Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352

Grinding performance and physical properties of wheat and

barley straws, corn stover and switchgrass
Sudhagar Mania , Lope G. Tabila;∗ , Shahab Sokhansanjb
a Department of Agricultural and Bioresource Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, 57 Campus Drive,
Saskatoon, Canada SK S7N 5A9
b Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of British Columbia, 2216 Main Mall,

Vancouver, Canada BC V6T 1Z4

Received 12 May 2003; received in revised form 23 March 2004; accepted 23 March 2004

Abstract

Wheat and barley straws, corn stover and switchgrass at two moisture contents were ground using a hammer mill with
three di.erent screen sizes (3.2, 1.6 and 0:8 mm). Energy required for grinding these materials was measured. Among the
four materials, switchgrass had the highest speci5c energy consumption (27:6 kW h t−1 ), and corn stover had the least
speci5c energy consumption (11:0 kW h t −1 ) at 3:2 mm screen size. Physical properties of grinds such as moisture content,
geometric mean diameter of grind particles, particle size distribution, and bulk and particle densities were determined. Second-
or third-order polynomial models were developed relating bulk and particle densities of grinds to geometric mean diameter
within the range of 0.18–1:43 mm. Switchgrass had the highest calori5c value and the lowest ash content among the biomass
species tested.
? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Size reduction; Comminution; Agricultural crop residues; Energy crops; Speci5c energy consumption

1. Introduction potential biomass for energy production. Utilization

Corn (Zea mays L.) stover and wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.) straw are the most abundant 5eld
crop residues in the US, roughly 96% of total 5eld
crop residue [1]. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum
L.) is viewed as a major future energy crop in
the US. Large acreage under production in Canada
makes barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat straws
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-306-966-5317; fax: +1-306-
966-5334.
E-mail address: lope.tabil@usask.ca (L.G. Tabil).
of these crop residues as an energy source will serve
to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, thereby reduc-
ing the emission of greenhouse gases to the environ-
ment. Biomass stores energy during the process of
photosynthesis. This energy (renewable) can be re-
covered by the combustion process or by conversion
into usable form such as ethanol, bio-oils, or producer
gases.
Size reduction is an important pretreatment of
biomass for energy conversion. Size reduction is
also crucial to the densi5cation process. For ex-
ample, in the production of fuel pellets and bri-
quettes, the feedstock has to be ground before being

