Journal of Food Engineering 7 ( 1988) 41-6 1

The Effect of Spatial Variations of Heat Transfer Coefficient on Meat Processing Times
Dean Burfoot and Stephen J. James

AFRC Food Research Institute, Bristol, Langford, Bristol BS 18 7DY, UK (Received 12 December 1986; revised manuscript received 12 February 1987; accepted 29 May 1987)

ABSTRACT Most models for the transfer of heat to and within foods assume that the surface heat transfer coeficient is constant. This paper compares the differences in thawing and cooking times for cylinders of meat predicted when using a constant, a surface-temperature-dependent or a locationdependent coeficient. The sizes of the cylinders selected in the finite-difference model represented a sausage, a joint of meat and a hindquarter of beef respectively. The processing times and meat surface temperatures were almost identical when using surface coeficients which were constant or dependent on the x.&ace temperature. However, surface coej$ients which increased linearly ffom the ends of the cylinder to the mid-plane and vice versa resulted in significantly different heating times (up to 43% difference) and surface temperatures (up to 36C difference). The magnitude of the differences depended on the diameter and aspect ratio of the cylinder.

NOMENCLATURE Constant in eqn (9) Surface area of the total, horizontal and vertical surfaces of the cylinder, respectively (m*) Constant in eqn (9) Specific heat capacity (J kg- K - ) Emissivity Dimensionless factors allowing for the effect of position and temperature on the Nusselt number
41
Journal of Food Engineering 0260-8774/88/$03.50 - 0

:,&,A,
b

: 47 FT

Ekevier

Applied

Science

Publishers Ltd, England, 1988. Printed in Great Britain

D.Burfoot,

S. J. James

g1, g2

Gr h> h,> 4, h,,,

h,, h2
k

k VZ+1,??l
m

kl
Pr 4 ; Re
t T, Ts, T,

T ,,,+I,

T,,,,T:,

V i Ar

Heat transfer coefficient to the flat ends of a cylinder (subscripts c, r, and m, yt refer to convection, radiation and the location m, n) (W me2 K-) Heat transfer coefficients to horizontal surfaces over the temperature ranges TsI to r$,, and rs,, to Ts3(W m-2K-) Grashof number Heat transfer coefficients to the curved surface of a cylinder (subscripts c, r, and m, n refer to convection, radiation and the location m, n) -2K-1 (Wm ) Heat transfer coefficients to vertical surfaces over the temperature ranges T,, to Ts2and X2 to T,,(Wm-2K-) Thermal conductivity (W m- K- ) Arithmetic average of the thermal conductivities evaluated at T,,, + , and T,,, (W m-l K-l) Axial coordinate Radial coordinate Nusselt number Prandtl number Heat flux (W ) Radius (m) Radius of cylinder (m) Reynolds number Time (s) Temperature (subscripts s and a refer to surface and ambient) (C) Temperature at locations m + 1 and m after time t and temperature at location m after time t + At, respectively (C) Temperature at locations II + 1 and n after time t, and temperature at location n after time t + At, respectively (C) Surface temperatures at the start and end of thawing and at the points of discontinuity on Fig. 3 (C) Volume (m3) Axial distance (m) Half thickness of a block (m) Radial increment (m)

Spatial variationsof heat tranrfer coefficient

43

AX
P ci

Axial increment (m) Density (kg m-) Stefan-Boltzmann constant 56.7 x 10m9 (W mP2 K-4)

INTRODUCTION The rapid increase in the availability of computers has led to the development of many mathematical models to simulate food processes involving heat transfer, for example, freezing (Cleland and Earle, 1979a, b; Cleland et cd, 1984), thawing (Bailey et d, 1974; James et al., 1977) and cooking (Sorensfors, 1977; Dagerskog, 1979u, b; Burfoot and James, 1984; Burfoot, 1984). These models are generally used to estimate times of heating and cooling of foods in the design of processing plant. However, with refinements, these models may also be used to control food process operations. In both applications, the models must satisfy the conditions existing at the surface of the food. The most common assumptions for this boundary condition are either that the surface temperature is uniform and constant: t>O; x=X, or that Newtons law of cooling applies:
t,O;x=X;k$=h(T,-?;)

