometer be obtained so as to improve the accuracy of the humidity data
attained.

Table of Contents
Abstract.................................................................................. 1
List of Tables............................................................................. 3
List of Figures...........................................................................4
Nomenclature............................................................................ 5
Theory.................................................................................6
Experimental........................................................................8
Results...............................................................................10

List of Tables
Table 1

Table 2

10

Table 3

11

Table 6

17

List of Figures
Figure 1

13

Figure 2

Figure 3

15

Figure 4

16

Figure 5

17

Nomenclature
A = cross sectional area of the pan
C = constant (14.5)
h = heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K)
H = humidity of air (kg of H2O/kg of air)
Hs = humidity of saturated air (kg of H2O/kg of air)
G = gas mass velocity (kg/(m2s))
k = mass transfer coefficient
= latent heat of vaporization (J/kg (H O))
2

X = m = mass of paste
M = molar mass of air
P = pressure of the air (atm)
= density of air
T= temperature (F)
Tg = temperature of the air stream (C)
Ts = temperature of the liquid surface (C)
Tred = reduced temperature
Tcrit = critical temperature of water
v = air velocity (m/s)

Theory
Drying is the process of removing a liquid solvent by evaporation. The solvent is
ordinarily water, and is usually separated from a solid and/or liquid. Often, heat and a
mass-separating agent are used to decrease the time required to complete the drying
process. In convective drying, hot gas is passed over the mixture to speed up heat and
mass transfer. Drying is most widely used and recognized in the food and packaging
industries.
Marble dust, a by-product from the marble processing industries, is often
contained in the waste slurries from marble processing plants. It can be used as a raw
material in production processes within the paper, rubber, and tire industries. In order for
the calcium carbonate to be suitable for reuse, it must first be recovered from the slurry
waste. Removing the marble dust from water is a solid-liquid separation that can be
performed by convective drying with hot air.
In this experiment, calcium carbonate was separated from water using the process
of convective drying. The heat and mass transfer coefficients associated with the drying
process can be determined. The process of drying occurs in phases; in the first, a layer of
liquid rests on the top of the surface of the mixture. Next, the water in the slurry must
move through the slurry before evaporating at the surface of the mixture. In theory,
during this stage, the rate of drying is constant. Finally, only marble dust is left in the pan
and the process of drying is complete.
The rate of heat transfer from the flowing hot air to the solid follows the equation:
q=hA (T gT s )
where

hot air,

Ts

is the surface area available for convection,

Tg

is the temperature of the

is the temperature of the surface, and the heat transfer coefficient, h ,

0.8
follows the equation h=(constant ) G . This heat transfer can also be equated to what

is effectively a mass transfer relation:

q=kA ( H s H )

In this equation, k

is the mass transfer coefficient, and

is waters latent heat of

vaporization. Equating the two, eliminating area, and solving for the mass transfer
coefficient,
k =h

T g T
( H sH )

The reduced temperature is defined as

T =

T (K)
T crit ( K) . This can be used to

calculate the latent heat of vaporization of water, using the following relation:
=52053000( 1T )

0.31990.212 T +0.25795T

calculated using the ideal gas law,

. The density of air,

, can then be

PM
RT , and can be used in conjunction with the

empirically determined air velocity, v , to determine the gas mass velocity, G=v .
Alternatively, the moisture content of the calcium carbonate mixture can be used
to determine the heat and mass transfer coefficients. The moisture content of the slurry is
the ratio between the mass of the water and the mass of the dry paste. Assuming a
constant rate of drying, the rate of water evaporation can be expressed using the
following equation:
dw q hA ( T g T s )
= =
=kA ( H sH ) where dw / dt
dt

is the rate of water evaporation.

The heat and mass transfer coefficients can then be calculated using the relations:
dw

dt
h=
A ( T g T s )

dw
1
dt
k=
A ( H sH )

In this experiment, dw /dt

was found according to discretized time intervals.

The heat and mass transfer coefficients associated with the process of convective
drying can thus be calculated using the gas mass velocity, and using the moisture content
of the pan. In the first method, the heat transfer coefficient follows directly from a given
equation, and the mass transfer coefficient is calculated accordingly. In the second,
however, the coefficients are calculated upon the assumption that the process is operating
at a constant rate of drying.

