Waste and Biomass Valorization

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019-00755-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Methods to Determine the Interactions Between the Biomass

and the Pellet Channel During Biomass Pelletizing Process
Yu Wang1   · Yu Sun1 · Kai Wu1

Received: 29 November 2018 / Accepted: 8 July 2019

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
This paper proposed a method to determine the interactions between the biomass and the pellet channel wall during biomass
pelletizing process. The interactions involved four parameters including the inner pressure, prestressing pressure, friction
force, and sliding friction coefficient. Models to describe the relationship between the circumferential strain of the external
channel wall and the four parameters were developed based on the analysis of the stress in a single pellet channel. Based on
these models, a device was developed in the form of a single pellet unit with strain gauges. With this device, experiments
were conducted based on a variable-controlling approach to investigate the effects of particle size, compression velocity,
and moisture content on the four parameters. Three types of biomass materials including wood shavings, wheat straw, and
rice straw were involved in the experiment. Results showed that the four parameters were not constants and needed to be
determined for each specific situation. Furthermore, the friction force reached the maximum, and the inner pressure reached
the minimum when the moisture content was within the optimal range. The proposed method was effective and feasible.
Graphic Abstract

Strain analysis Test device Biomass pellets

Pi Po

σθ m1
Ri σr
m
Ro dr
n1
σr
n σθ
r
Po dθ

Pi m m1 O
O n n1

Raw materials Test results

Keywords  Biomass · Pelletizing · Prestressing pressure · Friction

Statement of Novelty results can provide mechanical explanations for the phenom-
ena in biomass pelletizing process. The proposed method is
The interactions between the biomass and the mold have useful in the research involving biomass pellets.
serious effects on the pelletizing process of biomass wastes.
However, few studies have focused on it. Some studies even
regard the interaction parameters as constants. Methods to Introduction
determine the interactions haven’t been reported yet. The
Biomass pelletizing technology is an effective method
* Yu Wang to solve the energy crisis. The densified biomass pellets
wy@njust.edu.cn can be used as solid fuels to generate electricity, and raw
1 materials to produce bio-char, bio-diesel, and bio-ethanol.
School of Mechanical Engineering, Nanjing University
of Science and Technology, 200 Xiaolingwei, With regular shapes and relatively high density, the pellets
Nanjing 210094, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China are easier to be transported, stored and used than the raw

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

biomass materials. Major technical challenges concern the
maintenance of a stable pelletizing process with low-energy
consumption and production of high-quality pellets [1]. The
pellet quality mainly includes pellet density, durability, ten-
sile strength and heating value [2]. Materials with high pel-
letizing properties can produce qualified pellets with low
energy consumption.
Most of the studies in this field are conducted based on
experiments with a single pellet device to investigate the
pelletizing properties of different materials under different
technological parameters. The materials could be raw bio-
mass resources [3, 4], torrefied biomass [5, 6], biomass with
additives [7, 8], and biological treated biomass [9], etc. The
technological parameters mainly include material types, raw
material particle size and its distribution, moisture content,
compression force and velocity [10–13], etc. Based on the
analysis of the experimental results, the effects of technolog-
ical parameters on the energy consumption and pellet qual-
ity are studied, and the optimal conditions for each specific
situation are obtained [14, 15]. Despite that these studies are
useful in both scientific research and engineering applica-
tion, none of them have focused on the interactions between
the biomass and the pellet channel wall, which have direct
influences on the energy consumption and pellet quality.
The interactions can be quantified by several mechanical
parameters including the pressure, friction force and sliding
friction coefficient between the densified biomass and the inner
channel wall. Only a few studies involved these parameters.
Holm et al. [1, 16] developed a novel model in a pure elastic
case to describe the compression pressure variation along the
press channels. It was concluded that the compression pressure
was determined by the mechanical properties of the biomass,
the interactions between the biomass and the channel, and the
dimension of the channel [1]. Based on this model, Wu et al.
[17] and Xia et al. [18] developed a model of the productiv-
ity and energy consumption of a ring-die pelletizing process.
Puig-Arnavat et al. [19] applied the compression pressure
model to the pelletization of torrefied biomass and verified
it. However, these models did not directly include important
processing parameters such as temperature, material moisture
content or compression velocity [20]. Some studies paid more
attention to the effects of processing parameters on the pel-
letizing process. Williams et al. [21] tested Young’s modulus
of biomass pellets and discovered that Young’s modulus was
affected by the compression velocity. Xia et al. [22] investi-
gated the pelletization characteristics of the hydrothermally
pretreated rice straw with binders. The results indicated that
the interactions between the biomass and the pellet channel
were changed after hydrothermal pretreatment. Theerarat-
tananoon et al. [23] made pellets from agricultural wastes and
found that the increase of the die thickness led to an increase
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization
in the pellet density and durability. Pradhan et al. [24] studied
the pelleting process of garden waste biomass. It was con-
cluded that a small die size with a low moisture content was
more suitable for the pelleting process. Miranda et al. [25]
analyzed the pelletizing process of corn cob wastes and found
that the increase in moisture content led to a better productivity
ratio. These studies indicate that the interactions between the
biomass and the channel are not constants and needed to be
determined under different conditions. However, methods to
determine the interactions have yet to be reported.
The objective of the study is to provide methods to deter-
mine the interactions between the biomass and the pellet
channel during biomass pelletizing process. The interactions
involve four parameters, including the inner pressure, pre-
stressing pressure, friction force, and sliding friction coeffi-
cient. The inner pressure is the pressure between the biomass
and the inner channel wall under certain compression pressure.
The prestressing pressure is the inner pressure when the com-
pression pressure equals 0 [1]. The friction force and sliding
friction coefficient are frictional parameters between the bio-
mass and the inner channel wall.
In this paper, the state of the stress in a single pellet channel
wall was analyzed first. Then, a model between the inner pres-
sure and the circumferential strain of the external channel wall
was developed. Based on this model, a device was designed
to determine the inner pressure by testing the circumferential
strain of the external channel wall with strain gauges. Further-
more, methods to determine the prestressing pressure, friction
force, and sliding friction coefficient with this device were also
proposed. Based on the methods and device, experiments were
conducted with wood shavings, wheat straw, and rice straw to
investigate the effects of particle size, compression velocity,
and moisture content on the interactions between the biomass
and the pellet channel during the pelletizing process.
Theoretical Basis
Pressures exerted on a single pellet channel are shown in
Fig. 1. The single pellet channel has the shape of a tube of
which the internal and external radii are Ri and Ro. Moreover,
the pressures exerted on the inner and outer wall of the chan-
nel are Pi and Po. A differential volume element in the channel
wall is defined, of which the angle, thickness, and height are
dθ, dr, and dz, respectively. Stresses on the element are shown
in Fig. 2.
According to Newton’s first law of motion, the resultant
stresses in each direction on the element equal 0.
⎧ ∑ F = 0,
⎪∑ r
⎨ ∑ Fz = 0, (1)
⎪ F𝜃 = 0.
⎩
Waste and Biomass Valorization