T= 1;

(1)

(2)

The constant temperature condition applies when there is minimal thermal resistance between the surface of the material and the heating or cooling medium. This occurs in food processes such as steam sterilisation of canned products and vacuum steam thawing. Equation (2) is a common surface condition in air chilling, freezing and convective cooking. The heat transfer coefficient, h, is often estimated using: Nu =flRe, Pr, Gr, Fp, FT ) (3)

The form of this function varies with the relative magnitude of the dimensionless groups which depend on the conditions. The dimensionless factors, Fp and FT, are included to allow, respectively, for the variations in heat transfer coefficient with position on a surface and with temperature difference between the surrounding fluid and the surface. However, in the literature, the effects of location and temperature on the heat transfer coefficient have often been neglected. The purpose of the

44

D. But-foot,S. .I. fames

present work was to test the constant-coefficient assumption by comparing the differences in food processing times predicted using constant or coefficients. The processes location- and temperature-dependent analysed are thawing and cooking of meat. Processing time is defined as the time required for the centre temperature to rise through an interval related to the process being simulated. Finite cylinders of lean meat are considered in this work. Although this is a reasonable geometric representation of many meat shapes during cooking it is not typical of products thawed in industry. Previous models have used cylinders to represent beef hindquarters during thawing (James et al., 1977) and lamb and mutton carcasses during chilling, freezing and thawing (Fleming and Earle, 1966; Earle and Fleming, 1967; Creed and James, 1984).

MATHEMATICAL
Formulation of the model

MODEL

The model is based on the explicit finite difference method of Dusinberre ( 1949). This method, which has been used in earlier work (Bailey et al., 1974; Burfoot and James, 1983; Burfoot, 1984), is easily applied to regular geometric shapes and it is conceptually simple, relying on no advanced mathematical techniques. Basically, only three equations are used. viz

q=kA(T,,+, - K)
(x n+,-Xn)

for internal conduction for heat transfer at the surface for accumulation of heat (5)

q=hWa4=
vp

T)
At

$Tn- T,)

(6)

These equations are applied to small segments of the object being studied. For a finite cylinder, a logical division into imaginary segments is that shown in Fig. 1. A heat balance on each of the concentric rings, using eqns (4)-( 6), produces a set of simultaneous equations which can be solved for short time intervals to provide the temperature distribution within the cylinder. Over a short time interval, the heat flux does not vary with position over the exposed surface of a particular ring. At the flat ends of the cylinder, the heat flux is equal at all points at a particular

Spatial variations of heat transfer coefficient

45

Fig. 1.

Schematic diagram of the subdivision of a finite cylinder into a finite difference mesh of concentric rings.

Fig. 2.

A general

element

(ring) with two curved surfaces, c and d.

surfaces, a and b, and two flat

radius. These stipulations result in temperature distributions which are symmetrical about a plane midway along the axis length and radially symmetrical and therefore only a part of the cylinder need be considered. A heat balance on a general element (ring) with two curved surfaces, a and b, and two flat surfaces, c and d, (Fig. 2) gives:

46

D. But$oot, S. J. James

Axial heat flow through surface c - Axial heat flow through surface d + Radial heat flow through surface a - Radial heat flow through (7) surface b = Rate of accumulation within the element abed Expressing this in mathematical terms using eqns (4), ( 5) and (6), leads to eqns (E), (F ), (H) and (I) in Table 1. These equations describe the temperature at any time, t, at each point within the cylinder, but not at the surface where the Dusinberre method leaves a half segment. Making the assumption that the temperature rise midway through the half segment can be replaced by the temperature rise at the surface, results in eqns (A), (B), (C), (D) and (G) to describe the temperature at the surface.
Values used in the model

Three cylindrical configurations were examined. The first is typical of an English sausage (2 cm dia. x 10 cm length), the second corresponds to a domestic joint of meat (16 cm dia. X 16 cm length) and the third size represents a quarter of beef (35 cm dia. X 140 cm length). For each of these cylinders, the thawing time from - 20 to + 10C was calculated. The cooking time from 10 to 74C was also calculated for the two smaller cylinders.
Properties of the material

