Pergamon Chemical Engineering Science, VoI. 50, N o 3, pp.

453 467, 1995

Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain.
0009 2509/95 $9.50 4 0.00
0009-2509(94)00257-6

DESIGN MODEL OF A WIPED FILM EVAPORATOR.

APPLICATIONS TO THE DEVOLATILISATION OF
POLYMER MELTS

TIMOTHY F. M c K E N N A
CNRS-LCPP, B.P. 24, 69390 Vernaison, France

(Received 22 June 1994; accepted in revised form 29 August 1994)

Abstract--A model for the design of a wiped film evaporator (WFE) for the devolatilisation of polymer
solutions is presented. Unlike previous models, the one presented in this paper considers both the fluid
transport and mass transfer aspects of the problem. Analysis of the results indicates that neglecting the
limitations imposed by the equilibrium concentration of the volatile species in the problem formulation
leads to the underestimation of the devicesize required to obtain a given purity. This is especiallytrue when
the equilibrium concentration and final purity are of the same order of magnitude. As is expected, the
devolatilising capacity of the WFE increases as the speed with which its wiper blades remix the film
increases. However, it appears that there is limiting rotational speed for mixing in the WFE, above which
significantgains in mass transfer are obtained at the expense of very large increases in power consumption.
The results of the design model agree well both qualitatively and quantitatively with data published on
commercially available WFEs.

INTRODUCTION constantly renewed thin film presents many obvious

Wiped film evaporators (WFE), often referred to as
thin or scraped film evaporators, can be used in
chemical process operations where heat and/or mass
transfer steps are rate limited since they can be
adapted to treat liquids with a wide range of viscosities
while maintaining short residence times. For example,
both Heimgartner (1980) and Biesenberger (1983)
indicate in reviews on the applications of such devices
that they can operate at liquid viscosities ranging from
1 poise up to 105 poise (104 Pas). Above this point
high viscosity in the film decreases the efficiency of
mass transfer, and can lead to increase in power costs
that make operation economically unfavourable.
Since they provide a high ratio of surface area per unit
volume of solution, wiped film evaporators can also
act as polymerisation reactors and as devices for
solvent and monomer removal from polymer melts at
moderate production rates (high production rates
cannot be treated as effectively since prohibitively
large devices are needed). It is, however, important to
consider them as process units in the design or simu-
lation of processes where devolatilisation of viscous
liquids is an important unit operation.
The operating principle of a WFE is shown sche-
matically in Fig. 1. It consists essentially of a vertically
mounted cylindrical shell surrounding a central shaft
(1) upon which a set of wiper blades (2) is mounted.
The shaft rotates with a fixed angular velocity, and the
blades lay out a thin film (3) on the wall of the
evaporator. If the volumetric flow rate is high enough
that the film formed on the walls of the evaporator is
thicker than the clearance between the wiper blades
and the wall, the movement of the blade creates a fillet
of liquid, or bow wave (4) on its front edge. The
453
advantages for heat and mass transfer. A vacuum or
inert gas can be drawn so that any volatile materials
contained in the fluid flowing down the wall of the
device can be easily removed in the hollow portion of
the evaporator shell.
Efficient operation is assured by the wiper blades
which remix the film at the gas-vacuum interface. As a
blade passes over the film, the solution on the walls is
constantly remixed with that in the blow wave on the
leading edge of the blade. The concentration of vola-
tiles in the film at the point directly behind the trailing
edge of the blade (i.e. the concentration in the film at
the beginning of a devolatilisation stage) is a function
of the concentration in the film at the end of the
previous devolatilisation stage, the concentration of
the solution entering the bow wave from above, and
the degree of mixing between film and bow wave. Thus
we need to describe both how the polymer solution
flows through the evaporator, and how mass transfer
of volatile material occurs in the film.
Some previous studies have laid the groundwork for
the design of WFEs. Godau (1975), McKelvey and
Sharps (1979) and Komori et al. (1988, 1989) exam-
ined certain aspects of fluid transport in a wiped film
evaporator. Godau (1975) developed approximate
and exact solutions for the thickness of the film on the
evaporator wall as a function of fluid density and
viscosity, and evaporator throughput, but did not
consider the influence of the wiper blades. McKelvey
and Sharps (1979) examined the velocity profile and
flow structure of the bow waves and their dependence
on certain parameters (e.g. blade clearance and film
thickness) and the throughput. Komori et al.
(1988, 1989) examined the flow structure and mixing
mechanisms in the bow wave both theoretically and
454 TIMOTHY F. MCKENNA
1. Axis
2. Blade
3. Film
4. Bow wave
Fig. 1. Schema ofa WFE. Blades rotate about a central axis,
laying down a thin film on the WFE wall, and moving the
fluid through the device.
experimentally in model wiped film devices with a
limited number of blades. They looked at the degree of
mixing between the film and the bow wave, and
attempted to determine optimum device configuration
for adequate mixing. None of these works considered
mass transfer aspects in the film.
The devolatilisation of polymer melts in WFEs has
been examined by Middleman (1977) and Biesenber-
ger (1983), and Steppan (1989) considered the evapor-
ation of water during a Nylon-6,6 polycondensation in
a wiped film reactor. Gruber and Rak (1989) de-
veloped a stage-wise model using the ASPENPIus ®
process simulator by treating a W F E as a series of
equilibrium flash units; they did not look at the
influence of device configuration on the evaporation
process. Middleman (1977) used a penetration model
to examine heat and mass transfer in falling and wiped
film evaporators, but did not consider the fluid mech-
anics. Similarly, Biesenberger (1983) defined evapor-
ation efficiencies for this type of evaporation equip-
ment. These authors examined the influence of phys-
ical properties (diffusivity, vapour pressure) and film
renewal frequency on the devolatilisation process, but
did not relate evaporation performance to equipment
dimensions, or look at the role that mixing might play
in determining device efficiency. Finally, Steppan
(1989) extended the more classical mass transfer ana-
lyses to develop a stage-wise model for water removal
during the polycondensation of Nylon-6,6 in a wiped
film reactor.
In the following work, a simplified model for the
design and performance evaluation of wiped film
evaporators will be presented. This model will build
on the results of the previously cited studies, and,
unlike the previously published works, combine both
the fluid mechanics of flow in the device with mass
transfer considerations, and will relate the size of a
W F E to the properties of the polymer solution to be
devolatilised. Simplified design models such as the one
that follows can be used to simulate unit operations
using a very limited number of parameters. At the
process design stage, especially processes for newer
products, there is often a lack of experimental data for
such properties as the viscosity and its shear depend-
ence, the diffusivity of volatile components and their
dependence on temperature, concentration and vis-
cosity, etc. This simplified model is thus geared toward
providing the user with a tool to obtain order-of-
magnitude estimates of device size and power req uire-
ments, and to understand how changes in operating
conditions, throughput, and uncertainties in para-
meter values can effect the design.
DESIGN MODEL
The flow pattern in a W F E is a combination of a
rotational, or tangential film flow induced by the
mechanical action of the blades, and a downward, or
axial flow. If the viscosity of the polymer is relatively
high, gravity-induced flow through the device will be
too slow for efficient operation. In this event, some, or
all, of the blades must be inclined at an angle relative
to the axis of the evaporator in order to "pump" the
fluid through it. In their experimental and modelling
studies, Komori etal. (1988, 1989) examined fluid
viscosities of up to approximately 13 Pa s (130 Poise)
and found that from 70 to 90% of fluid flow in the
device was in the bow waves when the WFE was
equipped with vertically aligned blades. McKelvey
and Sharps (1979) looked at cases where polymer
solution viscosity was over 10 Pa s, and decided that
flow of the polymer film on the wall was negligible
with respect to the mechanically induced flow in the
bow waves. As an example of the order of magnitude
of the range of viscosities encountered in W F E opera-
tion, consider that.a polystyrene melt containing 98%
polymer (w/w) with a weight-average molecular
weight of 50,000 (note that this is a very low value for
the molecular weight, intended to provide a lower
bound on the estimate of the viscosity, typical com-
mercial products would have a much higher molecular
weight) has a viscosity of 25 Pa s at a temperature of
250 °C [correlation of Henderson (1987)]. As a first
approximation, we will therefore assume that viscous
flow due to gravity is negligible under conditions
typical to the evaporation of volatiles from concen-
trated polymer solutions, and that only mechanically
induced flow due to the action of the wiper blades need
be taken into account.
We will begin the model development by briefly
considering how the polymer solution is transported
through the evaporator as it is devolatilised.
Possible blade configurations include continuous
blades that run the full length of the evaporator, and
small rows of individual blades. As shown in Fig. 2(a),
these individual blades can be either all straight
(vertically oriented), pitched with respect to the central
axis, or arranged in a combination of these two
 Design model of a wiped film evaporator 455