Fig. 1  Pressures exerted on a
single pellet channel Pi Po

Ri σθ m1
Ro
m σr
dr
n1
σr
n σθ
Po r
m m1 dθ
Pi
O n n1 O

∂σ z ∂τ zr
σz + dz τ zr + dz
z z ∂z ∂z
∂τ
Fz τ rz + rz d r
∂r
σr
dz

∂σ
Fr σr + r dr
τrz ∂r
n τzr
σz
z

m
n1
m1 O
r dr y
dz
O
y
O dθ σθ
θ σr
θ dθ z
r
σθ ∂σ r
y σr + dr
x x ∂r
dr

Fig. 2  Stresses on the differential volume element

With reference to Fig. 2, Eq. (1) is written as: where σr, σθ, and σz are the normal stresses in each direction,
� � � � τrz equals 0 in such an axisymmetric situation; sin(dθ) ≈ dθ.
⎧ 𝜎r + 𝜕𝜎r dr (r + dr)d𝜃dz − 𝜎r d𝜃dz − 2𝜎𝜃 drdz sin d𝜃 , Thus, Eq. (2) is simplified as:
⎪ � 𝜕r � 2
⎪ + 𝜏zr + 𝜕𝜏zr dz rdrd𝜃 − 𝜏zr rdrd𝜃 = 0, ⎧ d𝜎r 𝜎r −𝜎𝜃
⎨� 𝜕z � � � ⎪ + = 0,
⎪ 𝜎z + 𝜕𝜎z dz rd𝜃dr − 𝜎z rd𝜃dr + 𝜏rz + 𝜕𝜏rz dr (r + dr)d𝜃dz, ⎨
dr r
(3)
⎪ 𝜕z 𝜕r
⎪
d𝜎z
= 0.
⎩ −𝜏rz rd𝜃dz = 0, ⎩ dz
(2)

13
 Waste and Biomass Valorization

Thus
⎧ Pi R2i −Po R2o
d𝜎 ⎪A = −R2i +R2o
,
𝜎 𝜃 = r r + 𝜎r . (4) ⎨ (Pi −Po )R2i R2o
(13)
dr ⎪B =
⎩ −R2i +R2o
.
The strain of the element can be expressed as:
𝜕u
⎧ 𝜀r = 𝜕r , Therefore
⎪ 𝜕w
⎨ 𝜀𝜃 = 𝜕z , (5) ⎧𝜎 = Pi R2i −Po R2o (Pi −Po )R2i R2o 1
⎪ +
⎪ 𝜃 −R2i +R2o −R2i +R2o r2
,
u
⎩ 𝜀z = r , ⎨ (14)
Pi R2i −Po R2o (Pi −Po )R2i R2o 1
⎪ 𝜎r = −
⎩ −R2i +R2o −R2i +R2o r2
.
where εr, εθ and εz are the strain of the element in each direc-
tion, u and w are the displacement of the element in each
With no restraint on the ends of the channel, σz equals 0.
direction. The partial derivative of εz with respect to r can
Based on Eq. (7) and Eq. (14), the circumferential strain of
be written as:
the channel wall can be written as:
d𝜀𝜃 1( ) ( )
= 𝜀 r − 𝜀𝜃 . (6) ( ) (1 + 𝜇)(Pi − Po )R2o
dr r 1 2
𝜀𝜃 = (1 − 𝜇) Pi − K Po + ,
E(K 2 − 1) r2
According to Hooke’s law
(15)
⎧ 𝜀r = E [𝜎r − 𝜇(𝜎𝜃 + 𝜎z )],
1
where K equals Ro/Ri.
⎪ In a single pellet device, Eq. (15) can be simplified by
⎨ 𝜀𝜃 = E [𝜎r − 𝜇(𝜎r + 𝜎z )], (7)
1

