Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

Theoretical analysis and experimental study on the performance

of ice buckets in a flake ice maker
Zhili Sun a, *, Xiaobao Chen a, Yongan Yang a, Yufeng Gao b, Tong Ren a, Yi′ an Wang a,
Hailing Fu a, Jieling Zhang a, Sicong Hou a, Feng Jiao a, Di Liang a, Jintao Li a
a
Tianjin Key Laboratory of Refrigeration Technology, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin, China
b
Shenzhen Viking Ice and Snow Technology Co., Ltd, Shenzhen, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To improve the performance of an ice bucket, the data obtained using a mathematical model of
Flake ice maker the ice-making process are compared with the experimental data using the system parameters of
Ice bucket the tested flake ice producer. Three concepts—the ice-layer drying time ratio (Kdry), deicing time
Water-distribution pan ratio (Kdei), and water-distribution icing ratio (b)—are introduced as theoretical and data support
Ice-layer temperature for improving the structure of the water-distribution pan of the ice bucket and setting a
Ice-layer thickness
reasonable amount of water distribution. Based on the structure of the water-distribution pan, an
area model of the ice bucket is developed for improving the ice-bucket area. The results revealed
that when the ice-making period of the tested flake ice maker is 20–40 s and the average tem­
perature of the ice layer is regulated to − 3◦ C, the Kdry exceeds 0.02–0.06. When the ice-making
period is 20–40 s and the minimum ice-layer thickness is set to 0.5 mm, the Kdry is less than
0.32–0.53. The ice-layer thickness can reach 98%–99% of the maximum ice-layer thickness when
the b is 3.8–5.6. The obtained Kdry, Kdei, and b can be used to optimize the structure of the water-
distribution pans, amounts of water distribution, and ice-making bucket performances of other
flake ice makers.

Nomenclature

A Ice bucket area [m2]

b Water distribution icing ratio
c
d Equivalent diameter [m]
f Frequency [Hz]
G Ice-making capacity [kg/d]
g Ice production during test time [kg]
h Specific enthalpy [J/kg]
K Dimensionless number
L Latent heat of ice [J/kg]
m Quality [kg]

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sunzhili@tjcu.edu.cn (Z. Sun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2022.102449
Received 24 July 2022; Received in revised form 11 September 2022; Accepted 21 September 2022
Available online 29 September 2022
2214-157X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

P Motor pole pairs

Pr Prandtl number
Q Refrigeration capacity [W]
q Quantity of heat [J]
S Speed [r/s]
s Reduction ratio
T Ice-making period [s]
t Temperature [◦ C]
u Velocity [m/s]
V Volume [m3]
ν Kinematic viscosity [m2/s]
x Ice layer thickness [m]
η Volumetric efficiency
δ The thickness of the ice bucket wall [m]
λ Heat conductivity coefficient [W/(m⋅◦ C)]
Δτ Time step
α Coefficient of heat convection[W/(m2⋅◦ C)]
ρ Density [kg/m3]
τ Time [s]
Δx Spatial step
Specific heat [J/kg⋅◦ C] Subscripts
ave Average
co Cooling
dei Deicing
dry Drying
e Evaporation
i Spatial node
ice Ice layer
in Ice bucket inlet
inf Interface
j Time node
n Final moment
out Ice bucket outlet
p Phase change
ref Refrigerant
s Supply
sc Supercooling
t Test
ta Take away
th Theory
w Wall
wa Water
wd Water distribution
1 Evaporator outlet
4 Evaporator inlet

1. Introduction
Ice has been used to extend the storage life of food since several years. Until the middle of the 19th century, the ice used for cooling
was obtained from nature [1], after which artificial refrigeration was developed. At that time, artificial refrigeration was among the
most notable technological developments [2]. The ice-maker industry has since developed rapidly to satisfy the increasing domestic
and industrial demands.
Depending on the shape of the formed ice, ice makers are categorized as block ice makers, flake ice makers, slurry ice makers, and
tubular ice makers. The choice of the ice-maker category is dependent on the nature of the product and processing conditions. Flake ice
is the most commonly utilized medium for fresh fish storage [3] and for lowering the temperature of fresh aquatic food products to
slightly above 0◦ C [4]. Researchers worldwide have attempted to optimize the performance of flake ice makers. Li et al. [5] maximized
the coefficient of performance by controlling the opening angle of the electronic expansion valve and the rotating speed of the ice
bucket. They developed an efficient seawater flake ice maker. Zhao et al. [6] optimized the ice-making period of the flake ice maker
used in an ice-storage system based on the thermal transfer properties of the system. Cao et al. [7] developed a process for developing

