DOE/B P--13 6 3

DE90 011838
 DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any
agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein
do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.
 DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in

electronic image products. Images are produced
from the best available original document.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................ 1

2.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Woody Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Municipal S o l i d Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.0 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF BIOMASS FUELS .... 7

3.1 Wood Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1 U l t i m a t e Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2 Proximate Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.3 Higher Heating Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.4 Moisture Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1.5 Bulk Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.1.6 P a r t i c l e S i z e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1.7 Durability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.8 S p e c i f i c Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.1.9 Ash Fusion Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.2 Municipal Sol i d Waste (MSW) and Refuse.Derived Fuels

(RDF) ........................ 32
3.2.1 Fuel C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , Higher Heating Value and
Moisture Content ............... 36
4..0 COMBUSTION OF BIOMASS FUELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1 Combustion Model and E f f i c i e n c y . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.2 Environmental Considerations ............ 45
4.3 Equipment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.3.1 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.4 Methods o f Combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.4.1 Excess A i r Grate Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.4.2 Modular Starved A i r Systems . . . . . . . . . 55
4.4.3 Fluidized-Bed Combustion . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.4.4 RDF C o f i r e d o r Used Alone i n E x i s t i n g B o i l e r s 57
4.5 Cofiring ......................... 57
 4.5.1 P o s i t i v e Aspects ... ............ 57
4.5.2 Technical F e a s i b i l i t y ............ 59
4.5.3 .
Economic F e a s i b i l i t y ............ 60
4.5.4 Negative Aspects ... ............ 62

5 . 0 EXPERIMENTAL COMBUSTION OF WOOD BIOMASS PELLETS . . . . .

I ’ .
65

5 . 1 Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . * *
.........>:?. 65

5.2 Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5 . 2 . 1 Optimal F i r i n g Conditions . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.2.2 M u l t i p l e Fuels Comparison . . . . . . . . . . 76
5 . 2 . 3 E f f e c t o f Preheated Combustion A i r . . . . . . 80

5 . 3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
 LIST OF FIGURES

F i qure Pase
1 Diagram o f t h e Sampling Rope Laid Out on t h e Waste . 6

2 ,H, o r t h e Adsorption Energy versus Moisture Content

(wet-basi s) .
Source [ 101 .............. 17

3 The E f f e c t o f Moisture on t h e Heating Value(s) o f Wood

Biomass. Based on Douglas F i r w i t h an Assumed Higher
Heating Val ue o f 8800 Btu/l bm ............ 18
4 The E f f e c t o f Moisture on t h e A d i a b a t i c Flame
Temperature o f Yellow Pine and Douglas F i r Wood . . . 21
5 Normalized Burning Rate ( R e a c t i v i t y ) f o r a Pine
Specimen a t D i f f e r e n t Moisture Contents ....... 23
6 T o t a l Burning Time as a Function o f Moisture Content
f o r 1.5 cm Pine Cubes ................ 23
7 P e l l e t Tumbler f o r D u r a b i l i t y Testing ........ 27
8 P e l l e t s Retained A f t e r Tumble and Sieve Experiments
Compared by Sample Number. ( P e l l e t content i s l i s t e d
i n Table 7.) .................... 28
9 Breakdown o f Fines A f t e r Tumble Sieve Experiments
Compared by Sample Number .............. 28
10 RDF Processing Flow Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
11 Composition o f MSW from Tacoma, Washington . . . . . 37
12 Schematic Representation o f a Fuel Bed and t h e Basic
Chemical Equations for t h e Combustion o f S o l i d Biomass
Fuel, i n c l u d i n g Composition and Temperature P l o t s .
Source [38] ..................... 43
13 Isothermal Corrosion Rates as a Function o f S u l f u r
A d d i t i o n t o Municipal S o l i d Waste. Source [4] . . . 52
14 S i m p l i f i e d Drawing o f t h e I n c l i n e d Stoker Grate . . . 54
15 S i m p l i f i e d Drawing o f a Rotary K i l n Combustor . . . . 55
16 Simp1 i f i e d Cross Section o f a Modul a r Starved A i r
Incinerator ..................... 56
17 Cutaway View o f t h e Biomass Combustion U n i t (BCU).
Shows Important Components I n c l udi ng : O v e r f i r e A i r
Tube, U n d e r f i r e A i r Port, Grate, Ceramic Refractory,
Exhaust Port, and P e l l e t Fuel Feed Mechanism . . . . 66
18 Schematic o f t h e E n t i r e Experimental F a c i l i t y .
Shows Flows o f I n l e t A i r , P e l l e t Fuel and Exhaust
Gases.. ...................... 67

