MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: P1ace in book drop to ngaAfijgs remove this checkout from M your record. FINES Win be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. — —._._...———— .__. CONCURRENTFLON DRYING OF GRAIN SORGHUM AND THE RESULTING NET MILLING QUALITY BY Garret L. Fedewa A THESIS . Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING Department of Agricultural Engineering 1985 J K 'l f.» \\ “\ lj/ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am very grateful to my wife, Becky for her patience, love and support. I am indebted to Dr. Fred M. Bakker-Arkema for his positive helpful nature. Blount, Inc. deserves a special mention for their financial support which made this thesis possible. A special thanks is given to Dr. Roger C. Brook who gave me support in finishing. I give a word of praise to Dr. James F. Steffe for his assistance. The author is thankful to Max Ballinger and Don Enck for their help in running the CC/CF dryer in Grand Island, NB. A very special thanks is given to Dr. Roy S. Emery, Dr. J. H. Thomas, Jim Liesman, Dave Pullen and Amy Duffield for their help in my wet milling tests. The moral support of John Anderson is deeply appreciated and all the other graduate students. I thank my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Hilary J. Fedewa for their loving support and prayers. IT IS RIGHT TO GIVE THANKS TO THE LORD IN ALL THINGS! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To Mrs. Cori Sackrider the best typist in the whole world. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To my wife, Becky and my daughters, Katie and Yvonne. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF SYMBOLS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION l.l UNITS 2. BACKGROUND 2.l FORAGE AND SWEET SORGHUM 2.2 GRASSY SORGHUM AND BROOMCORN 2.3 GRAIN SORGHUM l USDA GRAIN STANDARDS 2 SOME FIELD, HARVESTING AND STORAGE CHARACTERISTICS 2.3.3 STRUCTURE, COMPOSITION AND PROPERTIES 2.3. 2.3. 2.4 WET MILLING SORGHUM AND UTILIZATION OF PRODUCTS 3. GRAIN DRYING 3.] BATCH DRYERS LOW—TEMPERATURE IN-BIN DRYING SYSTEMS BATCH-IN-BIN DRYING CONTINUOUS IN—BIN COUNTERFLOW DRYING COLUMN BATCH DRYERS 0000000) —l-—l-—l-—d hWN—i 3.2 CONTINUOUS FLOW DRYERS 3.2.] CROSSFLOW(CF) DRYERS PAGE viii 3.2.2 MIXED-FLOW (CASCADE) DRYERS 3.3 COMBINATION DRYING SYSTEMS 3.4 CONCURRENT/COUNTERFLOW (CC/CF) DRYERS 3.5 CCF DRYER LITERATURE REVIEW GRAIN QUALITY 4.1 DESIRABLE WET MILLING CHARACTERISTICS FOR GRAIN SORGHUM 4.2 QUALITY OF ARTIFICIALLY DRIED GRAIN 4.3 FACTORS EFFECTING GRAIN QUALITY DURING ARTIFICIAL DRYING FOR WET MILLING 4.3.1 SAFE DRYING AIR TEMPERATURES .1 DRYER DESIGN (METHOD) .2 RECOMMENDED SAFE DRYING AIR TEMPERATURES FOR WET MILLING OF CORN 4.3.1.3 SAFE DRYING AIR TEMPERATURES FOR WET MILLING OF SORGHUM 4.3.2 SUMMARY 4.3.1 4.3.1 OBJECTIVES SIMULATION 6.1 MODELS 6.2 THIN—LAYER DRYING EQUATIONS 6.3 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE CONTENT 6.4 STATIC PRESSURE/AIRFLOW EQUATIONS EXPERIMENTATION 7.1 PILOT-SCALE CC/CF DRYING (PROCEDURE AND INSTRUMENTATION) THE FUEL EFFICIENCY CALCULATION GRADE OF SORGHUM GERMINATION DETERMINATION WET MILLING \INNN (1'1th EQUIPMENT AND REAGENTS STEEPING MILLING STARCH ISOLATION STARCH YIELD \l\l\l\l\l (J'IUTU'IU'IU'I WDWN-d vi PAGE 37 39 41 46 SO 50 55 59 61 63 65 66 75 76 77 79 81 85 86 88 88 97 97 98 98 100 101 102 102 10. 11. 12. 7.6 PROTEIN IN THE STARCH ANALYSIS 7.6.1 REAGENTS 7.6.2 PREPARATION 7.6.3 DIGESTION 7.6.4 DISTILLATION 7.6.5 CALCULATIONS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 8.1 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS CONCURRENT FLOW DRYER DATA EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS GERMINATION AND USDA GRADE WET MILLING DATA SUMMARY oooooooooo -l-—J-—l-—-l—l 01¢de 8.2 SIMULATION VERSUS 8.2.1 EXPERIMENTAL VERSE SIMULATION 8.2.2 SIMULATION TESTS 8.2.3 COMMERCIAL DRYER DESIGN CONCULSIONS SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY REFERENCES APPENDICES A. CONVERSION FACTORS B. CC/CF SORGHUM SIMULATION RUNS PAGE 102 103 103 103 104 104 105 105 105 111 116 118 121 122 122 126 130 133 135 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.3 GRAIN SORGHUM PRODUCTION IN 1976 (HULSE ET AL., 1980) 2.3.la GRADES, GRADE REQUIREMENTS, AND GRADE DESIGNATIONS (USDA, 1978) 2.3.1b NUMERICAL GRADES AND SAMPLE GRADE REQUIREMENTS FOR CORN (BROOKER et al., 1974) 2.3.3a COMPONENT PARTS OF SORGHUM KERNELS AND PROXIMATE ANALYSIS (RODNEY AND CLARK, 1968) 2.3 3b PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF SORGHUM GRAINS (RODNEY AND CLARK, 1968) 2.3.3c REPORTED AMINO ACID COMPOSITION OF SORGHUM (HOSENEY et al., 1981) 2.3.3d COMPARATIVE COMPOSITION OF CORN AND GRAIN SORGHUM (WATSON, 1960) 2.4a LABORATORY WET MILLING RESULTS FOR 3 TYPES OF GRAIN SORGHUM (WATSON, 1970) 2.4b LABORATORY WET MILLING RESULTS OBTAINED WITH REGULAR AND HIGH-OIL DENT CORN AND REGULAR RED MILO (WATSON, 1967) 3.1.1 STANDARDIZED ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR FIVE ALTERNATIVE COMBINATION DRYING METHODS IN MICHIGAN, U.S.A. (43° N LATITUDE) (KALCHIK et al., 1979) 3.3 CORN MOISTURE REDUCTION DURING COOLING AT 0.15m3/min/m2 (1/2 CFM/bu) (BROOK, 1979e) 3.5a DRYING SYSTEM USED TO EVALUATE COMBINATION DRYING TECHNIQUES (BROOK, 1979a) 3.5b ENERGY COST ($1/TONNE) FOR SEVERAL SYSTEMS FOR DRYING GRAIN TO 15% W.B. (BROOK, 19799) 4.2 MEAN PERCENTAGE OF STARCH RECOVERY AND MEAN PERCENTAGE OF PROTEIN IN STARCH ASSOCIATED WITH DRYING TEMPERATURE (MacMASTERS et al., 1959) 4.3.1.3a-c ARTIFICIALLY DRIED WET MILLED SORGHUM RESULTS (SORENSEN et al., 1949) viii PAGE 6 16 16 19 19 24 25 29 4o 48 48 59 71 72 73 TABLE 4. 3.1.3d FUEL EFFICIENCY OF ARTIFICIALLY DRIED SORGHUM .1 .2. .1a .1b .1c .2a .26 .2c .1a .1b .1c .2a .2b 3 (Sorensen et al., 1949) EXPERIMENTAL TEMPERATURES (°C) FOR PILOT-SCALE CC/CF DRYERS DRYING SORGHUM EXPERIMENTAL PILOT-SCALE CC/CF SORGHUM DRYING DATA EXPERIMENTAL AIR VELOCITIES (m/min) CALCULATED FROM STATIC PRESSURES ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT EQUATIONS FUEL EFFICIENCY DATA FOR THE PILOT-SCALE CC/CF DRYER EXPERIMENTAL FUEL EFFICIENCY (KJ/KgHZO) CALCULATIONS FOR TESTS #3, #5 and #6. ENERGY NEEDED TO HEAT UP GRAIN IN THE FIRST AND SECOND STAGES GERMINATION AND USDA GRADING DATA FOR SORGHUM DRIED IN THE PILOT-SCALE CC/CF DRYER SORGHUM WET MILLING RESULTS MAXIMUM SORGHUM TEMPERATURE IN THE CCF DRYING BED (EXPERIMENTAL VERSUS SIMULATION) VERIFICATION OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED GRAIN TEMPERATURES SIMULATED VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FOR CC/CF DRIED SORGHUM (MOISTURE CONTENT, GRAIN TEMPERATURE AND FUEL CONSUMPTION) GRAIN AND AIR TEMPERATURE HISTORY IN A CCF DRYING BED (SIMULATION) SIMULATED TWO AND THREE-STAGE CC/CF DRYER RUNS FOR SORGHUM DESIGN CONDITIONS FOR A 35-TON/HR THREE-STAGE 3.66m x 3.66m (12' x 12') CONCURRENTFLOW SORGHUM DRYER ix 74 107 109 110 113 114 115 117 120 123 123 125 127 128 131 .1.4 .2a .2b .2c .2.1a .4a .4b .4C .2a-b .1a .1b LIST OF FIGURES STRUCTURAL PORTIONS OF THE SORGHUM KERNEL (HOSENEY et al., 1981) FLOW SHEET OF GRAIN SORGHUM WET MILLING (WATSON, 1970) CROSS—SECTION OF A COLUMN BATCH DRYER (BROOKER et al., 1974) MOISTURE AND TEMPERATURE CHANGES DURING CONCURRENTFLOW DRYING (NELLIST, 1982) MOISTURE AND TEMPERATURE CHANGES DURING CROSSFLOW DRYING (NELLIST, 1982) MOISTURE AND TEMPERATURE CHANGES DURING COUNTERFLOW DRYING (NELLIST, 1982) CROSSFLOW DRYER WITH FORCED—AIR DRYING AND COOLING (BROOKER et al., 1974) DIFFERENTIAL GRAIN-SPEED CROSSFLOW DRYER (BAKKER ARKEMA AND SCHISLER, 1984b) SCHEMATIC OF AN ON—FARM CONCURRENTFLOW DRYER (BROOKER et al., 1974) BLOCK DIAGRAM OF A TWO—STAGE CCF RICE DRYER WITH COUNTERFLOW COOLER AND AIR RECIRCULATION (FONTANA, 1983) SCHEMATIC OF THE DRYING FLOOR OF THE BLOUNT CONCURRENTFLOW DRYER (FONTANA, 1983) THIN LAYER DRYING OF CEREALS ONE-STAGE PILOT-SCALE CONCURRENTFLOW DRYER (BAKKER-ARKEMA et al., 1983a) PILOT—SCALE CCF DRYING FLOOR 14 23 32 34 34 34 36 38 43 44 45 83 84 89 90 FIGURE PAGE 7.1C—d THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION FOR TEMPERATURES IN 94 PILOT—SCALE CCF DRYER 95 7.5.2 WET MILLING PROCEDURE 99 xi AF ('30 DAT EFF FM MC Me Mo MR LIST OF SYMBOLS specific product surface area, m‘1 constant used in Paulsen and Thompson equation constant airflow rate, m3/s/m2 constant constant specific heat, KJ/Kg°C differential symbol constant diffusion coefficient, m2/hr drying air temperature, °C fuel efficiency, KJ/Kg H20 broken and fine content, 1 mass flow rate (Kg/hr) or Kg/hr m2 convective heat transfer coefficient , KJ/hr m2 °C heat of vaporization (latent heat), KJ/Kg Jindal and Thompson (1972) static pressure symbol bed depth, m local moisture content within kernel, dry basis (decimal) average moisture content, dry basis (decimal) grain moisture content, 1 (wet basis) equilibrium moisture content, dry basis (decimal) original moisture content, dry basis (decimal) moisture ratio, (M-Me)/(Mo-Me) pt q r R9 Rw SP t T V (Wi-Wo) Z 9 4 density, Kg/m3 Paulsen and Thompson (1973) thin layer drying equation energy per unit time, KJ/hr kernel coordinate, m dry grain density, Kg/m3 wet grain density, Kg/m3 static pressure, Pa or Palm or cm-HZO time, hour air temperature, °C velocity, m/min or m/s loss of water from grain during drying, Kg/hr intermediate product of Paulsen and Thompson equation kernel temperature, °C relative humidity, (decimal) as a subscript air equilibrium Haque et a1. (1982) symbol for static pressure imitial at position zero out product at time t vapor water xiii as an abbreviation AE ave bu CC/CF CCF CF CFM DAT d.b. GFT LHE M.C. M.T. Temp ton U.S. w.b. air equation average bushel concurrent counterflow concurrentflow crossflow cubic feet per minute drying air temperature dry basis grainflow tube latent heat equation moisture content metric tonne temperature tonne United States wet basis xiv ABSTRACT CONCURRENTFLOW DRYING OF GRAIN SORGHUM AND THE RESULTING WET MILLING QUALITY By GARRET FEDEWA A pilot-scale concurrent/counterflow (CC/CF) dryer was determined to have a fuel efficiency of approximately 4950 KJ/Kg in reducing grain sorghum from a M.C. of 16.0 to 12.5% w.b. at drying air temperatures (Hi about ZOO-220°C. CC/CF drying was generally more fuel efficient at the high drying air temperatures and less fuel efficient at the low final moisture contents. A simulation model predicted acceptable results compared to the experimental results. A CC/CF sorghum dryer can reduce 161 M.C. sorghum to a safe storage M.C. (11 - 12% w.b.) at drying air temperatures as high as 215°C (420°F) without affecting the wet milling quality; starch yield and protein content in the starch were found to be acceptable in the CCF dried grain sorghum. APPROVED / Major Prof gsor DATE fi/g 95‘s.; APPROVED e I I «Q/ Department Chairman DATE x?!» /4 (Q95 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The .Arab-Sudanese Starch and Glucose Company in Khartoum, Sudan purchased a 12' x 12' three-stage concurrent/counterflow (CC/CF) sorghum dryer from Blount, Inc., Montgomery, AL. The CCF dryer was erected in 1983/84 and is expected to be placed in operation in 1985. The dryer is designed to dry grain sorghum to a safe storage moisture content (lO-ll% w.b.) at a wet milling starch factory. The starch is to be used for human consumption. This thesis is concerned with the CCF dryer performance and its effect on the wet milling characteristics of concurrentflow (CCF) dried grain sorghum. A pilot-scale concurrent/counterflow (CC/CF) dryer was used to determine the drying parameters, the energy efficiencies, and the wet milling quality (starch yield and protein in the starch) of CCF dried grain sorghum. The pilot-scale testing took place at the Blount/mfs (Modern Farms Systems, Inc.) facility in Grand Island, NE in November of 1983. The experimental data was utilized in verifying a simulation model. The model was developed at the Agricultural Engineering Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI and was used to design a CC/CF dryer for the Arab-Sudanese Starch and Glucose Company (Bakker-Arkema et al., 1983a). Samples (Mi CCF dried grain sorghum were analyzed for USDA grade, germination and wet milling quality. 1.1 UNITS Throughout this thesis SI units are used. Conversion factors from SI to English units are given in Appendix A. All bushel conversions use 51 58 pound bushel. All ton designations are nmtric tons. CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND The origin of the name ”sorghum" is obscure. In medieval Latin it appears to have been known as "surgo", and may therefore have been derived from the Latin verb "surgere" meaning "to rise" (Hulse, et al., 1980). Sorghum is e1 member of the Gramineae family and the tribe Andropogoneae. The sorghums of commercial importance are called Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench (Rooney, 1973). The greatest variability in both the cultivated and the wild sorghums is found in the north-east quadrant of Africa (Doggett, 1970). It is commonly believed that sorghum originated in Ethiopia. The Sorghum bicolor types have been divided into four major categories: (1) forage or sweet sorghum; (2) grassy sorghum; (3) broomcorn; and (4) grain sorghum. 2.1 FORAGE AND SWEET SORGHUM Sweet sorghum is believed to have been one of the earliest domesticated plants, grown by the Egyptians in 2200 BC (Ahlgren, 1949). Sweet sorghum was introduced into the United States (U S.) in 1853 (Cundiff and Parrish, 1983). The crop is used as a forage and silage (Quinby and Marion, 1960), and for the production of table syrup, ethanol and raw sugar (Smith, 1982). The drying of sweet sorghum stalks for storage appears to be impractical because of the high energy requirements (Cundiff and Parrish, 1983). 2.2 GRASSY SORGHUM AND BROOMCORN The grassy types of sorghum have thin stems, narrow leaves, numerous tillers, and small spikelets and seeds. They are useful for hay and grazing (Martin, 1970). Sudangrass and johnsongrass are two common types. Broomcorn has long panicle branches which are used for the production of brooms (Rooney, 1973). Benjamin Franklin is credited with the introduction of broomcorn into the U.S. from England in 1725 (Weibel, 1970). In 1942, forty-thousand tons of broomcorn were produced in the United States. Today broomcorn production has dwindled due to labor costs. 2.3 GRAIN SORGHUM World grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) production ranks fifth among the major cereal crops. The order of the five major cereals crops is: rice, wheat, corn, barley and grain sorghum (Rooney et al., 1982). Grain sorghum is grown mainly in hot, dry regions where corn cannot be successfully produced. Major production areas in the world are the southwestern U.S., India, Africa, Argentina, and Mexico (see Table 2.3). (H’ the total world production, over 50% is used directly for human food, mainly in Asia and Africa (Rooney et al., 1982). Grain sorghum is called by many other names, some of which are: milo, sorghum grain, milo maize, hegari, kafir-corn, kafir, guinea. corn, gyp corn, rice corn, Egyptian rice, Jerusalem corn, Cholam, Jowar, Juar, the great millet, durra, kaoling, feterita, and others (Rooney et al., 1982). In this thesis, grain sorghum is referred to as sorghum. The U.S. is the largest producer and exporter of grain sorghwn and uses it almost entirely as an animal feed grain. In the 1982/1983 season the U.S. produced 22.1 million metric tons (841 million bushels) of which 6.3 million metric tons (240 million bushels) were exported. The average yield was 1.552 metric tons (59 bushels) per acre and the season average farm price was $92.29 per metric ton ($2.47 per bushel) (Bakker-Arkema et al., 1983a). Taylor et al. (1979) reported that 957. of the grain sorghum grown in the U.S. for export passes through the Gulf ports. This was due to proximity to the grain sorghum producing areas in Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. Jackson et a1. (1980) have given an extensive report on the U.S. Sorghum Industry. TABLE 2.3 GRAIN SORGHUM PRODUCTION IN 1976 (HULSE ET AL., 1980) AREA YIELD PRODUCTION HARVESTED (lO’ha) (kg/ha) (103 metric ton) WORLD 43929 1179 51812 AFRICA 13939 704 9813 MEXICO 1180(U)* 2839 3350(U) U.S. 6020 3053 18382 ARGENTINA 1834 2835 5200(U) ASIA 18956 591 11202 INDIA 16000(F)** 544 8700(F) *U = UNOFFICIAL FIGURE **F FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) estimate 2.3.1 USDA GRAIN STANDARDS The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) has defined the following classes of sorghum (based (Ml color): (1) brown sorghum; (2) white sorghum; (3) yellow sorghum, and (4) mixed sorghum (USDA, 1974). The source of pigment may be the pericarp or subcoat (seedcoat or testa). Yellow sorghum is the major type of grain produced in the U.S. This class may contain yellow, salmon-pink, red, or white pericarps, or white with spotted pericarps. lime pigments other than yellow or white are a source of irritation for the wet—miller because bleaching is required to produce a consistent and acceptable product. Rooney et a1. (1970) suggested changing the yellow class to red and creating a true yellow endosperm class. The U.S. grading standards (Table 2.3.la) of sorghum are based on measurements of density (pounds per bushel), M.C. w.b., heat-damaged and broken kernels, foreign material and iother grains (USDA, 1974). A round sieve of 0.000992m (0.03906 inch) is used to remove the dockage from a sample. The standards apply to all classes. The grade is determined by the property that qualifies for the lowest grade. The grading system allows for a substantially higher percentage of BCFM than is allowed in corn of similar grade (Table 2 3 1b). For example, grade 3 allows 12% BCFM 1T1 sorghum but only 4‘1 BCFM in corn. Sorghum requires greater cleaning and has a lower starch yield per bushel than corn because of BCFM differences. TABLE 2.3.la GRADES, GRADE REQUIREMENTS, AND GRADE DESIGNATIONS Sec. 26.557 Grades and grade requirements for all classes of sorghum Maximum limits of —— Min- Damaged kernels Broken GRADE imum kernels, test Mois- Heat foreign weight ture Total damaged material per kernels & other bushel grains Pounds Percent Percent Percent Percent U.S. No. 1 57.0 13.0 2.0 0.2 4.0 U.S. No. 2 55.0 14.0 5.0 0.5 8.0 U.S. No. 3 53.0 15.0 10.0 1.0 12.0 U.S. No. 4 51.0 18.0 15.0 3.0 15.0 U.S. Sample grade U.S. Sample grade shall be sorghum which (a) Does not meet the requirements for-- the grades U.S. Nos. 1,2,3, or 4. (b) Contains more than 7 stones which have an agregate weight in excess of 0.2 percent of the sample weight or more than 2 crotalaria seeds (Crotalaria spp) per 1,000 grams of sorghum. (c) Has a musty, sour, or commercially objectionable foreign odor (except smut odor) or (d) Is badly weathered, heating, of dis- tinctly low qualityg(see Sec. 26.552(d). Sorghum which is distinctly discolored shall not be graded higher than U.S. No. 3 (USDA, 1974) TABLE 2.3.1b NUMERICAL GRADES AND SAMPLE GRADE REQUIREMENTS FOR CORN Includes the Classes Yellow Corn, White Corn and Mixed Corn Maximum Limits Broken Minimum Corn and Damaged Kernels Test Weight Foreign Heat-Damaged Per Bushel Moisture Material Total Kernels Grade Lb 1 1 1 1 1 56 14.0 2.0 3.0 0.1 2 54 15.5 3.0 5.0 .2 3 52 17.5 4.0 7.0 .5 4 49 20.0 5.0 10.0 1.0 5 46 23.0 7.0 15.0 3.0 Sample Grade Sample grade shall be corn which does not meet the require- ments for any of the grades from No. l to No. 5, inclusive, or which contains stones, or which is musty, or sour, or heating, or which has any commercially objectionable foreign odorigor which is otherwise of distinctly low quality, (Brooker et al., 1974) 10 2.3.2 SOME FIELD, HARVESTING AND STORAGE CHARACTERISTICS Sorghum performs best under favorable moisture, temperature, and humidity conditions. However, it is usually grown in dry, hot areas where corn is unable to grow. Successful production requires a mean summer temperature of 18.3°C (65°F) with at least 120 frost-free days (Watson, 1967). Drought resistance of sorghum is attributed to: (l) the xerophytic leaf characteristics that retard water loss (Wall and Ross, 1970); (2) the ability to remain dormant during a drought period (Doggett, 1970); and (3) the secondary root structure which is twice that of corn (Miller, 1916). The sorghum crop is known to depress certain crops following it. It can depress growth by depleting the soil of moisture and nutrients (nitrogen) (Wall and Ross, 1970). Plant residues may have toxic effects (Guenzi et al., 1967). Common rotations to restore the soil are sorghum-fallow-wheat and sorghum-soybeans—cotton. Sorghum is normally harvested at 14-181 moisture content wet basis (w.b.) with standard combines (Watson, 1967). Fairbanks (1979) reported that the total harvesting losses at 20-301 moisture content w.b. are sufficiently high to discourage early harvest even at optimum cylinder speed and cylinder-concave clearance adjustments. The quality of stored