-l

5'
-eo

EnergyUse in HydrocoolingStoneFruit ?6'

F.
g1 d
o:

J. F. Thompson, Y. L. Chen .g E'

MEMBER ASSOC.MEMBER
ASAE ASAE >I
6>
H't
ABSTRACT hydrocooler to reduce energy consumption. This reduces
9) !:.i
energy used to cool water before the start of each day's
Ernergy useper unit of product cooledis reportedfor
L-rtwo commercialhydrocoolers. Energyuse by major
cooling. They also indicate that uninsulated hydrocooler
surfaces result in unnecessary heat gain during
ez
componentsis listed. Heat input measurementsand -z
operation. >H
operational data arc used to evaluatepossibleenergy oe iii
We compare the energy efficiency of four types of
conservationmethodssuch as minimizingexternalheat =z
gain, operating coolers at maximum capacity, coolers, Thompson and Chen (1988). Effrciency of
hydro, vacuum, water spray vacuum, and forced air -z
minimizing water flow, and reducing water reservoir
coolersare listed in terms of an energycoefficient, which ri,>
capacity. .;A
is defined as the total product cooling done divided by 3''E
INTRODUCTION the electricity purchased to operate the cooler. The oo
vacuum coolers,for which we have data, have anavetage !c
Hydrocoolingis a commonmethodof rapidlybringing -S
fruits and vegetables to recommended storage energy coefficient of 1.8, with a range of 2.4 to 1.4. Ln
temperatures.Stonefruit (peaches,plums, nectarines, average hydrocooler is slightly less efficient, having an k|a
and cherries),asparagus,sweetcorn, celery,radishes, energy coefficient of 1.4. However, the energycoefficient +<
and carrotsare often hydrocooled. data for hydrocoolers have a range of 2.2 to 0.7
E;
Hydrocoolinguses chilled water to cool perishable indicating that a well designedand operated hydrocooler €z
commodities. Water is distributedoverthe top surfaceof can be more efficient than the averagevacuum cooler. @'
(^A
fruit or vegetables which are packedin boxesor pallet This range also indicates that there is significant o€
bins. Mitchell et al. (1972)indicatethat there is little opportunity to improve the efficiency of some of the (ni6

differencein cooling times when water flow rates of 7 coolers in use. However, none of the previous work ra&
L/m2-s(0.17 gal/ft2-s) or 10 L/m2-s(0.25gal/ft2-s)are provides a detailed energyanalysisof hydrocoolerswith a >(;
{
used on a singlebin of peaches.Water flow rates are breakdown of the heat inputs to the coolers. f.,
listed in terms of watervolumeper time dividedby the The goals of our study are to 1) verify the hydrocooler
@

area of the water distribution pan. Zahradnik and energy use and the energy efficiency data presented by
Reinhatt(1972)showthat thereis onlya20Yoincreasein others, 2) determine the source and magnitude of heat
the effectiveheat transfer coefficient when water flow input to typical hydrocoolers, and 3) suggest possible
rates are increasedfrom 5.3 L/mz-s (0.13 gallft2-s)to energy conservationmeasures.
20.7 L/m2-s(0.51gallft2-s)for apples.They conclude
that heatflow resistancewithin the fruit limits coolingat PROCEDURE
waterflow ratesabove5.3 L/mz-s(0.13gallft2-s). We accomplish thesegoals by testing two hydrocoolers
Someof the earliestwork on hydrocoolingincludes that each have a refrigeration sourcethat is independent
somedata on energyusecharacteristicsof hydrocoolers. of any other refrigeration loads. Figures I and 2 are
Guillou (1958)indicatesthat 55% of the refrigeration diagrams of the hydrocoolersand Table 1 is a listing of
capacity(ice is usedfor refrigerationin this research)is the design featuresfor each. The product cooled is either
used for cooling product when the cooler operatesin a peachesor plums in pallet bins or a combination of bins
continuousfashion.Intermittent operationcausesonly of each fruit.
23% of the ice to be usedfor coolingfruit. He mentions Energy use and energy efficiency are determined by
poor insulation,openhandlingof iceand inabilityto use measuring total electricity consumption and heat
the coolingcapacityof ice left in the coolerat day'send removed during product cooling. The energy flows used
as reasonsfor poor efficiency.Perryand Perkins(1968) in calculations are shown in Fig. 3. Energy use is
recommendreducingthe volumeof water containedin a expressedin kJ of electricity consumedper kg of product
cooled. The energy efficiency is expressedas an energy
coefficient (EC), and defined as
Article was submittedfor publication in March 1989;reviewedand
approvedfor publicationby the Food and ProcessEngineeringDiv. of
ASAE in July 1989.Presentedas ASAE PaperNo. 86-6556. EC=y " "'t-l
tll
The authors are: J. F. THOMPSON, Extension Agricultural E
Engineer,Universityof California,Davis, and Y. L. CHEN, Professor,
Agricultural Machinery Engineering, National Taiwan University, W is the sensibleheat removedfrom the product and
Taipei, Taiwan, Republicof China. woodenbins, assuminga overall specificheat for the
fruit and binsof 3.8 kJlkg-"C (0.908BTU/lb oF. (Mass
Acknowled8men& This project was partially funded by the
Committeeon the Relationshipof Energyand Agticulture. The authors
wish to thank Jerry Knutson and JoseGoveafor helping with data of bins is about5% of total masscooled.)E is the total
collection. electricalenergy(expressed in kJ) consumedin operating

