See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/43261917

Measuring airflow distribution in peanut drying trailers

Article  in  Applied Engineering in Agriculture · May 2004

DOI: 10.13031/2013.16054 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
10 1,429

2 authors, including:

Christopher Lloyd Butts

United States Department of Agriculture
115 PUBLICATIONS   953 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Improvements in Peanut Curing View project

Small-Scale Peanut Handling and Processing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher Lloyd Butts on 08 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MEASURING AIRFLOW DISTRIBUTION IN
PEANUT DRYING TRAILERS
C. L. Butts, E. J. Williams

ABSTRACT. A method to measure airflow distribution exhausted from a filled peanut drying trailer was developed. Six 6.4−m
peanut drying wagons were loaded with dry farmer stock peanuts at a local peanut processing facility. Three wagons had
floors with 23% O.A. and three had 40% O.A. Peanuts were leveled on each trailer and peanut depth ranged from 114 to 130
cm. A 76−cm diameter, 1750 rpm, four−blade vane axial dryer with a 91−cm long straightening inlet transition was connected
to each peanut drying trailer. The rated airflow capacity of the dryer was approximately 510 m3 min−1 at 124 Pa. Total airflow
was measured using a pitot tube traverse across the inlet transition. Static pressure was measured in the wagon plenum using
a U−tube manometer. The top of the trailer was divided into 40 sections using a 5 × 8 cell grid. The airflow through each
grid cell was measured using a vane anemometer mounted on a conical transition placed in the center of each grid cell.
No significant differences in static pressure, total airflow, or airflow distribution due to the percent O.A. of the perforated
drying floor were detected. The average static pressure observed for wagons with the 23 and 40% O.A. was identical at
120 Pa. Total airflow measured at the fan inlet averaged 367 m3 min−1 for the 40% O.A. trailers compared to 366 m3 min−1
for trailers with 23% O.A. The total of the air flow measured as it exhausted from the peanuts was 63% of the flow measured
using the pitot tube at the fan inlet.
Keywords. Peanuts, Curing, Drying, Uniformity.

D
uring harvest, peanuts are loaded into wagons for
transport and curing (or drying). The wagons are
typically 4.3 or 6.4 m long, 2.4 m wide, and 1.5 m
deep. Most drying wagons have an integral 23−cm
high plenum leaving approximately 1.3 m in the wagon for
peanuts. The effect of airflow on the rate of drying peanuts
in deep−bed situation is well established (Beasley and Dick-
ens, 1963; Troeger, 1982; Young et al., 1982). Blankenship
and Chew (1979) showed that cleaning peanuts prior to dry-
ing slightly decreased energy consumption and drying times.
Dowell et al. (1993) showed that drying conditions affected
the variation of single kernel moisture contents within a load
of peanuts. Sharpe et al. (1991) described drying uniformity
by measuring the uniformity of air temperature within the
load of peanuts. They noted as much as 9 C differential on the
same horizontal plane within the load. This temperature vari-
ation could be due to many factors such as non−uniform
moisture content, non−uniform airflow, or non−uniform mix-
ing of the heat prior to the air entering the peanuts. Other
techniques used in the field include the use of handheld in-
frared thermometers to measure the temperature variation of
peanut pods on the top of the load and manometers to measure
the static pressure within the air plenum of the wagon. How-
ever, these data have not been published and do not directly
Article was submitted for review in February 2003; approved for
publication by the Food & Process Engineering Institute Division of ASAE
in December 2003.
The authors are Christopher L. Butts, ASAE Member Engineer,
Agricultural Engineer, USDA, ARS, National Peanut Research Laboratory,
Dawson, Georgia, and E. Jay Williams, ASAE Member Engineer,
Agricultural Engineer, University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension
Service, Tifton, Georgia. Corresponding author: Christopher L. Butts,
USDA, ARS, National Peanut Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 509,
Dawson, GA 39842; phone: 229−995−7431; fax: 229−995−7416; e−mail:
cbutts@nprl.usda.gov.
measure the distribution of air within a load of peanuts during
drying.
The goals of this research were:
S to develop a method using commercially available equip-
ment to measure airflow distribution within a load of pea-
nuts while curing.
S to compare total airflow determined in objective 1 to that
measured using a pitot tube traverse.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Peanuts were harvested, cured, and marketed according to
conventional practice. As the peanuts were emptied from the
wagon, they were transferred to one of six, 6.4−m test wagons
via a dump pit, elevator, and downspout. The six test wagons
were conventional rear−entry peanut drying wagons with
perforated sheet metal comprising the upper surface of the air
plenum. Three of the test wagons had perforated metal with
3.17−mm diameter holes on 4.76−mm staggered centers
(40% open area). The other three test wagons had perforated
metal floors with 2.38−mm diameter holes on 4.76−mm
staggered centers (23% open area). These perforation
patterns correspond to IPA No. 113 and IPA No. 110,
respectively (Industrial Perforators Association, 1993). After
filling, the peanuts were leveled by hand, and transported to
the USDA, ARS, National Peanut Research Laboratory. Tests
were conducted indoors in a high bay area to eliminate the
influence of wind on the test results.
A 76−cm diameter, 1750−rpm, 4−blade vane axial dryer
(Model 2009, Peerless Manufacturing, Shellman, Ga.) was
connected to the transition at the rear of the peanut drying
trailer using a standard flexible duct and transition. The
transition opening at the rear of the trailer is 35 cm high and
91 cm wide. The height of the opening tapers from the bottom
up, to the bottom of the 23−cm high plenum. This reduction