sorghuni is directly related to the M C., temperature and length of time (Bass and Stanwood, 1978). Brooker et al. (1974) recommended a 12-131 moisture content for one year of safe storage and a moisture content of 10-111 for up to 5 years storage. Sorsenson et al. (1957) reported that for South Texas: (1) sorghum with a moisture content (M.C.) higher than 141 does not store satisfactorily; (2) the maximum M.C. for safe storage is 121 in order to retain market value (n: to store over one year with regular turning or aeration; (3) excessive trash can cause heating in bins with sorghum at 11—121 M.C.; (4) storage of sorghum for longer than one year without turning or aeration requires limiting the M.C. to 111 or less; and (5) sorghum at 12 to 141 M C., which is aerated or turned during storage, can be stored safely for nine months. In the 1960's several papers on the storage of sorghum were written by researchers at the Texas Agricultural Experimental Station. Among the topics researched were: (1) operating costs (Bonnen and Cunningham, 1965); (2) commercial storage and handling (Moore and Brown, 1965); (3) on farm storage and disposal (Brown and Moore (1965); and (4) the use of conditioned air (Person et al., 1967). Whitney and Petersen (1961) found that insects become inactive and die at 10°-15.5°C (SO-60°F). Relative humidities below 601 usually eliminate molds (Brooker et al., 1974). Haile and Sorenson (1968) showed that the respiration of stored sorghum aerated at a rate of 0.107m3/min/ton (0.1 cubic feet per minute (CFM) per bushel) increases at an accelerating rate when the grain M.C. is above 12 151. and the temperature is above 15 5°C (60°F). Aeration systems with airflow rates of 0.054 — 0.107 m3/min/ton (.05 - .1 CFM/bu) are used to maintain the quality of the grain. Sorensen and Person (1970) reported that resistance to the flow of air depends on: (1) the type of grain; (2) the storage depth; (3) the amount of foreign material; (4) the grain M.C.; (5) the compaction; and (6) the airflow rate. Shedd et a1. (1953) reported data for resistance to air flow of packed and loose sorghum. Chung et al. (1984) develOped an empirical equation to determine the static pressure from the amount of fine material, M.C., and airflow. The equation developed is: SP 8 A(AF) + B(AF)2 - C(MC)(AF) + D(FM)(AF) WHERE SP pressure drop per meter depth of grain, Pa/m AF . airflow rate, m’ls m2 MC grain moisture content, 1 (w b.) FM broken and fine content, 1 A,B,C,D = constants A = 4590.59 B = 7732.24 C = 192.44 0 = 196.76 2.3.3 STRUCTURE, COMPOSITION AND PROPERTIES The sorghum plant resembles corn in vegetative appearance. Sorghum varieties range from 0.61 to 4m (2 1x) 15 ft.) iri height and have an average of 10 to 16 broad leaves on a stiff stalk (Watson, 13 1967). The grain is carried on a terminal head, or rachis, containing 800-3000 kernels. The sorghum kernel is a flattened sphere approximately 4.0mm long by 3.5mm wide by 2.5mm thick. The sorghum seed is a caryopsis which is a dry fruit with a single seed enclosed in a dry outer covering which is fused to the seedcoat. The major portions of the kernel are the outer covering (pericarp), the storage tissue (endosperm) and the germ or embryo. The endosperm, germ and pericarp compromise 80.0 - 84.61, 7.8 - 12.11, and 7.3 - 9.31 of the whole kernel dry weight (Rooney, 1973). Figure 2.3.3 shows the structural portion of the sorghum kernel. The pericarp is made up of four different parts: the epicarp, the mesocarp, the cross cells, and the tube cells. The seedcoat (testa, subcoat or undercoat) is adjacent to the inner integument. The seedcoat is not present in all grains and it may or may not be pigmented. The embryo (germ) is firmly embedded in the kernel and is smaller and more difficult to remove than the germ of corn (Rooney, 1973). The endosperm is composed of the aleurone layer and the peripheral, corneous (hard, flinty or horny) and floury areas. The endosperm cells are high in protein, fat, minerals and enzymatic activity. Grain sorghum generally is lower in fat content, but slightly higher in protein and starch content than corn. Tables 2.3.3a and 2.3.3b give an approximate composition of sorghum (Rooney and Clark, 1968). 14 EPICARP MESOCARP CROSS CELLS TUBE CELLS Figure 2.3.3 Structural portions of the sorghum kernel (Hoseney et al., 1981). 15 Composition is mostly determined by genetic and environmental factors. Type of soil, amount of rainfall, and weather are considered the main environmental factors. Corn and sorghum starch look microscopically identical, although sorghum starch is slightly larger in diameter than corn starch (Watson, 1960). There are two major groups of sorghum starch, regular and waxy. Regular starch contains approximateLy 251 amylose, the linear starch component, and 751 amylopectin, the branched starch component. Waxy starch contains approximately 1001 amylopectin. The gelatinization temperature range of regular starch is 64°C - '74°C (147°F - 165°F); for waxy starch 66°C - 76°C (151°F — 169°F) (Watson, 1970). Corn starch has a gelatinization range of 62°C - 72°C (144°F - 162°F) (Otterbacher and Kite, 1958). Therefore, sorghum starch gelatinization is less energy efficient than corn starch gelatinization. Hoseney et al., (1981) reported that (l) sorghum starch content in cultivars ranges from 32 1x3 791; (2) waxy sorghums tends to have lower starch content than nonwaxy cultivars; (3) gelatinization temperature ranges are affected by amylose/amylopectin ratios; (4) at the same starch content concentration, waxy starches produce higher peak viscosities, greater thinning during cooking, and less setback during cooling, than the nonwaxy counterparts; and (5) sorghum starch granules are polygonal or spherical and ranged from 4 to 24 micrometers. 16 TABLE 2.3.38 COMPONENT PARTS OF SORGHUM KERNELS AND PROXIMATE ANALYSIS Composition of Kernel Parts Proportion of Kernels Starch Protein Fat Ash 1 1 d.b. 1,0.6. 1 d.b 1 d.b Whole kernel Mean 73.8 12.3 3.6 1.65 Range 72.3-75.1 11.5—13.2 3.2-3.9 l 57—1.6B Endosperm Mean 82.3 82.5 12.3 0.6 0.37 Range 80.0 84.6 81 3—83.0 11.2—13.0 0 4—0.8 0 3o-o.44 Bran Mean 7.9 34.6 6.7 4.9 2.02 Range 7.3-9.3 5.2‘7.6 3.776.0 Germ Mean 9.8 13.4 18.9 23.1 10.313 Range 7.8—12.1 18.0 19.2 26.9—30.6 (Rooney and Clark, 1968) TABLE 2.3.3b PROXIMATELANALYSISLOFLSQRGHUH.GRAINS Range Average Moisture 8~20 15.5 Starch 60 77 74.1 Protein (N x 6.25) 6.6-16.0 11.2 Fat 1.4«6.l 3.7 Ash 1.2-7.1 1.5 Crude Fiber 0.4 13.4 2.6 Sugars (dextrose) 0.4-2.5 1.8 Tannin 0 003-0.17 0.1 Wax 0.2—0.5 0.3 NFE 65.3—85.3 Penlosans 1.8—4.9 2.5 (Rooney and Clark, 1968) 17 Jambunathan et a1. (1983) stated that protein quality of sorghum is lowest among the cereals, mainly because of its low levels of lysine. Hoseney et al. (1981) reported that: (1) protein content of sorghum varies widely (6 to 251); (2) lysine frequently appears to be the first limiting amino acid; and (3) sorghum is usually high in glutamic acid, leucine, alanine, proline, and aspartic acid (see Table 2.3.3c). A more balanced amino acid composition is being sought in sorghum to improve its nutritional value (Rooney et al., 1970). Germ oil and sugars in sorghum are similar ix) corn (Watson, 1967). The oil content of sorghum is about 11 lower than corn oil (Watson, 1960) as is illustrated in Table 2.3 3d. Recent reviews of the composition of sorghum were made by Hulse et al. (1980) and Hoseney et a1. (1981). link (1935) found the specific gravity of sorghum to be 1.22 and the void spaces in bulk to be 371. Stahl (1950) reported the angle of repose fOr emptying or funneling to be 33°, and for filling and piling to be 20°. Sharma and Thompson (1973) developed the following equation for thermal conductivity (K): K = 0.0564 + 0.000858M Where: thermal conductivity, BTU/h-Ft-°F M.C. (w.b.) 0.955, correlation coeffecient 0.00173 standard error of estimate (1)2337‘ 18 Average surface areas are: (1) White Kafar grain sorghum, 0.3363 cmz, (Fan et al., 1963); (2) Atlas Sorgo sorghum, 0.3193 cmz, (Fan et al., 1963); and (3) Red grain sorghum, 0 7238-0.9852 cm2 (Suarez et al., 1980). The bulk density is 717.6 Kg/m3 (44.8 lb/Ft’) at 13—141 M.C. (w b.) (Brooker et al., 1974). Rooney and Clark (1968) found the average kernel weight to be 28 mg and to vary from 5 to 50 mg. Watson (1967) reported 26,500 - 35,300 seeds per kilogram (12,000 to 16,000 seeds per pound). 2.4 NET MILLING SORGHUM AND UTILIZATION OF PRODUCTS Hightower (1949) reported the first commercial wet milling plant designed specifically for sorghum. It was built by Corn Products Refining Co. in Corpus Christi, TX. Dextrose, starch, animal feed and edible oils were produced. In the U.S. 149.7 - 199.6 million Kg (six - eight Inillion bushels) were wet milled between 1950 and 1970 (Rooney, 1973). However in 1973, wet milling was discontinued. The reasons for discontinuing wet milling in the U.S. were fivefold: (1) The price of sorghum became noncompetitive with corn (Rooney et al., 1973). (2) Sorghum starch yields are technically more difficult to obtain than corn starch yields. This is primarily due to a difference in size, a larger horny endosperm area in sorghum than in corn and a layer of dense cells 19 TABLE 2.3.3C REPORTED AMINO ACID COMPOSITION OF SORGHUM (g/100 g of_protein) Reference Jones and Jambunathan Waggle et a1. Beck with and Mertz Hoseny et a1. 1967 1970 1973 1974 Lysine 2.08 1.8 2.14 2.24 Histidine 2.23 2.1 2.01 1.71 Ammonia 3.3 2.95 Arginine 3.32 3.2 3.59 3.18 Aspartic acid 6.87 7.0 7.83 6.94 Threonine 3.10 3.5 3.26 3.64 Serine 4.34 4.6 4.52 4.73 Glutamic acid 22.40 24.9 23.22 22.27 Proline 8.27 9.0 8.16 7.19 Glycine 3.10 3.2 3.07 3.40 Alanine 9.85 9.9 9.89 9.11 Half-cystine 1.56 0.7 0.92 1.73 Valine 5.25 4.9 5.35 4.51 Methionine 1.17 1.3 1.03 1.23 Isoleucine 4.24 3.9 4.08 3.77 Leucine 14.36 14.5 14.27 13.11 Tyrosine 2.14 4.6 4.50 3.41 Phenylalanine 5.30 5.3 5.19 4.89 (Hosney et al., 1981) TABLE 2.3.3d COMPARATIVE COMPOSITION OF CORN AND GRAIN SORGHUM Component 1 d.b. Grain Sorghum (a) Yellow Dent (Corn (b) Starch 71.1 72.1 Protein (N x 6.25) 12.8 9.5 Fat 3.7 4.6 Ash 1.5 1.4 Tannin 0.01 None Wax 0.4 0.03 Carotenoid Pigments,gppm None 15.30 (a) Average values for major components analyzed in grain received over a 3 1/2 year period at Corpus Christi, TX. (6) Average values for major components analyzed in corn received over a 3 1/2 year period at Pekin, IL. (Watson, 1960) 20 rich in protein at the periphery of the endosperm just inside the aleurone layer (Watson et al., 1955). Hubbard et a1. (1950) found that the pericarp cannot be completely removed from the kernel even when soaked. This results in a small amount of pericarp material attached ‘Ua the endosperm. Freeman and Watson (1969) peeled the pericarp fragment from the endosperm. They obtained a whiter starch product, lower protein content in the starch, increased yield and purity of the germ, and a higher wax recovery. However, they also observed that starch losses during peeling negated the above. (3) Bleaching is an additional cost because pigments discolor the starch product. (4) Some sorghum types have a brittle pigmented subcoat which leaves fragments in the starch product. (5) Grain standards allow more BCFM in sorghum than BCFM in corn. This results in costly cleaning and loss of product. Watson et a1. (1955) reported that starch purification and recovery from sorghum are more difficult than from corn. This is because of a larger portion of horny endosperm and a layer of dense cells rich in protein at the periphery of the endosperm just inside the aleurone layer. A microscopic examination revealed protein matrices encasing starch granules in the endosperm which lowered 21 starch yields and increased protein starch content. Starch vs more readily released in the floury endosperm than the horny endosperm because of fewer protein matrices (Watson and Hirata, 1954). The purpose of wet milling is to obtain a pure, complete separation of the component parts. Products are starch, oil and feed. Sorghum and corn are wet milled similarly (Watson, 1967).Figure 2.4. presents a commercial wet milling flow diagram. Wet milling involves (Watson, 1970): (1) cleaning the grain of undesirable material; (2) steeping the grain for 40-50 hrs. in 0.20 - 0.251 S02 water at 50 - 52°C; (3) milling the grain to obtain as pure a separation of the component parts as possible; (4) and then recovery (Hi the component parts for suitable processing. Cox et al. (1944) found that $0; facilitates gradual swelling of the protein matrix in the germ and endosperm and allows the release of entrapped starch granules. Zipf et a1. (1950) found that when steepwater contains less than 0.201 502, germ separation was impaired. About 7.0 - 7.51 dry solid nutter becomes soluble in the steepwater. The steeping temperature discourages the growth of yeast and putrefactive organisms but encourages lactic acid bacteria development. Lactic acid bacteria lower the steepwater pH and soften 22 the kernel with lactic acid production. The kernel has a M.C. of about 451 w.b. after steeping. Watson and Hirata (1962) found that corn artificially dried at excessive temperatures (above 140°F (60°C)) attains a lower final M.C. than 451 w.b. Table 2.4a shows laboratory wet milling results of three types of sorghum. Variations in yield are common between different kinds cfi’ sorghum (Watson, 1970). Table 2.4b shows laboratory wet milling yields obtained with regular and high-oil dent corn, and with regular red milo. Starch yields and oil yields are usually higher for corn than for sorghum. 23 UM Cleaners STEEPWATER Steep Tanks Evaporators Degerminator - Mills STEEPHATER Germ Separators GERM W i Grinding Mills Washing S Drying FIBER Washing Screens [--Expellors Oriers MAL LL 1 Centrifugal £899£_QLL Sep rators MILD Driers 211 Protein Flotation SOAP“_Centrifugal Ceils SIDES Separators MILO 9.13.11.12.11 Filters BEELNELQH. 601 Protein 4 SEARCH 5.1.4.8511. MILO [ GLUTEN Driers Sugar MEAL ~ Conv rtors 411 Protein 3 Ref1ning Crystallizers I l Centrifugals 51.88211 11mm mes: Flow Sheet of Grain Sorghum Wet Milling (Watson. 1970) Figure 2.4 Flow sheet of grain sorghum wet milling (Watson, 1970). 24 TABLE 2.4a Laboratory Wet Milling Results for 3 Types of Grain Sorghum Regular Red Waxy Yellow (cqunxu3L1alJ______LWh1teJ_____Jflunuuuuan§_______ Whole Grain Analysis Moisture 14.5 13.5 14.0 Starch' 73.1 71.9 74.8 Protein 12.1 11.4 10.3 Fat. total2 3.6 4.1 3.3 Wax 0.3 0.3 Xanthophyll.ppm l l 5.8 Solubles Yield3 6.9 7.6 7.4 Protein 48.2 45.8 46.2 Table Starch Yield 64.2 61.3 67.9 Protein4 0.3 0.2 0.4 Fat (total)5 0.7 0.1 Germ Yield 6.2 5.9 4.0 Starch 18.6 10.8 16.6 Protein 11.8 10.3 15.0 Fat 38.8 42.6 43.4 011 yield3 2.4 2.5 1.7 Fiber Yield 8.2 9.0 7.7 Starch 30.6 35.4 22.2 Protein 23.2 21.3 15.7 Fat 2.4 3.7 7.0 Table Gluten Yield 10.6 11.0 9.2 Starch 42.8 41.9 31.6 Protein 46.7 40.9 50.3 Fat 7.9 8.7 9.9 Xanthophyll, ppm 16.0 Middlings Yield 1.2 2.0 1.6 Total dry substance recoverx,97.o 96.8 97.8 ' 1 dry basis. 2 Includes Wax. 3 1 of original grain. dry basis. 4 Analytical values expressed as 1 of fraction. dry basis. 2 Determined by acid hydrolysis. DeKalb Hybrid 6600. (Watson. 1970) TABLE 2.4b 25 Laboratory Wet Milling Results Obtained with Regular and High-oil Dent Corn and Regular Red Milo° Regular dent corn High-oil dent cOrn Red milo Fraction (1) (1) (1) Whole grain analysis Moisture 14.3 13.6 14.9 Starch 71.5 67.0 73.1 Protein 10.5 10.4 13.0 Fat 5.10 7.96 3.6 Wax Trace Trace 0.32 Solubles Yieldb 7.6 10.8 7.20 Proteinc 46.1 46.9 41.5 Starch Yield 63.7 59.7 60.17 Protein 0.30 0.26 0.32 Fat 0.02 0.03 0.03 Germ Yield 7.3 10.9 6.17 Starch 7.6 7.2 19.1 Protein 10.7 7.2 11.9 Fat 58.9 65.5 39.6 011 Yieldb 4.30 7.14 2.44 Fiber Yield 9.5 9.8 9.30 Starch 11.4 12.3 36.7 Protein 11.3 11.0 19.7 Fat 1.8 .7 .8 Gluten Yield 7.4 6.3 9.57 Starch 25.8 32.0 39.9 Protein 50.7 42.3 47.2 Fat 3.7 4.4 5.4 Squeegee Yield 3.9 3.6 5.57 Starch 91.7 93.8 74.8 Protein 6.1 3.6 20.7 Fat 0.3 0.4 1.6 Total dry substance 99.4 101.0 98.0 ° All percentages other than moisture are expressed on a dry basis. ° Percent of original grain. ° Analytical values expressed as percent of the fraction. (Watson, 1967) 26 Sorghum starch (60—701 ‘recovery) is almost identical with corn starch in properties and therefore is useful in the same ways. Various uses are: (1) paper products; (2) textiles; (3) adhesives; (4) drilling muds; (5) baking, confections, brewers“ grits, and other foods; (6) explosives; and (7) building nmterials. Hoseney et en. (1981) and Hulse et al. (1980) published excellent reviews on the international uses of sorghum. The recovery of oil and feed products are 2 - 31 and 22 - 381 during wet milling, respectively . Sorghum oil is similar to corn oil and is excellent for cooking and salad use. Corn feed products are considered of higher quality because they contain xanthophyll. Xanthophyll produces a desirable yellow color for broiler poultry (Watson, 1960). 27 CHAPTER 3 GRAIN DRYING This thesis is primarily concerned with drying sorghum with a concurrentflow (CCF) dryer. However, there are many different grain drying systems capable of drying sorghum. Initial cost, capacity, grain quality and energy efficiency will be considered as criteria. The CCF dryer is the last subject of this section. Solar and heat pump drying units are not discussed because they are unable to compete economically with conventional drying systems (Kranzler et al., 1980; and Hogan et al., 1983). 3.1 BATCH DRYERS Four types of batch drying systems will be discussed. They are low-temperature in-bin drying, batch-in-bin drying, continuous in-bin counterflow drying and column batch drying systems. Grain-drying systems generally include an air device, a means of introducing the air into the grain mass, and a chamber to hold the grain. Grain dryers may be either batch or continuous flow in design. 28 Batch drying systems are either in-bin or coJumn type. Examples of continuous flow systems are: crossflow, concurrentflow, and mixed-flow dryers. Dryers can further be classified with respect to capacity, operating temperature range and direction of airflow relative to grain. 3.1.1 LOW—TEMPERATURE IN—BIN DRYING SYSTEMS Low temperature in—bin drying systems have a low capacity, low initial cost, low energy consumption, and produces grain of excellent quality (virtually no heat damage and few stress cracks). The units require careful management to prevent mold development. The humidity should be below 551 and the average daily temperature below 10°C (50°F) (Brook, 1979a). Airflow rates vary from 0.54 m3/min/ton to 5.38 m3/min/ton (0.5 - 5.0 CFM/bu). Mittal and Otten (1979) concluded that in Ontario, Canada a control system was required to rninimize the energy usage in a low temperature drying system. The recommended mininumi airflow rate and the maximum bin depth depend (N1 the initial 1“: and on the environmental conditions (Pierce and Thompson, 1979). Kalchik et al. (1979) found that the natural air drying system (Table 3.1.1) is more energy efficient than the low-temperature, in-bin drieration, in—bin counterflow and automatic drying batch systems. Table 3.1 1 29 Standardized energy consumption for five alternative combination drying methods in Michigan, U S.A. (43°N latitude) Energy Total energy+ Drying Electricity* Propane efficiency propane equiv Technique kWh/ha l/ha kJ/kg l/ha Natural air' (26-23-15.51)m.c. 3430 729 3227 1216 Low-temperature' (26-23-15.51)m c. 4819 729 3756 1411 In-bin direration' (26-20-15.51)m c. 944 1421 4140 1552 In-bin counterflow (26-18—15.51)m c. 1035 1562 4548 1710 Automatic batch (26-12.51)m.c. 334 2879 6589 2926 *Based on 62.5 t initial m c.26-01 (w.b.) final m.c. +Based on 6.0 t/ha 15.51 'Energy efficiency of high—temperature drying phase is 6228 kJ/Kg H20 (Kalchik et al., 1979) 30 3.1.2 BATCH-IN-BIN DRYING Batch-in-bin drying systems have a moderate initial cost and energy consumption. The seasonal capacity is usually between 210 to 395 MT (8,000 to 15,000 bushels) (Brook, 1979b). The quality of the grain is relatively low because of over-drying of the bottom layers in the bin. The airflow rate is 10.76 - 26.91 m3/min/ton (10 - 25 CFM/bu) with an operating temperature between 38°C (100°F) and 71°C (160°F). A uniform filling in the bin (usually 0.91m (3 ft.) to 1.2m (4 ft.)) is essential for producing an eyen airflow through the grain. Drying is stopped before the grain layers in the top of the bin are at a safe storage M.C. and the entire batch is mixed to produce a safe storage M.C. This results in a nonuniform grain mixture with some grain over-dried and some grain under-dried. Stirring devices are often used with low temperature and batch-in-bin drying systems. Stirring offers the following advantages: (1) reduced moisture gradients in the grain mass, (2) increased airflow rate, (3) increased drying rate proportional to the increased airflow rate, (4) the breakup of wet pockets of grain that may have formed in the drying process (Brooker et al., 1974). Bridges et al. (1984) suggested that stirring devices are best used with in—bin drying systems running near 1001 drying capacity. 