0961-9534/$ - see front matter ? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.03.007
340 S. Mani et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352
transformed into a denser product. Particle size re-
duction increases the total surface area, pore size of
the material and the number of contact points for
inter-particle bonding in the compaction process [2].
Pretreatment of biomass feedstock such as milling,
pulping and steaming increases pore size and re-
duces cellulose crystallinity, which is required for
bioconversion of lignocellulosic feedstock [3,4]. Size
reduction of lignocellulosic biomass is also necessary
to eliminate mass and heat transfer limitations during
the hydrolysis reactions [5]. In the forage industry, the
hammer mill is widely used for grinding alfalfa chops
to produce pellets. Hammer mills are relatively cheap,
easy to operate and produce wide range of particles
[6]. Energy consumption of grinding biomass depends
on initial particle size, moisture content, material
properties, feed rate of the material and machine vari-
ables. The performance of a hammer mill is measured
in terms of energy consumption and geometric mean
diameter and particle size distribution of the ground
product. Geometric mean diameter and particle size
distribution of biomass grinds are important factors
that a.ect the binding characteristics for densi5cation
and are useful information in the design of pneumatic
conveyors and cyclones. Arthur et al. [7] investigated
the performance of tub grinder with crop and forest
residues to evaluate their potential use in a biomass
energy conversion system. A hammer mill was used in
studies [8–12] on grinding of forage crops, grains and
biomass materials to produce densi5ed masses and
hydrolysis of lignocelluloses. Balk [13] studied the
speci5c energy requirement of hammer mill for grind-
ing coastal Bermuda grass. He related the speci5c
energy requirement with moisture content and feed
rate of the material. Von Bargen et al. [14] reported
that the corn residues used more energy among three
crop residues tested viz. wheat straw, corn residues
and grain sorghum residues at a hammer mill periph-
eral speed of 15:8 m s−1 . They also found that grain
sorghum residues required the least speci5c energy.
The performance of the hammer mill for grinding
corn and grain sorghum was studied by Martin and
Behnke [15]. They concluded that high power was
consumed for 5ne grinding and it was only suitable
for making high-quality pellets. Datta [3] reported
that coarse size reduction (0.2–0:6 mm) of hardwood
chips required 20–40 kW h t −1 , whereas size reduc-
tion to 0.15–0:3 mm required 100–200 kW h t −1 of
grinding energy. However, he did not report the mois-
ture content of the feedstock, type of mill and particle
size distributions. Samson et al. [12] reported a spe-
ci5c energy of 44:9 kW h t −1 , when a hammer mill
with screen size of 5:6 mm was used to grind switch-
grass. Schell and Harwood [5] studied the energy
requirement for milling of lignocellulosic biomass
and concluded that hammer milling used less energy
than disk milling. A study of grinding switchgrass at
10–12% wet basis (wb) moisture content in a ham-
mer mill was reported by Jannasch et al. [16]. They
reported a speci5c energy of 55:9 kW h t −1 for both
5.6 and 2:8 mm screen sizes. The reason may be due
to the usage of commercial hammer mill (112 kW)
and initial chop size of the sample used.
Moisture content, bulk density, true density and
particle size and shape of biomass particles after
grinding are important for downstream processing.
Ebeling and Jenkins [17] determined the heating
value and performed fuel proximate analysis for 62
kinds of biomass. Combustion characteristics of pel-
leted switchgrass were studied by Samson et al. [12].
They compared the combustion quality of switchgrass
pellets with coal and natural gas. They reported that
carbon dioxide emission from switchgrass pellet was
very much lower than the fossil fuel.
The objective of this research was to measure and
compare some of the handling-related physical prop-
erties of biomass with respect to grinding and parti-
cle size. A pilot-scale hammer mill was used to grind
wheat and barley straws, corn stover and switchgrass.
The physical properties measured were moisture con-
tent, particle size, bulk and particle densities, speci5c
energy for grinding and fuel properties.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Crop residues
Wheat and barley straws in square bales were
obtained from an experimental farm near Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada. The bales were of standard
dimension of 1:00 × 0:45 × 0:35 m with moisture
content of 8.3% (wb) for wheat and 6.9% (wb) for
barley. Corn stover was collected in the form of
whole plant without cobs from a sweet corn variety
grown in Saskatoon with moisture content of 6.2%
 S. Mani et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352
(wb). Switchgrass var ‘Path5nder’ was received at
5.2% (wb) moisture content from Resource EKcient
Agricultural Production (REAP), Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
2.2. Chop size
The corn stover and switchgrass were chopped man-
ually to the size equivalent of the output from a tub
grinder (25–50 mm) and the chop size was deter-
mined using a chopped forage size analyzer speci5ed
in ASAE Standard S424.1 MAR 98 [18]. A sample
of 4 l cut biomass was taken and fed into the top
screen of the screen shaker. The material was screened
for 5 min and the mass retained on each screen was
weighed to determine the geometric mean size of the
chopped material.
2.3. Conditioning of biomass
Conditioning the materials to the required moisture
content was done by spraying water uniformly into
the chopped material. The wetted material was placed
in a plastic bag and stored in a room at 22◦ C for 72 h
for moisture equilibration prior to grinding.
2.4. Grinding test apparatus
Fig. 1 is a schematic diagram of the hammer mill
used for grinding biomass in this work. Hammer mills
reduce particle size of solid materials by shear and
impact action. The hammer mill used in this study
consisted of 22 swinging hammers, attached to a shaft
powered by a 1:5 kW electric motor. The shaft ro-
tated at a speed of 60 r s−1 . Perforated metal screens
covering the discharge opening of the mill-retained
coarse materials for further grinding while allow-
ing the properly sized materials to pass as 5nished
product. To avoid dust generation during grinding,
the ground product was collected through the ground
material collection system, which consisted of a cy-
clone with an air-lock, an exhaust fan and a ducting
assembly (Fig. 1).
The power drawn by the hammer mill motor was
measured using a wattmeter (Ohio Semitronics In-
ternational, OH). The meter was connected to the
data logging system (LABMATE Data Acquisition
and Control System, Sciemetric Instruments, ON).
341
The data logger was connected to a desktop computer
where the time-power data was stored.
Three hammer mill screen sizes, 3.2, 1.6 and
0:8 mm were used in grinding the biomass. To start
grinding, the exhaust fan was switched on followed
by the air-lock delivery system (star wheel) of the
ground material collection system. The hammer mill
was started. A known quantity of straw was manually
fed into the hammer mill and the time required to
grind the straw was recorded along with the power
drawn by the hammer mill motor which was recorded
every 6 s. The power required to run the hammer
mill empty was measured before the material was
introduced. This allowed determining the net power
required to grind the material. The speci5c energy
required for grinding was determined by integrating
the area under the power demand curve for the total
time required to grind the sample [13]. Each test was
repeated three times.
2.5. Particle size analysis
A sample grind of 100 g was placed in a stack
of sieves arranged from the largest to the smallest
opening. The sieve series selected were based on the
range of particles in the sample. For the grinds from
3:2 mm hammer mill screen opening, Canadian se-
ries sieve numbers 10, 14, 16, 18, 20, 30, 40, 50, 70,
100, 140 and 200 (sieve sizes: 2.0, 1.4, 1.2, 1.0, 0.85,
0.59, 0.43, 0.30, 0.21, 0.15, 0.11 and 0:08 mm, respec-
tively) were used. For grinds from 1:6 mm hammer
mill screen opening, the sieve numbers used were 20,
30, 40, 50, 70 and 100 (0.85, 0.59, 0.43, 0.30, 0.21
and 0:15 mm, respectively). For the 5ne grinds from
0:8 mm hammer mill screen opening, the sieve num-
bers used were 30, 40, 50, 70, 100, and 140 (0.59,
0.43, 0.30, 0.21, 0.15 and 0:11 mm, respectively).
The set of sieves was placed on the Ro-Tap sieve
shaker (Tyler Industrial Products, OH). The duration
of sieving was 10 min, which was previously deter-
mined through trials to be optimal. This time duration
was suKcient for straw grinds, because of their Ou.y
and 5brous nature. After sieving, the mass retained on
each sieve was weighed. Sieve analysis was repeated
three times for each ground sample. The particle size
was determined according to ANSI/ASAE standard
S319.3 JUL 97 [19]. The geometric mean diameter
(dgw ) of the sample and geometric standard deviation
342 S. Mani et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352
Data flow
Chopped Biomass
Control
box
Power supply
Swinging
Hammers
Hammer mill
Data logger
Screen
Computer gro
Fig. 1. Complete Oow chart for grinding test.
of particle diameter (Sgw ) were calculated according
to the aforementioned standard.
2.6. Moisture content
Moisture content of a sample was determined ac-
cording to ASAE standard S358.2 DEC 98 for forages
[20]. A sample of 25 g was oven dried for 24 h at
105 ± 3◦ C. The moisture content was reported in
percent wet basis (wb). The moisture content of the
grinds was determined as per the procedure given
in ASTM Standard D 3173-87 for coal and coke
[21]. One gram of pulverized sample passing through
sieve number 60 was taken and oven dried for 1 h at
104–110◦ C. The moisture content of the grind was
determined by weighing and expressed in percent wet
basis.
2.7. Bulk density and particle density of grinds
The ground samples were sieved using the Ro-Tap
sieve shaker and separated according to the sieve num-
ber in order to assess the e.ect of grind particle size on
bulk and particle densities. The sieves used in this test
were sieve numbers 16, 20, 30, 40, 50, 70 and 100 (1.2,
0.85, 0.59, 0.43, 0.3, 0.21 and 0:15 mm, respectively).
The materials retained on each sieve were collected.
Bulk density of ground samples was measured us-
ing the grain bulk density apparatus. The grinds were
placed on the funnel and continuously dropped at the
Power supply
Exhaust fan
Power transducer
Cyclone
Motor
ss
ma
bio
und
Motor
Star wheel
Biomass grind
center of a 0:5 l steel cup. Since the grind was Ou.y
and did not Oow down readily through the funnel, it
was stirred using a wire in order to maintain a contin-
uous Oow of the material. The cup was leveled gen-
tly by a rubber-coated steel rod and weighed. Mass
per unit volume gave the bulk density of the grinds in
kg m−3 .
Particle density of the grind was measured using
a gas multipycnometer (Quantachrome Corporation,
FL) by measuring the pressure di.erence when a
known quantity of nitrogen under pressure is allowed
to Oow from a previously known reference volume
(VR ) into a sample cell (Vc ) containing the ground
material. The true volume of the sample (Vp ) was
calculated from Eq. (1). The particle density of the
sample is its mass divided by Vp and was expressed
in Mg m−3 . Each bulk and particle measurement was
repeated 5ve times on the same sample.