Applied Engineering in Agriculture

Vol. 20(3): 335−339 2004 American Society of Agricultural Engineers ISSN 0883−8542 335
in the opening size is completed approximately 1 m from the
rear of the wagon. The rated airflow of the dryer was
approximately 510 m3 min−1 at 124 Pa. A second dryer shell
without the fan and burner was connected to the inlet of the
dryer (fig. 1) to provide a transition in which to measure total
airflow.
After the fan was turned on, total airflow, static pressure,
and air exhausted from the peanuts were measured. The static
pressure was measured using a slack tube manometer with
one end open to the atmosphere and the other inserted in a
9.5−mm hole in the sidewall of the trailer plenum.

AIRFLOW MEASUREMENT
The total airflow was measured using a pitot tube and
inclined manometer at the fan inlet. A traverse of five
velocity readings was recorded at the center and at 5−cm
intervals until the outer wall was reached. The airflow was
calculated by multiplying the area of the concentric ring, AR,
centered at the distance R from the center by the measured
velocity, VR. The total airflow was determined by
8 (1)
Q inlet = ∑ V r Ar
r =1

The trailer was divided into a grid with 5 cells going across
the width and 8 cells along the length (fig. 2). Each of the
interior cells was 0.6 m wide and 0.9 m long. Cells along the
edge of the trailer were half width (0.3 m), while the cells at
the ends of the trailer were half−length (0.45 m). The corner
Figure 2. Grid pattern and anemometer positions used during tests to
cells were 0.3 × 0.45 m2. measure airflow distribution in a peanut drying trailer.
A vane thermo−anemometer (Model 451126, Extech
Instruments Corporation, Waltham, Mass.) was mounted on For comparison purposes, the specific airflow (m3 min−1
a conical transition with a 54−mm I.D. at the top, 191−mm m−3) was calculated by dividing the airflow for each grid cell
I.D. at the base, and 457 mm tall (fig. 3). The anemometer (Qi) by the volume of peanuts in that grid cell (Ai *depth i).
was placed at the center of each of the grid cells and air Means for total airflow and specific airflow were compared
velocity was recorded. Approximately 20 min elapsed while using the student’s T−test (SAS Institute, Research Triangle,
recording the velocity for all 40 cells. The velocity of the air N.C., 2001).
at the peanut surface was calculated by calculating the ratio
of the upper and lower cross−sectional areas of the conical
transition resulting in a multiplier of 0.0799 to obtain the air
velocity at the peanut surface. The volumetric flow was RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
calculated by: The analysis of total airflow is summarized in table 1. The
percent open area in the perforated metal did not significantly
Qi = 0.0799Vi Ai (2) affect the static pressure in the dryer plenum or the total
where Vi is the air velocity measured at the top of the conical airflow through the peanuts (table 1). The static pressure
transition in the ith grid section, and Ai is the area of the ith grid
section. The total airflow (QT) exhausted from the peanuts
then becomes:
40
QT = ∑ Qi (3)
i =1

Figure 1. Schematic of peanut drying wagon, dryer, and inlet transition Figure 3. Vane anemometer and conical transition used in tests to measure
used in testing airflow distribution. airflow distribution in a peanut drying wagon.