31 3.1.3 CONTINUOUS IN-BIN COUNTERFLOW DRYING A continuous in-bin counterflow drying systenl removes the grain by layers (10.0-15.0 cm) as it dries from the bottom with a tapered sweep auger. As grain is removed, grain can be added to the top. This results in less overdrying of the grain. This system is higher in initial cost and drying capacity than the batch—in-bin system. Bakker-Arkema et al. (1980) found the continuous in—bin counterflow drying system to be energy efficient and reliable. The airflow rate is from 10 to 30 m3/min/ton (9.3 - 27.9 CFM/bu). The operating temperatures range from 60°C to 90°C (Bridges et al., 1983). 3.1.4 COLUMN BATCH DRYERS Column batch dryers (Figure 3.1.4) operate with a stationary bed of crossflow design. The column thickness is usually 0.3m (12 in) with an airflow rate of 75.3 - 96.9 m°/min/ton (70 - 90 CFM/bu) and drying air temperatures up to 110°C. These dryers are moderately expensive. The capacity can be as high as 1580 metric tons per season (60,000 bu) (Brook, 1979b). The grain quality is usually reduced due to the severe drying treatment and the resulting stress cracks. Kalchik et a1. (1979) reported that the automatic batch dryer is 32 NET GRAIN SUPPLY GRAIN SLIDE HEATED AIR CHAMBER DRYING COLUMNS WITH PERFORATED NALLS CONVEYOR FOR REMOVING DRIED GRAIN Figure 3.1.4 Cross-section of a column batch dryer (Brooker et al., 1974). 33 lower in efficiency than the natural and low temperature air drying, the drieration, and the (xxnfinuous in-bin counterflow systems (Table 3.1.1). 3.2 CONTINUOUS FLOW DRYERS In concurrentflow drying the grain moves in the direction of the air flow (Figure 3.1a). The CCF dryer will be discussed in detail later. In crossflow drying the air moves perpendicular to the grain. Figure 3.1b illustrates that: (1) the grain is driest and hottest at the air inlet side, (2) the grain at the air inlet side approaches the drying air temperature, and (3) the grain at the exhaust side is cooler and wetter than at the air inlet side. The resulting temperature and moisture gradients cause a lowering of the grain quality. In counterflow drying the grain moves countercurrently to the flow of air. Figure 3.1c shows that the driest grain reaches the highest temperatures. This limits the drying air temperature because of grain quality considerations (breakage susceptibility and heat damage). Therefore, counterflow systems can best be employed for cool— 3.2a \3 i) 34 3.2b 1 . MOISTURE (M) TEMPERATURE (T) DISTANCE DIRECTION OF FLON OF CROP DIRECTION OF FLOW OF AIR 3.2c 1 “M f-\\_’ Figure 3.2a Moisture and temperature changes during concurrentflow drying (Nellist, 1982). 3.2b Moisture and temperature changes during crossflow drying (Nellist, 1982). 3.2: Moisture and temperature changes during counterflow drying (Nellist, 1982). 35 ing rather than for drying grain. 11 counterflow cooling system is used with the CCF dryer. 3.2.1 CROSSFLOW (CF) DRYERS The crossflow dryer is the most commonly used continuous flow dryer in the U.S A. Figure 3.2.la is an example of a CF dryer. The grain flows from the wet-grain holding bin through the grain columns, and is discharged at the bottom. The upper portion of each column is used for drying, the lower part for cooling. CF dryers are relatively inexpensive and have £1 moderate to high drying capacity. Operating temperatures can be as high as 121°C and the airflow rate varies from 75.3 to 129.2 m3/min-ton (70 - 120 CFM/bu). Conventional CF dryers are energy inefficient and have lowered grain quality. Bakker-Arkema (1984) reported that: (1) conventional CF dryers may have a moisture content gradient as high as 201 across the column and a grain breakage susceptibility increase as high as 501, (2) conventional CF dryers may have energy efficiencies of 7000 KJ/Kg, and (3) various design improvements such as air recirculation, reversal of airflow, grain inverters, differential grain-speed (DGS) devices, and tempering improve energy efficiency and help maintain the quality of grain. 36 0000000000000 000000000000 0000000000 ....... ...... 00000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO“ ..... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO . 00.00.000.000... ...... ..... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 000000000000000000000000000000000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .0. HEATER O. O. ...... ....... ...... O O 0...... ....... ...... O. ....... ....... ....... ...... ....... 0... +1 GRAIN ma “ UNLOADING AUGER Figure 3.2.1a Crossflow dr and cooling HEATED AIR PLENUM GXKJMS FAN COOLING AIR PLENUM i FILLING AUGER O OOOOOOOOIOOOOW~ ........... er with forced-air drying Brooker et al., 1974). 37 Bakker-Arkema and Schisler (1984b) described a commercial (Figure 3 2 1b) DGS-CF dryer that dries corn from 301 to 151 M.C. with only a 2.31 moisture gradient across the column. They also dried corn from 191 to 141 M.C. with less than a 11 moisture gradient across the column. 3.2.2 MIXED-FLOW (CASCADE) DRYERS A continuous mixed-flow dryer dries grain by a combination of crossflow, concurrentflow, and counterflow actions. This takes place when the grain flows over rows of alternate inlet and exhaust air ducts. The cascade dryer is popular in Europe and South America but is not used in the U.S. probably because it requires pollution controls (Bakker-Arkema et al., 1983b). The initial cost is intermediate to high. The performance of the mixed—flow dryer is similar to the CCF dryer (Nellist, 1982). Bakker-Arkema (1984) reported energy efficiencies of 3500-4000 kJ/Kg for drying corn. 38 : OUTER HOPPER : OUTER TAPERED GRAIN COLUMNS : PLENUM = TEMPERING HOPPER : INNER DRYING COLUMNS : COOLING ZONE F-i' = GRAIN EXIT F- Figure 3.2.lb Differential Grain Speed crossflow dryer (Bakker-Arkema and Schisler, 1984b). 39 3.3 COMBINATION DRYING SYSTEMS Combination drying is defined as la system ir1 which high-temperature, high speed drying down to 18 to 221 M.C. is followed by in—bin low-temperature drying and cooling (Morey et al., 1978). The high temperature dryer may be batch or continuous flow and the low-temperature dryer may use in-bin natural or low-temperature drying air. The above systems are also referred to as partial high-temperature drying. The initial cost involves a high and low-temperature drying system. Combination drying systems increase drying capacity up to 1001 (Brook, 1979c), decrease energy consumption up to 501 (compared to batch dryers) (Kalchik et al., 1979), and help nmintain iflne grain quality (Gustafson et al., 1978). Gustafson et al. (1978) reported that combination drying of corn win a final moisture content during the high-temperature phase at or above 181 significantly reduces the susceptibility to mechanical damage compared to conventional high-temperature drying. Dryeration is a. special case of combination drying (Bakker—Arkema, 1984). Dryeration is a. process that involves high-temperature drying to 15 to 181 M.C , 6 — 8 hours of tempering in a bin, and then slow cooling with ambient air (1.0 m3/min—ton). The final M.C. is 14 to 15.51. Table 3.3 shows how much moisture can be lost with tempering and then cooling (McKenzie et al., 1966). For 40 normal harvest moisture contents of 24 — 261, dryeration saves 201 of the energy normally used in a crossflow dryer and dryeration increases the drying capacity by 25-401 for the high-temperature dryer (Brook, 19798). TABLE 3.3 CORN MOISTURE REDUCTION DURING COOLING AT 0.54 mj7MIN/TON (1/2 CFM/BU.) Hot Corn Temperature Moisture reduction Average (6 tests) Ragge °C Per cent Per Cent 53.3 1.7 l.5—-l.9 61.1 2.1 1.7--2.3 66.7 2.5 2.0--3.l (McKenzie et al., 1966) 41 3.4 CONCURRENT/COUNTERFLOW (CC/CF) DRYERS The concurrent/counterflow (CC/CF) dryer was developed from a Swedish patent by Oholm during the 1970's and appears to have the potential to become the major grain drying technique of the 1980's (Bakker-Arkema, 1984). This CC/CF dryer may consist of one, two or three drying stages with a counterflow cooling stage attached. Figure 3.4a shows a single stage CC/CF dryer. The wet grain enters the top via an auger, passes through a CCF drying bed and a counterflow cooling bed and is unloaded. Figure 3.4b shows a block diagram (Ni a two stage CC/CF dryer. Tempering between the drying stages improves grain quality and energy efficiency. Recirculation increases the energy efficiency. Figure 3.4c is a schematiC' of the Blount CCF drying floor and shows the mixing of the drying air and the grain. The CC/CF dryer has the most complex design of the continuous flow dryers. The CC/CF dryer has advantages over the mixed-flow and crossflow dryers because of its improved energy efficiency and high grain quality characteristics. In the CC/CF drying process (see Figures 3.2a - c): (1) the grain and drying air flow in the same direction through 11 deep (0.61—0.91m) drying bed and a counterflow (1 22-1 83m) cooling bed, (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 42 the grain exposure to the initial drying air' temperature (DAT) is brief (30 seconds or less); the grain and DAT approach each other while in the middle of the drying bed, the wettest grain encounters the hottest air which results in rapid cooling of the drying air due to the high rate of evaporation, tempering (used in multistage units) allows for nmnsture and temperature gradients in the kernel to equalize, the coldest grain meets the conest air in the counterflow cooling bed, and each kernel receives a similar drying, tempering and cooling treatment. 43 LEVELING AUGER Z 5 9; NENflfl)AIR E 2 E E ' » emusr DUCT MEflfluNGIKELS mmrmonuimmmm Figure 3.4a Schematic of an on-farm concurrentflow dryer (Brooker et al., 1974). 44 RICE IN AMBIENT * m FIRST STAGE CONCURRENT DRYING [TEMPERINGJ AMBIENT SECOND, STAGE CONCURRENT DRYING AIR RECYCLING COUNTER FLOW COOLING E FAN AMBIENT AIR RICE OUT Figure 3.4b Block diagram of a two-stage CCF rice dryer with counterflow cooler and air recirculation (Fontana, 1983). 45 Wet grain Figure 3.4c Schematic of the drying floor of the Blount concurrentflow dryer (Fontana, 1983). 46 In the CC/CF dryer the maximum DAT is a function of the type of grain, of the grainflow and of the initial M.C. of the grain. Thus, high inlet air temperatures are possible. This increases energy efficiency and reduces the airflow rate (Isaacs and Muhlbauer, 1975). The deep drying-bed results in improved energy efficiencies (Brooker et al., 1974) and allows for tempering to take place which relieves stress cracking (Bakker-Arkema et al., 1972). Tempering between drying stages improves the energy efficiency, the grain quality and the drying rate (Bakker—Arkema et al., 1982). The counterflow cooling system subjects the hot grain 'uD a slow, gentle cooling because the temperature difference between the cooling air and the grain is usually not over 5°C to 10°C (Bakker-Arkema, 1984). The counterflow cooling process usually produces excellent grain quality (Bakker-Arkema and Schisler, 1984a). The CC/CF dried grain is uniform in M.C. and temperature when leaving the dryer. This eliminates the need for mixing as is required in the CF dryers. 3.5 CCF DRYER LITERATURE REVIEW With the increase of fossil fuel prices, fuel consumption reduction has become a concern for dryer manufacturers, farmers and grain elevator loperators. The CC/CF dryer performance is a. leader among continuous-flow systems with respect to energy efficiency. The 47 energy efficiency of the CC/CF dryer is from 3000 to 3800 KJ/kg while the comparable mixed-flow and crossflow dryers are 3500-4000 KJ/kg and 3700-7000 KJ/kg respectively (Bakker-Arkema, 1984). Sokhansanj and Bakker-Arkema (1981) determined that direct air recirculation and indirect air recirculation (heat pipes) produce up to 181 in energy savings. Bakker-Arkema 8t al. (1982) reported that the CC/CF dryer energy consumption while drying rice is half that of conventional rice dryers. Brook (19798) found that the multistage CCF dryers are preferable to 51 single stage CCF dryer because of improved energy efficiency, temperature control, drying capacity and grain quality. The capital cost of adding another stage represents about 59.61 of the total cost of a single stage dryer and the cost decreased to 45.51 for a three stage dryer. Brook (19798) also reported that the single stage CC/CF dryer is usually' more energy efficient then most on-farm systems except for natural air drying (S88 Tables 3.5a and 3.56). 48 TABLE 3.5a DRYING SYSTEMS USED TO EVALUATE COMBINATION DRYING TECHNIQUES TEMPERATURE AIRFLOW Deep Bin Drying +0 C, +3 C 281-5 m3/min-tonn8 261~3 m3/min-tonn8 241-2 m3/min-tonn8 221-1 m3/min-tonn8 Batch-in-Bin Drying 60 C 20 m3/min-tonn8 Crossflow 100 C 80 m3/min-tonn8 Concurrent 150 C 50 m’lmin-tonne Dryeration -to 171 with Crossflow 100 C 80 m3/min-tonn8 -17 to 151 with Deep Bin +0 C 1/2 m3/min-tonn8 Partial Heat Drying -to 201 with Crossflow 100 C 80 m3/min-tonn8 -20 to 151 with 088p Bin +0 C l m3/min—tonn8 (Brook, 19798) TABLE 3.5b ENERGY COST ($ltonne) FOR SEVERAL SYSTEMS FOR DRYING GRAIN TO 151 WB. Drying Deep Bin Batch—in Cross— Con- Dryer- Partial from +0C +3C Bin flow Current ation Heat 301 wb -- -- 4.50 5.08 4.04 4.53 4.43 28 2.35 4.93 3.75 4.26 3.42 3.73 3.62 26 1.94 4.04 3.09 3.58 2.81 2.97 2.87 24 1.53 3.23 2.50 2.81 2.25 2.25 2.14 22 1.17 2.42 1.87 2.13 1.71 1.57 1.46 20 0.82 1.70 1.32 1.50 1.20 0.92 —- (Brook, 19798) 49 The quality of CCF dried agricultural crops is reported to be excellent. Among the crops successfully dried are corn (Rodriguez, 1982), soybeans (Kalchik, 1977), pea beans (Brook, 1977), soft wheat (Ahmadnia, 1977), rice (Fontana, 1983) and sorghum (Bakker—Arkema et al., 1983a). Hall and Anderson (1980) used (a single stage CCF dryer) DATs as high as 500°C without affecting corn product quality. Thompson et a1. (1969) reported that DATs of less than 121°C results in acceptable wet millability of corn in a single stage CCF dryer. Walker and Bakker-Arkema (1981) reported that rice was dried successfully at 120°C without affecting the rice head yield. Bakker-Arkema et al. (1982) reported that multistage CCF rice dryers with built-in tempering can remove at least six points of moisture at DATs between 121°C and 177°C. Fontana et al. (1982) reported that inlet air temperatures of 140°C (top stage) and 80°C (bottom stage) for a two stage CCF dryer did not affect the rice seed viability; the fuel efficiency during these tests was 3500 KJ/kg. 50 CHAPTER 4 GRAIN QUALITY This thesis is primarily concerned with the wet milling characteristics of artificially dried sorghum. The literature is sparse on this subject because commercial wet milling in the U.S. was discontinued in 1973. Today almost all sorghum in the U.S. is used for animal feed because corn is considered to have superior wet milling properties. Corn and sorghum are similar in composition, kernel structure, starch properties and ease of starch isolation (Watson and Hirata, 1954). Also, corn and sorghum wet milled products are used for the same purposes. Therefore, the wet nfilling characteristics of artificially* dried corn will be considered when appropriate. 4.1 DESIRABLE NET MILLING CHARACTERISTICS FOR GRAIN SORGHUM Desirable grain quality properties are (Brooker et al., 1974): (l) appropriately low and uniform moisture content; (2) low percentage of stress-cracked, broken and damaged 51 kernels and of foreign substances; (3) low susceptibility to breakage; (4) high test weight; (5) high starch yield (millability) and Quality; (6) high oil recovery and quality; (7) high protein quality; (8) high viability; (9) low mold count; and (10) high nutritive value. The importance of the above qualities varies with the use of the grain. The wet milling is primarily concerned with (5), (6) and (7) although the USDA standards for grain sorghum do not evaluate these properties. Selective buying of grain sorghum (N1 the basis of (5), (6) and (7) is usually impractical because of the high volumes of grain wet milled daily. Therefore, the wet miller buys most of his grain at the market value determined by the USDA grain standards. High quality wet milled sorghum kernels are clean, plump and whole, have :1 high test weight (Watson, 1970) and minimal damage due to insects, molds, artificial drying, and handling. Watson et al. (1961) reported that laboratory steeping and milling studies best indicate actual milling performance. However, these studies are too lengthy and involved for rapid quality determinations. 52 Freeman (1973) reported the following about the corn wet milling industry: (1) Available methods for evaluating grain (N1 the basis of some important quality factors not considered in the official grade are often too complex and lengthy for routine use in as plant laboratory under any circumstance. [This is because most wet milling plants process 640,000 - 2,500,000 Kg of corn daily.]; (2) The suitability of corn for wet milling is related to the official grade and class designation in the following manner: (a) Color: Only yellow corn is used. (b) Test Weight: Low test weight is detrimental to the value of corn because it lessens storage silo and steeping tank capacity. Test weight of corn is determined by a combination of true density and its packing characteristics. (c) Moisture Content: M.C. affects the kernel density and the packing properties. Grain with a high M.C. is more likely to mold and to give problems during unloading and cleaning. (d) Broken Corn and Foreign Material (BCFM): An excessive amount of broken corn indicates inferior quality and increases cleaning requirements and loss of dry matter. Foreign material may include rodent hairs and feces, and various types of weed seeds unsuitable for food use. (e) (f) 53 Broken kernels too large to be removed in the normal cleaning operation may release starch granules during steeping. The free starch remains in the steepwater and causes fouling of eyaporator surfaces during steepwater concentration. Excessive BCFM may indicate an unequal M.C. distribution and thus provide potential for rmald growth. Damaged Kernels: Molding of kernels is the most common form of damage. Molded kernels result in decreased oil yield and quality (undesirable free fatty acids). Odor and Miscellaneous: Objectionable foreign odor caused by heating and molding indicates poor grain quality. Excessive amounts of stones represent dry matter loss. (3) Factors not considered in official grade and class designation which can effect the value of corn for wet milling are: (a) (b) Oil Content and Distribution: 80 to 907. of the oil in corn is in the germ. Field shelling and handling can effect the oil recovery by chipping, cracking, and bruising the germ which can result in oil migrating to the endosperm. Oil Quality: The price of oil is 3 to 4 times that of starch. Molding can produce free fatty acids which require additional processing. (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) 54 Carotenoid Pigments: These pigments give the desirable yellow color to the shanks and skins of broilers and to the yolks of eggs. Starch Content and Quality: Uniformily low starch content is, in general, preferable to a high starch content because the economic value of protein and oil is higher. Starch that is high in protein content and low in viscosity is considered to be of low quality. High temperature drying of corn can decrease yield and quality of corn starch. Protein Content and Quality: The protein content is not affected by normal harvesting, and storage procedures. However, the quality may be impaired during drying. Mycotoxins: Mycotoxins are not a problem in wet milling because the wet milling process usually removes these toxic substances from the food products. Kernel Size, Shape and Uniformity: These qualities are of minor importance to the wet miller although small kernels have less oil content. Kernel Density: The true density of a grain sample is a good index of quality. Grain Preservatives: Grain preservatives are discouraged by the wet milling industry. 55 (j) Pesticide Residues: These are not a problem for wet millers. (k) Viability: Corn of high viability is almost always excellent for wet milling. (1) Stress Cracks: Corn with stress cracks is fragile and tends U3 break during handling. Breakage which occurs after the corn is purchased is lost to cleanings and reduces the product yields proportionately. (m) Millability: The best measure of quality of corn for wet milling is provided by the results obtained by milling. Clearly, the USDA Grain Standards are not always reliable to the wet miller in selecting quality grain. 