........:~;:rr ~rFilm
Wall iii:iiiii[il~ I [ I Straight
:::::.

iiiiiiiiiii!iiiiii ~ ~ Pitched
iiiiii:i:i:!:i

~ Alternating
!!!!!!! _ _
i!i!i~:~i
........ Blades
t

!CentralAxis
(a) Rows of Small Blades (b) View from axis

Fig. 2. (a) Blade configurations in WFEs. The individual blades arranged in rows on the central shaft can
either be straight, pitched or alternating. (b) A "face-on" view of a pitched blade as seen from the central axis.
The pitched blade moves with a tangential velocity at the wall which is a function of the rotational speed of
the WFE motor.

configurations. Pitched blades move the fluid in the
bow wave of the W F E both tangentially and axially.
Straight, or vertically aligned blades can only serve to
remix the film, thereby improving the mass transfer
rates in the evaporator, and are not directly involved
in fluid transport through the evaporator.
The rotation of the central shaft causes the blades to
pass over the wall a tangential velocity vt in the
horizontal plane• This movement imparts a velocity to
the bow waves being "pushed" along on the leading
edge of the blades, and, as can be seen from the schema
in Fig. 2(b), this velocity can be expressed as the sum of
normal and axial components, where the magnitude of
the axial component vd gives the speed at which the
fluid is moved out of the WFE. The tangential velocity
is related to (o, and the inside diameter of the WFE, de,
by
v, = ~ d ~
and the axial velocity component imparted to the bow
wave by the blade is
vd = v, tan ~b
where ~ is the pitch angle of the blade with respect to
the vertical. In a W F E with continuous blades the bow
wave will spiral down through the device in front of a
blade. In a device containing offset rows of smaller
blades, the bow wave will be pushed downward, form
a bead of liquid that runs off the bottom edge of a
blade, and be picked up by the trailing blade.
The periodic nature of the phenomena involved in
the operation ofa W F E is such that it is possible to use
a stage-wise description to model the evaporator. We
will define a stage as that section of the film on the
evaporator wall that is contained between two sub-
sequent wiper blades in the horizontal plane, and
whose height axial dimension, H~, is defined below.
Once a wiper blade has passed over a given point on
the devolatilising film and mixed it, the element of
fluid at this point remains undisturbed until the
passage of the subsequent blade. Thus between two
subsequent blades there are elements of fluid which
have just been mixed (e.g. point A in Fig. 1) and
elements which have remained undisturbed for times
up to the duration that it takes for the trailing blade to
remix them• This period is called the exposure time•
[Note that the definition in eq. (3) is valid for the entire
W F E only the blades are symmetrically arranged in
the evaporator. In the event that alternating pitched
and vertical blades are used, the exposure time will
obviously vary in the axial direction as the bottom of a
pitched blade is much closer to the trailing vertical
blade than to the top of the same pitched blade. In the
following treatment we will limit ourselves to a discus-
sion of the case where the evaporator contains only
(1) pitched blades in order to simplify the mathematical
treatment• It should be noted that while the design
equations will be slightly different in the case of a
mixed blade configuration, the underlying principles
(2) and qualitative results will remain the same]• It is also
related to the rotational speed, ~o, and number of
blades in a horizontal cross section, Nh, by
l
r e = NbOg. (3)
If the fluid in the bow wave moves with the axial
velocity defined in eq. (2), then a given fluid element in
the bow wave will be displaced a distance H s during
the interval time re:
H~ = vdt ~ (4)
where H, is the height of a stage or level, defined as the
axial distance that a fluid element in the bow wave
(assumed to be in plug flow) is displaced during the
456 TIMOTHYF.
exposure time. Thus the height of a stage is independ-
ent of the blade length. Note also that even if a stage
extends over two blades, this does not change the
definition of the exposure time, or dimensions of the
stage if the blades are symmetrically spaced. If we
assume that the mechanical mixing process is fast with
respect to the devolatilisation step, then we can as-
sume that there are no appreciable vertical concentra-
tion gradients over the distance H s.
Note that if the wiper blades are symmetrically
arranged in both the axial and radial directions, the
number of identical stages at any given axial position
will be equal to the number of blades. These stages can
be said to be contained in a "Level", the height of
which is identical to the height of a stage (see Fig. 3).
The stage "length" at the wall is simply the circum-
ference of the WFE divided by the number of blades in
a cross section:
Ls = n d e / N b (5)
and the surface area of the film on the wall of a stage is
the area of the parallelogram in Fig. 3(b):
A v = H,L~. (6)
According to Komori et al. (1989), rows of small
individual blades as shown in Fig. 2(a) tend to mix the
fluid in the bow wave with that in the film more
efficiently than a continuous blade of the same total
length. They measured concentrations of salt at the
bottom of the bow wave of a given blade and at the top
of a second blade, aligned directly underneath the first
one. The material exchange rate between the two bow
waves initially increased as the distance between the
blades grew, and then remained unchanged after a
separation of 1.5-2 cm. They concluded from these
results that individual blades mix the fluid in the bow
wave better than a single continuous blade of the same
length. Thus it can be supposed that staggering the
blades (as shown schematically in Fig. 2) should not
significantly reduce the mixing of fluid in the bow
waves since this is similar to increasing the distance
between aligned blades.
In the development of the mass transfer portion of
the model it will initially be assumed that each blade
pass perfectly mixes the solUtion in the bow wave and
the film underneath it. In other words, the mixing in
the film is approximated by that of a CSTR. Further-
more, we will also assume that any axial variations in
the concentration between the top and bottom of a
stage are negligible.
A mass balance on the cylinder corresponding to
level n as shown in Fig. 3(a), yields:
n-I
QoCBw = QC"Bw + q~, (7)
where Qo is the volumetric flow rate of solution
(polymer plus volatiles) entering the level (and thus
each of the stages contained therein) at a concentra-
tion C~w1, q~ is the evaporation rate of volatiles from
the entire film in the Level, and C"nw is the concentra-
tion of the fluid leaving the shell at a flow rate Q and in
the bow waves of the stages contained in the Level. In
MCKENNA
this model we assume that the concentration entering
a stage in level n is equal to the concentration in the
