Advertisement

Journal of Wood Science

, Volume 64, Issue 4, pp 338–346 | Cite as

Energy consumption of two-stage fine grinding of Douglas-fir wood

  • Jinwu Wang
  • Johnway Gao
  • Kristin L. Brandt
  • Michael P. WolcottEmail author
Original Article
  • 109 Downloads

Abstract

Fine wood powders have advantages over traditional coarse wood particles for various emerging applications. However, an efficient system to produce fine wood powders has not been well established. We investigated the comminution capability and efficiency of a two-stage grinding system consisting of a hammer mill circuit and an rotor impact mill circuit to convert wood feedstocks into fine powders. Air-dried forest harvest residuals were comminuted by the hammer mill circuit to three intermediate product sizes with geometric mean particle sizes of 1618, 669, and 316 µm. These intermediate products were then pulverized into fine wood powders with median particle sizes ranging from 35 to 250 µm. The specific energy consumption increased with the decrease of median particle sizes, with a transition at around 100 µm after which the energy consumption increased exponentially. This large-scale grinding trial provides the reliable energy consumption data for design and process economic analysis of mechanical biomass preprocessing.

Keywords

Coarse grinding Fine grinding Rotor impact mill Hammer mill Energy consumption Size reduction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Jinxue Jiang, Yalan Liu, Lanxing Du, Yu Fu, Vincent McIntyre, John Barth, and Kelly Welsch for collecting the grinding data and size analysis for the hammer mill grinding; Marc Cavaliere, Assistant Manager of Hosokawa Micron Powder Systems for the rotor impact mill grinding trials; and Dane Camenzind for drawing the ACM schematic diagram. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance (NARA), supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2011-68005-30416 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, for funding the most part of this work, and the Joint Center for Aerospace Technology Innovation of Washington State for funding a part of this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Papadikis K, Gu S, Bridgwater AV (2010) Computational modelling of the impact of particle size to the heat transfer coefficient between biomass particles and a fluidised bed. Fuel Process Technol 91:68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simmons GM, Gentry M (1986) Particle size limitations due to heat transfer in determining pyrolysis kinetics of biomass. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 10:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lu H, Robert W, Peirce G, Ripa B, Baxter LL (2008) Comprehensive study of biomass particle combustion. Energy Fuels 22:2826–2839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dasari RK, Berson RE (2007) The effect of particle size on hydrolysis reaction rates and rheological properties in cellulosic slurries. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 137:289–299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rezania S, Ye Z, Berson RE (2009) Enzymatic saccharification and viscosity of sawdust slurries following ultrasonic particle size reduction. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 153:103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vaezi M, Pandey V, Kumar A, Bhattacharyya S (2013) Lignocellulosic biomass particle shape and size distribution analysis using digital image processing for pipeline hydro-transportation. Biosyst Eng 114:97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henke K, Treml S (2013) Wood based bulk material in 3D printing processes for applications in construction. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 71:139–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wimmer R, Steyrer B, Woess J, Koddenberg T, Mundigler N (2015) 3d printing and wood. Ligno 11:144–149Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silva GGD, Couturier M, Berrin J-G, Buleon A, Rouau X (2012) Effects of grinding processes on enzymatic degradation of wheat straw. Bioresour Technol 103:192–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gil M, Arauzo I (2014) Hammer mill operating and biomass physical conditions effects on particle size distribution of solid pulverized biofuels. Fuel Process Technol 127:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heimann M (2014) High speed hammermills for fine grinding: part 1—introduction. In: FeedMachinery.com. http://www.feedmachinery.com/articles/feed_technology/hammermill1/. Accessed 23 Dec 2014
  12. 12.
    Pandya TS, Srinivasan R (2012) Effect of hammer mill retention screen size on fiber separation from corn flour using the Elusieve process. Ind Crops Prod 35:37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gil M, Gonzalez A, Gil A (2008) Evaluation of milling energy requirements of biomass residues in a semi-industrial pilot plant for co-firing. In: Proceedings 16th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, ValenciaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu Y, Wang J, Wolcott MP (2016) Assessing the specific energy consumption and physical properties of comminuted Douglas-fir chips for bioconversion. Ind Crops Prod 94:394–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Esteban LS, Carrasco JE (2006) Evaluation of different strategies for pulverization of forest biomasses. Powder Technol 166:139–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karinkanta P, Illikainen M, Niinimäki J (2012) Pulverisation of dried and screened Norway spruce (Picea abies) sawdust in an air classifier mill. Biomass Bioenergy 44:96–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kobayashi N, Guilin P, Kobayashi J, Hatano S, Itaya Y, Mori S (2008) A new pulverized biomass utilization technology. Powder Technol 180:272–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kobayashi N, Sato T, Okada N, Kobayashi J, Hatano S, Itaya Y, Mori S (2007) Evaluation of wood powder property pulverized by a vibration mill. J Jpn Inst Energy 86:730–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gravelsins RJ (1998) Studies of grinding of wood and bark-wood mixtures with the Szego mill. University of Toroto, TorotoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marrs G, Mulderig B, Davio D, Burt M (2015) Feedstock Sourcing: NARA Years 1–3, Northwest Advanced Renewables Alliance, Weyerhaeuser, Federal Way, WA. https://research.libraries.wsu.edu/xmlui/handle/2376/6401?show=full, Accessed 23 Dec 2017
  21. 21.
    Shapiro M, Galperin V (2005) Air classification of solid particles: a review. Chem Eng Process Process Intensif 44:279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ASAE S319 (2005) Method of determining and expressing fineness of feed materials by sievingGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abdullah EC, Geldart D (1999) The use of bulk density measurements as flowability indicators. Powder Technol 102:151–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jankovic A, Dundar H, Mehta R (2010) Relationships between comminution energy and product size for a magnetite ore. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 110:141Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Temmerman M, Jensen PD, Hébert J (2013) Von Rittinger theory adapted to wood chip and pellet milling, in a laboratory scale hammermill. Biomass Bioenergy 56:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    von Rittinger PR (1867) Taschenbuch der aufbereitungskunde (in German). Ernst & Korn, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kick F (1885) Das Gesetz der Proportionalem Widerstand und Seine Anwendung (Principle of Proportional Resistance and Its Application). Leipz Ger Felix, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bond FC (1952) The 3rd theory of comminution. Trans Am Inst Min Metall Eng 193:484–494Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Di Giacomo G, Taglieri L (2009) Renewable energy benefits with conversion of woody residues to pellets. Energy 34:724–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gravelsins R, Trass O (2013) Analysis of grinding of pelletized wood waste with the Szego Mill. Powder Technol 245:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Wood Research Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forest Products LaboratoryUSDA Forest ServiceMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Global Cellulose Fibers, International PaperFederal WayUSA
  3. 3.Composite Materials and Engineering CenterWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations