See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331743856

CFD simulation of multicomponent mixture within a packed Deethanizer

column

Article  in  Heat and Mass Transfer · March 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s00231-019-02586-1

CITATIONS READS

0 18

4 authors, including:

Hajer Troudi Ghiss Moncef

Ecole Nationale d'Ingénieurs de Souss Ecole Nationale d'Ingénieurs de Souss
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Disc degeneration and diagnosis tools View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hajer Troudi on 18 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Heat and Mass Transfer
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-019-02586-1

ORIGINAL

CFD simulation of multicomponent mixture within a packed

Deethanizer column
Hajer Troudi 1 & Moncef Ghiss 1 & Mohamed Ellejmi 2 & Zoubeir Tourki 1

Received: 5 May 2018 / Accepted: 5 February 2019

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
The aim of this study is to develop a model of a Deethanizer Column (DC). A fuel mixture of Methane CH4, Ethane C2H6,
Propane C3H8, N-butane n-C4H10 and some hydrocarbons is used to get an insight on the DC operation. A multicomponent gas-
liquid flow in DC is investigated using the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) method. The droplet size change, the droplet
surface temperature and the pressure drop are investigated with a Eulerian-Lagrangian model using ANSYS-Fluent R15. The
computation results are compared with the experimental data of a binary and multicomponent mixture in a stationary droplet. A
good agreement between them is established. Additionally, the predicted pressure drop obtained at varied porosity is compared
with the data got from the Ergun formulation. The results show that the presence of CH4 and C2H6 has a big impact on the droplet
surface temperature. This temperature initially reaches the lower value because of the fastest evaporation of light components
(CH4 and C2H6) rather than the heavy ones (C5+). The current work provides a better understanding of the behavior of light
components in DC.

Keywords Deethanizer column . CFD . Droplet . Multicomponent . Porosity

NomenclatureAbbreviations ρ Mass density, (kg/m3)

AEI Alpha Engineering International μ Dynamic viscosity, (kg/
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamic m.s)
DDPM Dense Discrete Phase Modelling ε Porosity, (m3/m3)
SIMPLEC Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure τ Stress strain tensor
Linked Equations Consistent ϑ Volume, (m3)
VOF Volume Of Fluid
VLE Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium List of symbols
UDF User Defined Fuctions C Carbon
Greek letters cp Liquid specific heat, J/kg.°C
CD Drag coefficient
D Diameter of column, (m)
* Hajer Troudi dd Droplet diameter, (m)
hajer.troudi@eniso.rnu.tn
E Total energy
Moncef Ghiss F Interphase body forces between phases, (N)
moncef.ghiss@eniso.rnu.tn g Gravity, 9.81 (N/kg)
H Column height, m
Mohamed Ellejmi
m.ellejmi@alpha-engineering.com.tn h Interphase enthalpy, convective heat
transfer coefficient, W/m2. °C
Zoubeir Tourki
zoubeir.tourki@eniso.rnu.tn
k Thermal conductivity, (W/m.°C)
L Packed bed length, (m)
1
Mechanical Laboratory of Sousse, National Engineering School of N Number of species in two-phases
Sousse, University of Sousse, Bp.264 Erriadh, 4023 Sousse, Tunisia Nu Nusselt number, (−)
2
Alpha Engineering International, AEI. Sahloul III 4054, p Pressure, (Pa)
Sousse, Tunisia Pr Prandlt number, (−)
 Heat Mass Transfer

q Heat flux, (W/m2) column and the other constituting the reflux is fed back from
R Radius of packed bed, (m) the head of the column. The reflux is essential to react again
Re Reynolds number, (−) with other remaining components leading to less than 100%
ro Radius of nozzles, (m). conversion.
S Generalized source terms Also, distillation is performed in two types of col-
Sc Schmidt number, (−) umns, plate and packed. These columns are filled with
t Time, (s) a structured and randomly packed beds, which are cov-
T Temperature, (°C) ered by two typical contact modes: co-current and coun-
!
V Vector Velocity, (m/s) ter current. In distillation, the counter-current mode is
X Mass fraction in liquid phase (Droplet) mostly preferred over the co-current one because it
x Mole fraction in liquid phase (Droplet) reaches an important purity of vapor on the head of
Y Mass fraction in gas phase the column. However, at a greater flow rate, the inter-
y Mole fraction in gas phase action between phases presents a flooding problem,
Subscripts compared to the co-current mode. The performance pa-
d Droplets rameters that determine the suitability of the packed
eff Effective column design, are the relationship between heat and
q Continuous phase mass transfer as well as the pressure drop resulting from
i (Species) porosity.
k Phase indicator (k = q if gas phase is Several methods have been developed in Computational
present; k = d if droplets are present) Fluid Dynamics (CFD) for undergoing packed-column
m Mixture problems. Among these methods, some previous studies
p Particles have generally chosen the Volume Of Fluid (VOF) method.
s Droplet surface In fact, researchers have taken a simple 2D small scale of
T Total volume of packed bed one structured packing and they have investigated the sur-
Operators face interaction between phases ([5, 6]). Despite the great
∇ Gradient operator amount of work related to counter-current packed columns,
∇. Divergence operator as reviewed by [7, 8], there have been only few studies
∇2 Laplace operator dealing with distillation in co-current packed columns
d/dt Time derivative, (s−1) and under high pressure and temperature. Moreover, nu-
merical simulations involving a mixture of light hydrocar-
bons from methane CH 4 , to kerosene C 12H 23 in a co-
1 Introduction current packed bed have been so far a great challenge due
to the complex nature of the flow pattern.
Distillation is widely used in the petrochemical industries The evaporation of pure, binary or tertiary systems is
through distillation or fractionation columns [1]. These col- widely encountered in many chemical engineering pro-
umns are applied to separate a liquid or a vapor feeds into cesses such as evaporation of liquid fuels, spray cooling
relatively pure components [2]. Indeed, the mixture is heated and spray evaporation. Several researches have proposed
at a specific boiling point. The high volatile component is a number of limited tests of one single droplet composed
evaporated first, converted to vapor and raised to the top of of gasoline, diesel fuel and kerosene. Daif et al. [9] ex-
the column, while the less volatile components are concentrat- perimentally have studied the evaporation characteristics
ed in the liquid. The performance of the distillation columns is of a pure and binary fuel droplet (n-heptane-n-decane) in
generally assessed by the purity of the products at the outlet. a heated stream of air. The droplet size varied in the range
For several cases, distillation can be considered as not feasible of 0.5 to 0.756 mm. Their experiments have proved that
since high purity products cannot be obtained. Some new the vaporization in a forced convection would lead to an
separation techniques have been developed that combine increase in the evaporation rate than that in natural con-
chemical reaction with distillation [3]. However, the main vection. However, Gavhane et al. [10] numerically have
drawbacks associated with these techniques are the high ener- investigated the evaporation performance of n-heptane-n-
gy consumption, the complexity of the synthesis, and the price dodecane and methanol-ethanol droplets in a non-
of the separation agent required [4]. For that reason, the dis- convective medium of fuel vapors. They have concluded
tillation is further investigated by a continuous distillation in a that the presence of fuel vapors in a free stream would
single column. raise the droplet lifetime due to the condensation of the
Typically, these columns are charged with two liquid feeds vapors at the droplet surface. Furthermore, several studies
where the major part is fed continuously into the middle of the have analyzed the influence of the turbulence on the
Heat Mass Transfer
vaporization rate. They have concluded that the turbu-
lence had a great impact on the evaporation of all com-
ponents in the droplets, even the less volatile one ([11,
12]). Extensive investigations of a three-component gaso-
line surrogate were made by Elwardany et al. [13] to
predict the influence of a carbon portion and the different
surrogates on both droplet diameter and temperature’s
evolution.
On the other hand, papers published on the multi-
component systems are comparatively rare. They have
used commercial gasoline fuels with a smaller number
of hydrocarbon (between 2 to 7) compared to the real
gasoline fuels. Furthermore, different complex structures
have been replaced with single components as reviewed
by [14]. Chen et al. [15] have studied the evaporation of
multicomponent fuels in laminar flows and at low ambient
temperatures. Ra and Reitz [16] have developed a discrete
multi-component model to track the evaporation of each
component in the fuel mixture separately at various am-
bient and droplet temperatures. They have concluded that
the regression of the droplet life time of a multicomponent
single droplet significantly differed from that of a single
component droplet. The evaporation became better in the
early stages of the drop temperature. In other study, in
order to incorporate the gravity dependence on the droplet
heating period and lifetime, Huang and Chen [17] have
assumed that the gravity causes the forced convection in
the droplet surface which leads to an increase in the va-
porization and a decrease on the droplet lifetime. Padoin
et al. [18] have applied a Eulerian-Eulerian approach in a
pseudo 1D geometry to investigate the coupled heat and
the mass transfer. A multicomponent mixture composed
of four hydrocarbons has been studied to predict the equi-
librium concentration in the steady state condition.
In this study, a novel Deethanizer column (DC) is pre-
sented to numerically predict the heating and evaporation
of multicomponent droplets. This model is based on re-
placing one single droplet with a large number of droplets
with various sizes, sprayed from multi-spray injectors.
Methane CH4, ethane C2H6, propane C3H8 and n-butane
n-C4H10, as new hydrocarbon components, are added to
the gasoline fuel mixture to predict the distillation in the
DC model. This paper is organized as follows: A Eulerian-
Lagrangian method is carried out using Ansys Fluent and
is briefly discussed in section 1. First, the DC model is
validated by the experimental data of a binary system for
different initial droplet radii and then extended to a mul-
ticomponent system in section 2. Specifically, the effect of
the droplet size and temperature is evaluated on the evap-
oration rate of light hydrocarbons, hence presenting the
simulations in section 3. In the same section, the effect
of varied porosity on the pressure drop is discussed.
Finally, the paper is concluded in section 4.
2 Model description and implementation
In this section, we provide a brief description of the
Euler-Lagrange approach followed by the coupling
terms of heat and mass transfer. The pressure drop in
the packed bed is also pointed. Afterwards, the physical
model of DC is presented.
2.1 Governing equations
The assumption conditions applied to the model are as
follows:
(1) The gas and liquid phases are considered as an ideal
mixture to satisfy the Raoult’s law.
(2) There is no reaction between chemical species in both
phases.
(3) The gas is treated as a continuum and the liquid is con-
sidered as dispersed and formed by a number of droplets.
(4) The droplets are considered to be spherical with uniform
temperature.
(5) Heat and mass transfer take place under transient state
conditions and there is no radiation between the droplets
and their surroundings.
(6) There is no external heat source inside the column.
(7) No-slip condition is applied to the DC wall.
2.1.1 Conservation equations
In the Euler-Lagrange method, the subscripts Bq^ and Bp^
respectively define the continuous phase, which is the gas,
and the dispersed phase, which is the multicomponent drop-
lets. The governing equations are expressed in the following.
For the continuous phase, the continuity equation of the gas
ƒ!
with density ρq, dynamic viscosity μq and velocity V q is
expressed as follows:
 
∂ ρq  ƒ! N ∙
þ ∇: ρq V q ¼ ∑ mi ð1Þ
∂t i¼1
where m˙ i represents the additional mass transfer rate removed
from the evaporation of the droplets to the gas phase. The
momentum equation can be written as:
 ƒ!
∂ ρq V q  ƒ!!     ƒ!
þ ∇: ρq V q V q ¼ −∇pq þ ∇: μq þ μsgs ∇ V q ð2Þ
∂t
! ΔP
þ ρq !
g þ F V−
Lp
where the parameters pq, τq and! g represent the pressure, the
viscosity stress tensor and the gravity acceleration in the time
t, respectively. The turbulent viscosityμt = ρq Cμ(k2/ε)is
 Heat Mass Transfer
 
∂ ρq ε  ƒ!    
calculated by the standard k-ε model, as shown afterwards. μ
! þ ∇: ρq V q ε ¼ ∇: μ þ t ∇ε ð4Þ
∂t σε
F V denotes the momentum transfer between the Eulerian
ƒ!  ƒ! 
T ε ε2
gas phase and each individual droplet of the disperse phase. þ c1ε μt ∇ V q : ∇ V q þ ð∇ƒ!
Vq Þ −c2ε ρq −ρq ε
k k
The last term (ΔP/Lp) represents the pressure drop term that
appears due to the existence of a packing zone in DC. With Cμ = 0.09, c1ε = 1.44, c2ε = 1.92, σk = 1 and σε =
The standard k-ε model consists of the following kinetic 0.77.
energy and energy dissipation equations: The energy of the gas phase is given by the following
  equation:
∂ ρq k  ƒ!    
μt
þ ∇: ρq V q k ¼ ∇: μ þ ∇k ð3Þ
∂t σk
ƒ!  ƒ! 
þ μt ∇ V q : ∇ V q þ ð∇ƒ!
Vq Þ
T
−ρq ε

ð5Þ

where Tq represents the temperature field of the gas phase. The The species conservation equation is expressed as:
expressions on the right hand are as follows: A represents the  
heat transfer by conduction, where the effective conductivity ∂ ρq Y qi  ƒ! 
keff is assumed to be the summation of mass fraction Yi of þ ∇ ρq V q Y qi
∂t
species i in the gas phase and their conductivity ki. B denotes  
the heat transfer caused by viscous dissipation. C is the enthal- T ∇T q •
¼ −∇ −ρq Dm i ∇Y i;q −D i þ mi ð6Þ
py source caused by the diffusion of N species in the gas phase, Tq
where Dm T
i and Di are the mass and thermal diffusion coeffi- For the second phase, the momentum equation of the drop-
cients of the i species in the mixture and hi is their correspond-
th
lets with density ρd, dispersed into a carrier gas can be
ing enthalpy. A and C represent the flux of the heat transfer.
expressed in the Lagrange frame as follows:

ð7Þ

where A is the droplet acceleration, B is the drag force, C gases. This term is added in Eq. (1) and Eq. (6) as a source
is the gravity and buoyancy force, D is the virtual mass term and is stated as:
force, and Fext is all the other additional forces that come
• dmi μ    Y s −Y ∞

into contact between gas and liquid due to the interface mi ¼
1=2
¼ 2πrd d 2 þ 0:6Red Sc1=3 ln 1 þ i si ð8Þ
dt Sc 1−Y i
tension. In the drag force, there is the droplet Reynolds
! !
number Red ¼ 2ρq j V q − V d jrd =μq, the droplet radius rd
and the drag coefficient C D correlated by Tomiyama The Spalding mass transfer number denoted by BM is given
et al. [19]. by:
Y si −Y ∞i
2.1.2 Mass and heat transfer BM ¼ ð9Þ
1−Y si

Droplet evaporation rate The evaporation ratemi • of species i whereY si refers to the mass fraction of species i in the gas phase
is calculated for an isolated spherical droplet at the thermody- and at the surface of the droplet (subscript s) and Y ∞i refers to the
namic equilibrium and in its surrounding mixture of ideal mass fraction of species i in the ambient gas q given as:
Heat Mass Transfer

y i ωi
Y si ¼ N  ð10Þ Since the two phases are considered to be ideal, this equal-
∑ y jω j ity can be defined according to the Raoult’s law. Here, yi is the
j¼1 mole fraction of component i in the gas phase and xi is its mole
fraction in the droplet, which is obtained from the liquid mass
where ωj and yj are the molecular weight and mole fraction of fraction. Moreover, p is the absolute pressure and psati is the
the species j ≠ i. In Eq. (8), the dimensionless parameters are the
saturated vapor pressure of component i at ambient tempera-
Reynolds number Red and the Schmidt number:
ture T∞.
Sc ¼ μq =ρq Dm ð11Þ
i X i =ωi Y i =ωi
yi ¼ ; xi ¼ ð16Þ
N
N

∑ X j =ω j ∑ Y j =ω j
Droplet temperature Heat transfer rate is computed as the j¼1 j¼1

summation of convective heat between the droplet of mass

md and the gas besides the vaporization term defined by the
sensible and latent heat termH vap ¼ hsi −h∞i . The radiation ef- 2.2 Initial and boundary conditions
fect is assumed to be negligible and the heat transfer equation
at the droplet surface is: The mole fraction distribution xi of evaporated components on
  the droplet surface, as well as the temperature distribution Td
dT d N dmi s ∞
can be written in spherical coordinates as Fieberg et al. [21]:
m d cp ¼ 4hπrd ðT ∞ −T d Þ þ ∑
2
hi −hi ð12Þ
dt dt  
∂ 
i¼1
1 ∂ 2 ∂T
ρ cp T ¼ 2 k eff r ð17Þ
Where, h is the convective heat transfer coefficient between ∂t q r ∂r ∂r
the droplet surface and the gas phase. The convective heat  
∂xi 1 ∂ 2 ∂xi
transfer coefficient can be obtained from the dimensionless ¼ 2 Di r ð18Þ
1=2 ∂t r ∂r ∂r
Nusselt number N ud ¼ h d d =k q ¼ 2 þ 0:6Red Pr1=3
q , given
by the Ranz-Marshall correlation. Both equations are linked by the following boundary and
The Prandtl number of the gas phase is defined by: initial conditions. By integrating of Eq. (17) and Eq. (18), the
boundary conditions are summarized in Fig. 1.
Prq ¼ cp μq =k q ð13Þ
where q• and mi • are the heat and the mass transferred into
the droplet and calculated in Eq. (12) and Eq. (8), respectively.
The initial conditions (t = 0 s) are defined as:
2.1.3 Pressure drop
ƒ! ƒ!
V q ¼ V ∞ ; V d ¼ 0; T ∞ ¼ T q
DC is packed with uniform spherical particles of diameter dp.
The flow of each phase through the packing zone induces a The temperature Td at the inlet of sprays is set to 69 °C and
pressure drop due to the friction of the fluid into the particles. the temperature T∞ of the ambient gas and at the walls is set to
This loss was defined by Ergun [20] using the properties of the 272 °C. The initial mole fraction of the species in the two
packing zone (porosity ε = ϑ p /ϑ Tand permeability phases are defined based on the experimental results of
K ¼ d 2p ε3 =150 ð1−εÞ2 ) and superficial relative velocity Vq Bhran et al. [22] (see Table 1).
A finite volume discretization scheme is explored to resolve
of the gas phase:
the resulting set of equations in a fixed unstructured grid. The
ΔP μq ð1−εÞ2 ρq ð1−εÞ 2 SIMPLEC algorithm is applied as an iterative solution proce-
− ¼ 150 2 V q þ 1:75 Vq ð14Þ dure to solve the pressure-velocity coupling in the momentum
Lp dp ε 3 d p ε3
equations. In the transient state, the Eulerian gas phase is firstly
calculated with the selected time step of 0.01 s. After 10,000
iterations, the discrete phase is then simulated with a time step of
2.1.4 Vapor-liquid equilibrium 1.10−3 s. The convergence is sustained until the continuity re-
sidual of velocity is less than 10−3, the energy is less than 10−4
The Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium (VLE) for a multi-component and the species are less than 10−6.
system is related to the equality of fugacities in both phases
(f Li ¼ f Vi ), where:
2.3 CFD modelling
f Li ¼ xi psat
j i ð15Þ The simulated geometry is shown in Fig. 2(a). The DC is
f Vi ¼ yi p
constructed of one packing zone, one plate distributor and
 Heat Mass Transfer

Fig. 1 Model of a single droplet V∞, T∞

evaporation in the constant rate
period
r >rd At the surface of the droplet ( ), a zero
At the center of the droplet velocity of the gas phase is assumed,
r =rd
( ), the initial mole
fraction in the liquid phase is
unity and the droplet r =0
temperature is:

At a large distance from the droplet (outside

the diffuse layer surrounding the droplet
), ,

inlet and outlet nozzles. Two-phase liquid and gas are flowing
inside DC, where the liquid mixture is introduced from the top
through cone spray injectors and sprayed by gravity to the
down of the column. Whereas, the gas phase is moved from
the top to the bottom of the column through nozzles. The
packing zone is defined as a porous medium. The solid and
fluid domains are parallel to the main axis of the column (z-
axis) and separated by interfaces.
DC is a cylinder with a height of H = 0.5 m and a radius of
R = 0.3045 m. The top is composed of 20 cone sprays with a
minimal radius of rc = 0.02 m, which correspond to the injec-
tion of droplets. The middle is the geometry of the packed bed
with a length of Lp = 0.3 m and porosity ε and the bottom is
the nozzle of the outlet with diameter of 0.06 m.We assume
that the packed bed is an isotropic porous medium of Plexiglas
material.
In order to model a typical natural gas, more than ten spe-
cies are considered in the drops. Therefore, a User Defined
Function (UDF) is employed for the definition of methane,
ethane, propane and n-butane in the droplets including their
mass density, boiling point, and vaporization temperature.
Moreover, the saturation pressure is calculated using the
Antoine’s equation.
Fig. 2(b) represents the face boundary conditions and the
computational grid. The gravity acts in a z-direction. For the
gas phase, a velocity inlet boundary condition is specified at

Table 1 Fuel mixture

Fuels Formula Daif et al. Su and Chen Present study (Bhran et al. [22])
[9] [23]
NGL Gas Vapor
condensate

Methane CH4 – – 0.0792 0.0719 0

Ethane C2H6 – – 0.0841 0.0465 0.0006
Propane C3H8 – – 0.1112 0.0505 0.0543
n-butane n-C4H10 – – 0.1348 0.0526 0.0669
n-pentane n-C5H12 – 0.24 0.1220 0.0449 0.0606
n-hexane n-C6H14 – – 0.1050 0.0445 0.0596
Benzene C6H6 – – 0.0230 0.0114 0.0148
n-heptane n-C7H16 0.5 0.25 0.1065 0.0672 0.0852
Toluene C7H8 – 0.12 0.0339 0.0292 0.0357
n-octane n-C8H18 – 0.02 0.0761 0.0868 0.1041
Cyclononane C9H18 – 0.17 0.0195 0.0430 0.0497
n-decane C10H22 0.5 – 0.0136 0.0594 0.0673
Undecane C11H24 – 0.20 0.0038 0.0394 0.0441
Surrogate fuel for C12H23 – – 0.0016 0.0336 0.0375
kerosene
– C12+ – – 0.0857 0.3369 0.3569
Heat Mass Transfer
Fig. 2 Computational domain
2R
and hexahedral grid
H: the height
of the column
(a) 2ro
the top of the column and a pressure outlet boundary condition
at the bottom of the column. At the wall, no slip condition and
no heat exchange are applied, while, the droplets are reflected
as they impact the wall. The turbulence conditions are speci-
fied by turbulence intensity I = 5% and length scale which is
taken as l = 0.07DH. The hydraulic diameter DH, in this equa-
tion is the diameter of the column DH = 2R. The DC is
discretized using a combined structured prismatic boundary
layer in the wall and unstructured hexahedral meshes in the
centre. The mesh is generated with pre-processing Ansys
ICEM CFD. A boundary layer of 1 mm thickness is used in
the near-wall regions for a more accurate calculation of the
steep gradients in this area. This layer is increased by an ex-
pansion factor of 120% from the wall surface until the cell
thickness.
3 Numerical results and discussion
In this section, numerical investigations are conducted to im-
prove the present DC model. First, a validation using experi-
mental data of binary and multi-component mixtures is made
in a stationary single droplet. Next, numerical simulations are
performed to investigate the effect of different droplet diame-
ters on mass transfer and vaporization. Finally, the pressure
drop is calculated and compared with the Ergun formulation.
3.1 Test mesh independency
A mesh independence analysis is performed based on three
meshes; a medium, a coarse and a fine. The coarse mesh has
Cone spray Gas inlet
injector
Inlet spray
2rc
Lp: the length
of the packed
zone
(b)
Outlet
1,849,714 elements, the medium mesh has 4,192,938 ele-
ments and the fine mesh has 6,792,264 elements. Fig. 3 illus-
trates the three meshes, where the refinement is only per-
formed around the cone spray injectors. Fig. 4(a) depicts the
contour plot of gas velocity distribution. Fig. 4(b), Fig. 4(c)
and Fig. 4(d) show the effect of mesh refinement on both the
radial and axial dimensionless gas velocity. In Fig. 4(b), at
position z = 0.47 m, the results show a small and an insignif-
icant variation in the radial velocity distributions near the
cones spray. Also, at position z = 0.25 m, the simulation re-
sults are identical and there is no significant enhancement for
all meshes (Fig. 4(c)). However, in Fig. 4(d), an apparent loss
of accuracy and sharpness is obtained with the coarse mesh.
Hence, the mesh consisting of 1,192,938 elements is consid-
ered to be acceptable for a good compromise between accu-
racy and computational effort.
3.2 Model validation
In this section, the validation of a fully transient variation in
the droplet size and temperature is first studied in the binary
mixture and then in the multicomponent mixture. After that, it
is compared with those of Daif et al. [9] and Su and Chen [23]
respectively. A single droplet is assumed to be a reference and
it is compared with multi-droplets of the same size. The nu-
merical results presented in this study are the average of all the
droplets for each spray injector. Daif et al. [9] have limited
their experimental study to n-heptane and n-decane, whereas
Su and Chen [23] have explored a type of a fuel mixture,
which was close to the present multi-component work. The
difference between the two models is that our analysis is
 Heat Mass Transfer

Fig. 3 Meshes performed using

ICEM CFD
Refined mesh near
the cone spray
injectors

(a) 1,849,714 elements (b) 4,192,938 elements (c) 6,792,264 elements

(b)
(a)
L1

(L1) : z = 0.47 m

L2

L3

(d)
(c)

(L3) : r = 0 m
(L2) : z = 0.25 m

Fig. 4 (a) Gas-velocity profile in meridian plane of DC and droplet tracks (right), Effect of mesh size on CFD results in (b) and (c) radial and (d) axial
directions
Heat Mass Transfer
extended to take more volatile hydrocarbons. The composi-
tions of all the fuel droplets used for validation are provided in
Table 1. The binary (n-heptane, n-decane) system is observed
in Fig. 5 and the multicomponent in Fig. 6.
Fig. 5 presents the time evolution of the droplet diameter in
three systems of pure n-heptane, a mixture (50%,50%) and
pure n-decane. According to Fig. 5, it can be clearly seen that
all the cases are in great accordance with the experimental
results and give a similar evaporation trend. It is noted also
that n-heptane has a much faster evaporation rate compared to
n-decane, due to its lower specific heat at lower temperatures.
Whereas, for the mixture system, Fig. 5 highlights a slight
decrease in the droplet diameter, especially in the initial period
of the vaporization process. This is explained by the fact that
n-heptane, which is the most volatile component, vaporizes
and then depletes slowly from the droplet surface. Contrarily,
n-decane, which is the least volatile component, absorbs heat
and leads to a limited variation in the droplet diameter. This
phenomenon is not observed for pure n-heptane and pure n-
decane trends. The two fuels are similar due to their natural
convection which is considered in Eq. (11). Towards the end
of the lifetime of droplets, a maximum deviation of about
13.51% between the numerical and experimental curves for
the mixture system is observed. This deviation increases for
the evaporation time from 14 s. It is believed that it mainly
comes from the different numerical spray injectors that lead to
a rapid droplet transience in our study compared to one sta-
tionary droplet. The same explanation was done by Huang and
Chen [17] and Strotos et al. [24].
To confirm the applicability of the proposed model, Fig. 6
depicts an additional comparison between CFD with the ex-
perimental results in determining the temporal variation in
multicomponent droplet diameters and surface temperatures.
Fig. 5 History of averaged droplets diameter predicted in present study
and compared with experimental data for different systems (pure n-
heptane, mixture of 50%, 50% and pure n-decane)
Fig. 6 History of average diameter and surface temperature of droplets
predicted in present multicomponent study and compared with
experimental data
The averaged droplet size for this case is 50 μm. The predicted
results is in close agreement with the experimental data, and
the maximum difference between them is within 0.047%. It
can be understood from Fig. 6 that the decline in the droplet
size is related to the rise in the temperature. Heating the fuel
mixture leads to the evaporation of such a lighter component
in their gaseous environment, hence the reduction in the drop-
let size. It is further observed that for a multicomponent drop-
let, the diameter has decreased very fast and attains a very
small value of 0.67 10−5 m at t < 0.03 s, while the time taken
for the binary droplet to reach its equilibrium is t = 16 s. This
rapidity is due to the introduction of a smaller mass fraction of
a light component such as n-pentane as well as to the smaller
initial droplet diameter.
3.3 Results and discussion
In this section, we analyze the evaporation of light hydrocar-
bons in the droplets by adding new hydrocarbons such as:
methane CH4, ethane C2H6, propane C3H8 and n-butane n-
C4H10. Two mixing systems are investigated, namely the
Natural Gas Liquid (NGL) and the gas condensate (Bhran
et al. [22]). The mixture consists primarily of methane and
ethane and varying amounts of other higher alkanes such as
propane and butane. Here, components of carbon dioxide,
nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide or helium are ignored. The re-
quired mole fraction of each component is given in
Table 1.The properties of methane CH4, ethane C2H6, propane
C3H8 and n-butane n-C4H10 investigated in this computation
modeling, are listed in Table 2. All the operating parameters
are taken from the experiment of Bhran et al. [22]. The simu-
lations are taken for the fixed porosity of ε = 0.98, the equiv-
alent diameter of particles dp = 0.015 m, gas velocity Vq =
0.7 m.s−1 and droplet velocity Vd = 0.04 m.s−1.
 Heat Mass Transfer

Table 2 Thermophysical
properties of four primary Methane CH4 Ethane C2H6 Propane C3H8 N-butane n-C4H10
hydrocarbons [25]
Density (Kg/m3) 422.36 543.83 580.88 601.26
Dynamic viscosity (Pa-s) 1.1E−5 9.5E−5 0.74E−5 0.7E−5
Specific heat (J/Kg-K) 2260 1715 1630 1675
Boiling point (°C) −161.7 −88.3 −42.2 −0.39
Thermal conductivity (W/m-°C) 0.035 0.017 0.017 0.017
Critical pressure, (bar) 46.402 48.883 42.609 37.921
Latent heat (J/Kg) 510,830 489,400 425,590 385,710
Vapor pressure (bar) 4.221 3.938 4.536 4.355
Log10(P) = A-(B/(T + C)) 516.689 659.739 1149.360 1175.581
11.223 −16.719 24.906 −2.071

Figures 7 and Fig. 8 represent the average mole fraction of
the components vs time in both NGL and the condensate gas
mixture under the same conditions. Despite the higher con-
centration of methane CH4 and ethane C2H6, in the droplets, it
is clearly shown that their evaporation rate is higher than the
other components. The evaporation time (tevp) of CH4 and
C2H6 has no obvious change in both NGL and the condensate
gas and approaches a value of tevp = 0.3 s.
However, ðxC3 H 8 Þ follows initially a steeper increase and
then it rapidly goes down to equilibrate the concentrations of
aboutxC3 H 8 ¼ 0:03 for the condensate gas andxC3 H 8 ¼ 0:035
for NGL. This phenomenon can be explained by the lower
energy required to heat the remaining amount of C3H8 and
also due to the lower vapor pressure which prevents the com-
plete depletion of C3H8 (Table 2). Furthermore, the results in
Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 demonstrate clearly that n-C4H10, n-C5H12,
n-C6H14, n-C7H16 and n-C8H18 have a negligible evaporation
since they have the highest wet bulb temperature and the
highest density among the above components (Kim et al.
[26]). Moreover, we should note that the increase in the mole
fraction of the heaviest components (C3+) before the evapora-
tion time (tevp) is caused by the expense of the mole fraction of
light components (C2−) in the surface of droplets. As the base
fuel is depleted, the concentration of (C3+) near the droplet
surface goes up.
Fig. 9 illustrates the simulation result of the evolution of
droplet surface temperature for both NGL and the condensate
gas mixture with an initial droplet diameter equal to do =
10 μm. As it can be noticed, the same trend for all the curves
can be observed. The mixture systems indicate a slower drop
in the droplet surface temperature at t = 0.01 s, where we ob-
serve a faster growth after this time.
The curves are composed of three different evaporation
parts. The first part (Fig. 9(a)) is the pre-heating in which Td
goes down from 69 °C to 28 °C for NGL and from 69 °C to
43 °C for the condensate. In fact, the droplet surface temper-
ature is reduced by about 60% for NGL and 37% for the
condensate, which can be clearly seen before t = 0.02 s. This

Fig. 7 History of average mole fraction on droplets surface predicted in Fig. 8 History of average mole fraction on the droplets surface predicted
condensate mixture. Operating parameters: P∞ = 23.5 bar, T∞ = 272 °C, in the condensate gas mixture. Operating parameters: P∞ = 23.5 bar, T∞ =
Td = 69 °C, do = 87 μm 272 °C, Td = 69 °C, do = 87 μm
Heat Mass Transfer

(a)

