Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
3 MAR96
Approved by the ASAE Committee on Technical Data; adopted by ASAE 1 Purpose and scope
1948; revised 1954, 1962; reconfirmed by the ASAE Electric Power and
1.1 These data can be used to estimate the resistance to airflow of beds
Processing Division Technical Committee December 1968, December
of grain, seeds, and other agricultural products, and of perforated metal
1973, December 1978, December 1979; revised December 1980;
sheets. An estimate of this airflow resistance is the basis for the design
reconfirmed December 1985; revised by the Grain and Feed Processing
of systems to dry or aerate agricultural products.
and Storage Committee; approved by the Food and Process Engineering
Institute Standards Committee March 1987; reconfirmed December 1.2 Data are included for common grains, seeds, other agricultural
1991; reaffirmed December 1992, December 1993, December 1994, products, and for perforated metal sheets, over the airflow range
December 1995; revised March 1996. common for aeration and drying systems.
2 Empirical curves
NOTE – This chart gives values for a loose fill (not packed) of clean, relatively dry grain. For a loose fill of clean grain having high moisture content (In equilibrium with
relative humidities exceeding 85%), use only-80% of the indicated pressure drop for a given rate of air flow.
Packing of the grain in a bin may cause 50% higher resistance to air flow than the values shown. White rice is a variety of popcorn.
The pressure drop for airflow through bulk grain in the horizontal direction has been measured for wheat and barley (Kumar and Muir, 1986); canola (Jayas et al., 1987);
corn (Kay et al., 1989); alfalfa pellets (Sokhansanj et al., 1990); flaxseed (Jayas et al., 1991); and bird’s foot trefoil, canary seed, fababeans, lentils, meadow fescue, oats,
timothy, and tara peas (Alagusundaram et al., 1992). The pressure drop in the horizontal direction may be 60% to 70% of the pressure drop for airflow in the vertical
direction. For some seeds, however, the difference between the pressure drops for the horizontal and vertical airflows may be nonexistent.
Figure 1 – Resistance to airflow of grains and seeds (SI Units) (Shedd’s data)
Figure 2 – Resistance to airflow of grains and seeds (Inch-pound units) (Shedd’s data)
Figure 6 – Resistance to airflow of shelled corn and wheat at low airflows (Inch-pound units)
DP S D
rb 2
rk
Q
rk S D
rb 2
Q
S D S D
5 X 11 X 2 1X3
Figure 7 – Resistance to airflow of perforated metal sheets L rb 3 rb 3
when supporting grain (Henderson) 12 12
rk rk
SI units: S D
DP
L
5
corrected
S D
DP
L
~ 11 ~14.5566226.418Q !~ fm!!
clean
Customary units: S D
DP
L
5
corrected
S D
DP
L
~ 11 ~ 14.5566
clean
20.1342Q !~ fm!!
NOTE – The parameters given were determined by a least square fit of the data in Figures 1 to 6. To obtain the corresponding values of (a) in inch-pound units (in
H2O min2/ft3) divide the above a-values by 31635726. To obtain corresponding values of (b) in inch-pound units (ft2/cfm) divide the above b-values by 196.85. Parameters
for the Lot 2 Ear Corn data are not given since the above equation will not fit the data.
Although the parameters listed in this table were developed from data at moderate airflows, extrapolations of the curves for shelled corn, wheat, and sorgbum agree well
with available data (Stark and James) at airflows up to 1.0 m3/s · m2.
Table 3 – Values for constants (inch-pound units) for equation in clause 5.1
Airflow range,
Table 2 – Value for constants (SI units) for equation in clause 5.1 cfm/ft3 X1 X2 X3
Airflow range, m3/s·m2 X1 X2 X3 5.3 < Q < 26.3 20.0012 5.5331024 1.62 3 1025
26.3 , Q < 52.5 20.013 6.9431024 1.39 3 1025
0.027 < Q < 0.13 20.998 88.8 511 52.5 , Q < 117 20.094 10.2 31024 1.23 3 1025
0.13 < Q < 0.27 210.9 111 439
0.27 < Q < 0.60 276.5 163 389 NOTE – Range of applicability: 732 to 799 kg/m3 (45.7 to 49.9 lb/ft3) (corn
bulk density) 0.027 to 0.60 m3 /s · m2 (5.3 to 117 cfm/ft2) (Bern and Charity).