Experimental
An Armfield Tray Dryer was used to dry a calcium carbonate paste at three of its
temperature control settings: 6, 7, and 8. The booster attached to the dryer was set to
maximum and the airflow controller was set at 8. The dry was preheated for ten minutes
prior to the start of the experiment. A tray containing the paste was suspended on a wire
mesh drying rack attached to an electrical balance. The air stream velocity was measured
using an anemometer. A wet and dry bulb thermometer was used to measure the upstream
and downstream temperatures. An IR thermometer was used to measure the surface
temperature.
For each of the three trials, 500 g of solid calcium carbonate was mixed in a tray
with approximately 155 g of water in order to obtain a calcium carbonate paste. The
weights of the calcium carbonate, water, and the tray were recorded. The tray containing
the paste was placed on the drying rack.
The weight of the pan, air stream temperatures, surface temperature, and air
velocity were recorded at each time point. For the first hour of data collection,
measurements were taken every five minutes. After the first hour, measurements were
taken every ten minutes, and after two hours, measurements were taken every fifteen
minutes. The weight of the dry paste was recorded. Throughout the data collection, the
wet bulb had to be rewet with a pipet between each measurement because it dehydrated
quickly. (An image of the setup is shown below in Figure 2.)

Figure 2: Armfield Tray Dryer

Results
The drying of the marble dust and water mixture was measured by monitoring
several variables throughout the drying process. These variables were: the surface
temperature of the marble paste, the air speed velocity of the fan, the wet and dry bulb
temperatures upstream and downstream the paste and finally the mass of the paste. These
variables are shown in tables 1, 2 and 3, for the three experiments done.

Tim
e

Mass
(g)

Air Veloc
(m/s)

0:00

982

0.73

0:09

975

0:15

968

0:23

Upstrea
m Temp
(deg F)
Wet

Downstream
Temp (deg F)
Dr
y

Wet

Dry

Internal
temp (deg F)

88

90

90

91

77.9

1.99

95

99

101

104

84.5

2.07

104

111

113

97.9

956

2.11

115

10
8
116

116

116

106.1

0:33

937

2.02

104

110

110

114

110

0:46

915

2.04

101

108

113

113.1

0:57

896

2.11

100

10
9
113

113

117

111.3

1:09

877

2.08

100

110

108

114

110.6

1:23

857

2.02

100

110

115

120

110.8

1:39

846

2.12

100

110

115

118

114.2

1:49

843

2.05

116

118

116

118

114.3

Time
0:00
0:05
0:10
0:15
0:20
0:25
0:30

Weight
of Pan
(g)
1068
1055
1052
1044
1037
1032
1020

Upstr.
Wet Bulb
(degF)
79
79
83
90
97
108
74

Upstr.
Dry Bulb
(degF)
108
110
114
114
112
111
109

Downstr.
Wet Bulb
(degF)
78
78
80
86
92
104
74

Downstr.
Dry Bulb
(degF)
106
109
110
111
109
109
108

Surfac
e
(degF)
90
107.0
107.1
106.6
105.8
105.8
102.9

Air
Velocity
(m/s)
1.19
1.96
1.96
2.00
2.04
2.06
2.08

0:35
1019
72
110
72
108
107.6
0:40
1013
74
112
73
110
105.0
0:45
1000
74
113
72
110
105.0
0:50
991
73
112
72
111
106.6
0:55
984
74
113
73
111
107.1
1:00
979
74
113
74
111
108.5
1:10
968
75
116
74
111
108.5
1:20
948
78
116
74
112
105.9
1:30
936
80
113
79
113
109.6
1:40
934
79
114
78
113
109.1
1:50
926
80
113
79
112
110.6
1:55
926
81
115
80
113
109.7
2:05
924
81
111
80
111
109.1
2:15
923
96
115
92
114
109.6
2:25
922
73
108
74
107
108.6
Table 1: First drying experiment done on the first week, performed at the max speed
setting of 10 and a temperature setting of 8.