568 0883-8542/89/0504-0568$03.00
@ 1989AmericanSocietyof AgriculturalEngineers APPLIED ENGINEERINGin AGRICULTURE
 Ftg. l-Stde view cchemadc of hydrocooler A, a batch type cooler for pallet blnc.

into and out of the coolersas diagrammedin Fig. 4.

Exterior heat gain, causedby air infiltration and heat
Ertdb.are@ t10n' conductedthrough exterior surfaces,is deteminedby
watcdbtrtutin m cooling the water reservoir to operating temperature,
turning off the refrigeration systemand operating the
cooler without any fruit in it. Heat gained from the
outsideand from the waterpump causesan increasein
2-38kw watsrrlp. the reservoirwatertemperature.Undertheseconditions,
RoldC6.dbn lydom
the heat balanceof the cooleris
2-l12kW Co.fp.!s

Q*r.-Qpum=
l ( m . c p .* - * . o * ) o ^ J .l2l
Ev.podh6 ofibw lviar 'gEf
Amrih olllgdra 33,900tC c+efy

Flg. 2-End vlew schematlcof hydrocoolerB, a contlnuoueflow cooler

where
for pallet binc. Q""t : rate of heat added to cooler from air
infiltration and conduction through
the cooler.EC is similar to the coefficientof performance walls. kJlmin.
in vapor recompressionrefrigeration systemsbut it is a Qpurp : rate of heat added to water from the
measureof the overallefficiencyof the coolingsystemnot pump, kJlmin,
just the efficiencyof the refrigerantfluid. mc : mass of empty cooler, kg,
Portable kilowatt meters are used to measure mw : mass of water in cooler,kg,
electricitydemandof compressor(s), waterpump(s),and cp" : specific heat of the empty cooler,
total demand of the systemwhich includesevaporative kJlkg-oC,
condenserpump and fans, conveyormotors,and other cP* : specific heat of water, kJlkg-oC,
miscellaneous motors. Data for compressorand total :
AT rate of water reservoir temperature
demand are recorded manually at S-min intervals. ^-
At rise, oClmin.
Demandfor water pumps is constantand is measured
+ electricatY
only at the beginningof a seriesof tests. o'oo'"'
Product cooling is determinedby samplingproduct - - - -- -- --- - -"-1.-r:T-
I:i111 ->- --- -*
mass flow and temperature drop of the fruit during
cooling.Temperatureof one or two fruit from the top of
everyother bin is measuredwith a hand held electronic
thermometer.We find little differencein temperature
betweentop and bottom fruit in a bin. Two to four bins product In I : r-+ product out

are weighedbefore coolingfor each20 to 64 bin run.

The heat input to the cooleris basedon the heat flows
TABLE 1. Desigrr features oftested hydrocoolers
Flg. 3-Elech:lclty input and product heat flow used ln the energr
Hydrocooler A Hydrocooler B efficiency and energy us€ calculadonl.

