4.

Mathematical modelling

A 1-dimensional mathematical model is proposed for predicting the HTC and MTC
theoretically and for evaluating the heat and moisture transfer interactions across the
product-air interface during convective drying. The schematic of Fig. 4.1, represents
the flow of hot dry air along the surface of product. In this Fig., 𝑥 = 0 and 𝑥 = 𝐻
denotes the entry and exit of the air from the control volume. In order to predict the
HTC and MTC, the following assumptions are made
▪ Drying material is homogeneous and isotropic.
▪ Shrinkage of dried product is neglected.
▪ Rate of air flow per unit area along the product surface is constant.
▪ Thermo-physical properties of air, material and moisture are constant within the
considered range of governing parameter values.
▪ Water vapor from the product disperses in the air isothermally.
▪ Air is distributed uniformly throughout the dryer.
▪ 1-D moisture transport and heat transfer are assumed.

Humid air (o)

Beetroot

Control volume

Dry air (i)

Fig: 4.1 Schematic of hot air flow over the surface of the red beetroot
1.1. Governing equations at the product-air interface

The governing equations are conservation of the heat and mass equations. Eqs. (15)
and (16) gives the heat and mass balance across the boundary layer of red beetroot and
air.

aC p dTa =  h (Tp − Ta ) dx as , p

a
(15)

a dwa =  m ( we − wa ) as , p dx (16)

Where,  a = ma
A
By integrating Eqs. (15) and (16) between the inlet (i) and outlet (o) conditions over a
length 𝑥 = 0 to 𝑥 = 𝐻
o
1  h as , p H

i (Tp − Ta )dTa = aC p  dx

0
(17)
a

o
1  m as , p H

i ( we − wa )dwa = a  dx
0
(18)

Eqs. (19) and (20) are obtained after integrating Eqs. (17) and (18) respectively,
 Tp ,avg − Ta ,o   h as , p
ln  = H (19)
 Tp ,avg − Ta ,i  a C pa

 w − wa ,o   m as , p
ln  e = H (20)
 we − wa ,i  a

Tp , k + Tp , f
where, Tp  Tp ,avg =
2
Eqs. (19) and (20) can be rearranged to get Eqs. (21) and (22)
 T − Ta ,i   h as , p H
ln 1 − a ,o = (21)
 Tp ,avg − Ta ,i  a C pa

 w − wa ,i   m as , p H
ln 1 − a ,o = (22)
 we − wa ,i  a

Eq. (21) can be rewritten in the form of Eq. (23)

  T − T  Tp,k − Ta ,i    h as , p H
ln 1 −  a ,o a ,i    = (23)
  Tp ,k − Ta ,i 
 p ,avg a ,i   aC pa
T − T

Tp ,k − Ta ,i
but, 1
Tp ,avg − Ta ,i
Therefore, Eq. (23) is simplified as
  T − T    h as , p H
ln 1 −  a ,o a ,i   = (24)
  Tp ,k − Ta ,i   aC pa
Assuming 𝜃𝑇 and 𝜃𝑤 as temperature difference ratio and specific humidity difference
ratio.
Ta ,o − Ta ,i
Temperature difference ratio: T = (25)
Tp ,k − Ta ,i

wa ,o − wa ,i
Specific humidity difference ratio:  m = (26)
we − wa ,i

where 𝜃𝑇 and 𝜃𝑚 lies in between 0 to 1 (0 < 𝜃𝑇 & 𝜃𝑚 < 1).