2
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

flake ice makers using the cold energy from liquefied natural gas. They established a thermal transfer model around the ice bucket
during the freezing and desalination processes. Ramos et al. [8] presented an integer linear programming model that minimizes the
total energy cost of a flake-ice production unit in food retail stores. The aforementioned studies primarily focused on the thermal
transfer model of the ice bucket and on improving the system control strategy. There is large scope for optimizing the performance of
the flake ice-maker system.
Our group established that the performance of flake ice makers can be equally improved by optimizing the ice bucket (changing the
structure of the water-distribution pan, the ice-making period, and the amount of water distribution as well as setting up the size of the
refrigerant flow channel), optimizing the system efficiency of the flake ice maker by choosing proper control strategy, optimizing the
compressor (compressor startup, operation, and variable load operation process), or optimizing the refrigerant choice. Many flake ice
maker on the market use R404A refrigerant, which has a high GWP value (3922). The substitution of R404A has been studied by many
researchers. Such as R454A, R454C [9], R463A [10],R448A [11], etc. Refrigerants with low GWP value should be used to make
environmentally friendly flake ice maker.
Herein, we establish a mathematical model of the ice-making process based on the water-distribution pan structure of the ice-
making cylinder. We introduce the concepts of deicing ratio, icing time ratio, water-distribution ratio, and drying-time ratio. The
icing time ratio and dry ice time ratio are varied to investigate their effects on ice temperature and thickness. The relationship between
water distribution and icing volume is analyzed from the perspective of water circulation. Next, the water-distribution and icing ratios
are varied to analyze their effects on the ice-making thickness. The ice-bucket area is theoretically calculated for a given structure of

Fig. 1. Schematic of the ice bucket (a) and water-distribution pan (b).

3
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

the water-distribution tray. The mathematical model well agrees with the experimental data. Therefore, it is validated and can guide
the development and performance optimization of ice flakes.

2. Ice-making process of the ice bucket

Fig. 1 (a) shows the structure of the evaporator of the flake ice maker. The evaporator uniformly distributes the water on the wall of
the ice bucket. Heat exchange with the refrigerant freezes the water. The ice is subsequently scraped from the wall using ice blades
rotating with the main shaft. The main shaft rotates under the synchronized action of the motor and reducer. The entire ice-making
process can be divided into several stages: the brine-mixing stage, the water-distribution stage, the ice-making stage, and the reflux
stage.
Freshwater ice is obtained by mixing water with salt. On adding salt, ice easily falls from the inner wall of the evaporator without
the abnormal scraping sounds of unclean ice scraping. Salt also facilitates ice formation and improves the quality of the flake ice. The
prefabricated concentrated brine is transported through the dosing pump to the water tank, where it mixes with fresh water. The flow
volume through the dosing pump depends on the required amount of ice and the concentration of the prefabricated brine. One ton of
ice requires approximately 80–90 g of salt throughout the actual manufacturing process. Three streams of fluid are mixed in the water
tank: tap water, concentrated brine delivered by the dosing pump, and unfrozen water that returns through the water-collection dish.
During the water-distribution stage, water from the water-distribution pan is evenly distributed on the inner wall of the evaporator.
Fig. 1(b) is a schematic of the water-distribution tray. Water from the water tank is transported to the water-distribution pan through
the water pump and flows out through the water-distribution pipe. Because the main shaft drives the constant rotational speed of the
water-distribution pan, the water passing through the water-distribution pipe is equally distributed over the inner wall of the
evaporator.
The ice-making stage refers to the ice-making process of the ice bucket. Based on the structure of the water-distribution tray (Fig. 1
(b)), the inner wall of the ice bucket is divided into the icing area, the drying area, and the deicing area. After transfer to the inner wall
of the ice bucket, the water in the icing area exchanges heat with the refrigerant in the spiral evaporation tube and freezes at the phase-
change point. The ice formed in the icing area will enter the ice-layer drying area, which removes the residual water stains from the ice
surface at the end of the icing area. If wet ice is scraped directly, it will self-adhere in the ice-storage bin, inconveniencing the storage
and usage of the ice. The ice-drying area freezes the water on the ice surface and enhances the chill-down process. In the deicing area,
the dry ice is scraped off using an ice blade. Flake ice with larger edges that cannot fall from the ice blade is removed in the deicing
buffer area.
During the backflow stage, water not transformed to ice in the icing area is returned to the water tank. This step is necessary
because the water flowing from the water-distribution pipe is not completely transformed to ice at any one time. The excess water
flows to the water-collection dish, where it is collected and returned to the water tank through a collection-dish flow channel. A
floating ball valve maintains the liquid-level height in the water tank below the liquid-level height in the channel of the water-
collection dish.

Fig. 2. Layout of measuring points of the flake ice maker.

4
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

3. Experimental setup and test conditions

3.1. Experimental setup
All experiments were performed in an enthalpy difference laboratory certified by the Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute. which meets the test requirements of air-cooled chillers and unit air conditioning units. The laboratory contains a working-
condition regulation system, a temperature and humidity acquisition system, an air-volume measurement system, and a measuring-
point acquisition system. The main test parameters are temperature, pressure, and electrical parameters. All parameters are inte­
grated into the computer of the console through the Yokogawa MX100 acquisition system for display and storage and can be observed
and adjusted in real-time through the computer interface.
T-type thermocouples and pressure sensors were installed at the inlets and outlets of the primary components of the refrigeration
system, namely, the compressor, condenser, evaporator, and thermal expansion valve. Additional T-type thermocouples were installed
at the inlet and outlet of the water tank to monitor the operation status of the tested flake ice maker. Fig. 2 depicts the layout of the
measuring points of the tested flake ice maker. The period of ice-making was controlled by a frequency converter added to the reducer
motor. Table 1 gives the specifications and dimensions of the components in the tested flake ice maker. The data acquisition interval
was 1 s and the flake ice maker was charged with 2.4 kg of R404A refrigerant. The ice temperature was determined using a FOTRIC
223S handheld infrared thermal imager.

3.2. Experimental procedure

3.2.1. Thermocouple calibration
Prior to the experiment, the T-type thermocouple was calibrated as follows. The T-type thermocouple and a standard platinum
resistance (pt25) were simultaneously placed in a constant-temperature oil bath. The calibration temperature was raised from − 40◦ C
to 40◦ C at 5◦ C interval and the temperature ranges were measured at different measuring locations.