⎪ relieving the constraint of the outer wall, which means Po

⎩ 𝜀z = E [𝜎r − (𝜎r + 𝜎𝜃 )], equals 0 in this case. Set r equals Ro, and the relationship
1

between the inner pressure and the circumferential strain of

where E is the elastic modulus. Thus the external channel wall in a single pellet device can be writ-
{ ten as:
𝜀r − 𝜀𝜃 = 1+𝜇 (𝜎 − 𝜎 ),
( E r )𝜃
(8) E(K 2 − 1)𝜀𝜃O
d𝜀𝜃 1 d𝜎𝜃 d𝜎
= E dr − 𝜇 drr . Pi = , (16)
dr 2

By combining Eqs. (4), (6), and (8) together, a linear differ- where εθO is the strain of the external channel wall.
ential equation with constant coefficients is obtained Equation (16) tells that there is a specific relationship
between the inner pressure and the circumferential strain of
d 2 𝜎r d𝜎 the channel wall in a single pellet device. Thus, the inner pres-
r + 3 r = 0. (9)
dr2 dr sure can be obtained by testing the circumferential strain of the
Solve Eq. (9), σr can be expressed as: external channel wall with strain gauges.

B Experimental Parts
𝜎r = A − , (10)
r2
where A and B are integral constants. Substitute the σr in
Devices
Eq. (4) with Eq. (10), σθ can be expressed as:
An apparatus to test the interaction between the densified bio-
B mass and the pellet channel was designed as Fig. 3. Seven
𝜎𝜃 = A + 2 . (11)
r groups of strain gauges were fixed on the external surface of
the channel with the method of full bridge, as shown in Fig. 4.
As shown in Fig. 1, the boundary condition for this ques-
One group was placed 20 mm away from the top to test the
tion is:
{ strain near the top, and the result was marked as εt1. The rest
𝜎r = Po , r = Ro , six groups were placed near the bottom. Four of them were
(12)
𝜎r = Pi , r = Ri . used to test the circumferential strain near the bottom, and
the displacement of each nearest groups was 10 mm. The
Therefore strains from the bottom up were marked as εc1, εc2, εc3, and εc4,
respectively. The other two groups were used to test the axial
strain near the bottom, of which the results from the bottom

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization

Force the preparation of the test materials, each type of the

Displace
-ment sensor biomass was crushed into particles with a lab scale
sensor crusher. Tested by sieving, the average particle sizes of
the crushed materials were within 4.38 mm and 5.25 mm.
Press Each type of crushed biomass was divided into fine and
shaft coarse particles with a 2 mm sieve. The initial moisture
Pellet Strain contents (wet basis) of the biomass were tested with a
channel gauge moisture meter and turned out to be within 9.8% and
Biomass 10.6%. The experiment was conducted with a variable-
controlling approach, and the test scheme was shown in
Supporter Table 1. Based on the levels of particle size and moisture
content (wet basis) shown in Table 1, test materials for
Back each trial were prepared and then sealed in plastic bags.
stop For the test materials in each trial, the moisture content
was adjusted to the target by adding water with an elec-
Fig. 3  Schematic drawing of the device tronic scale and a moisture meter.
For each trial, 10 ± 0.1 g of the test materials were put
into the channel firstly. Then, with an electronic universal
test machine, the materials were compressed by the com-
pression shaft at the speed shown in Table 1 until the com-
εt1 pression force reached 20 kN. The backstop was moved away
after keeping the compression force for 60 ± 1 s. Finally, the
densified biomass pellet was extruded out of the channel at
the speed of 40 mm/min.
Typical strain curves are shown in Fig. 5. The whole den-
sification process can be divided into three parts including
εc4
compression, relaxation, and extrusion. As shown in Fig. 5,
εc3 εa2 curves of εc1, εc2, εc3, and εc4 during the compression period
εc2 coincided. The εc1 provided complete information. Thus,
εc1 εa1 only the εc1 among the four signals was recorded during
the experiments. As for the εt1, εa1, and εa2, they were also
not recorded because they did not provide any useful infor-
Fig. 4  A single pellet channel with stain gauges mation as wished. The εb was recorded to obtain the force
between the biomass and the backstop. In order to compare
the test results of different trials, peak values of εc1 and εb
up were marked as εa1 and εa2, respectively. There was also which corresponded to the maximum compression force (Fc)
another group of strain gauges fixed on the backstop to obtain were selected as the test results. The value of εc1 during the
the force transmitted from the biomass. The axial strain of the force holding period was also taken out for the calculation
backstop was marked as εb. of prestressing pressure (Ppr).
In the experiment, the length of the channel was 240 mm, Based on these data, the inner pressure (Pi) and prestress-
and the internal and external radii are 10 mm and 15 mm, ing pressure (Ppr) can be obtained by Eq. (16). The friction
respectively. The radius of the backstop is 15 mm. force (Ffm) can be obtained by Eq. (17). And the sliding
friction coefficient (μ) can be obtained by Eq. (18) based on
Materials and Methods Coulomb’s law of friction.

