BALLS FORMULA METHOD REVISITED

ABTRACT

This manuscript describes a review and analysis of the correction factor for come-up time( CUP),
introduced by DR C. OLIN Ball in his famous formula method for thermal process calculations. This
correction factor has commonly bee considered applicable only to the ball formula method. In the
alternative General Method, the effect of CUT is automatically included in the calculated lethality
value as long as numerical integration is carried out over the enire cold spot temperature- time from
the point when steam is turned on.

The hypothesis of this communication is tha Balls formula method, just like the General Method,
also includes the effect of CUT in its calculations, regasdless of where the Zero time line is placed
within the come-up time.

Several computer simulation studies were carried out with the zero time shifted to different
locations within the come-up time, resulting in the calculated heating lethality determined by balls
method being almost the same as that generated by the general method. This work confirmed that
it is not necessary to shift the zero time in Balls formula method because the calculations will always
reflect the effect of CU regardless of where the zero time is chosen.

INTRODUCTION

Thermal processing is an import method of food preservation in the manufacture of shelf stable
canned food. The basic function of a thermal process is to inactive food spoilage microoganisms in
sealed containers of food using heat treatments at temperatures well above the ambient boiling
point of water in pressurized steam retort ( autoclaves).

The first procedure calculated thermal processes was developed by W.D Bigelow in the early part
of the 20 th century, and is usually know as the Generla Method. The General Mthod makes direct
use of the time- temperature history at the coldest point within a sealed food container to obtain
the lethality value of a thermal process. The lack of programmable calculatord or personal
computers until the latter part of the 20 th century made this method very time- consuming,
tedious and impractical for most routine applications; and it soon gave way to formula methods
offering shortcuts. In response to this need, a semi- analytic method for thermal process
calculation was developed and proposed to the scientific community by[2]. This is the well- known
Ball formula method, and works in a different way from the General Method. It makes use of the
fact that the difference between retort and cold spot temperature decays exponentially over
process time after an initial lag period. Therefore, a semi-logarithmic plot of this temperature
difference over time ( beyond the initial la) appears as a straight line that can be described
mathematically by a simple formula, and is realed to lethality requirements by a set of tables that
must be used in conjunction with the formula.

However, several assumptions are made that cause the method to become less accurate in many
situations. According to [3] most formula method have been applied to metallic cans or glass jard
that can be processed in pure steam or water- cook retors with rapid come- up-times. The recent
development of retortable flexible pouches and semi-rigid bowls and trays has made ir necessary
to re-examine process calculation methods. These packages are often processed with steam- air
mixtures, and often require relatively slow come-up times. Whick can introduce additional error
with use of formula methods.

The hypothesis of this communication is that Balls formula method, just like the General Method,
also includes the effect of CUT in its calculations, regardless of where the zero time line is placed
within the come-up time. Then, there is no need for a correction factor.

The objectives are to ofter a critical analysis of the correction factor for come-up time( CUT)
introduced by Dr. C. Olin Ball in is famous formula method, and show that operators time(Pt) is
always the same, reglardless of how much come-uptime is taken into account.

METHODOLOGY

Focus of the analysis

The F- Value of a given thermal process (lethality) is th sum of lethality achieved during heating
and additional lethality delivered durind cooling; it can be expressed as follows.

The focus of the analysis will be to evaluate he accuracy of Balls method in calculating only the
lethality duringheating(F hetaling) and is subsequent prediction of final cold spot temperature
reached at end of heating (T g).

Balls Formula Method

Balls formula method for calculating the process time at given retort temperature is based on a
mathematical equation fot the straight-line portion of the temperature time profile at the can
cold spot when plotted on inveted semi-log graph paper. This method of data transformation is a
straightforward mathematical technique and allows Balls formula to take on a simple expression
that obeys standard heat conduction and convection theory certain constraints.

As was shown bt [4], Balls expression is valid not only for finite cylinders, but also for arbitrary
shapes ( rectangular, oval shape, etc). The main limitations are that for conduction heating foods.
It is only calid for heating times beyond the initial lag period ( when the fourier number >0.6).
Then , equation (1) becomes useful when the heating rate (fh) and hetating lag( jh) parameters are
obtained experimentally.

Correction factor come-up time according to the literature (CUT)

Given that Balls expression considered that TRT ( retort temperature) is instantly reached, the Ball
procedure introduced the famous correction factor (42% of the CU) assuming that the
contribution of CUT in F-value was not taken into account.

The procces time at retort temperature, PT, for a commercial operation is measured from the time
when the retort reaches processing temperature, TRT,to the time when the steam is turned off
and the cooling water is applied. However, significant time is often neede for the retort to reach
processing temperature, which makes a contribution to the total lethal effect; this is known as the
come-up time or CUT (tc). [2] determined a value of 0.42 tc for this contribution to the lethal
effect, making the effective process time (B) equal to the sum of process time and 42% of come-up
time.