1.89
1.98
2.06
2.06
2.00
2.05
1.97
2.06
2.11
1.98
2.09
2.09
2.10
2.02
2.03

Time

Weight
Upstr.
Upstr.
Downstr.
Downstr.
Surfac
Air
of Pan
Wet Bulb Dry Bulb
Wet Bulb
Dry Bulb
e
Velocity
(g)
(degF)
(degF)
(degF)
(degF)
(degF)
(m/s)
0:00
1067
85
111
85
109
106.8
2.14
0:05
1063
88
112
82
109
107.6
2.11
0:10
1055
95
110
92
110
106.3
2.07
0:15
1048
99
112
97
110
104.6
2.05
0:20
1043
77
110
76
108
107.4
2.12
0:25
1034
78
111
77
109
104.6
2.06
0:30
1028
80
110
78
110
105.0
2.13
0:35
1022
78
109
77
107
102.3
2.13
0:40
1014
79
109
77
108
104.4
2.08
0:45
1012
81
110
79
108
104.3
2.05
0:50
1004
82
110
81
108
104.2
2.02
0:55
995
87
109
83
107
103.3
2.06
1:00
985
73
108
72
107
105.0
2.03
1:10
968
72
108
71
105
105.2
2.03
1:20
951
72
108
71
107
102.2
2.10
1:30
939
74
109
72
107
104.2
2.11
1:40
933
75
108
74
106
105.7
2.04
1:50
929
79
109
76
108
104.0
2.05
2:00
924
79
108
77
107
105.1
2.07
2:15
922
84
108
79
106
105.4
2.05
2:30
921
80
106
80
106
104.9
2.10
Table 2: Second drying experiment done on the second week, performed at the max speed
setting of 10 and a temperature setting of 6.

Time

Weight
Upstr.
Upstr.
Downstr.
Downstr.
Surfac
of Pan
Wet Bulb Dry Bulb
Wet Bulb
Dry Bulb
e
(g)
(degF)
(degF)
(degF)
(degF)
(degF)
0:00
1076
90
107
85
102
99.0
0:05
1071
91
108
88
106
106.0
0:10
1067
82
110
80
107
107.4
0:15
1060
76
110
75
108
104.6
0:20
1052
75
111
75
110
105.6
0:25
1043
76
112
75
110
106.4
0:30
1034
76
113
74
110
106.7
0:35
1028
77
113
76
111
107.8
0:40
1021
76
113
75
111
105.8
0:45
1015
76
112
75
109
107.4
0:50
1004
77
113
74
110
106.9
0:55
1000
76
112
76
111
106.3
1:00
994
80
115
77
110
108.1
1:10
973
79
111
78
109
107.4
1:20
968
82
112
80
110
107.3
1:30
951
86
111
83
109
105.2
1:40
940
99
111
94
109
107.0
1:50
933
78
110
76
107
106.7
2:00
925
80
111
79
110
109.5
2:15
919
79
110
78
108
106.6
2:30
917
83
112
81
111
110.8
Table 3: Third drying experiment done on the final week, performed at the max speed
setting of 10 and a temperature setting of 7.

Air
Velocity
(m/s)
1.98
2.05
2.12
2.03
2.15
2.12
2.12
2.12
2.11
2.11
2.12
2.07
2.06
2.10
2.18
2.08
2.11
2.14
2.03
2.08
2.06

Using these recorded measurements, it was then possible to find the mass velocity
of the air stream during contact with the drying pan as well as the heat transfer coefficient
of the air and paste. This was done using the formula:
G=v
The density of the air,
PM
=
RT

, was found using the perfect gas law:

A pressure of 1 atmosphere was used as well as a molar mass of 28.97 kg/mol. In order to
find the mass velocity of the air during contact with the paste, the average of the dry bulb
temperatures upstream and downstream of the drying rack was used. The following
correlation was then used to find the heat transfer coefficient:
h=CG0.8
where C is equal to 14.5.

An example calculation up to the heat transfer coefficient is given below:

kg
(1 atm ) 28.97
kmol
PM
kg
=
=
=.93 3
3
RT
m
.08206 atmm
107 K
kmolK

G=v=.93

kg
m
kg
1.19 =1.1 2
3
s
m
m s
h=CG0.8=14.5( 1.1 ).8=15.71

W
m2 K

The average heat transfer coefficients over time for each experiment using this method
are given in Table 6.
Using this heat transfer coefficient, it is then possible to determine the mass
transfer coefficient of the water leaving the paste and evaporating into the air. This was
done using the following correlation:
k ( H sH ) =h(T gT s )
which can be rearranged to solve for k:
T g T s
k =h
( H sH )
The average temperature of the dry bulb temperatures were used for Tg. The saturated
humidity data as a function of temperature was obtained from Perrys Chemical
Engineering Handbook, 8th Edition. This data was interpolated to find the humidity at the
wet and dry bulb temperatures, which corresponded to HS and H respectively. The
empirical humidity data was then estimated by a linear best fit:
H=0.0009 T 0.0492
This fit is shown in Figure 1.

