ILASS Americas, 21st Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, Orlando, FL, May 2008

A fresh look at design of spray gas quench systems using the Theory of Inventive Problem
Solving (TIPS)

Charles W. Lipp*
Thomas J. Kling
C. P. Christenson
Engineering & Process Sciences
The Dow Chemical Company
Freeport, TX 77541 USA

Abstract
Rapid quenching or cooling of gas streams with sprays is critical in a number of applications including flue gas con-
ditioning, incineration, acid gas processing, and pyrolysis gas processing. Many approaches have been taken to de-
sign spray quenches. The art and science of these designs is scattered throughout the academic and patent literature.
Analysis of a specific design performance is a routinely solved engineering problem because of the availability of
spray measurements and computational tools. Using systematic innovation tools, such as Theory of Inventive Prob-
lem Solving (TIPS), can transform the design process by reducing complexity to the lowest level while achieving
robust results. This method, also known by the Russian acronym TRIZ, enables rapid development and exploration
of innovative design space. The methodology, which includes ideality, function analysis, substance field analysis,
and innovation algorithm will be illustrated with an industrial scale spray quench design. This paper is a condensed
introduction to this method. TIPS has been applied to increase the quality and yield of innovative solutions to diffi-
cult problems. It is more than theory and latest buzzword; it is a practical means of understanding and resolving
complex innovative problems.
 Introduction
Sprays are used for gas quenching because of the ex-
traordinary high cooling rate that can be achieved in an
industrial scale. Several systems such as humidification
and gas conditioning have similar design requirements
and complexity. Many spray quench design concepts
have been published in the academic and patent litera-
ture. A review in this area shows a number of ap-
proaches that have been used over time to achieve ef-
fective results and to resolve design conflicts. Spray
quenches must be highly reliable; however, they are
costly to build and complex to design.
Innovation Process
The process of innovation is often viewed as having a
chaotic or random nature. A flash of innovation, a light
bulb turning on is the perception of how new ideas de-
velop. For example, a team brainstorming can typically
yield 300 to 600 ideas with perhaps 5% actionable po-
tential solutions. Using TIPS can transform the design
process by reducing complexity to the lowest level
while achieving robust results (1). Systematic innova-
tion approaches produce three to five times the number
of actionable potential solutions than brainstorming,
with far fewer non-viable ideas and a dramatically
higher signal to noise ratio. The potential solutions
developed with TIPS have different characteristics be-
cause the fundamental conflicts of the design are being
directly addressed.
TIPS, also known by the Russian acronym TRIZ,
enables rapid development and exploration of innova-
tive design space. The TRIZ methodology was devel-
oped in the former Soviet Union by Genrikh S. Altshul-
ler (2) who recognized similar concepts being applied
in patents in different technology areas. TIPS (2, 3)
uses several key concepts and methods including ideali-
ty, function analysis, substance field analysis, and inno-
vation algorithm which will be described in terms of
spray technology. A spray quenching problem will be
used to demonstrate the application of the TIPS in order
to describe fundamental issues developing better de-
signs of spray systems. A typical introductory training
for this method is 16 to 32 hours of instruction.
Spray Quench Design
A quench system shown schematically in Figure 1 is
provided to define the context of the problem. Hot gas
is cooled from 1300 to 500 K in a 1.5 m diameter re-
fractory lined pipe by evaporating liquid water. Three
critical design requirements exist: 1. Protect down-
2/9
stream equipment from excessive temperature, 2. Pre-
vent refractory damage by avoiding quench liquid con-
tact with the walls, and 3. Operate over a range of 20 to
100% of design gas flowrate.
Evaluation of a proposed design often requires Lagran-
gian calculations of trajectory, heat transfer, and evapo-
ration Lefebvre (4).
Sh = 2 + 0.6 Re0.5 0.333
D Scg Equation 1
Nu = 2 + 0.6 Re0.5 0.333
D Prg Equation 2