bow wave leaving the previous stage. We would like to
know the value of the outlet concentration of the
stage, and to find this we must evaluate the rate of
evaporation from the film. Note that it is incorrect to
assume that the outlet concentration from level n is
equal to the average concentration in the film at the
end of the devolatilisation state (C~) since the
devolatilised solution is constantly mixed (according
to our description of fluid transport) with the solution
entering Level n.
In developing our equations for mass transfer from
the film, we will assume that since the film is very thin
with respect to the diameter of the WFE we can use a
flat plate approximation [see Fig. 3(c)] for diffusion.
Furthermore, since the time scale for diffusion is much
longer than the exposure time of the film a short-time
solution of the diffusion equation can be used to
describe mass transfer in the film, which means that we
can model the film as a semi-infinite medium. This is
justified if we consider that a typical exposure time is
at most a fraction of a second. Furthermore, a film
thickness in a WFE is on the order of 0.1-1.0 cm [e.g.
McKelvey and Sharps (1979)] and a generous value of
the diffusivity of a volatile monomer in its polymer
under conditions chosen to promote evaporation is on
the order of 10-4cm2/s, which yields a value of
t a = I 2 / D = 0.01/10-* = 100s as the characteristic
diffusion time; a value much higher than the exposure
interval.
Additionally, it will be assumed that the resistance
to mass transfer at the vapour-film interface is negli-
gible, and that the surface concentration of volatile
species is thus at the concentration equilibrium corres-
ponding to the operating conditions in the device.
The resulting mass balance equations for the vola-
tile species in the film in a stage at level n [see Fig. 3(c)]
can thus be written as
- O (8a)
with the following initial and boundary conditions:
C"=C~w for t = 0 (8b)
C"=C* fory-=0, re>t>0 (8c)
C"=C~w f o r ) , ~ 3¢, z~>t>O. (8d)
The choice of boundary condition (8b) implies that
the fluid in the film at the onset of devolatilisation has
been completely remixed by the wiper blade and that it
is equal to the concentration of the fluid being pushed
out of the stage. Note also that D is an effective, or
apparent diffusivity, and in most cases is likely to be
greater than the true molecular diffusivity of a volatile
component in a still polymer solution.
The solution to the set of equations (8) can easily be
shown to be [e.g. Bird et al. (1960)]:
C"-C~w err(k~Dt). (9)
C* - C~w
 Design model of a wiped film evaporator
In a single stage, the flux at a given point on the
surface of the film is simply:
F~, = - D ~ - y = - (C* -- C"Bw)
Recall that according to our definition, the length of
a stage is the distance between two successive blades,
Since the blade tip is assumed to be moving at a
constant speed, we can replace t in eq. (10) by the
quotient t = x/v, where x is the distance of an element
of fluid in the devolatilising film from the blade that
most recently passed over it. The total flux out of a
given stage is found by integrating over the entire
surface of the devolatilising solution:
q'! =~sF~,dS = - (C* _ CBw)?fs~dS.
. D v,
The total evaporation rate in the film in the cylindri-
cal shell at level n is related to q', by
q~ _=Nbq'~
since the number of stages per level is equal to the
number of blades per level in the geometry that we are
considering.
If we define a parameter ~. such that
where n is the number of the level in which the stage is
found, and if we further suppose that the volumetric
flow rate of the solution remains relatively unchanged
between the inlet and outlet of the cross section, then
the relationship between the inlet and outlet concen-
trations for a given stage can be found by re-writing
the mass balance:
n- 1 C*
Caw + (14)
Beginning with the feed concentration C o, succes-
sive substitution for C]w ~ in eq.(14) leads to the
following expression relating the initial and final
volatile concentrations (C 0 and C v, respectively), the
device configuration and throughput (~,) and the
operating conditions (C*):
C v = C ° .[]7.
x....l(1 + ~i) l -
ki=l
.... 1( ~ )-1
+c* Y~ (1+~)
j=O \k=ntot-j
This is essentially the design equation for the WFE
since it relates the magnitude of the devolatilising task
to be performed to the machine-related parameters
contained in C* and a.. From this expression it can be
seen that increasing the values of ct. (e.g. increasing Nb
or co, decreasing Q) leads to a reduction in the outlet
concentration. Similarly, reducing the equilibrium
concentration (increasing the temperature, decreasing
457
the absolute pressure in the device) also leads lo a
lower outlet concentration.
In order to evaluate eq. (15) is necessary to estimate
the surface area included in the definition of the
. (10)
parameter c~, in eq.(13). This obviously includes
the surface of the film in a given stage [defined by the
parallelogram in Fig. 3(b)], but can also include the
surface area of the beads of solution that trail behind
the wiper blade as described above. Biesenberger
(1983) shows that these beads can contribute to an
increase in the surface area available for de-
volatilisation and should thus not be discounted in
our model calculations, However, as shown in Fig. 4,
not all stages will contain beads of liquid since the
stage height is independent of the blade length. If the
quantity/~cos 4~is greater than H s, not every stage will
contain a bead surface area. In the opposite case every
stage will include at least one.
(11) For stages containing no contribution from these
trailing beads of liquid, the surface area is equal to that
of the film, and ~ = 7, is constant at every level and is
given by
(12)
~ = Qb(~)H~v/~ . (16)
For stages where there is a bead of liquid flowing
from one blade to the next, the increased surface area
increased the net flux of volatile material out of the
stage. As can be seen in Fig. 4, the length of this bead,
Lao, will always be the same in a device where the
wiper blades are evenly spaced everywhere:
1
Lno = ~ (Ls - lb sin ~b) (17)
where 1b is the length of the blade(s). The volumetric
flow rate through the beads is identical to the volu-
metric flow rate through the bow wave, and the
exposure time of the beads will be equal to L n o / L s
times the exposure time of a stage if the wiper blades
are equally spaced. The volume of fluid in the bead,
VBo , between two blades is equal to the exposure time
of the beads (i.e. their residence time) multiplied by the
volumetric flow rate through them:
t2 LBD (18)
If we assume that the flux from the semi-cylindrical
bead can be approximated by the flux from a plane
. (15) surface of length LBD and height H n o equal to the
perimeter of the semi-cylindrical form of the bead
whose volume if Vaa, then the parameter ~. is written
as
f
~"=D\~/ (LJo Jo~XJ
LJ o J o ~ / x j
458 TIMOTHY F. MCKENNA