P1
Vp = Vc − VR −1 ; (1)
P2
where Vp is the volume of ground biomass (m3 ),
Vc the volume of sample cell (m3 ), VR the reference
volume (m3 ), P1 the pressure reading after pressuriz-
ing the reference volume (Pa), P2 the pressure after
including Vc (Pa).
2.8. Heating value and ash content
The calori5c value of the grind was measured
using an adiabatic oxygen bomb calorimeter (Parr
 S. Mani et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352
Instrument Company, IL) using the procedure of
ASTM D2015-96, standard method for gross calori5c
value of coal and coke by the adiabatic bomb calorime-
ter [22]. Initially, the calorimeter was calibrated with
benzoic acid tablets. Approximately 1:00 g of grind,
which passed through sieve number 60 was placed in
a nickel crucible and 5red inside the bomb calorime-
ter using an ignition wire in the presence of oxygen.
The calori5c value of the sample was expressed in
MJ kg−1 . The measurements were repeated three
times.
The ash content of the samples was determined
based on ASTM standard D 3174-97 for coal and
coke [23]. One gram of grind passing through sieve
number 60 was placed in a porcelain crucible. The
crucible was placed inside a muQe furnace (Blue M
Electric Company, IL). The temperature of the fur-
nace was increased to between 450◦ C and 500◦ C for
the 5rst hour and again increased to between 700◦ C
and 750◦ C for the second hour. For 2 h, the same
temperature was maintained. After 4 h from the start
of furnace, the crucibles were covered, removed from
the furnace and cooled to room temperature in a glass
desiccator. The mass retained in the crucible was
expressed as percent ash content. The ash content
measurements were repeated three times.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Energy requirement for grinding
Table 1 lists the average speci5c energy consump-
tion for grinding selected biomass using the hammer
mill with three di.erent screen sizes at two mois-
ture contents. The speci5c energy consumption for
grinding wheat straw with the hammer mill screen
sizes of 0.8, 1.6 and 3:2 mm were 51.6, 37.0 and
11:4 kW h t−1 , respectively, at 8.30% (wb) moisture
content. Energy consumption to reduce corn stover
to particle sizes 3.2, 1.6 and 0.8 was 7.0, 14.8 and
22:0 kW h t−1 , respectively. The speci5c energy con-
sumption for wheat straw and corn stover was similar
to the results reported by Cadoche and Lopez [24].
Cadoche and Lopez [24] tested a knife and hammer
mill for milling hardwood chips, wheat straw and corn
stover at 4–7% moisture content. The results were also
comparable with the work of Himmel et al. [25]. They
343
milled wheat straw at 4% moisture content and corn
stover at 7% moisture content.
Fig. 2 represents the speci5c energy requirement
for grinding biomass as a function of screen size at
moisture content of 8% (wb) or lower. The smaller
the screen size, the higher is the speci5c energy for
grinding biomass samples. In other words, 5ne grind-
ing requires high speci5c energy.
Fig. 3 shows the relationship between the speci5c
energy requirement of biomass residues and hammer
mill screen sizes at 12% (wb) moisture content. Corn
stover used the least speci5c energy of 11 kW h t −1
with hammer mill screen size of 3:2 mm at 12% mois-
ture content. It was expected that corn stover would
consume less energy due to its lower 5ber content
and the presence of more spongy vascular tissues in
the stem. At high moisture, barley straw grind used
the highest energy of 99:5 kW h t −1 with the screen
size of 0:8 mm. The high energy consumption may
be caused by the larger mean chop size of the barley
feed. The geometric mean chop size of switchgrass
(7:15 mm) was the least among the biomass tested
and consumed the higher speci5c energy due to the
5brous nature of switchgrass. The data did not show
much di.erence in the speci5c energy requirement for
switchgrass as observed at both moisture levels ex-
cept for the largest screen size (3:2 mm). Among the
four materials studied, switchgrass used the highest
speci5c energy to grind in all hammer mill screen
sizes, whereas corn stover required the least speci5c
energy.
A regression analysis was performed to predict the
speci5c energy requirement for grinding of biomass
using the hammer mill screen sizes ranging between
3.2 and 0:8 mm. At low moisture content (less than
8%), a simple linear model 5tted well with the ex-
perimental data (Fig. 2) for all biomass samples with
coeKcient of determination (R2 ) values ranging from
0.96 to 0.99. At higher moisture content (12%), a
second-order regression model 5tted well for wheat
straw, corn stover and switchgrass (Fig. 3) with higher
R2 values. The 95% con5dence bounds (dotted lines)
for the regression models (solid lines) showed the
statistical signi5cance of the developed models. In
Figs. 2 and 3, some experimental data points were lo-
cated outside the 95% con5dence region. Although R2
values for the models were high, the predicted results
from model may not be precise in that region.
344 S. Mani et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352

