Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Minerals Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

CFD analysis of an induration cooler on an iron ore grate-kiln pelletising process

T.N. Croft a, M. Cross a,*, A.K. Slone a, A.J. Williams a, C.R. Bennett a, P. Blot b, M. Bannear c, R. Jones c
a
School of Engineering, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, West Glamorgan SA2 8PP, UK
b
PERI, Salt Lake City, UT 84106, USA
c
Pellet Plant, OneSteel – Whyalla Steelworks, Whyalla, SA, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: During the re-configuration of their grate-kiln induration system for the firing of iron ore pellets at the
Received 3 December 2008 Whyalla Steelworks, caused by a change from an earthy hematite to a magnetite ore with considerably
Accepted 20 March 2009 less flux, OneSteel commissioned a detailed thermal flow analysis of the design options on the existing
Available online 8 May 2009
cooler in support of the process change. A key objective of this investigation was to decide if and where
one might locate baffle walls within the cooler to improve the process and to control the off-gas flows to
Keywords: earlier stages within the process.
Iron ore pellet induration
The thermo-fluid analysis comprised the development of comprehensive three dimensional computa-
Computational fluid dynamics
Computational modelling
tional models of gas flow through the cooler coupled with the heat transport and exchange with the cool-
Grate-kiln process ing pellet bed. The models were implemented within the context of an open source – object based
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation software framework. This paper describes the develop-
ment of the CFD model, its verification and application to evaluating design options to improve the flow
control within the cooler. In particular, the analysis considers the role and potential location of above bed
baffle walls, cooler stack butterfly lid opening and its exhaust pressure on the flow distribution to the exit
flow ducts from the cooler.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Iron ore pelletization is a process for the agglomeration of finely
ground iron ore to enable the product to be charged and reduced
within either DRI or blast furnaces (Ball et al., 1973; Meyer,
1980). During the last 3 years or so, OneSteel’s Whyalla steel plant
has had a major project to develop a new mine facility to supply
magnetite ore to its iron ore pellet plant, which is being reconfig-
ured to process a conventional low silica magnetite ore rather than
the earthy hematite ore they have treated for most of the plant’s
life (Final Approval of Project MAGNET, 2005). The earthy hematite
was a difficult ore to process – containing high levels of silica (thus
requiring high levels of limestone and dolomite to make a balanced
flux product) as well as high levels of chemically bound moisture.
As such, the plant had been optimised over the years to handle this
rather challenging ore. However, it was clear that in moving to a
much more conventional magnetite ore then the technology team
needed to consider what the implications were for the existing
structure and operational practice in the grate-kiln pellet indura-
tion system. Hence during 2006 a major project was carried out
by the authors which involved a mixture of simulation based pro-
cess analysis of the whole induration system, CFD modelling of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 179 260 2332; fax: +44 179 229 5676.
E-mail address: m.cross@swansea.ac.uk (M. Cross).
specific components and also some pot grate testing to ensure ade-
quate pellet quality in the new operating regime. The process anal-
ysis phase of evaluating the design changes that might need to be
made to the operation was based upon the INDSYSTM simulation
software (Young et al., 1979; Cross and Englund, 1987; Gaskell
et al., 1998; Cross and Blot, 1999). Although the INDSYSTM simula-
tion tool is effective in considering the process overall, it does not
provide an analysis of the details of the flow within the grate or the
cooler – hence the need for CFD modelling to consider the details of
the thermo-fluid behaviour in specific areas of the induration
system.
The grate-kiln induration system is summarised in Fig. 1, which
shows three stages: the grate, the rotary kiln and the cooler. A shal-
low pellet bed is charged into the grate with, in this case, a depth of
16.5 cm and a bed width of 3.7 m. Each pellet typically has a diam-
eter of 1.2 cm, and is bound with about 9% moisture (plus about
3.5% chemically bound moisture) together with limestone, dolo-
mite, magnetite and/or carbon. This bed moves along the grate,
and as it does so a gas stream passes through the bed to dry and
then heat the bed. The initial gas stream in the first stage of drying
is around 300 °C, the second stage drying (or dehydration stage)
gas stream is at 600 °C or so, whilst the preheating stream is at
1100 °C or so. As the bed passes along the grate it is dried and
heated up so by the time it leaves its temperature is close to that
of the on-gas temperature in the preheating zone. The pellet bed

