International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrefrig

Review Article
Development and validation of ‘‘grey-box’’ models for
refrigeration applications: a review of key concepts
S. Estrada-Floresa,*,1, I. Mertsb, B. De Ketelaerec, J. Lammertynd
a
Supply Chain Innovation, Food Science Australia, P.O. Box 52, North Ryde, NSW 1670, Australia
b
Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North, New Zealand
c
BIOSYST e MeBioS, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,
Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
d
BIOSYST e MeBioS, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,
W. de Croylaan 42, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
Received 25 October 2005; received in revised form 22 March 2006; accepted 28 March 2006
Available online 17 July 2006

Abstract

‘‘Grey-box’’ modelling combines the use of first-principle based ‘‘white-box’’ models and empirical ‘‘black-box’’ models,
offering particular benefits when: (a) there is a lack of fundamental theory to describe the system or process modelled; (b) there
is a scarcity of suitable experimental data for validation or (c) there is a need to decrease the complexity of the model. The grey-
box approach has been used, for example, to create mathematical models to predict the shelf life of chilled products or the ther-
mal behaviour of imperfectly mixed fluids, or to create models that combine artificial neural networks and dynamic differential
equations for control-related applications. This paper discusses the main characteristics of white-box, black-box and their in-
tegration into grey-box models, the requirements and sourcing of accurate data for model development and important validation
concepts and measures.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Refrigerating system; Modelling; Design; Model

Développement et validation des modèles
boı̂tes grises[ pour

les applications frigorifiques: concepts clés passés en revue
Mots clés : Système frigorifique ; Modélisation ; Conception ; Modèle