19 Gas Parameters f o r P e l l e t (1) Scaled by t h e Largest

Value i n t h e Test Column. The Gas Parameters are
P l o t t e d as a Function o f UF% a t a Level o f 41.0%
Excess A i r (41.0 EA%) ................ 71

20 Level Curves o f C0,-Based E f f i c i e n c y as a Function o f

U n d e r f i r e A i r Percent a t D i f f e r e n t Excess A i r
Percents ...................... 74
21 C0,-Based E f f i c i e n c y Surface as a Function o f Excess
A i r Percent and U n d e r f i r e A i r Percent. This Represents
a Numerical Approxi mat ion o f t h e "True" Functional
R e l a t i o n s h i p and Uses 15 D i s c r e t e Data P o i n t s t o F i t
t h e Model ...................... 75

22 P l o t and Linear Regression L i n e f o r Carbon Dioxide

Based E f f i c i e n c y (C02EFF) versus Fuel Feed Rate (FFR)
f o r Experiment #2 .................. 79

23 Carbon Dioxide Based E f f i c i e n c y (COZEFF) versus Fuel

Code, f o r Cold and H o t Tests ............ 82
 LIST OF TABLES

Tab1 e Paqe
1 Ultimate Analysis Data for Selected Dry Fuels.
Sources [5,6,7,8] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 8
2 Ultimate Analyses for Pellets Coded (1-9) ...... 9
3 Proximate Analyses of Selected Dry Biomass Fuels.
Sources [9,12,13] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. 11
4 Proximate Analyses for Pellet Fuels (1-9) ...... 11
5 Higher Heating Value of Selected Biomass Fuels.
Sources [5,6,7,8] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 13
6 High and Low Range of Bulk Density for Selected
Biomass Fuel s. Sources [6,29] . . . . . . . . ... 25
Specificications for Pellets Tested for Durability . 27
Physical Analyses Data for Pellets (1-14) . . . . . . 30
Ash Fusion Temperatures for Selected Species of
Biomass Fuels. Sources [7,28,31] . . . . . . .
... 31
10 Ash Fusion Data for Fuels (1-9) ........... 31
11 Moisture Content, Percent by Weight, and Heating
Values for MSW as Received from Tacoma, Washington . 38
12 EPA Criteria and Non-Criteria Emission Species for
Wood Burning Devices. Source [38] ......... 47
13 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Source [41] 49
14 EP Toxicity Parameters and Current Maximum Allowable
Levels. Source [42] ................ 49
15 The Economics of Cofiring at Several Commercial Boiler
Sites. Source [29] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
16 Gas Property Values at Optimal Firing ........ 71
17 Fixed Parameters and Coding for Experiment #2 . . . . 77
18 Combustion Gas Data for Experiment #2. . . . . . . . 77
19 Combustion Gas Temperature and CO?-based Efficiency
Data for Cold and Hot Underfire Air Tests . . . . . . 81
 BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:
TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS

OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS

1.O INTRODUCTION

It is general knowledge that man has been using wood and other
forms of flammable organic material to produce heat energy since before
recorded history. Despite the length of time that man has had to study
the physical and chemical nature of these organic fuels, there are
considerable gaps in the pure and applied science of solid biomass'
fuel combustion.