(a) Schema of two-bladed WFE

Level"n-l"
J

H,
Level "n"

Level"n+1"
Evaporator

(b) Concentrations in stage (c) Flat Plate Approximation - Top View

at level "n"
n

B/ade b]

...f"~ Bow wavec r~

~ 1
!iiiiiii!i!!
y,,

Fig, 3. (a) Schema of a two-bladed WFE showing the relationship between the different levels and stages. I n
this representation there are two identical stages in a given level. The height of a stage (equal to the height of
a level) is independent of the size of the wiper blades, and a level can extend over one, two, or more blades.
(b) Location of the different concentrations in a stage in Level n. (c) Flat plate representation used to model
the WFE; blade and bow wave as seen from above.

where HBD is defined as height a n d length in eq. (20) to yield:

(01/2d 2 tan q~
O~n= 2rc3/2D1/2 --e
HBD ~ QN~/2
Xl ~LBo"
U p o n integrating a n d m a k i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e substi-
tutions for LBo a n d HaD, leads to
x l q 5/2d e2 ~o1/2 tan q5 \ N b -- lb sin ~b .

Nb I"4Dv,'~ ''2 ~ - I" Hno ~ " ] (21)

"vL't'+ ,-,. In special cases the c o n t r i b u t i o n from the beads of

(20)
A m o r e explicit relationship between the p a r a m e t e r
a a n d the device characteristics a n d operating condi-
tions can be seen by substituting for the stage a n d bead
liquid to the devolatilising surface area is negligible.
F o r example, in W F E s with long blades there will be
relatively few beads of liquid, or in large W F E s with
low flow rates eq. (20) reduces to eq. (16) [the con-
t r i b u t i o n from the term in square parentheses in
 Design model of a wiped film evaporator
g W F E as ~ = He/d e, can be inverted to yield:
~ ~ Bowwave
i~--~ '~.q~..~
Fig. 4. Distribution of beads in a WFE. Not all levels will
contain beads, and therefore will not all have equal de-
volatilising surface areas. The relative number of levels with
and without beads will depend on the ratio of the stage height
to the blade length. The length of the beads also depends on
the length and pitch of the wiper blades.
eq.(21) vanishes]. Furthermore, if, as suggested by
Middleman (1977) and Rauwendaal (1986), it is safe to
assume that the equilibrium concentration is negli-
gible with respect to the other concentrations in
eq. (15). eq. (15) can be simplified and inverted to yield:
Co =(1 + ~)....
CF
from which we obtain:
(.Co ~ 1/n....
= - 1.
\c,,)
Equations (22) and (23) show the relationship be-
tween the inlet and outlet concentrations, the diffus-
ivity of the volatile species in solution, and the config-
uration of the evaporator. An interesting artefact of
the simplification is that for a fixed W F E configura-
tion and throughput, the relative concentration drop
obtained in the device is always the same; the absolute
concentrations are not important in determining
how much of the volatile component is removed.
For example, if ct and n,ot are such that C°/
C r = 50 in eq. (22), we could concentrate a solution
containing 2% volatiles by weight down to 400 ppm
(see example below), or a solution containing 4%
volatiles down to 800 ppm. As we shall see below, this
is not the case with the general solution given in
eq. (15), where the final result depends on the equilib-
rium concentration as well as on the ratio of the initial
and final volatile concentrations.
The height of the evaporator is given by the total
number of levels multiplied by the height of a stage:
n,otrcdetan q~
li e = n,o,H ~ -
Nb
Which, if we define a height to diameter ratio for the
<159
~d~ ~N b
n,o, - - (25)
H~ n tan ~b'
The surface area of the devolatilising section is the
characteristic most indicative of the size of the W F E -
and of its cost. The surface area Ae is simply the surface
area of the cylinder of height He and diameter d,,.
Note that in the preceding development we have
ignored any possible contribution from devolatilis-
ation of the bow wave. While there is most likely a
small flux from this part of the fluid, its surface is
renewed so rapidly that ignoring this contribution will
probably not cause a great deal of error, and use of the
design equations presented here will give conservative
estimates of device size and performance capacity.
It should also be noted that changing the operating
conditions, the rotational speed in particular, also has
implications in areas other than mass transfer. As the
wiper blades pass over the film on the wall, a velocity
profile and a shear stress are created between the blade
tip and the evaporator wall. The power required co
overcome this shear stress will contribute to the power
requirements of the WFE. If we approximate the flow
in the gap between the wiper blade and the W F E wall
by a Couette flow and assume that the solution
behaves like a Newtonian fluid, the resulting velocity
profile will be the well-known:
~:x = vt (1 -- if(S). (261
(22)
The power needed per blade to overcome this drag
force is
~" "["// ("xl ~ ~ v}
Pa=J Jot-- q ~ "Vtl~XCZ= q lhb
(23)
(rwJde):
= q --(3--lhb (2"7t
where r/ is the shear viscosity" of the solution at
y = 0, 6 the thickness of the film and b the thickness of
the blade. The total blade length contained in the
W F E is N b times the height of the evaporator shell
divided by the cosine of the pitch angle of the blades. It
should be pointed out here that the approximation of
Couette flow in the gap is a simplification of the real
flow situation. Other authors, e.g. Hirose and Mura-
kami (1986), have discussed more detailed pressure
driven gap flows and have found that the Couette flow
may underestimate the flow rate in the gap by 25 30°/i,
under certain circumstances. However, as a first ap-
proximation, eqs (26) and (27) provide a better than
order-of-magnitude estimate of the true flow rates.
The other contribution to the power requirement
will come from the need to "push" the fluid in the bow
waves of each of the blades. Kern and Karakas I1959)
showed that this term could be written as
1 1
(24) Pnw = 2mv~ m = 2N--h PQnto, ln¢t)d~,)2 [28)
where p is the density of the polymer solution.
460 TIMOTHYF. McKENNA
Table 1. Variables used in the simplifiedWFE design model
Design Machine Physical
parameters specifications properties
C I:, C o, Q Nb, dp, lb, de, ~, 60, rltot, Ptot D, C*, n
If we assume that we can use an average viscosity for
the entire evaporator, the total power requirement will