1. Introduction

* Corresponding author.
A model can be defined as a conceptual, physical or
E-mail addresses: silvia.estrada-flores@csiro.au (S. Estrada-Flores), mathematical abstraction of a real object, phenomenon, pro-
i.merts@massey.ac.nz (I. Merts), bart.deketelaere@biw.kuleuven.be cess or system [1]. Mathematical models facilitate the un-
(B. De Ketelaere), jeroen.lammertyn@biw.kuleuven.be (J. Lammertyn). derstanding of a process or system [2], allowing the user
1
Member of Commission C2. to predict its behaviour when the value of one or more
0140-7007/$35.00 Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd and IIR. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2006.03.018
932 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946
Nomenclature
A area (m2)
c specific heat capacity (J kg1 K1)
k thermal conductivity (W m1 K1)
m mass flowrate (kg s1)
M mass (kg)
n number of measurements
q rate of heat flow (W)
Qg volumetric heat generation (W m3)
r radial location (m)
t time (s)
UA overall heat transfer coefficient (W K1)
w water content
x distance (m)
xs experimental (standard) data values
xp predicted data values
influencing variables changes. The modeller’s goal may be
using the model to estimate or forecast the value of one or
more variables describing the behaviour or property of inter-
est (also known as dependent variables) as a function of one
or more independent variables which describe the intrinsic
nature or properties of the system, its operation or its exter-
nal environment. A model may also predict only selected
parts of the behaviour of a system, helping to understand
how a sub-section of the system works.
The modelling of refrigeration systems is a complex ex-
ercise: very detailed and accurate models which consider all
the variables and factors affecting refrigeration plants might
result in a highly accurate model but prohibitive develop-
ment costs, long computation times and/or considerable
amounts of data required from the user. On the other hand,
models that simplify the behaviour of refrigeration systems
may prove less insightful and accurate than the former case.
A balance between model complexity and the desired accu-
racy for the application in mind should be considered. The
selection of the modelling approach often determines the
outcomes of this complexity/accuracy trade-off.
Researchers have used a variety of modelling approaches
to develop models for refrigeration systems and compo-
nents. However, three fundamental approaches are com-
monly cited in the literature: (a) white-box models, which
are entirely based on universal laws and principles; (b)
black-box models, built entirely on experimental data and
(c) grey-box models, which combine the previous two cate-
gories. While black-box modelling techniques only require
the specification of the input and output variables of the sys-
tem and the correlation between these, white- or grey-box
models also require the specification of the form of the math-
ematical relations that are used.
The aim of this paper is to review what we consider to be
key concepts on the development and validation of grey-box
models, covering the modelling philosophy of white-box
Greek letters
^s
m experimental mean
n ripeness parameter
r density (kg m3)
F vector of parameters optimized in order to min-
imise the square norm of the difference be-
tween qa,m and qa values
q temperature (  C)
^
q corrected temperature (  C)
j residual (  C)
Subscripts
a apple
i ith measurement
m measured
w water
and black-box models, the integration of these into grey-
box models, the characteristics of the data required to build
such models and the validation methodologies and metrics
available to assess their accuracy. We also aim to provide
a philosophical framework which readers of this special edi-
tion of the International Journal of Refrigeration can use to
identify modelling approaches, merits and opportunities for
improvement of the models reviewed in this issue, by apply-
ing the concepts hereby described.
2. Modelling philosophy
2.1. The ‘‘white-box’’ approach
This approach is also known as ‘‘mechanistic’’, ‘‘hypo-
thetico-deductive’’, ‘‘phenomenological’’, ‘‘first principle’’
or ‘‘state-space’’ modelling. It is based on prior knowledge
of the modelled phenomena and the existence of universal
equations that can be applied to build the model.
White-box (WB) models are based on the conservation of
energy, mass and momentum. Mathematical expressions of
these conservation principles are derived by considering rates
of heat and mass transfer and rates of chemical or biochemical
reactions for the system investigated. The universal character
of these mathematical relationships is generally accepted;
however, the range of applicability of some widely used ‘‘first
principles’’ is debated in some scientific circles. For example,
Fourier’s equation of heat conduction was developed by
Joseph Fourier in 1807 to explain his experimental observa-
tions on heat transfer. The well-known one-dimensional
expression of Fourier’s law is:
dq
q ¼ kA ð1Þ
dx
Even though Eq. (1) is extensively used to model heat
transfer in solids, some authors question its phenomenological
 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946
validity and suggest that heat conduction depends on micro-
scopic parameters not included in Fourier’s law [3]. In 1855,
Adolph Fick used Fourier’s model to explain the relationship
between the rate at which a substance travels through a me-
dium and the concentration gradient of that substance [4].
Fick’s law adequately models the behaviour of homoge-
neous systems isolated from external forces (e.g. pressure).
However, it is less accurate in modelling heterogeneous sys-
tems [5]. Both Fourier’s and Fick’s equations are regarded as
‘‘first principles’’ and are commonly used to model heat and
moisture transfer during the cooling of foods. Even though
the origin of both the models was empirical, these relation-
ships are now viewed as ‘fundamental’.
The WB models commonly applied to refrigeration sys-
tems and processes are often written as differential equations.
In particular cases, these differential equations yield an ana-
lytical solution. In cases where the differential equations do
not yield an analytical solution, numerical procedures are
needed to attain a model solution. Fig. 1 illustrates the devel-
opment processes and data requirements of WB models.
2.2. The ‘‘black-box’’ approach
This approach is also known as ‘‘empirical’’, inductive or
‘‘input/output’’ modelling [6]. A black-box (BB) model
Fig. 1. Flow diagram illustrating the development processes and data requirements of ‘‘white-box’’ sub-models, ‘‘black-box’’ sub-models and
‘‘grey-box’’ models.
933
need not be based on any fundamental or theoretical consid-
erations. This approach is therefore useful when the mecha-
nisms underlying a system’s behaviour are unknown or
poorly understood, or when known mechanisms are too
complex to model efficiently from first principles. Examples
of BB models include multiple regression models or neural
network models, which require no theoretical basis at all.
To derive a BB model, the modeller must decide on the
most appropriate form of the mathematical relationship be-
tween the dependent and independent variables (e.g. linear
versus non-linear), and on which independent variables
should be included in the model. Experimental design for
the development of BB models is discussed further in
Sect. 6. Fig. 1 illustrates the development processes and
data requirements of BB models.
2.3. The ‘‘grey-box’’ approach
This approach is also known as ‘‘semi-physical’’ or ‘‘hy-
brid’’ modelling. It combines the characteristics of WB and
BB modelling by encompassing first-principle equations to
model the well-known processes occurring in the system,
and equations developed from statistical techniques and ex-
perimental data to model lesser-understood relationships or
to improve model efficiency.
934 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946
Often, the relationship chosen to model a process or sys-
tem may have some basis in theory, and may be considered
semi-empirical, rather than purely empirical. For example,
in cooling scenarios where turbulent flow predominates,
the random variations in the flow and temperature pattern
need to be smoothed. To achieve this, empirical equations
and coefficients are introduced, thus distancing the model
obtained in this manner from fundamental mechanical prin-
ciples. The empirical coefficients are specific to each flow
situation and the accuracy cannot be guaranteed when these
are used in other scenarios [7].
Table 1 summarises the characteristic advantages and
disadvantages of pure WB and BB models. Grey-box (GB)
modelling presents advantages over pure WB or BB model-
ling for many applications, as the judicious selection of WB
and BB models allows the maximum benefit to be obtained
from the respective advantages of each. For example, in
modelling the shelf life of chilled products, Geeraerd et al.
[8] combined a dynamic WB model for bacterial growth
with artificial neural networks developed using BB tech-
niques. The resulting GB model was found to be accurate
and helpful in situations where experimental data were
scarce. A GB modelling approach was also described by
van Lith [9] in relation to the development of ‘‘hybrid
fuzzy-first principles’’ models that combined first-principle
equations, stochastic techniques and knowledge-based sys-
tems (e.g. heuristic rules). Other examples of modelling ap-
plications that have benefited from a GB approach are the
modelling of energy and mass transfer in imperfectly mixed
fluids [10] and the control of heat transfer equipment and
modelling of kinetic phenomena [11].
The GB modelling process is a combination of scientific
deductive and inductive methodologies [12, 13]. Refrigera-
tion system models typically include algebraic or differen-
tial equations to solve the governing energy, mass or
momentum equations, together with correlations fitted to
experimental data to predict parameters describing trans-
port phenomena (e.g. heat transfer coefficients), quality
Table 1
Advantages and disadvantages of pure WB and BB modelling approaches
Modelling Advantages
approach
White-box  based on fundamental theoretical principles
 applicable over any range of conditions for which
the model’s assumptions hold
Black-box  understanding of underlying mechanisms not
essential
 data requirements can be kept to a minimum
 model form and solution often simple
 can include uncertainty effect into the model
indicators (e.g. microbiological growth in foods), reaction
rates (e.g. produce respiration) or any other parameter re-
quired in a particular modelling scenario. A balance between
WB and BB characteristics must be achieved to ensure that
the resulting GB model maintains the required levels of
applicability and simplicity.
3. Data requirements
Fig. 1 illustrates the data requirements for the develop-
ment, validation and application of WB, BB and GB models.
The characteristics of the four types of data required are
described below.
3.1. Input data
Table 2 lists examples of the input data typically required
for WB sub-models of refrigeration systems or processes.
Input data encompass the ‘constants’, coefficients and fac-
tors that define the system being studied. Ideally, these
data should be determined independently of the model itself.
An example that illustrates this fundamental aspect of WB
models is the simple case of cooling the contents of a stirred
tank, illustrated in Fig. 2. The basic equations for heat trans-
fer between the cooling coil and the tank contents are simple
to formulate. The initial temperature of the fluid in the tank
and the temperatures of the cooling medium can be mea-
sured independently, thermal properties of the fluid in the
tank may be available from handbooks, coil surface area
can be calculated from the dimensions of the coil, and
heat transfer coefficients can be estimated from handbooks
or correlations. With these input data, the model can be
solved and used to make predictions without the modeller
ever having conducted experiments to measure how quickly
the contents of the tank are cooled under various conditions.
Particular aspects of the measured and published data
that can be used as input data are discussed in Sect. 4. Model
input data, whether measured experimentally by the
Disadvantages
 restricted by the degree of understanding of fundamental
principles
 generally requires simplifying assumptions
 data requirements often large
 mathematical solution methods often complex
 not capable of including the uncertainties into the model
 applicability restricted to range of conditions covered by
experimental data
 experimental design has large influence on accuracy of
parameter estimates
 model fitting procedures may be complex
 do not take advantage of previous knowledge in the area
 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946
Table 2
Typical input data required for refrigeration system or process
models
Data required to model rates of heat and mass transfer in
refrigerated products, packaging materials or materials of
construction:
heat transfer area and/or critical dimension
density (or mass and volume)
heat capacity
enthalpy
thermal conductivity
phase change temperature
mass diffusivity
permeability
solubility
porosity (related to density and heat transfer coefficients)
surface heat and mass transfer coefficients
aging coefficients (in the case of insulation materials)
initial value of independent variable (e.g. temperature,
moisture content, gas concentration)
Data required to model rates of chemical reaction:
reaction rate constants
equilibrium constants
inhibition constants
heats of reaction
activation energies
Data required to model the performance of refrigeration systems:
thermodynamic properties of refrigerants (phase change
temperature, vapour pressure, enthalpy, entropy, specific
volume)
compressor volumetric and isentropic efficiencies
motor efficiencies
heat transfer ratings for evaporators and condensers
pump and valve performance characteristics
friction factors
modeller or derived from handbooks or other published
works, are invariably subjected to uncertainty. The effect
of this uncertainty on the accuracy of model predictions de-
pends both on the magnitude of the uncertainty and on the
sensitivity of the model to variations in a given input param-
eter. The process of analysing the effect of data uncertainties
on model predictions is referred to as ‘sensitivity analysis’,
discussed in Sect. 8 of this paper.
3.2. Parameter data
In the development of BB models, model parameters and
the ‘‘goodness of fit’’ of the model to the experimentally ob-
served behaviour are established through numerical routines
that seek to minimise the variation between an assumed
model and the experimental data describing the behaviour
of the system modelled. BB modelling techniques range
from simple linear or non-linear regression through to so-
phisticated concepts such as neural networks.
In the development of BB models, the nature and levels
of the independent variables for which measurements of
935
the dependent variable(s) are made significantly influence
the model fitting procedure. Appropriate experimental de-
sign is crucial to the economical collection of data that
will allow identification of the significant variables and en-
sure a robust fitting procedure.
3.3. Verification data
Verification is the process that ensures the accuracy of
a model’s mathematical solution. Both WB and GB models
encompass ordinary or partial differential equations that
may be solved analytically or numerically. Numerical solu-
tion methods are implemented in custom-written computer
programs or, as is now most often the case, commercial
simulation software. Verifying the solution of WB models
or sub-models usually involves comparing model outputs to
verification data generated by analytical solutions or existing,
independently verified numerical solutions. It is important
that the verification data are known to be accurate. However,
it is unlikely that the modeller will find a full analytical solu-
tion for complex models. In this case, verification of the
mathematical solution is performed in a piece-wise fashion
by isolating particular routines that can be simplified enough
to allow comparison with analytical solutions (e.g. by setting
selected input data to limiting conditions).
3.4. Validation data
Most mathematical models are based on various assump-
tions made to simplify the formulation or facilitate the math-
ematical solution of the model. Part of the skill of the
modeller is in judging which assumptions can and should
be made, bearing in mind that each assumption will affect
how closely the model represents the actual physical situa-
tion and therefore the model’s prediction accuracy.
Model validation is the substantiation that a model is ac-
curate within the domain of its intended application. The ac-
curacy of a mathematical model can be interpreted as the
closeness of agreement between the model’s predictions
and the behaviour of the real system as represented by the
experimental data against which the model response is com-
pared [14]. The quality of the experimental data used as
a benchmark to assess the validity of the model is therefore
crucial in ensuring a robust validation process. Model vali-
dation may also be carried out by comparing a model’s pre-
dictions with those of an independent, previously validated
model, either as the sole means of validation or in combina-
tion with validation against experimental data. In this case,
the accuracy of the previously validated model and its range
of applicability should be well established to ensure that the
‘reference’ model provides a valid benchmark.
It is often thought that parameter estimation and the pro-
cess of model validation (i.e. establishing ‘goodness of fit’)
are simultaneous and inseparable in BB models. In fact,
validation of BB models (particularly those with time-
dependent variables) can be undertaken via concurrent,
936 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946