Table 1
Speci5c energy requirement for grinding of biomass residues and switchgrass using hammer mill

Material Moisture content Geometric Hammer mill Average speci5c

(% wb) mean chop screen opening energy
size (mm) (mm) consumption
(kW h t −1 )

Wheat straw 8.3 7.67 0.8 51.55 (2.93)a

8.3 1.6 37.01 (6.65)
8.3 3.2 11.36 (1.02)
12.1 0.8 45.32 (0.98)
12.1 1.6 43.56 (1.80)
12.1 3.2 24.66 (1.82)

Barley straw 6.9 20.52 0.8 53.00 (2.66)

6.9 1.6 37.91 (4.51)
6.9 3.2 13.79 (0.18)
12.0 0.8 99.49 (7.35)
12.0 1.6 27.09 (1.59)
12.0 3.2 N/Ab

Corn stover 6.2 12.48 0.8 22.07 (0.32)

6.2 1.6 14.79 (0.54)
6.2 3.2 6.96 (0.75)
12.0 0.8 34.30 (1.47)
12.0 1.6 19.84 (3.47)
12.0 3.2 11.04 (0.97)

Switchgrass 8.0 7.15 0.8 62.55 (0.63)

8.0 1.6 51.76 (0.96)
8.0 3.2 23.84 (0.63)
12.0 0.8 56.57 (1.91)
12.0 1.6 58.47 (1.86)
12.0 3.2 27.63 (1.07)
a Number enclosed in parenthesis are standard deviations for n = 3.
b Data not available.

From Figs. 2 and 3, it can be observed that the ham-
mer mill screen size was negatively correlated with
speci5c energy consumption. Therefore, the larger the
hammer mill screen size, the lower was the speci5c
energy consumption. This is in agreement with the
results for alfalfa stem grinding reported by Sitkei
[26]. He reported a second-order polynomial relation-
ship between the speci5c energy requirement and the
mean particle size for alfalfa stems with a R2 value of
0.99. Similarly, Holtzapple et al. [27] reported the re-
lationship for grinding energy with the length of wood
cubes. They also concluded that grinding energy in-
creased greatly as the particle size is reduced.
Moisture is also an important factor to be consid-
ered during hammer milling of biomass. Moisture
content had a positive correlation with speci5c energy
consumption of the four biomass tested. The higher
the moisture content, the higher was the speci5c en-
ergy consumption. It can be explained by the fact
that an increase in moisture content of straw samples
would increase the shear strength of the material, al-
though shear strength decreases with decomposition
of straw samples [28]. Therefore, biomass demands
more speci5c energy to hammer mill at high moisture
content. This result agrees with the results reported by
Balk [13]. He reported that for alfalfa grinding, mois-
ture content had a positive correlation with speci5c
energy consumption. Schell and Harwood [5] stud-
ied the milling performance of hammer mill, disc
mill and shedder to mill wood chips at about 60%
 S. Mani et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352 345

Switchgrass
70 E= -16.45S + 76.52
R2 = 0.99
Specific energy consumption, E (kW h t-1) 60 Barley straw
E= -16.30S + 65.08
R2 = 0.97
50
Wheat straw
E = -16.78S + 64.38
40 R2 = 0.96

30

20

Corn stover
10 E= -6.14S + 25.99
R2 = 0.97
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Hammer mill screen size, S (mm)

Fig. 2. Speci5c energy requirement for grinding of selected biomass at 8% (wb) moisture content or lower. E = speci5c energy requirement,
kW h t−1 ; S = hammer mill screen size, mm.