Based on the device, experiments were carried out with
wood shavings, wheat straw, and rice straw to investigate
the interactions between the biomass and the inner channel
wall during the densification process. Effects of the parti-
cle size, compression velocity, and moisture content were
investigated.
The biomass materials were kept in several black
sealed bags under room temperature before use. During
Ffm = Fc − FB = Fc − E𝜀bm 𝜋R2b , (17)
where Ffm is the friction force corresponding to the maxi-
mum compression force, Fc is the maximum compression
force (Fc = 20 kN), FB is the force exerted on the backstop,
E is the elastic modulus (E  = 210 GPa), εbm is the axial strain
of the backstop corresponding to the maximum compression
force, and Rb is the radius of the backstop (Rb = 15 mm).

13
 Waste and Biomass Valorization

Table 1  Test scheme Test number Materials Parameters

Particle size Compression velocity Moisture
(mm/min) content (%,
w.b.)

1 Wood shavings Fine 20 10

2 Coarse
3 Fine 20 10
4 50
5 80
6 Fine 80 5
7 10
8 15
9 20
10 25
11 Wheat straw Fine 20 10
12 Coarse
13 Fine 20 10
14 50
15 80
16 Fine 80 5
17 10
18 15
19 20
20 25
21 Rice straw Fine 20 10
22 Coarse
23 Fine 20 10
24 50
25 80
26 Fine 80 5
27 10
28 15
29 20
30 25

where μ is the sliding friction coefficient, Fnm is the force

between the biomass and the channel corresponding to the
maximum compression force, Ri is the internal radius of the
channel, ve is the extrusion velocity (ve = 40 mm/min), te is
the extrusion time, and εc1m is the circumferential strain cor-
responding to the maximum compression force.
The extrusion time (te) in Eq. (18) is obtained from the
extrusion force curve as shown in Fig. 6. Because the pellet
is extruded out at a constant velocity, the extrusion force
reduces linearly. The linear part of the experimental data
is fitted with a linear model, and the extrusion time is the
Fig. 5  Strain curves during a whole densification process interval during which the extrusion force decreases from the
maximum to zero.
During the experiment, the circumferential strain of
Ffm Fc − E𝜀b 𝜋R2b the external channel wall near the bottom, the strain of the
𝜇= = , (18) backstop, and compression force were tested and recorded.
Fnm 𝜋ERi ve te (K 2 − 1)𝜀c1m

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization

Then, the four parameters are obtained by combining the test

results and the theoretical models developed above.

Results and Discussion

Test Results

Fig. 6  Force curve during a whole extrusion process
There are three duplications for each trial, the results are
shown in Table 2. The average error for each trial was calcu-
lated and then presented in Table 3. The maximum average
errors of inner pressure, prestressing pressure, friction force,
and sliding friction coefficient were 1.92%, 2.21%, 1.98%,
and 4.76%, respectively.

Table 2  Test results Test number Results

Pi (MPa) Ppr (MPa) Ffm (kN) μ
T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3