Typ" batch continuous

Maximum capacity* 30 bins/batch 80 bins/hr --- - - - - - - - - - - -
-b-"-'-1d-1v-
- - - - -"-v-t!1T
Compressor(s) 1-112kW recip. 2-LL2 kW recip.
Water pump(s) 1-30kw 2-38 kW
Exterior surface area 110m2 L L Om 2 water oul
i
Reservoir capacity 15,700kg water 33,900 kg water productout
productin-r{N l-l-l+
Refrigerant ammonia ammonia
ConCensertype evapofative evaporative
arr :
infiltration pumping heat in
conduction
* A bin of peachesorplums weighs approximately 450 kg. thru walls
NOTE: To convert m1 to fta multiply by 10.8
To convert kg to lbs multiply by 2.20 Flg. 4-Heat flows used ln the heat Input calculatlons.

Vol, 5(4):December 1989 569

 TABLE 2, Hydrocooler energy use

cdef
Initial Final
Mass Fruit Fruit Temp. Run Energy/
Cooled Temp, Temp. Drop Time Pump Comp. Total Mass Cooled Energy
Run ID Product (ke) fc) fc) fc) (min)(kwh) (kwh) (kwh) (kJ/kg) Coefficient

Hydrocooler A
L Peach 1 0 , 60 0 t6.6 5.6 11 . 0 91 44 136 21.2 72+ 0 . 55 '
z Peach 10,600 21.7 6.6 1 5. 1 63 30 91 t42 48 7.17
3 Peach 10,600 25.3 6.1 L9.2 81 39 777 t82 62 7.72
Peach 11,600 29.2 6.4 22.8 89 43 1.28 200 OL 1.26

Average t7.0 o1 r.00

Hydrocooler B
Cool down 65 64 759 255
1 p""Jlptu- zo,+oo;t ;; 1A I
83 59 707 195 794 0.73*
2 Plum 25,600 25.4 8.1 II.J 87 86 268 396 lo 1.08
Plum 25,600 26.0 7.8 L8.2 71. 70 179 284 40 1.63
4 Peach/Plum 16,600 24.7 9.2 15.5 51 50 1.52 227 49 1.10
Cool down 106 +z fJ
( Peach/Plum 35,800 26.0 9.7 IO.J 78 78 269 385 44* 1.61*

Average 16.2 54

* Includes cool down of water to operating temperature

NOTE: To convert kg to lbs multiply by 2.20
oc o
To convert to F, F = C + L8 + 32
To convert kJ/kg to BTUfb muitiply by 0.431

Manufacturer'sdata is usedto determinethe cooler's

massand massof the water is basedon the measured TABLE 3. Distribution of energy use by
various motors for two hv&ocoolers
capacity of the rvater reservoir.(These data show that
water is 90Toof the heat capacityof the coolers).Heat % of total
input from the pump is constantand is estimatedfrom
its electricity consumption,assuminga 9070 motor Motor location Cooler A Cooler B Averaee
efficiencyand that all of the shaft energyinput to the
Compressor b4 0/ 65
pump is convertedto heat in the water. Exterior heat WaterPump(s) 27 23 22
gain is then directly related to the rate of water Other Motors 15 11 73
temperaturerise. Water temperaturerise is measured
overa 20-minperiod. The electricityusedatashownin Table2, columnsh-j,
Energyuseby the pumpsis a functionof the lift and allow us to determinethe relativeconsumptionof the
the flow rate. Lift is very minimal in the coolersunder variousmotorsin the coolers.Table3 indicatesthat the
testand we seeno wayto influenceit. However,reducing two coolershavea similardistributionof energyuse.The
water flow may save energyand we determineit by compressormotor is responsiblefor two-thirds of the
placing a vertical-walledbucket in the cooler and total electricityuse. The water pump motor(s)account
measuringthe time neededfor the bucketto fill. Results for an averageof 22Toof the total and othermotors,such
areexpressed in waterflow rate unit areaof showerpan. as those that operateevaporativecondenserfans and
Heat input associated with waterlossis determinedby water pumps, contribute the remaining 13% of the
measuringthe mass of the bins into and out of the energyuse.
coolers.The weightaddedto the bins during coolingis The resultsof the heatinput measurements are shown
assumedto be water lost from the cooler.This cooled in Table 4. Fruit coolingcontributes49Voof the heat
wateris replacedwith wellwaterat 24" C (75" F) which input to coolerA and 56% ofthe heatinput to coolerB.
must be cooledto operatingtemperature. This is the largestsourceof heatinput to the coolers.The