4.2 QUALITY OF ARTIFICIALLY DRIED GRAIN Heated air drying is often more popular than natural air drying of grain because it is quick, simpler to manage and capable of producing a more uniform product. Some of the potential disadvantages iri heated air' drying are: (1) increased energy' costs, (2) loss of grain quality due to heat damage, and (3) increased initial cost of the dryer. Nellist (1980) reported that dryer design is very important in determining the quality of the grain. 56 Germination (viability) is the most sensitive indicator of grain damage. Factors that effect the loss of viability during a particular drying treatment are: (1) (2) (3) (4) the initial viability; the temperature of the grain; the M.C. of the grain; and the time of exposure. Nellist (1981) reported that: (l) (2) (3) the poorer the seed, the more severe the damage by a given drying treatment; at constant temperature and M.C., seed death is normally distributed with time; and with sound management, drying at near ambient temperature in bulk stores can be a safe way to preserve seed viability. Nellist (1982) reported that: (1) (2) (3) germination is an excellent means of reflecting chemical and physiological changes; each batch of seeds has its own initial germination and apparent resistance to heat damage; and the germination test has aui experimental error of l to 2% which limits its sensitivity in determining heat damage. 57 Ghaly et al. (1974) reported that wheat damaged during artificial drying has a decrease in both viability and loaf size. Gustafson and Morey (1981) found that the drying air temperature within the grain mass is a consistent indicator of potential germination but not of breakage susceptibility: within a crossflow grain dryer column. Watson and Hirata (1962) reported the following about a column batch dryer (except for the airflow rate which used a CF dryer) with drying times normally greater than one hour: (1) corn dried to preserve viability should be suitable for wet milling; (2) the grain temperature which causes a significant drop in viability is a function of initial M.C. of the grain, the temperature and relative humidity of the drying air and the drying airflow rate; (3) corn dried at 82.2°C or higher shows evidence of reduced millability; (4) initial M.C. (up to 32%) of corn and airflow rate (up to 194.8m3/min/ton (181 CFM/bushel) have no effect on milling results; (5) high relative humidity ir1 a batch dryer increases the degree of damage sustained by the corn dried at 82.2°C; and 58 (6) viability of the grain is reduced or destroyed by drying conditions less severe than those which adversely affect millability. MacMasters et al. (1959) reported that the germination of corn is drastically decreased at drying air temperatures above 60°C while the millability remains acceptable at drying air temperatures as high as 71.1°C (1-27. loss) (the drying conditions caused the grain temperature to reach the drying air temperature). The drying times ranged from 1.0 - 9.0 hours (See Table 4.2). These are extremely long exposures at high drying air temperatures. At 71.1°C, the drying time was 2.0 to 4.0 hours with only a slight drop in millability; also viability ranged from zero up to 297.. The grain was probably at 71.1°C for more than an hour! 59 TABLE 4.2 MEAN PERCENTAGE OF STARCH RECOVERY AND MEAN PERCENTAGE OF PROTEIN IN STARCH ASSOCIATED WITH DRYING TEMPERATURES DRYING STARCH VIABILITY PROTEIN IN APPROX. DRYING TEMPERATURE RECOVERY RANGE STARCH TIME AVE. HR. °C 1 1 1 HR Control 83.10 95—99 0.836 48.9 82.45 28-99 0.836 6.0-9.0 . 54.6 82.44 26-98 0.741 3.0-7.0- 60.0 80.41 ’7 0-90’4 0.807 2.0-4.0+ 65.6 81.71 0-89 0.837 2.0-5.0 1,)“ 71.1 80.87 0-29‘ 0.801 2.0-4.0,‘,p 82.2 79.46 0 0.958 1.0-2.5 93.3 74.03 0 1 032 1.0-1.5 Corn with 301 and 20% M.C. lumped together. (MacMasters et al., 1959) 4.3 FACTORS EFFECTING GRAIN QUALITY DURING ARTIFICIAL DRYING FOR NET MILLING Factors which can effect grain quality during drying include: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) the the the the the the the the the drying air temperature, design of the dryer (method used), grain temperature history in the dryer, inlet air humidity, previous grain history initial and final M.C., variety and species of grain, artificial time of grain exposure to the maximum temperature, rate of drying, 60 (10) the handling of the grain, and (11) the source of fuel used to heat the air. These factors are all interrelated. The grain temperature history in the dryer has the most profound effect. Grain temperature history is mostly a function of the dryer design. A decrease ir1 the nfillability of slowly dried corn has been attributed to the species and variety of the grain, to the soil and weather conditions (MacMasters et al., 1959), to the field harvesting procedure (Vojnovich et al., 1975), and to the maturity (n: the grain (Thornton et al., 1969). Hutt et al. (1978) found that contamination of grain has a negligible effect on nfillability when direct heating with gaseous fuels is practiced. Hurburgh and Moechnig (1984) reported that dry matter losses while drying corn can average 0.88% of the initial weight with a CF dryer. Thompson and Foster (1963) reported that the drying rate of shelled corn is directly related to the number of stress cracks developed, and that rapid cooling causes an increase in the number of stress cracks. Vojnovich et al. (1975) reported that rapid drying (.25-0.5 hrs) of corn at 148.9°C with a very high airflow rate [484m3/min ton (450 CTM/bushel)] is very detrimental to starch yield and quality and also to oil yield. Freeman (1973) reported that except for the inherent grain characteristics, the method of drying probably has the greatest effect 61 on millability of corn. He also reported that drying corn with a high DAT heat from 30% to 15% M.C. in a single pass resulted: (1) in a 25% reduction in production capacity, (2) in poor dewatering of course fiber, (3) in an increase of starch in the gluten with a correspondingly lower starch yield, (4) in a higher protein content of isolated starch, and (5) in a low starch viscosity. McGuire and Earle (1958) found that a decrease in soluble protein in the steepwater with increased drying temperatures suggests that heat-denaturathmi of corn endosperm protein occurs. Freeman (1973) reported that' high temperature drying decreases the test weight, that kernel protein is found to "case harden" and resists kernel shrinkage during drying. The millability of corn has been shown to decrease as the initial M.C. (especially over 25%) increases at high drying temperatures (Watson and Hirata, 1962 and Brown et al., 1981). 4.3.1 SAFE DRYING AIR TEMPERATURES Conventional drying systems have caused existing safe drying air temperature regulations or recommendations to assume that the temperature of some grain kernels approaches or reaches the drying air temperature almost immediately after drying begins. However; grain takes time to warm up and wet grain may be cooled by evaporation. For example, a: period of 60 to 90 seconds is necessary for corn to reach equilibrium temperature with water, when the water temperature is kept 62 constant (Sokhansanj, 1974). The specific heat of sorghum at 20% M.C. (w.b.) is 1.647 KJ/kg°Ci whereas the latent heat' of evaporation is 2483KJ/Kg. When evaporation takes place, large amounts of energy are released from the kernel causing a cooling effect. Nellist (1981) found that the treatment determines the damage to viability of barley. He used the following methods on barley at 68°C: (1) heating in a water bath, (2) drying in a static thin layer, and (3) drying a grain stream moving concurrently with an air stream. The viabilities were 0%, 74.2% and 96.7%, respectively, because the grain temperature histories varied with the nmthod used. He concluded that existing safe drying air temperature recommendations can discourage the development of energy efficient grain dryers such as the CCF dryer. Grain temperature history determines grain quality, not necessarily the drying air temperature. Sokhansanj (1974) showed that time, temperature and initial moisture content are factors affecting germination of corn when it is immersed in a constant-temperature water bath (6O — 90 seconds). He arrived at the following conclusions; (1) Temperatures in the 60°C range do not affect germination of corn at lower moisture contents (16%); iri fact, these temperatures may improve germination compared to the control samples; this may be due to activating certain enzymes which are responsible for breaking the dormancy of the embryo; temperatures above 60°C reduce germination and at 82.2°C no germination is detected for 63 moisture contents above 16% (w.b.); (2) Starch, protehi and nfineral losses are negligible with temperatures as high as 82 2°C; (3) Length of heating time affects the viability of the corn, but it is not' as strong as temperature effect; (4) As the initial moisture content of the comn increases, the viability will decrease; and (S) More stress cracks and damage are observed at 82.2°C than at 60°C for corn. 4.3.1.1 DRYER DESIGN (METHOD) The most important difference in a grain dryer is the relative direction of flow of the grain and the air. There are three general flow schemes: (1) concurrentflow, (2) counterflow, and (3) crossflow (see section 3.2). Nellist (1982) concluded that a mixed-flow or crossflow dryer maintains the viability of wheat at a DAT of 66°C. Fontana et al. (1982) reported that drying inlet air temperatures of 140°C and 80°C for long grain rice (maximum rice temperature, 60°C) in a commercial two-stage CCF dryer do not reduce the viability or head yield. They also reported that a comparable CF dryer operates at 90°C and 50°C. The time of grain exposure to the initial drying air temperature has a significant effect on the grain temperature history. CCF dryers use the grainflow rate to limit the grain exposure to high 64 inlet air temperatures. A CCF dryer operating at a drying air temperature of 266°C was shown to only produce a maximum grain temperature of 93.3°C for 100 seconds. However, a comparable CF dryer operating at 93.3°C was shown to reach an inlet air side grain temperature of 90.6°C quickly and to remain there for the duration of the drying section (Bakker-Arkema et al., 1977). A single and a two-stage CCF dryer are able ‘6) dry soybeans at temperatures as high as 232.2°C without the loss of' oil yield (Kalchik, 1977); the maximum soybean temperature was 82°C. Watson and Hirata (1962) concluded that a crossflow dryer operating at a drying air temperature of 65.6°C causes no loss to viability of corn at a low airflow rate (63.5m3/min ton (59 CFM/bu)). However, a successive drop of 10% in the viability occurs at medium [131.3 m3/min ton (122 CFM/bu)l and high [148.5 - 194.7m3/ton (138 — 181 CFM/bu)] airflow rates. LeBras (1982) found that the caloric-flow rate (KJ/s) is responsible for reduction in millability of corn not the airflow rate. He also concluded that staging and combination drying improve millability compared to one-stage drying. The cooling method of a grain dryer can maintain or decrease grain quality. When grain is cooled too rapidly after drying, an increase in breakage susceptibility can occur (Gustafson and Morey, 1981). Delayed cooling such as in the dryeration process (Gustafson et al., 1979) or slow cooling as in the CC/CF dryer (Bakker-Arkema and 65 Schisler, 1984a), minimizes the breakage susceptibility increase. Grain dryer design clearly determines the operating air temperature and has an important effect on grain quality. 4.3.1.2 RECOMMENDED SAFE DRYING AIR TEMPERATURES FOR WET MILLING OF CORN Safe drying air temperatures (DATs) in the literature vary for corn wet millability from 60°C up to 120°C. The method of drying reflects the recommended DAT. Watson and Hirata (1962) found that DATs of 82 2°C and above usually show evidence of reduced millability with a batch dryer and a significant decrease in millability (3-5%) occurs in a continuous crossflow dryer at a DAT of 87.8°C. MacMasters et al. (1959) used a column batch dryer with drying times always one hour or more for corn. They reported that on the basis of recovery and quality of the starch a DAT of 71 1°C gives acceptable millability. Watson and Sanders (1961) reported that damage from artificial drying in a small farm batch dryer is detectable by cutting thin sections (10 micrometers) of horny endosperm from water-softened corn kernels followed by steeping. They' determined the extent: of steeping by measuring the increase ir1 light transmission through the section as starch was released. They' observed the following when drying corn from 32% M.C. to 12% w.b.: (l) a DAT of 48.9°C gives normal starch release, (2) at 93 3°C the starch is irreversibly damaged and 66 only one-third of the normal amount is released, and (3) at 82.2°C the starch release is only two-thirds of normal when steeping takes place at 52°C; however at 60°C a normal release occurs. Brown et al. (1981) reported that a DAT of 60°C is safe for corn wet milling. This was concluded after drying corn in thin layers at various initial M C.s (lS-20%, 20—25%, and 25-30% (w.b.) with a DAT of 80°C or 100°C. A thin layer (4 cm) was dried in a forced air convection oven. LeBras (1982) reported that acceptable starch yield and quality are obtained at a DAT of 80°C ir1 a batch dryer with an airflow of 1600 m3/h-m3 (33.3 CFM/bu). The latest European commercial wet milling technology was used. Thompson et al. (1969) received acceptable millability for CCF dried corn at 121°C. Clearly, most safe DATs which are recommended assume that the corn temperature reaches the DAT. 4.3.1.3 SAFE DRYING AIR TEMPERATURES FOR WET MILLING OF SORGHUM (A COLUMN BATCH DRYER) The sorghum drying literature is sparse because sorghum is a feed grain in the U.S. and corn is considered of higher economic value. Iowa (1957) recommended natural air drying only when the M.C. is 20% or less (w b.). Sorensen et al. (1957) reported that: (l) on-farm bin drying with natural air is the most practical method to preserve grain 67 quality, (2) bin depths should be 2.44m or less, and (3) natural air dried sorghum should reach 15% M.C. in 8 days to prevent molding. Sorensen and Person (1970) reviewed different on—farm drying methods of sorghum. They reported the following: (1) (2) (3) (4) The three major methods of drying sorghum with forced air are: (a) natural—air drying, (b) drying with supplemental heat (5.6°C to 8 3°C) and (c) heated air drying (batch and crossflow dryers). Natural-air drying: The advantages arel a low initial investment, a reduced fire hazard and :1 more uniformly dried product. The disadvantages are the long time required in drying, and the danger of spoilage. Drying with supplemental heat: The chief advantage is that drying can be accomplished regardless of weather conditions and a shorter drying time is needed. The disadvantages are overdrying the grain, higher initial equipment costs and a danger of fire. Heated-Air Drying: The chief advantages of heated-air drying are (a) the comparatively short drying period, (b) drying can be accomplished regardless of weather conditions, and (c) the high drying capacity. The main disadvantages are (a) the higher initial equipment costs, 68 (b) the fire hazard, and (c) the over-drying of grain reducing grain quality. (5) Batch-In—Bin Dryer: The grain depth is usually 0.61m or less. The recommended maximum air temperatures for drying feed and seed sorghum are 54.5°C and 43.3°C respectively with a minimum airflow rate of 32.3m3/min/ton (30 CFM/bu). (6) Column-Type Batch Dryer: The DATs range from 54.4 to 93.3°C depending on the rate of airflow [32.3 to 129.2m3/min/ton (30 - 120 CFM/bu)1. (7) Crossflow Dryers: DATs vary from 65 6°C to 93.3°C with airflow rates of 107.6 - 215.3m3/min/ton (100 - 200 CFM/bu). (8) Planting seed DATs should be 43.3°C (110°F) or less. McNeal and York (1964) recommended that DATs should be 54.4°C or less in a commercial column-batch dryer to insure viability and the harvest M.C. should be as low as possible (less than 22%). Sorensen et a1. (1949) and Zipf et al. (1950) concluded the most extensive study on the artificial drying cfi’ sorghunl and its effect on the wet milling characteristics. A farm column-batch dryer with two columns of 1 82m high, 2.74m long, and 0.254m wide was used in both studies. Only one column was operated during the experiment with a holding capacity of 1,363.6 Kg (3000 pounds) of sorghum. 69 Natural gas was the heat source. All samples were cleaned before drying and after drying representative samples were milled in duplicate (See Tables 4.3.1.3a, b, and c for results). The variety Martin was dried at three different initial M.C. levels [high (21—26%), medium (l7-20%) and low (14-16%)], and Early Hegari at two levels (medium and low). Samples were either dried to ll-l3% M.C. or 7-9% M.C. The drying air temperatures (DATs) were 51.7°, 65.6°, 79.4°, 93.3° and 110°C. All samples except, 37 and 50, were graded as NO. 1. This means that the breakage was less than 2% and the test weight was at least 57.0 pounds/bushel. The variety Early Hegari was found to dry more rapidly than Martin, to have acceptable germination at a DAT of 79.4°C with low initial M.C., and to have acceptable wet millability in all cases. Martin had an acceptable germination at an M.C. of 20% at a DAT’ of 79.4°C. All samples of Martin had acceptable wet milling characteristics except low and mediunl M.C. samples dried to 7-9%. These samples had inferior starch yield (2-6% losses) with a a) to 0.36%) protein increase in the starch. The apparent damage to Martin correlated strongly with the M.C. of the grain anwi the extent of drying but not with the temperature. Batch No. 50 which was dried at 110°C for 2.58 hours wet milled well; the starch yield and quality were acceptable. 70 The fuel efficiency: (1) ranged from 3700 to 9430 KJ/Kg for drying Early Hegari and Martin; (2) improved with increasing the DAT; and (3) significantly decreased with samples dried to 7 - 9% M.C. (See Table 4.3.1.3d). Sorensen et al. (1949) concluded that the best wet milling sorghum has an initial low (17 - 20%) M.C., is dried to 11 - 13% M.C., and can be dried at DATs up to 110°C in a column batch dryer. Amcmpv .Pm um comcmgom .P .9: mmpzcmcuo Acooo sumummouzv oFrE zoppmx wcmcm opaEmm mm; on a .mcvxco Luann uPPE zoppox P .0: «cm; Nm a ucm pm a Ac .uo~.mo um mauscre on ucm uoon an mouacwe on An .uoop— as mmuacwe on new uon.mo an mmuacps on AN .ucwxcu Lmuum CPCMx muwcz p .0: ago: mmpaEdm venom: xpcmm ~P< AP 71 m.mm N.P¢ m.om c.5m o.mm 5.5" m.mn F.m~ ~.nn o.mm m.om o.on p.mm sous—w cw :Pmuoca mm.o en.o Pm.o o¢.o mm.o ~¢.o P¢.o m¢.o on.o mm.c mm.o mm.o on.o N .nucmum cw crayon; ¢.¢m ~.¢m o.~m o.mm o.¢m m.cm ~.mm ¢.¢m m.mm ¢.Fm ¢.nm m.cw m.mm & urmp> sucnum mc mm mm mm as us «m ~m om Po we on cargo xFPa.uPL,L< N copumc¢Eme on on pm em mm mm am on cargo Lw< & corumcrEcmw p.05 m.~w «.mn ".mm o.on mo n.0m P.o¢ m.mo m.mm n.mm F.m¢ uo cespou zucv op mo Cuu u< cam» cwmco xmz oo.p ~c.~ nm.~ n~.p mm.~ om.o nm.o no.p om.P mm.o eo.P no.F ~m.~ mesa: mark ucvxga “.mo opp uo .QEMP app n.mo op. m.nm n.mo m.mm ~.~m «.mo n.~m p.00 ¢.mu n.mo n.Pm cr< ucvxca m.¢np ~.opp ¢.-P o.o¢P m.cc m.mmp n.nmp ¢.-P m.o~P m.¢¢p n.mm~ ¢.o~P m.~np m.¢np m.~op cow c.2xnz mpip— nplpp mun m:n min mp-P~ mplpp «Pip? malpp manpp mpipp "FTP? npin N macaw .u.: pmcpu auinp ouinp o~upm o~inp ominr mp-e— or-v~ opuvp m~1¢P o~-n~ ominp owinp o~inP & mucmm .u.z pmpurcn Nm —m an aN lap Mp FF QF m d1 n a. n ma: =UH4mhwum<> thmem zazomom ouaqHz bu: ounuo >44 sucmum mm mm em om ~m mm umpgo xppmruwupg< & co.umcrscmo mm mm mm mm umrgo LP< N cowumcpsgmw ".mo n.Po o.mm F.o¢ m.mo ¢.¢m uo csapou soap or we Luu u< asap cwmcw xnz ~m.o on.o mm.o mm.p n~.F mo.p ~n.~ ~¢.n wo.~ mm.~ m¢.m oo.m muse: mEPF ucwxgo m.nm ~.~m o.mo n.—m m.mm ¢.mn o.mo n.5m n.0m ¢.mn o.mm ~.Pm uo .QEOh Lr< ucwxgn ~.mop ~.PFP ¢.o~F m.nmp n.o~P ~.¢mp m.~op ecu cpE\nE "Pipp mP-FP npipp m~-PP «P1P? npupp mpipp npipp mp-PF n—TPF npipp MP-FP fl mmcmm .u.z Pmcwu N oucnm op-¢P op-¢P op-ep op-¢F o~-mp omlnp ouunp ominp o~-- omipu owupw o~-p~ .u.z pmpuwcm law an ¢m an N” an on mm um NN am mN AdZIzUHQfll .znhmkunm<> mh43mum zazwmom ougauz bu: ounce >44hmHm<> whqnmum taroaom oudgmx bu: ouHmo >44 UH.h whammm mum?" 304..— 555 an 8....ng : o . oo E 8:3ng so... made: moo aa ao.~«uoa maaaooozzmzp 5 H254 w.b.—$.83 Thmfim EQ- has : _ < Emaczxm 9: use 1||||'%111111 111111 I 111111 , 111111 1 .3952229 Anv A“. AHV 4 AHV III'EU-" "l I '''''' r| I|ICL ''''''' #1 #2 #3,4,5,6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 ‘ Drying 95 FIGURE 7.1d THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION FOR TEMPERATURES (T) IN PILOT—SCALE CC/CF DRYER' Ambient air T Drying air T in heat duct Grain flowtube (GFT) T's Inlet grain T Exhaust drying air T Drying bed T grain (0.394m below GFT but only covered with 0.241m of grain when checked) Exhaust grain T (0.953m below GFT) Cooling bed grain T Below cooling bed grain T Drying bed grain T (0 254m below GFT but only covered with 0.076m of grain when checked.) Exhaust grain T (0.932m below GFT) Cooling bed grain T Drying bed grain T (0.406m below GFT but only covered with 0.267m of grain when checked.) Exhaust grain T (0.914m below GFT) bed depth, 0.732m 96 Static pressures within the inlet air heating and cooling ducts were measured with pressure gauges. The air velocities (m/min) were calculated from the Haque et al. (1982) equation for static pressure (see section 6.4). The values fin: the air velocities were confirmed by the Chung et a1. (1984) and the Hukill and Ives (1955) static pressure equations (see section 6.4). 