0892-6875/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mineng.2009.03.011
860 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873
WGF
Grate
Kiln
Cooler
1A/B
Pumps 3A/B
Air Flow
Fig. 1. Layout of a grate-kiln pellet induration plant showing the pellet bed and
primary gas stream flows.
then flows into a large rotary kiln, which fires the pellet bed up to a
temperature of around 1300 °C. On exit from the kiln the pellets
flow into the rotary cooler bed. The pellet bed here is about
0.75 m high and has a width of 2.1 m. As the bed moves around
an ambient stream of air passes up through the bed and cools it
to less than 100 °C by the time it reaches the end of its journey
in the cooler. As the bed enters the cooler there is often some resid-
ual magnetite and possibly some carbon which is reacted causing
the bed temperature to actually rise a little in the top part of the
bed before beginning its cool down towards ambient. The gas
stream from the primary stage of cooling is therefore quite hot
(typically around 1000 °C or so) and is used as the secondary gas
stream in the kiln, which then passes through the preheating zone,
and is finally recuperated as the on-gas stream into the first stage
drying, as illustrated schematically in Fig. 1. A proportion of the
hottest off-gas from the second stage cooling is recuperated (typi-
cally at around 600 °C or so) and used as the on-gas into the second
stage of de-hydration stage on the grate, again as illustrated sche-
matically in Fig. 1. The recuperation both makes for a thermally
efficient process, but also a highly coupled one – the grate, the kiln
and the cooler need to work in a balanced and harmonious manner
with respect to both the mass flow rates of gas (primarily air) and
its temperature so that the process works well. What is not usually
so clear here is the significant role for the large amounts of leakage
that occur within the process. Typically this is where the overall
process simulation using the INDSYS model plays its role, espe-
cially in evaluating leakage between the zones under and over
the pellet bed. A detailed analysis of the Whyalla plant was per-
formed using INDSYS to provide some input data for the following
CFD modelling which is described below.
In a rational re-evaluation of each phase of the pellet induration
operation, the cooler was revisited. In particular, when the plant
was originally built in the 1960s a baffle wall was placed to control
the split between the primary and secondary off-gas streams. Some
years later this baffle wall was removed. The key challenge here
was to evaluate what the potential role of baffle wall(s) would be
in controlling the flow distribution between the primary and sec-
ondary off-gas streams (as well that going up the off-gas stack, of
course). Are there advantages in having such walls and if so where
would they best be located? Is the use of baffles walls more effec-
tive than the current way to control the off-gas split with the exist-
ing system, which involves changing the degree to which the
cooler stack butterfly lid is opened?
In this paper the CFD model of the cooler is described together
with its implementation within the (PHYSICA) simulation soft-
ware, its verification against the measured data and its application
in the evaluation of the potential for controlling the off-gas flows
using baffle walls.
2. Computational model overview
The CFD model had to capture the following key phenomena:
 flow throughout the zones – as a consequence of complex three
dimensional geometries to be represented,
 turbulent and compressible nature of the flow,
 heat exchange between the process gas and the pellet bed as it
changes the temperature of the gases either side of the bed and
therefore affects the gas flow distribution,
 influence of leakage as far as it is known.
Thus, in summary the coupled thermo-fluid model comprises:
 three dimensional steady flow through a close representation of
the geometrical features of each of the cooler as highlighted
above,
 flow that is compressible,
 turbulence as represented by the two equation k–e model,
 buoyancy effects to capture the influence of density variation
(although these effects turn out to be negligible as forced con-
vection is so dominant),
 packed bed resistance through Ergun’s equation for gas flows,
 heat transfer between the process air and the bed including a
basic representation of the chemical reactions present,
 heat transfer must include the impact of moving bed (actually
the translation of the thermal distribution in the bed),
 boundary conditions that are a mixture of pressures and flow
rates with associated temperatures.
Unfortunately, pellet induration systems are not easy to capture
comprehensive process data from – much of the process is inacces-
sible to either direct observation or to sensors which can survive,
moreover, their design is typically 30+ years old and was not con-
ceived to provide other than what we would now regard as rudi-
mentary data for process control. Despite enhancements over the
years, these are still rudimentary systems from a process analysis
and control perspective. Hence, the CFD modelling has to be based
upon a combination of external data collected from
 geometrical details from the data held by OneSteel plus varia-
tions considered,
 behaviour of the pellet bed – from INDSYS simulations,
 flow rates, fan pressures, temperatures, with dimensions and
locations of measurements evaluated from the process analysis
work rationalised on the basis of the INDSYS simulation
technology.
2.1. Continuum equations of thermo-fluid behaviour of the gas streams
The conservation equations for momentum and mass for three
dimensional fluid flow of an inhomogeneous fluid mixture ex-
pressed in vector notation are (Versteeg and Malalasekra, 2007)
@
ðquÞ þ r  ðquuÞ ¼ r  ðlruÞ  rp þ S ð1Þ
@t
 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873 861

(a) Diameter Distance Unknown

Old Baffle

3373
Limit of moving wall

1686

1115
Pellet bed ( 762mm)

Diameter 17590

(b) Direction of rotation

Approximate old
baffle location
Recuperation duct

352
5
Parallel flow duct 30
0’ Stack outlet
g1
de
35 0 30
5deg45’3 48
4216

44 788
60 7

3150

Pellets added here Pallet limits

Pellets discharged here
Baffle

(c)

Fig. 2. Geometry of the cooler showing (a) the original baffle, (b) the cooler in plan from above and (c) a cross-sectional view.

@q such as buoyancy, boundary effects, and for solidification prob-

þ r  ðquÞ ¼ Sm
@t
where u is the mixture velocity vector, p the pressure, q the mix-
ture density and l is the mixture effective viscosity. The source
vector in the momentum equation, S, includes the body forces,
ð2Þ
lems the Darcy source, whilst Sm represents any source of mass
(e.g. mass transfer from chemical reactions). It is these equations
which are used to model the flow of the process gas within the
cooler.
862 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873

Table 1
The key measures used in the cooler simulation.

Inlet/outlet flow conditions Flow rate (tph) Temperature (°C) Pressure (kPA)
3A fan duct – primary cooling 121 Estimated from INDSYS 25 2.2
3B fan duct – secondary cooling 196 Estimated from INDSYS 25 1.8
Pellet bed on entry 252 – Measured 1200 N/A
Kiln pellet discharge duct 145 In total to the kiln secondary air flow – estimated from INDSYS 1260 0
Secondary air duct See above 1000 0
Recoup Duct 76 – Measured 600–700 0
Cooler stack 92 – Measured 250 0

For turbulence, the k–e model of Launder and Spalding (1974) When resolving the effects of turbulence the viscosity in the
involves the solution of the turbulent kinetic energy (k) equation momentum conservation Eq. (1) is equal to the sum of the laminar
given by viscosity and the turbulent viscosity
  