From Eqs. (25) and (26), Eqs. (24) and (22) can be respectively expressed as Eqs. (27)
and (28)
 h as , p H
ln 1 − T  = (27)
a C p a

 m as , p H
ln 1 −  m  = (28)
a
From Eqs. (27) and (28), the HTC and MTC in terms of 𝜃𝑇 & 𝜃𝑚 , can be obtained
respectively as indicated in Eqs. (29) and (30).
a C p
HTC =  h = a
ln 1 − T  (29)
as , p H

a
MTC =  m = ln 1 −  m  (30)
as , p H

1.2. Method of solution

The proposed mathematical model is solved numerically. In general, an algorithm

is chosen for implementing the proposed mathematical model in computational domain.
Backtracking algorithm is employed to solve the developed model. This algorithm is
chosen due to its simplicity and accuracy in problem solving technique [171].
Backtracking algorithm is a recursive problem-solving iterative technique. In
Backtracking algorithm technique, the solution which is produced is tested at each step-
in contra to a set of inlet conditions. If the standing conditions are not up to the mark,
then different set of inlet conditions are chosen. Iteration ends once the process satisfies
the given set of inlet conditions. The advantage of this technique is that it requires a
smaller number of iterations as compared to other type of algorithms [172]. This model
is simulated using MATLAB 2015a (Appendix -II).

Fig. 4.2 presents the sequential representation of developed mathematical model

using backtracking algorithm. It comprises of nested and iterative loops. The input
variables are air inlet temperature (𝑇𝑎,𝑖 ), product initial temperature (𝑇𝑝,𝑘 ), air inlet
specific humidity (𝑤𝑎,𝑖 ), specific humidity at equilibrium (𝑤𝑒 ), air mass flux (𝜑𝑎 ),
thickness of the product (𝜆), specific surface area of the product (𝑎𝑠,𝑝 ), length of the
product surface (𝐻) and specific heat of the air (𝐶𝑝𝑎 ). These parameters are used for
obtaining the HTC and MTC at product-air interface.

Initially, in nested loop, equally spaced temperature and specific humidity difference
ratio (𝜃𝑇 & 𝜃𝑚 ) values are generated in between 0 to 1, for estimating the outlet air
temperature and specific humidity values (𝑇𝑎,𝑜 & 𝑤𝑎,𝑜 ) using Eqs. 25 & 26. Later, the
generated values of 𝜃𝑇 & 𝜃𝑚 are used for determining the HTC and MTC (𝛼ℎ & 𝛼𝑚 ) at
the product-air interface. These obtained 𝛼ℎ & 𝛼𝑚 values are compared with the
experimentally calculated data.

Fig: 4.2 Flowchart for numerical simulation

1.3. Results and discussion

4.3.1 Validation of proposed mathematical model

To adopt the proposed mathematical model for predicting the HTC and MTC at
product-air interface with reasonable accuracy, proper validation is required. Therefore,
a comparison is made between the experimentally determined values and the results
predicted from the developed model. Same operating variables as that of experiment’s
is chosen for verifying the proposed thermal model. Figs. 4.1 and 4.2 show the
comparison between the values of experimental and predicted 𝛼ℎ & 𝛼𝑚 .

From Figs. 4.1 and 4.2, it is observed that the predicted HTC and MTC have the
deviation in the range of ±3.54 % to ±7.7 % with experimentally estimated values
𝛼ℎ & 𝛼𝑚 for different governing parameters. Thus, from this analysis, it is inferred that
the developed mathematical model is reasonably accurate for determining the HTC and
MTC at the product-air interface during hot-air convective drying of the product.

20
Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-K)

Experimental
16
Numerical

12

4
40 50 60 70 80 90
Air temperature (ο C)

Fig: 4.3 (a) 𝛼ℎ,𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑣𝑠 𝛼ℎ,𝑝𝑟𝑒 for different air temperatures

 20

Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-K)

16

12

8
Experimental
Numerical

4
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Air velocity (m/s)

Fig: 4.3 (b) 𝛼ℎ,𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑣𝑠 𝛼ℎ,𝑝𝑟𝑒 for different air velocities

Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-K)

12

10

8 Experimental
Numerical

6
20 25 30 35 40
Air relative humidity (%)

Fig: 4.3 (c) 𝛼ℎ,𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑣𝑠 𝛼ℎ,𝑝𝑟𝑒 for different RH of air

 15

Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2-K)

Experimental
Numerical

12

6
2 4 6 8 10
Sample thickness (mm)

Fig: 4.3 (d) 𝛼ℎ,𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑣𝑠 𝛼ℎ,𝑝𝑟𝑒 for various sample thickness

