4.7 Article

Porosity of flowing rice layer: Experiments and numerical simulation

期刊

BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING
卷 179, 期 -, 页码 1-12

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2018.12.003

关键词

porosity; rice; flow state; numerical simulation

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFD0101001]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31671783, 31371871]
  3. Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province of China [20148020207001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Porosity is an essential characteristic parameter for the design optimisation of drying and its intelligent control since it can affect the drying behaviour, drying uniformity, drying efficiency, and energy consumption by altering the tortuosity of the medium, the effective evaporation area coefficient of the drying phase interface, and airflow resistance. To reveal the dynamic characteristics of the porosity of a flowing rice layer, experimental equipments for determining and validating the porosity were constructed based on mass conservation and the theory of poroelasticity, and a function of the porosity was established using response surface methodology and multivariate regression analysis. Three factors, namely, moisture content (12.64-33.37% w.b.), rice velocity (2.4 x 10 (3)-3.04 x 10 (2) m s(-1)), and depth of the rice layer (0.3-1 m) were studied to investigate the porosity of the flowing rice layer. Results indicated that porosity was significantly affected by moisture content, rice velocity, and depth of the rice layer. The measured values of porosity were in close agreement with that calculated using the fitted function, with a correlation coefficient of 0.997. The function was validated by comparing the values measured with the theoretical values calculated using the function of porosity and the Ergun equation, and an average relative difference of 5.33% was obtained. (C) 2018 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据