RESULTS TABLE 4. Distribution of heat input to

hydrocoolersunder test*
Even though the coolers are of somewhatdifferent
design,they havesimilar levelsof energyuseper unit of Cooler A Cooler B
fruit cooled.asnotedin Table2, columnk. CoolerA has
1o6kJ % 1o6kJ 7o
an averageenergyuseper massof productcooledof 61
kJ/kS Q6 BTU/lb) and coolerB usesan averageof 54 Fruit cooling (bins incl.) 2.66 49 7.36 56
kJ/kgQ3 BTU/lb), al2Vo lowerenergyuse.Because the Exterior heat gain 28 J,+ I )A
q
averageproduct temperaturedrop is nearly the same Water pumps 0.51 1.43 11
(17' C vs.16.2oC (63' F vs.61oF), Table2, columnf) Cooler startup 0.67 1.2 0.72 5
Water lost 0.09 2 0.23 2
for the two coolers,the EC data showthey havesimilar
energyefficiencies.CoolerA had an averageEC of 1.00 * Sum over all tests including water cool down periods
vs. an EC of t.14 for coolerB, Table2, column1. NOTE: To convert kJ to BTU multiply by 0.948

570 APPLIED ENGINEERINGiN AGRICULTURE

 conditionsare differentduringthe two tcits.) CoolerB is
insulatedwith 1.5 cm of foam rubber and paintedwhite
but wasexposedto directsolarradiation.CoolerA is not
insulatedbut installedundera coverto reducesolarheat
gain. Also, coolerB is moreefficientbecauseit has half
the exteriorsurfaceareaper unit capacitycomparedwith
coolerA. Both coolershaveplasticcurtainsto reduceair
infiltration through productinlet and outlet openings.
y=4.2614+O.O721x
The next largest sourceof heat gain is the water
pumps.Pump heat input is 9Voof the total for coolerA
and llVo of the total for cooler B. Both coolersare
designedto operateagainsta minimum headby usinga
o 10 20 30 perforated pan to distribute water instead of a nozzle
ElapsedTime (min) system.But both coolersoperatewith a waterflow rateof
50 L/m2-s(1.2gal/ft2's),which is much higher than
Flg. S-Rerults of exterlor heat galn tert for hydrocoolcr A.
('F:oC'*l.E*32) recommended.
I Heat load associated with coolingwaterbeforestart-
I up eachmorningrangesfrom I2Vo in coolerA to 5% in
coolerB. Waterin the reservoirs warmsto about 10" C
I (50" F) betweenshut down on one day and start-upthe
n e x ta n d i s c o o l e dt o 1 o C t o 2 " C ( 3 3 . 8 ' F t o 3 6 ' F )
I
o before cooling begins. Every secondor third day the
o
f
coolersarethoroughlycleanedand the wateris changed.
E On thesedaysthe wateris cooledfrom24" C (75" F) to
o operatingtemperature.
CL
E Heat gain associated with waterleavingthe coolerson
o
F fruit and bin surfacesis only 2Toof the total heatinput.