3.2.2. Experimental scheme

The ambient conditions and test methodologies accorded with the AHRI 810 I–P-2016 standard [12]. During the experiment, the
temperatures of the dry bulb and the tap water entering the water tank were set to 32◦ C ± 1◦ C and 21◦ C ± 0.5◦ C, respectively. Prior to
the ice-making capacity test, the ice maker must operate under the test conditions until its operating state is stable (i.e., until the weight
change of the ice is within ±2.0% in three consecutive measurements). The weight and other parameters of the ice were monitored at
15-min intervals for 1.5 h after the startup of the ice maker.
The evaporation temperature was altered by varying the opening of the thermal expansion valve, and the ice-making period was
altered by varying the reducer’s motor frequency. Table 2 lists the experimental conditions.

3.2.3. Data processing

The ice-making capacity (G) is an important performance indicator of flake ice makers. It is calculated as
g × 3600 × 24
G= (1)
τt

where g is the mass of ice (kg) produced within sampling time τt (s).

Table 1
Specifications of the main components of the flake ice maker.

Items Style and structure Specifications and Dimensions

Compressor • Scroll compressor(MLZ021T4LP9,Danfoss) • Power supply: AC 380–415 V 3 ph 50 Hz

• Capacity control: Fixed speed
• Speed (rpm): 2900
• Displacement (cm3): 46.2
• Oil type: POE
• Oil charge(L):1.1
Condenser • Forced convection finned tube (five-row, 22 tubes, one axial fan) • Tube diameter(inch): 3/8
• Outline dimensions (L × W × H,cm):
55.4 × 20 × 56.8
• Heat exchange area (m2): 30
Throttle valve • Thermal expansion valve (TI-SW-002, EMERSON) • Inlet tube diameter (inch): 3/8
• Outlet tube diameter (inch): 1/2
Ice bucket • Mechanical ice-scraping evaporator • Outline dimensions (H × R, mm): 200 × 175
• Refrigerant flow path dimensions (L × W, mm): 35 × 10
• Heat exchange area (m2): 0.22
Drier & filter • Molecular sieves(EK083S,EMERSON) • Connector dimensions (inch): 3/8
Speed reducer • Turbo worm gear reduction • Reduction ratio: 800: 1
• Power supply: AC 380–415 V 3 ph
• Number of motor pole pairs: 2
Refrigerant • R-404A • Charging mass (kg): 2.4

5
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

Table 2
Experimental conditions of the present study.

Group Ambient temperature (◦ C) Water temperature (◦ C) Evaporation temperature (◦ C) Motor frequency (Hz)

1 32 21 − 17.5 50
2 − 18.6
3 − 19.7
4 − 21.2
5 − 22.2
6 − 23.2
7 − 24.2
8 − 20 50
9 55
10 60
11 65
12 70
13 75
14 80
15 85
16 90

The average thickness of the ice layer (m) can be calculated as

gT
x= (2)
Aρice τt

where A denotes the area of the ice bucket (m2), T denotes the ice-making period (s), and ρice is the average density of the ice (kg/m3).
The ice-making period refers to the time required for one rotation of the ice blade. It is computed as
P·s
T= (3)
f

where f is the frequency of the reducer motor (Hz), P is the number of poles in the motor, and s is the reduction ratio of the reducer.
The total heat transfer coefficient can be calculated by equation (4):
1
K= 1
(4)
αref + λδw + λice
x
+ α1air

Where αref is the convective heat-transfer coefficient at the refrigerant side, λw and λice denote the thermal conductivities of the ice
bucket and ice, respectively, δ is the thickness of the ice bucket, x is the thickness of ice-layer, αair is the convective heat-transfer
coefficient of the airside.

3.2.4. Uncertainty analysis

Variance in the experimental results is caused by deviations in the tester measurements and measuring instruments. The mea­
surement accuracies of the instruments are listed in Table 3. The measurement deviations among the operators were limited to a single
tool, namely, the stopwatch with a test deviation of ±1 s.
The uncertainty in the ice-making capacity and average ice thickness is determined as [13].
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
ue = (e1 )2 + (e2 )2 + .... + (en )2 × 100% (5)

where e1,e2, …en denote the measurement relative error, which can be calculated as follows.

Table 3
Model, parameters, and accuracy of the equipment used in the experiment.

Equipment Parameters Model Precision

Thermocouple Range: − 267 C–260 C Contact diameter: 0.3 mm

◦ ◦
OMEGA TT-T-36-SLE-BULK T-type thermocouple ±0.1◦ C
Pressure sensor Range 0–4.0 MPa Tianjin Dingtuo DTY06 Pressure Transmitters ±0.5%
Power supply: 240 V DC
Output:4–20 mA
Power meter Current: AC 5A PD197E-9S4 Multifunctional power meter ±0.5%
Power supply: AC 220V
Voltage: AC 380V
Handheld thermal imager Range: − 20◦ C–350◦ C FOTRIC 223S ±2◦ C
Pixels:12 million
Electronic scale Range: 0–100 kg Zhejiang Kaifeng ±25g
K-FINE

6
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

e = (d − dm ) / d × 100% (6)
In Eq. (6), d and dm are the true and measured values of the tested item, respectively.
Herein, the weight of ice within the sampling time (15 min, deviation ±0.22%) was 4.5–5.85 kg with a maximum measurement
deviation of ±0.96%. The deviation in the ice cylinder area was±0.67% (manufacturer’s data). Using Eq. (5), the uncertainties in the
ice-making capacity and ice thickness were determined as 0.99% and 1.19%, respectively.