1 32.57 34.05 33.18 3.20 3.27 3.35 9.59 9.34 9.66 0.14 0.13 0.14
2 22.22 21.18 21.97 1.85 1.85 1.91 7.79 8.13 8.08 0.18 0.20 0.19
3 32.57 34.05 33.18 3.20 3.27 3.35 9.59 9.34 9.66 0.14 0.13 0.14
4 25.46 24.74 25.79 2.75 2.88 2.75 9.32 9.01 9.03 0.17 0.17 0.16
5 21.27 22.12 21.32 1.49 1.48 1.44 10.39 10.13 10.02 0.22 0.21 0.22
6 26.49 27.33 26.70 2.79 2.87 2.74 9.49 9.39 9.17 0.15 0.14 0.14
7 21.27 22.12 21.32 1.49 1.48 1.44 10.39 10.13 10.02 0.22 0.21 0.22
8 28.08 27.48 26.94 1.51 1.50 1.55 8.39 8.80 8.75 0.14 0.15 0.16
9 29.45 30.34 29.40 2.08 2.16 2.09 6.57 6.48 6.72 0.13 0.12 0.13
10 32.40 32.24 33.22 1.47 1.52 1.45 6.20 6.27 6.46 0.12 0.12 0.12
11 24.38 25.14 24.70 1.65 1.67 1.72 5.55 5.46 5.70 0.13 0.13 0.13
12 27.32 27.52 26.66 1.62 1.70 1.63 5.44 5.46 5.63 0.09 0.09 0.10
13 24.38 25.14 24.70 1.65 1.67 1.72 5.55 5.46 5.70 0.13 0.13 0.13
14 27.11 28.18 27.12 1.70 1.76 1.70 5.95 5.96 6.15 0.13 0.13 0.14
15 24.64 24.95 24.18 1.50 1.57 1.52 5.95 5.86 5.68 0.14 0.13 0.13
16 32.30 31.86 31.33 1.85 1.93 1.92 6.38 6.20 6.08 0.11 0.11 0.11
17 24.64 24.95 24.18 1.50 1.57 1.52 5.95 5.86 5.68 0.14 0.13 0.13
18 27.52 28.76 27.59 1.45 1.51 1.48 9.00 9.30 9.29 0.19 0.19 0.20
19 29.07 29.86 28.67 1.09 1.14 1.14 8.00 8.09 7.79 0.17 0.17 0.17
20 35.48 35.77 36.64 0.95 0.93 0.96 5.47 5.47 5.64 0.10 0.10 0.10
21 23.77 24.64 24.04 1.82 1.79 1.76 8.46 8.05 8.16 0.20 0.18 0.19
22 16.89 17.43 17.66 1.81 1.73 1.77 8.10 8.23 8.45 0.25 0.25 0.25
23 23.77 24.64 24.04 1.82 1.79 1.76 8.46 8.05 8.16 0.20 0.18 0.19
24 23.26 23.65 23.98 1.48 1.41 1.43 8.17 8.40 8.06 0.19 0.19 0.18
25 23.44 22.66 22.70 1.58 1.66 1.58 7.66 7.34 7.50 0.17 0.17 0.17
26 25.39 24.55 25.46 2.03 1.99 1.95 8.00 7.76 8.06 0.15 0.15 0.15
27 23.44 22.66 22.70 1.58 1.66 1.58 7.66 7.34 7.50 0.17 0.17 0.17
28 21.35 20.62 21.24 1.23 1.27 1.28 9.48 9.17 9.25 0.27 0.27 0.26
29 23.92 24.37 23.57 0.98 1.02 1.03 7.61 7.27 7.57 0.19 0.18 0.20
30 32.05 33.37 33.40 0.83 0.79 0.81 5.23 5.01 5.06 0.10 0.09 0.09

13
 Waste and Biomass Valorization

Table 3  Average error of each trial shown in Fig. 7d, there were obvious differences in the slid-
Test number Average error ing friction coefficients of the three materials when particle
size changed. The value of wood shavings and rice straw
Pi (%) Ppr (%) Ffm (%) μ (%)
increased with the increase of particle size, while the value
1 1.57 1.56 1.33 3.25 of wheat straw decreased with the increase of particle size.
2 1.87 1.43 1.75 3.51 This phenomenon was opposite to that shown in Fig. 7a.
3 1.57 1.56 1.33 3.25
4 1.55 2.07 1.46 2.67 Effects of Compression Velocity
5 1.70 1.36 1.38 2.05
6 1.22 1.67 1.28 3.10 In recent research, viscoelasticity of the biomass has been
7 1.70 1.36 1.38 2.05 observed during the densification process. Therefore, the
8 1.41 1.32 1.98 4.44 interactions between the biomass and the channel could
9 1.37 1.58 1.32 3.51 be sensitive to the compression velocity. The effects of
10 1.23 1.80 1.58 0.00 compression velocity on the interactions are illustrated in
11 1.08 1.59 1.56 0.00 Fig. 8a–d.
12 1.24 2.02 1.45 4.76 As shown in Fig. 8a, b, d, the effects of compression
13 1.08 1.59 1.56 0.00 velocity on inner pressure, prestressing pressure, and sliding
14 1.72 1.55 1.44 3.33 friction coefficient of wood shavings were more significant
15 1.11 1.74 1.72 3.33 than wheat straw and rice straw. For wood shavings, the
16 1.05 1.75 1.71 0.00 inner pressure and prestressing pressure decreased with the
17 1.11 1.74 1.72 3.33 increase of compression velocity, while the sliding friction
18 1.92 1.35 1.43 2.30 coefficient increased with the increase of compression veloc-
19 1.51 1.98 1.42 0.00 ity. As shown in Fig. 8c, no common rules could be drawn
20 1.25 1.17 1.37 0.00 for the effects of compression velocity on the friction force
21 1.35 1.12 1.92 3.51 of the three materials. However, it was discovered that there
22 1.68 1.51 1.53 0.00 were significant differences between the friction forces of
23 1.35 1.12 1.92 3.51 the three materials under the same velocity. The largest fric-
24 1.04 1.85 1.54 2.38 tion force was observed for wood shavings, followed by rice
25 1.47 2.21 1.42 0.00 straw and wheat straw.
26 1.55 1.34 1.51 0.00
27 1.47 2.21 1.42 0.00 Effects of Moisture Content
28 1.42 1.59 1.29 1.67
29 1.16 1.98 1.90 3.51 Moisture content is an important parameter affecting the
30 1.80 1.65 1.70 4.76 biomass densification process. In general, optimal moisture
content for biomass pelletizing technology is within 8–15%
[3–5, 10–12, 14, 26, 27]. The effects of moisture content on
Effects of Particle Size the interactions are plotted in Fig. 9a–d.
As shown in Fig. 9a, the inner pressure of the three bio-
Particle size has significant effects on the pelletizing process. mass materials decreased first and then increased with the
Based on the data in Table 1, the average value for each trial increase of moisture content. Inner pressure reached the
is obtained, and the effects of particle size on the interactions minimum when the moisture content was within 10% and
are illustrated in Fig. 7a–d. 15%, and the range was within the optimal ranges of the
As shown in Fig. 7a, the increase of particle size led moisture content. As shown in Fig. 9b, the prestressing pres-
to a decrease in the inner pressure of wood shavings and sure of the straws decreased with the increase of moisture
rice straw, and a slight increase in that of wheat straw. As content. As shown in Fig. 9c, d, both of the friction force and
for the prestressing pressure and friction force shown in sliding friction coefficient increased first and then decreased
Fig. 7b, c, fine wood shavings presented higher values than with the increase of moisture content. When the moisture
coarse ones. However, particle size had few effects on the content was under 10%, the order of the friction force was
prestressing pressure and friction force of wheat straw and the same as the results shown in the previous section. How-
rice straw. The prestressing pressure and friction force of ever, when the moisture content was over 15%, the order
wood shavings were more sensitive to the particle size. As

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization

Fig. 7  Effects of particle size 4

on the interactions: a effects Wood Shavings Wood Shavings
40
on inner pressure, b effects on Wheat Straw Wheat Straw
prestressing pressure, c effects Rice Straw 3 Rice Straw
on friction force, and d effects 30

Ppr / MPa
on sliding friction coefficient

Pi / MPa
2
20

10 1

0 0
Fine Coarse Fine Coarse
Partic le Size Partic le Size
(a) (b)

12 Wood Shavings Wood Shavings

Wheat Straw 0.3 Wheat Straw
10 Rice Straw Rice Straw
8
Ffm / kN

0.2

μ
6

4 0.1
2

0 0
Fine Coarse Fine Coarse
Partic le Size Partic le Size
(c) (d)

changed and the friction forces of the three materials got
closed to each other.
Discussion
In the previous three sections, experimental results are ana-
lyzed to give the effects of particle size, compressive veloc-
ity, and moisture content on the interactions between the
densified biomass and the channel. The results are discussed
by making comparisons between this paper and other pub-
lished works.
According to the results, when the moisture content is not
higher than 10%, the friction force of wood shaving is larger
than that of rice straw. And the friction force for wheat straw
is the smallest. This order is the same as that of pelletizing
properties of the three materials [4, 8]. When the moisture
content is over 15%, the increase of moisture content led to
an increase in inner pressure and a decrease in friction force.
According to published works, excessive moisture decreases
pellet durability and causes cracks in pellet surfaces [3, 4,
11]. Besides, the moisture contents corresponding to the
minimum inner pressure and maximum friction force are
within the optimal ranges reported in published papers [3–5,
10–12, 14, 26, 27]. Therefore, feasible moisture content
leads to low inner pressure and high friction force.
Unlike moisture content, compression velocity does not
present similar effects on the three materials. As for rice
straw, lower inner pressure corresponds to higher energy
consumption, because the increase in velocity decreases
the inner pressure but increases the energy consumption
[14, 26]. This phenomenon is not in accordance with that
of moisture content. Furthermore, despite that the increase
of compression velocity makes the inner pressure and pre-
stressing pressure close to each other, it does not mean the
pelletizing properties of the three materials are close to each
other. On the contrary, the pelletizing properties of wood
shavings are still better than the straws [28]. Therefore, pel-
letizing properties cannot be judged based on the four inter-
action parameters only.
Particle size is another important factor affecting bio-
mass pelletizing process. As reported in published works,
it is easier to produce high-quality biomass pellets with
small sized particles [3, 13]. However, the prestressing

13
 Waste and Biomass Valorization

Fig. 8  Effects of compression 35 4
velocity on the interactions: Wood Shavings Wood Shavings
a effects on inner pressure, b Wheat Straw Wheat Straw
effects on prestressing pressure, Rice Straw Rice Straw
c effects on friction force, and 30 3

Ppr / MPa
d effects on sliding friction

Pi / MPa
coefficient

25 2

20 1
20 50 80 20 50 80
Compression velocity / mm·min-1 Compression velocity / mm·min-1
(a) (b)