Input data:
- specific heat capacity of liquid in tank, ctank (J kg-1K-1)
- specific heat capacity of cooling water, cw (J kg-1K-1)
- mass flowrate of cooling water, mw (kg s-1)
- mass of liquid in tank, Mtank (kg)
Mtank - overall heat transfer coefficient of cooling coil, (UA)coil (W K-1)
ctank
- cooling water inlet temperature, in (°C)

Variables:
(UA)coil qcoil cooling water out -time (independent), t (s)
-tank temperature (dependent), tank (°C)
mw cw -coil heat flow (algebraic), qcoil (W)
cooling water in -cooling water outlet temperature (algebraic), out (°C)

Assumptions:
Model: -perfect mixing (uniform tank temperature)
-no heat transfer through tank walls
⎡ d tank ⎤
(Mc)tank
-tank walls have negligible heat capacity
⎢ dt ⎥ = − qcoil -constant cooling water inlet temperature
⎣ ⎦ -mass of liquid in tank is constant
-constant thermal properties
−
qcoil = (UA)coil out in

⎛ − ⎞
ln ⎜⎜ tank in
⎟⎟
⎝ tank − out ⎠

qcoil = mw cw ( out − in)

Fig. 2. Example of a ‘‘white-box’’ modelling approach for a stirred cooling tank.

forecast and backcast validity tests [15]. The data used to es-
timate the model parameters should not be used for valida-
tion purposes, as the results of such a validation may
misrepresent the actual effectiveness of the model.
Specific validation methodologies are discussed in Sect.
8 of this paper.
4. Data acquisition
The selection of the most appropriate sources of data for
model development and validation will depend on the fol-
lowing considerations:
(1) The expense of data collection and the availability of
measurement equipment and methods. Where expense
or lack of suitable measurement equipment precludes
the independent measurement of certain data, pub-
lished or unpublished data sources must be relied
upon, or model fitting procedures applied.
(2) The purpose of the model. Most refrigeration models
are developed to meet some defined end application,
whether this is process understanding, preliminary
process design, detailed equipment design or process
control. The desired end application will influence
the modeller’s choice of data source. ‘Typical’ data
taken from published or unpublished sources are often
sufficient for developing a model that will be used to
analyse general patterns of behaviour or facilitate the
preliminary design of a process or system. However,
models intended for detailed design work or process
control applications must be based on, and tested
against, accurate data specific to the modelled system.
Such data can often be obtained only by way of inde-
pendent experimental measurement.
(3) The sensitivity of the model to variations in the input
data. Input variables that have a large influence on the
model’s predictions must be accurately specified if the
model is to be reliably validated and applied. Accord-
ingly, experimental effort in the collection of input
data should focus on accurate measurements of the
most influential input variables.
The characteristics of various sources of data for model
development are outlined below.
4.1. Independent experimental measurement
This is the most reliable means of collecting data specific
to a particular model. The main barrier to the collection of
independent experimental data is the expense incurred in
terms of time, materials and equipment. Some data (e.g.
mass, volume, temperature, pressure, humidity) can be mea-
sured directly using modestly priced equipment that is
widely available in most fields of scientific or engineering
research. However, measurements of data such as thermal
properties, thermodynamic properties, respiration rates and
 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946
growth rates may require expensive, specialised equipment
and considerable experimental effort.
General precepts of good practice for experimental de-
sign and measurement are covered in numerous texts
[14,16,17]. BB models are generally derived from a single
dataset, generated by either a single series of trials or by
combining data from a number of sources. In contrast, WB
and GB models may be developed from a number of inde-
pendent datasets collected to estimate the various input
data and to validate the model predictions. The number of
datasets involved may therefore be as great as the number
of input variables required by the model plus the validation
dataset.
In reality, the input variables of many WB and GB models
may be difficult or expensive to measure independently, and
in such cases the modeller may resort to model fitting (often
referred to as ‘model calibration’) to derive an unknown input
variable. A disadvantage of this strategy is that any prediction
error caused by shortcomings in the model becomes con-
founded with experimental errors from all sources, with the
combined error being lumped into the estimate of the ‘fitted’
input variable. However, there are alternatives: fitting input
data that cannot be independently measured by using a simpli-
fied form of the model or using only a subset or selected range
of the available experimental data are both options. For ex-
ample, in studies on the prediction of freezing times in solids,
Cleland and Earle [18, 19] estimated surface heat transfer co-
efficients from the precooling phase of experimental freezing
trials (i.e. the cooling that occurs before any phase change is
initiated) by fitting analytical solutions for the cooling of
infinite cylinders, spheres and rectangular blocks to the pre-
cooling temperatureetime data. The heat transfer coeffi-
cients thus ‘fitted’ to the precooling data were then used to
validate freezing time prediction methods against experime-
ntal freezing times determined from the full temperaturee
time histories. Similarly, Cleland et al. [20] and Lin et al.
[21] estimated surface heat transfer coefficients in air and liq-
uid immersion systems by fitting analytical solutions for the
cooling of an infinite slab, an infinite cylinder or a sphere to
experimental cooling data for these shapes. The heat transfer
coefficients measured in this way were then applied to
models of heat transfer in irregularly shaped solids. Other ap-
proaches that provide further guidance on the development of
BB models are discussed in Sect. 6.
4.2. Published scientific and technical literature
The technical and scientific literature contains a wealth
of journal articles, technical reports, trade literature and ref-
erence books that provide detailed reports on data measured
in a single study, or reviews and compilations of data from
numerous studies. Tables 3 and 4 summarise some of these
sources, but the lists presented are by no means exhaustive.
Scientific and technical literature is a common source of
input data for WB models and can also be a source of vali-
dation data and of BB sub-models that can be easily
937
implemented for a variety of modelling applications
[22e24].
The use of published data for model development or val-
idation affords the following advantages:
(a) Literature sources are searchable and easily accessible,
usually at low cost.
(b) Published data have normally been reviewed and cri-
tiqued by respected experts in a relevant field of study.
(c) Basic data (e.g. thermal properties of well-known
materials such as water or air) published in reference
books are generally accurate and reliable. This type
of information is often required as input data.
(d) Details of, or references to, the methods and conditions
of data collection are normally given with the data.
The main disadvantages of using published data for
model development or validation are:
(a) The conditions under which the data were collected
are often restricted to a given system or process; the
modeller must therefore judge to what extent the
data are transferable to the particular system or process
being modelled.
(b) The data are often presented in a summarised format
that cannot be easily manipulated for numerical analy-
ses (e.g. plots, figures). Extra effort must be invested in
digitising some formats to allow the data to be com-
bined with other datasets.
(c) In serial handbooks or similar reference materials, ob-
solete or erroneous data tend to propagate from older
to newer editions.
(d) Documentation about materials and methods may be
missing, thus increasing the difficulty of assessing the
quality of the data and their usefulness in the required
modelling scenario. The missing information could be
caused by negligence during data collection or inability
to measure all the relevant parameters at the time (e.g.
older datasets on heat and mass transfer coefficients in
air chilling usually ignore the influence of turbulence).
4.3. Unpublished records
In the context of this paper, the term ‘unpublished re-
cords’ refers to any unpublished experimental or ‘real world’
data available to the modeller from independent sources. In-
dustrial records in the form of hand-written or electronic
logs are a common example. The main distinction between
data from unpublished and published sources is that unpub-
lished data have not been subjected to peer or editorial re-
view. This can exacerbate the problems of ascertaining the
accuracy and reliability of the data. Common shortcomings
of data from unpublished records are:
(a) Poorly controlled or unspecified experimental
conditions.
938 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946