4. Mathematical model
4.1. Heat-transfer model of the ice bucket
Fig. 3(a) [7] shows the heat-transfer process in the ice bucket. The heat-transfer process is characterized by a phase change of a
moving solid–liquid interface. The entire heat-transfer process was split into three parts: a) convective heat transfer of the water
distributed on the inner wall of the ice bucket during the falling process; b) heat conductions in the boundary layer of the waterside, ice
layer, ice-bucket wall, and refrigerant-side boundary layer; and c) convective heat transfer between the refrigerant and ice-bucket wall.
The mathematical modeling was conducted under the following reasonable assumptions.
(I) The boundary layers at the refrigerant-side and waterside have negligible thermal resistance.
(II) The water temperature on the inner wall of the ice bucket is uniform.
(III) The heat-transfer process can be modeled as one-dimensional heat transfer through a flat plate.
(IV) The density, specific heat capacity, thermal conductivity, latent heat, and other physical parameters of water and ice do not
change with temperature.
During the icing process, the thickness of the ice layer increases by dx when the time changes by dτ. Applying the law of con­
servation of energy, we get

tw a
tp
tw t
te

dx x

(a)

(b)
Fig. 3. Schematic of heat transfer on a subcooled surface of the ice bucket (a) and Schematic of heat transfer node model during the ice-drying process (b).

7
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

tp − tinf tinf − tw tp − te
x dτ = δ dτ = 1
dτ (7)
λice λw αref + λδw + λice
x

tp − te ( )
1
dτ = ρice Ldx + ρice cwa twa − tp dx (8)
αref + λδw + λice
x

where tp and te denote the phase-transition and evaporation temperatures, respectively, αref is the convective heat-transfer coefficient
at the refrigerant side, λw and λice denote the thermal conductivities of the ice bucket and ice, respectively, δ is the thickness of the ice
bucket, ρice is the density of ice, L is the latent heat of ice, and twa is the temperature of the water on the inner wall of the ice bucket.
The convective heat-transfer coefficient of the refrigerant in the evaporation pipelines is calculated as [14].
( )
λ u d
αref = 0.023 ref ref 0.8Pr0.4 ref (9)
d νref

where d is the equivalent diameter of the spiral evaporation pipelines, uref and νref denote the flow rate and dynamic viscosity coef­
ficient of the refrigerant, respectively, and Prref is the Prandtl number of the refrigerant.

4.2. Ice-layer temperature model

The structure of the water-distribution pan significantly affects the thickness of the ice layer, as evidenced from the functioning
principle of the ice bucket. The ice-making bucket is separable into the icing area, the ice-layer drying area, and the deicing area. Based
on the structure of the water-distribution pan, the ice-making period can be similarly divided into the ice-making time (τ), the ice-layer
drying time (τdry), and the deicing time (τdei). The total time is given by
T = τ + τdry + τdei (10)

From Eqs. (6) and (7), we can calculate the thickness (x) of the ice layer, the temperature (tw) of the ice bucket wall at the refrigerant
side, and the interface temperature (tinf) between the ice-bucket wall and the ice layer after the water has passed through the icing area.
The initial heat transfer in the ice-layer drying area can subsequently be determined. In the dry area of the ice layer, only the heat
transfer of ice formed within the icing time (τ) was considered; the heat transfer of water icing on the ice layer was neglected. In the
horizontal direction, the ice-bucket wall and ice layer were discretized into N and M parts, respectively. Fig. 3(b) is a schematic of the
heat-transfer node model with a time step of Δτ and a spatial step of Δx.
The energy change in the control body undergoing one-dimensional heat transfer equals the sum of the energies entering the
control body at the left and right boundaries, which follow the rule of energy conservation.
The internal control body energy balance equations are given by
( j+1 )
( ) t − tj+1 tj+1 − ti−j+11
ρc tij+1 − tij = λ i+1 i − i Δτ (11)
Δx Δx
Left boundary control body energy balance equation:
( j+1 )
( ) t − t0j+1 ( )
ρc t1j+1 − t1j = λ 1 + αref te − t0j+1 Δτ (12)
Δx
Right boundary control body energy balance equation:
( j+1 j+1 )
( j+1 ) t − tN+M− ( )
ρc tN+M j
− tN+M = λ N+M 1 j+1
+ αair tair − tN+M Δτ (13)
Δx
The initial conditions are set as
⎧ 0
⎪
⎪ 0 tinf − tw0
⎪
⎨ tw + N + 1 i, 0 ≤ i ≤ N + 1
ti0 = (14)
⎪ 0 0
⎪ t0 + tx − tinf (i − N − 1), N + 1 < i ≤ N + M + 1
⎪
⎩ inf
M+1
and the boundary conditions are

tej = te , αjref = αref , tair

j
= tair , αjair = αair (15)

4.3. Water temperature model

The heat-transfer model of the ice bucket reveals the effect of water temperature on the thickness and temperature of the ice layer.
The amount of water distributed on the ice bucket will influence the average temperature of that water, thus affecting the ice-layer
thickness and the amount of supplementary water. The effect of the amount of dispersed water on the ice bucket on the water tem­
peratures at the inlet and outlet of the ice bucket was evaluated under the following assumptions.
(i) The loss of the water pipeline can be ignored, so temperature of the water entering the ice bucket equals that of the tank.