The model requires data on the thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity and density of lean meat as a function of temperature. Morleys (1972) compilation and subsequent literature provides few data on thermal properties which span a substantial temperature range and show that data from different sources vary markedly. The thermophysical properties used in the model (Table 2) were derived from many sources and some of the data were modified to enable continuity of analysis over the complete temperature range.
Surface heat transfer coeffkients

Three classes of heat transfer coefficient were used in the model: variable, constant, and location-dependent. The magnitude of the variable coefficients depended on the temperature difference between the surface and the surrounding fluid and consequently changed during thawing and cooking. The constant coefficients did not vary with temperature difference or position on the cylinder and the location dependent coefficients varied only with position.

Spatial variationsof heat transfer coefficient

47

-2

+i

II

48

D. Burfoot, S. J. James

(G) m=O;n=R/Ar

7 g ,,,,,, n(Ar/2)z( T, _ T,,,,,,) _ km +I~dAr/2;L ) + k, - 1.n 24Ar/2)Ax( Tn,.,, - , - T,,,,) - T,, + 1.n 2Ar

T:,,.,, - T,,,,,, 1 = 4Ar/2)2Axpd

2At

(H) m>O; n= R/Ar AX Ax 2Ar

k,,, - ,.,,,dA r/2):( T,, 1.,1 - T,,,,,, ) - k,,.,,,+,n(A rP)( Tn.,,- T,, +,. I+ k - I.,,2nA TAN T,,, - 1- T,,,. 1

) 1 4A r/2)ZAw4 Tk.,,- T,,,.,, At

(I)
-T,,,,,)+k,-,,,,2nArAx(T,,.,-,-T,,)

m=L/2Ax;n=R/Ar Ax 2Ar

2k,_,,,n(Ar/2)2(T,,_,,,

- T,,,~,, ) = 4A r/2)Awd T:,,.,, At

50

D. Burfbot, S. J. James

TABLE 2 Thermal Properties of Lean Meat Thermal conductivity Temperature range -40Cto -1C - 1C to 30C Above 30C where (k) Equation k= 15042+(1.8295/T)+(0.798/Tz) k = 0.4727 + (k,, - 0.4727)/3 1 + (k,, - 0*4727)T/31 k = 0.3037 - 0.454F- 0.2 19 W+ 0.306 T3 (Pl) (P2) (P3)

k,, = thermal conductivity at 30C evaluated using eqn (P3) F, W= mass fractions of fat and water in the meat

Sources: (Pl) Morley (1985); (P2) linear interpolation between the values of kat lC(fromeqn(Pl))and 30C(fromeqn(P3));(P3) Baghe-Khandan et al. (1982). Density (p) Temperature range - 40C to - 4C - 4C to - 1C Above - 1C

Equation p= 1028 p=1096+17T p=1078.47-0.5257147 (P4) (P5) (P6)

Sources: (P4) Morley (1985); (P5) 1 inear interpolation between the values of density at - 4C (from eqn (P4)) and - 1C (from eqn (P6)); Linear regression equation of Burfoot ( 1984) increased by 5% to provide agreement with data of Morley (Morley, M. J., 1985, pers. comm.) and Jarvis (1971). Specific heat capacity (c) Temperature range -40Cto -0.314C c=4187(L-M-N) - 0.3 14C to 0C c= 3517.5 c=4187(L-M) Above 0C where L= W+(lW)(0.385+0.001T) M=0.08exp(-43W1-7)(1-0.18WT) N= [(1 + Z) [Z1(0.49-0.002 T ) + Z2.23( 1.5ZzJ - l)] - 21.22.23.241 (1 +zYj)? (plo)

Equation (P7) (P8) (P9)

Z=(lW)(1~262+0~0022T+0~00009T~-2~51/T) Zl = 1 - Z + 0.06Zz5 22 = 79.8 + 0.49 T- 0.00 1 T? Z3=(1W)(O~0022+0~00018T+2~51T-) 24 = 5OZ Source: Differential of the enthalpy equation given by Riedel ( 1978).