Wheat straw
70 E = -4.07S2 + 7.48S + 41.95
R2 = 0.98
Specific energy consumption, E (kW h t-1)

Switchgrass
60
E = -9.16S2 + 24.22S + 43.12
R2 = 0.99
50

40

30

20

Corn stover
10 2
E = 5.31S - 30.86S + 55.45
2
R = 0.96
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Hammer mill screen size, S (mm)

Fig. 3. Speci5c energy requirement for grinding of selected biomass at 12% (wb) moisture content. E = speci5c energy requirement,
kW h t−1 ; S = hammer mill screen size, mm.

moisture and switchgrass and paper wastes at 10% switchgrass. This was twice higher than the energy
moisture content. They reported that dry wood chips required for switchgrass in this study. The reason
are easier to dry than wet wood chips. Jannasch et al. may be due to the usage of commercial hammer mill
[16] reported a speci5c energy of 55:9 kW h t −1 for (112 kW), feed rate and initial chop size of the sample
the hammer mill screen sizes of 5.6 and 2:8 mm for used.
346 S. Mani et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352

25
3.2 mm screen size
1.6 mm screen size
Percent mass retained (%) 20 0.8 mm screen size

15

10

0
00

70

40

19

00

85

59

43

30

21

15

13

11

09
2.

1.

1.

1.

1.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
Nominal sieve size (mm)

Fig. 4. Typical particle size distribution of wheat straw grinds at various screen sizes.

3.2. Physical properties of biomass grinds size distribution with more 5nes is suitable for enzy-
matic hydrolysis of lignocelluloses due to the genera-
Fig. 4 shows a typical particle size distribution of tion of more surface area and pore spaces during 5ne
wheat grind from three di.erent hammer mill screen grinding. But 5ne grinding of biomass requires high
sizes. The graph depicts the skewness of the distribu- energy [25]. Information on particle size distribution
tion for wheat straw at 3:2 mm screen size, which was requirement for various conversion processes is
similarly reported for alfalfa grinds [29], wheat straw, not available. An ideal particle size distribution
and corn stover [25]. The grinds from screen size of remains to be determined for each bioconversion
3:2 mm had a large size distribution with a geometric process.
mean particle diameter of 0:64 mm for wheat straw For the same hammer mill screen size, the geomet-
grind and 0:69 mm for barley straw grind. The geo- ric mean particle diameter of wheat straw grind was
metric mean diameter for corn stover and switchgrass slightly smaller than that of barley straw grind. This
grinds was 0.41 and 0:46 mm, respectively; which might be due to the di.erence in mechanical properties
were 5ner than wheat and barley straw grinds. Grinds of wheat and barley straws. Grinds from corn stover
from the hammer mill screen size of 1.6 and 0:8 mm were the 5nest among the biomass tested. Corn stover
were distributed in narrow range (Fig. 4) and pro- had the lowest moisture content among the materials
duced particles with geometric mean particle diameter used. It was observed that corn stover was easier to
of 0.34 and 0:28 mm, respectively, for wheat straw grind than the other biomass.
grinds and 0.38 and 0:32 mm, respectively, for barley Geometric mean particle diameter, bulk and parti-
straw grinds. Similar results were also observed for cle densities of biomass grinds from di.erent hammer
corn stover and switchgrass grinds. Wider particle mill screen sizes are given in Table 2. The larger the
size distribution is suitable for compaction (pelleting screen openings, the lower were the bulk and par-
or briquetting) process. During compaction, smaller ticle densities. Grinds from the smallest screen size
(5ne) particles rearrange and 5ll in the void space of (0:8 mm) produced higher bulk and particle densi-
larger (coarse) particles producing denser and durable ties of 121 kg m−3 and 1:34 Mg m−3 , respectively
compacts [30,31]. Coarse particles are also suitable for wheat straw and 112 kg m−3 , and 1:25 Mg m−3 ,
feed for boilers and gasi5ers. Narrow range particle respectively for barley straw. Bulk and particle
 S. Mani et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352 347

Table 2
Physical properties of biomass grinds

Biomass Moisture Hammer Geometric Geometric Bulk density Particle density

grinds content mill screen mean standard (kg m−3 ) (Mg m−3 )
(% wb) size (mm) particle deviation
diameter (mm)
(mm)