@ qk qmt l ¼ llam þ lt
þ r  ðqukÞ ¼ r  llam þ rk þ qmt G  qe ð3Þ
@t rk Additional source terms may be added to the momentum equa-
and the dissipation rate (e) equation is as follows: tions to account for additional diffusion due to particle fluctuations
   within the mixture.
@ qe qmt e e2 The retardation of the flow through the packed bed is captured
þ r  ðqueÞ ¼ r  llam þ re þ C 1 qmt G  C 2 q ð4Þ
@t re k k by a vectorial form of the Ergun equation (Pericleous and Drake,
where the rate of generation of the turbulent kinetic energy, G, is gi- 1986).
ven by  
1:75q2 jujð1  eÞT b
 2  2  2 !  2 rp ¼  u ð7Þ
@u @v @w @u @ v 273dp e3 qatm
G¼2 þ þ þ þ
@x @y @z @y @x The energy equation, with enthalpy as the dependent variable, is gi-
 2  2 ven by
@u @w @w @ v
þ þ þ þ ð5Þ @
@z @x @y @z ðqhÞ þ r  ðquhÞ ¼ r  ðkrTÞ þ Sh ð8Þ
@t
The turbulent viscosity is related to k and e by
where k is the thermal conductivity and cp is the specific heat. The
2
k source term, Sh, contains the contributions from the boundaries and
lt ¼ q C l ð6Þ
e the effects of chemical reactions, heat exchange between the gas
and solid phases, and any phase changes. The velocity in the solid
The values of empiric constants employed in Eqs. (3)–(6) are:
phase is prescribed as the bed speed of the cooler.
C l ¼ 0:09; rk ¼ 1:0; re ¼ 1:3; C 1 ¼ 1:44; C 2 ¼ 1:92 For the kind of modelling processes considered here ‘fluid’ spe-
cies are transported according to the following equation:
@ðqfi Þ
þ r:ðqufi Þ ¼ r  ðCi rfi Þ þ Si ð9Þ
@t
where fi is the mass fraction of the ith species, Si is the generation or
consumption of the species (from chemical reactions) and Ci is the
corresponding diffusion coefficient. In this work the ‘fluid’ species
tool was used to determine where air at a particular location origi-
nates from and which outlet it leaves the domain through.

2.2. Capturing the packed bed interactions with the gas streams

In this model the behaviour of the process gas (mostly air) is

Fig. 3. Geometry of the cooler as used in the CFD analysis. predominantly modelled as described in Section 2.1. However, in

Fig. 4. Two illustrations of the mesh used in the CFD analysis.

 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873 863

Z
the cooler, additionally we need to consider the behaviour of the
H¼ cp dT bed
bed and its interaction with the air.
The velocity of the bed, ub, is imposed from its rotational speed
An equivalent amount of energy is added to the source term, Sh,
within the cooler, which is known. To model the energy in the bed
in the conservation equation for air enthalpy (8).
a modified enthalpy equation is implemented which incorporates a
The details of the chemical reactions sub-models from which
simplified approach for modelling the heat that is released by any
we have drawn our thermal source information and the material
residual carbon or magnetite reaction. In the simulations presented
properties used in the model are taken from Young et al. (1979).
in this paper the INDSYS analysis implies that all of the bed reac-
tions have largely been completed prior to the cooler except for
2.3. Computational implementation issues
some residual magnetite oxidation, which is captured by a simple
source which captures the energy released. This was (a) was uni-
The work reported here is all based within the context of a finite
formly distributed throughout the bed as it entered the cooler
volume discretisation but on a fully unstructured mesh in three
and (b) released heat above a certain temperature. The enthalpy
dimensions with any mix of elements from tetrahedral to hexahedral
equation is written as follows:
shapes. The implementation has been pursued within the PHYSICA
@ðqHÞ code targeted at the solution of highly coupled continuum physics
þ r  ðqHub Þ ¼ SH  Q ð10Þ
@t problems, see (PHYSICA). A cell centred finite volume method is used
to discretise the governing equations on the unstructured mesh and
where SH represents the sources and the energy transfer Q between
the resulting linear systems are solved iteratively using a derivative
the bed and air is modelled using
of the SIMPLEC procedure (van Doormaal and Raithby, 1984). Details
Q ¼ hðT bed  T air Þ ð11Þ of the cell centred CFD solution procedure are described in Chow
et al. (1995), Croft et al. (1995), Croft (1998), where the control vol-
where the enthalpy of the bed, H, is related to its temperature,
ume is the element itself. Of course, with a cell centred co-located
through

Table 2
A comparison of the CFD model with basic measurements within the cooler.

Flow inlet/outlet Air flow rate (tph) – exptl (E)/ Air flow rate (tph) – Temp (°C) – Temp (°C) – Pressure (kPa) – Pressure (kPa) –
INDSYS(I) model exptl model exptl model
Kiln entry chute See below 47 1260 1269 0 0
Secondary air 145 – Total to kiln (I) 99 1000 996 0 0
duct
Recoup duct 76 (E) 83 6–700 610 0 0
Cooler stack 92 (E) 87 250–300 249 0 0
Primary cooling 145 121 25 25 2.2 2.931
Secondary 172 196 25 25 1.8 2.661
cooling

Fig. 5. Two views of the pellet bed temperature development within the CFD cooler model and comparison with the INDSYS predictions along the top and bottom of the bed.
864 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873

flow scheme, the Rhie–Chow approximation is used to prevent 3. Simulating the cooler
checker-boarding of the pressure field (Rhie and Chow, 1983). All
the CFD variables including the pressure field are solved for using a Once the mathematical model has been configured, the CFD
simple diagonally pre-conditioned conjugate gradient method. simulation methodology works in the following manner:

Fig. 6. A vector plot of the air flow distribution through the cooler for the base case.

Fig. 7. The air velocity vector distribution in the neighbourhood of the secondary air duct.

Fig. 8. Distribution of the turbulence viscosity throughout the cooler.

 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873 865

Fig. 9. Four views of the air flow temperature distribution throughout the cooler.

Fig. 10. Plots showing where the flow exiting though each cooler duct or stack originates from.
866 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873

Fig. 11. Some perspectives on the air flow vector plots illustrating the natural flow splits in the vertical plane between the two kiln ducts and the recoup duct and the cooler
stack.

Fig. 12. The cooler ‘rolled out’ illustrating the air flow paths through the cooler tracked from the CFD solution.

Table 3
Summary of the impact of the underbed baffle gap on the overall flow rates and average temperatures out of each of the exit ducts/stack of the cooler.