Spatial variations of heat transfer coefficient

51

Variable coefficients - thawing and cooking

Few heat transfer coefficients have been measured in food processing operations. However, James and Bailey (1982) found a relationship between the heat transfer coefficient and surface temperature for thawing in high humidity air (Fig. 3). The relationship was obtained using

SURFACE TEMPERATURE

(OC)

Fig. 3. Surface heat transfer coefficients during thawing in air at 30C (dew point = 28C) (From James and Bailey, 1982) and cooking (eqns (8)-( 10)). Al and A2 are coefficients measured on a horizontal surface during thawing; Bl and B2 apply to a vertical surface. Al = 1~357T, + 91.3; A2 = 465.8 - 14.93 T,; Bl = @624T, + 86.3; B2 = 504.0 - 16.83 Ts. The heat transfer coefficient during cooking applies to a meat joint ( 16 cm dia. x 16 cm long).

52

D. Burfoot, S. J. James

a copper block and includes the resistance of the ice layer formed at the surface. The thickness of this layer is dependent on the rate of heat gain by the block and this is affected by the material and its shape and size. Consequently, their results are not strictly applicable to meat thawing. However, it is expected that the surface coefficients during meat thawing would show similar marked variations with surface temperature as the condensed water initially freezes on the meat surface, then the ice melts as thawing proceeds and towards the end of the process, evaporation occurs. Their results were used in the model because of the lack of more relevant data. Most domestic ovens use natural convection and radiation to transfer heat to the meat surfaces. The heat transfer coefficient, h to the curved surface and g to the flat ends, must therefore include two components i.e. h or g = effective heat transfer coefficient = natural convection coefficient + radiation coefficient =h,+h,org,+g,

(8)

Heat transfer coefficients measured during meat cooking have not been found in the literature. Probably the most applicable data is quoted by Perry and Chilton (1973) who suggest that for natural convection at curved and flat surfaces: Nu = hx /k = a(Gr Pr) The radiation component of heat transfer was estimated using: (9)

where E is the emissivity of lean meat = 0.74 (Miles, 1982); T, and ?; are expressed in degrees Kelvin. The relationship between the effective heat transfer coefficient and the surface temperature (Fig. 3) was calculated using eqns (8)-( 10) and an air temperature of 175C. The properties of air required in eqn (9) were calculated using the equations given by Burfoot ( 1984). Constant coejgicients - thawing and cooking For comparison, mean values of the surface heat transfer coefficients during thawing and cooking were calculated. An average coefficient during thawing was calculated by integrating from - 20 to 30C the functions shown in Fig. 3, whilst allowing for the proportion of the vertical and horizontal surfaces as shown in eqn ( 11):

where g,, g, = horizontal surface heat transfer coefficients over the temperature ranges T,, to TS2 and T,, to TS3,respectively; h,, h, = vertical surface heat transfer coefficients over the temperature ranges T,, to T,, and TS2to TS3,respectively; A , A, A = surface areas of the horizontal, vertical and total surfaces; A T= overall temperature change of the surface ( = TS3 - T,,). Using this equation the average coefficients for thawing the sausage, meat joint and carcass section are 83-6, 853 and 8323 W m-* K-i, respectively. The constant coefficients used to simulate cooking were calculated from eqns (8) to (10) by averaging the values obtained for surface temperatures of lo-160C at 10C intervals. These calculations gave heat transfer coefficients of 19.5 and 17.4 W m-* K- for the sausage and joint of meat, respectively. Table 3(a) shows the range of variables investigated using the model with the temperature-dependent and constant heat transfer coefficients. Purely location-dependent heat transfer coeficients In many practical applications, variations in the surface transfer coefficients arise from differences between locations. In meat refrigeration plants considerable differences in air velocity have been recorded over surfaces of individual carcasses and smaller, though still substantial, variations are present in commercial forced-air cookers. To examine the effect of this type of variation, linear changes in the coefficient at the meat surface were considered (Table 3(b), Fig. 4).
TABLE 3 Range of Variables Investigated Using the Model (a) Temperature variable heat transfer coefficients
Configuration Radius (cm) Length (cm) Air temperature (C) Initial temperawe (C) Final temperature PC) Heat trader coeficient (Wm-K-l)