These models describe the physics of the system (5)
based on a gas heat and mass transfer limitations. Cur-
rent CFD models such as Fluent 6.3(6) have capabilities
to rapidly model all of these aspects of a spray quench.
Modeling challenges often center on the range of scales
involved, from the droplet diameter to the hardware
size which can easily span six orders of magnitude.
Conjugate heat and mass transfer have been included
the models by others including Elperin (7). In many
applications, these complex design cases are readily
solvable with current tools.
Analysis of droplet trajectory depends on accurate in-
puts of drop size, velocity, and starting trajectory. The
models required need a sub-model of the drop drag
coefficient to predict the drop trajectory. This is neces-
sary to calculate the overall heat transfer coefficient for
each drop over the drop trajectory. Both heat transfer
and mass transfer must be considered to determine eva-
poration rate. The size distribution of the spray in a
specific design must be incorporated in the model to
gain a complete representation of the system.
Sprays used for quenching can be generated with a
number of technologies including single fluid and two
fluid atomizing nozzles and a number of configurations.
Pagcatipunan and Schick have described a methodology
for design (8). The challenge is to determining the best
quench design for a specific system.
Design methodology
Application of the TIPS enables a comprehensive anal-
ysis of the design issues and considerations. A full de-
scription of all potential tools is provided by several
authors (4, 8). This spray quench application is a
worked example to illustrate some of the concepts.
Rapidly cooling hot gas is the primary useful function
of the spray quench. There are several engineering
parameters used to describe rate of gas cooling. A
functional description does not have engineering para-
meters to represent the system. Often, the inventive
process is a team effort. Problem solvers with expe-
rience, successes and failures, are advantaged by their
experience but it limits the space of search to the famil-
iar. To avoid being mentally trapped in the familiar
ruts and by egos and vocal team members, the use of
TIPS abstracts the problem into function space, then
applies known solutions and decision matrices to nar-
row the area of search.
Ideality
The concept of ideality is a foundational concept of
TIPS, as defined by Equation 3. Solutions over time
tend toward higher states of ideality. A subtle, but im-
portant distinction is to define the characteristics of the
ideal solution rather than a better solution. The ideal
solution characteristics serve as the ultimate bench-
mark, against which to measure potential solutions.
The functions are the most basic level rather than the
engineering parameters of design. For this example, the
primary useful function is to cool the gas. There are
several harmful actions, including the energy consump-
tion to create sprays, liquid that contacts the wall, many
failure points and costliness to fabricate. The ideal so-
lution has only useful functions and no harmful actions.
For example, a spray quench requires no energy to
create the liquid spray, drops never contact the wall,
and equipment never fails. As a team works through a
group exercise to define the ideal final result, a more
complete understanding of the design problem devel-
ops.
Ideality = Harmful
Useful Functions
Actions+Cost Equation 3
Understanding Design Contradictions
The function diagram is the critical tool used to de-
scribe the problem at the most fundamental level. Ex-
pressing the functions in the most basic form along with
the tradeoffs, known as contradictions in TIPS termi-
nology, provides the means to identify the area of the
design where major improvements will yield the great-
est benefits. Clearly expressing the technical contradic-
tions in the design is challenging because a complete
understanding of most problems spans the experience
and knowledge of more than one person. Accurately
describing the interactions of components and actions is
difficult because the basic function must be stated in
terms of physics. The engineering parameters are not
needed in a functional description; however, they can
be useful to establish the direction of the action. When
one element acts on another, it changes a parameter,
e.g. location, temperature, phase, etc.
3/9
A function map of this spray quench is shown in Figure