Fig. 10 Average concentration of CH4 and C2H6 over time for NGL,
condensate gas and MEP mixture at P∞ = 23.5 bar, T∞ = 272 °C, Td =
(b) 69 °C, do = 10 μm

Fig. 9(a), could be explained by the small amount of volatile

Fig. 9 Surface droplet temperature (a) in the first part and (b) in the
second and third parts for NGL, condensate gas, MEP mixture and Su
and Chen [23] over time at same conditions of P∞ = 23.5 bar, T∞ =
272 °C, Td = 69 °C, do = 10v μm
components. Overall, a higher decline in the droplet surface
temperature is frequently observed especially at higher con-
centrations of CH4 and C2H6. The effect of C3H8 is not ob-
served. However, for the example of Su and Chen [23], the
droplet surface temperature demonstrates a peak before t =
0.1 s. In fact, there is no decrease at first due to the light
component n-C5H12 which has a minimum boiling point of
97.85 °C. As a result, a clear difference in the evolution of the
surface droplet temperature is observed, especially in the first
part of the curves, due to the nature of the mixture systems.
Figures 10 and Fig. 11 plotted the average mole fraction of
CH4, C2H6, C3H8 and n-C4H10 for NGL, the condensate gas and
MEP. It is clearly shown that the CH4 and C2H6 content in the
NGL is relatively higher compared to the condensate. In fact,
NGL has the highest evaporation rate (mC1 • ¼ 0:038ðkg=hÞ,

is due to the presence of components with lower boiling points

(CH4, C2H6, C3H8, n-C4H10 have negative boiling points),
which act as nucleation sites in the surface of the droplets in
the higher operating pressure of 23.5 bar. The second part
(Fig. 9(b)) is the heating in which the droplet surface temper-
ature grows until the wet-bulb temperature of the mixture.
This leads to the rise in the heat absorption from the ambient
gas phase to the droplets and evaporation of C3H8 and lesser
amount of n-C4H10.The third part (Fig. 9(b)) is the steady state
equilibrium in which the temperature is close to the wet-bulb
temperature of the remaining mixture.
Here, the Methane-Ethane-Propane (MEP) mixture is taken
as an example case to assess the pre-heating part and to dis-
tinguish evaporation phenomenon. MEP contains 0.1% of
Fig. 11 Average concentration of C3H8 and n-C4H10 over time for NGL,
CH4, 0.5% of C2H6 and 5.6% of C3H8.The droplet surface condensate gas and MEP mixture at P∞ = 23.5 bar, T∞ = 272 °C, Td =
temperature loses about 0.02%. This short loss, observed in 69 °C, do = 10 μm

Fig. 12 Temperature distribution
in meridian plane of DC
mC2 • ¼ 0:044ðkg=hÞ andmC3 • ¼ 0:03ðkg=hÞ ) compared to
the condensate, whose their evaporation rate leads to a decline
of about 20% (mC1 • ¼ 0:031ðkg=hÞ,mC2 • ¼ 0:024ðkg=hÞ and
mC3 • ¼ 0:011ðkg=hÞ ). Further, CH4 and C2H6 are much more
depleted than C3H8. The maximal time taken to evaporate is
calculated to be about 0.02 s. This time is consistent with the
result of the droplets surface temperature. Comparing xC3 with
xC1 andxC2 , it is demonstrated that their values are monotonical-
ly decrease and increase with time. After removing CH4 and
C2H6 from the droplets, C3H8 exceeds to 0.1% at the droplet
surface and then starts to fall. It is important to note that C3H8 is
not fully evaporated.
3.3.1 Profiles of component concentrations
Fig. 12 depicts the contours of the temperature distribution in
the gas phase, while Fig. 13 and Fig. 14 show the contours of
the vapor mole fraction of each component i in the gas phase
at varied time t. All figures are given by the (yz) plan shown in
the middle of DC. The operating parameters are as follows:
P∞ = 23 bar, T∞ = 272 °C, Td = 69 °C, do = 10 μm, ε = 0.98,
dp = 0.015 m, V∞ = 0.85 m.s−1 and Vd = 0.04 m.s−1.
Fig. 12 shows the evolution of the temperature distribution
in the DC. Initially, the gas temperature is constant (Tq =
272 °C). After injection, the droplet surface is heated by both
convection and conduction, where the temperature in the sur-
face rises progressively to attain gas phase (Tq). This rise is
radially shown in the plane medium. This rise is radially
shown in the plane medium and is about 203 °C. Moreover,
lower gas temperature regions are obtained due to the
evaporation.
Fig. 13 and Fig. 14 show the mole fraction contours of com-
ponents in the vapor phase at t = 10.2 s and t = 46 s, respectively.
It is shown that the mole fraction contours deal well with the
Heat Mass Transfer
t = 5.5 s t = 37.5 s t = 40.8 s
mentioned phenomenon. The mole fraction contours of CH4
and C2H6 indicate a similar behavior for the evaporation, which
appears immediately after the injection of the droplets, as illus-
trated in Fig. 13(a) and Fig. 14(a) to Fig. 13(b) and Fig. 14(b). It
can be noted thatyCH 4 and yC2 H 6 grow and then start to decrease
slowly to attain their equilibrium. The evaporation is significant-
ly faster in Fig. 13(a) and Fig. 13(b) than in Fig. 14(a) and
Fig. 14(b). Clear boundary layers of mass transfer are developed
where the mole fraction of CH4 in the gas phase goes up to yCH 4
¼ 0:0792 and C2H6 rises to yC2 H 6 ¼ 0:0841. Similar observa-
tions can be made for C3H8 and n-C4H10. The mole fraction of
C3H8 in the gas phase grows to yC3 H 8 ¼ 0:0546 and finally, n-
C4H10 increases toyn−C4 H 10 ¼ 0:0672. However, it must be no-
ticed that CH4 and C2H6 turned from liquid to vapor much
earlier and easier than C3H8 and n-C4H10. Their mole fractions
are higher at the top and at the middle than at the bottom due to
the high evaporation rate, whereas,n-C4H10 and C5+ have a larg-
er gas velocity and a higher radial spread. This phenomenon can
be explained by the difference in volatility and the boiling point
of each component. Fig. 13(c) and Fig. 13(d) to Fig. 14(c) and
Fig. 14(d) show that the mole fraction of C3H8 and n-C4H10
increases dramatically in the absence of methane and ethane,
as the droplets move along the column head towards the centre.
Fig. 13(e) and 14(e) indicate that there is a small mole fraction of
the mixture, which is also evaporated far from the n-C4H10
vapor concentration. The presence of C3H8 and n-C4H10 on
the remaining mixture raises the evaporation of C5+ and slows
down their propagation significantly. It can be explained that the
high temperature region in the column bottom leads to
perturbate the physical properties of the mixture, which en-
hances mass transfer. The trajectory of the droplets reaches the
bottom of the DC at approximately t = 120 s. Comparing all the
figures, it should be noted that the convective and diffusive mass
transfer has a big impact on the volatility as well as the transport
Heat Mass Transfer