1 2 3 4

1 1 8 8

10 10 16 16

30 30 30 30

-20 -20 -20 -20

10 10 10 10

Variable thawing 83.6 Variable thawing 85.3

(continued)

54

D. Burfoot, S. J. James

TABLE 3 - conrd.
Configuration Radius (cm) Length (cm) Air temperature
(CL

Initial temperature
(0

Final temperature
(Cl

Heat transfer coefficient Wm

-2 K-i

17.5

140

30

-20

10

6 7 g 9 10

17.5 1 1 8 8

140 10 10 16 16

30 175 175 175 175

-20 10 10 10 10

10 74 74 74 74

Variable thawing 83.6 Variable cookingb 195 Variable cooking 17.4

(b) Linear variation of heat transfer coefficient from H 1 to H2 W m _ ? K - (

Confgura tion Radius (cm) Length (cm) Air temperature tv Initial temperature CT, Final temperature Heat transfer coejjicient HI (Wm-

K;

11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

1 8 8 17.5 17.5 1 1 8 8 17.5 17.5 1 1 8 8 1 1 8 8

10 10 16 16 140 140 10 10 16 16 140 140 10 10 16 16 10 10 16 16

30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 175 175 175 175 175 175 175 175

-20 -20 -20 -20 -20 -20 -20 -20 -20 -20 -20 -20 10 10 10 IO 10 10 10 10

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 74 74 74 74 74 74 74 74

5 20 5 20 5 20 20 80 20 80 20 80 5 20 5 20 20 80 20 80

20 5 20 5 20 5 80 20 80 20 80 20 20 5 20 5 80 20 80 20

Variable thawing: heat transfer coefficient was calculated from the results shown in Fig. 3. bVariable cooking: heat transfer coefficient varies according to eqns (8)-( 10). CH1 = heat transfer coefficient at the intersection of the curved and flat surfaces; H2= heat transfer coefficient mid-way across each flat surface and mid-way along the curved surface.

Spatial variationsof heat transfer coefficient

5.5

Ii1

Hl

Fig. 4.

A finite cylinder showing the fixed values of heat transfer coefficient, Hl and H2. The transfer coefficient varied linearly between these values (Table 3b).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Tables 4(a) and 5(a) show data from the five comparisons (configurations l-10) carried out to determine the effect of temperature-dependent heat transfer coefficients. Table 4(a) shows the times taken to reach specific temperatures within the meat, while Table 5(a) shows the maximum surface temperatures at those times. In all of the examples, the processing times found using the two classes of heat transfer coefficient are very similar. The smallest difference between the values was 0.1 min (configurations 7 and 8) and the largest difference was 58 min (configurations 5 and 6). Even the largest difference represents only a 2.4% difference in the processing time. In thawing, it is important to be able to predict accurately the maximum surface temperature because it can be related to microbial growth. Table 5(a) shows that the largest difference in the surface temperature calculated using the variable or constant coefficient is 2+2C (configurations 1 and 2) and this occurred in a thawing process lasting only 16 min. Microbial growth during such a short period would be negligible. Similarly, very small differences were found in the surface

56

D. Burfoot, S. J. James

TABLE 4 Predicted Times for the Lowest Temperature Within the Cylinders of Lean Meat to Reach Specified Values Under the Conditions Shown in Tables 3a and 3b (a) Temperature-dependent transfer coefficient
Configuration Shape Time (min) to reach lowest temperatures of - 10C -5C 5C 10C

1 2 RATIO 3 4 RATIO 5 6 RATIO 7 8 RATIO 9 10 RATIO

Sausage Sausage Joint Joint Quarter Quarter

1.6 15 0.94 54.7 54.8 1.00 287 288 1.00 20C 2.6 2.5 0.96 79.9 77.1 0.96

4.2 4.1 0.98 145 147 1.01 760 763 1.00 40C 5.1 5.0 0.98 120 117 0.98

15.2 15.8 1.04 449 448 1.00 2406 2355 0.98 60C 7.9 7.7 0.97 156 151 0.97

15.8 16.4 1.04 458 456 1.00 2500 2442 0.98 74C 10.1 9.9 0.98 182 177 0.97

Sausage Sausage Joint Joint

(b) Linear variation of heat transfer coefficient from H 1 to H2 W m ? K- I

Confisllration Shape, HI, HZ Time (min) to reach lowest temperatures of - 10C - 5C .YC 10C