2 and visualizes the system objects, tools and the inte-
ractions. The circles represent objects and lines
represent actions. For example, the spray nozzle dis-
perses fluid. Action verbs are required in describing the
actions. Another example of a function is: the feed
header distributes quench liquid. Tools are defined as a
main tool or auxiliary tools according to their function
and importance. Harmful actions in functional diagram
notations are shown in red. The main tool to achieve
the quench is the spray or subdivision of liquid into
drops. Several adverse actions are shown in this dia-
gram including drops striking the walls and drops cool-
ing only a portion of the gas. Some of the advanta-
geous and adverse actions require several objects inte-
racting for the function. Quenching requires several
operations to be achieved simultaneously. An example
of a technical design contradiction is that small drop
size is required to achieve the surface area and larger
drop size is required to penetrate the gas. Adverse ac-
tions indicated in the function diagram help design
teams better understand the fundamental issues of the
design and identify such trade offs. A completed func-
tion map compactly provides a visual representation of
the interaction of components without excessive atten-
tion to the engineering parameters of the design.
For a design to be effective, the main function(s) must
be sufficient. Sufficient drop surface area and evapora-
tion are essential for all designs. Often, the focus of
designers is only on the required function enabled by
the collection of drops. As spray technology practition-
ers, part of our domain expertise is in the design and
selection of spray nozzles to achieve this essential func-
tion of creating a collection of drops which will evapo-
rate to produce the desired cooling rate. The required
science and methods of calculation of the heat transfer
coefficient of individual droplets is well established.
Obviously, a spray quench with inadequate drop prop-
erties will not achieve the primary useful function of
rapidly quenching the gas. The harmful actions, hig-
hlighted in the function diagram, shows several issues -
- droplets that strike the wall due to the drop trajectory
and the influence of the hot gas; secondly, gas that is
cooled and mixes with the droplets, reducing or inhibit-
ing the droplet evaporation; and lastly, incomplete mix-
ing of the hot and locally cooled gas. An effective im-
proved design must address all conflicts.
One design conflict is the mixing of the gas that has
been cooled by evaporation with the hot gas to assure
that all of the gas is below the required temperature.
Industrial scale systems often involve ducts which are
greater than 1 meter in diameter. In large ducts, spray
penetration limits the quenching. A commonly used
solution is to segment the liquid into smaller streams
(requiring smaller nozzles) and distributing these noz-
zles over the cross-section. Spray quench issues with
the gasification quench were resolved by just such a
method, where a number of spray nozzles were used on
three radial headers to distribute the flow over the cross
section as described in Figure 4. At low operating
rates, one of the three headers was be used. As the
quench water flow was increased to handle greater hot
gas input, additional headers were be brought into ser-
vice.
One of the classic TIPS tools is the 40 inventive prin-
ciples shown in Table 1. These principles identified by
Altshuller are common to solve a wide variety of engi-
neering problems. Table 2 lists selected US patents in
the quenching and gas conditioning area, along with the
inventive principles used. Segmentation or subdividing
the flow is the most commonly applied principle in
these patents. This principle was used as the foundation
to resolve the example quench problem. These patents
can be categorized into dry or wet wall designs. Wetted
wall designs are advantageous to control fouling or
deposition of solids or other materials. The wetted wall
designs establish the wet-dry interface at a fixed point,
adding liquid to assure a controlled amount of liquid on
the wall. The technical conflict of wetted wall designs
is resolved by evaporation a small fraction of the liquid
which allows design with larger drops. In addition,
excess quench liquid enables a wide range of gas flows
to be quenched with little need for complex controls.
Generating new solutions
The major strength of the TIPS tool set is the ability to