Under bed Flow kiln 1 Flow kiln 2 Flow recoup 3 Flow stack 4 Temp kiln 1 Temp kiln 2 Temp recoup Temp stack Pressure drop
gap (m) (tph) (tph) (tph) (tph) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) underbed (kPa)
Base 47 99 83 87 1269 996 610 249 0.27
0.17 47 101 82 86 1265 987 604 248 0.667
0.5 47 99 83 88 1270 1000 612 247 0.172
0.67 47 99 84 88 1270 1002 613 247 0.139
0.83 47 98 84 88 1270 1003 613 247 0.127
1 47 98 84 88 1270 1003 613 246 0.122

 the geometry of the scenario to be investigated is defined in a
user environment,
 the locations of boundary conditions and/or sources are assigned
to surfaces or volumes in the geometry,
 a mesh is generated – the domain is divided into a large num-
ber of simple (typically brick) elements, and the discretised
form of the CFD model is solved at the centroid of each
element,
 the CFD model (i.e. the solver technology, configured to capture
the necessary ‘cocktail’ of the physics as above) is parameterised
with material properties and particular run conditions, etc.,
 the computational representation of the process, encapsulated
in the mesh and CFD model, is simulated to obtain the predicted
distribution of the physical variables,
 the results are captured in a database and analysed with visuali-
zation technology.
 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873 867

3.1. Cooler analysis geometry, its mesh and boundary conditions
Fig. 2 shows three drawings of the cooler upon which most of
the geometry features are based. Fig. 2a shows a plan view from
the top indicating where the four exit ducts are located:
 on entry to the cooler, there is a chute where the pellets are dis-
charged into the cooler from the kiln,
 a further duct from the cooler into the kiln carrying what most
assume to be the majority of ‘secondary’ air flow,
 the recuperation (recoup) duct taking air from further around
the cooler to the de-hydration zone on the grate,
 the cooler stack, where all excess process gas is exhausted.
Fig. 2b is extracted from One Steel’s drawings and shows the
design and location of the baffle originally used between the kiln
and recoup ducts. This shows the superstructure of the baffle; it
only subsequently became clear that a metal jacket, which
essentially ‘sat just above’ the pellet bed, was connected to the
bottom of the baffle. Fig. 2c shows a vertical cross-section of
the cooler.
Table 1 summarises the information about the performance of
the cooler from the flow perspective. The conditions of the pellet
bed are taken from a typical INDSYS base case simulation.
Fig. 3 shows the geometry of the cooler as captured for the CFD
analysis. A couple of key issues require some comment here
(a) Plant measurements indicate that the air going through the
3A and 3B fans is at essentially the same temperature and
similar pressures. Hence, the details of the flow physics,
involving flow through a packed bed, mean that the only
issue that matters under the bed is where the air enters it.
Hence, the details of the geometry under the bed can be lar-
gely ignored. There is equipment which essentially provides
a ‘leaky divider’ between the primary and secondary cooling
zones, but this may be represented by a simple baffle under
the bed which inhibits flow and causes some of pressure
drop between the zones under the bed – there is about a
0.4 kPA drop from the primary to the secondary cooling
zones.
(b) The recoup duct and the cooler stack have circular cross-sec-
tions. However, with respect to mesh generation it is much
more straightforward to make equivalent area exit planes
which are essentially rectangular. This certainly speeds up
any initial analysis. The initial intention had been to use
the above geometry to get a basic handle on the CFD model
and then to generate a more precise model and mesh with
circular cross-sections for the recoup duct and cooler stack.
However, as will be shown below, the nature of the flow
made it clear that no advantage would be served by expend-
ing this effort.
Fig. 4 shows two pictures of the mesh used to represent the
geometry of the cooler. A number of mesh densities were investi-
gated to ensure that the simulation results were mesh independent
– the one shown with around 40,000 elements was found to be
adequate. In the original specification, we expected that a rather fi-
ner mesh would be required, but the nature of the flow is such that
finer meshes do not provide a more accurate answer, as will be-
come clear below from the results section.
The governing equations are essentially solved for in steady-
state conditions; standard wall boundary conditions are used for
the flow, turbulence and heat transfer conditions for all but the
fluid entry and exit surface areas. The bed velocity, ub is deter-
mined by the overall pellet production rate and temperature is pre-
scribed as 1200 °C on entry to the cooler zone. The process air
velocity (determined from the process analysis based upon the
INDSYS analysis) and temperature (as measured) is prescribed on
entry at the base of the cooler geometry, and at each of the exit sur-
faces the pressure is prescribed is fixed (as zero). The core set of
initial and boundary conditions are summarised in Table 1.
The CFD model then predicts:

Fig. 13. Flow split of exit air flows to the kiln, recoup and stack as a function of the
open area in the cooler. Fig. 14. Impact of increasing the cooler stack draft on the flow exit distribution.

Table 4
Summary of CFD predictions for exit air flows and average temperatures for the series of cases as the stack area open to flow is increased.

Flow area open in Flow kiln 1 Flow kiln 2 Flow recoup Flow stack Temp kiln 1 Temp kiln 2 Temp recoup Temp stack
stack (%) (tph) (tph) (tph) (tph) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
Base 60 47 99 83 87 1269 996 610 249
100 45 95 67 110 1270 1016 680 302
75 46 97 76 98 1269 1006 646 271
25 50 110 110 47 1264 951 466 206
868 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873

Table 5
Summary of the CFD simulation results for the flow rate (tph) and temperatures (°C) exiting the ducts/stack in the cooler as a function of stack draft.

Case Flow kiln 1 Flow kiln 2 Flow recoup Flow stack Temp kiln 1 Temp kiln 2 Temp recoup Temp stack
(tph) (tph) (tph) (tph) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
Base 0 Pa 47 99 83 87 1269 996 610 249
50 Pa, +2.5 tph 46 95 68 110 1270 1012 673 292
100 Pa, +5 tph 45 92 55 129 1270 1024 710 340
150 Pa, +7.5 tph 44 90 43 146 1271 1031 736 380
200 Pa, +10 tph 44 89 33 161 1271 1038 751 411

Table 6
Summary of the CFD simulation results for the flow rate and temperatures exiting the ducts/stack with the stack fully open as a function of stack draft.