11 12 RATIO 13 14 RATIO 15 16 RATIO 17 18 RATJO 19 20 RATJO

Sausage, 5,20 Sausage, 20,5 Joint, 5,20 Joint, 20,5 Quarter, 5, 20 Quarter, 20,s Sausage, 20,80 Sausage, 80,20 Joint, 20,80 Joint, 80,20

6.2 8.7 1.40 75.6 85.4 1.13 356 432 1.21 2.3 3.1 1.35 57.2 61.5 1.08

14.4 20.0 1.39 204 229 1.12 982 1180 1.20 5.6 7.6 1.36 153 166 1.08

69.9 94.7 1.35 727 803 1.10 3240 4250 1.31 24.1 33.9 1.41 477 514 1.08

74.9 99.9 1.33 742 821 1.11 3350 4390 1.31 25.0 35.4 1.42 485 524 1.08

TABLE 4 - con&
Configura tion Shape, HI, HZ Time (min) to reach lowest temperatures of - 10C -5C 788 873 5C 2440 2740 1.12 WC 12.2 17.4 1.43 163 181 10C 2520 2840 1.13 74C 15.8 22.3 1.41 193 213 1.10 5.8 8.2 1.41 134 144 1.07

21 22 RATIO
23 24 RATIO 25 26 RATIO 27 28 RATIO 29 30 RATIO

Quarter, 20,80 Quarter, 80,20

297 322 1.08

1.11 40C 7.7 11.0 1.43 124 138 1.11 3.3 4.4 1.33 90.8 98.3 1.08 -

Sausage, 5,20 Sausage, 20,5 Joint, 5,20 Joint, 20,5 Sausage, 20,80 Sausage, 80,20 Joint, 20,80 Joint, 80, 20

20C 3.6 4.8 1.33 79.5 89.7 1.13 1.9 2.4 1.26 61.5 67.1 1.09

1.11 4.7 6.5 1.38 116 125 1.08 -

Values labelled RATIO are the ratios of the times calculated using constant and variable coefficients for a given cylinder size. hValues labelled RATIO are the ratios of the times calculated when Hl > H2 and H2>Hl.

Maximum Surface Temperatures

TABLE 5 Attained when the Cylinders Reach the Stated Centre Temperatures (a) Temperature-dependent heat transfer coefficient
Shape Maximum temperature (C) when the lowest temperature is

Conjiguration

- 10C Sausage Sausage Joint Joint Quarter Quarter

7 8 9 10

-5C 17.0 14.8 28.4 29.4 29.3 29.9 40C 87.9 88.0 152 153

5C 27.2 27.5 29.2 29.9 29.7 30.0 60C 106 105 157 158

10C 27.3 27-8 29.2 29.9 29.7 30.0 74C 117 116 160 160 (continued)

- 1.0
- 1.0 27.5 28.0 29.0 29.8 20C 66.0 65.7 143 144

Sausage Sausage Joint Joint

58

D. Burfoot, S. J. James

TABLE 5 - contd. (b) Linear variation of the heat transfer coefficient from Hl to H2 Wm-? K-
Conjiguration Shape, HI, H2 Maximum temperature CC) when the lowest temperature is

- 10C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Sausage, 5,20 Sausage, 20,5 Joint, 5,20 Joint, 20,5 Quarter, 5,20 Quarter, 20,5 Sausage, 20,SO Sausage, SO,20 Joint, 20,SO Joint, SO,20 Quarter, 20,SO Quarter, SO,20 Sausage, 5,20 Sausage, 20,5 Joint, 5,20 Joint, 20,5 Sausage, 20.80 Sausage, SO,20 Joint, 20,SO Joint, SO,20 - 4.9 - 1.6 - l-1 14.6 14.0 24.5 - 1.7 7.1 18.6 27.6 26.8 29.7 20C 53.5 81.9 110 136 94.5 130 157 172