Saturation Humidity
0.05
0.05
0.04

f(x) = 0x - 0.05
R = 0.98

0.04
0.03
Saturation Humidity

0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0
60

70

80

90

100

110

Temperature (F)

Figure 1. Linear fit of empirical data of humidity vs. temperature, data obtained from
Perrys handbook.
was found using an empirical curve fit by the function:
=52053000( 1T )0.31990.212 T +0.25795T

Where Tred is the reduced temperature of the dry bulb, where Tred is given by:
T ( K )
T =
T crit ( K )
Once these values were found, the mass transfer coefficient k could then be found; an
example calculation is done below:
T(K)
299
T =
=
=.462
T crit ( K ) 647
2

=52053000( 1.462 )0.31990.212 ( .462)+0.25795 (.462) =4.381 07 (J /kg(H 2 O))

H S =0.0009 (107 )0.0492=.0481

H=0.0009 ( 78.5 )0.0492=.0222
k =h

T g T s
( H sH )

=( 15.71 )

314.8305.4
4
2
=1.3110 kg /m s
7
4.381 0 ( .0481.0222 )

This method of finding the mass and heat transfer coefficients, to distinguish from
an alternate method employed later is known as the gas mass velocity method.
The average mass transfer coefficients for each experiment can be seen on Table
6. A graph of the mass transfer rate varying versus the moisture content in the wet solid
was drawn to observe a possible link between the rate of drying versus the remaining
water within the paste. The moisture content was determined by taking the current mass
of the pan, and subtracting the mass of the pan and initial calcium carbonate to determine
the mass of water remaining in the pan. The mass of the water was then divided by the
total mass of the water and calcium carbonate to determine the moisture content. This
graph is shown as Figure 3.
The mass and heat transfer of the paste can also be measured as a derivative
dm
dt , and can be estimated by determining the mass lost between time intervals,
m
t

. This method is called the moisture over time method. The heat transfer

coefficient can then be found according to the following formula:

m hA ( T gT s )
=
which is rearranged to find h:
t

t
h=
A ( T g T s )

All values are already known, A is the area of the pan, which is equal to .0502 m2, thus it
is simple to calculate h:
( 1.0751.061 ) kg
J
m
4.38107

kg
( 3000 ) s
t
h=
=
2
A ( T g T s )
.0502m ( 314.8305.4 ) K
4

h=2.9410 W /m K
Similarly, the mass transfer coefficient can also be found using the following formula:
( 1.0751.061 ) kg
m
1
1
( 3000 ) s
t
k=
=
A ( H sH ) .0502m 2 ( .0504.0222 )
k =.0331

kg
2
m s

Figure 4, again compares the mass transfer coefficient versus the moisture content of the
paste using this new method.

Drying Rate vs. Moisture Content using Gas Mass Velocity

0.0004

0.0003

0.0002

DAY 1
DAY 2

Mass transfer rate (kg/m^2*s)

DAY 3
0.0001

0.0000
0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

-0.0001
Moisture Content

Figure 3. Using the gas mass velocity method, graph of the drying rate, represented as the mass transfer rate of water from the paste to
the air, versus the remaining moisture content of the water.

Drying Rate versus Moisture Content Using Moisture Over Time

0.1200

0.1000

0.0800
DAY 1
Mass Transfer Coefficient (kg/m^2*s)

0.0600

DAY 2
DAY 3

0.0400

0.0200

0.0000
0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

Moisture Content

Figure 4. Using the moisture over time method, graph of the drying rate, represented as the mass transfer rate of water from the paste
to the air, versus the remaining moisture content of the water.

For a visualization of the drying process, the moisture content of the paste compared to
the time the test continued was also graphed. This is shown in Figure 5.

Moisture Content versus Time

0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
Day 1
Day 2
Moisture Content ( kg water/kg dry paste)
0.15

Day 3

0.10
0.05
0.00
0

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Time (s)

Figure 5. Moisture Content of the paste over time.

An average comparison of the experiments is shown in Table 6, to provide a summary of
the total experiment.

Table 6. Total heat and mass transfer coefficients for each experiment as well as their
standard deviations.