Wheat straw 8.30 3.2 0.64 0.31 97 (1)a 1.03

1.6 0.34 0.20 107 (1) 1.26
0.8 0.28 0.20 121 (1) 1.34

Barley straw 6.98 3.2 0.69 0.36 81 (1) 0.89

1.6 0.38 0.22 101 (1) 1.18
0.8 0.32 0.22 112 (1) 1.25

Corn stover 6.22 3.2 0.41 0.26 131 (2) 1.17

1.6 0.26 0.45 156 (2) 1.33
0.8 0.19 0.31 158 (2) 1.34

Switchgrass 8.00 3.2 0.46 0.26 115 (1) 0.95

1.6 0.28 0.39 156 (2) 1.14
0.8 0.25 0.44 182 (1) 1.17
a Number enclosed in parenthesis are standard deviations for n = 5.

densities of wheat straw grind were slightly higher
than that of barley straw grind. Switchgrass grind
had the highest bulk density of 182 kg m−3 when
passed through hammer mill screen size of 0:8 mm.
Among the four biomass grinds, corn stover grinds
had the highest bulk and particle densities due to
the smallest geometric mean particle diameter of
the grind from the hammer mill screen sizes of 3.2
and 1:6 mm.
3.3. E<ect of geometric mean particle diameter of
grinds on bulk and particle densities
The e.ect of geometric mean diameter of grinds on
bulk and particle densities is presented in Figs. 5 and
6. It was observed that the larger the geometric mean
particle diameter of the grinds, the lower were the
bulk and particle densities. For example, the bulk den-
sity of wheat straw grind increased from 77 kg m−3
at geometric mean particle diameter of 1:43 mm to
115 kg m−3 at geometric mean particle diameter of
0:25 mm. Because of the bulky nature of the larger
grind particles, they occupied more pore volume than
smaller particles. So the smaller particles had higher
bulk density up to a certain particle diameter. At par-
ticle diameter 0:18 mm, bulk density of wheat straw
grind slightly decreased to 104 kg m−3 , because at
very 5ne grind particle size, particles tend to repel,
thus creating more void space and lowering the bulk
density. In the case of particle density of wheat straw
grind, it started to increase from 0:92 Mg m−3 at a
particle mean diameter of 1:43 mm to 1:41 Mg m−3
at a particle diameter of 0:18 mm, because larger par-
ticles have more void spaces. Porosity within the grind
particle is reduced further when the grind particle size
is reduced [32].
The bulk and particle densities of barley grind be-
haved similarly to the wheat straw grinds. Bulk and
particle densities of wheat straw grinds were slightly
higher than that of barley straw grind. From Fig. 5,
it can be said that corn stover grinds had the high-
est bulk density of 153 kg m−3 at a geometric mean
diameter of 0:36 mm. At geometric mean diameter
of 0:75 mm, both corn stover and switchgrass grinds
had a bulk density of 105 kg m−3 . A single factor
analysis of variance (ANOVA) test on bulk den-
sity data showed that no signi5cant di.erence
(p ¡ 0:05) was observed between corn stover and
348 S. Mani et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352

160
Wheat straw
Barley straw
Corn stover
Switchgrass
Bulk density, ρb (kg m-3)

120

80

40
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Geometric mean particle diameter, d (mm)

Fig. 5. E.ect of geometric mean particle diameter on bulk density of biomass grinds.

1.5 Wheat straw

Barley straw
Corn stover
1.3 Switchgrass
Particle density, ρp (Mg m-3)

1.1

0.9

0.7

0.5
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
Geometric mean particle diameter, d (mm)

Fig. 6. E.ect of geometric mean particle diameter on particle density of biomass grinds

switchgrass bulk density data. But this was not true It can be observed from the Fig. 6 that switchgrass
for the bulk density data of wheat and barley straw grind had the lowest particle density of 0:85 Mg m−3
grinds. at 1:01 mm geometric mean diameter. The highest
 S. Mani et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352 349

Table 3
Relationship between geometric mean particle size and bulk and particle densities of biomass grinds

Biomass grind Model Particle ranges (mm) R2

Wheat straw b = 14:52d3 − 21:41d2 − 24:98d + 114:51 0:18 ¡ d ¡ 1:43 0.88

p = 0:41d2 − 1:07d + 1:61 0:18 ¡ d ¡ 1:43 0.99

Barley straw b = 13:11d3 − 12:51d2 − 40:49d + 108:1 0:18 ¡ d ¡ 1:43 0.97

p = 0:58d3 − 1:17d2 + 0:11d + 1:33 0:18 ¡ d ¡ 1:43 0.99

Corn stover b = 552:02d3 − 1031:4d2 + 501:94d + 75:68 0:25 ¡ d ¡ 1:01 0.99

p = 0:26d2 − 0:91d + 1:57 0:18 ¡ d ¡ 1:01 0.99

Switchgrass b = 149:44d2 − 218:15d + 184:38 0:18 ¡ d ¡ 1:01 0.99

p = 0:26d3 + 0:14d2 − 0:94d + 1:39 0:18 ¡ d ¡ 1:01 0.99

b = bulk density (kg m−3 ).

p = particle density (Mg m−3 ).
d = geometric mean diameter (mm).