8
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

(ii) The water temperature stabilizes quickly, so the water temperature exerts no impact on the ice thickness until the water
temperature becomes steady.
(iii) The average temperature of the water on the inner wall of the ice bucket is given as
tave = (tin + tout ) / 2 (16)

where tave is the average water temperature, and tin and tout are the inlet and outlet water temperatures of the ice bucket, respectively.
We now introduce the water-distribution icing ratio (b), calculated as
mwd
b= (17)
mice

where mwd is the mass of water distributed on the ice bucket and mice is the mass of water that forms ice on the ice bucket. The water
with mass mice produces ice after passing through the ice bucket whereas the water that does not form ice is cooled from tin to tout. The
heat qta absorbed by these waters was calculated as
qta = (mwd − mice )cwa (tin − tout ) (18)

where cwa is the specific heat of water.

As the water with mass mice forms ice, it must be supplemented by water with mass mice to maintain a stable height of the liquid
level. The temperature of the water supplement is ts. The heat qs added to the water tank through the water supplementation can be
computed as
qs = mice cwa (ts − tin ) (19)
According to the law of conservation of energy, the temperature of the water entering the ice bucket can be calculated as
(mwd − mice )tout + mice ts
tin = (20)
mwd
In terms of the water-distribution icing ratio b, this temperature becomes

Fig. 4. Flowchart of the calculation procedures.

9
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

ts + (b − 1)tout
tin = (21)
b
When b = 1 in Eq. (20), all water of mass mice at temperature tin is transformed to ice. The temperature of the water supplied to the
water tank equals the temperature of the water entering the ice bucket, i.e., tin = ts. This occurs only when the cycle is ideal. Although
changing the amount of distributed water suddenly does not change the inlet-water temperature of the ice bucket, it does influence the
value of b. At this time, b ∕ = 1, tin = ts, and tout ≥ 0.
When b = 1, the total heat transfer qt per unit area in the icing time τ is calculated as
( )
qt = xρice L + xρice cwa ts − tp (22)

When b > 1, the water temperature is assumed to change rapidly. Before the water temperature stabilizes, the impact of water
temperature on the ice thickness is negligible, so the ice thickness remains unchanged. The qt is then calculated as
qt = xρice L + bxρice cwa (ts − tout ) (23)

qt − xρice L ts − tp
tout = ts − = ts − (24)
bxρice cwa b
Equation (23) gives the initial value of the output water temperature as the number of water rises. To find the relationships between
the water-distribution amount and the inlet and outlet water temperatures of the ice bucket, ice thickness, and b, a set of calculation
procedures was designed. Fig. 4 shows a flowchart of these processes.

4.4. Theoretical calculation of the ice-bucket area

The theoretical area of the ice bucket was calculated after determining the structure of the water-distribution pan. The refrigeration
capacity per unit area in the ice-making bucket was calculated through the following series of equations.
In Eq. (24), qice is the required heat of ice formation, which is released by an ice layer of thickness x and temperature tp during the
ice-making period.
( )
qice = xρice cwa ts − tp + xρice L (25)

qco is the heat released from the water that does not form ice. This heat is released when the temperature changes from tin to tout.
qco = (bxρice − xρice )cwa (tin − tout ) (26)
qsc is the heat released by the cooling of ice. This heat is released when the temperature changes from tin to tout.
( )
qsc = xρice cice tp − tice (27)

The cooling capacity(Qice)of the ice-making bucket per unit area is calculated as
/( )
Qice = (qice + qco + qsc ) τdry + τdei + τ (28)

To determine the area of the ice bucket, the cooling capacity of the flake ice maker must also be calculated.
Qref = SVth ρ1 η(h1 − h4 ) (29)

Table 4
Data used in the mathematical model.

Symbol Explanation Value

α ref Heat-transfer coefficient of the refrigerant side at Te 1296 W/(m2⋅◦ C)

T e Temperature of refrigerant − 20◦ C
α air Heat-transfer coefficient of the airside 4 W/(m2⋅◦ C)
T ave Average water temperature 4◦ C
λw Heat conductivity coefficient of wall Q235 45 W/(m•◦ C)
λ ice Thermal conductivity of ice 2.33W/(m•◦ C)
δ Wall thickness of ice cylinder 0.006 m
tp Phase-transition temperature 0◦ C
η Volumetric efficiency 0.95 [15]
L Latent heat of ice 335000 J/kg
ρ ice Density of ice 920 kg/m3
ρ wa Density of water 1000 kg/m3
C wa Specific heat of water 4200 J/(kg⋅◦ C)
C ice Specific heat of ice 2100 J/(kg⋅◦ C)
K dry Drying-time ratio 0.25
K dei Deicing time ratio 0.25
K ice Icing time ratio 0.5
mwd Water distribution 1.2 L/min
Pr Prandtl Number 3.79

10
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

where Vth is the theoretical suction volume of the compressor, S is the speed of compressor motor, ρ1 and h1 are the density and specific
enthalpy, respectively, of the refrigerant at the outlet of the ice bucket, and h4 is the specific enthalpy of the refrigerant at the inlet of
the ice bucket. η denotes the volumetric efficiency of the compressor and Qref is the theoretical cooling capacity of the flake ice maker.
Finally, the area of the ice bucket (A) is calculated as
Qref
A= (30)
Qice