be given by
"-'2[tlNbH~b
Ptot = [/~(Dae}~ -{-P-Q'n'°'~
2Nb ].
(30)
From eq. (22) we can see that although increasing
the rotational speed (higher tangential velocity
= higher ct) decreases the total number of levels
needed to obtain a given purity level, eq. (30) shows us
that increases in the rotational speed increase the
power requirement. The final choice of a value for this
variable will therefore represent a trade-off between
lower operating (power) costs at slower values of o9,
and better devolatilising capacity for higher rotational
speeds.
To summarise, the simplified model for mass trans-
fer in a WFE contains the 14 variables shown in
Table 1 (13 in the simplified case since the term
containing lb disappears when the beads do not con-
tribute to the total surface area), and is composed of
four independent equations: eq. (25) which gives the
total number of stages, either eq. (16) or eq. (21) for ~,
eq. (15), or its simplified form in eq. (22), which relates
the devolatilisation load to the other problem vari-
ables, and eq. (30) which expresses the power require-
ments of the WFE as a function of the operating
conditions and machine specifications. This leaves us
10 degrees of freedom (nine in the simplified case), or
parameters to be specified.
EXAMPLE: THE RECOVERY OF STYRENE M O N O M E R
FROM POLYSTYRENE
In this example, we wish to recover most of the
styrene monomer in a stream flowing at 4000 kg/h,
containing 98% polystyrene and 2% styrene by mass
so that the product stream contains 400 ppm styrene
by mass. The evaporator operates at 250 °C and at a
vacuum of 5 mm Hg. The zero-shear viscosity of the
polymer melt is taken to be on the order of 500 Pa s.
Choice of parameter values
The physical properties C* and D are functions only
of the materials used in the problem and the temper-
ature and pressure inside the device. As such they can
be specified independently of the other variables.
According to Biesenberger (1983), the equilibrium
concentration of styrene in polystyrene is 132 ppm
(0.0132% mass) under these conditions; the final con-
centration is thus limited to values higher than this.
Were this type of equilibrium data not available, C*
could be estimated using an equation of state.
An estimate of the diffusivity is slightly more diffi-
cult. Latinen gives a value of 2.5 x 10 -4 cm2/s for
styrene-polystyrene in a single screw extruder at
similar temperatures and pressures, and Biesenberger
and Sebastian (1983) give a value of 1.5 x 10 -s cmE/s
for the value of the diffusivity of styrene in polystyrene.
While these values are greater than would be expected
for diffusivities in a quiescent film, it should be re-
membered that disturbances in the shape of the liquid
surface (e.g. foaming, rippling) under semi-dilute
conditions can enhance the mass transfer rate and lead
to higher apparent diffusivities. For example, Roberts
(1970) found that the diffusivity of styrene in a poly-
styrene melt was a factor of two higher in an extruder
under devolatilising conditions than the values re-
ported in the literature for the molecular diffusivity.
Given that the nature of the WFE is not dissimilar to
that of an extruder, it is probably safe to assume that
the diffusivity is not far from the value given by
Latinen (1962). In our initial solution we will assume a
value of D = 10-4 cm2/s and examine the importance
of uncertainties in this parameter later.
The viscosity of the polymer melt depends on both
the relative quantities of volatile material and poly-
mer, on the molecular weight of the polymer itself, and
on the shear rate to which the polymer is subjected.
The shear dependence of the viscosity can be conveni-
ently described by the well-known Carreau model:
r/--r/~-[1 + (@~.)2]n21
r/o - r/o~
where ~, is the shear rate, ~/the shear viscosity, ~/o the
viscosity at zero shear, r/® the viscosity at infinite shear
(taken here to be negligible), 2 the relaxation time and
n the power law index. These last two parameters can
be evaluated experimentally, and the shear rate is the
derivative of the tangential velocity in the gap between
the wiper blade and the wall. For our purposes we will
use values of 2 = n = 0.3 (Tadmor and Gogos, 1979).
This means that for shear rates on the order of
250-500 s- 1 typically encountered in these devices the
viscosity under the blades will drop by a factor of
20-35 times. Thus, the viscosity of our polymer melt
will be on the order of 25 Pas at the shear rates
encountered in the device.
It is likely in many cases that there will be un-
certainty in the values chosen for the various physical
properties used in the model. We will therefore explore
the importance of the major parameters on the design
of the WFE in the example below.
It is highly likely that the height to diameter ratio of
commercially available WFEs will be fixed over a
certain range; e.g. Heimgartner (1980) gives data
showing that Luwa Filmtruders (commercially avail-
able brand of WFE) have values of ~ that range from
4.5 to approximately 7 or 8. We are probably con-
strained to use values falling within this range in the
design of an evaporator since vapour viscosities inside
longer, narrower devices would be too high, causing
entrainment and other problems. Similarly, it appears
 Design model of a wiped film evaporator 461

the number of blades per row is also likely to be fixed 6

W F E D i a m e t e r (m)
between 4 and 8 in most cases. This leaves us with the
parameters C F, C °, Q, de, t~, and n,o,. In the current
example we are treating a design problem, and are
therefore required to find the size and operating : Equalion (15) Final conc = 100= ppm

conditions of a W F E best suited to perform a given

devolatilisation task; i.e. given C F, C °, Q find the
values of d~, t,J "best" adapted to the task. A per-
formance calculation refers to the case where we need
3;
to find the devolatilisation capacity for a known
throughput, machine diameter and rotation rate. The
'\
parameters used in the base case are shown in Table 2.
, ~ Equation~15) Fir~lCor~ =4(~ppm
Model simulations
A comparison of the estimates of the size of the
W F E needed to perform the required devolatilisation
using the "'exact" solution of eq. (15) and the "short- Equal/ion (23) Fins] c o n ( : = 4 ~ ppm Equation ( 15} Final cor, c = 11~0 ppm