7.2 THE FUEL EFFICIENCY CALCULATION The gas flow meter which was attached to the dryer did not function properly. Therefore, the fuel consumption was determined by the following manner: (1) q = CaGa(To-Ti) + CpGp(Oo—0i) + hrg (Wi—W0) (2) Efficiency = q/(Wi-Wo) Where C Specific Heat KJIKg°C G a Mass Flow Kg/hr To Exhaust Air Temperature (°C) Ti . Ambient Air Temperature (°C) 90 = Grain Temperature Out (°C) 0i Grain Temperature In (°C) hrg = Latent Heat Of Sorghum (KJ/Kg) (Wi — Wo) = Loss Of Water In Grain (Kg/hr) 97 ° = Air ° Product in °= out The airflow was calculated by the following equation: (3) Ga = (Velocity of air) (Area of drying bed) (Density of air) Equations 1 - 3 were used to determine the efficiency of each drying stage and the overall fuel efficiency. Equation (1) will be called the latent heat equation. 7.3 GRADE OF SORGHUM The grade of sorghum was determined using the standard methods (USDA, 1974). 7.4 GERMINATION DETERMINATION Germination tests were conducted for the inlet and outlet samples of sorghum. The tests were performed at the Michigan Crop Improvement Association Laboratory (East Lansing, MI). For each sample duplicates of 100 seeds (treated with the fungicide Captan) were employed. The seeds were placed on saturated (water) blotter 98 paper ir1 a germination chamber for 1() days at 25°C and 80% relative humidity. The first count was taken at 55 days and the second at 10 days. Germination for each seed was determined as either (1) strong root development, (2) weak root development, or (3) no root development. The strong and weak root counts were added together for the total germination percentage. Weak germination had a root of less than one 2.5 cm. 7.5 NET MILLING The wet milling procedure was a modification of two published procedures: (USDA, 1964) and (Neryng et al., 1983). 7.5.1 EQUIPMENT AND REAGENTS (1) Water bath (temperature control), (2) 50 m1 centrifuge tubes with tops, (3) plastic container cups with lids, (4) blender (3 blades), (5) International centrifuge, (6) 3 sieves (stainless steel) and collector, 40 mesh (.420 mm) 200 mesh (.074 mm) 270 mesh (.053 mm) INTERMEDIATE FINAL RAW MATERIALS PROCESS PRODUCTS PRODUCTS SORGHUM 3“ 7' STEEPING I _;, LIGHT T:] 52°C l_. » STEEPWATER AQUEOUS / I l 1 0.20-0.25% 50: STEEPED H20 KERNELS MILLING ' ' (BLENDER) "[:i_.LIGHT MILL H20 KERNELS Ill 40 MESH SIEVE ' l SCRAPING H20 KERNELS MILLING (MORTAR AND PESTLE) __ , F- H20 W 40 MESH K DRYING FIBER AND SIEVE , = GERM H20 ‘1 f—‘ ' 200 MESH SIEVE H20 .1; 270 MESH LUTEN_,DRYING_,GLUTEN SIEVE SLURRY WASHWATER SETTLING 24 HRS WASHING DRYING AND ——> —v STARCH CENTRIFUGING Figure 7.5.2 Wet milling procedure. (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) 7.5.2 STEEPING (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 100 mortar and pestle, drying oven, 500 ml erlenmeyer flasks, settling buckets, distilled water, Na2503 bisodium sulfate. 50 gram sorghum samples are weighed out (w.b.); O .2 - .257. sulfur dioxide (SO; solution is made by mixing 4.919 g of Na2S03 with 1000 ml of distilled water; 150 m1 of 50; solution is mixed with the 509 sorghum sample in a 500 m1 erlenmeyer flask; The flasks are placed in a 50 - 52°C water bath for 48 hours; After 48 hours steeping, the flasks are removed and drained of liquid. 7.5.3 MILLING (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 101 The steeped sorghum is ground in a blender with distilled water ( 200 ml) for 1 1/2 minutes. Every 30 seconds the blending is stopped to wash the sides of the blender. The ground mixture is poured on to the sieves. The sieve arrangement from the top is the #40 mesh, #200 mesh, #270 mesh and the (xfllector. Distilled water is poured on to free the gluten and the starch. The residue on the #40 mesh Sieve is ground with a mortar and pestle and poured again on to the #40 mesh sieve. The fiber is collected from the #40 mesh sieve. Gluten and starch caught by the 200 and 270 mesh sieves were washed with water to more completely separate the starch (see figure 7.5 2). Starch and gluten which have passed to the collector are placed in a settling container (24 hrs). Steps 1 - 4 are repeated a second time. The blending period is 3J3 minutes. The mortar and pestle are not used. 102 7.5.4 STARCH ISOLATION (1) After settling for 24 hrs, the water is drained off and the gluten-starch mixture is centrifuged in 50 ml tubes for 10 - 15 minutes at 2000 RPM. (2) The dark gray gluten is scraped off; the starch on the bottom is rewashed and centrifuged until totally cleaned of gluten. 7.5.5 STARCH YIELD (l) The cleaned starch and other products are air dried for 2 days at 51 7°C (125°F). The starch is weighed. (2) A small sample of the starch and a grain sample are oven dried at 130°C for 18 hours to determine the M.C. (d.b.). (3) The yield is determined by: Yield = (grams of starch)(dry weight)(lOO%)/(grams of grain)(dry weight) 7.6 PROTEIN IN THE STARCH ANALYSIS: A Macro-Kjeldahl Method was used to determine the protein in the starch (AOAC, 1975). 7.6.1 REAGENTS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 103 H2504 Cu504/KZSOr mixture 4% boric acid 50% Na OH Zinc (mossy) 0.025 N HCL. 7.6.2 PREPARATION: (1) (2) A l - 3g sorghum starch sample with 21 known M.C. is weighed out on. The sample is placed in a Kjeldahl flask. Also, 8 - 9g of CuSO./K2504 mixture, 2 — 3 boiling beads and 25 ad of H280. are added to the Kjeldahl flask. Each starch sample is run in duplicate. 7.6.3 DIGESTION (1) The flasks are boiled on digestion burners and turned periodically (every 30 minutes) until the liquid becomes bluish—green (about 1 1/2 to 2 hrs later). When the (2) 104 bluish-green color appears, boiling is continued for another 30 to 45 minutes (almost clean in color). At this point the digested product can be left for several days before completing the test. 7.6.4 DISTILLATION (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 250 ml of distilled water is added to the flasks slowly. 60 ml of 50% NaOH is slowly added to the flask along with a teaspoon of mossy zinc. A beaker with 25 ml of 4% boric acid and 3 - 9 drops of indicator is placed under each condenser tube. The flasks are placed on the distillation apparatus. When 200 ml of gluid has been collected in the beaker under the condenser tube, the distillation is stopped. Each beaker is titrated with .IN HCL until the solution turns faintly pink. The number of m1 of 0.1 N HCL used is recorded. 7.6.5 CALCULATIONS: % protein = 1.4 (HCL normality)(ml HCL)(6.25)/(sample weight)(DM decimal) Where: DM = Dry Matter Sample Weight = Grams 105 CHAPTER 8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section discusses the experimental and Simulation results. The experimental results will be presented first and then compared with the simulation results. 8.1 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 8.1.1 CONCURRENT/COUNTERFLOW DRYER Table 8.1.1a lists the average and maximum temperatures recorded during the three drying tests with a pilot-scale CC/CF dryer. The location of the thermocouples is given in figures 7.1c and 7 1d. Thermocouple #13 had the highest average and maximun1 grain temperatures since it is located closest to the surface of the drying bed (0.076m). At the bottom of Table 8.1.1a the thermocouples are grouped according to general location in the dryer. 106 Thermocouples #3 - 6 (grainflow tube temperatures) were used to determine when a new drying stage enters the drying bed. Thermocouples #9, 13 and 16 were employed to determine drying bed temperatures. Grain temperatures were found to be far below the drying air temperatures during CCF drying (thermocouple #13 versus #2). This is evidence that the conventional recommendations for safe drying air temperatures (DATs) (k) not apply to CCF drying. A CCF dryer is able to operate at higher DATs than conventional dryers of crossflow design and still give gentle treatment to the grain. Test #6 is an excellent example (stage 1); £1 DAT of 217°C only produced a maximum grain temperature of 85.6°C (thermocouple #13). Future safe drying air temperatures must take into account dryer design because it is the grain temperature that determines the Quality of the grain. Grain temperatures were found to decrease as the grain passes through the CC/CF dryer. The hottest air encountered the coldest grain and then both air and grain decrease slowly in temperature (see figure 3.1a). This helps to reduce stress cracks and subsequent breakage during handling of grain. Table 8.1 lb presents the additional data obtained during the three experimental drying tests. Test #3 had the lowest grain outlet M.C. (9.4%) and test #6 the highest (12.6%). The ambient air temperatures were freezing or close to freezing. This resulted in higher fuel consumption to heat the air to the drying air temperature. 107’ aEmu cracu can acrpoou zopom new» c'mcm nun mcppoou mp Ppa damn crmcm umsmcxu up.¢p opu cam» cracm can mc_xco op.mP.mu aEmu c_m umsmcxu mN asou cracm um—cH nu umpc_ 1 aEmu mnzuzopu crmcw o.m e.ma h<. «mm. luw< Twas. mx< u>< u>¢. umfl was u>< u>< u>4 m>< 0>< u>¢ hmuh up m_ m. e. m. N_ PP er a o 5 01m N p a zazwmom wzH>mo mm>mo uU\Uu u4< n o Auoc c, gamu c.aco u we .uo. use game c.mco u oo Faewumu .m>a A.n.uv .u.z n z ANE¢aoaa.o. can co amc< A n< Am\ev L_m xupuopm> u m> Amx\axv yam: “c6564 A c: um: Acc\m¥c mumc zopccwmco n no z Ahmo.~ + Pmmm.o u no ummc ucwumam Eacmgom u no .uov used can acorne< u «A Auoov aeoO LP“ umamcxu A oh .oom¥\nxv can co Dam; upcrumam u no . 113 mama mmme .U>< «Npe o.~P amen P.64F mn.m¢ mm¢~ ~.Km o.¢P- o.mkc~ o~¢.~ o.m¢ c.m-F ¢.~m ~ came ~.¢F m.m_ NNQG n.0FN o..w¢ Pnew ~.mo 4.x" o.mc¢~ a~¢.P 9.x" o.mkoP “.5" F a wmoa “aka qu>< acme n.FF moan o.mm +m.kp mm¢~ k.om P.a- o.aomp ~o¢.F ~.~¢ c.6mmF o.mn n mmoo n.~P owmm ".mpp F¢.o~ oaew ~.¢m m.op o.o~mp ~o¢.P e.¢¢ o.am~F P.6m N mmmm m.np m.mF "Foo p.oep om.Fn ommN o.mo m.nm o.k~¢F Noq.p o.mn o.m¢- m.om P m Kem+ Nmme 10>< mmFo +.m warm m.~ap ¢~.om om¢~ o.mk m.a c.KmaP oun._ o.~m o.m¢PP m.mm m okmm o.PP Khan m.NmP a..~o eoew m.mk N.m °.kooP OKM.P m.n¢ o.ooPP c.6m N mnmm ~.¢F m.mp comm m.~oF om.mn cm¢~ m.no m.~m o.KmoF QKM.P ¢.nm °.mkpp n.6m P n Haau mH< omh mmaum “map mm>mo uU\uu u4uzuHUHumm Jung mN.P.m u4mmca cmPoou och AN Arc-oov awnu xmcmcm cmmco AN N.6¢F --- NmNN -- N-- N-- N N.NFN NNNN NNoo N.¢¢ coa.PNF NNo.NmN F m o.mN -- Nonm -- N--- N-- N N.NFP NNN ONmm m.mp Nmm.NN NNo.¢¢P N P.66P NNON Npoa m.¢N FNm.Na N¢¢.omp F m N.Nop - mNFm -- N-- N--- N N.No. NNN NNNN m.N NNN.ON NNN.NNN N N.Nap NFNN comm 6.NN amN.oN moa.NoN P N uo c.Nco uc_uNNz AoNxax\Nxv Nucocu Accxnxv Acc\nx. NNNNm N ummp mhw¢mzu u~.p.m m4mm >4dukqnz n AEmmpoo. m> Emmpoo.v zummum :UZH ¢w\m no omo uU\UU u4 ouh<43znm u~.~.m u4m¢o akOONv UO—v._.N H GEO? .mz< Lopoou A=o.mv ma o¢- H mm A:¢—v mm ewwn N am SNIQEV: oan o¢¢n oom¢ o~o¢ anon omNN comm omnn ommn ONFe omwn omn¢ uHuuu ANE\L:\mx xcuv opeu oo~n crow comm owoe owpm cNNN comm oon¢ omen comm owns mum; zopucrmco ma mm oON PF? on No Pop mo Fm Pm n ma mar mm om mm Nap Pu mn- Nm ¢o mm Pm N mm mm ma MN. on mm pm we NN Nm mm mm P mw¢o uomo uomo LU\UU wu of sorghum grain. Bull. 885, Texas, Agr. Exp. Sta., Dec., 1957. Sorensen, J. W., Jr., H. P. Smith, J. P. Hollingsworth, P. T. Montfort, and F2 E. Horan. 1949. Artificial Drying (Section 1) R. H. Anderson and R. L“ Zipf. 1949. Wet Milling (Section 2) In: Drying, And Its Effects On The Milling, Characteristics Of Sorghum Grain. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bulletin 710. Stahl, B. M. 1950. Grain bin requirements. U.S. Dept. Agr. Circ. 835. viii Suarez, J., P. Viollarz, and J. Chirife. 1980. Diffusional analysis of air drying of grain sorghum. J. Food Techn. 15 (5) 523 - 531. Taylor, M. S. Fuller and ‘Y. Ganos. 1979. Trends 'hi U.S. grain and soybean exports and utilization port areas, 1969 - 1978. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1477. Thompson, T. L., G. H. Foster, and R. M. Peart. 1969. Comparison of concurrentflow, crossflow and counterflow grain drying methods. Market Res. Report 841. USDA: Washington, D.C. Thompson, 11. A., and (3. H. Forster. 1963. Stress and breakage in artificially dried corn. Marketing Research Report 1%). 631, USDA, Washington, D.C. Thornton, J. H., R. D. Goodrich and J. C. Meiske. 1969. Corn maturity. I. Composition of corn grain of various maturities and test weights. J. Animal Sci. 29 (6) 977 - 982. USDA. 1964. Starch From Cereal Grain: A Short method for laboratory extraction. United States Department Of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Northern Utilization Research And Development Division, Peoria, IL CA-N—ZS. USDA. 1974. United States standards for sorghum. U.S. Dept. Agri., Service: Washington, D. C. Vojnovich, C., R. A. Anderson, and E. L. Griffin, Jr. 1975. Wet-milling properties (fl: corn after field shelling and artificial erying. Cereal Foods World 20 (7) 333 - 335. Walker, I“ P. and FR, W. Bakker-Arkema. 1981. Energy efficiency in concurrent flow rice drying. Trans. ASAE 24 (4) 1352 - 1356. Wall, -J. S. and W. M. Ross. 1970. Sorghum Production and Utilization. AVI Publishing Co., Inc. Wang, C. Y. and R. P. Singh. 1978. A single layer drying equation for rough rice. ASAE Paper No. 78-3001. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085. Watson, S. A. 1970. Wet-Milling Process And Products. In: Sorghum Production And Utilization. Ed. Wall, J. S. and W. M. Ross. AVI Publ. Co., Inc., Westport, CT. Watson, S. A. 1967. Starch Chemistry And Technology. Vol. II. Acad. Press, N.Y. Watson, S. A. 1960. What the wet-milling industry sees in grain sorghum. Chemurgic Digest 19 (ll) 4 - 7. Watson, S. A. and Y. Hirata. 1962. Some wet-milling properties of artificially dried corn. Cereal Chem. 39 (l) 35 - 44. ix Watson, S. A. and 11 H. Sanders. 1961. Steeping studies with corn endosperm sections. Cereal Chem. 38 (l) 22 - 33. Watson, S. E., E. H. Sanders, R. D. Wakely and C. B. Williams. 1955. Peripheral cells of the endosperms of grain sorghum and corn and their influence on starch purification. Cereal Chemistry 32 (3) 165-182. Watson, S. A. and Y. Hirata. 1954“ A. method for evaluating the wet-millability of steeped corn and grain sorghum. Cereal Chem. 31 (S) 423 - 432. Weibel, D. E. 1970. Broomcorn. In: Sorghum Production And Utilization. Edited: J. S. Wall and W. M. Ross, AVI Publishing Co., Inc. White, G. M., T. C. Bridges, O. L. Lower and I. J. Ross. 1978. Seed coat damage in thin-layer drying of soybeans as affected by drying conditions. ASAE Paper No. 78-3052. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085. Whitney, 1L K. and .1. R. Pedersen. 1961. Physical and nmchanical methods of stored-product insect control. Proceedings cfi’ conference on stored grain insects and their control. Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, Kansas. Zink, F. J. 1935. Specific gravity and air Space of grains and seeds. Agr. Eng. J. 11, 439 - 444. Zipf, R. L., R. A. Anderson, and R. L. Slotter. 1950. Wet milling of Grain sorghum. Cereal Chem. 27 (6) 463 - 476. APPENDIX A Table A Conversion factors QUANTITY UNITS MULTIPLY BY TO GET Airflow rate m3/min/m2 2.8352 ft3/min/bu Airflow rate m3/min/m2 3.2808 ft3/min/ft2 Airflow rate m3/min/ton 0.9291 ft3/min/bu‘ Area m2 10.7639 ft2 Convective heat transfer coefficient kJ/hr/m2/C 0.0489 BTU/hr/ftZ/F Density kg/m3 0.0624 lb/ft3 Diffusion coefficient m2/hr 10.7639 ft2/hr Energy efficiency kJ/kg 0.4299 BTU/lb Grainflow rate kg/hr/m2 0.2048 1b/hr/ft2 Latent heat of vapor- ization kJ/kg 0.4299 BTU/1b Length m 3.2808 ft Mass kg 2.2046 1b metric ton 2,204.6 lb Power kW 1.3410 HP Specific Heat kJ/kg/C 0.2388 BTU/lb/F Specific surface area m2/m3 0.3048 ft2/ft3 Static pressure kPa 4.0186 in. H20 Temperature difference C 1.8 F Thermal conductivity W/m/C 0.5778 BTU/hr/ft/F Thermal diffusivity m2/hr 10 7639 ft2/hr Velocity m/hr 3 2808 ft/hr Volume m3 35.3147 ft3 ‘ A bushel weighs 58 pounds. APPENDIX B Table 8 CC/CF Sorghum Simulation Runs uuiI Iirc LI-SI.4-cuuLIanJ: UNITS 2 l-ECHO DEFAULT F-DTE [snow F;CKDT F: THIN [FIND] [0,1-T.2-S.3-U:M(L).5-M:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[O.l-ENTER T'S.2- SCAW:(FROM.USED)].: O EITHER STAGES OR FIND VALUES: 1.000 HOH‘MANY STAGES ' GRAIN TYPE (OISTOP.1-SET VIA DATA .Z-CORN 3-R1CE MEDIUM,5-RICE LONG.5-MILO.6-SOYBEANS 7-HHEAT.8-SUNFLOHER.9-RAPESEED-COLZA : INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. NET BASIS PERCENT: GRAIN TEMPERATURE, F: SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOW DRYER ON 05/25/85 PAULSEN DRYINGRATE EQUATION FOR THINLAYER MILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (O-NEH . 1-CONCURRENTFLOH.S-COUNTER Z-RICATTI.3-SCOTT.5-LEREH: INLET AIR TEMP. F: INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATER- .6000 AIRFLOW RATE.CFM/FT2 [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUCD/H/FTZ: DRYER LENGTH. FT: OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: .3551E+00 BTU/LB/F .1088E+05 BTU/LB CA- CP- HFG- OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .0020 DEBUG FJSHON-THIN MATCH: ICAPACITY(MOISTURE)SEARCH 50.0000 15.9000 56.0000 1 325.0000 .0085 95.3000 7.7000 2.5000 .5000 17.0000 .2519E+OO BTU/LB/F AIR FLOW RATE 521.9LB/HR/FT2. 95.3CFM/FT2 . 155.9CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9873E+05 : BTU/HRFTZF .3056E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. NB PERCENT- 3.59687 DRY BASIS,DECIMAL .0362358 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1891 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 9.58 LB/HR/FTZ 561.59 [HET-BUQD/H/FTZ 9.52 HET-MTON/HR/MZ 2.68] DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUM TEMP NB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 325.0 .0085 .0020 56.0 15.90 .0999 .505 .053 131.5 .0261 .2591 131.3 15.75 7.5551 1.008 .105 126.5 .0291 .3166 126.5 15.55 8.5385 1.501 .157 123.3 .0309 .3650 123.3 15.53 9.0561 2.010 .210 121.1 .0322 .5050 121.0 15.35 9.5375 2.500 .251 119.7 .0331 .5309 119.6 15.28 9.8538 THE MAX. GRAIN TEMP. IS 156.10518 F THIS HAPPENS AT THE MAX.TEMPER TEMP. IS 119.65190 F THIS HAPPENS AT 0. 11.71:FROM .3IZIE+01 KPA [HET-FLON:FT/HR INTO STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 12.55 : .2532E-02 HOURS HOURS 11.39] HORSEPOHER. HP/FTZ .1882 (EFF- 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FT2 I .7635E+05 : LB-HZO/FTZ I .2589E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1885.83 BTU/LB'HZO IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.97 HEAT AIR 66.03 NDVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 66.00 NATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0226 BTU/LB H20 2965.66 ; THIS STAGE BTU/LB H20- 2965.66 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -I TDTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [1-SI.2-ENGLISH]: UNITS 0 0-ECHO DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (O-STOP.1-SET VIA DATA .2-CORN 3-RICE MEDIUM,5-RICE LONG.5-MILO.6-SOYBEANS 7-HHEAT.8-SUNFLOHER.9-RAPESEEO-COLZA : UNI: lift Ll‘al .4‘CNULIJHJ: UNITS 2 I-ECHO DEFAULT F-DTE [SHOH F:CKDT F: DEBUG FJSHOH-THIN MATCH: -CAPACITY(HOISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [0.1-T.2-s.3-U:H(L).6-M:0(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[O.I-ENTER T'S.2- SCAN:(FROM.USED)].: 0 EITHER STAGES DR FIND VALUES: 1.000 HOH MANY STAGES P 1 GRAIN TYPE (O'STOP.1-SET VIA DATA .2-CDRN 3-RICE MEDIUM.5-RICE LONG.5-MILO.6-SOYBEANS 7-HHEAT.8-SUNFLOHER.9-RAPESEED-COLZA : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: 60.0000 INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: 16.2800 GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 109.6000 SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 05/25/85 PAULSEN DRYINGRATE EQUATION FOR THINLAYER MILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (O'NEH . I-CONCURRENTFLOH.5-COUNTER 2-RICATTI.3-SCOTT.6-LEREH: I INLET AIR TEMP. F: 325.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0085 RH (EITHER AHBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATER- .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFH/FT2 [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 91.0000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BueD/H/FTz: 7.7000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 2.6000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. ET: .5000 TEHPERING LENGTH. FT: 17.0000 CP- .3509E+00 BTU/LB/F HFG- .1071E+05 BTU/LB CA- .25I9E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .0020 AIR FLOH RATE 602.9LB/HR/FT2. 