Case Flow kiln 1 Flow kiln 2 Flow recoup Flow stack Temp kiln 1 Temp kiln 2 Temp recoup Temp stack
(tph) (tph) (tph) (tph) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
(1) 100% 0 Pa 45 95 67 110 1270 1016 680 302
(2) 100% 50 Pa, 44 90 46 139 1271 1033 738 382
+2.5 tph
(3) 100% 100 Pa, 43 86 26 165 1272 1046 772 450
+5 tph

(a) the movement of the air throughout the cooler furnace,
(b) the heat exchange between the pellet bed and the air,
(c) the flow of air through the pellet bed and its consequent
heating,
(d) the flow of air through each exit duct – not only the velocity
distribution but most importantly, the mass flow and the
temperature.
It is the latter that can be compared with the measured data to
give some confidence to the predictions of the CFD model. The CFD
model was run on a PC with a 3 GHz processor; each run took
about 90 min to reach a specified level of convergence and pro-
duced a results database requiring about 65 MB.
3.2. CFD simulations – the base case
A base case was established after a good deal of interaction to
ensure that the input data defining the process was as discriminat-
ing as possible, based upon the outcome of an overall process anal-
ysis using the results of the INDSYS simulation software (Cross and
Englund, 1987, Young et al., 1979). In the core simulation, a baffle
was placed under the bed between the primary and secondary
cooling zones, where the gap between the top of the baffle and
the bed is 0.33 m to enable the pressure difference between the
primary and secondary flows under the bed to be replicated. The
core simulation was run and produced the following results cover-
ing the whole flow domain:

(a) the vectors describing the direction and magnitude of flow

at every mesh point in the flow domain,
(b) the pressure distribution,
(c) the air temperature distribution,
(d) the turbulence characteristics of the flow (the turbulent vis-
cosity provides a good measure of the turbulence levels),
(e) the temperature through the pellet bed.

From these results, we can also evaluate:

(a) Where the flow from each flow exit (duct/stack) comes from,
(b) The average temperature and mass flow rate through each of
the domain exits.

Table 2 summarises the results of the base simulation as com-

pared with the experimental data available.
Fig. 15. The geometry and potential location options for the kiln-recoup baffle wall.

Table 7
Summary of CFD simulation predictions for the baffle located at 164.8°.

Case Flow kiln 1 Flow kiln 2 Flow recoup Flow stack Temp kiln 1 Temp kiln 2 Temp recoup Temp stack
(tph) (tph) (tph) (tph) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
(1) Base 47 99 83 87 1269 996 610 249
(2) 30.8 cm 46 96 85 90 1270 1011 629 253
gap
(3) 15.4 cm 45 95 85 91 1270 1016 636 255
gap
(4) 0 cm gap 45 94 86 91 1271 1019 641 256
 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873 869

(a) under the bed, the air flows from the primary cooling ‘hot’
zone towards secondary cooling because, according to
Ergun’s equation (which describes the flow resistance
through packed beds), the lower temperature zone has a
much reduced flow resistance,
(b) under the bed, one can see the flow going over the constric-
tion, but essentially just flowing straight to lower tempera-
ture areas and then passing through the bed. However,
above the bed, the flow has reversed and is now flowing
back towards the ‘hot’ end of the cooler and exiting from
both kiln ducts.

These effects are shown more clearly in the close-up plot in

Fig. 16. The impact of the gap under the baffle located at 164.8° between the kiln
and secondary air-recoup ducts.
Fig. 17. Predicted flow splits into the kiln, recoup and stacks from the CFD analysis
for baffles at a variety of locations between the kiln secondary air and recoup ducts.
Fig. 7, which clearly shows the air travelling to the secondary cool-
ing under the bed, vertically up through the bed and then back
again towards the secondary air duct. Indeed, it can also be seen
here that all the flow from around the duct above the bed being
effectively sucked into the duct.
Fig. 8 shows the distribution of the turbulence viscosity (a mea-
sure of turbulent effects): there is essentially no turbulence, except
around the sharp corners – at the baffle under bed and at the cor-
ners of the ducts. In other words, there are no major effects of tur-
bulence on the flows: the air is driven by the pressure drops across
the cooler and predominantly through the bed. The packed bed
completely dampens out any vortical flows above the bed and
leaves them essentially based upon ‘gross’ movements along the
region above the bed and out into one or another of the exits.
The air flow temperature distribution throughout the cooler is
shown in four views of the same plot in Fig. 9. Here the red con-
tours are the highest temperatures and blue are the lowest. This
clearly shows the sharp rise in temperature as the air flows
through the bed, and the natural segregation of the flow as it trav-
els above the bed into one duct or another. This reinforces the flow
behaviour above the bed as highlighted above.
A key question to answer is – where does the air going through
each of the ducts originate from? The mechanism to determine the
source of air for each duct was the solution of an advection equa-
tion for a scalar w

The most reliable data are considered by plant engineers to be
the temperatures and flow rates measured in both the recoup duct
and the cooler stack. Also a thermocouple measures the tempera-
ture in the secondary air duct. The pressures under the bed may
be reliable, but it is not clear to what extent they are compromised
by leakage, etc.
Fig. 5 shows plots of the temperature distribution within the
bed as it moves around the cooler, and a comparison with the IND-
SYS simulation results. These show very similar behaviour to the
INDSYS model and actually compare quite well – especially since
the cooler CFD model has a rather approximate representation of
the magnetite oxidation/carbon combustion.
Fig. 6 shows an overview of the flow vector distribution
throughout the cooler: broadly as expected, the air flows from
the base through the bed and up to the duct and stack outlets.
However, there are some interesting features:
div ðquwÞ ¼ 0 ð12Þ
In the equation q represents the air density and includes its varia-
tion due to compression. On each outflow boundary the scalar
was set to a different constant value, for example one for the dis-
charge chute and two for the kiln secondary air duct. Eq. (12) is
equivalent to the advection of a scalar using a velocity field that
is the negative of the actual air flow through the cooler. Fig. 10
shows four views of a plot of tracers which identify where the flow
in each exit duct/stack originates.
In this figure, the blue area shows the air flow going to the kiln
pellet discharge chute, the green going to the kiln secondary air
duct, the yellow going to the recoup duct and the red going to
the stack. This figure shows a very interesting feature of the flow:
in each case, there is a natural divide for the flow splitting between
neighbouring exits. It is as if an ‘invisible’ wall exists and the flow
is then split naturally there. With hindsight, these splits are rein-

Table 8
Summary of CFD predictions for the baffle located between the kiln secondary air and recoup ducts.

