{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014722536806342015, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028312570781426952, 'mean_word_length': 5.135416666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Some Considerations in Modeling of Moisture Transport in Heating of Hygroscopic Materials

Abstract Hygroscopic materials are those in which the equilibrium pressure of water vapor changes with moisture content and temperature, such as food, soil or wood, etc. Heat and moisture transports are coupled in heating of hygroscopic materials. One of the major links between temperature and moisture changes is water evaporation. There have been different formulations on modeling of evaporation in the past. A typical approach (Model 1 in this article) is to equate the evaporation rate to the rate of local moisture loss. The first part of this paper illustrates that such an approach is physically incorrect based on fundamental conservation relationships. A conservation-based coupled heat and moisture transfer model (Model 2) is presented here based on previous multiphase transport models. It shows that total evaporation rate over the entire material is included in Model 1 while the local evaporation rate is not. The situations when Model 1 may or may not generate large errors are discussed. The second part of this article completes the modeling of evaporation using Model 2. Two types of formulations are given depending on the phase equilibrium of moisture in the hygroscopic materials. When phase equilibrium between water and vapor is assumed for any location at any time, vapor pressure is provided as known variables. In a nonequilibrium approach, evaporation rate needs to be provided. The latter poses numerical difficulties near the material surface, which arises from the possibility that equilibrium state may have a large change near the surface. Further discussions were made on the physical and numerical considerations in using both approaches.