Comparison of heat transfer rates during thermal processing under end-over-end and axial modes of rotation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thermal processing under conditions enabling container agitation are attractive to food processors since they provide higher rates of heat transfer and more uniform temperature due to product mixing. Two common types of agitations are end-over-end and axial agitation. While end-over-end agitation is common in batch retorts, axial agitation is predominant in continuous cookers in which the cans roll in a helical path along the retort shell. In this study, heat transfer rates to canned Newtonian fluids in end-over-end and axial modes of rotation were evaluated in the same retort. A single basket rotary retort was retrofitted to accommodate simultaneously both end-over-end and two types of axial modes of rotation, free axial and fixed axial. In the free axial rotation, the cans were allowed to rotate on their own axis as they rolled along the retort shell during the bottom third of the rotation, while in the fixed axial mode, the cans in the axial direction were held stationary in the rotating basket. The overall heat transfer coefficient U, heating rate index, lag factor and cook values associated with cans filled with Newtonian fluids were evaluated using a central composite rotatable design of experiments with glycerin at five concentration level (no glycerin to all glycerin), heating medium temperature (111.6–128.4 °C) and five basket-rotational speeds (4–20 rpm). Higher U, and lower heating rate index, lag factor and cook values were associated with higher rotational speed and retort temperatures for all modes of agitation. The heat transfer parameters associated with free axial rotation were significantly higher than in the end-over-end mode which was higher than in the fixed axial mode.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".