Fig: 4.3 Validation of predicted and experimentally determined 𝛼ℎ values for

different governing parameters

15
Mass transfer coefficient (kg/m2-s)

13

11

7 Experimental
Numerical

5
40 50 60 70 80 90
Air temperature (ο C)

Fig: 4.4 (a) 𝛼𝑚,𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑣𝑠 𝛼𝑚,𝑝𝑟𝑒 for various air temperatures

 15

Mass transfer coefficient (kg/m2-s)

13

11

7 Experimental
Numerical

5
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Air velocity (m/s)

Fig: 4.4 (b) 𝛼𝑚,𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑣𝑠 𝛼𝑚,𝑝𝑟𝑒 for different air velocities

12
Mass transfer coefficient (kg/m2-s)

Experimental
Numerical

10

6
20 25 30 35 40
Air relative humidity (%)

Fig: 4.4 (c) 𝛼𝑚,𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑣𝑠 𝛼𝑚,𝑝𝑟𝑒 for different air RH

 12

Experimental

Mass transfer coefficient (kg/m2-s)

Numerical

10

6
2 4 6 8 10
Sample thickness (mm)

Fig: 4.4 (d) 𝛼𝑚,𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑣𝑠 𝛼𝑚,𝑝𝑟𝑒 for various sample thickness

Fig: 4.4 Validation of predicted and experimentally determined 𝛼𝑚 values for

different governing parameters

4.3.2 Contour plots for moisture absorption variation along the beetroot surface

The variation of moisture absorption (MA) from the samples placed along the length
of the tray at any instant is investigated with respect to external air conditions, a single
thin layer red beetroot slice of tray length (H) is considered. The contour plots for
interactive effect of governing parameters (air temperature, air velocity and RH) and
𝑥/𝐻 ratio (which indicates different interface positions) of the beetroot along the tray,
on local moisture variation in air is shown in Fig. 4.5 (a) – 4.5 (c).

From these Figs., it is observed that for a given operating range at any particular
instant as 𝑥/𝐻 value increases from 0 to 1, the MA declines by 10.9%, 14.3% and
16.7% at inlet conditions. It is due to the fact that as the 𝑥/𝐻 ratio increases, moisture
content present in the dry air increases due to absorption of water vapor present in the
beetroot. Further, from this Fig., it is also observed that minimum MA is observed to
be 0.2, 0.3 and 0.3 at the x/H ratio of 1 and air temperature of 80 °C, x/H ratio of 1 and
velocity of 3 m/s and x/H ratio of 1and RH of 35%, respectively.
 From Fig. 4.5, it is found that for a given inlet condition and operating range and for
a given x/H ratio of 0.5, as the temperature increases from 50 °C to 80 °C, velocity
increases from 1 m/s to 3 m/s and RH increases from 25% to 35 %, the MA decreases
by 50 %, 20 % and 14%, respectively. From this assessment, it is observed that with
increase in temperature, velocity and RH, the MA decreases because of increase in
water vapor pressure difference between the dried product and hot air, rapid interaction
of dry air and increase in MC present in the process air, respectively. In addition, from
Fig. 4.5, it is found that drying temperature has a significant impact on the MA
compared to other inlet parameters.

MA
80 0.2000

0.2400
75
0.2800

70
Temperature (°C)

0.3200

65 0.3600

0.4000
60
0.4400

55
0.4800

50 0.5200
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x/H

Fig: 4.5 (a) MA variation for different air temperatures

 MA
3.0 0.3000

2.8
0.3250
2.6
0.3500
2.4
0.3750
2.2
Velocity (m/s)

2.0 0.4000

1.8
0.4250
1.6
0.4500
1.4
0.4750
1.2

1.0 0.5000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x/H

Fig: 4.5 (b) MA variation for different air velocities

MA
0.3000

34
0.3250

0.3500
32
0.3750
RH (%)

30 0.4000

0.4250

28
0.4500

0.4750
26

0.5000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x/H

Fig: 4.5 (c) MA variation for different air velocities

Fig: 4.5 Moisture absorption variation of the processed air at different interfaces
along the tray