Table 3
Some examples of scientific and technical journals and web sites as sources for input data, model development and data for validation of models

Type Title
Journal Published by Elsevier Science Ltd:
 The International Journal of Refrigeration
 International Journal of Food Microbiology
 International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer
 Journal of Food Engineering
 Mathematics and Computers in Simulation
 Journal of Food Engineering
 LWT e Food Science and Technology
 Food Research International
 Biosystems Engineering
 International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer
 Innovative Food Science and Emerging technologies
 Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research
 International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow
 Journal of Food Composition and Analysis
Other publishers:
 Journal of Food Process Engineering (Blackwell Publishing)
 International Journal of Food Science and Technology (Blackwell Publishing)
 Journal of Food Quality (Blackwell Publishing)
 HVAC&R Research (ASHRAE)
 Experimental Heat Transfer (Taylor & Francis Group)
 Journal of Heat Transfer (ASME)
 Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control (ASME)
 Journal of Food Science (IFT)
 Transactions of the ASAE (International Journal of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers)
 Polymer Engineering and Science (Wiley Interscience)
 International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering(Wiley Interscience)
Web sites  FRIDOC (http://www.iifiir.org/1enfridoc.php). IIR’s multidisciplinary database, covering most of the scientific and
technical literature in the refrigeration field
 USDA (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/). Substantial information on compositions of foods and nutrient database
 USDA (http://www.nal.usda.gov/ref/USDApubs/aghandbk.htm). Page containing an index of all the USDA
agricultural handbooks, with links re-directing to specific online versions
 FDA (http://www.foodrisk.org/ColdFusion/Temperature/). Temperature data collected from 900 shoppers transporting
products from a retail store to their homes (USA)