cut" solution ofeq. (22) is shown in Fig. 5 as a function

of the rotation rate. This figure shows that the estimate
of the W F E diameter needed to achieve the specified
purity level using the short cut solution is lower by a
factor of approximately two (and the required de-
volatilising surface area by a factor of four) for a given
final purity. The difference between the two solutions
is in effect due to different ways in which the concen-
tration gradient that drives mass transfer is estimated
in each of the formulations. The mass transfer rate
described by the more exact eq. (15) is limited in each
level by the equilibrium concentration, which we have
assumed to be zero in the simplified solution. The
model thus predicts that a much larger surface area
(reflected by the larger diameter) is needed if the
cumulative effect of this reduced concentration
gradient is taken into account over the entirety of the
44 levels in the WFEs. This difference is much less
important in instances where the final concentration is
significantly higher than the equilibrium concentra-
tion. For example, when the final concentration is
raised to 1000 ppm it can be seen from this same figure
that although eq. (15) still yields a larger diameter, the
difference is much less pronounced. Thus the simpli-
fied expression given by eq. (22) is to be used with a
certain degree of caution, and then only when the
outlet concentration is significantly higher than the
equilibrium concentration of volatiles. The rest of the
discussion will focus principally on results obtained
0 05 1 15 2 25 3
Rotation Rate ( l / s )
Fig. 5. The diameter of a WFE needed to purify a poly-
styrene melt containing 2% (w/w) monomer down to
100 ppm (dots), 400 ppm volatiles (solid lines), and 1000 ppm
(dashed lines) calculated with the more simplified and fidl
models [eqs(23) and (15), respectively]. The lower device
diameter (and thus mass transfer surface area) predicted with
eq. (23) can be explained by the fact that this formulation
does not take the equilibrium concentration of volatiles into
account.
using the more detailed model expression given by
eq. (15).
It can also be seen that, as expected, much larger
devices are required to reach very high final purities
(low outlet concentration).
The importance of the equilibrium concentration
can be seen in Fig. 6. The difference between the base
case and other examples is not negligible, nor is it
particularly large either. An equation of state should
be able to provide estimates of this parameter with
greater accuracy than the range of values given in this
figure, and therefore we can probably assume that
reasonable uncertainties in the value of this parameter
will have a limited impact on the overall design.
A similar effect can be seen if we change the number
of blades in the horizontal cross section (Fig. 7). Fewer

Table 2. Base case parameters for devolotilisation of polystyrene example

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Density p~ 900 kg/m 3 No. of Blades N h 8

Equilibrium concentration C* 132 ppm Height/Diameter ~ 8
Initial concentration C o 18,000 ppm Blade Pitch 4) 25
Final concentration C r 400 ppm Blade width b 0.005 m
Viscosity (zero shear) qo 500 Pa s Gap clearance 6 0.005 m
Viscosity (shear) q 25 Pas :Total No. levels n,,,, 44
Diffusivity D 10- 8 m2,,s Blade length lh 0.2 m

t Rudd, J. F. (1989): value for amorphous PS.

: Equation (25).
462 TIMOTHYF.McKENNA
4 WFE Diameter (m) 3 Influence of flow rate on WFE diameter (m)

3.5 2.,J

2.5
1
2 ", '""""""" ............................. g..~..~.~'......................
~ 1
~ ~ kOfn
1.5
0.,~
1

0.5 0
0 0.5 i t .5 2 2.5 3
0 Rotation Rate (l/s)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Rotation Rate (l/s)
Fig. 8. Influence of changing flow rates on the WFE required
to deliver a solution containing 400 ppm of volatile material.
Fig. 6. Effect of changes in equilibrium concentration on
final WFE diameter.

Effect of Height to Diameter Ratio on

25O
WFE Surface Area (Sq. m)

2OO H/d = 10
3 Influence of number of wiper blades on
WFE diameter (m).
H/d=8
2.5 lsa

1.5
so !
1

0.5 ol 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0 Rotation Rate (l/s)
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Rotation Rate (l/s) Fig. 9. Effect of height to diameter ratio on the total surface
area of the WFE needed to purify the PS melt to 400 ppm.
Fig. 7. Effect of reducing the number of wiper blades in a Note that this model predicts that shorter, "fatter" devices
horizontal section (Fig. 7). Reducing the number of blades require slightly lower devolatilising surface areas. The results
leads to a lower overall flux, and thus a larger evaporator is shown here are in terms of surface area since the pedicted
required to achieve a purity of 400 ppm. diameter was the same in all three cases.

50 Effect of Hid Ratioon Required Surface Area (Sq. m)

blades means a longer renewal time, which, if we with C* = 0
follow the same reasoning as for the rotation rate, 45
decreases the mass transfer capacity of a given device. 40
And from Fig. 8 it can be seen that increasing the
flowrate of the polymer melt requires us to use a much
35 ~ Hid=6
larger device to obtain the same purity level of 30

400 ppm. This result is to be expected since larger 25

devices are evidently required to remove larger quant- 20
Wd=10 ~
ities of volatile material.
15
The curves in Fig. 9 show that increasing the height 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
to diameter ratio of the W F E decreases its mass Rotation Rate (l/s)

transfer efficiency, but only slightly. Over the range of

variables studied, the increase in the total number of
stages obtained by increasing ~ [see eq. (26)] does not
significantly increase the removal of volatile material
from the film. However, if the equilibrium concentra-
tion is negligible (Fig. 10), this trend is reversed,
although the increase in surface area from one value to
the next is essentially negligible.
Figure 11 shows the influence of the blade pitch on
the required device size.
We can see that increasing the blade pitch allows us
to use a smaller W F E to accomplish a given de-
volatilisation task. N o t only does this increase the
number of levels in the device, which has only a limited
Fig. 10. Effect of height to diameter ratio on the total surface
area of the WFE needed to purify the PS melt to 400 ppm
when the equilibrium concentration is negligible with respect
to the final concentration.
effect on the total mass transfer, but it also increases
the value of ~ [see eq. (21)] thereby improving the
concentration drop from stage to stage.
It is also obvious from Fig. 12 that changing the
blade length does very little to improve the mass
transfer capacity of a given evaporator. This leads us
to conclude that the extra surface area from the beads
 Design model of a wiped film evaporator 463