91.0CFM/FT2 . 138.6CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9577E+06 : BTU/HRFTzF .2966E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. HB PERCENT- 2.60519 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .0266667 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1666 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 9.58 LB/HR/FTz 661.59 [HET-BueO/H/FTz 9.16 HET-MTON/HR/Mz 2.63] DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC HC TEMP HUM HUH TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIHAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 325.0 .0085 .0020 109.5 15.28 .0999 .505 .053 159.5 .0357 .2065 159.3 12.57 6.7191 1.019 .106 153.7 .0381 .2605 153.6 12.35 7.5050 1.502 .157 150.5 .0399 .2955 150.5 12.22 7.9762 2.001 .209 138.2 .0513 .3233 138.2 12.13 8.3507 2.500 .251 136.8 .0521 .3518 136.7 12.07 8.5778 THE MAX. GRAIN TEMP. IS 168.12018 F THIS HAPPENS AT .2826E'02 HOURS THE MAX.TEMPER TEHP. IS 136.73161 F THIS HAPPENS AT 0. HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 11.39:FROM 10.97] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 12.58 : .3106E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FTZ .1788 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FT2 I .7288E+05 : LB-HZO/FTZ I .3385E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1196.05 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB ' FAN( .50 EFF) 1.87 HEAT AIR 61.15 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 63.01 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0293 BTU/LB H20 2150.62 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB H20I 2150.62 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [1ISI.2IENGL|SH]: UNITS 0 OIECHO DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2IC0RN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : UNI. IIrc LI'JI.‘-LNUL|JHJS - UNITS 2 I-ECHO DEFAULT F'DTE [SHOH T:CKDT F: DEBUG FJSHOHITHIN MATCH: ICAPACITY(MOISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [0.1-T.2-s.3-U:H(L).6-M:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[0.1-ENTER T'S.2I SCAN:(FROH.USED)].: O EITHER STAGES OR FIND VALUES: 2.000 HOH MANY STAGES I GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILD.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFL0HER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 06/26/85 PAULSEN DRYINGRATE EQUATION FDR THINLAYER MILO NODE- O 10 FLUX -.3857E+07 .3857E+O7 IO GRID 0. NODE- 1 10 FLUX O. .157OE+08 IO GRID .8819E«O3 NODE- 2 IO FLUX .1118E+OB .6783E+08 IO GRID .1111E-02 NODE- 3 IO FLUX .2871E+08 .7212E+08 IO GRID .1272E-02 NODE- 6 IO FLUX .6962E+08 .9796E+08 IO GRID .I600E-Oz THICKNESS OF ME LAYER- .1081E-03 TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (DINEH . 1IC0NCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER 2IRICATT|.3ISCOTT.5ILEREH: 50.0000 12.0700 117.2000 .8819E'03 VI .IIIIE-OZ VI .1272E-02 VI .I500E-02 VI .1508E‘02 VI INLET AIR TEMP. F: 325.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0085 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FT2 [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 90.0000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUQD/H/FT2: 7.7000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 2.5000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 0.0000 STAGE 2 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . IICONCURRENTFLOH.SICDUNTER 2IRICATTI.3ISCOTT.5ILEREH: 5 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 50.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0032 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FT2 [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 120.0000 STATIC PRESSURE BOUND 7.0000 IN H20 AIRFLOH BOUND 150.0000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUCD/H/FTZ: 7.7000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 1.0000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 0 0000 GUESSED AIRFLOHI .1200E+03 CFM/FTZ CORRECTEDI .1351E+03 CFM/FTZ ASSUMING AIRFLOH IN GRAIN BED AT 150.0F IS 135.1CFM/FT2 NODE- 0 IO FLUX -.3857E+07 .3857E+O7 ID GRID 0. NODE- 1 IO FLUX 0. .157OE+08 IO GRID .8819E-03 NODE- 2 IO FLUX .1118E+08 .6783E+08 IO GRID .111IE-Oz NODE- 3 IO FLUX .2871E+OB .7212E+08 IO GRID .1272E-02 NODE- 6 IO FLUX .6962E+08 .9796E+08 IO GRID .16OOE-02 THICKNESS OF HE LAYER- .1081E-03 .8819E‘03 VI .1111E-02 VI .1272E-02 VI .I500E'02 VI .1508E’02 VI 0.0000 .2500 .2500 .2500 .2500 CFM/FTZ 0.0000 .2500 .2500 .2500 .2500 CPI .3225E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .IO97E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .0020 AIR FLOH RATE 398.5LB/HR/FT2. 90.0CFM/FT2 . 136.9CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9507E+05 : BTU/HRFTZF .2953E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. HB PERCENTI 2.26285 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .0231523 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1373 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 9.58 LB/HR/FTZ 561.59 [HET-BUQD/H/FTZ 8.82 HET-MTON/HR/MZ 2.56] DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUM TEMP H8 EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 325.0 .0085 .0020 117.2 12.07 .0999 METHOD 3 STEPS [MIN CURRENT MAX X] .1000E-05 .1000E-03 .5000E-01 .5000E-O3 METHOD 3 STEPS [MIN CURRENT MAX X] .1000E-05 .1600E-02 .5000E-01 .1532E+00 .503 .052 159.3 .0317 .1586 159.2 10.50 5.7271 METHOD 3 STEPS [MIN CURRENT MAX X] .1000E-05 .1600E-02 .5000E-01 .3052E+00 1.001 .105 153.6 .0368 .1866 153.5 10.28 6.3813 METHOD 3 STEPS [MIN CURRENT MAX X] .1000E'05 .3200E-02 .5000E~01 .5620E+00 1.516 .158 150.2 .0367 .2131 150.2 10.15- 6.7969 METHOD 3 STEPS [MIN CURRENT MAX X] .1000E-05 .3200E-02 .5000E'01 .6108E+00 2.006 .209 168.0 .0379 .2322 168.0 10.07 7.0806 . METHOD 3 STEPS [MIN CURRENT MAX x] .IOOOE-Os .2366E-02 .5OOOE-OI .7315E+OO 2.600 .251 166.6 .0386 .2669 166.6 10.02 7.2662 THE MAX. GRAIN TEMP. 15 176.51786 F THIS HAPPENS AT .2826E-02 HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 10.97:FROM 10.60] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 12.68 : .3106E+O1 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FT2 .1769 (EFF- 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FTZ I .7208E+05 : LB’HZO/FTZ I .3001E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1260.99 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.85 HEAT AIR 60.57 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 62.32 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0260 BTU/LB H20 2399.62 ; THIS STAGE BTU/LB HZOI 2399.62 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -I TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 CPI .3061E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1125E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 2 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .6000 AIR FLOH RATE 510.5LB/HR/FT2. 115.3CFM/FT2 . 110.7CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF 8TU/HRFT3F .I120E+05 : BTU/HRFTZF .3665E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. H8 PERCENTI 11.91217 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .1352306 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1113 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 9.58 LB/HR/FTZ 661.59 [HET-BUQD/H/FTZ 8.52 HET-MTON/HR/MZ 2.50] IFLDHIZ RICATTI. IFLOHI3 ASAE83D 3 SHOH GPGA RGPGA .5817E+02 .6069E+02 .6378E+02 .6711E+02 .7366E+02 CKDT SQZ .6666E+01 .1365E+02 .2135E+02 .2628E+O2 .2976E+02 .3236E+02 .3621E+02 .3557E+02 .3670E+02 .3785E+02 .3896E+02 .3991E+02 .6088E+02 .6166E+02 .6263E+02 .6366E+02 .667OE+02 .6578E+02 .6667E+02 .6781E+02 .6893E+02 .5032E+02 .5191E+02 .5356E+02 .556OE+02 .5769E+02 .5991E+02 .6278E+02 .6588E+02 .7175E+02 CKDT THSTG.BACK .6367E+02 .7366E+02 CXDT TH OUTLET .8726E+01 MAY NOT HAVE CONVERGED. REQUIRED ALL 6 PASSES DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUM TEMP H8 EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 161.1 .0056 .0255 166.6 10.02 2.8628 .500 .052 109.7 .0035 .0660 110.2 9.86 6.8325 1.000 .106 60.0 .0032 .6000 67.7 9.83 13.0720 [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 10.60:FROM 10.57] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 7.01 .1766E+01 XPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FTz .1273 (EFF- 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FTZ I CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY .6512E+02 : LB-HZO/FTZ I .1092E+00 2278.78 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.33 HEAT AIR 0.00 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 63.65 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0282 BTU/LB H20 2256.00 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB Hzo- 586.57 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [I-SI.2-ENGLISH]: UNITS 0 0 DEFAULT IECHO GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .ZICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : UNI) 1H": LIISI.2IENGLISHJ: UNITS 2 I-ECHO DEFAULT T-DTE [SHOH F:CKDT F: DEBUG FJSHOH-THIN MATCH: -CAPACITY(MOISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [O.1-T.2-S.3-U:M(L).6-H:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[O.1-ENTER T'S.2I SCAN:(FROM.USED)].: O EITHER STAGES 0R FIND VALUES: 1.000 HOH MANY STAGES I 1 GRAIN TYPE (0-STOP.1-SET VIA DATA .2-CORN 3-RICE MEDIUM.5-RICE LONG.5-MILO.6-SOYBEANS 7-HHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9-RAPESEEDICOLZA : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: 50.0000 INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: 15.9000 GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 56.0000 SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 05/25/85 SUAREZ DIFFUSION EQUATION FOR SPHERICAL MILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . IICONCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER 2-RICATTI.3-SCOTT.6-LEREH: 1 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 325.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0085 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATER- .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FTz [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 95.3000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUQD/H/FTZ: 7.7000 DRYER LENGTH, FT: 2.6000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 17.0000 CPI .3551E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1088E+05 BTU/L8 CAI .25I9E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .0020 .AIR FLOH RATE 521.9LB/HR/FT2. 95.3CFM/FT2 . 155.9CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9873E+05 : BTU/HRFTZF .3056E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. HB PERCENTI 3.59687 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .0362358 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1891 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 9.58 LB/HR/FTZ 561.59 [HET-Bueo/H/FTz 9.62 HET-MTON/HR/Mz 2.68] DEPTH TIME AIR ADS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUM TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 325.0 .0085 .0020 56.0 15.90 .0999 .502 .052 128.6 .0280 .2902 128.0 16.62 8.1003 1.002 .105 118.6 .0338 .6537 118.6 16.26 10.1327 1.509 .157 116.3 .0363 .5676 116.2 16.07 11.3006 2.002 .209 112.2 .0376 .5986 112.2 13.99 11.9656 2.600 .251 111.3 .0380 .6235 111.3 13.95 12.3077 INTERNAL MOISTURE AFTER DRYING FOR .2506E+OO HR .1571 .1656 .1299 .1210 THE MAX. GRAIN TEMP. IS 155.71735 F THIS HAPPENS AT .3220E-02 HOURS INTERNAL MOISTURE AFTER TEMPERING FOR .I856E+01 HR .1398 .1383 .1380 .1381 THE MAX.TEMPER TEMP. 15 111.26697 F THIS HAPPENS AT 0. HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 11.7I:FROM 11.33] STATIC PRESSURE. IN 0F H20 12.65 : .3098E+OI KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FTz .1868 (EFF- 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FT2 - .7632E+06 : LB-H20/FT2 - .3112E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY _ 1680.90 BTU/LB-Hzo IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.95 HEAT AIR 65.03 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 65.99 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0269 BTU/LB H20 2550.07 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB HZOI 2550.07 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT .1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [IISI.2IENGLISH]: UNITS O OIECHO DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .ZICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : UMII ITPE LIISI.2IEHGLISHJ: UNITS 2 I-ECHO DEFAULT T-DTE [SHOH F:CXDT F: DEBUG FJSHOHITHIN HATCH: -CAPACITY(HOISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [0.1-T.2IS.3IU:M(L).5-M:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[0.1-ENTER T'S.2- SCAN:(FROH.USED)J.: 0 EITHER STAGES OR FIND VALUES: 1.000 HOH MANY STAGES P ' 1 GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE L0NG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: 50.0000 INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: 13.9500 GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 109.5000 SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 05/25/85 SUAREZ DIFFUSION EQUATION FOR SPHERICAL MILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . IICONCURRENTFLOH.5ICOUNTER 2-RICATT1.3-SCOTT.6-LEREH: 1 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 325.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0085 RH (EITHER AHBIENT OR ENTERED) T0 HEATER- .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FT2 [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 91.0000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BueD/H/FTz: 7.7000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 2.6000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 17.0000 CPI .3381E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1075E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .0020 AIR FLOH RATE 502.9LB/HR/FT2. 91.0CFM/FT2 . 138.5CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9577E+05 ; BTU/HRFTZF .2965E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. HB PERCENTI 2.50519 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .0256557 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1621 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 9.58 LB/HR/FTZ 561.59 [HET-Bueo/H/FTz 9.10 HET-MTON/HR/Hz 2.62] DEPTH TIHE AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUM TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIHAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 325.0 .0085 .0020 109.6 13.95 .0999 .501 .052 150.0 .0366 .2033 169.6 12.23 6.6721 1.001 .105 138.7 .0610 .3172 138.6 11.80 8.2627 1.505 .157 133.6 .0639 .3861 133.6 11.60 9.1336 2.001 - .209 131.0 .0655 .6277 130.9 11.50 9.6686 2.600 .251 129.6 .0662 .6501 129.6 11.66 9.9258 INTERNAL HOISTURE AFTER DRYING FOR .2506E+00 HR .1363 .1169 .1036 .0981 THE HAX. GRAIN TEHP. IS 186.62232 F THIS HAPPENS AT .276OE-02 HOURS INTERNAL MOISTURE AFTER TEMPERING FOR .1866E+01 HR .1138 .1135 .1133 .1133 THE MAX.TEMPER TEMP. IS 129.60285 F THIS HAPPENS AT 0. HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 11.333FROM 10.86] STATIC PRESSURE. IN 0F H20 12.53 : .3095E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FT2 .1782 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FTZ I .7288E+05 : LB-HZO/FTZ I .3800E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1157.63 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.86 HEAT AIR 61.16 HOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 63.01 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0329 BTU/LB H20 1915.96 ; THIS STAGE BTU/LB H20- 1915.96 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [I-SI.2-ENGLISH]: UNITS 0 o-ECHO DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (o-STOP.1-SET VIA DATA .2-CORN 3-RICE MEDIUH.6-RICE LONG.5-HILD.6-SOYBEANS 7-HHEAT.8-SUNFLOHER.9-RAPESEED-COLZA : unon DIAB- LI-Jopb’LI‘ULIdHJ. UNITS 2 1-ECH0 DEFAULT T-DTE [SHOH F:CKDT F: DEBUG F]SHOH-THIN HATCH: ICAPACITY(MOISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [O.1-T.2-s.3-U:M(L).6-H:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[O.1-ENTER T's.2- SCAN:(FROH.USED)].: O EITHER STAGES OR FIND VALUES: 2.000 HOH MANY STAGES F 2 GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: 50.0000 INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: 11.5500 GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 118.5000 SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 05/25/85 SUAREZ DIFFUSION EQUATION FOR SPHERICAL MILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . IICONCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER 2-RICATTI.3-SCOTT.6-LEREH: 1 INLET AIR TEHP. F: [325.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUHIDITY RATIO: .0085 RH (EITHER AMBIENT 0R ENTERED) TO HEATER- .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FT2 [AT AHBIENT CONDITIONS]: 90.0000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. DueD/H/FTz: 7.7000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: . 2.6000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH, FT: 0.0000 STAGE 2 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . IICONCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER 2IRICATTI.3'SCOTT.5ILEREH: 5 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 50.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0032 RH (EITHER AMBIENT 0R ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FTZ [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 99.0000 STATIC PRESSURE BOUND 7.0000 IN H20 AIRFLOH BOUND 150.0000 CFM/FT2 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUQO/H/FTZ: 7.7000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 1.0000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 0.0000 GUESSED AIRFLOHI .9900E+02 CFM/FT2 CORRECTEDI .1359E+03 CFM/FTZ ASSUMING AIRFLOH IN GRAIN BED AT 150.0F IS 135.9CFM/FT2 CPI .3175E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1108E+05 BTU/LB CAI .25I9E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .0020 AIR FLOH RATE 398.5LB/HR/FT2. 90.0CFH/FT2 . 136.9CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9507E+06 : BTU/HRFTzF .2963E+02 EQUILIBRIUH HOISTURE. HB PERCENT- 2.26127 DRY BASIS.DECIHAL .0229266 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIHAL .1292 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 9.58 LB/HR/FT2 661.59 [HET-BUeD/H/FTz 8.73 HET-MTON/HR/Hz 2.56] DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUM TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LD DECIHAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 325.0 .0085 .0020 118.6 11.66 .0999 .502 .052 160.7 .0316 .1628 160.6 9.86 5.6162 1.011 .106 150.3 .0369 .2166 150.2 9.67 6.8160 1.523 .159 165.5 .0395 .2569 165.5 9.30 7.6320 2.003 .209 163.1 .0608 .2821 163.0 9.20 7.7786 2.600 .251 161.7 .0615 .2966 161.7 9.15 7.9731 INTERNAL MOISTURE AFTER DRYING FOR .2506E+00 HR .1077 .0918 .0825 .0792 THE HAX. GRAIN TEHP. IS 196.76868 F THIS HAPPENS AT .2706E-02 HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 10.86:FROH 10.65] STATIC PRESSURE. IN 0F H20 12.67 : .3103E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FT2 .1767 (EFF- 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FTz - .7208E+06 : LB-H20/FT2 - .3285E+01 CUHULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1226.50 BTU/LB-Hzo IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.85 HEAT AIR 60.57 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 62.32 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0285 BTU/LB H2O 2192.29 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB HZOI 2192.29 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 CPI .2995E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1155E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 2 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .6000 AIR FLOH RATE 509.9LB/HR/FT2. 115.2CFH/FT2 . 