One reason for the lack of biomass combustion knowledge is the

complexity of solid fuel combustion reactions in general. Another
reason for the lack of knowledge, is that by the time engineers and
scientists became adept enough to study the complex phenomena o f solid
combustion in general, the primary fuels of interest were coal, gas,
and oil (fossil fuels), not wood or municipal solid waste. This has
begun to change since the advent of the idea that nonrenewable energy
sources such as coal, oil, and nuclear fission, are not necessarily the
best ways to deal with future global energy needs. It has become
apparent that large, centralized, power producing facilities may n o t be
as ef.ficient at meeting consumer demands as smaller more regionally
designed power systems. This may be particularly true in certain cases
where inexpensive biomass fuel is available in large quantities. It is
also true that these same communities or regions are having difficulty

'For this report "biomass" is defined as any organic (carbon based)

fuel; including wood, agricultural residue, Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW), and Refuse Derived Fuel ("derived" from MSW by mechanical means
such as screens and air classifiers). It does not include fossil fuels
such as coal, oil, and natural gas. The properties of coal are used
many times in comparisons with biomass in this report because coal is
one of the most thoroughly understood solid fuels at present.
BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:
TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 1
disposing of their combustible waste streams, such as woody biomass or
MSW. This situation produces a consummate match o f raw material to
energy demand. This match is not perfect, woody biomass and MSW fuels
contain pitfalls such as the possibility of producing acid-rain,
reduced air qual i ty in general, and aiding the chemical degradation of
our atmosphere due to heat, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide emis-
sions.

The lack o f fuel quality characterization (and verifiable specifi-

cations) for biomass fuels is believed to be one factor inhibiting
their wider commercial acceptance. The valuable nature of biomass
fuels presents a range of potential problems for commercial and indus-
trial users, i .e., their energy value, combustion characteristics, fuel
feed and hand1 i ng requi rements, and envi ronmental considerations .

Disposal or use of clean and/or contaminated biomass materials is

an increasing concern from both a landfill perspective and potential
energy use application. There is increasing pressure to resolve the
disposal issue through the energy conversion option.

The current practice of landfilling as a method of dealing with

the 6.6 million tons of MSW that the Pacific Northwest and Alaska
produces each year [ l ] , is fast becoming obsolete due to the scarc tY
of available land. As the available area for landfilling dwindles the
cost of landfilling becomes more prohibitive. This cost is passed on
to the industrial and individual consumers in the form of higher
tipping fees.

An alternative to landfilling i s to reclaim the energy that i

contained with the waste and also reduce its volume. The heat that is
produced can be used to produce steam for heating or for electrical
generation. Large-scal e waste to energy power pl ants that are operat-
ing successfully legitimize the use of municipal and industrial solid
wastes as a significant source of energy.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

2 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 There a r e several forms i n which wood waste and MSW i s used as
fuel. Raw unprocessed rubbish/trash, e t c . i s known as municipal sol i d
waste. When t h e raw waste, o r MSW, i s processed t o remove t h e noncom-
b u s t i b l e s t h e end product becomes known as r e f u s e d e r i v e d f u e l (RDF).
I t i s important t o note t h a t t h e r e are v a r y i n g degrees t o which t h e RDF
can be processed. Currently, raw MSW, RDF pellets, RDF cubes, RDF
f l u f f and p e l l e t i z e d and n a t u r a l wood wastes are being s t u d i e d f o r
p o s s i b l e use as a f u e l source.