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Fig. 13 Contour plots of mole fraction of (a) methane CH4, (b) ethane C2H6, (c) propane C3H8, (d) n-butane n-C4H10 and (e) the remaining components
C5+ in gas phase at t = 10.2 s
 Heat Mass Transfer

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)

Fig. 14 Contour plots of mole fraction of (a) methane CH4, (b) ethane C2H6, (c) propane C3H8, (d) n-butane n-C4H10 and (e) the remaining components
C5+ in gas phase at t = 46 s
Heat Mass Transfer
(a)
(b)
Fig. 15 (a) Droplets diameter and (b) surface temperature histories at
23 bar, V∞ = 0.05 m.s−1 and ambient temperature T∞ = 272 °C
of the components from liquid to vapor. The larger the volatility,
the greater the contribution of convective mass transfer for total
evaporation.
3.3.2 Effect of droplet diameter
In order to show the relationship between droplet lifetime and its
temperature clearly, Fig. 15(a) and Fig. 15(b) present the influ-
ence of the initial droplet diameter on the behavior of both the
droplet surface temperature (Td) and the droplet diameter regres-
sion. Firstly, it is found that the evaporation rate shown in
Fig. 15(a) perfectly corresponds to the temperature presented
in Fig. 15(b). Decreasing the droplet diameter results in an in-
crease in the evaporation rate and a drop in the droplet lifetime.
For the dd < 70 μm, the droplet lifetime and the temperature are
the same and are not depended on the initial droplet diameter.
The average droplet diameter initially goes down much faster
than that of dd > 100 μm and reaches an earlier steady state
lastly. The evaporation completes in a short time of approxi-
mately 0.03 s. In the case of dd > 100 μm, it is observed that
the droplet lifetime reduces nonlinearly (Fig.15(a)) and the drop-
let surface temperature is characterized by multiple increasing
and decreasing periods in the time (Fig.15(b)). These periods get
progressively larger as the droplet diameter increases and this
can be explained as follows. As the droplet diameter increases,
the droplet takes much more time to evaporate. This behavior
leads to the evaporation of the heavier components. Some of the
heavier components have boiling temperature more than ambi-
ent temperature. Hence, the heat from the ambient temperature is
used not only for evaporation but also for raising the droplet
temperature. Consequently, the temperature shows an abrupt
rises. The droplet lifetime remains more time to reheat in these
periods, resulting in the depletion of C5+ and the failure in the
distillation process. Additionally, this comparison demonstrates
that the larger the droplet size, the higher the expansion at the
droplet surface. These results are consistent with the ones report-
ed by Gavhane et al. [10] for heptane-dodecane droplets and
Elwardany et al. [13] for diesel and gasoline fuel droplets.
3.3.3 Effect of ambient temperature
Figures 16 and Fig. 17 depict the evaporation rates for each i-
component in NGL and the condensate gas mixture at varied
ambient temperatures (100 °C, 150 °C, 272 °C and 342 °C) even
above the critical one (T∞ = 272 °C). For both mixtures, the rate
of evaporation goes up with the increase in the ambient temper-
ature. In particular, the evaporation rates of CH4 and C2H6 rap-
idly rise for all the temperatures and are approximately equal, as
noted above. For the condensate, the average evaporation rate of
CH4 is 0.031 kg/h, which is three times higher than C3H8.
Similarly, the evaporation rate of C2H6 is 0.024 kg/h, which is
two times higher than C3H8. However, the evaporation rates of
n-C4H10, n-C5H12 and n-C6H14 are greatly influenced by the
higher temperature of 272 °C and 342 °C. Regarding the n-
C5H12, a relatively large amount is evaporated from the mixture
when compared to that of n-C4H10.This can be explained by the
effect contributed by the temperature dependency and the satu-
rated vapor pressure. The evaporation rates of n-C5H12 and n-
C6H14 are more dominant at higher temperature since their min-
imal temperature for a considered medium pressure vapor P =
23 bar is 163.85 °C and 206.85 °C, respectively. Thus, the
enthalpy of evaporation is enhanced by about 20% and 15%.
Nevertheless, the effect of the lower temperature, less than
150 °C, for n-C4+, does not have a marked effect on the evap-
oration rate. From Fig. 16 and Fig. 17, it is possible to estimate
the optimal temperature for DC.
3.3.4 Effect of porosity on pressure drop
Fig. 18(a) presents the static pressure in DC. A higher static
pressure is shown in the upper interface of the packed bed.
 Heat Mass Transfer

Fig. 16 Variation in evaporation

rate with each component i of the
NGL for varied ambient
temperature T∞ at P∞ = 23 bar and
V∞ = 0.05 m.s−1

This effect is caused by carrying out droplets from the spray
injectors and the flow of the gas phase. The two flows are
trapped in the upper interface of the packed bed and cause a
high pressure. To investigate the sensibility of the porosity in the
pressure drop, numerical simulations are performed at varied
porosity ε of 0.90, 0.94, 0.97 and 0.98, respectively. This range
of porosity is generally used according to Stichlmair et al. [27].
In Fig. 18(b), the numerical results are taken from the average
density, diameter and velocity of the gas phase at every step time
and validated by values obtained from the Ergun equation. Here,
for the pressure drop, it can be seen that the values from the CFD
simulations and from the Ergun formulation match closely with-
in an error less than 0.1%. When the porosity is less than or
equal to 0.94, there will be a maximum of pressure drop as the
superficial gas velocity grows. In addition, when the porosity is
more than or equal to 0.97, the pressure drop curve is slightly
lower. This observation is in agreement with the results pub-
lished by Koekemoer and Luckos [28].

