4.6 Article

Applicability of Mechanical Tests for Biomass Pellet Characterisation for Bioenergy Applications

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma11081329

关键词

mechanical strength; biomass pellets; Split Hopkinson pressure bar; Instron mechanical tester; pellet durability; milling energy

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/G037345/1]
  2. Biomass & Fossil Fuel Research Alliance (BF2RA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, the applicability of mechanical tests for biomass pellet characterisation was investigated. Pellet durability, quasi-static (low strain rate), and dynamic (high strain rate) mechanical tests were applied to mixed wood, eucalyptus, sunflower, miscanthus, and steam exploded and microwaved pellets, and compared to their Hardgrove Grindability Index (HGI), and milling energies for knife and ring-roller mills. The dynamic mechanical response of biomass pellets was obtained using a novel application of the Split Hopkinson pressure bar. Similar mechanical properties were obtained for all pellets, apart from steam-exploded pellets, which were significantly higher. The quasi-static rigidity (Young's modulus) was highest in the axial orientation and lowest in flexure. The dynamic mechanical strength and rigidity were highest in the diametral orientation. Pellet strength was found to be greater at high strain rates. The diametral Young's Modulus was virtually identical at low and high strain rates for eucalyptus, mixed wood, sunflower, and microwave pellets, while the axial Young's Modulus was lower at high strain rates. Correlations were derived between the milling energy in knife and ring roller mills for pellet durability, and quasi-static and dynamic pellet strength. Pellet durability and diametral quasi-static strain was correlated with HGI. In summary, pellet durability and mechanical tests at low and high strain rates can provide an indication of how a pellet will break down in a mill.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据