12 0.3
Wood Shavings Wood Shavings
Wheat Straw Wheat Straw
10 Rice Straw 0.25 Rice Straw
Ffm / kN

0.2

μ
8

0.15
6
0.1
20 50 80 20 50 80
Compression velocity / mm·min-1 Compression velocity / mm·min-1
(c) (d)

pressure and friction force of wheat straw and rice straw
do not change with the change of particle size. Thus, no
evidence is found to prove that there is a specific relation-
ship between energy consumption and the two parameters.
As for the inner pressure and sliding friction coefficient,
both of them present obvious differences when particle
size changes. However, the value of wheat straw does not
change in the same way as that of wood shavings and rice
straw. This phenomenon may be blamed to the wax in the
surface of wheat straw [29].
Based on the discussion above, it is observed that parti-
cle size, compression velocity, and moisture content have
significant and different effects on the interaction param-
eters of the three materials. However, no direct relation-
ships between biomass pelletizing process and the four
parameters are established. This paper presents a primary
study on the interactions between the biomass and the
channel wall during biomass pelletizing process. With the
method proposed in this paper, future research should con-
sider the interactions between the factors [4]. Other factors
such as device size and structure should be involved [30].
Conclusions
In this paper, a method was proposed to determine the
interactions between the biomass and the pellet channel
wall by testing the circumferential strain of the external
channel wall during biomass pelletizing process. The
interactions involved four parameters including the inner
pressure, prestressing pressure, friction force, and sliding
friction coefficient. It was concluded as follows:
(1) Interactions between the biomass and inner channel
wall could be determined by testing the strain of the
external channel wall.
(2) Particle size, compression velocity, moisture content,
and biomass types had significant effects on the four
parameters. Optimal moisture content led to a high fric-
tion force and a low inner pressure.
(3) This paper did not consider the interactions between the
factors. More attention should be paid to the interaction
effects in future research.

13
Waste and Biomass Valorization

Fig. 9  Effects of moisture con- 40 3

tent on the interactions: a effects Wood Shavings Wood Shavings
on inner pressure, b effects on Wheat Straw Wheat Straw
prestressing pressure, c effects
2.5
35 Rice Straw Rice Straw
on friction force, and d effects

Ppr / MPa
on sliding friction coefficient 2

Pi / MPa
30
1.5
25
1

20 0.5
5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
Moisture content / % (w.b.) Moisture content / % (w.b.)
(a) (b)

12 Wood Shavings Wood Shavings

Wheat Straw 0.3 Wheat Straw
Rice Straw Rice Straw
10 0.25
Ffm / kN

0.2

μ
8
0.15
6
0.1

4 0.05
5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
Moisture content / % (w.b.) Moisture content / % (w.b.)
(c) (d)

References 8. Rahaman, S.A., Salam, P.A.: Characterization of cold densified

rice straw briquettes and the potential use of sawdust as binder.
Fuel Process. Technol. 158, 9–19 (2017)
1. Holm, J.K., Henriksen, U.B., Hustad, J.E., Sorensen, L.H.:
9. Gao, W., Tabil, L.G., Dumonceaux, T., Espinel Ríos, S., Zhao, R.:
Toward an understanding of controlling parameters in soft-
Optimization of biological pretreatment to enhance the quality of
wood and hardwood pellets production. Energy Fuel 20(6),
wheat straw pellets. Biomass Bioenergy 97, 77–89 (2017)
2686–2694 (2006)
10. Mani, S., Tabil, L.G., Sokhansanj, S.: Effects of compressive
2. Prvulovic, S., Gluvakov, Z., Tolmac, J., Tolmac, D.A., Matic,
force, particle size and moisture content on mechanical proper-
M., Brkic, M.: Methods for determination of biomass energy
ties of biomass pellets from grasses. Biomass Bioenergy 30(7),
pellet quality. Energy Fuel 28(3), 2013–2018 (2014)
648–654 (2006)
3. Guo, L., Tabil, L.G., Wang, D., Wang, G.: Influence of moisture
11. Kaliyan, N., Morey, R.V.: Factors affecting strength and durability
content and hammer mill screen size on the physical quality of
of densified biomass products. Biomass Bioenergy 33(3), 337–359
barley, oat, canola and wheat straw briquettes. Biomass Bioen-
(2009)
ergy 94, 201–208 (2016)
12. Samuelsson, R., Larsson, S.H., Thyrel, M., Lestander, T.A.: Mois-
4. Wang, Y., Wu, K., Sun, Y.: Pelletizing properties of wheat straw
ture content and storage time influence the binding mechanisms
blending with rice straw. Energy Fuel 31(5), 5126–5134 (2017)
in biofuel wood pellets. Appl. Energy 99, 109–115 (2012)
5. Rudolfsson, M., Stelte, W., Lestander, T.A.: Process optimi-
13. Wang, Y., Wu, K., Sun, Y.: Effects of raw material particle size
zation of combined biomass torrefaction and pelletization for
on the briquetting process of rice straw. J. Energy Inst. 91(1),
fuel pellet production—a parametric study. Appl. Energy 140,
153–162 (2018)
378–384 (2015)
14. Hu, J., Lei, T., Shen, S., Zhang, Q.: Specific energy consumption
6. Rudolfsson, M., Borén, E., Pommer, L., Nordin, A., Lestander,
regression and process parameters optimization in wet-briquetting
T.A.: Combined effects of torrefaction and pelletization param-
of rice straw at normal temperature. Bioresources 8(1), 663–675
eters on the quality of pellets produced from torrefied biomass.
(2013)
Appl. Energy 191, 414–424 (2017)
15. Song, X., Zhang, M., Pei, Z.J., Wang, D.: Ultrasonic vibration-
7. Ståhl, M., Berghel, J., Granström, K.: Improvement of wood fuel
assisted pelleting of wheat straw: a predictive model for energy
pellet quality using sustainable sugar additives. Bio Resources
consumption using response surface methodology. Ultrasonics
11(2), 3373–3383 (2016)
54(1), 305–311 (2014)