- 5C - 1.5 5.7 9.6 21.7 21.4 28.5 6.1 19.3 25.4 29.1 29.1 29.9 40C 78.4 114 123 153 114 148 163 173

5C

10C

21.9 27.5 25.0 27.9 28.1 29.9 26.3 29.6 29.3 29.8 29.8 30.0 60C 99.0 133 132 158 127 158 166 173

23.2 27.8 25.3 28.0 28.3 29.9 26.7 29.7 29.3 29.8 29.8 30.0 74C 112 143 138 160 136 163 168 174

temperatures calculated using the two types of transfer coefficient during cooking: the largest difference shown in Table 5(a) is 1C. It may be concluded therefore that the use of a constant average heat transfer coefficient of the magnitude likely to occur during thawing and cooking, rather than a temperature-dependent coefficient, should produce only a small error in the predicted times and temperatures. Much larger differences arise from the comparisons using linear changes in the heat transfer coefficient (Tables 4(b) and S(b)). Configurations 11-16 and 23-26 show that a linear change of coefficient from 5W mm2 K-l at the end to 20W mm2 K- mid-way along the cylinder gave substantially faster thawing and cooking than using a high coefficient at the end and a low coefficient at the centre. The sausage shape required 2.5 mm longer to thaw from - 20C to + 10C when the highest coef-

Spatial variations of heat transfer coefficient

59

ficient was at the end of the cylinder, an increase of 33%. A similar percentage increase (3 1%) was found with the largest cylinder (configurations 15 and 16), but the magnitude of the change, 1040 min, is much larger due to the longer thawing time. When the predictions were carried out using a linear change of transfer coefficient from 20 to 8OW m-* K-, the effect of changing the position of the highest coefficient was much less marked for the large cylinder (configurations 2 1 and 22) and was only significant with the smallest cylinder. A similar pattern is apparent when studying the effect on the cooking time to 74C due to changing the direction of the linear variation of the heat transfer coefficient (configurations 23-30). A low coefficient midway along the smallest cylinder and a high coefficient at the end increases the cooking time by up to 43% compared to using a high coefficient mid-way along the cylinder. The position of the highest transfer coefficient had less effect ( < 10%) on the cooking times of the meat joint. Table S(b) shows that the surface temperatures were also affected by the differences in position of the highest and lowest transfer coefficients. During the early stages of thawing, the differences in maximum surface temperature are very large. The surface temperatures are less affected during the later stages. In the worst case when thawing to SC, the maximum effect of changing the transfer coefficient is 5.6C (configurations 11 and 12). Larger differences in maximum surface temperature remain after cooking to 74C and differences up to 3 1C were found. The length-to-diameter ratio of the intermediate-size cylinder is 1, therefore the position of the maximum heat transfer coefficient makes little difference to the cooking and thawing times because all of the surface is nearly the same distance from the centre of the cylinder. The I: d ratio for the smallest cylinder was 5. A high heat transfer coefficient mid-way along the cylinder provides a high input of heat which can be conducted to the centre of the cylinder only 1 cm away. When the large input of heat is applied to the end of this cylinder, rather than at the centre, there is a considerable resistance to the transfer of heat through the meat from the end to the centre. This produces a high surface temperature at the ends of the cylinder and a longer time to achieve a specified internal temperature. The 1:d ratio of the largest cylinder was 3.5. For low heat transfer coefficients, the position of the maximum heat transfer coefficient affected the thawing time, but at the higher transfer coefficients there was much less effect of the position of the maximum coefficient. When using the low coefficients, a large proportion of the resistance to heat transfer lies in the boundary layer around the cylinder. With higher coefficients, relatively more of the resistance lies in conducting the heat through the thick ( 17.5 cm) portion of meat and the heat

60

D. Burfoot, S. J. James

transfer coefficient has less effect on the thawing time. Consequently, configurations 15 and 16 show a marked effect of changing the positions of the heat transfer coefficients, but configurations 21 and 22 show a much smaller effect. Predictions of practical thawing and cooking times can be considerably in error if they assume that the heat transfer coefficient does not vary around the meat. In practical situations, such as chilling carcasses, air is blown along the longitudinal axis of closely-packed carcasses and the highest air velocities, and hence heat transfer coefficients, occur around the leg and shoulder regions which have the largest cross-sectional areas. Computer predictions with constant coefficients will tend to underestimate the maximum surface temperatures. These temperatures need to be considered if bacterial activity during thawing is to be modelled. Similar effects on surface temperatures during cooking will affect the weight loss and eating quality of the meat. This study shows the need to control, or equalise, the air velocity distribution around products during air thawing and cooking.