Discussion
Two main methods were employed to determine the heat transfer coefficient. The
first was the gas mass velocity method. This utilized the correlation of:
h=CG0.8
to determine the heat transfer coefficient. Building upon this, it was assumed that the
drying cake was at equilibrium and thus the heat transferred to the surface was equivalent
to the heat used to vaporize the water within the paste. This made it possible to determine
the mass transfer coefficient by equating the heat required:
k ( H sH ) =h(T gT s )
This correlation relies on several other factors. The first factor is the determination of the
saturated humidity of the air at the measured temperatures. This was calculated by fitting
a linear curve to empirical data found in Perrys Handbook of Chemical Engineering. A
linear curve was used because it was deemed accurate enough for the purpose of this
experiment and had a decent correlation to the data, with an R2 value of 0.98. This
function is also reliant on the determination of , the latent heat of vaporization of
H2O. This was determined by using the empirical relationship described in the Results
section. Utilizing all of these values as well as the surface temperature and heat transfer
coefficient found previously, the mass transfer coefficient was able to be determined.
In order to better visualize the mass transfer over time, the mass transfer
coefficient was graphed versus the moisture content within the paste (Figure 3). However,
the graph yielded extremely confusing results, which offer little elucidation of the stages
of drying. It was expected that there would be two visible and distinct stages of drying. It
was expected that there would be a constant rate period, where the rate of mass transfer
would be high yet constant, due to a constant liquid film above the solid. This would
eventually lead to a decrease in mass transfer, as the liquid film disappears, leading to the
next stage called the falling rate period. However it is difficult to see a clear distinction
between the stages. This is mostly due to the extremely oscillatory nature of the rate over
the moisture content. Examining Figure 3, it is determined that the most likely switch of
the stages occurs at a approximate moisture content of ~.05, since there is a decrease that
eventually leads to a mass transfer rate of 0. There are several reasons for the difficulty in
the stages that will be discussed after the description of the next method.
The next method utilized the mass lost over time to determine the rate of water
evaporation. The average slope in mass over time was utilized to find the rate
coefficients.
m hA ( T gT s )
=
t

m
=kA ( H sH )
t

Theoretically, this method should contain less error for the mass transfer coefficient than
the first method. This is because the mass transfer coefficient does not rely upon the heat
transfer coefficient as well as the latent heat of vaporization, unlike the first method. This
results in less propagation of error as well and less rooms for mistakes. Similarly, the
mass transfer coefficient was graphed against the moisture content (Figure 4).
Unsurprisingly, the trends of the tests were similar to the first method. However,
comparing Figure 4 and Figure 3, there is a major difference between the mass transfer
rates, the second method gives a mass transfer rate 100x more than the first method.
Unfortunately, this is not explainable from the calculations and remains inconclusive as
to the reasoning behind the inconsistencies between the methods.
The error of the system proved to be quite large. Examining the average mass
transfer coefficients in Table 6, the standard deviation was on the same magnitude if not
greater than the average itself. This suggests that there is a wide spread of the mass
transfer coefficient. There is one major issue that occurred that introduced error into the
system. The most culpable source of error was the psychrometer, or more specifically the
wet bulb thermometer. Due to loss of the wick, the wet bulb would not stay consistently
wet. Due to this, the wet bulb needed to be wet at certain intervals when it began to dry.
This caused major swings in the wet bulb temperature. This caused the wet bulb
temperature to have range of 70-100 F. This explains the oscillatory nature of the mass
transfer rate. As the wet bulb dried, the temperature rose, increasing the H, the air
saturation of the equation, consequently increasing the mass transfer coefficient. This is
true for both methods, as they both use the wet bulb temperature in their calculations. As
the bulb dried constantly throughout the run and water was reapplied, this caused the
extremely oscillatory nature of the mass transfer coefficient. Figure 5, the graph of the
moisture content over time seems to support the conclusion that the oscillatory nature is
due to the wet bulb instead of a property of the drying process. The moisture content
seems to suggest a relatively constant rate of drying until a time of 5000 seconds, at
which the rate starts to decrease. Other sources of error include potential calcium
carbonate loss during the mixing process and inconsistency in the wetness of the cake
between experiments. However, these are small errors that are not expected to have as
large an effect as the wet bulb temperature.

Recommendations
It is recommended that a new psychrometer be obtained, that can consistently
ensure a wet bulb, or if not the wet bulb should be rewet after every measurement, to
ensure consistent wetness and to prevent the oscillatory nature obtained in this
experiment.

References
[1] Perrys Chemical Engineering Handbook, 8th Edition [Online]
[2] Drying ChE 142 Chemical Engineering Laboratory Packet, Spring 2015