Unprocessed municipal sol i d waste i s c u r r e n t l y t h e most a v a i l a b l e

f u e l form. One advantage o f the use o f unprocessed MSW f u e l i s t h a t
t h e r e i s no front-end s o r t i n g o f m a t e r i a l p r i o r t o combustion. A
drawback o f MSW i s t h a t t h e r e are a l o t o f non-combustibles (glass,
metal, rocks, etc.) which l i m i t t h e type o f burning system t h a t can be
used. Refuse d e r i v e d f u e l s (RDF) have been processed i n v a r y i n g
degrees t o remove t h e noncombustibles from t h e f u e l stream. RDF,
p r o v i d i n g proper emission c o n t r o l equipment i s i n place, can be used i n
e x i s t i n g burning systems w i t h l i t t l e o r no r e t r o f i t t o accommodate t h e
RDF i n place o f o t h e r sol i d f u e l s such as wood o r coal. The primary
disadvantage o f RDF i s t h a t i t r e q u i r e s front-end processing equipment
which i s o f t e n extremely noisy, d i r t y , and u n r e l i a b l e .

It i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e f o l l o w i n g m a t e r i a l w i l l be a u s e f u l
assemblage o f p r i o r knowledge combined w i t h new r e s u l t s t o provide a
step forward i n biomass f u e l s research.

. , - . . .

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 2.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES

Data obtained from wood biomass or MSW samples can be used in

establishing price, designing feed and combustion systems, determining
life cycle costs, determining plant or component efficiency, and for
general consumer information.

2.1 Woody Biomass

Wood Biomass is one of the most difficult materials to sample,

because of variability attributable to species, environmental factors,
handling, processing and desired end-use. Trees of the same species
that grow in different environments can have markedly different fuel
qual it i es. The proper col 1 ect ion of a sampl e requires an understanding
and consideration of the physical character, statistical nature, and
over-all precision required. This task is further complicated by the
sampling equipment available and the quantity to be represented by the
sample. Obtaining a sample of reasonable weight to represent a source
or "lot" presents difficulties. These difficulties emphasize the
necessity for using standard sampl ing procedures.

This characterization and combustion study required sampling of

different species with various levels of contamination. The samples
were collected over the five state Northwest region which includes
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Alaska. Two different methods
o f collection were used. If the samples came from large abandoned fuel
piles they were obtained by filling five 5 q a l l o n buckets from five
randomly selected sites on the fuel pile. The samples were taken both
from the surface and from within the pile. The samples were stored in
an airtight container until time of either pelletizing or further
testing. If the samples came from,a facil'it'y that - was- operational and
currently using the wood biomass as a fuel, samples were taken from a
moving conveyor belt or auger system. The fiv@Sgallon buckets were

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 5
filled at five random times, as the material moved on the conveying
system.

2.2 Municipal Solid Waste

MSW is easier to sample than woody biomass in that it is located

at one site. A method used and proposed for further sampling is
described. As with wood biomass, five 5-gallon buckets with airtight
sealing lids were used for sample collection. A rope 36 feet long with
a knot every 4 feet was laid across the refuse material (see Figure 1).
A 2-pound (approximately) sample of MSW was obtained from beneath each
of the eight knots on the rope. The material was deposited in the
buckets and the air tight seals were put into place and remained in
place until further testing was performed.

Nonationally recognized standard exists for sampling wood biomass

or for municipal solid waste. Randomness i s important to obtain
information that will be statistically relevant.

Rope

Figure 1. Diagram o f the Sampling Rope Laid Out on the Waste.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

6 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 3.0 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF BIOMASS FUELS

Representative samples of clean and contaminated diversified

biomass fuels were obtained from different sites. Hogged fuel was also
obtained with portions of it being pelletized. The samples were
prepared for laboratory and combustion testing.