(b) Unspecified experimental equipment and methods.
(c) Non-standard or unspecified units of measure.
(d) Unspecified calibration of measurement equipment.
(e) Unexplained missing data.
(f) Restricted accessibility imposed by confidentiality or
commercial sensitivity.
The above notwithstanding, unpublished records can
provide a valuable source of data for the development and
testing of BB models or the validation of WB and GB
models. Unspecified details of experimental equipment,
methods and conditions can often be traced if the originators
of the data can be identified and contacted.
5. Sources of error
Four main types of error can arise during the model de-
velopment process:
(1) Experimental measurement errors. These include pre-
cision or random errors (due to sampling variability,
time variability, spatial variability, and variability in
materials or equipment), systematic or bias errors
(due to equipment calibration or measurement
methods) and gross errors or outliers (due to unex-
plained perturbations during the measurement pro-
cess). It should be noted that correlated bias errors
are commonly found in thermal sciences [25]. For ex-
ample, a single moving probe may be used to measure
various temperatures at different positions in a flow
field. In this case, the bias errors in the temperatures
measured at different positions will not be independent
of one another. The same situation applies when in-
struments have been calibrated against the same stan-
dard: a component of the bias error arising from the
calibration will be the same for each sensor and
some bias error contributions in the measurement of
the temperature-related variables will be correlated.
 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946
Table 4
Some examples of scientific and technical books, handbooks and en-
cyclopaedias as sources for input data, model development and data
for validation of models
Type Title
Books  Engineering Properties of Foods [52]
 Food Refrigeration Processes: Analysis, De-
sign and Simulation [53]
 Applied Numerical Methods for Food and
Agricultural Engineers [54]
 Physical Properties of Food [55]
 Food Properties and Computer Aided Engi-
neering of Food Processing Systems [56]
 Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow [57]
 The Nature of Mathematical Modelling [58]
Handbooks  ASHRAE Handbooks: Fundamentals, HVAC
Systems and Equipment, HVAC Applications
and Refrigeration [59, 60, 61, 62]
 The AIRAH Handbook [63]
 Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook [64]
 Industrial Refrigeration Handbook [65]
 Handbook of Food Processing Equipment
[66]
 Handbook of Food Engineering Practice [67]
 Food Properties Handbook [68]
 ASM Handbook Volume 20: Materials Selec-
tion and Design [69]
Encyclopaedias  Encyclopaedia of Food Science and Technol-
ogy [70]
 Encyclopaedia of Food Science, Food Tech-
nology and Nutrition [71]
 The Encyclopaedia of Agricultural, Food and
Biological Engineering [72]
(2) Input data errors unrelated to experimental measure-
ment error. These arise from the use of inappropriate
or unrepresentative data sources to estimate values
for model inputs (e.g. thermal properties, heat and
mass transfer coefficients, initial values of variables).
(3) Solution and verification errors. These include ‘unac-
knowledged’ errors (e.g. programming blunders, com-
piler errors) and ‘acknowledged’ errors (e.g. limits in
the finite precision arithmetic of a computer, trunca-
tion errors, discretisation errors) [13].
(4) Model errors. These include errors arising from the use
of simplifying assumptions (e.g. constant environmen-
tal conditions, constant and uniform heat and mass
transfer coefficients, constant and uniform thermal
properties), erroneous selection of the equations mod-
elling underlying principles for WB models (e.g. the
use of Fick’s law to solve a system that is better repre-
sented by the Fokker-Planck equation [4]), or inappro-
priate model selection for BB models (e.g. fitting
a linear model to data exhibiting non-linear behaviour).
Complete elimination of all the errors is an unattainable
ideal. However, successful model development requires that
939
errors from each of the above sources be identified and
minimised.
6. Development of white-box and black-box
sub-models
6.1. White-box models
In WB models, the key stages of model development are
the conceptual and mathematical translation of the physical
phenomena. Subsequent steps such as implementation, ver-
ification, validation and model application, are also under-
taken in BB models. During the conceptualisation stage
(or ‘formulation’ stage, as identified in Fig. 1), the modeller
constructs the assumptions that simplify the physical phe-
nomena in such a way that the complexity of the model is
decreased, but not its desired usefulness or accuracy. The as-
sumptions made will often determine the balance between
the following model characteristics:
 selection of domain (e.g. refrigeration plant compo-
nent, coolroom, product),
 steady-state or dynamic (i.e. time dependency of the
variables),
 one-dimensional, two-dimensional or three-dimensional
(i.e. spatial dependency of the variables),
 mass, momentum and/or energy balances,
 hydrodynamic or thermodynamic (i.e. balance be-
tween fluid and solid heat transfer; the latter is also
known as ‘thermal object’ modelling),
 ‘‘lumped’’ or distributed (i.e. the discretisation of the
selected domains),
 temperature-dependence of secondary variables (e.g.
thermal conductivity, heat transfer coefficient, vapour
pressure).
The choice of the mathematical form and solution of the
governing equations is significantly simplified once the body
of assumptions has been carefully selected. No rules of
thumb are available in the selection of the modelling as-
sumptions: each modelling scenario will be different and
the modeller’s experience and judgement will determine
the success of the assumptions made. Refs. [52], [55] and
[57] in Table 4 cover in detail the modelling process of
WB models.
6.2. Black-box models
When prior knowledge about the modelled phenomena is
unavailable, the role of statistics stretches beyond the task of
parameter estimation solely. In BB model building, it is of ut-
most importance to investigate the nature of the acquired de-
pendent and independent variables. Key issues that need to be
addressed are the distribution of the dependent and indepen-
dent variables, the relationship between these variables and
940 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946
the possible interdependence of measurements (for example,
when repeatedly sampling the same object).
6.2.1. Distribution of the dependent (response) and
independent (explanatory) variables
First of all, one has to distinguish between variables that
are measured on a continuous or on a discrete scale. Within
the discrete case, a further subdivision into nominal and or-
dinal variables can be performed. Ordinal variables exhibit
a natural ordering of the different discrete levels (e.g.
good, moderate, bad) whilst for nominal variables such nat-
ural ordering is not present (e.g. red, green and blue). The
most common scenario is a continuous and normally distrib-
uted response variable (e.g. the temperature at the centre of
a fruit) and a continuous explanatory variable (e.g. time). In
such cases, an ordinary regression analysis can be applied. In
other cases, the response variable is discrete, for example,
a binomial response variable such as the presence or absence
of chilling injury (restricted to two different values, ‘yes’ or
‘no’). In this case, ordinary regression analysis does not ap-
ply and a logistic regression procedure is a more appropriate
choice [26, 27].
6.2.2. Parametric formulation of the relationship
between the dependent and independent variables
In the simplest case, the relationship between the depen-
dent variable and the independent variable(s) is linear in its
parameters (e.g. general linear models such as regression
and ANOVA models), or can be linearised by transformation
(e.g. logistic and Poisson regression models) [28]. When the
relationship cannot be written as a linear function with re-
spect to its parameters, a nonlinear statistical model must
be applied [29]. An example of a nonlinear model is the
MichaeliseMenten equation.
Because the parametric formulation of a BB model must
be assessed in a purely data-driven manner, an objective
measure of the goodness of fit of a chosen parametric formu-
lation is crucial. Lack of fit implies that the predictive capa-
bility of the model is not statistically correct. The lack of fit
can be assessed by graphical procedures or statistical tests
such as the general linear test [28,29]. Different types of
plots of the residuals from a fitted model provide useful in-
formation on the adequacy of different aspects of the model.
Scatter plots of the residuals versus the predictor variables in
the model or versus potential predictors that are not included
in the model are the primary plots used to assess sufficiency
of the functional part of the model. Plots in which the resid-
uals do not exhibit any systematic pattern indicate that the
model fits the data well. Residual plots that exhibit a system-
atic structure indicate that the parametric formulation of the
model function can be improved. Residual plots can also be
used to detect data that presents non-constant variance of the
residuals (heteroscedasticity). A common example of this
type of data is the non-destructive measurement of firmness
used to monitor the quality change of fruit by means of
acoustics sensors [30,31], which will be discussed in the
next section.
6.2.3. Interdependence of measurements
In classical statistics such as linear and nonlinear regres-
sion analysis, one of the assumptions is that all measurements
are taken independently. However, in some experimental
situations this is not the case, and the development of the
BB model must account for the interdependence between
measurements. Lack of knowledge of the presence of covari-
ance does not affect the point estimates of the parameters, but
has a serious effect on their standard errors and hence on
inferences drawn from the study. When one is confronted
with repeated measures, common approaches such as the
ordinary least squares regression model are not effective
and the framework of mixed effect models offers a versatile
tool for analysing the data [30,31]. Mixed models allow the
detection of subject-specific effects above population-
specific effects. Nonlinear mixed effect models have been
used as a tool to identify and quantify different sources of var-
iance (e.g. measurement errors and biological variance) on
physiological changes (e.g. firmness) and sensory character-
istics of fruit [31,32]. Subject-specific regression parameters
reflect the natural heterogeneity in the population and can
also be interpreted as the deviation of the evolution of a spe-
cific subject from the overall population. A subject-specific
time trend allows the variance of the data to change with
time, which is a realistic issue in many quality-modelling
scenarios.
7. Integration of white-box and black-box models
The combination of WB and BB models can be per-
formed in either serial or parallel arrangements, as illus-
trated in Fig. 3. The differences between the two serial
approaches can be better identified by applying both con-
cepts in one hypothetical scenario: the cooling of an apple.
The temperature of the apple (qa) is modelled using the
well-known Fourier’s law for one-dimensional heat conduc-
tion in spherical shapes (WB sub-model) and an empirical
equation is used to model the thermal conductivity of the
apple (ka).
 Serial approach I (Fig. 3a): In this approach, the use of
a BB sub-model precedes the use of the WB sub-
model. An example of this strategy is the development
of a BB module that relates ka with respect to its com-
position (e.g. water content). It is also assumed that ka
is independent of qa. This sub-model is fed with oper-
ating data used to estimate parameters that are then
provided to the WB model. In this case, the only rela-
tionship between ka and qa is the fact that ka is needed
as an input to the WB model. This approach is often
used during the development of hybrid neural net-
works for biochemical processes.
 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946
Fig. 3. Basic grey-box modelling structures considered in the literature.
 Serial approach II (Fig. 3b): In this approach, the use
of the WB sub-model precedes the use of the BB
sub-model. The aim is to obtain a correlation between
a WB parameter and a second parameter not included
in the WB model. For example, in the previous serial
approach, ka is a BB parameter that depends on the ap-
ple water content. If we accept that the water content is
a function of the physiology of the fruit, it follows that
ka must relate to the fruit ripeness (na). The parameter
na can be represented by an arbitrary metric (e.g. firm-
ness, colour, acidity, sugar content or a combination of
these factors). The serial approach II would initiate
with the estimation of thermal conductivity for every
individual fruit, using the WB module. The resulting
values would then be regressed against na and a BB
sub-model relating ka and na would be obtained. An-
other field of study that offers examples of this
approach is the predictive microbiology modelling,
where well-known microbial growth curves (e.g. Bar-
anyi models) are available as primary models, and
where the influence of factors such as temperature,
941
salt concentration or pH is accounted for by secondary
models [33].
The serial approach is widely used to build refrigeration
models, but it has a disadvantage: the uncertainty in the in-
dividually estimated input variable is not carried through
to the second stage. This loss of information results in less
accurate estimates of the regression parameters. An alterna-
tive, parallel modelling approach (Fig. 3c) offers a solution
to this problem. Parallel structures generally involve a WB
module and a BB module, both being fed with the same
data simultaneously. While the WB module estimates the
system behaviour based on first principles, the BB compo-
nent aims to forecast the corrections (‘‘residuals’’) that
have to be added to the WB model predictions to obtain
the ‘‘true’’ process behaviour. Therefore, the non-parametric
models are used to estimate the difference (offset) between
the mechanistic model predictions and the corresponding op-
erational data. Duarte et al. [34] present a detailed explana-
tion and a comparison of three parallel GB modelling
approaches.
942 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946
In the apple-cooling example, it may be that the exact re-
lationship between apple ripeness and the corresponding
thermal conductivity is not of interest to the modeller. In
this case, apple-to-apple variation in thermal conductivity
could be accounted for in the model by defining thermal con-
ductivity as a random variable with a mean and variance,
which must then be estimated [31,35]. This approach fits
into the framework of mixed effect models, described in
Sect. 6.2.3. Other examples of the integration of GB models
are often found in published models developed for control
systems applications (e.g. [36,37]). Nicola€ı et al [38] de-
scribed the need to transition from traditional modelling ap-
proaches (e.g. empirical, lumped and distributed systems
approaches) to approaches that take into account the
multi-scalar nature of biological systems during the model-
ling of postharvest systems. For example, a full gas and
moisture transmission model for a horticultural package
may need to consider nanoscale sub-models describing the
water transport between cells (which transients may need
to be predicted in a milliseconds time scale), coupled with
macroscale sub-models describing gas or moisture transfer
within the package (which transients may need to be
predicted in seconds or minutes). Serial or parallel GB mod-
elling could provide an efficient platform to achieve multi-
scale models for refrigeration systems.
8. Validation methodologies
Modellers commonly use the term ‘‘model validation’’ as
a synonym for ‘‘sensitivity analysis’’. In the context of this
paper, these terms will refer to the quantitative estimation
of the model’s validity, within the boundaries of application
established in the model objectives. Clements [39] stated
that model predictions can be used to produce lower and up-
per bounds around the true answer. If the model performs
within the range of acceptability in the most demanding
situation (i.e. worst case analysis), there is little point in
constructing a more accurate model of the subject under in-
vestigation. Kleijnen [40] recommended that a range of
variation in the system parameters, input variables and
relationships between parameters should be investigated
in order to validate the model. The objectivity of this ap-
proach can be increased if a statistical framework is used
in order to investigate a meaningful number of variables
and combinations [41]. This point is further discussed in
Sect. 8.2.
Armstrong [42] provides some useful guidelines for the
evaluation of forecasting methods. He suggests that, ideally,
an assessment of models built with different levels of com-
plexity and approaches should be undertaken, to allow
a comparison between the benefits from improved accuracy
with respect to the modelling costs associated to such im-
provement. However, this is seldom achieved and the second
best approach is to evaluate how well the model predicts the
response when compared to a true response.
Oberkampf and Trucano [13] stated that validation met-
rics should fulfil the following requirements:
(1) A metric should incorporate an estimate of the numer-
ical error in the computational simulation.
(2) A metric should reflect all uncertainties and errors in-
curred in the modelling and simulation process, including
random and correlated bias errors in the experimental
data and the effect of assumptions and approximations.
(3) A metric should depend on the number of experimen-
tal replicates of a given measurement. That is, a metric
should reflect the level of confidence in the experimen-
tal mean, not just the variance or scatter in the data.
These requirements may not be achieved fully in cases
where replicates of the experimental data required for vali-
dation are either not available or expensive to obtain, as dis-
cussed in Sect. 4.
Some of these measures are discussed in this section. The
measures discussed are simple and many of them are intui-
tive, yet these are often ignored in scientific work that de-
scribes the fit between a new model and the real system
modelled.
8.1. Measures used to evaluate the accuracy of models
The following categories are some examples of measures
commonly used to evaluate model accuracy:
8.1.1. Measures related to the physical system
The degree of accuracy of a predicted variable (e.g. heat
flux, absolute temperature, temperature differences, concen-
tration, measures of quality) can be defined as the percentage
error between the predicted (xp) and the experimental (stan-
dard) response (xs) as follows:


xp  xs
%error ¼  100 ð2Þ
xs
The evaluation of dynamic responses may require the
comparison of maximum (peak) conditions, minimum con-
ditions, timing of response or mean magnitudes.
8.1.2. Statistical measures
These are based on statistical definitions such as sample
standard deviation, but statistical measures can also have
a physical meaning of how the model performance deviates
from the experimental response. A commonly used measure
is the mean absolute deviation (MAD), as presented in Eq. (3).
1X n  
xp  xs 
MAD ¼ ð3Þ
n i¼1
Other well-known measures are the mean square error
(MSE) and the square of the correlation coefficient (R2).
Armstrong [42,43] cautions against the use of these two
 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946 943


measures to evaluate model accuracy: in the case of MSE, %tolerance
this measure is very sensitive to non-normal data with out- Upper limit ¼ xs 1 þ ð8Þ
100
liers, which is commonly found in experimental data. With
respect to R2, practices aimed to raise this parameter, such and
as discarding outliers (trimming), aggregating data, replac-


ing extreme values with pre-defined limits (winsorizing) %tolerance
Lower limit ¼ xs 1  ð9Þ
and including many variables in the final equation, are not 100
uncommon.
Other measure is the mean absolute percentage error The percentage accuracy (%accuracy) can be calculated
(MAPE), which is calculated by adding the absolute values as follows:
of the percentage errors and averaging the result. The ‘‘frac-

Number of xp within limits
tional mean-based deviation’’ (SDmean) can be defined as %accuracy ¼ 100 ð10Þ
n
a fraction of the mean experimental response:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi Suggested tolerance bands for refrigeration heat loads
uP n  
u xp  xs 2 range from 1 to 15%. For absolute temperatures or temper-
t
i¼1
ature differences, tolerances may need to be tighter, depend-
SDmean ¼ n1 ð4Þ ing on the temperature range of interest [41].
bs
m Tolerance-related measures are often used in their quali-
The disadvantage of these two measures is that they are tative form, and charts comparing model predictions with
only useful when the metric scale of the data used has respect to experimental measurements are commonly pre-
a meaningful zero. Similar measures that are particularly sented as proof of validation. The use of tolerance bands
useful, when the response follows a semi-sinusoidal shape, as a quantitative tool is discussed in detail by Babuska and
can be derived from this definition, such as ‘‘peak-based’’ Oden [48]. An example of the application of tolerance bands
or ‘‘minimum-based’’ deviations, where xp represents the to assess the accuracy of dynamic heat transfer models
maximum or minimum values predicted during a simulated across one-dimensional walls can be found in [44].
time period [44].
8.2. Design of sensitivity analysis
Amézquita et al. [45] used a ‘‘measure of performance’’
(MP) to evaluate the performance of a dynamic model to
The sensitivity analysis must answer the following
predict growth rates of Clostridium perfringens during cool-
questions:
ing of cooked boneless ham:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uP (a) Taking into account any uncertainties in the experi-
un   2
u log10 xp  log10 ðxs Þ mental data against which validation takes place,
ti¼1
MP ¼ ð5Þ does the model predict system behaviour with the
n accuracy required?
Other well-known measures are the relative error (REL) (b) Is the behaviour of the model affected in the same man-
(Eq. (6)) and Theil’s inequality coefficient (TIC) (Eq. (7)): ner as the real system when parameters are changed?
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
un
 To answer these questions, a rigorous testing procedure
uP xp  xs 2
u needs to be designed. A statistical framework may be
t xs
REL ¼ i¼1 ð6Þ used, for example, the quality engineering methodology pro-
n posed by Taguchi [49] and described by Ross [50] has been
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2
Pn xp  xs used to develop sensitivity analyses of mathematical models
[41]. This approach allows model performance to be quanti-
i¼1 xs
TIC ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð7Þ tatively compared under a variety of scenarios, identifying
Pn Pn
the factors with greatest influence over the accuracy and re-
xp þ
2 xs 2
i¼1 i¼1 sponse of the model. The sensitivity analysis is designed as
a fractional factorial experiment that investigates the effects
Examples of the application of these measures in the val- of selected combinations of variables on the modelled re-
idation of models can be found in [46] and [47]. sponse. These variables may be classified into four types:

8.1.3. Tolerance-related measures
These establish the extent of deviation of predictions be-
yond a tolerance band around a range of the experimental re-
sponse. The tolerance limits can be calculated from the
following expressions:
(1) Non-controllable or ‘noise’ variables. This group com-
prises variables that are out of the control of the mod-
eller, such as random and systematic errors that for any
reason cannot be eliminated during the collection of
experimental data. For example, small variations in
944 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946
the temperature and air velocities within a cold store
are often unavoidable in cooling experiments. Such
variations lead to uncertainty in the model input data.
(2) Design variables, or factors intrinsic to the materials of
the system investigated. These are factors that define
a property of the system or process modelled and
can be controlled by the modeller, for example, the
thickness or the thermal conductivity of a layer of in-
sulation during a simulation of the thermal perfor-
mance of a cold store.
(3) Operational variables. Whereas the design variables of
a real system are fixed once installed, operational vari-
ables can be changed during operation of the system,
for example, the temperature set point of a shipping
container or the air velocity inside a cold store.
(4) Model-related variables. These include the time-step
and the coarseness of space grids used in numerical
solutions, or the number of iterations in an iterative
procedure. Note that model-related variables are inves-
tigated during the sensitivity analysis to fine-tune the
grid selection strategy; large errors arising from nu-
merical approximations should have been eliminated
during the verification of the model.
The modeller may choose to investigate one or more of
these variables, depending on the intended use of the model.
In selecting the variables to be tested, the relevance of each
variable needs to be assessed using sound engineering prin-
ciples and only the most relevant variables need to be inves-
tigated. Two or more levels (low and high values chosen to
cover the range of values likely to be encountered in indus-
trial practice) are set for each variable under investigation.
8.3. Boundaries of accuracy
The model validation process should identify the bound-
aries within which the model can be considered accurate.
However, the accuracy of a model does not necessarily
have to be a fixed value, and accuracy can vary depending
on the measures used for testing the model. Techniques
such as the calculation of confidence intervals and confi-
dence regions can be applied [51]. The range of accuracy
of BB sub-models can be defined by means of univariate
or multivariate statistical techniques. Statistical methodolo-
gies and process capability indices could be applied success-
fully to estimate the accuracy limits of GB models.
9. Final remarks
White-box and black-box models represent two different
modelling philosophies. White-box models are developed
from assumptions and theoretical principles, requiring an
existing understanding of the phenomenon being modelled.
Values of the input data required to solve a white-box model
are independently measured, and the accuracy of the model
(and thus the validity of its assumptions and the underlying
theory) is tested against ‘real world’ measurements of the
modelled phenomenon. In white-box modelling, an under-
standing of the governing processes builds an understanding
of system behaviour. In contrast, black-box models are de-
veloped directly from ‘real world’ data, with the modeller
employing an array of statistical techniques to structure
the data, identify appropriate mathematical models and ob-
tain accurate estimates of the parameters required to fit the
model to the data. In black-box modelling, careful analysis
of real-world data builds an understanding of system
behaviour.
When these two philosophies are combined in grey-
box models, the modeller aims to preserve the benefits
of the fundamental or ‘first-principles’ approach of
white-box models with the databased approach of black-
box models. The modeller must likewise wield the devel-
opment and validation tools of both schools: a critical
evaluation of simplifying assumptions; independent mea-
surement or sourcing of fundamental input data; structured
experimental design to facilitate data analysis and mini-
mise data uncertainties; application of statistical distribu-
tions, models and data fitting techniques; and application
of objective methodologies for validation of the integrated
grey-box model. With respect to the latter point, validation
is essential to ensure a high level of confidence in the pre-
dictions of grey-box models. However, there are few pub-
lished models for refrigeration applications that include
a full validation section, as outlined in this paper. In
some cases, exhaustive validation analyses are not re-
quired (e.g. in the development of simple models that
use well-known equations and theory) and simpler ap-
proaches may be used, for example, visual matching of
predicted and experimental responses. Nevertheless, a thor-
ough validation process performed using a statistically-
based, objective framework of testing is highly desirable
for models that use novel mathematical solutions or theo-
ries, as well as for models that are intended to be applied
in a large variety of modelling scenarios.
In complex modelling efforts, such as those dedicated to
model postharvest systems, grey-box models has been long
used. However, many of these published models are still
classified as ‘fundamental’. Transitioning from empirical,
lumped and distributed systems approaches to approaches
such as parallel and serial hybrid systems may provide an ef-
ficient modelling platform to tackle the multi-scalar nature
of biological systems.
References
[1] K.A. Smith, A.M. Starfield, Building models to solve prob-
lems, in: J.H. Clarke, A.W. Biddle (Eds.), Teaching Critical
Thinking: Reports from Across the Curriculum, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993, pp. 254e263.
[2] F. Neelamkavil, Computer Simulation and Modelling, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1987, pp. 29e39.
 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946
[3] G. Santhosh, D. Kumar, R. Ramaswamy, Thermal transport
in low-dimensional lattices with nearest- and next-nearest-
neighbour coupling, Journal of Statistical Mechanics e
Theory and Experimant 7 (2005) 1e10.
[4] P. Agutter, C.P. Malone, D.N. Wheatley, Diffusion theory in
biology: a relic of mechanistic materialism, Journal of the
History of Biology 33 (2000) 71e111.
[5] B. van Milligen, P.D. Bons, B.A. Carreras, R. Sanchez, On the
applicability of Fick’s law to diffusion in inhomogeneous sys-
tems, European Journal of Physics 26 (2005) 913e925.
[6] J. Carstensen, P. Vanrolleghem, W. Rauch, P. Reichert, Terminol-
ogy and methodology in modelling for water quality manage-
ment e a discussion starter, Water Science and Technology 36
(5) (1997) 157e168.
[7] T. Pham, Calculation of processing time and heat load during
food refrigeration, EcoLibrium (the official journal of
AIRAH) 7 (2002) 22e28.
[8] A.H. Geeraerd, C.H. Herremans, C. Cenens, J.F. Van Impe,
Application of artificial neural networks as a non-linear mod-
ular modeling technique to describe bacterial growth in
chilled food products, International Journal of Food Micro-
biology 44 (1998) 49e68.
[9] P. van Lith, Hybrid fuzzy-first principles modeling, PhD the-
sis, University of Twente, The Netherlands, 2002, 264 pp.
[10] M. De Moor, D. Berckmans, Building a grey box model to
model the energy and mass transfer in an imperfectly mixed
fluid by using experimental data, Mathematics and Computers
in Simulation 42 (1996) 233e244.
[11] S. Bruin, Th.R.G. Jongen, Food process engineering: the last
25 years and challenges ahead, Comprehensive Reviews in
Food Science and Food Safety 2 (2) (2003) 42e81.
[12] K.K. Andersen, Stochastic modelling of energy systems, PhD
thesis, Department of Mathematical Modelling, The Techni-
cal University of Denmark, 2001, 198 pp.
[13] W.L. Oberkampf, T.G. Trucano, Verification and validation in
computational fluid dynamics, Progress in Aerospace Sci-
ences 38 (2002) 209e272.
[14] ISO Metrology Group, Standard 5725-2:1994/Cor1: 2002,
Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods
and Results e Part 1: General Principles and Definitions, ISO,
Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
[15] J.S. Armstrong, Long-range Forecasting: from Crystal Ball to
Computer, second ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY,
USA, 1985, 687 pp.
[16] J.P. Holman, Experimental Methods for Engineers, seventh
ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2000, 720 pp.
[17] B.W. Wojciechowski, N.M. Rice, Experimental Methods in
Kinetic Studies, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 2003, 310 pp.
[18] A.C. Cleland, R.L. Earle, A comparison of methods for pre-
dicting the freezing times of cylindrical and spherical food-
stuffs, Journal of Food Science 44 (1979) 958e963 (970).
[19] A.C. Cleland, R.L. Earle, Prediction of freezing times for
foods in rectangular packages, Journal of Food Science 44
(1979) 964e970.