focus the inventive energy to the most productive re-
gions. The conflict zone which is identified from a
function diagram can be represented as a substance
field diagram. This diagram shows the connectivity or
relationships of the substances and energy fields in the
conflict zone. The spray quench system substance field
(SuField) diagram is shown in Figure 3. Based on the
structure of the SuField diagram, a collection of 76 de-
sign heuristics or standard solutions (9) are available.
For this example, the applicable areas are listed in Ta-
ble 3. The standard solutions describe changes to re-
solve the conflict. For example, the first row in Table 3
the action which is difficult to control within the con-
straints of the problem is clearly an issue for spray
quenches. A standard solution suggested is to use a
more intense action and remove excess material. Often,
spray quenches utilize a large excess of liquid followed
by a removal step, for example US Patent 3,842,615.
Specific solution concepts are developed from the focus
4/9
areas listed in Table 3. Describing this process is
beyond the scope of this paper.
The solution generated in resolving the prototype gasi-
fication facility issue is the standard solution 1.1.8
listed in row 3. This solution the field should have a
maximum or minimum intensity can yield the design
principle found in a number of the patents, that of seg-
mentation. A number of low capacity spray nozzles
mounted on lateral headers achieve the desired results
as shown in Figure 4. Generating potential solutions
based on all eight solution areas outlined in Table 3
provides the designer an inclusive set of approaches.
This methodology enables a more complete set of solu-
tions to be readily developed by a knowledgeable team,
by utilizing the function analysis and SuField diagrams.
A precise characterization of the problem results from
such work. Narrowing the search space maintains the
relevant physics and promotes the creativity of a design
team. One might say that the creativity flow has been
enhanced because of a focus, thus avoiding the distrac-
tions inherent in open brainstorming. The criteria used
for narrowing and validation are readily developed
from the characteristics in the ideal final result and im-
plementation constraints.
Practical experience applying these methods in teams
with diverse skills provides a significant number of
very unique solutions. By identifying very specific
areas of focus, the level of engagement of individuals
tends to be very high. The strong ownership of the
concepts by the team is critical to develop and imple-
ment solutions.
Conclusions
TIPS based tools are practical, productive and cost ef-
fective, not just theory. The tools allow subject matter
experts to rapidly and more exhaustively develop in-
ventive solutions. The outcome of using TIPS metho-
dologies in complex problem solving is a more com-
plete and viable set of solutions. One of the most useful
tools is the function analysis that helps describe and
visualize design issues, enabling a deeper understand-
ing of the core design questions. Applying design heu-
ristics narrows the search space for solutions, enhancing
the creative process of even the most creative person.
Nomenclature
Nu Nusselt number
Pr Prandtl number
Re Reynolds number based on drop diameter and gas
properties
Sc Schmidt number based on gas properties
Sh Shirwood number nical Innovation Center, Inc.; 2nd edition
(May 1996)
Subscripts 3. Rantanen, K., Domb, E., Simplified TRIZ,
D Drop CRC Press 2002
g gas 4. Lefebvre, A.H., Atomization and Sprays, He-
l liquid misphere Publishing Corporation, 1989, pp.
228-260
5. Sjenitzer, F., The evaporation of a liquid spray
injected into a stream of gas, Chemical Engi-
neering Science, 17, 309-322, 1962
6. Ansys.com(fluent)
References 7. Elperin, T., Fominykh, A., Conjugate mass
transfer during gas absorption by a filling liq-
1. Reynard, S., Good Chemistry: Dow Pairs Six uid drop with internal circulation, Atmospheric
Sigma and Innovation, July/August, iSixSigma Environment, 39 (2005) 4575-4582
Magazine, 2007 8. Pagcatipunan, C., Schick, R., Maximize the
2. G. Altshuller, H. Altov, Lev Shulyak, And Performance of Spray Nozzle Systems, Chem-
Suddenly the Inventor Appeared: TRIZ, the ical Engineering Progress, December 2005
Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, Tech- 9. Fey, V., Rivin, E., Innovation on Demand,
Cam bridge University Press, 2005
10. TRIZ Journalwww.triz-jouranal.com