particle density of 1:43 mg m−3 was observed for
corn stover grinds at 0:18 mm geometric mean di-
ameter. A single factor ANOVA test for particle
density data showed that there was no signi5cant
di.erence between the particle density data of wheat
and barley straw grinds. But there was a signi5cant
di.erence between the particle density data for corn
stover and switchgrass grinds at 95% con5dence
level.
Table 3 lists the polynomial relationships between
densities and particle size of biomass grinds. For
bulk density of wheat straw grinds, a third-order
polynomial model was developed with respect to
the geometric mean particle diameter of the grind
with coeKcient of multiple determination (R2 )
value of 0.88. A similar relationship was obtained
for particle density and the particle diameter of
wheat straw grinds with R2 value of 0.99. A third-order
polynomial model was developed for barley straw
grinds to relate the bulk and particle densities with
geometric mean diameter, with R2 values of 0.97 and
0.99, respectively. In the case of corn stover grinds,
the third-order polynomial model for bulk and particle
densities also 5tted well with R2 values of 0.99 and
0.99, respectively. For switchgrass, a second-order
polynomial model 5tted the data well with R2 val-
ues of 0.99 for both bulk and particle densities. The
best 5t was selected based on the lower sum of
square error (SSE) and higher R2 value of the model.
To further con5rm the 5tness of the data, ANOVA
test was performed for each regression model us-
ing the average values of bulk and particle densities
data. Tables 4 and 5 show the ANOVA test result
for both bulk and particle densities model. All the

Table 4
ANOVA test results for the regression models of bulk density data

Source Wheat straw Barley straw Corn stover Switchgrass

dfa SSb df SS df SS df SS

Total 6 1044 6 1308 4 1997 5 1477

Model (regression) 3 919ns 3 1271 3 1992 2 1473
Error 3 125 3 37 1 5 3 4
ns Notsigni5cant.
a Degrees of freedom (df).
b Sum of squares (SS).
350 S. Mani et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352

Table 5
ANOVA test results for the regression models of particle density data

Source Wheat straw Barley straw Corn stover Switchgrass

dfa SSb df SS df SS df SS

Total 6 0.243 6 0.276 5 0.185 5 0.116

Model (regression) 2 0.241 3 0.275 2 0.184 3 0.115
Error 4 0.002 3 0.001 3 0.001 2 0.001
a Degrees of freedom (df).
b Sum of squares (SS).

Table 6
Heating value and ash content of selected biomass

Material Moisture content (% wb)a Heating value (MJ kg−1 )b Ash content (%)c

Wheat straw 6.16 (0.09) 16.81 (0.02) 8.32 (0.06)

Barley straw 7.11 (0.16) 16.12 (0.02) 10.72 (0.05)
Corn stover 9.41 (0.25) 16.18 (0.05) 7.46 (0.02)
Switchgrass 5.64 (0.27) 17.61 (0.01) 5.49 (0.01)
an = 5.
bn = 3.
c n = 3.

Numbers enclosed in parenthesis are standard deviations.

