Figures & data
Table 1 Physical attributes of three chickpea cultivars measured at initial moisture content
Table 2 Experimental data of airflow resistance (Pa/m) of three chickpea cultivars as affected by moisture content, bulk density and airflow rate.Footnote ∗
Figure 2 Effect of bed depth on airflow resistance of large kabuli chickpea at moisture content of 9.32% (wet basis), bulk density of 770 kg/m3 and four airflow rates: (Δ) 0.3; (×) 0.2; (s) 0.1; and (u) 0.08 m3s−1m−2.
![Figure 2 Effect of bed depth on airflow resistance of large kabuli chickpea at moisture content of 9.32% (wet basis), bulk density of 770 kg/m3 and four airflow rates: (Δ) 0.3; (×) 0.2; (s) 0.1; and (u) 0.08 m3s−1m−2.](/cms/asset/8e4b72cd-9db5-448d-9595-ba6c63c5f88a/ljfp_a_285781_o_f0002g.gif)
Table 3 Estimated parameters of three airflow resistance models at different combinations of moisture content and bulk density for large kabuli chickpea
Table 4 Estimated parameters of three airflow resistance models at different combinations of moisture content and bulk density for small kabuli (chico) chickpea
Table 5 Estimated parameters of three airflow resistance models at different combinations of moisture content and bulk density for desi chickpea
Figure 3 Percentage error in the prediction of pressure drop as a function of airflow rate of large kabuli at moisture content of 9.32% wet basis, bulk density of 770 kg/m3. (Δ) Shedd model, (♦) Hukill and Ives model, and (□) Ergun model.
![Figure 3 Percentage error in the prediction of pressure drop as a function of airflow rate of large kabuli at moisture content of 9.32% wet basis, bulk density of 770 kg/m3. (Δ) Shedd model, (♦) Hukill and Ives model, and (□) Ergun model.](/cms/asset/f621e2e9-5fc1-4d90-8cec-1968a80ff2f9/ljfp_a_285781_o_f0003g.gif)