Case Flow kiln 1 Flow kiln 2 Flow recoup 3 Flow stack 4 Temp kiln 1 Temp kiln 2 Temp recoup Temp stack (°C)
(tph) (tph) (tph) (tph) (°C) (°C) (°C)
(1) Base 47 99 83 87 1269 996 610 249
(2) 147.6° 41 84 90 100 1275 1069 706 276
(3) 156.2° 43 90 88 95 1272 1043 672 264
(4) 164.8° 45 95 86 91 1270 1016 636 255
(5) 177.7° 49 103 81 84 1266 977 583 242
(6) 186.2° 51 108 78 80 1261 950 547 236
870 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873

 the flow has natural splits above the bed – there are vertical
plane regions where the flow splits naturally,
 turbulence effects are minimal, the packed bed suppresses tur-
bulent effects which inhibits the generation of turbulence above
the bed,
 there is little in the way of recirculation and vortex generation,
 in light of the above, unsurprisingly, mixing of the air streams
above the bed is minimal,
 this means that geometric approximations are unlikely to alter
the results at all – hence there is no reason to waste effort in
refining the geometries of the recoup and cooler stack ducts to
be more precise in the representation of the circular geometry.

3.3. CFD simulations – the impact of parameter variations

3.3.1. Impact of underbed structural features on the flow behaviour

Fig. 18. Candidate locations for the baffle between the recoup duct and the cooler
stack above the bed.
Before moving onto the assessment of above bed baffle walls, a
couple of straightforward parameter variations were investigated.
First, it was perceived as important to evaluate the effect of the
one major simplification in the CFD geometry – the underbed
structural features. Table 3 shows a summary of the results for
changing the height of the baffle (or equivalently, the gap between
the top of the baffle and the bottom of the bed). There is a very
marginal influence of the flow rates and average temperatures
through each of the exit ducts/stack. It is also the case that the gen-
eral flow patterns etc. of each of these cases are very similar, except
in the immediate vicinity of the underbed baffle. The only effect is
on the pressure drop across along the cooler underbed – a value of
about 0.27 kPa provides a reasonable comparison with the mea-
sured value of 0.4 kPa. However, the key issue is that, no matter
what the pressure drop predicted, the flow characteristics are
essentially unchanged.

3.3.2. Cooler stack butterfly lid area opening

The next issue to investigate for which there was some verifica-
tion data was the open area in the cooler stack. Some plant mea-

Fig. 19. Flow splits as predicted from the CFD simulation for the various baffle
heights between the recoup duct and the cooler stack.

forced by the air flow vector plot shown in Fig. 11. Here, it becomes
clear that, above the bed, there are vertical planes where there is
essentially no flow – the air flow is separating along a vertical
plane to go to each of the neighbouring ducts. This is captured in
Fig. 12 which illustrates the broad flow movement in a ‘rolled
out’ drawing of the cooler which shows the path followed by streak
lines.
In summary:

 the flow under the bed heads out to the cold end, and above the Fig. 20. Flow splits to the cooler exits as a function of baffle location between the
bed heads back to the available exits as governed by the outlet recoup duct and the cooler stack.
pressures,

Table 9
Summary of CFD simulation predictions for the gap above the bed of the baffle located between the recoup duct and the stack (at 239.9°).

Case Flow kiln 1 Flow kiln 2 Flow recoup Flow stack Temp kiln 1 Temp kiln 2 Temp recoup Temp stack
(tph) (tph) (tph) (tph) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
(1) Base 47 99 83 87 1269 996 610 249
(2) 30.8 cm 47 99 80 91 1269 999 623 255
Gap
(3) 15.4 cm 47 98 79 93 1269 1000 628 258
Gap
(4) 0 cm Gap 47 98 78 94 1269 1001 633 261
 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873 871

Table 10
Summary of CFD predictions for various baffle locations between the recoup duct and the stack.

Case Flow kiln 1 Flow kiln 2 Flow recoup 3 Flow stack 4 Temp kiln 1 Temp kiln 2 Temp recoup Temp stack (°C)
(tph) (tph) (tph) (tph) (°C) (°C) (°C)
(1) Base 47 99 83 87 1269 996 610 249
(2) 229.9° 46 96 72 103 1270 1010 665 282
(3) 239.9° 47 98 79 93 1269 1000 628 258
(4) 249.9° 47 101 86 83 1268 988 593 235

surements were recently made of the air flow and average temper-
ature through the stack at the standard operating position and
when it was fully open. (Fig. 13) shows the CFD model predictions
for the gas flow splits to the kiln, the recoup and the stack for var-
ious percentage of the stack area open. Table 4 summarises this
data with the average temperatures as well.
The plant measurements with the stack fully open indicated an
air flow at 160 tph and a temperature of 320 °C, as against 92 tph
and 280 °C for the base condition. Although the CFD predictions
are not directly comparable, the trends are the same: as the butter-
fly is opened, more air is pulled from what would otherwise go
through recoup. The additional air is hotter than the existing flow
through the stack and so has the impact of raising its temperature.
However, it would be unlikely that the stack area could be changed
without also inducing a small change to the draft pressure in the
stack. Hence, a series of simulations was run to investigate this ef-
fect. If the draft is increased, there must also be a small increase in
the total flow through the system. A crude estimate of what this in-
crease should be was included it in the CFD simulations. Fig. 14 and
Table 5 summarise the change in flow rates into the kiln, the re-
coup and the stack as a function of increasing the draft by rela-
tively small increments to 50 Pa.
These results show a couple of significant features. Increasing
either the stack area or its draft pressure:
 has a dramatic effect on the flow split between the recoup and
the stack, as well as a concomitant impact on the average air
flow exit temperatures,
 has a much smaller effect on the net flow into the kiln (a varia-
tion of less than 10%).
A CFD simulation with the butterfly fully open and with a 50 Pa
or 100 Pa draft in the stack gives the results shown in Table 6:
One key conclusion here is that controlling the flow conditions in
the stack can be used as a tool to control the flow split between the
recoup duct and cooler stack. In so doing, although this will also
have a modest impact upon the flows into the kiln exit ducts, it will
only be at the margins.
3.4. CFD simulations – the impact of above bed baffle between the kiln
and the recoup ducts
The key objective of the CFD analysis of the cooler was to assess
the impact of baffle walls above the bed and, if useful, where best
to place baffle walls between:
(a) the kiln secondary air and recoup ducts,
(b) the recoup duct and the cooler stack,
(c) their operation in tandem.