336 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

 Table 1. Summary of tests to measure airflow distribution in peanut drying trailers.
Perforated Open Area Peanut Depth[a] Static Pressure[a] Total Airflow1 (m3/min)
Trailer ID (%) (cm) (Pa) Pitot Tube Surface Grid
125 23 130 124 369 229
126 23 130 112 368 217
130 23 112 124 363 244
Avg. (n = 3) 23 124 a 120 a 366 a 230 a
127 40 130 124 373 235
128 40 130 124 380 236
129 40 112 112 349 229
Avg. (n = 3) 40 124 a 120 a 367 a 233 a
Comparison of total airflow by measurement method (n = 6)[b] 367 a 231 b
[a] Average values in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level.
[b] Entries in the same row followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

averaged 124 Pa for both levels of open area. According to
published data, perforated floors with more than 20% open
area cause no additional resistance to airflow (ASAE
Standards, 2002). The total pressure drop through clean,
in−shell peanuts shown in figure 4 is for a 6.4−m wagon filled
level to a depth of 130 cm. If there were no other pressure
losses in the drying system, then the fan should deliver
425 m3−min−1 at 250 Pa. However, at the observed static
pressure of 124 Pa, the fan should have delivered more than
500 m3−min−1. The average airflow measured using the pitot
tube in the fan inlet was 367 m3 min−1. Based on the fan
performance curve, the total static pressure at the measured
airflow rate was approximately 320 Pa, and indicates that a
significant pressure loss occurs in the flexible duct and trailer
transition. The flexible duct is an abrupt transition from the
76−cm diameter fan housing (0.45 m2) to the 31− × 95−cm
(0.32−m2) rectangular opening in the wagon plenum.
Figure 4. Fan performance data (Model 2009, Peerless Mfg., Shellman,
Ga.), pressure drop through clean, in−shell peanuts, and measured fan
performance.
Table 2. Summary of the distribution of airflow (m3 min−1 m−3) exhausted from each cell of the 8y5 grid of loaded peanut drying trailers.
Peanut depth had no measurable effect on the pressure loss
through the peanuts. The pressure loss per unit depth at the
observed airflow rates is approximately 150 Pa/m. Therefore,
the 18−cm difference in depth would theoretically result in a
27−Pa difference in pressure loss. The resolution of the
manometer used in these tests was approximately 25 Pa.
The average airflow for trailers with a 23% open area was
1% to 2% less than the average airflow in trailers with 40%
open area, but was not significantly different. Since no
difference in pressure was expected or observed, then total
airflow should not have been affected.
The total airflow measured using the pitot tube traverse
across the fan inlet was compared to the total airflow
measured in each grid cell on top of the peanuts. The average
total airflow measured exhausted from the peanuts (231 m3
min−1) was 63% of the average airflow measured using the
pitot tube. Leakage could account for some of the discrepan-
cy in the two airflow measurements. Cundiff et al. (1991)
estimated that a peanut wagon would leak approximately 3%
to 13% of the delivered airflow depending on the condition
of the trailer. The wagons used in these tests were of average
condition. The leakage for an average wagon is 6% (Cundiff
et al., 1991). A second source of error could be in the conical
transition used to amplify the velocity measurement. Any
pressure loss in the conical transition would cause some of the
air to flow to the outside of the transition, thus reducing the
velocity sensed by the anemometer. The total airflow
indicated by the sum of the individual cell airflows for all six
trailers was consistent in comparison to the pitot tube
measurements. Therefore, the distribution of airflow mea-
sured using the anemometer should adequately represent the
actual airflow exhausted from the peanuts.
Airflow patterns were very similar for all six trailers tested
(tables 2 and 3, fig. 5). Statistical analysis indicated that the

Perforated Open Airflow (m3 min−1 m−3)

Area(%) Trailer ID Average Maximum Minimum Standard Deviation
23 125 (n=40) 8.90 10.80 6.72 1.01
126 (n=40) 8.40 10.44 6.80 0.87
130 (n=40) 10.95 13.09 7.95 1.50
Mean (n=3) [a] 9.42 a 11.45 a 7.16 a 1.13 a
40 127 (n=40) 9.05 10.54 7.31 0.84
128 (n=40) 9.16 12.11 6.42 1.34
129 (n=40) 10.31 12.52 7.79 1.17
Mean (n=3)[a] 9.51 a 11.72 a 7.17 a 1.12 a
[a] Means of the average airflow for each trailer in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

