ProjectsBlast freezer
Case study · Refrigeration · Japan · 2025

Diagnosing the cold-air flow in a blast freezer — 6-fan and 2-fan designs

56–73%
cold air bypassing the trays straight back to the evaporator (2-fan – 6-fan)
4.6% · 14.8%
flow passing through the whole product, 6-fan · 2-fan
78–167 min
measured crystallization time, fastest – slowest tray
191–194%
Nusselt spread between the highest and lowest tray

Context & problem

Measured on an ECO-2000 cabinet with trays of water, the time to pass the crystallization band (−1 to −5 °C) ranged from 78 minutes on the best trays to 167 minutes on the slowest — more than double. The slowest tray sets the time for the whole freezing batch. Kobashi needed to establish the cold-air path in its 6-fan and 2-fan cabinets before improving them.

Approach

  • 3D models of both cabinets (1.738 × 1.7 × 1.3 m): evaporator, fans, a rack of 4 columns × 18 rows of trays. Identical comparison conditions: 13,645 m³/h total fan flow, −60 °C air off the evaporator, product at −20 °C, steady heat transfer.
  • A design air velocity of 5 m/s over the trays, from the air-blast freezing literature (Dempsey & Bansal 2012): above it, 20% more velocity shortens freezing by only 3% because conduction inside the product dominates.
  • Four quantitative KPIs: bypass ratio (air returning to the evaporator without crossing the product), velocity and its uniformity at the product surface, Nusselt number and its uniformity between trays, and uniformity of the evaporator suction.

Results

  • Bypass dominates: 73% of the flow (6 fans) and 56% (2 fans) goes around the trays straight back to the evaporator; only 4.6% and 14.8% passes through the whole product. Trays and rack resist the flow, so the air takes the easier path.
  • Mean velocity at the product surface is 4.04 m/s (6 fans) and 4.74 m/s (2 fans), uniformity 0.68 in both; the rear trays do not reach the 5 m/s design velocity. Narrow fan jets with the two fans far apart leave a dead zone between them.
  • Lowest Nusselt 770 and 769, spread between the highest and lowest tray 191% and 194%; the bottom trays and the trays between two fans cool slowest. The 2-fan design is more even between front and rear trays (1.9% against 8.8% deviation) and was chosen for further optimization.
  • Evaporator suction is concentrated in the middle (uniformity 0.707 and 0.714), which risks uneven air temperature off the fans.

Value

Three improvements target the quantified causes: baffles forcing the air through the product in one direction, revised tray spacing, and adjusted fan flow. The KPI set and comparison conditions built here are the common yardstick for every improvement option, set against the two existing cabinets.

Project gallery

Split of the fan flow: Q1 bypassing the trays 73% (6 fans) and 56% (2 fans), Q4 through the whole product 4.6% and 14.8%
/image/thiet-bi-tu-cap-dong-02.jpg4:3 ratio (landscape)
Crystallization time measured at 8 tray positions: 78–100 min at positions 1–6, 167 min at position 8; the dashed line is the acceptable level of about 80 min
/image/thiet-bi-tu-cap-dong-03.jpg4:3 ratio (landscape)
Plan section through the tray rack: fan jets, the dead zone between two fans and the gaps between tray columns — 6 fans and 2 fans
/image/thiet-bi-tu-cap-dong-05.jpg4:3 ratio (landscape)
KPIs of the two designs: flow through the whole product, velocity and uniformity at the trays, evaporator suction uniformity, lowest Nusselt and spread
/image/thiet-bi-tu-cap-dong-06.jpg4:3 ratio (landscape)

Freezer with trays far slower than the rest?

Quantify the cold-air distribution in the cabinet and identify starved trays before replacing fans or modifying racks.

Send project details

Related projects: Data-centre condenser yard · HVAC & thermal capability · HVAC & Buildings