Fig. 21. Plots showing the origin and distribution of air flow into each exit for the base case and two baffle locations.
872 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873

Figs. 2a and 15 show the location and geometry of the baffles

between the kiln secondary air and the recoup ducts investigated
here. In data supplied by OneSteel, it appeared that the permanent
structure only reached down to about 1 m from the top of the bed.
Hence a series of simulations was made at the central location (i.e.
164.8°) with a variety of gaps between the top of the bed and bot-
tom of the baffle. A summary of these results are shown in Fig. 16
and in Table 7. In Fig. 16, case 1 is the base condition of no baffle,
case 2 is for the baffle with a gap of 30.8 cm, case 3 is for a gap of
15.4 cm and case 4 has no gap between the baffle and the top of the
bed (The size of the gap corresponds to that of mesh elements in
the CFD analysis).
As it happens, this baffle is located close to the natural flow split
in the base case and therefore the variation induced by the intro-
duction of the gap is marginal:
Fig. 22. Flow splits for the two baffle option at a variety of locations.
(a) there is no impact upon the flow through the kiln discharge
chute,
(b) the flow through the secondary air duct and the stack alters  there is no impact upon the flow into the kiln discharge chute,
by a maximum of <5%, whilst that through the recoup duct is  the impact into the kiln secondary air duct is negligible,
almost constant,  there is a very small exchange of air flow between the recoup
(c) the exit temperatures from each of the exits ducts/stack is duct and the stack,
also very marginally affected.  the impact upon the average exit air flow temperatures from all
exits is negligible.
Even the most extreme case, in which it is assumed that there is
no gap between the bottom of the baffle and the pellet bed, shows The impact of the baffle height here is even less significant than
a very modest effect on the air flows, which is unlikely to have any it is between the kiln and recoup ducts.
impact upon the overall process. The results for the simulation of the baffle at various locations
In this evaluation, it was considered extremely unlikely that, no between the recoup duct and cooler stack with a 15.4 cm gap are
matter what the aspiration, the baffle would completely seal the summarised in Fig. 20 and Table 10.
flow between the neighbouring zones. Hence, a series of baffle As might now be expected, the CFD simulation results show:
locations was run with the bottom gap at 15.4 cm. These results
are summarised in Fig. 17 and Table 8 – case 1 is for no baffle  almost no influence on the flows into the kiln or its exit
whilst cases 2–6 are for baffles at locations 147.6°, 156.2°, 164.8°, temperatures,
177.7° and 186.2°, respectively. From these results, it is clear that  essentially a small exchange of air flow volume between the
the location of the baffle has a significant impact upon the flow recoup duct and the cooler stack, depending on where the baffle
splits and some impact on the off-gas temperatures flowing is located,
through the cooler exits. It is also clear that the location at  an associated modest variation in the air flow exit temperatures.
164.8° is close to the natural flow split without any baffle.
The results are reinforced by Fig. 21, which shows the origins
3.5. CFD simulations – the impact of above bed baffle between the and splits of the air flow into each exit – the flow splitting in a ver-
recoup duct and the cooler stack tical plane across the cooler is confirmed in these analyses. An
immediate conclusion here is that there is less flexibility to control
The next stage involved evaluating the location of a baffle be- or change the air flow split between the recoup duct and the stack
tween the recoup duct and the cooler stack. The candidate loca- using a baffle than using existing options in the cooler.
tions are illustrated in Fig. 18. There is rather less space
between the duct and stack in the secondary cooling and so a 3.6. CFD simulations – the impact of using both above bed baffles at
more limited number of options were considered. The CFD simu- various location combinations
lation results for this aspect of the study are summarised in Fig. 19
and Table 9. The final set of CFD simulations in this part of the study involves
The impact of the baffle height is minimal in all respects: using both baffles in combination. Here, the study limits the vari-
ations to baffles which have a 15.4 cm gap above the bed. The com-
binations consist of baffles located in pairs in Table 11.
The flow splits in this set of simulations are shown in Fig. 22
Table 11
Baffle wall locations for the combined CFD simulations.
and the results summary is shown in Table 12. The flow splits
are dominated by the locations of the kiln-recoup ducts and the
Case no. Kiln-recoup baffle location Recoup-stack baffle location
impact of the baffle between the recoup duct and the stack is
0 – base None None minor. This simply confirms the analysis above on the performance
1 147.6 229.8 of each baffle in isolation.
2 147.6 239.8
3 147.6 249.8
4 164.8 229.8
5 164.8 239.8 4. Conclusions on the CFD analysis of the cooler
6 164.8 249.8
7 186.2 229.8 The implementation of the CFD based models has provided in-
8 186.2 239.8 sight into the behaviour of the gas flow throughout the cooler.
9 186.2 249.8
The results provide information about the characterization of the
 T.N. Croft et al. / Minerals Engineering 22 (2009) 859–873 873

Table 12
Summary of CFD results for the two baffle simulations.