13

16. Holm, J.K., Henriksen, U.B., Wand, K., Hustad, J.E., Posselt, D.:
Experimental verification of novel pellet model using a single
pelleter unit. Energy Fuel 21(4), 2446–2449 (2007)
17. Wu, K., Shi, S., Peng, B., Ding, W., Sun, Y.: Modeling and anal-
ysis on extruding force in pelleting process. Trans. Chin. Soc.
Agric. Eng. 26, 142–147 (2010)
18. Xia, X., Sun, Y., Wu, K., Jiang, Q.: Modeling of a straw ring-die
briquetting process. BioResources 9(4), 6316–6328 (2014)
19. Puig-Arnavat, M., Ahrenfeldt, J., Henriksen, U.B.: Validation of
a multiparameter model to investigate torrefied biomass pelletiza-
tion behavior. Energy Fuels 31(2), 1644–1649 (2017)
20. Stelte, W., Holm, J.K., Sanadi, A.R., Barsberg, S., Ahrenfeldt,
J., Henriksen, U.B.: Fuel pellets from biomass: the importance
of the pelletizing pressure and its dependency on the processing
conditions. Fuel 90(11), 3285–3290 (2011)
21. Williams, O., Taylor, S., Lester, E., Kingman, S., Giddings, D.,
Eastwick, C.: Applicability of mechanical tests for biomass pel-
let characterisation for bioenergy applications. Materials (Basel)
(2018). https​://doi.org/10.3390/ma110​81329​
22. Xia, X., Xiao, H., Yang, Z., Xie, X., Bhimani, J.: Pelletization
characteristics of the hydrothermal pretreated rice straw with
added binders. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 43, 4811–4820 (2018)
23. Theerarattananoon, K., Xu, F., Wilson, J., Ballard, R., McKin-
ney, L., Staggenborg, S., Vadlani, P., Pei, Z.J., Wang, D.: Physical
properties of pellets made from Sorghum stalk, corn stover, wheat
straw, and big bluestem. Ind. Crops Prod. 33(2), 325–332 (2011)
24. Pradhan, P., Arora, A., Mahajani, S.M.: Pilot scale evaluation of
fuel pellets production from garden waste biomass. Energy Sus-
tain. Dev. 43, 1–14 (2018)
13
Waste and Biomass Valorization
25. Miranda, M.T., Sepulveda, F.J., Arranz, J.I., Montero, I., Rojas,
C.V.: Analysis of pelletizing from corn cob waste. J. Environ.
Manag. 228, 303–311 (2018)
26. Wang, Y., Sun, Y., Wu, K., Xia, X.: Optimal design for rice straw
briquetting process based on experiments. In: International Design
Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Informa-
tion in Engineering Conference, Charlotte, p. V02AT03A047.
ASME, Charlotte (2016)
27. Zvicevičius, E., Raila, A., Čiplienė, A., Černiauskienė, Ž.,
Kadžiulienė, Ž., Tilvikienė, V.: Effects of moisture and pressure
on densification process of raw material from Artemisia dubia
Wall. Renew. Energy 119, 185–192 (2018)
28. Lu, D., Tabil, L.G., Wang, D., Wang, G., Emami, S.: Experimental
trials to make wheat straw pellets with wood residue and binders.
Biomass Bioenergy 69, 287–296 (2014)
29. Stelte, W., Clemons, C., Holm, J.K., Ahrenfeldt, J., Henriksen,
U.B., Sanadi, A.R.: Fuel pellets from wheat straw: the effect of
lignin glass transition and surface waxes on pelletizing properties.
Bioenergy Res. 5(2), 450–458 (2011)
30. Xia, X., Sun, Y., Wu, K., Jiang, Q.: Optimization of a straw ring-
die briquetting process combined analytic hierarchy process and
grey correlation analysis method. Fuel Process. Technol. 152,
303–309 (2016)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.