Vol. 20(3): 335−339 337

 Table 3. Comparision of airflow (m3 min−1 m−3) exhausted from a filled peanut drying trailer as a function of position.[a]

Absolute Value of
Distance from Airflow Distance from Trailer Airflow Distance from Trailer Airflow
Back of Trailer (m) (m3 min−1 m−3) Centerline[b] (m) (m3 min−1 m−3) Centerline (m) (m3 min−1 m−3)
0.15 8.07 a −1.07 9.41 a 0 8.62 a
0.91 7.89 a −0.61 9.08 a 0.61 9.09 b
1.83 8.76 b 0 8.62 b 1.07 9.46 c
2.74 9.24 bc 0.61 9.09 a
3.66 9.30 bc 1.07 9.51 a
4.57 9.45 c
5.49 9.82 c
6.25 10.62 d
[a] The mean measurement at the same location averaged over all trailers. Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not
significantly different at the 0.05 level.
[b] Negative distance indicates position is left of the centerline, positive indicates position is right of the centerline.

amount of open area in the perforated floor did not affect the
average, maximum, minimum airflow or its standard devi-
ation (table 2). The average airflow exhausted from the
wagons with 23% open area was 9.4 m3 min−1 m−3 and ranged
from 6.8 to 13.1 m3 min−1 m−3. The average standard
deviation of airflow was 1.1 m3 min−1 m−3. Wagons with 40%
open area average 8.9 m3 min−1 m−3 and ranged from 6.4 to
12.1 m3 min−1 m−3, respectively. The recommended range for
average airflow rates is from 8 to 10 m3 min−1 m−3.
Visual analysis of the contours (fig. 5) indicated that the
minimum airflow in each trailer occurred approximately 1 m
from the point of entry at the back of the trailer. Statistical
analysis indicated that airflow varied significantly as a
function of distance from the rear of back of the trailer
(table 3) with the minimum occurring at 0.91 m from the
back. This corresponds to the end of a tapered transition area
from the inlet up to the plenum depth. The abrupt narrowing
of the transition (fig. 1) may produce a slight venturi effect
causing the static pressure in the vicinity to be slightly
reduced in comparison to the rest of the plenum.
The contour plots (fig. 5) also indicated that the airflow is
somewhat symmetrical about the centerline of the trailer.
Airflow measured on either side of the centerline was
statistically the same (table 3). When the airflow was
analyzed as a function of the absolute value of the distance
from the centerline, it was found to increase from
8.6 m3 min−1 m−3 at the centerline to 9.5 m3 min−1 m−3 at the
outer edge. The reduced airflow along the centerline
corresponds to the position of the downspout during loading,
thus a higher concentration of dirt, rocks, and other fine

Figure 5. Contours of airflow distribution (m3 min−1 m−3) in peanut drying trailers with perforated metal floors having 40% and 23% open area.