DISCUSSION
0 10 20 30 The coolershaveECs of 1.00for A and 1.14for B,
ElapsedTime (min) which are well within the 0.7 to 2.2 range,although
Flg. 6-Recultc of exterlor heat galn tcrt for hydrocooler B.
slightly below the 1.4 averageEC reported in our
('F:oCr,l.E*32) previouswork on hydrocoolers(Thompsonand Chen,
1988).
remaining heat inputs are not associatedwith useful On the basis of the heat input resultsfor the two
wotk and representa significant potential for energy coolerstested,energyusein hydrocoolers canbe reduced
savings. significantlyby reducing exterior heat gain. As an
The rate of exterior heat gain is calculated using example of the potential savings,if cooler A were
equationI2l andthe slopeof the regression linesin Figs.5 insulatedto reduceits exteriorgain by 38%, to the same
and 6. Exterior heatgain is 28% ofthe total heatgain for rate of exteriorheat gainlbin as coolerB, its exterior
cooler A and 26To for cooler B, as shown in Table 5. gain basedon the data in Table 4 would be only 0.95 x
CoolerA has a 40% lowerexteriorheatgainlhour than 106kJ (935 x 103BTU) , reducingtotal heat input by
coolerB. But coolerA has a smallerproduct cooling 11%. We assumethat reducingthe total heatinput by
capacitythan coolerB. If they are comparedon the basis 11% would reducethe total energyuseof the cooler7To
of an equal cooling capacity (maximum number of becauserefrigerationis 65% of total energyuse.
bins/hour) cooler B has the lower rate of external heat The low exteriorheatgain of coolerB is partiallydue
gain. Table 5 showsthat cooler A has an exterior heat to its low external surface area per unit of cooling
gain of 10000kJ/bin (9480BTU/bin) whilecoolerB has capacity.CoolerA cannotbe easilymodifiedto reduce
6 200 kl/bin (5878BTU/bin) , a 38% lower rate of heat external area but it certainlycould be insulatedwith
gainlunit of coolingcapacity.(Noticethat the heat input morethanthe 1.5 cm (0.6in.) of insulationin coolerB.
data in Table 4 do not show this great a difference Exterior heat gain associated with air infiltration may
betweenthe two coolersbecauseambient temperature alsocontributeto the differencein heatgain betweenthe
TABLE 5. Exterior heat gain test of two hydrocoolers two coolers,but we have not measuredair infiltration
apart from the rest of the other sourcesof exteriorheat
Cooler A Cooler B gain, so we can not estimatethe potentialeffectof this.
Reducingsolar heat input by shading an uncovered
Heat gain (kJ/hr) 299 000 499 000
Max. cooling capacity (bin/hr) 30 80
cooleror at least painting it a light color should also
Heat gain per cooling reduceexteriorheatinput, but againwedo not havedata
capacity (kJ/bin) 10 000 6 200 on the magnitudeof the potentialsavings.
Reservoir-air temperature A key concernwith the insulationis that it must be
difference during test (oC) 25 27
able to maintain its insulating ability in a wet
NOTE: To convertkJ to BTU multiply by 0.948 environment.Durable, closed cell foam insulation
oF=oC*I.g+32 materialsappearto be bestchoicefor hydrocoolers. Most