Fig. 17 Variation in evaporation

rate with each component i of the
condensate gas for different
ambient temperature T∞ at P∞ =
23 bar and V∞ = 0.05 m.s−1
Heat Mass Transfer

Fig. 18 (a) Static pressure and (b) (a)

Pressure drop ΔP versus relative
gas velocity Vq for varied porosity Static pressure P (bar)
ε = 0.90, ε = 0.94, ε = 0.97 and
ε = 0.98. Symbols: present work.
Dotted lines: Analytical solution
of Ergun

(b)

4 Conclusion
A three-dimensional Deethanizer Column DC was designed
and built. A multicomponent gas-liquid flow with evaporation
phenomena have been developed and implemented in the CFD
model. A Eulerian method with a dense discrete phase has been
proposed for accurate description of both the dispersed phase
and the continuous phase. The effects of the droplet size and the
instantaneous profiles of temperature have been examined. To
verify the simulated results, the validation with experimental
data of binary and multicomponent mixtures have been
conducted. The pressure drop has been also calculated and val-
idated utilizing the Ergun formulation. The main results obtain-
ed in this study can be summarized as follows:
– In all the cases, the numerical results have been generally
consistent with the experimental results. However, some
deviations have been observed after the first stage of evap-
oration due to the non-uniform distribution of the droplets.
– The effect of the droplet size on the evaporation rate of com-
ponents has been measured. The numerical results have re-
vealed that the small-size droplets improve well the surface

area exposed to theevaporation andenhancethe heat and mass
transfer. Consequently, this study reveals the importance of
creating plate distributors with very smaller openings to pro-
mote smaller droplets and then better separation efficiency. It
has been further observed that the shape of C1 and C2 has been
similar compared to C3 and n-C4 for the same input conditions
and that the components C5+ have been created in the middle
and on the lower side of DC.
– The sensibility of ambient temperature has been investi-
gated. It has been demonstrated that the role of heat trans-
fer in droplet vaporization becomes more important as
ambient temperature increases, which affects the total
evaporation of heavy hydrocarbons. The maximal ambi-
ent temperature has been found to be less than 150 °C for
NGL and the condensate mixture.
Finally, the droplet diameters and porosity values, investi-
gated in this study, could be considered as highly useful data
applied for the improvement of the DC design.
Acknowledgements The research reported in this paper is supported by
Alpha Engineering International (AEI) and the Mechanical Laboratory of
Sousse (Tunisia).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
1. Henry ZK (2006) Distillation troubleshooting
2. Wankat PC (2015) Decreasing costs of distillation columns with
vapor feeds. Chem Eng Sci 137:955–963
3. Gerbaud V, Rodriguez-donis I, Hegely L, Lang P, Denes F, You X
(2018) Review of extractive distillation. Process design, operation,
optimization and control. Chem Eng Res Des 141:229–271
4. Hernándeza JGS, Hernándeza S, Petriciolet AB (2015) Reactive dis-
tillation: a review of optimal design using deterministic and stochastic
techniques. Chem Eng Process Process Intensificatio 97:134–143
5. Pope K, Naterer GF, Wang Z (2011) Pressure drop of packed bed
vertical flow for multiphase hydrogen production. Int J Hydrog
Energy 36(17):11338–11344
6. Haroun Y, Raynal L, Legendre D (2012) Mass transfer and liquid
hold-up determination in structured packing by CFD. Chem Eng
Sci 75:342–348
7. Yin FH, Afacan A, Nandakumar K, Chuang KT (2002) CFD sim-
ulation and experimental study of liquid dispersion in randomly
packed metal pall rings. Chem Eng Res Des 80(2):135–144
8. Malang J, Kumar P, Saptoro A (2015) Computational fluid dynamics-
based hydrodynamics studies in packed bed columns: current status
and future directions. Int J Chem React Eng 13(3):289–303
View publication stats
Heat Mass Transfer
9. Daïf A, Bouaziz M, Chesneau X, Ali Chérif A (1998) Comparison of
multicomponent fuel droplet vaporization experiments in forced convec-
tion with the Sirignano model. Exp Thermal Fluid Sci 18(4):282–290
10. Gavhane S, Pati S, Som SK (2016) Evaporation of multicomponent
liquid fuel droplets: influences of component composition in drop-
let and vapor concentration in free stream ambience. Int J Therm Sci
105:83–95
11. Birouk M, Gökalp I (2006) Current status of droplet evaporation in
turbulent flows. Prog Energy Combust Sci 32(4):408–423
12. Wang Y, Rutland ÆCJ (2006) Direct numerical simulation of tur-
bulent flow with evaporating droplets at high temperature. Heat
Mass Transf:1103–1110
13. Elwardany AE, Sazhin SS, Farooq A (2013) Modelling of heating
and evaporation of gasoline fuel droplets: a comparative analysis of
approximations. Fuel 111:643–647
14. Sazhin SS et al (2014) A multi-dimensional quasi-discrete model
for the analysis of diesel fuel droplet heating and evaporation. Fuel
129:238–266
15. Chen G, Aggarwal S, Jackson TA, Switzer GL (1997) Experimental
study of pure and multicomponent fuel droplet evaporation in a
heated air flow. At Sprays 7(3):317–337
16. Ra Y, Reitz RD (2009) A vaporization model for discrete multi-
component fuel sprays. Int J Multiph Flow 35(2):101–117
17. Huang LW, Chen CH (1996) Transient combustion of a heating
droplet in a gravitational environment. Heat Mass Transf 31(5):
339–346
18. Padoin N, Dal’Toé ATO, Rangel LP, Ropelato K, Soares C (2014)
Heat and mass transfer modeling for multicomponent multiphase
flow with CFD. Int J Heat Mass Transf 73:239–249
19. Tomiyama A, Kataoka I, Zun I, Sakaguchi T (1998) Drag coeffi-
cients of single bubbles under Normal and micro gravity conditions.
JSME Int J Ser B 41(2):472–479
20. Ergun S (1952) Fluid flow through packed columns. J Chem Eng
Prog 48(2):89–94
21. Fieberg C, Reichelt L, Martin D, Renz U, Kneer R (2009) Experimental
and numerical investigation of droplet evaporation under diesel engine
conditions. Int J Heat Mass Transf 52(15–16):3738–3746
22. Bhran AAEK, Hassanean MH, Helal MG (2016) Maximization of
natural gas liquids production from an existing gas plant. Egypt J
Pet 25(3):333–341
23. Su M, Chen CP (2015) Heating and evaporation of a new gasoline
surrogate fuel: a discrete multicomponent modeling study. Fuel
161:215–221
24. Strotos G, Gavaises M, Theodorakakos A, Bergeles G (2011)
Numerical investigation of the evaporation of two-component
droplets. Fuel 90(4):1492–1507
25. Yaws CL (2003) Yaws’ Handbook of Thermodynamic and Physical
Properties of Chemical Compounds: Physical, Thermodynamic
and Transport Properties for 5,000 Organic Chemical Compounds
26. Kim D, Martz J, Violi A (2016) Effects of fuel physical properties
on direct injection spray and ignition behavior. Fuel 180:481–496
27. Stichlmair J, Bravo JL, Fair JR (1989) General model for prediction
of pressure drop and capacity of countercurrent gas/liquid packed
columns. Gas Sep Purif 3(1):19–28
28. Koekemoer A, Luckos A (2015) Effect of material type and particle
size distribution on pressure drop in packed beds of large particles:
extending the Ergun equation. Fuel 158:232–238
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.