~
3,5 ffec't of Blade Pitch on WFE diameter (m)
separation is quite sensitive to even small changes in
3
the diffusivity of the volatile component. This result is
2,5
not entirely unexpected since the mass transfer rate is
2
directly dependent upon the diffusivity of the mobile
1,5.
species according to the model presented here.
1.
The effect of changing different parameters on the
05
estimate of the power requirement for the WFE is
0
shown in Fig, 14. In all cases, we can see that the
05 1 1.5 2 zs power requirement increases monotonically with the
Ro~ion Rate (II$)
rotation rate. Although eq.(30) predicts that the
Fig. 1 Influence of blade pitch on estimate of WFE dia- power requirement increases as the square of the
meter required to purify the polymer melt. rotation rate, it also shows the same dependence for
the diameter which, as we have seen in Figs 5 13,
decreases as the rotation rate increases. The net result
is an almost linear dependence, especially at lower
~I Effect of Blade Length on WFE diameter (m) speeds, on the value of uJ.
Altering other parameters leads to changes, not
only in the size of the WFE needed to perform the
desired separation, in the predicted power consump-
21
tion. Using four wiper blades per horizontal cross
1. section instead of eight significantly reduces the power
consumption, but, as we have seen in Fig. 7, this sanre
change requires us to use a larger device than needed
"0 0.1 0.2 03 0.4 0.5 0.S 0.7 0.8 0.9
Rotation Rate (l/s) in the base case to attain the same level of purity. The
choice of whether to use four or eight blades ultimately
Fig. 12. It appears that changing the blade length over a represents a trade-off between decreased power costs
reasonable range has little to no effect on the devolatilising
for N~ = 4 and decreased capital costs when N~ = ~'L
capacity of a WFE.
Such a trade-off is not a factor when looking at the
effect of changes in ~ or ~b. Lower values of the height
to diameter ratio not only lower the power consump-
offers very little in the way of an overall improvement tion, but also require smaller devices. Similarly, higher
on the net flux of volatiles from the device. Although values of the blade pitch also lead to lower power
not shown here, devices with shorter blades tend to consumption in smaller devices. Choices for these
offer slightly better devolatilisation capacity when the parameter values will ultimately depend on oper-
equilibrium concentration is negligible with respect to ability constraints, and further (more detailed) simu-
the outlet concentration. lation and pilot plant experimentation would be ne-
The impact of uncertainty in the estimate of the cessary for us to choose a good final value. Finally,
monomer diffusivity is shown in Fig. 13. Here we can doubling the apparent shear viscosity of the solution1
see that changes in the estimate of D over the range in the device leads to a nearly two-fold increase in the
discussed above have a strong influence on the re- required motor power. This result is not unexpected,
quired size of the WFE. It is therefore important that but it also demonstrates that overcoming the viscous
the best estimate possible for D be obtained before drag forces is basically what controls the power re-
designing such an evaporator. It thus appears that the quirement, the inertial component of the power being
size of the WFE required to perform the specified much less important.
Note that to perform the power consumption calcu-
lations values of 0.5 mm were chosen for both the
blade width and gap clearance in eq. (30); a choice
4..= Effect of Diffusivity on WFE diameter (rn)
based uniquely on the ranges of values discussed by
4
Biesenberger (1983) and Heimgartner (1980). The
3.,j
effect of varying these two parameters is obvious, and
3
in our model they do not play any role in determining
2! the mass transfer capacity of the WFE. Sufficient to
2
say that it is important to have reliable estimates of
1..~ 1.0" 1 0 4
these parameters--which in principle are easy to
1.
2.5 * 10~4 obtain for any given device.
0 ,= It should be recalled that the results presented in
0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.~ 3 Figs 5-13 are for a design problem. If we briefly
Rotation Rate (l/s) consider a performance calculation, i.e. what comes
out of a device of a fixed size. An example of this sort of
Fig. 13. Effect of changes in the estimate of the diffusivityof calculation is shown in Fig, 15 where the power
the styrene monomer (here indicated in units ofcm2/s) on the
estimate of the device diameter. requirement and final concentration of volatiles are

CES fi0-3-H
464 TIMOTHY F. MCKENNA

Effect of Different Parameters on WFE Motor Power (kVV)

250

200

Sheer vilmoelty = 50 P I . t
150
Beee C m e

H/d =

100

50

= , ~ i i •
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Rotation Rate (l/s)

Fig. 14. Effect of changing different design parameters on the power requirement of a WFE. The base case
refers to the conditions described in Table 2, The curve H/d = 6 to the lower curve in Fig. 9, Pitch = 45 ° to
the lower curve in Fig. 11 and 4 blades to the upper curve in Fig. 7.

8000
120
Power (kW) Final conc, (ppm)
7000
100
6O0O
~
•,,\ .-'1/
...'/
80
50O0

4OOO
60

' \ ~ , S / "f 30OO

40
'"~'" --.is._
2000

20
1000

0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Rotation Rate (1Is)

Fig. 15. WFE performance calculation. Device with a diameter of 0.85 m treating 4000 kg/h of polystyrene
melt described in Table 2. The curves increasing from left to right represent the power requirement and the
curves diminishing from left to right, the final volatiles concentration.

given at different blade pitches as a function of the
rotation rate.
It is interesting to note that, for a fixed W F E
diameter, the power requirement increases as a func-
tion of increasing blade pitch since the overall length
of blade increases in the device. This increased power
requirement is compensated for by a gain in the
devolatilising capacity of the evaporator since a
greater blade pitch means more levels in the device.
In the absence of any experimental values to verify
the model predictions, we must rely on comparisons
with data published by Heimgartner (1980) for com-
mercially available Luwa Filmtruders. According to
his figures, a Filmtruder used for m o n o m e r removal
from a polymer melt flowing at 960 kg/h will have a
surface area of approximately 12 m 2 and a diameter of
0.85 m, for height to diameter ratios on the order of 5.3
and a gap width of ~ = 0.3 mm. The power require-
ment for this device is shown in Fig. 16(a), along with
the model predictions. Not all of the parameters used
in the model presented above were specified by Heim-
gartner, some of the model parameters were adjusted
 Design model of a wiped film evaporator 465

Comparison of model predictionswith Heimgartnefs data

8-
(a) Power requirement (kW/m 2)
7.

5.

3.

2
,____._I~_..I~ ModelPrediction
1

0
0
100( Tangential Velocity (m/s)
(b) Final Concentration(ppm)

800

6O0

400

200

Tangential Velocity (m/s)

Fig. 16. Comparison of predicted power consumption and final purity levels for a commercially available
WFE. The graphs are shown as a function of the tangential velocity of the blade tips, to convert to rotations
per second it is necessary to divide by 2.67 (ride).