[20] D.J. Cleland, A.C. Cleland, R.L. Earle, S.J. Byrne, Experimen-
tal data for freezing and thawing of multi-dimensional objects,
International Journal of Refrigeration 10 (1987) 22e31.
[21] Z. Lin, A.C. Cleland, D.J. Cleland, G.F. Serrallach, A simple
method for prediction of chilling times for objects of two-
dimensional irregular shape, International Journal of Refriger-
ation 19 (2) (1996) 95e106.
945
[22] M.L.A.T.M. Hertog, H.W. Peppelenbos, R.G. Evelo,
L.M.M. Tijskens, A dynamic and generic model of gas ex-
change or respiring produce: the effects of oxygen, carbon
dioxide and temperature, Postharvest Biology and Technology
14 (1998) 335e349.
[23] L.M.M. Tijskens, S.A. Barringer, E.S.A. Biekman, Modelling
the effect of pH on the colour degradation of blanched broc-
coli, Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 2
(4) (2001) 315e322.
[24] H.B. Nahor, N. Scheerinck, P. Verboven, J. Van Impe,
B.M. Nicola€ı, Continuous/discrete controlled atmosphere
(CA) cool storage systems: model development and validation
using pilot plant CA cool storage, International Journal of
Refrigeration 27 (8) (2004) 884e894.
[25] H.W. Coleman, W.G. Steele, Experimentation and Uncer-
tainty Analysis for Engineers, second ed. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 1999.
[26] A. Agresti, Categorical Data Analysis, second ed. John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 2002.
[27] J. Lammertyn, M. Aerts, B.E. Verlinden, W. Schotsmans,
B.M. Nicola€ı, Logistic regression analysis of factors influenc-
ing core breakdown in ‘Conference’ pears, Postharvest Biol-
ogy and Technology 20 (2000) 25e37.
[28] J. Neter, M.H. Kutner, C.J. Nachtsheim, W. Wasserman, Ap-
plied Linear Statistical Models, fourth ed. Irwin, Homewood,
IL, 1996, 1400 pp.
[29] P. McCullagh, J.A. Nelder, Generalized Linear Models, sec-
ond ed. Chapman & Hall, London, 1990, 511 pp.
[30] G. Verbeke, G. Molenberghs, Linear Mixed Models for Lon-
gitudinal Data, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000, 554 pp.
[31] B. De Ketelaere, J. Lammertyn, G. Molenberghs, B. Nicola€ı,
J. De Baerdemaeker, Statistical models for analysing repeated
quality measures of horticultural products: model evaluations
and practical example, Mathematical Biosciences 185 (2)
(2003) 169e189.
[32] J. Lammertyn, B. De Ketelaere, D. Marquenie,
G. Molenberghs, B.M. Nicola€ı, Mixed models for multicategor-
ical repeated response: modelling the time effect of physical
treatments on strawberry sepal quality, Postharvest Biology
and Technology 30 (2003) 195e207.
[33] S. Geysen, A.H. Geeraerd, B.E. Verlinden, C.W. Michiels,
J.F. Van Impe, B.M. Nicola€ı, Predictive modelling and valida-
tion of Pseudomonas fluorescens growth at super atmospheric
oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations, Food Microbiol-
ogy 22 (2, 3) (2005) 149e158.
[34] B. Duarte, P.M. Saraiva, C.C. Pantelides, Combined mecha-
nistic and empirical modelling, International Journal of
Chemical Reactor Engineering 2 (A3) (2004) 19.
[35] N. Scheerlinck, A. Peirs, M. Desmet, A. Schenk,
B.M. Nicola€ı, Modelling fruit characteristics during apple
maturation: a stochastic approach, Mathematical and Com-
puter Modelling of Dynamical Systems 10 (2) (2004)
149e168.
[36] L.F.S. Larsen, Model based control of refrigeration systems,
PhD thesis, Department of Control Engineering, Aalborg Uni-
versity, Denmark, 2005, 141 pp.
[37] J. Spänar, P. Wide, B. Sohlberg, Estimation of a non-measurable
variable by using grey box modelling, IEEE Instrumentation
and Measurement 2 (2001) 768e783.
[38] B.M. Nicola€ı, M.L.A.T.M. Hertog, J. Lammertyn,
N. Scheerlinck, E.A. Veraverbeke, P. Verboven, B. Verlinden,
946 S. Estrada-Flores et al. / International Journal of Refrigeration 29 (2006) 931e946
Quality kinetics and modelling, Acta Horticulturae 687 (2004)
23e32.
[39] R. Clements, Mathematical Modelling: A Case-study Ap-
proach, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1989, 176 pp.
[40] J. Kleijnen, Statistical Techniques in Simulation, Marcel
Dekker, New York, 1974, 776 pp.
[41] S. Estrada-Flores, Evaluation of dynamic models for refriger-
ation system components, PhD thesis, Massey University,
New Zealand, 1996, 295 pp.
[42] J.S. Armstrong, Evaluating forecasting methods, in:
J.S. Armstrong (Ed.), Principles of Forecasting e A Hand-
book for Researchers and Practitioners, Kluwer Academic,
Boston, 2001, pp. 443e472.
[43] J.S. Armstrong, F. Collopy, Error measures for generalizing
about forecasting methods: empirical comparisons, Interna-
tional Journal of Forecasting 8 (1992) 69e80.
[44] S. Estrada-Flores, A.C. Cleland, D.J. Cleland, Prediction of
the dynamic thermal behaviour of walls for refrigerated
rooms using lumped and distributed parameter models,
International Journal of Refrigeration 24 (3) (2001)
272e284.
[45] A. Amézquita, C.L. Weller, L. Wang, H. Thippareddi,
D.E. Burson, Development of an integrated model for heat
transfer and dynamic growth of Clostridium perfringens dur-
ing the cooling of cooked boneless ham, International Journal
of Food Microbiology 101 (2) (2005) 123e144.
[46] R. Simpson, C. Cortes, An inverse method to estimate thermo-
physical properties of foods at freezing temperatures: apparent
volumetric specific heat, Journal of Food Engineering 64
(2004) 89e96.
[47] N. Hvala, S. Strmcnik, D. Sel, S. Milanic, B. Banko, Influence
of model validation on proper selection of process models e
an industrial case study, Computers and Chemical Engineer-
ing 29 (2005) 1507e1522.
[48] I. Babuska, J.T. Oden, Verification and validation in computa-
tional engineering and science: basic concepts, Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 193 (2004)
4057e4066.
[49] G. Taguchi, System of experimental design, in: Quality Re-
sources, vol. 2, UNIPUB/Krauss International, White Plains,
New York, 1986, 440 pp.
[50] P.J. Ross, Taguchi Techniques for Quality Engineering: Loss
Function, Orthogonal Experiments, Parameter and Tolerance
Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989, 279 pp.
[51] R. Sargent, Validation and verification of simulation models,
in: Proceedings of the 1998 Winter Simulation Conference,
Washington, D.C., USA, 1998, pp. 121e130.
[52] M.A. Rao, S.S.H. Rizvi, Engineering Properties of Foods,
Marcel Dekker, New York, 1986, 531 pp.
[53] A.C. Cleland, Food Refrigeration Processes: Analysis, Design and
Simulation, Elsevier Applied Science, London, 1986, 284 pp.
[54] P.K. Chandra, R.P. Singh, Applied Numerical Methods for
Food and Agricultural Engineers, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL, 1994, 512 pp.
[55] R. Jowitt (Ed.), Physical Properties of Food, Applied Science
Publishers, London, 1987, 425 pp.
[56] R.P. Singh, A.G. Medina (Eds.), Food Properties and Com-
puter Aided Engineering of Food Processing Systems, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, New York, 1996, 300 pp.
[57] S.V. Patankar, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow,
Hemisphere, New York, 1980, 370 pp.
[58] N. Gershenfeld, The Nature of Mathematical Modelling,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999.
[59] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook: Refrigeration, SI ed. Amer-
ican Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 2002.
[60] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook: HVAC Applications, SI ed.
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Condi-
tioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 2003.
[61] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook: HVAC Systems and Equip-
ment, SI ed. American Society of Heating, Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 2004.
[62] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals, SI ed. Amer-
ican Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 2005.
[63] AIRAH, The AIRAH Handbook, third ed. Australian Institute
of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heating, Melbourne,
Australia, 2000, 1017 pp.
[64] R.H. Perry, D. Green, Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Hand-
book, seventh ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998, 2581 pp.
[65] W.F. Stoecker, Industrial Refrigeration Handbook, McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1998, 722 pp.
[66] G.D. Saravacos, A.E. Kostaropoulos, Handbook of Food Pro-
cessing Equipment, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press Pub-
lishers, New York, 2002, 698 pp.
[67] K.J. Valentas, E. Rotstein, R.P. Singh (Eds.), Handbook of Food
Engineering Practice, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1997, 718 pp.
[68] S. Rahman, Food Properties Handbook, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 1995, 528 pp.
[69] ASM, ASM Handbook Volume 20: Materials Selection and
Design, ASM International, USA, 1997.
[70] Y.M. Hui (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Food Science and Technol-
ogy, second ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2000, 2657 pp.
[71] R. Macrae, R.K. Robinson, M.J. Sadler (Eds.), Encyclopaedia
of Food Science, Food Technology and Nutrition, Academic
Press Limited, London, 1993.
[72] D. Heldman (Ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Agricultural, Food
and Biological Engineering, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2003.