110.6CFH/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .1119E+05 : BTU/HRFTzF .3663E+02 EQUILIBRIUH MOISTURE, HB PERCENT- 11.89665 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .1350069 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIHAL .1008 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 9.58 LB/HR/FTz 661.59 [HET-BUQD/H/FTZ 8.60 HET-MTON/HR/Mz 2.68] IFLOHIZ RICATTI, IFLOH-3 ASAE83D 3 DEPTH— TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN HC MC 4 TEMP HUH HUM TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIHAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 153.3 .0063 .0266 161.7 9.15 2.8826 .500 .052 87.8 .0032 .1122 87.5 8.92 6.2807 1.000 .106 60.0 .0032 .6000 67.5 8.98 13.0757 INTERNAL HOISTURE AFTER COOLING FOR .1066E+00 HR .1067 .0908 .0813 .0783 [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO IO.65:FROH 10.62] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 7.00 : .1761E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FT2 .1269 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FTZ I .6393E+02 : LB-HZO/FTZ I .9958ET01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 2111.51 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.33 HEAT AIR 0.00 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 63.65 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0305 BTU/LB H20 2087.09 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB H20I 651.35 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [1-SI.2-ENGLISH]: UNITS 0 o-ECHO DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (O-STOP.1-SET VIA DATA .2-C0RN 3-RICE HEDIUH.6-RICE LONG.5-MILO.6-SOYBEANS 7-HHEAT,8-SUNFLOHER.9-RAPESEED-COLzA : UNI 1 11'1": LIISI .JIENGLISHJ: UNITS 2 I-ECHO DEFAULT F-DTE [SHOH F:CKDT F: DEBUG FJSHOH-THIN HATCH: ICAPACITY(MOISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [0.1-T.2-S.3-U:M(L).6-M:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[0.1-ENTER T'S.2- SCAN:(FR0H.USED)].: 0 EITHER STAGES OR FIND VALUES: 1.000 HOH MANY STAGES I 1 GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IM1LO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: 30.0000 INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: 15.8000 GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 55.0000 SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 05/25/85 PAULSEN DRYINGRATE EQUATION FOR THINLAYER MILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . IICONCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER 2IRICATTI.3ISCOTT.5ILEREH: I INLET AIR TEMP. F: 295.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0071 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FTZ [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 93.0000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUQD/H/FTZ: 6.9000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 2.5000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 17.0000 CPI .3552E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1090E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .0026 AIR FLOH RATE 628.6LB/HR/FT2. 93.0CFH/FT2 . 161.2CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9975E+06 : BTU/HRFT2F .3087E+02 EQUILIBRIUH HOISTURE. HB PERCENT- 3.56266 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .0367256 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIHAL .1876 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 8.58 LB/HR/FTz 613.63 [HET-BUeD/H/FTz 8.62 HET-MTON/HR/Mz 2.60] DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC HC TEHP HUM HUM TEHP' HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 295.0 .0071 .0026 55.0 15.80 .0999 .502 .059 128.9 .0216 .2222 128.8 15.72 7.2399 1.005 .117 123.8 .0255 .2879 123.7 15.51 8.1391 1.502 .175 120.6 .0262 .3365 120.5 15.38 8.7599 2.001. .233 118.2 .0275 .3757 118.2 15.28 9.2573 2.500 .280 116.7 .0282 .5026 116.7 15.22 9.5758 THE MAX. GRAIN TEMP. IS 153.66529 F THIS HAPPENS AT .2599E-02 HOURS THE MAX.TEMPER TEMP. 15 116.71026 F THIS HAPPENS AT 0. HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 10.58:FROM 10.20] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 12.61 : .3138E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FTZ .1857 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FTZ I .8035E+05 : LB-HZO/FTZ I .2531E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1979.05 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 2.16 HEAT AIR 67.31 HOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUHULATIVE 69.66 HATER REHOVED. LB/LB .0219 BTU/LB H20 3171.22 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB Hzo- 3171.22 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -I TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [I-SI.2-ENGLISH]: UNITS O o-ECHO DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : 0811 III': LI'31.4'EN\ILIDMJ: UNITS 2 I-ECHO DEFAULT F-DTE [SHDH F:CKDT F: DEBUG F]SHOH-THIN HATCH: -CAPACITY(HDISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [0.1-T.2-S.3-U:H(L).6-H:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[O.1-ENTER T'S.2I SCAN:(FR0M.USED)].: O EITHER STAGES OR FIND VALUES: 1.000 HOH MANY STAGES I I GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2-CORN 3-RICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5-HILO.6-SOYBEANS 7-HHEAT.8-SUNFLOHER.9-RAPESEED-COLZA : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: 30.0000 INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: 15.2200 GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 97.0000 SIHULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 06/25/85 PAULSEN DRYINGRATE EQUATION FOR THINLAYER HILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . IICONCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER 2IRICATTI.3ISCOTT.5ILEREH: 1 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 255.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0062 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FT2 [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 92.0000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUQD/H/FT2: 6.9000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 2.5000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 17.0000 CPI .3505E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1079E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .0051 AIR FLOH RATE 626.0LB/HR/FT2. 92.OCFM/FT2 . 130.3CFH/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9906E+06 : BTU/HRFTzF .3065E+02 EQUILIBRIUM HOISTURE. HB PERCENT- 2.63952 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .0271108 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIHAL .1658 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 8.58 LB/HR/FT2 613.63 [HET-BUQD/H/FTZ 8.20 HET-MTON/HR/MZ 2.35] DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUM TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 255.0 .0062 .0051 97.0 15.22 .3508 .505 .059 132.8 .0209 .1957 132.6 13.09 6.8085 1.008 .117 128.0 .0235 .2568 127.9 12.90 7.5685 1.501. .175 125.1 .0250 .2850 125.0 12.78 8.0720 2.000 .233 122.9 .0261 .3152 122.9 12.69 8.5639 2.500 .280 121.6 .0268 .3358 121.6 12.63 8.7255 THE MAX. GRAIN TEMP. IS 156.51656 F THIS HAPPENS AT .2561E-02 HOURS THE MAX.TEMPER TEMP. IS 121.55652 F THIS HAPPENS AT 0. HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 10.20:FROM 9.92] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 12.51 : .3113E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FTZ .1812 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FTZ I .6582E+05 : LB-HZO/FTZ I .2557E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1386.83 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 2.11 HEAT AIR 53-93 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 56.05 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0212 BTU/LB H20 2656.69 7 THIS STAGE BTU/LB H20I 2656.69 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [1ISI.2IENGLISH]: UNITS O OIECHO DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : un11 IIPC LIISI.¢IcnuLISn]: UNITS 2 I-ECHO DEFAULT F-DTE [SHOH F:CXDT F: DEBUG F]SH0H-THIN MATCH: -CAPACITY(MDISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [0.1-T.2-S.3-U:M(L).6-M:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[0.1-ENTER T'S.2I SCAN:(FROM.USED)].: 0 EITHER STAGES OR FIND VALUES: 2.000 HOH MANY STAGES I 2 GRAIN TYPE (O-STOP.1-SET VIA DATA .2-CORN 3-RICE MEDIUM.6-RICE LONG.5-HIL0.6-SOYBEANS 7-HHEAT.8-SUNFLOHER.9-RAPESEED-COLzA : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: 30.0000 INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: 12.6300 GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 98.6000 SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 05/25/85 PAULSEN DRYINGRATE EQUATION FOR THINLAYER MILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . IICONCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER 2IRICATTI.3ISCOTT.5ILEREH: - 1 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 185.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0050 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FT2 [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 95.0000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUOO/H/FTZ: 6.9000 DRYER LENGTH, FT: 2.5000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 0.0000 STAGE 2 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . 1ICONCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER 2IRICATTI.3ISCOTT.5ILEREH: 5 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 50.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0023 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FTZ [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 120.0000 STATIC PRESSURE BOUND 7.2000 IN H20 AIRFLOH BOUND 150.0000 CFM/FTZ GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUQD/H/FTZ: 6.9000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 1.0000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 0.0000 GUESSED AIRFLOHI .12OOE+O3 CFM/FTZ CORRECTEDI .1375E+03 CFM/FTZ ASSUMING AIRFLOH IN GRAIN BED AT 150.0F IS 137.5CFM/FT2 CPI .3271E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1099E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .0137 AIR FLOH RATE 533.2LB/HR/FT2. 95.0CFM/FT2 . 121.5CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .1005E+05 : BTU/HRFTZF .3109E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. HB PERCENTI 2.95073 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .0305055 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1556 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 8.58 LB/HR/FTZ 513.63 [HET-BUQD/H/FTZ 7.98 HET-MTON/HR/MZ 2.31] DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUM TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000' 185.0 .0050 .0137 98.6 12.63 1.5132 .502 .059 123.9 .0115 .1380 123.8 12.11 6.0976 1.001 .117 119.7 .0137 .1835 119.6 11.93 6.8581 1.505 .175 116.9 .0150 .2177 116.9 11.82 7.3690 2.009 .235 115.9 .0160 .2553 115.9 11.75 7.7565 2.500 .280 113.7 .0167 .2636 113.7 11.69 8.0038 THE MAX. GRAIN TEMP. IS 135.32886 F THIS HAPPENS AT .2953E-02 HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 9.92:FROM 9.77] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 12.35 : .3072E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FT2 .1828 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FT2 I .5832E+05 : LB-HZO/FT2 I .1507E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1598.19 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 2.13 HEAT AIR 39.65 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 51.77 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0122 BTU/LB H20 3530.55 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB H20I 3530.55 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -| TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 CPI .3195E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1106E+05 BTU/LB CAI .25I9E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 2 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .5359 AIR FLOH RATE 520.6LB/HR/FT2. 113.0CFM/FT2 . 112.7CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .1135E+05 : BTU/HRFTZF .3510E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. HB PERCENTI 10.25155 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .1151012 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1325 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 8.58 LB/HR/FT2 513.63 [HET-BUQD/H/FTZ 7.85 HET-MTON/HR/M2 2.29] IFLOHIZ RICATTI. IFLOHI3 ASAE83D 3 DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN HC MC TEHP HUM HUM TEHP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIHAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 118.6 .0031 .0630 113.7 11.69 6.1659 .500 .058 75.3 .0026 .1276 75.9 11.63 6.7693 1.000 .117 60.0 .0023 .6359 61.6 11.61 11.2872 [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 9.77:FROM 9.76] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 7.21 : .1795E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FTZ .1283 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FT2 I .2195E+03 : LB-HZO/FTZ I .5673E-01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 3589.20 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.50 HEAT AIR 3.06 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 56.33 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0131 BTU/LB H2O 3523.75 ; THIS STAGE BTU/LB H20I 5693.05 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [1ISI.2IENGLISH]: UNITS 0 OIECHO DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE L0NG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : UO‘II IIFL Ll‘JI,‘-LNULIJIIJo UNITS 2 I-ECHO DEFAULT T-DTE [SHOH F:CKDT F: DEBUG FJSHOH-THIN MATCH: -CAPAC1TY(MOISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [0.1-T.2-S.3-U:M(L).6-H:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[O.1-ENTER T'S.2- SCAN:(FROH.USED)].: 0 EITHER STAGES OR FIND VALUES: 1.000 HOH HANY STAGES I . I GRAIN TYPE (0-ST0P,1-SET VIA DATA .2-CDRN 3-RICE HEDIUM.6-RICE LONG.5-HIL0.6-SOYBEANS 7-HHEAT.8-SUNFLOHER.9-RAPESEED-COL2A : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: 30.0000 INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: 15.8000 GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 55.0000 SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 05/25/85 SUAREZ DIFFUSION EQUATION FOR SPHERICAL MILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . IICONCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER 2IRICATTI.3ISCOTT.5ILEREH: 1 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 295.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0071 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FT2 [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 93.0000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUQD/H/FTZ: 6.9000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 2.5000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 17.0000 CPI .3552E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1090E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .0026 _AIR FLOH RATE 628.6LB/HR/FT2. 93.0CFH/FT2 . 161.2CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9975E+06 : BTU/HRFTzF .3087E+02 EQUILIBRIUH MOISTURE. H8 PERCENT- 3.56266 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .0367256 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1876 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 8.58 LB/HR/FT2 613.63 [HET-BUQD/H/FTZ 8.52 HET-MTON/HR/MZ 2.50] DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUM TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 295.0 .0071 .0026 55.0 15.80 .0999 .508 .059 123.9 .0255 .2868 123.6 15.51 8.1281 1.003 .117 115.7 .0295 .5539 115.5 15.13 10.0801 1.502' .175 110.6 .0316 .5358 110.5 13.96 11.2028 2.008 .235 108.5 .0327 .5866 108.5 13.87 11.8713 2.500 .280 107.6 .0332 .6112 107.6 13.85 12.2011 INTERNAL MOISTURE AFTER DRYING FOR .2796E+00 HR .1559 .1539 .1286 .1201 THE MAX. GRAIN TEMP. IS 150.50181 F THIS HAPPENS AT .3578E-02 HOURS INTERNAL MOISTURE AFTER TEMPERING FOR .2060E+01 HR .1385 .1371 .1369 .1369 THE MAX.TEMPER TEMP. IS 107.56112 F THIS HAPPENS AT 0. HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 10.58:FROM 10.13] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 12.59 ; .3108E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FTZ .1829 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FT2 I .8032E+05 : LB-H20/FT2 I .3127E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1723.92 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 2.13 HEAT AIR 67.31 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 69.55 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0271 BTU/LB H20 2565.59 ; THIS STAGE BTU/LB HZOI 2565.59 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [I-SI.2-ENGLISH]: UNITS 0 o-ECHO DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (0-STOP.1-SET VIA DATA .2-CORN 3-RICE MEDIUM.6-RICE LONG.5-MILO.6-SOYBEANS 7-HHEAT.8-SUNFLDHER.9-RAPESEED-COL2A : UHII IIPE [1ISI.2IENGLISH]: UNITS 2 IIECHO DEFAULT T-DTE [SHOH F:CNDT F: DEBUG F]SHOH-THIN MATCH: -CAPACITY(HOISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [0.1-T.2-s.3-U:H(L).6-M:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLEI[0.1IENTER T'S.2- SCAN:(FROH.USED)J.: O EITHER STAGES OR FIND VALUES: 1.000 HOH MANY STAGES I 1 GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 30.0000 13.8500 100.5000 SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 05/25/85 SUAREl DIFFUSION TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . 2IRICATTI.3ISCOTT.5ILEREH: INLET AIR TEMP. F: INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FT2 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUQD/H/FTZ: DRYER LENGTH. FT: OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: CPI .3372E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 REL HUM. DECIMAL .0051 EQUATION FOR SPHERICAL [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: .1081E+05 BTU/LB CAI MILO IICONCURRENTFLOH.5ICOUNTER 1 255.0000 .0062 .6000 92.0000 6.9000 2.5000 .5000 17.0000 .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES AIR FLOH RATE 626.0LB/HR/FT2. 92.OCFM/FT2 . 130.3CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9906E+06 : BTU/HRFT2F .3065E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. HB PERCENT- 2.57625 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .0266227 INLET HOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIHAL .1606 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 8.58 LB/HR/FT2 613.63 [HET-DueO/H/FTz 8.16 HET-HTON/HR/Hz 2.36] DEPTH TIHE AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUM TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 265.0 .0062 .0051 100.6 13.86 .3608 .505 .059 131.6 .0227 .2172 131.3 12.57 7.1360 1.011 .118 122.6 .0276 .3365 122.3 12.19 8.7102 1.501. .175 118.3 .0296 .6028 118.2 12.02 9.5550 2.005 .236 116.0 .0308 .6662 116.0 11.93 10.0865 2.600 .280 116.9 .0313 .6688 116.8 11.88 10.3618 INTERNAL MOISTURE AFTER DRYING FOR .2796E+OO HR .1356 .1228 .1095 .1027 THE MAX. GRAIN TEMP. IS 157.85550 F THIS HAPPENS AT INTERNAL MOISTURE AFTER TEMPERING FOR .3125E-02 HOURS .206OE+01 HR .1185 .1177 .1176 .1176 THE MAX.TEMPER TEMP. 15 115.85176 F THIS HAPPENS AT 0. HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 10.13;FROM 9.80] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 12.57 ; .3105E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FTZ .1807 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FT2 I .6581E+05 : LB-HZO/FTZ I .2981E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1250.78 BTU/LB-H2O IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 2.11 HEAT AIR 53.93 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUHULATIVE 56.03 HATER REHOVED. LB/LB .0258 BTU/LB H20 2171.65 ; THIS STAGE BTU/LB H20- 2171.65 QUALITY CHANGE, PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [1ISI.2IENGLISH]: UNITS 0 OIECHO DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : UNI. IIrC LIISI.2IcuuLIonJ; UNITS 2 I-ECHO DEFAULT T-DTE [SHOH F:CKDT F: DEBUG FJSHOHITHIN HATCH: ICAPACITY(MOISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [O.1-T.2-S.3-U:M(L).6-H:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[O.1-ENTER T's.2- SCAN:(FR0H.USED)].: 0 EITHER STAGES 0R FIND VALUES: 2.000 HOH HANY STAGES I 2 GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2-CORN 3-RICE MEDIUM.6-RICE LONG.5-MILO.6-SOYBEANS 7-HHEAT.8-SUNFLOHER.9-RAPESEED-COLzA : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: 30.0000 INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: 11.8800 GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 98.6000 SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 05/25/85 SUAREZ DIFFUSION EQUATION FOR SPHERICAL MILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . 1ICONCURRENTFLOH.5ICOUNTER 2IRICATTI.3ISCOTT.5ILEREH: I INLET AIR TEMP. F: 185.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0050 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FT2 [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 95.7000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUQD/H/FTZ: 6.9000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 2.5000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 0.0000 STAGE 2 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . 1ICONCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER 2IRICATTI.3ISCOTT.5ILEREH: 5 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 50.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0023 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FT2 [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 120.0000 STATIC PRESSURE BOUND 7.2000 IN H20 AIRFLOH BOUND 150.0000 CFM/FTZ GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUQD/H/FTZ: 6.9000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 1.0000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 0.0000 GUESSED AIRFLOHI .1200E+O3 CFM/FTZ CORRECTEDI .1375E+03 CFM/FT2 ASSUMING AIRFLOH IN GRAIN BED AT 150.0F IS 137.5CFM/FT2 CPI .3209E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1112E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .0137 AIR FLOH RATE 536.5LB/HR/FT2. 