5. Results and discussion

The parameters used in the mathematical model were taken from the measurements of the tested flake ice maker and the man­
ufacturer’s data. They are listed in Table 4.
The ice-generating capacity of the flake ice maker is maximized at the optimal evaporation temperature of the ice maker. Seven
groups of experiments were conducted for different opening widths of the thermal expansion valve. The main parameters of the ice
maker, such as the optimal evaporation temperature at which the maximum ice-making capacity was obtained, were measured. The
deviations between the theoretical ice-making capacity (model outputs) and the actual ice-making capacity were measured and
analyzed using the corresponding mathematical model. Based on this comparison, the accuracy of the mathematical model can be
verified and theoretical data can be obtained for optimizing the overall performance of the ice maker.
The experimental and theoretical ice-making capacities are plotted as functions of temperature in Fig. 5(a). Increasing the evap­
oration temperature increased the theoretical ice-producing capacity and initially increased the experimental ice-producing capacity.
However, the experimental data dropped when the evaporation temperature exceeded − 20◦ C. When the experimental data peaked at
− 20◦ C, the theoretical ice-making capacity deviated by +6.89% from the experimental ice-making capacity. The potential ice-
producing capacity increased with increasing cooling capacity of the refrigeration system. As shown in Fig. 5(b), the area of the
theoretical ice-making bucket increased with increasing evaporation temperature, reflecting the full utilization of the refrigeration
system’s cooling capability. The initial increase in the experimental ice-making capacity with evaporation temperature can be
explained by the increased cooling capacity of the refrigeration system. The capacity was maximized at − 20◦ C because the cooling
capability output of the refrigeration system was maximized at that time. As the evaporation temperature further increased, the
experimental ice-making capacity declined because the bucket area was fixed. Thus, the bucket could not fully exploit the cooling
capacity output of the refrigeration system. Moreover, a higher evaporation temperature reduces the heat-transfer temperature dif­
ference between the refrigerant and water, further reducing the ice-making capacity.
As mentioned above, the best evaporation temperature that maximized the ice-making capacity of the tested flake ice maker was
− 20◦ C. Therefore, this temperature was used in further analyses of the experimental results. Meanwhile, the trend in Fig. 5(b) can be
explained by increased cooling capacity, which increases the theoretical area of the ice bucket. When the test machine operated at the
designed evaporation temperature, the deviation Δs between the theoretical and experimental ice-bucket areas was +19.4%. The
theoretical ice bucket was larger than the actual ice bucket because the theoretical ice thickness was smaller than the actual ice
thickness.
Fig. 6(a) plots the theoretical and experimental ice thicknesses as functions of the ice-making period at the optimal evaporation

Fig. 5. Variation of ice production with evaporation temperature(a) and Variation of theoretical ice-bucket area with evaporation temperature(b).

11
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

Fig. 6. Variation of theoretical and experimental ice-layer thicknesses(a), ice-layer temperature(b) with ice-making period and the thermal photographs of ice
temperature taken by a handheld infrared imager (c).

temperature (− 20◦ C). Both the theoretical and actual ice thicknesses increased because increasing the ice-making period also increases
the icing time, allowing the formation of a thicker layer. The theoretical ice thickness deviated from the actual ice thickness by − 11.6%
to − 7.7%. The deviation can be explained by a simplification of the mathematical model, which does not account for the thickness of
water on the surface when the ice enters the ice-layer drying area.
Fig. 6(b) plots the theoretical and actual tice as functions of ice-making period when the ice-layer drying time ratio(Kdry)of the tested
flake ice maker was 0.25, Kdry is defined as the ratio of the ice-layer drying time to the ice-making period. Lengthening the ice-making
period decreased the temperature of the ice layer because the ice-layer drying time must be lengthened to maintain the Kdry at 0.25.