The factor of 42% is generally regarded as a conservative estimate and is really only applicable to
batch retorts with a linear heating profile. While the lethal effects of CUT at the product center of
a container are small for most canned food products, thin profile plastic packges processed under
steam-air or water spray could experience a more significant lethal effect from CUT. Merson and
others (1978) mention that one of the invalid assumptions is that the heating medium surrounding
the can is suddenly raised to processing temperature . As stated by several authors CUT
effectiveness vary from 35-77% Ramaswamy (1993), using thin profile retort packages and two
retort temperature profiles , one linear and the ofter logarithmic, showed that the traditional42%
CUT was appropriate for the former, but for the latter the values were twice a large. Apart from
package thickness, ofter factors had only a small influence on the CUT. For other types of retort,
initial conditions and venting procedures, abundant literature can be searched.

Correction factor under new perspective

The hypothesis of this communication is that Balls formula method, just like the General Method,
also includes the effect of CUT in its calculations, regardless of where the zero time line is placed
within the come-up time. Support for this argument is that Balls method requires a curve fitting of
the data , so that the linear regression of the straight-line segment of the heat penetration data
fits the experimental data independent of the location of the zero tiem. The real concern should
be the accuracy of Balls espression in terms of goodness of it during the heating stage.

Computer search

Heat penetration data were generated by computer software (C++) that excecuted an explicit
finite difference solution to the general heat conduction equation for a finite cylinder. The
calculations for F- Value, according to the General Method, were performed at the geometric
center using simpsons numerical integration rule with a time intervak of 30 s. I the case of Balls
calculations, time temperatures data generated by the software up to the end of heating were
fitted with Balls expression to obtain the heat penetration parameter .

Accuracy of the Ball Method during the heating stage

Calcultaions of the lethality reached at the end of heating for different retort processes were
carried out with the ball formula method, and compared with those calculated by the General
Method. A Cylindrical container with an inner diameter of 83 mm and a height of 106 mm was
used for computer experiments.

Three different shapes of CUT were analyzed :

a) Linear
b) Convex and concave. In addition , twi different time lengths were considered for a linear
CUT:
a) 5 min and b) 15 min
Finally , a process with time- varying(dynamic) retort temperature (Tvt) was analyzed.
RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS
As shown in table I , the ball method was tested for its accuracy during the heating stage for
different CUT shapes and lengths.Three different types of CUT were considered :
a) Linear
b) Concave an convex
In addition, two time-lengths of CUT were analyzed
In each case in this study, the process time predicted by the Ball formula method was
essentially identical to that predicted by the general method.

Tables 2, 3 and 4 show results for total heating time (P1+tc) for different CUT
contributions or zero time location. In every case, independent of CUTE shape (linear,
concave or convex) or CUT contribtion, the total heating time was exactly the same,
meaning that indepent of the zero time location, the contribution of CUT is taken into
account in the F heating calculation. In addition, experiments for different container sizes
and geometries were carried out showed the same results. Finally, experiments
considering non constant retort temperature wth pertubations of +-1C were designed
and evaluated, and showed the same trends as before.

CUT effectiveness

This work has shown that Balls formula method can be as accurate as the general
method, and will always take the come-up time completely into account. Thus, there
should be no need for correction factors or shifting of zero time. This is because the
parameters in Balls expression have been estimated from a regression analysis ( fitting a
curve) of the experimental data througt the straight line segment of the heat penetration
curve. The graphical location of those experimental data points is a direct result of the
length and shape of the temperature time profile during the come- up time. Thus if the
regression produces an adequate goodness of fit, the F- value calculations will be as
accurate as the general method.this has been shown repeatedly with both experimental
temperature-time data as well as those generated by computer models.
None the less , prudence would dictate further testing of the goodness of fit of balls
expression in new or unusual cases, such as new packakes ( retort pouches, shallow trays)
and /or new autoclaves with different forms of heat exchange media and venting
procedures.

CONCLUSIONES

Prediction of total heating time( P1+TC) by the ball formula method was always the same
regardless of where time zero was chosen within the come-up time (or CUT
contribution). The reason for this is that linear regression of heat penetration data along
the straight line portion of the semi-log heat penetration curve produces a mathematical
expression ( Ball formula) that predicts the same time temperature history independent
of the zero time location. In addition, given that high correlation were obtained in all
cases the calculation of the F- value from the regressed data ( Ball procedure) was
essentially identical to the F- value calculated by the general method, which is based
directly on the experimental data points . Second, we showed that temperature time
histories predicted by Balls expression always has a high correlation ( R2 over 0.99) with
experimental data point that was independent of CUT shape and length, meaning that
the F-value at end of heating is well estimated. Thirdly we also conlcuted that
inaccuracies in the Ball method can be attributed in almost 100% of cases to the cooling
calculations. For example, the larger the containers size in a slow conduction- heating
food product the larger the error in F-values calculation. This is because the cooling phase
in large slow . heating food containers is moreimportant in terms of F-values contribution.

Corollary
Independte of the correction factor established by Dr. C.Olin Ball, calculations carried out
by the Ball formula method always take into account 100% of come-up time. Its accuracy
on the heating stage, normally high, depends on the accuracy of Balls expression to fit
experimental data.