GasificationProtoPlantQuench
Refractorylined Hotgasinlet

inlet1300Kinlet Quench
WaterInlet
1.25mdiameter
inletpiping
Outlettemp450K
metalpiping

Cooledgasoutlet

Figure 1. Schematic of example system

5/9
 Distributes
Disperses Spray
Quench Nozzle
Feed Liquid
header Accelerates
Forms Properties
Conveys Surfacearea
Cools andrelative
velocity
XInhibits
Evaporation Drops

Evaporates
Gas
Mixes X Strikes wall

Walls

Figure 2. Function diagram of quench system showing objects and functions. Adverse functions are shown in red.

6/9
Figure 3. Substance Field Diagram, SuField, showing the conflict zone interactions

Header 1

Header 2

Header 3

Figure 4. End view of multiple nozzle solution used for gas quench

7/9
 Table 1. 40 principles of TRIZ

40InventivePrinciples
1. SEGMENTATION 21. HURRYTHROUGH
2. TAKEOUT 22. BLESSINGINDISGUISE
3. LOCALQUALITY 23. FEEDBACK
4. ASYMMETRY 24. INTERMEDIARY
5. MERGING
25. SELFSERVICE
6. UNIVERSALITY
26. COPYING
7. NESTEDDOLL
8. ANTIWEIGHT 27. SERVICELIFE cheap/short vs.expensive/long
9. PRELIMINARYANTIACTION 28. MECHANICSSUBSTITUTION
10. PRELIMINARYACTION 29. PNEUMATICorHYDRAULICCONSTRUCTIONS
11. BEFOREHANDCUSHIONING 30. FLEXIBLESHELLSandTHINFILMS
12. EQUIPOTENTIALITY 31. POROUSMATERIALS
13. OTHERWAYROUND 32. CHANGEOFCOLOR
14. CRUVATURE 33. HOMOGENEITY
15. VARIABILITYorDYNAMICISM 34. DISCARDandRECOVER
16. PARTIALorEXCESSIVEACTION
35. CHANGEPHYSICALorCHEMICALPARAMETERS
17. ANOTHERDIMENSION
36. PHASETRANSITIONS
18. MECHANICALVIBRATIONS
19. PERIODICACTIONS 37. THERMALEXPANSION
20. CONTINUITYOFUSEFULACTION 38. STRONGOXIDANTS
39. INERTATMOSPHERE
40. COMPOSITEMATERIALS

Table 2. Quench related patents and inventive principles used

Patent number Year Title Content Principles Used
US 2776727 1957 Apparatus for separating and Combination cyclone and Preliminary action-
quenching spray quench removing solids
US 2800974 1957 Spray cooling apparatus and Spray cooling removing Segmentation
method solid product
US 3593968 1971 Rapid cooling for high- Wetted wall spray quench Local quality- wet-
temperature gas streams for pyrolysis gas ting wall, segmenta-
tion
US 4552727 1985 Cooling device Gas cooling for corrosive Segmentation,
steams asymmetry
US 4891170 1990 Nozzle assembly Gas condition with re- Segmentation, pre-
movable nozzles and liminary action
headers
US 4915712 1990 Evaporative gas cooling sys- Gas flow use to prevent Segmentation, local
tem and method drops from reaching wall quality
US 5922103 1999 Automatic gas conditioning Control method for gas
method conditioning tower Segmentation
US 6523811 2003 Method and device for tem- Control method using Segmentation, pre-
perature reduction of exhaust superheated water liminary action
gas by making use of thermal
water

8/9
 Table 3. Summary of ARIZ solution area for gas quenching
ARIZ Standard Description of standard solution Applicability/comments
Solution num-
ber (9)
1.1.6 Action that is difficult to control within the constraints of the Yesquench systems often use
problem use most intense action and excess removed great excess of liquid to assure
complete action
1.1.7 Add another substance connected to the first substance Yes, potential
1.1.8 Field should have maximum or minimum intensity Yes, potential
1.2.4 Add another field to system- if existing substances and fields Yes, electric field
must be maintained
1.2.5 If involving magnetic fields use ferromagnetic NA
1.1.1 Enhance the effectiveness and controllability of a system with Potential- very broad question
an incomplete SuField by introducing missing (or new ele-
ments)
2.3.1 The effectiveness can be enhanced by tuning or detuning of Yes, highly turbulent systems
the frequency of a field action of the object or the tool have broad spectrum of frequen-
cies
2.3.2 The effectiveness can be enhanced by tuning or detuning of Yes, potential
the frequency of a field action of the object or the tool
2.3.3 When two actions are incompatible -- one action is performed NA
during pauses on the other action

9/9