12
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

The theoretical tice differed from the actual temperatures by 0◦ C-1.3◦ C. The deviation is caused by measurement deviations of the
handheld thermal imager and the experimental ice-layer thickness.
Fig. 6(c) shows photographs of the tice recorded by the thermal imager during different ice-making periods. For measuring the ice
weight, the ice-storage bin was substituted with a tiny ice-storage bucket. When photographing the ice in the ice-storage bucket, the ice
is inevitably exposed to ambient air. Therefore, each photograph was taken immediately after scraping the ice layer, and the lowest
temperature was reported as the tice.
According to the working principle of the flake ice maker, the ice-layer drying area converts the water on the ice surface into ice
before the ice-scraping process. This process reduces the ice temperature and allows the smooth scraping of ice during the working
procedure. Fig. 7 plots the temperature and thickness of the ice layer versus the ice-layer drying time ratio (Kdry), defined as the ratio of
the ice-layer drying time to the ice-making period. Meanwhile, the deicing time ratio (Kdei) is the ratio of the deicing time to the ice-
making period. As Kdry increased, the ice-layer temperature reduced and the ice layer became thinner. It was inferred that within the
same ice-making period, increasing the Kdry lengthened the ice-layer drying time and increased the cooling capacity that could be
transferred to the ice to reduce its temperature. The larger the Kdry, the shorter the icing time and the lower the cooling capacity that
can be transferred to the waterside to transform water into ice. Accordingly, the thickness of the ice layer reduces. Meanwhile, as the
ice-making period lengthens for the same Kdry, the ice-layer temperature reduces and the ice layer becomes thicker.
As the ice-layer temperature (tice) approached − 3◦ C, the ice layer became thicker (Fig. 7). The Kdry in the tested flake ice maker was
0.25. The theoretical tice and ice-making period were − 6.4◦ C to − 9◦ C and 20–40 s, respectively. The optimal Kdry at which the ice-layer
temperature can be as low as − 3◦ C should not be less than 0.02–0.06. To avoid contact between the ice blade and the ice-bucket surface
during product manufacturing, the ice thickness should exceed the specified minimum distance ε between the ice blade and the ice-
bucket wall. When ε is 0.5 mm and the ice-making period is 20–40 s, Kdry should not exceed 0.32–0.53. When the ice-making period is
20, 30, and 40 s, Kdry is between 0.06 and 0.32, between 0.03 and 0.46, and between 0.02 and 0.53, respectively. Clearly, extending the
ice-making period enlarges the value range of the Kdry. In summary, for any ice-making period, a range of Kdry can meet the required tice
and thickness.
The influence of Kdry on the thickness and temperature of the ice layer during the ice-making stage (Fig. 7) was analyzed based on
the structure of the water-distribution pan. The amount of water distribution also affected the ice-layer thickness of the flake ice maker.
Fig. 8 (a) plots the ice-layer thickness as a function of the b, calculated using the mathematical model with an ice-making period of 20 s.
As the b increased, the thickness of the ice layer increased and eventually stabilized at a ratio of approximately 10. This result can be
explained by the decrease in the average temperature of the water on the ice-bucket surface as the b increases. Around 10, the water
temperature stabilizes (Fig. 8(b)). At b of 3.8 and 5.6, the ice-layer thickness reached 98% and 99% of its maximum value, respectively.
As continued improvements of the b hardly affected the ice-layer thickness, the most appropriate setting of the b is 3.8–5.6. When the
ice-making period was 20 s, the b of the tested flake ice maker was 3.4. The amount of water distribution should be optimized to
improve the thickness of the ice layer.
Fig. 8(b) plots the inlet and outlet water temperatures and average water temperature of the ice buckets as functions of the b. The
water-distribution temperature and average water temperature declined with increasing b, whereas the outlet water temperature

Fig. 7. Variations of ice temperature and ice thickness with Kdry.

13
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

Fig. 8. Variations of ice-layer thickness(a) and average, outlet, and inlet-water temperatures (b) with water-distribution icing ratio.

initially increased and subsequently decreased, peaking when the b reached 2.0. It was deduced that increasing the b raised the
convective heat-transfer coefficient between water and ice, thereby increasing the heat exchange between water and ice. The low-
temperature water at the outlet of the ice-making bucket subsequently mixed with the supply water in the water tank, decreasing
the water-distribution temperature. When the b was less than 2, the supply water was higher in quality than water that did not form ice;
consequently, the heat of the water added into the water tank exceeded the cooling capacity of the water returned to the water tank,
and the outlet temperature of the ice-making bucket increased. However, the outlet-temperature increase of the ice bucket was
exceeded by the decrease in the water-distribution temperature of the ice bucket. Therefore, if the b is less than 2, the average water
temperature of the ice bucket will drop as the b rises.
Fig. 9(a) plots the theoretical and experimental inlet-water temperatures as functions of the ice-making period when water was
distributed on the tested flake ice machine at 1.2 L/min. As the ice-making period increased, the inlet-water temperature gradually
decreased because the ice-making capacity decreased while the amount of distributed water remained constant (Fig. 9(b)); accord­
ingly, the b increased and drove the inlet-water temperature downward. The theoretical inlet water differed from the actual inlet-water
temperature by − 0.58◦ C. The deviations are explained by deviations in the temperature sensor measurements and the model’s failure
to account for pipeline heat loss and water pump power.
As shown in Figs. 6(b), 7 and 8(a) above, the thickness and temperature of the ice layer depend on the Kdry, b, and ice-making
period. As depicted in Fig. 9(b), the ice-making period additionally affects the ice-making capacity of the ice maker.
In the experiment shown in Fig. 9(b), the water distribution was 1.2 L/min and the drying-time ratio was 0.25. The theoretical ice-
making capacity decreased with the increasing ice-forming period because the icing duration increased and the ice layer thickened,
thus lowering the total heat-transfer coefficient (Fig. 10) and the ice-making capacity. The actual ice-making capacity initially
increased and subsequently decreased with the increasing ice-making period. The initial increase can be explained by the thin ice layer
formed during short ice-making periods. When the layer is very thin, some pieces of ice cannot be smoothly scraped off by the ice blade.
The ice-making capacity was maximized when the ice-making period reached 20 s. At this time, the ice layer reaches a thickness at
which it could be completely scraped from the bucket wall. When the ice-making period exceeded 20 s, the ice-making capacity
decreased because of the longer ice-making period, thereby lengthening the icing time. This reasoning explains the decrease in the total
heat-transfer coefficient as the ice layer thickened.
Fig. 10 plots the total heat-transfer coefficient of the tested flake ice maker as a function of ice-layer thickness. As the convective
heat-transfer coefficient of the bucket wall and the heat-transfer coefficient between the refrigerant and the ice-bucket wall were
constant, the ice heat-transfer coefficient and hence the total heat-transfer coefficient of the ice bucket decreased with increasing ice
thickness.