over a reasonable range of values with respect to those
found in Table 2 (~b = 35 °, b = 1.5 cm) in order to
more closely approximate the published data. Note
also that we have assumed a motor efficiency of 1 for
the published data and the model predictions. It is of
course always possible to adjust model parameters so
that the curves coincide, but the important point here
is that the model is capable of providing order of
magnitude estimates for device design or performance,
and can qualitatively predict the effect of operational
or configurational changes on W F E performance. For
example, if we were to use our original default value of
b = 0.5 mm instead of the value b = 1.5 cm used in
Fig. 16, the predicted power consumption would drop
by a factor of 3. However, the predictions of qualitat-
ive dependence of the W F E drive power on blade
speed would still be very representative of the real
device behaviour.
Additionally, in a discussion of larger W F E s
(20-30 m 2), Heimgartner gives figures indicating that
evaporators of 1-1.4 m in diameter are typically used
to remove monomer from polymer solutions flowing
at approximately 4000-6000 kg/h. While no rota-
tional speeds are indicated in this part of his text, we
can see in Figs 5-14 that for values of o9 = 1 s- 1 the
model presented here predicts devices of this order of
size for the range of parameter values studied here.
It can be seen from Figs 5-16 that increases in the
rotation rate invariably lead to an improvement in the
mass transfer capacity of a W F E (i.e. a smaller device
is needed to reach the final concentration, or improved
purity for a fixed device size) if all other parameters
remain unchanged. This is to be expected since faster
rotation means faster renewal of the film, and when
the film is renewed rapidly the concentration gradient
remains higher throughout the device and the mass
466 TIMOTHY F. MCKENNA
transfer is facilitated. However, under most of the
conditions used in the preceding examples gains in Ae
devolatilisation capacity are much more significant at Av
speeds of less than 1 rps (rotation per second). Above b width of blade tip, m
this point the effect of increasing the co is relatively C*
limited in terms of gains in the devolatilising capacity
of the evaporator, however the power consumption C"(t, y)
continues to increase at a steady rate. For example,
examination of Fig. 15 reveals that by increasing the CO
rotational speed from 0.1 to 1 s-x leads to a nearly
sixfold reduction in the final concentration obtained C~w
in a given WFE. The power consumption is raised
from nearly 0 to less than 15 kW over this same range.
However, increasing the rotational rate from 1 to
2 s - ~ causes the final purity to drop from approxim- Cr
ately 11300 to 800 ppm, but the power requirement
increases from 15 to 45 kW. de
D diffusion coefficient for volatiles, mZ/s
CONCLUSIONS
F.
In the preceding work we have developed a simpli-
fied model for the design and performance evaluation h
of devolatilising Wiped Film Evaporators. This model
requires values for the diffusivity of the volatile species H e
and its equilibrium concentration in the neigh- H~
bourhood of the conditions used for devolatilisation, Ib
and an estimate of the viscosity of the polymer solu- LaD
tion as the only physical property inputs. The other
parameters used in the model are related to the size L~
and geometry of the WFE, and are thus optimisation
variables. N~
An analysis of the results indicates that in cases
where the outlet concentration from the evaporator nto,
approaches the value of the equilibrium concentration
of the volatile materials in the polymer melt, neglect- Pnw
ing the latter value in the model development leads to
the underestimation of the size of the required WFE. Pd
Such an approximation, used in previous works [e.g.
Biesenberger. (1983)], is valid only when the outlet Ptot
concentration is much higher than the equilibrium Q
concentration. Qo
Comparison of the model predictions with the q~
limited data published on commercially available
devices of this sort reveals that it is capable of provid-
ing estimates of device sizes well within the range of t,
that used in industrial applications under similar Vao
conditions.
Furthermore, examination of the operational va
characteristics of a W F E suggests that using rota- v,
tional speeds much above 1 rps (rotation per second)
does not offer great improvements in the mass transfer vt
capacity of the WFE, but does lead to increases in the
power consumption. Exact values of this limit should v~
of course be evaluated experimentally for real devices, x
but these findings indicate that there will be a point y
where only negligible gains in devolatilisation capa-
city will be obtained for high rotational speeds at the z
price of larger increases in power consumption.
Furthermore, the model presented in this work can Greek letters
be adapted for use in modelling other systems such as ~t, ct.
the finishing reactors for polycondensations.
NOTATION
surface area of the WFE, m 2
surface area of the film in a stage, m 2
equilibrium concentration of volatile
species
concentration of volatile species in stage,
n
concentration of volatile species entering
the top of the WFE, g/m 3
concentration of volatile species in the
bow wave of the blade leading into stage
n and in the film at the onset of de-
volatilisation in stage n, g/m 3
concentration of volatile species leaving
the WFE-desired purity, g/m 3
inside diameter on the evaporator shell,
m
flux of volatile material from surface of a
stage, g/m3/s
width of gap between blade tip and wall,
m
height of the evaporator shell, m
height of a stage, m
length of a blade, m
length of a bead of liquid trailing a wiper
blade, m
length of a stage in the tangential direc-
tion, m
total number of blades in a horizontal
cross section
total number of devolatilising levels in
the evaporator
power required to move the bow wave
fluid for a single blade, kg m2/s 3
power to overcome the drag force under a
single blade, kg m2/s 3
total drive power of WFE, kg m2/s 3
volumetric flowrate out of a level, m3/s
volumetric flowrate into a level, m3/s
rate of evaporation of volatile material
from the surface of a stage per unit time,
g/s
residence time, s
volume of fluid in exposed portion of a
bead, m 3
axial velocity of the fluid, m/s
normal velocity component of the blade,
m/s
tangential velocity component of the
blade, m/s
velocity under the blade tip, m/s
tangential direction
radial position between blade tip and
wall, m
axial position
dimensionless parameters
film thickness, m
 Design model of a wiped film evaporator
height to diameter ratio of W F E shell
blade pitch angle
solution density, kg/m 3
solution viscosity at shear rate under
wiper blades, kg/m/s
(2) rotation rate, 1/s
exposure time, s
t-e
REFERENCES
Biesenberger, J. A., 1983, Thin film evaporators, in De-
volatilization of Polymers (Edited by J. A. Biesenberger),
pp. 51 63. Macmillan, New York.
Biesenberger, J. A. and Sebastian, D. H., 1983, Principles of
Polymerization Engineering, p. 653. Wiley, New York.
Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E. and Lightfoot, E. N, 1960,
Transport Phenomena. Wiley, Toronto.
Godau, H. J., 1975, Flow processes in thin-film evaporators.
Int. Chem. Engng 15(3), 445-449,
Gruber, G. and Rak, J. L., 1989, Model of a wiped film still.
Chem. Engng Prog. 85, 12-15.
Heimgartner, E., 1980, Devolatilisation in the thin-film va-
poriser, in Devolatilisation of Plastics, pp. 69-97. VDI-
Verlag Gmbh, Dusseldorf.
Henderson, L. S., 1987, Stability analysis of polymerisation in
continuous stirred-tank reactors. Chem. Engn9 Prog. 83(3),
42-50.
467
Hirose, T. and Murakami, Y., 1986, Two-dimensional vis-
cous flow model for power consumption in close-clearance
agitators. J. Chem. Engng Japan 19, 568-74.
Komori, S, Takata, K. and Murakami, Y., 1988, Flow
structure and mixing mechanism in an agitated thin-film
evaporator. J. Chem. Engng Japan 21,639-644.
Komori, S., Takata, K. and Murakami, Y., 1989, Flow and
mixing characteristics in an agitated thin-film evaporator
with vertically-aligned blades. J. Chem. Engng Japan 22(4),
346-51.
Latinen, G. A., 1962, Devolatilization of viscous polymer
solutions. ACS Symposium Series, 34, 235-46.
McKelvey, J. M. and Sharps, G. V., 1979, Fluid transport in
thin film polymer processors. Polym. Engng Sci. 19.
652-659.
Middleman, S., 1977, Fundamentals of Polymer Processinq,
pp. 420-425. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Rauwendaal, C., 1986, Polymer Extrusion, Collier. MacMil-
lan, Totonto.
Rudd, J. F., 1989, Physical Constants of Poly(styrene), in The
Polymer Handbook (Edited by J. Brandrup and E H.
Immergut), 3rd Edition. J. Wiley, New York.
Steppan, D. D., 1989, The Design of Continuous Poly-
condensation Reactors. Ph.D. thesis, University of Mass-
achusetts of Amherst.
Tadmor, Z. and Gogos C. G., 1979, Principles ~["Polymer
Processing. Wiley Interscience, New York.