338 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

foreign material. The elevated airflow at the outer edge of the
wagon was due to the increased void space between the trailer
wall and the peanuts, and the lower concentration of foreign
material at the outer edge.
These variations in airflow distribution could explain
some of the temperature variations within a trailer load of
peanuts while drying observed by Sharpe et al. (1990). It may
also explain some variations in peanut surface temperatures
with a handheld infrared thermometer observed in commer-
cial curing operations (J. Cook, Cook Industrial Electric,
personal communications, 2002). Uneven airflow distribu-
tion can explain some, but not all, of the variation in moisture
content of individual peanut kernels after curing (Dowell
et al., 1993; Butts, 2002). Design changes for the plenum and
duct transitions are needed to improve the uniformity of
airflow through the peanut drying trailer. However, the most
of the variation in the airflow through the peanuts was
probably caused by the distribution of foreign material within
the load. Most peanut trailers are not loaded from an
overhead downspout, but are loaded in the field directly from
the hopper of the peanut combine. When peanuts are emptied
from the hopper of the combine, they are dumped into the
center of the trailer with most of the dirt falling and settling
along the centerline of the trailer. Systems to remove more of
the fine dirt or to uniformly distribute it while loading are
needed.
The method presented for measuring air distribution
through a deep bed of agricultural product was specifically
used for level fill. However, most agricultural products
loaded in bins or wagons are not leveled prior to drying and/or
aeration. Heaped fill is typical. The method used in this work
may be used on heaped fill, if the proper cross sectional area
is used in calculating the airflow for each cell. The
dimensions of each cell should be determined following the
contour of the product, not the horizontal dimensions.
CONCLUSION
A method using a vane anemometer to measure the
airflow exhausted from peanuts while curing was developed
and tested on six 6.4−m peanut drying wagons. Total
exhausted airflow was approximately two−thirds of the
airflow measured at the fan inlet using a pitot tube traverse.
Leakage accounted for approximately a 6% reduction. While
this method may not accurately measure total airflow through
the agricultural material, it appeared to represent the
uniformity or non−uniformity of air distribution. While this
method was used on level fill, this method could be used for
heaped fill. This method could be used to demonstrate the
effect of heaped fill and foreign material on the distribution
of air in drying or aeration.
Three wagons had perforated drying floors with 23% open
area and three had 40% open area. No significant difference
in total airflow due to the amount of open area in the drying
floor was detected using a pitot tube traverse or the surface
measurement. Airflow patterns measured using the vane
anemometer were similar in all wagons. Airflow through the
peanuts tended to increase from the point of entry at the back
to the front of the wagon. The minimum airflow occurred
Vol. 20(3): 335−339
about 1 m from the rear of the wagon and corresponded with
the termination of the transition from the inlet to the drying
plenum. Airflow tended to be symmetrical about the
centerline and increased linearly toward the outer edges of
the wagon. The increased airflow could be due to increased
porosity of the material caused by the peanut to wall contact
area compared to the peanut−to−peanut contact elsewhere in
the wagon. The wagon manufacturers have addressed this in
the past by leaving a 5−cm unperforated border. A more
likely explanation is that these wagons were loaded by
transferring peanuts through and elevator and downspout.
Under this scenario, higher density foreign material, includ-
ing soil and rocks, would tend to remain in the center of the
wagon while the lighter material such as sticks and leaves
would tend to flow with the peanuts toward the outer edge of
the wagon.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge Mr. Mark Milliron,
Golden Peanut Company, Dawson, Georgia for providing
peanuts and the six wagons for testing, and Mr. Bill Dykes,
Jr., Peerless Manufacturing of Shellman, Georgia for provid-
ing the peanut dryer and dryer shell.
REFERENCES
ASAE Standards, 49th Ed. 2002. D272.3 Resistance to airflow of
grains, seeds, other agricultural products and perforated metal
sheets. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Beasley, E. O., and J. W. Dickens. 1963. Engineering research in
peanut curing. North Carolina Ag. Exp. Station Tech. Bull. No.
155. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.
Blankenship, P. D., and V. Chew. 1979. Peanut drying energy
consumption. Peanut Sci.6: 10−13.
Butts, C. L. and R. B. Sorensen. 2002. Description of single kernel
moisture distributions and comparisons to current moisture
content measurements of peanut kernels. 2001 Proc. Am. Peanut
Res. Educ. Soc. Soc. Oklahoma City, Okla.: Am. Peanut Res.
Educ. Soc.
Cundiff, J. S., F. S. Wright, and D. H. Vaughan. 1991. Curing
quality peanuts in Virginia. Virginia Cooperative Extension Pub.
442−062. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Va.
Dowell, F. E., C. L. Butts, and J. S. Smith, Jr. 1993. Effect of drying
and storage on individual peanut kernel moisture contents.
ASAE Paper No. 936545. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Industrial Perforators Association. 1993. Designers, Specifiers, and
Buyers Handbook for Perforated Metals. Milwaukee, Wis.:
Industrial Perforators Association.
Henderson, S. M., R. L. Perry, and J. H. Young. 1997. Fluid−flow
measurements. In Principles of Process Engineering, 47−87,
St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Sharpe, J. K., C. K. Kvien, W. H. Yokoyama, and K. Calhoun.
1991. Environmental monitoring of peanut curing to maximize
energy efficiency and peanut quality. 1990 Proc. Am. Peanut
Res. Educ. Soc., Stone Mountain, Ga., July 1990.
Troeger, J. M. 1982. Peanut drying energy consumption – A
simulation analysis. Peanut Sci. 9: 40−44.
Young, J. H., N. K. Person, J. O. Donald, and W. D. Mayfield.
1982. Harvesting, during and energy utilization. In Peanut
Science and Technology, ed. H. E. Pattee and C. T. Young,
458−485. Yoakum, Tex: Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc.
339
 340 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

View publication stats