6. Conclusions
A mathematical model of the ice-making process was established to maximize the performance of an ice bucket. After comparing
the theoretical data of the mathematical model with the experimental data and investigating their deviations, the following conclu­
sions were obtained.

14
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

Fig. 9. Variation of theoretical and experimental inlet water temperature (a) and ice-making capacity (b) with ice-making period.

Fig. 10. Variation of overall heat-transfer coefficient with ice-layer thickness.

(1) The icing time and ice-layer drying time are affected by the drying-time ratio, which affects the thickness and temperature of the
ice layer. When the ice-making period of the tested flake ice maker is 20–40 s and the required average temperature of the ice
layer is − 3◦ C, the drying-time ratio should exceed 0.02–0.06. When the ice-scraping thickness must exceed 0.5 mm, the drying-
time ratio should be less than 0.32–0.53. The Kdry reduces with increasing ice-layer thickness and increasing ice temperature.
The structure of the water-distribution pan can be optimized according to the actual demand of ice.
(2) The b affects the average water temperature on the inner wall of the ice bucket, thus altering the ice thickness. The ice thickness
is maximized when the water-distribution icing ratio reaches 10. At b of 3.8–5.6, the ice thickness can reach 98%–99% of its
maximum value. Continuously increasing the b has little effect on the thickness of the ice; therefore, the water-distribution
quantity can be set while the water-icing ratio is set to 3.8–5.6.
(3) The deviations between the theoretical and experimental data were 0.6◦ C for inlet-water temperature, 1.3◦ C (at maximum) for
ice temperature, and 19.4% (maximum) for ice-bucket area.

Author statement
The following is the contribution and order of the co-authors in the paper titled “Theoretical analysis and experimental study on the
performance of ice buckets in a flake ice maker”.
Zhili Sun (First Author and Corresponding Author): Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Investigation, Formal
Analysis, Writing - Original Draft; Xiaobao Chen: Experimental test, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft; Yongan Yang: Supervision,
Test guidance; Yufeng Gao: Software, Experimental test; Tong Ren: Software, Methodology; Yi’an Wang: Visualization, Investigation;
Hailing Fu: Supervision; Jieling Zhang: Visualization; Sicong Hou: Methodology; Feng Jiao: Validation; Di Liang: Validation; Jintao Li:
Methodology.

15
Z. Sun et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 39 (2022) 102449

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the support of Ministry of Science and Technology of People’s Republic of China (2020YFD1100305)
and Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Bureau (22ZYCGSN00030).

References
[1] M. Kauffeld, M. Wang, V. Goldstein, et al., Ice slurry applications [J], Int. J. Refrig. 33 (8) (2010) 1491–1505.
[2] S. Reif-Acherman, The early ice making systems in the nineteenth century [J], Int. J. Refrig. 35 (5) (2012) 1224–1252.
[3] O. Laguerre, E. Derens, D. Flick, Modelling of fish refrigeration using flake ice [J], Int. J. Refrig. 85 (2018) 97–108.
[4] E. Heen, Developments in chilling and freezing of fish [J], Int. J. Refrig. 5 (1) (1982) 45–49.
[5] H. Li, W. Joo, S. Jeong, Experimental study for investigating the optimum operating conditions of a seawater ice machine [J], J. Power Syst. Eng. 14 (5) (2010)
76–82.
[6] J.D. Zhao, N. Liu, Y.M. Kang, Optimization of ice making period for ice storage system with flake ice maker [J], Energy Build. 40 (9) (2008) 1623–1627.
[7] W. Cao, C. Beggs, I.M. Mujtaba, Theoretical approach of freeze seawater desalination on flake ice maker utilizing LNG cold energy [J], Desalination 355 (2015)
22–32.
[8] A.G. Ramos, J. Leal, ILP model for energy-efficient production scheduling of flake ice units in food retail stores [J], J. Clean. Prod. 156 (2017) 953–961.
[9] A. Mota-Babiloni, J. Haro-Ortuno, J. Navarro-Esbrí, et al., Experimental drop-in replacement of R404A for warm countries using the low GWP mixtures R454C
and R455A [J], Int. J. Refrig. 91 (2018) 136–145.
[10] P. Saengsikhiao, J. Taweekun, K. Maliwan, et al., Investigation and analysis of R463A as an alternative refrigerant to R404A with lower global warming
potential [J], Energies 13 (6) (2020) 1514.
[11] A. Mota-Babiloni, J. Navarro-Esbrí, B. Peris, et al., Experimental evaluation of R448A as R404A lower-GWP alternative in refrigeration systems [J], Energy
Convers. Manag. 105 (2015) 756–762.
[12] AHRI STANDARDS 810 (I-P), Performance Rating of Automatic Commercial Ice-Makers: [S], in: Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
Arlington, VA, 2016.
[13] C.-Y. Lin, W.-S. Lee, T.-P. Teng, et al., Design and application of evaporative cooler for a freezer [J], Appl. Therm. Eng. 178 (2020), 115411.
[14] N.H. Abu-Hamdeh, E.M. Salilih, A case study in the field of sustainability energy: transient heat transfer analysis of an ice thermal storage system with boiling
heat transfer process for air-conditioning application [J], Energy Rep. 8 (2022) 1034–1045.
[15] E.K. Shungarov, S. Garanov, Comparison of the characteristics of low-temperature scroll compressors for heat pump applications [J], Chem. Petrol. Eng. 56 (5)
(2020) 378–384.

16