4.6 Article

Energy and Exergy Analyses of a Combined Infrared Radiation-Counterflow Circulation (IRCC) Corn Dryer

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 10, Issue 18, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app10186289

Keywords

industrial grain dryer; exergy; energy; corn; dehydration

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31671783, 31371871]
  2. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China [2014B020207001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Energy consumption performance evaluation of an industrial grain dryer is an essential step to check its current status and to put forward suggestions for more effective operation. The present work proposed a combined IRCC dryer with drying capacity of 4.2 t/h that uses a novel drying technology. Moreover, the existing energy-exergy methodology was applied to evaluate the performance of the dryer on the basis of energy efficiency, heat loss characteristics, energy recovery, exergy flow and exegetic efficiency. The results demonstrated that the average drying rate of the present drying system was 1.1 g(water)/g(wet matter)h. The energy efficiency of the whole drying system varied from 2.16% to 35.21% during the drying process. The overall recovered radiant energy and the average radiant exergy rate were 674,339.3 kJ and 3.54 kW, respectively. However, the average heat-loss rate of 3145.26 MJ/h indicated that measures should be put in place to improve its performance. Concerning the exergy aspect, the average exergy rate for dehydration was 462 kW and the exergy efficiency of the whole drying system ranged from 5.16% to 38.21%. Additionally, the exergy analysis of the components indicated that the combustion chamber should be primarily optimized among the whole drying system. The main conclusions of the present work may provide theoretical basis for the optimum design of the industrial drying process from the viewpoint of energetics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available