95.7CFM/FT2 . 122.5CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .1009E+05 : BTU/HRFTZF .3125E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. HB PERCENTI 2.95073 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .0305055 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1358 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 8.58 LB/HR/FTZ 513.63 [HET-BUCD/H/FTZ 7.88 HET-MTON/HR/MZ 2.29] DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUH HUM TEHP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIHAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 185.0 .0050 .0137 98.6 11.88 1.5132 .501 .058 119.2 .0160 .1905 119.0 11.16 6.9671 1.003 .117 112.7 .0171 .2782 112.6 10.88 8.1978 1.503 .175 109.6 .0186 .3298 109.6 10.75 8.8560 2.002 .233 107.9 .0196 .3620 107.9 10.68 9.2539 2.600 .280 107.0 .0199 .3796 107.0 10.65 9.6681 INTERNAL HOISTURE AFTER DRYING FOR .2796E+00 HR .1177 .1108 .1010 .0965 THE MAX. GRAIN TEHP. IS 136.81006 F THIS HAPPENS AT .3136E-02 HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 9.80:FROH 9.60] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 12.38 : .3081E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FTz .1866 (EFF- 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FTz - .6868E+O6 : LB-H20/FT2 - .1808E+01 CUHULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1358.36 BTU/LB-Hzo IF AT 60.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 2.15 HEAT AIR 39.93 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUHULATIVE 62.09 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0156 BTU/LB H20 2689.58 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB H20I 2689.58 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT _ -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 CPI .3111E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1133E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 2 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .6359 AIR FLOH RATE 520.6LB/HR/FT2. 113.OCFH/FT2 . 112.7CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .1136E+05 : BTU/HRFT2F .3510E+02 EQUILIBRIUH MOISTURE. HB PERCENT- 10.26155 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .1161012 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1192 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 8.58 LB/HR/FTz 613.63 [HET-DueD/H/FTz 7.72 HET-MTON/HR/Mz 2.26] IFLOH-z RICATTI. IFLOH-3 ASAE83D 3 DEPTH TIHE AIR ABS REL GRAIN HC HC TEHP HUM HUM TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIHAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 133.9 .0029 .0266 107.0 10.65 3.5951 .500 .058 50.8 .0023 .2898 51.8 10.53 9.5370 1.000 .117 60.0 .0023 .6359 60.6 10.53 11.3039 INTERNAL HOISTURE AFTER COOLING FOR .1165E+00 HR .1176 .1103 .1005 .0936 [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 9.60:FROM 9.58] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 7.21 : .1795E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FT2 .1283 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FT2 I .2195E+03 : LB-HZO/FTZ I .7393E'01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 2703.16 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 50.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.50 HEAT AIR 3.06 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 56.65 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0172 BTU/LB H20 2715.31 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB H2OI 2966.33 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [1ISI.2IENGLISH]: UNITS 0 OIECHO DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : unoI IIrG LI’JI,6-‘NULIJHJ3 UNITS 2 IIECHO DEFAULT F-DTE [SHOH F:CKDT F: DEBUG F]SH0H-THIN MATCH: -CAPACITY(HOISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [O.1-T.2-S.3-U:H(L).6-M:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[O.1-ENTER T'S.2I SCAN:(FRDM.USED)].: 0 EITHER STAGES 0R FIND VALUES: 1.000 HOH MANY STAGES I 1 GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: 32.0000 INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: 15.9000 GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 56.0000 SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 05/25/85 PAULSEN DRYINGRATE EQUATION FOR THINLAYER MILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . IICONCURRENTFLOH.5ICOUNTER 2IRICATTI.3ISCOTT.5ILEREH: 1 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 522.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0096 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FTZ [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 93.5000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUOD/H/FTZ: 11.5000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 2.5000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 17.0000 CPI .3551E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1088E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIHAL .0007 AIR FLOH RATE 627.7LB/HR/FT2. 93.5CFM/FT2 . 165.6CFH/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9962E+06 : BTU/HRFTzF .3083E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. HB PERCENT- 3.69687 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .0362358 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1891 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 16.18 LB/HR/FT2 683.39 [HET-BUCD/H/FTZ 13.95 HET-MTON/HR/MZ 3.97] DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUM TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 622.0 .0096 .0007 56.0 15.90 .0999 .506 .036 135.6 .0361 .2890 135.6 16.80 7.9763 1.003 .071 131.0 .0376 .3576 130.9 15.65 8.8560 1.501 .106 128.2 .0397 .5068 128.1 15.55 9.5509 2.005 .151 126.1 .0513 .5558 126.1 15.57 9.9282 2.500 .169 125.8 .0523 .5715 125.8 15.53 10.2518 THE MAX. GRAIN TEMP. IS 159.55755 F THIS HAPPENS AT .1712E°02 HOURS THE MAX.TEMPER TEMP. IS 125.80791 F THIS HAPPENS AT 0. HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 17.35:FROM 16.91] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H2O 13.25 : .3295E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FT2 .1959 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FT2 I .7113E+05 : LB-HZO/FTZ I .2359E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1623.85 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 52.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.38 HEAT AIR 60.12 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 61.59 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0205 BTU/LB H20 3011.80 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB HZOI 3011.80 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [1ISI.2IENGLISH]: UNITS 0 OIECHD DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDIC0LZA : UNII ITI': L1-31.4'ENULISHJ: UNITS 2 I-ECHO DEFAULT F-DTE [SHOH F:CKDT F: DEBUG F]SH0HITHIN HATCH: -CAPACITY(HOISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [0.1-T.2-S.3-U:M(L).6-M:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[0.1-ENTER T'S,2I SCAN:(FR0H.USED)].: 0 EITHER STAGES 0R FIND VALUES: 2.000 HOH HANY STAGES I 2 GRAIN TYPE (0-STOP.1-SET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3-RICE MEDIUH.6-RICE LONG.5-MILO.6-SOYBEANS 7-HHEAT.8-SUNFLOHER.9-RAPESEED-COLZA : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: 32.0000 INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: 15.5300 GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 115.2000 SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 05/25/85 PAULSEN DRYINGRATE EQUATION FOR THINLAYER MILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . 1ICONCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER 2IRICATTI.3ISCOTT.5ILEREH: 1 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 295.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0073 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FTZ [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 93.0000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUeD/H/FTZ: 11.5000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 2.5000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 0.0000 STAGE 2 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . 1ICONCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER 2IRICATTI.3ISC0TT,5ILEREH: 5 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 50.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0025 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) T0 HEATERI .6000 ' AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FT2 [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 120.0000 STATIC PRESSURE BOUND 9.0000 IN H20 AIRFLOH BOUND 150.0000 CFM/FTZ GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUQD/H/FTZ: 11.5000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 1.0000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 0.0000 GUESSED AIRFLOHI .1200E+03 CFM/FTZ CORRECTEDI .1580E+03 CFM/FTZ ASSUMING AIRFLOH IN GRAIN BED AT 150.0F IS 158.0CFM/FT2 CPI .3522E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1066E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .0027 AIR FLOH RATE 525.5LB/HR/FT2. 93.0CFM/FT2 . 150.2CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9927E+05 : BTU/HRFTZF .3073E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. HB PERCENTI 2.29899 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .0235308 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1686 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 15.18 LB/HR/FTZ 683.39 [HET-BUGD/H/FTZ 13.59 HET-MTON/HR/M2 3.90] DEPTH TIHE AIR ABS REL GRAIN HC MC TEHP HUM HUH TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIHAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 295.0 .0073 .0027 115.2 16.63 .0999 .523 .037 138.6 .0315 .2680 138.5 13.31 7.6237 1.006 .071 136.5 .0365 .3013 136.6 13.17 8.1360 1.510 .107 131.8 .0365 .3610 131.7 13.08 8.6630 2.006 .161 129.9 .0379 .3717 129.8 13.01 9.0261 2.600 .169 128.7 .0388 .3923 128.6 12.97 9.2783 THE HAX. GRAIN TEMP. IS 152.26132 F THIS HAPPENS AT .1675E-02 HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 16.91:FROM 16.69] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 13.16 : .3269E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FTz .1926 (EFF- 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FT2 - .6801E+06 : LB-H20/FT2 - .2268E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 658.86 BTU/LB-Hzo IF AT 62.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.36 HEAT AIR 50.15 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 51.51 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0196 BTU/LB H20 2115.35 ; THIS STAGE BTU/LB H20I 2115.35 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 CPI .3299E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1076E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 2 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .6676 AIR FLOH RATE 598.0LB/HR/FT2. 130.7CFH/FT2 . 129.5CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .1263E+05 ; BTU/HRFTzF .3867E+02 EQUILIBRIUM HOISTURE. HB PERCENT- 10.33966 DRY BASIS.DECIHAL .1153203 INLET HOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1690 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 16.18 LB/HR/FT2 683.39 [HET-DueD/H/FTz 13.26 HET-HTON/HR/Mz 3.83] IFLOH-z RICATTI. IFLOHI3 ASAE83D 3 DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUM TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 129.3 .0053 .0557 128.6 ‘ 12.97 5.2911 .500 .035 115.5 .0035 .0550 115.7 12.85 5.5078 1.000 .071 50.0 .0025 .5675 63.5 12.78 11.2085 [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 16.59:FROM 16.55] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 8.98 : .2236E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FT2 .1859 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FT2 I .1559E+03 : LB-HZO/FTZ I .1205E+00 CUMULATkVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1692.60 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 52.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.31 HEAT AIR 1.70 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 55.52 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0221 BTU/LB H20 2011.15 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB H20I 1201.63 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [1ISI.2IENGLISH]: UNITS 0 o-ECHO DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (0-STOP.1-SET VIA DATA .2-CORN 3-RICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7-HHEAT.8-SUNFLOHER.9-RAPESEED-COLZA : UNI I ”P: LI'SI .t'ENhLISMJ: UNITS 2 I-ECHO DEFAULT T-DTE [SHOH F:CXDT F: DEBUG FJSHOH-THIN MATCH: -CAPACITY(MOISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [0.1-T.2-s.3-U:H(L).6-H:O(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[0.1-ENTER T'S.2I SCAN:(FROM.USED)].: 0 EITHER STAGES 0R FIND VALUES: 1.000 HOH MANY STAGES F 1 GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: 32.0000 INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: 15.9000 GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 56.0000 SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 05/25/85 SUAREl DIFFUSION EQUATION FOR SPHERICAL MILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . IICONCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER z-RICATTI.3-SC0TT.6-LEREH: 1 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 622.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0096 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATER- .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FTz [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 93.5000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUBD/H/FTz: 11.6000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 2.6000 OUTPUT INTERVAL, FT: .5000 TEHPERING LENGTH. FT: 17.0000 CPI .3551E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1088E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .0007 AIR FLOH RATE 627.7LB/HR/FT2. 93.5CFH/FT2 . 165.6CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9962E+05 : BTU/HRFTzF .3083E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. HB PERCENT- 3.69687 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .0362358 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1891 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 16.18 LB/HR/FTz 683.39 [HET-BUQD/H/FTZ 13.96 HET-HTON/HR/Hz 3.97] DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEHP HUM HUM TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 522.0 .0096 .0007 56.0 15.90 .0999 .502 .035 136.5 .0335 .2778 136.1 15.83 7.8275 1.005 .071 126.0 .0515 .5586 125.9 15.57 9.9633 1.505 .106 121.3 .0550 .5507 121.2 15.30 11.2357 2.005 .151 119.0 .0567 .6085 119.0 15.22 11.9966 2.600 .169 117.9 .0675 .6366 117.9 16.19 12.3832 INTERNAL MOISTURE AFTER DRYING FOR .1692E+00 HR .1580 .1697 .1362 .1221 THE MAX. GRAIN TEMP. IS 162.37667 F THIS HAPPENS AT .2556E-02 HOURS INTERNAL HOISTURE AFTER TEMPERING FOR .1267E+01 HR .1535 .1507 .1503 .1503 THE MAX.TEMPER TEMP. 15 117.92322 F THIS HAPPENS AT 0. HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 17.35:FROM 16.85] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 13.20 : .3285E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FT2 .1955 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FTZ I .7112E+05 : LB-H20/FT2 I .2750E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1503.95 BTU/LB-H20 IF AT 52.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.37 HEAT AIR 60.12 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 61.59 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0237 BTU/LB H20 2592.97 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB H20I 2592.97 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -I TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [1ISI.2IENGLISH]: UNITS 0 OIECHO DEFAULT ' GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : UNI! Ill'c LI‘Jlgl‘GNULIJflJS UNITS 2 I-ECHD DEFAULT T-DTE [SHOH F:CKDT F: DEBUG FJSHoH-THIN HATCH: -CAPACITY(MOISTURE)SEARCH THIN [FIND] [0.1-T.2-s.3-U:M(L).6-H:Q(R)] F 2 RECYCLE-[O.1-ENTER T'S.2- SCAN:(FROM.USED)J.: 0 EITHER STAGES 0R FIND VALUES: 2.000 HOH MANY STAGES I ' 2 GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : 5 INPUT IN ENGLISH UNITS. INPUT CONDITIONS: AMBIENT TEMPERATURE F: 32.0000 INLET MOISTURE CONTENT. HET BASIS PERCENT: 15.1900 GRAIN TEMPERATURE. F: 120.2000 SIMULATE A CONCURRENT/COUNTER FLOH DRYER ON 05/25/85 SUAREZ DIFFUSION EQUATION FOR SPHERICAL MILO TEST 3 STAGE MILO STAGE 1 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . 1ICONCURRENTFLOH.5ICOUNTER 2IRICATTI.3ISCOTT.5ILEREH: 1 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 295.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0073 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FT2 [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 93.0000 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUCD/H/FTZ: 11.5000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 2.5000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 0.0000 STAGE 2 INPUT CONDITIONS: STAGE TYPE (OINEH . IICONCURRENTFLOH.SICOUNTER 2IRICATTI.3ISC0TT.5ILEREH: 5 INLET AIR TEMP. F: 50.0000 INLET ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY RATIO: .0025 RH (EITHER AMBIENT OR ENTERED) TO HEATERI .6000 AIRFLOH RATE.CFM/FTZ [AT AMBIENT CONDITIONS]: 120.0000 STATIC PRESSURE BOUND 9.0000 IN H20 AIRFLOH BOUND 150.0000 CFM/FT2 GRAIN FLOH RATE. BUQD/H/FTZ: 11.5000 DRYER LENGTH. FT: 1.0000 OUTPUT INTERVAL. FT: .5000 TEMPERING LENGTH. FT: 0.0000 GUESSED AIRFLOHI .1200E+03 CFM/FT2 CORRECTEDI .1580E+03 CFM/FTZ ASSUMING AIRFLOH IN GRAIN BED AT 150.0F IS 158.0CFM/FT2 CPI .3502E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1065E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 1 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUH. DECIMAL .0027 AIR FLOH RATE 625.5LB/HR/FT2. 93.0CFH/FT2 . 160.2CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .9927E+O6 : BTU/HRFT2F .3073E+02 EQUILIBRIUM MOISTURE. HB PERCENT- 2.20908 DRY BASIS.DECIHAL .0225898 INLET MOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1656 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 16.18 LB/HR/FTz 683.39 [HET-Bueo/H/FTz 13.53 HET-MTON/HR/Mz 3.89] DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUH TEMP HB EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 295.0 .0073 .0027 120.2 16.19 .0999 .501 .035 163.3 .0308 .2165 163.0 13.10 6.9216 1.002 .071 133.0 .0383 .3656 132.8 12.76 8.6770 1.506 .106 128.1 .0618 .6276 128.0 12.58 9.6908 2.007 .162 125.6 .0637 .6792 125.6 12.68 10.3261 2.600 .169 126.1 .0667 .5060 126.1 12.66 10.6570 INTERNAL MOISTURE AFTER DRYING FOR .I692E+OO HR .1606 .1311 .1163 .1059 THE MAX. GRAIN TEMP. IS 169.90200 F THIS HAPPENS AT .2096E-02 HOURS [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 16.85:FRDM 16.36] STATIC PRESSURE. IN OF H20 13.22 : .3289E+OI KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FTz .1936 (EFF- 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FTz - .6802E+O6 : LB-Hzo/FTz - .2690E+01 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 635.52 BTU/LB-Hzo IF AT 62.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.37 HEAT AIR 50.15 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 51.52 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0233 BTU/LB H20 1783.55 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB HZOI 1783.55 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 CPI .3255E+00 BTU/LB/F HFGI .1086E+05 BTU/LB CAI .2519E+00 BTU/LB/F OUTPUT FOR STAGE 2 PRELIMINARY CALCULATED VALUES REL HUM. DECIMAL .6676 AIR FLOH RATE 598.0LB/HR/FT2. 130.7CFM/FT2 . 129.5CFM/FT2 [AT TIN] HEAT TRANSFER COEF BTU/HRFT3F .1263E+05 : BTU/HRFTzF .3867E+02 EQUILIBRIUM HOISTURE. HB PERCENT- 10.26396 DRY BASIS.DEC1MAL .1163793 INLET HOISTURE. DRY BASIS DECIMAL .1621 GRAIN VELOCITY FT/HR 16.18 LB/HR/FTz 683.39 [HET-BueD/H/FTz 13.16 HET-MTON/HR/Mz 3.81] IFLOH-z RICATTI. IFLOH-3 ASAE83D 3 DEPTH TIME AIR ABS REL GRAIN MC MC TEMP HUM HUM TEMP H8 EQ FT HR F LB/LB DECIMAL F PERCENT PERCENT 0.000 0.000 126.0 .0083 .0967 126.1 12.66 5.3035 .500 .035 91.3 .0062 .1323 91.8 12.16 6.5519 1.000 .071 60.0 .0025 .6676 52.6 12.05 11.6159 INTERNAL MOISTURE AFTER COOLING FOR .7052E-01 HR .1399 .1288 .1136 .0953 [HET-FLOH:FT/HR INTO 16.35:FROM 16.26] STATIc‘PRESSURE. IN 0F H20 8.98 : .2236E+01 KPA HORSEPOHER. HP/FTZ .1859 (EFFI 1.00) ENERGY AND HATER BTU/FT2 I .1559E+03 : LB-HZO/FTZ I .2565E+00 CUMULATIVE STANDARD SPECIFIC ENERGY 1557.95 BTU/LB-HZO IF AT 52.00 F ENERGY INPUTS. BTU/LB FAN( .50 EFF) 1.31 HEAT AIR 1.70 MOVE GRAIN 0.00 CUMULATIVE 55.52 HATER REMOVED. LB/LB .0285 BTU/LB H20 1567.80 : THIS STAGE BTU/LB H20I 587.39 QUALITY CHANGE. PERCENT -1 TOTAL CHANGE 0.00 UNIT TYPE [1ISI.2IENGLISH]: UNITS 0 OIECHO DEFAULT GRAIN TYPE (0ISTOP.1ISET VIA DATA .2ICORN 3IRICE MEDIUM.5IRICE LONG.5IMILO.6ISOYBEANS 7IHHEAT.8ISUNFLOHER.9IRAPESEEDICOLZA : WWW 31 293 O TATE UNIV I 11111 WWMWB 56 3831 -_-__-