regression models were statistically signi5cant
(p ¡ 0:05) except the bulk density model for wheat
straw grind.
3.4. Heating value and ash content
Table 6 lists the heating values and ash contents
of biomass grinds. The heating values of barley straw
and corn stover grinds were lower than that of wheat
straw and switchgrass grinds. The reason for the low
heating value of barley straw and corn stover grind
might be due to the slightly higher percentage of ash
in these materials; whereas, the ash content of switch-
grass grind was the lowest. Similar results were ob-
tained by Ebeling and Jenkins [17] for wheat and bar-
ley straws.
4. Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from this
study on the selected biomass residues:
1. Corn stover consumed the least speci5c energy dur-
ing hammer mill grinding of all biomass tested.
Switchgrass used the highest speci5c energy re-
quirement for grinding at both moisture levels and
all screen sizes due to the 5brous nature of the
material.
2. The relationship between the geometric mean par-
ticle diameter of straw grinds and bulk and particle
densities was developed in the form of second- and
third-order polynomial models.
3. The heating value of switchgrass was the highest
and ash content was the lowest among four biomass
used in this study.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
of Canada for providing 5nancial support of this re-
search work, the Canada—Saskatchewan Agri-Food
Innovation Fund (AFIF) for renovation of our lab, and
Resource EKcient Agricultural Production (REAP),
Canada for providing the switchgrass sample. The
Strategic Research Program (SRP) of Agriculture De-
velopment Fund (ADF), Saskatchewan Agriculture,
 S. Mani et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352
Food and Rural Revitalization is also acknowledged
for providing 5nancial support to conduct this study.
The authors would like to acknowledge Bill Crerar for
technical advice.
References
[1] Little AD. Aggressive growth in the use of bioderived
energy and products in the United States by 2010. Final
Report. www.adltechnology.com; 2002, accessed on March,
2002.
[2] Drzymala Z. Industrial briquetting—fundamentals and
methods. Studies in mechanical engineering, Vol. 13.
Warszawa: PWN-Polish Scienti5c Publishers; 1993.
[3] Datta R. Energy requirement for lignocellulose pretreatment
processes. Process Biochemistry 1981;16:16–19,42.
[4] Mandels M, Hontz L, Nystrom J. Enzymatic hydrolysis
of waste cellulose. Biotechnology and Bioengineering
1974;16:1471–93.
[5] Schell DJ, Harwood C. Milling of lignocellulosic biomass:
results of pilot-scale testing. Applied Biochemistry and
Biotechnology 1994;45/46:159–68.
[6] Lopo P. The right grinding solution for you: roll, horizontal
or vertical. Feed Management 2002;53(3):23–6.
[7] Arthur JF, Kepner RA, Dobie JB, Miller GE, Parsons PS.
Tub grinder performance with crop and forest residues.
Transactions of ASAE 1982;25(6):1488–94.
[8] Rypma JA. What the European feed manufacturer requires
in particle reduction equipment and systems. In: Proceedings
First International Symposium on Particle Size Reduction in
the Feed Industry, Vol. B-11. Manhattan, KS, USA: Kansas
State University; 1983.
[9] Hill B, Pulkinen DA. A study of the factors a.ecting
pellet durability and pelleting eKciency in the production
of dehydrated alfalfa pellets. A special report. Tisdale,
SK, Canada: Saskatchewan Dehydrators Association;
1988.
[10] Grover PD, Mishra SK. Biomass briquetting: technology
and practices. Regional wood energy development program
in Asia, 5eld document No. 46. Bangkok, Thailand:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;
1996.
[11] Vigneault C, Rothwell TM, Bourgeois G. Hammer mill
grinding rate and energy requirement for thin and
conventional hammers. Canadian Agricultural Engineering
1992;34(2):203–6.
[12] Samson P, Duxbury P, Drisdelle M, Lapointe C. Assessment
of pelletized biofuels. http://reap.ca/reports/pelletaug2000.
html; 2000 accessed on June 20, 2001.
[13] Balk WA. Energy requirements for dehydrating and pelleting
coastal Bermuda grass. Transactions of the ASAE 1964;4:
349–51,355.
[14] Von Bargen K, Lamb M, Neels DE. Energy requirements for
particle size reduction of crop residue. Paper no. 81-4062.
351
St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers;
1981.
[15] Martin S. Behnke K. Grinding eKciency and particle size
e.ects on feed manufacturing operations. ASAE paper no.
84-3524. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural
Engineers; 1984.
[16] Jannasch R, Quan Y, Samson R. A process and
energy analysis of pelletizing switchgrass. Final report.
Website: http://www.reap-canada.com/reports/pelletSG.htm;
2001, accessed on August 2002.
[17] Ebling JM, Jenkins BM. Physical and chemical properties
of biomass fuels. Transactions of the ASAE 1985;28(3):
898–902.
[18] ASAE Standards 47th ed. S424.1—Method of determining
and expressing particle size of chopped forage materials by
screening. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural
Engineers; 2001 p. 576–8.
[19] ASAE Standards 47th ed. S319.3—Method of determining
and expressing 5neness of feed materials by sieving. St.
Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers;
2001. p. 573–6.
[20] ASAE Standards 47th ed. S358.2—Moisture measurement-
forages. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural
Engineers; 2001. p. 579.
[21] ASTM Standard. ASTM Standards D 3173-87—Standard test
method for moisture in the analysis sample of coal and coke.
In: Annual book of ASTM standards, Section 5, Vol. 05.05.
West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and
Materials; 1998. p. 301–2.
[22] ASTM Standard. ASTM Standards D 2015-96—Standard
test method for gross calori5c value of coal and coke
by the adiabatic bomb calorimeter. In: Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, Section 5, Vol. 05.05. West Conshohocken,
PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1998.
p. 239–47.
[23] ASTM Standard. ASTM Standards D 3174-97—Standard test
method for ash in the analysis sample of coal and coke. In:
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 5, Vol. 05.05.
West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and
Materials; 1998. p. 303–5.
[24] Cadoche L, Lopez GD. Assessment of size reduction
as a preliminary step in the production of ethanol
from lignocellulosic wastes. Biological Wastes 1989;30:
153–7.
[25] Himmel M, Tucker M, Baker J, Rivard C, OH K, Grohmann
K. Comminution of biomass: hammer and knife mills.
Biotechnology and Bioengineering Symposium 1985;15:
39–58.
[26] Sitkei G. Mechanics of agricultural materials. Amsterdam:
Elsevier; 1986.
[27] Holtzapple MT, Humphrey AE, Taylor JD. Energy
requirements for the size reduction of poplar and aspen wood.
Biotechnology and Bioengineering 1989;33:207–10.
[28] Annoussamy M, Richard G, Recous S, Guerif J.
Change in mechanical properties of wheat straw due
to decomposition and moisture. Applied Engineering in
Agriculture 2000;16(6):657–64.
352 S. Mani et al. / Biomass and Bioenergy 27 (2004) 339 – 352

[29] Yang W, Sokhansanj S, Crerar WJ, Rohani S. Size and shape
related characteristics of alfalfa grind. Canadian Agricultural
Engineering 1996;38(3):201–5.
[30] Mani S, Tabil LG, Sokhansanj S. An overview of compaction
of biomass grinds. Powder Handling and Processing
2003;15(3):160–8.
[31] Tabil LG. Pelleting and binding characteristics of
alfalfa. Ph.D thesis. Department of Agricultural and
Bioresource Engineering, Saskatoon, SK Canada: University
of Saskatchewan; 1996, unpublished.
[32] Chung CS. Measuring density and porosity of grain kernels
using a gas pycnometer. Cereal Chemistry 1988;65(1):13–5.