Vol. 5(4):December1989 571

 other types of insulation absorb water easily and lose
insulation ability when wet. Some operators have placed
their hydrocoolersinside a refrigerated room to eliminate
heat conducted through exterior surfaces and avoid the
problem of protecting insulation from becoming wet.
Both coolers lose efficiency because they do not
operatecontinuously.For example,eachrun for coolerB
lastedonly 50 to 80 min., and becauseit is a continuous
flow type, it is only partially full of bins during the first
20 minutesand the last 20 minutesof a run. In our tests,
this causescooler B to operate with an effective capacity
of 45 bins/hr, which is 44To less than its maximum
( capacity of 80 bins/hour. Heat inputs, which are
primarily a function of total operation time such as
f exterior heat gain and pump operation, are spreadover
fewer bins when a continuous flow hydrocooler operates
intermittently. Continuous operation of cooler B would
causea 44To teduction in pump energy use and exterior
heat gain per bin. Basedon Table 4, this would reduce
heat input and thereforeenergyuse of coolerB by 2.15 x
106kJ (2.0 x 106BTU) . This is equal to l6% of the total
heat input. Continuousoperation reducespump energy
use by a similar amount and causesa net l4Vo decrease
in total energy use.
Cooler A has nearly the same potential energysaving if
it is operatedat full capacity.It can hold 30 bins offruit,
but it usually filled with only 20. Becauseit appearsto
have more than adequate water flow to cool 30 bins as
quickly as 20 bins, filling it to capacity would spread
exterior heat gain and water pumping energy use over
50% more bins. This would reduce exterior heat gain
and pump heat input per bin by 33%. This is equal to
0.67 x 106kJ (0.64 x 106BTU) and to l2Vo of the total
heat input.
The water pumps for cooler B provide 50 L/mz-s (1.2
gallft3-s). Previousresearchshows that 7 L/mz-s (0.17
gallft2-s)is an adequateflow for a singlebin ofpeaches.
CoolerB operateswith bins stackedtwo high, so perhaps
as much as 14 L/mz-s (0.35 gallft'z-s)may be required.If
water flow is reduced by 72To, from 50 L/mz-s to 14
L/ mz-s( 1.2 to 0.35 gallft2-s), pump energyusewould be
reduced by 72T0, equal to a lTTo reduction in total
energyuse, based on the data in Table 3. Heat input to
t h e c o o l e rw o u l d a l s ob e r e d u c e db y 1 . 0 x 1 0 c , k J( 0 . 9 5 x
i 1 0 6B T U ) , e q u a l t o 8 % o f t h e t o t a l . W e a s s u m et h a t a
reduction in heat input would translate into 65%
I
reduction in total energyuse, the total effect of reducing
the pump capacity is a 22To reduction in total energy
use.
Some commercial cooler manufacturersindicate that
they design coolers with extra water flow capacity to
accountfor unevendistribution of water within the bins.
Often water flow capacities for commercial stone fruit
hydrocoolersare at least 17 Lmz-s (0.42 gal/ft2-s).The
need for this extra capacity should be further studied.
There is also a possibility that the water flow can be
reduced at the product exit end of a continuous flow
cooler becauseheat flow through the product is probably
limiting cooling not heat flow from the product's surface.
Energy use for start-up can be reduced by decreasing
the volume of the water reservoir. In both coolers,
reservoirsare about I m (3.3 ft) deep, but pump draw
down is only 20 cm (8 in.), so most of the depth is not
572
TASLE 6. Summary of potential energy
saving methods for hydrocoolers
in tests
Potential
Energy Saving Method Saving
Reduce water flow 22%
Operate continuously r4%
Insulate cooier 7%
Reduce reservoir volume 9%
neededfor pumps.A smallvolumewith a depthof at
least0.5 m (1.6ft) deepis requiredfor the trashremoval
screens, but this volumedoesnot needto extendoverthe
entire length of the cooler.Somecoolersare designed
with a shallow,gentlyslopingpanthat directswaterback
to a small sump for the pump. If reservoircapacities
couldbe reducedby 70To,the datafor coolerB in Table
2 indicatethat initial cooldownenergycouldbe reduced
from 255 kWh to 77 kwh, which equalsa 13.5%
reductionin heat input and a 970 reductionin total
energyuse.
We did not test the efficiencyof the refrigeration
system,but obviouslythis can influenceenergyuseof a
cooler. Proper design should incorporate energy
conservationfactors such as optimum sizing of heat
exchangers, flash gas recompression, minimizing head
pressures,and reducingpressuredrops in piping and
equipment.Proper maintenanceof equipmentis also
important in minimizingenergyuse.
SUMMARY
The energyusedata for the two test coolersagreeswith
the data we presentedearlier, Thompson and Chen
(1988).The performancedata indicate that there are
severalmethodsthat shouldbe considered in attempting
to reduce the energy use of a hydrocooler.Table 6
presentsestimatesof potentialenergysavingtechniques
for the coolersin our tests. Theseestimatesmay not
apply to other hydrocoolersbecauseof differencesin
designand operation.For example,if a cooleralready
has a properwaterflow rate, then there is no potential
for energy saving by modifying the flow. But energy
savingsgreaterthan our estimatesmay be possiblein
othercoolers.Our testingcomparesa coolerwith 1.5 cm
of foam insulation vs. a cooler with no insulation.
Certainly a cooler can have greater levelsof insulation
applied and would of coursehaveevengreatersavings
than our estimatesindicate.Table6 is a usefulguidefor
planning an energy conservation strategy for a
hydrocooler.
References
1 Guillou, R. 1958.Someengineering aspectsofcoolingfruits and
vegetables. Transactionsof the ASAE 1(1):38,39, 42.
2. Mitchell.F.G.. R. Guillouand R.A. Parsons.1972.Commercial
coolingof fruits and vegetables.California Ag, Exp. Sta. Manual 43,
(Dec.).
3. Perry,R.L. and R.M. Perkins.1968.Hydrocoolingsweetcorn,
ASAE PaperNo. 68-880.St. Joseph,MI: ASAE.
4. Thompson,J.F. and Y.L. Chen.1988.Comparative energyuseof
vacuum, hydro and forced ait coolers for fruits and vegetables.
ASHRAE Trans. 94(l): 1427-1432.
5. Zahradnik,J.W. andL.E. Reinhart.1972.In-stackhydrocooling
of apples.Transactions of the ASAE l5(1):f4l-145.
APPLIED ENGINEERINGin AGRICULTURE