Case Flow kiln 1 (tph) Flow kiln 2 (tph) Flow recoup 3 (tph) Flow stack 4 (tph) Temp kiln 1 (°C) Temp kiln 2 (°C) Temp recoup (°C) Temp stack (°C)
Base 47 99 83 87 1269 996 610 249
1 41 84 86 105 1275 1070 719 286
2 41 85 95 96 1274 1068 695 263
3 42 85 105 85 1274 1067 669 239
4 45 95 74 103 1271 1017 671 282
5 45 95 83 93 1270 1016 644 259
6 46 95 92 83 1270 1015 618 236
7 51 107 57 102 1261 953 611 279
8 51 107 67 91 1261 952 581 256
9 51 108 77 81 1261 950 554 233

flow structure within the cooler and capture the major flow pat-  placing a baffle between the kiln outlet and recoup duct is the
terns. In particular, they predict: most effective way of controlling the flow split to the kiln.

 the flow split between each of the exit ducts/stack,
 the average temperature of the air through each of the exit
ducts/stack.
The role of turbulence in the process has been investigated and
it has been shown that, perhaps surprisingly, there is little impact
of turbulence effects throughout the cooler. This is because the
resistance to flow through the pellet bed plays a key role in sup-
pressing the turbulent effects, which then subsequently inhibits
turbulent flow above the bed.
The major conclusions are as follows:
 the stack butterfly lid alone has major influence on the outflow
through the recoup duct and stack, but has a relatively limited
effect on flows through the kiln ducts,
 however, the combined effect of opening the stack butterfly
and reducing the exhaust pressure causes quite significant
changes in the flow distribution amongst the kiln, recoup
and stack exits,
 the baffle below the bed causes a pressure drop to form in the
region below the bed. However, varying the gap between the
top of the baffle and base of the bed has very little effect on
the characteristics of the flow and temperature profiles at the
outlets,
 placing a baffle wall above the bed between the kiln and recoup
duct allows some control over the kiln flow. Moving the location
of the baffle a significant distance from 147.6° to 186.2° (angle
measured from start of cooler) leads to the following significant
movements of air flow:
s stack flow rate varies from 100 to 80 tph,
s recoup flow rate varies from 90 to 78 tph,
s kiln flow rate varies from 127 to 159 tph,
s however, if a baffle is placed between the recoup duct and
the stack, whilst it can be used to control flow through the
recoup duct and the stack, it has minimal effect on the kiln
flow rate.
These results suggest that:
 controlling the stack pressure draft or the opening of the butter-
fly lid at the stack is the most effective way of controlling the
flow split between the recoup duct and the stack without having
too much effect on the kiln flow,
 placing a baffle between the recoup duct and the stack is rather
less effective at controlling the flow split between the outlets
than using the butterfly lid on the cooler stack,
Finally, although this study has been performed using data
applicable to the OneSteel pellet plant at Whyalla, the simulation
results and its broad conclusions are likely to be applicable to
the whole range of grate-kiln plants more generally.
Acknowledgements
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the support of a number of One
Steel staff in the accomplishment of the work reported here includ-
ing Ivan Budmir, Andrew Kerr, Andrew Schwenke and John Scott. It
is also a pleasure to acknowledge very helpful discussions with and
the advice of Ray Martin and John Appleby.
This work is published with the kind permission of OneSteel
Whyalla Steelworks, South Australia.
References
Ball, D.F., Dartnell, J., Davison, J., Grieve, A., Wild, R., 1973. Agglomeration of Iron
Ores. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London.
Chow, P., Cross, M., Pericleous, K., 1995. A natural extension of standard control
volume CFD procedures to polygonal unstructured meshes. Applied Math
Modelling 20, 170–183.
Croft, T.N., 1998. Unstructured mesh-finite volume algorithms for swirling,
turbulent, reacting flows. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Greenwich.
Croft, N., Pericleous, K., Cross, M., 1995. PHYSICA: a multiphysics environment for
complex flow processes. In: Taylor, C. et al. (Eds.), Numerical Methods in
Laminar and Turbulent Flows, vol IX. Pineridge Press, pp. 1269–1280.
Cross, M., Blot, P., 1999. Optimizing the operation of straight-grate iron ore pellet
induration systems using process models. Materials and Metallurgical
Transactions 30B, 803–813.
Cross, M., Englund, D., 1987. Assessment of iron ore induration systems using
computer simulation. In: Szekely, J. et al. (Eds.), Mathematical Modelling of
Materials Processing Operations. TMS, pp. 509–522.
Final Approval of Project MAGNET, Onesteel press release, 23 May, 2005. <http://
www.onesteel.com/images/db_images/news/Project%20Magnet%2023%
20May%202005.pdf>.
Gaskell, J. et al., 1998. Development of ported kiln technology for iron ore
pelletizing. In: Proc 2nd Intl. Congress on the Science and Technology of
Ironmaking. ISS AIME, pp. 923–933.
Launder, B.E., Spalding, D.B., 1974. The numerical computation of turbulent flows.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 3, 269–289.
Meyer, K., 1980. Pelletizing of Iron Ores. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Pericleous, K.A., Drake, S.N., 1986. An algebraic slip model of PHOENICS for multi-
phase applications. In: Markatos, N.C. et al. (Eds.), Numerical Simulation of Fluid
Flow and Heat/Mass Transfer Processes. Springer-Verlag, pp. 375–385.
PHYSICA, see www.physica.co.uk.
Rhie, C.M., Chow, W.L., 1983. Numerical study of the turbulent flow past an airfoil
with trailing edge separation. AIAA Journal 21, 1525–1532.
van Doormaal, J.P., Raithby, G.D., 1984. Enhancements to the SIMPLE method for
predicting incompressible fluid flows. Numerical Heat Transfer 7, 147–163.
Versteeg, H.K., Malalasekra, W., 2007. An Introduction to Computational Fluid
Dynamics: The Finite Volume Method Approach, second ed. Prentice-Hall.
Young, R.W., Cross, M., Gibson, R.D., 1979. Mathematical model of the grate-kiln-
cooler process used in the induration of iron ore pellets. Ironmaking and
Steelmaking 6, 1.