REFERENCES Baghe-Khandan, M. S., Okos, M. R. and Sweat, V. E. (1982). The thermal conductivity of beef as affected by temperature and composition. Trans. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 1118-22. Bailey, C., James, S. J., Kitchell, A. G. and Hudson, W. R. ( 1974). Air-water- and vacuum-thawing of frozen pork legs. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture, 25,81-97.

Burfoot, D. (1984). Predicting the effect of fat thickness and distribution on the heating time of joints of rolled meat. Proc. 30th European Meeting of Meat Research Workers, Bristol, 3 12-l 3. Burfoot, D. and James, S. J. (1984). Problems in mathematically modelling the cooking of a joint of meat. In: Thermal Processing and quality of foods, eds P. Zeuthen et al., Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, 467-72. Cleland, A. C. and Earle, R. L. (1979a). A comparison of methods for predicting the freezing times of cylindrical and spherical foodstuffs, Journal of Food
Science, 44,958-63.

Cleland, A. C. and Earle, R. L. (1979b). Prediction of freezing times for rectangular packages. Journal of Food Science, 44,964-70. Cleland, D. J., Cleland, A. C., Earle, R. L. and Byrne, S. J. ( 1984). Prediction of freezing, thawing or cooling in solids of arbitrary shape using the finite element method. Znternational Journal of Refrigeration, 7( 1), 6- 13. Creed, P. G. and James, S. J. (1984). The prediction of freezing and thawing times of mutton carcasses. Proc. 30th European Meeting of Meat Research Workers, Bristol, 59-60. Dagerskog, M. (1979a). Pan frying of meat patties. I. A study of heat and mass transfer. Lebensm. - Wiss. u. - Technol., 12,2 17-24.

Spatial variationsof heat transfer coeficient

61

Dagerskog, M. (19796). Pan frying of meat patties. II. Influence of processing conditions on heat transfer, crust colour formation, cooking losses and sensory quality. Lebensm. - Wiss. u. - Technol., 12,22530. Dusinberre, G. M. (1949). Numerical Analysis ofHeat Flow, McGraw-Hill, New York. Fleming, A. K. and Earle, R. L. (1966). Cooling and freezing of lamb and mutton carcasses. The Meat Industry Research Institute of New Zealand Report No. 120. Earle, R. L. and Fleming, A. K. (1967). Cooling and freezing of lamb and mutton carcasses. 1. Cooling and freezing rates in legs. Food Technology, 2 1,
79-84.

James, S. J. and Bailey, C. (19Si). Changes in the surface heat transfer coefficient during meat thawing. Proc. European Meeting of Meat Research Workers, Madrid, 160-3. James, S. J., Creed, P. G. and Roberts, T. A. (1977). Air thawing of beef quarters.
Journal of the Science of Food andAgriculture, 28,1109-19.

Jarvis, H. F. T. (1971). The thermal variation of the density of beef and the determination of its coefficient of cubical expansion. Journal of Food Technology, 6,383-91.

Miles, C. A. ( 1982). Heat transfer at the air/meat interface, Meat Research Institute Memorandum No. 53, Langford, Bristol, UK. Morley, M. J. (1972). Thermal properties of meat: Tabulated data. Meat Research Institute Special Report No. I, Langford, Bristol, England BS18 7DY. Perry, J. H. and Chilton, C. H. (1973). Chemical Engineers Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 10, ch. 10. Riedel, L. ( 1978). Eine Formel zur Berechnung der Enthalpie fettarmer Lebensmittel in Abhangigkeit von Wassergehalt und Temperatur. Chemie Mikrobiol. Technol. Lebensm., 5,129-33. Mini-

Sorenfors,

P. (1977). Heat and mass transfer in frying. Proc. of EFCE symposium in Food Processing, Orenas, Sweden, 289-300.