3.1 Wood Biomass

3.1 .I Ultimate Analysis

The ultimate analysis of a fuel is a record of the percent by

weight of hydrogen (H2), carbon (C), nitrogen (N2), oxygen (02),sulfur
(S), ash (mineral), and sometimes, chlorine (Cl). Currently, ASTM
Standard No. D 3176-84, "Ultimate Analysis of Coal and Coke," i s the
procedure used for laboratory samples of wood and refuse derived fuel
(RDF) biomass fuels. It is usually given on a moisture free basis.
The primary importance of the ultimate analysis is in the calculation
of the stoichiometric air-to-fuel (A/F) ratio [ 2 ] . Another important
aspect is that sulfur and chlorine can be a major cause of emission
problems. Sulfur and chlorine are a culprit in boiler flue corrosion
due to the acidic nature of their compounds (primarily hydrochloric and
sulfuric acids). Sulfur content of most wood based fuels is so low
that sulfur dioxide and other pollutants are not a problem [ 3 ] .
Chlorine, like sulfur, is also a very small component o f wood biomass
(except for saltwater soaked logs); however, chlorine can play a
considerable role in the corrosive behavior of refuse derived
fuels [ 4 ] .

Table 1, compiled from the literature, lists the ultimate analysis

of a number of different fuels for comparative purposes. From the
table it is possible to denote some general trends in the three fuel
categories represented. Those categories being coal , wood, and RDF
biomass. First, coal has a low oxygen and high carbon content compared
with wood and RDF. Second, coal and RDF have high ash and sulfur

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 7
 Table 1. U l t i m a t e Analysis Data f o r Selected Dry Fuels.
Sources [5,6,7,8].

X by w t . l
KY, No. 9 coal 65.2 4.6 8.4 .4.9 1.4 - 15.4

WV, Rank D, coal 84.7 4.3 2.2 .6 1.5 - 4.0

~~ -
Douglas F i r 52.3 6.3 40.5 =O .1 - .8

White Pine 52.5 6.1 41.3 =O =O - .1

~~

Black Oak 48.8 6.1 45.0 =O =O - .1

RDF, Type A 46.0 6.0 34.5 .4 .7 .4 12.0

RDF, Type D I 44.0 I 6 . 0 I 32.6 I .3 I .7 I .4 16.0

content compared t o wood. F i n a l l y , i t i s apparent t h a t o n l y RDF has an

appreciable amount o f c h l o r i n e , t h e exception being f o r woody biomass
t h a t comes from s a l t soaked l o g s as seen i n Table 2.

For t h i s study n i n e p e l l e t f u e l s were t e s t e d f o r t h e i r "Chemical

Variables".' A compilation o f t h e u l t i m a t e a n a l y s i s d a t a i n c l u d i n g
t h e minimum (MIN), maximum (MAX), mean, and standard d e v i a t i o n (SDEV)
f o r t h e n i n e f u e l s i s shown i n Table 2.

I t i s evident from Table 2, t h a t t h e elemental composition f o r

these p e l l e t f u e l s i s n o t t o o d i f f e r e n t . The main d i f f e r e n c e s are i n
c h l o r i n e and s u l f u r , b u t these are a t very small percentages r e l a t i v e
t o the other constituents. As s t a t e d e a r l i e r , c h l o r i n e , even i n small
percentages, can be very c o r r o s i v e t o combustion systems, and increases
stack gas o p a c i t y and p a r t i c u l a t e loading.

'For a l i s t i n g o f p e l l e t f u e l samples r e f e r t o Appendixes A and B.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:
8 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Table 2. Ultimate Analyses for Pellets Coded (1-9).

MIN 50.35 5.82 .10 .Ol 37.11 .00

MAX 54.16 6.35 .37 .30 42.54 .41
IFMEAN I 51.77 I 6.09 I .21 I .05 I 40.41 I .28 1
SDEV 2.53 .17 .10 .08 1.75 .33

Note: All data are on a (dry-basis)

3.1.2 Proximate Analysis

The proximate analysis of solid fuel is used to determine the

percentages of volatile material, fixed carbon, and ash. Volatile
matter is the portion of fuel gasified by pyrolytic action and respon-
sible for flaming combustion. Fixed carbon is that portion of fuel,
not pyrolyzed, that burns in solid form (glowing or char combustion).

Proximate analyses are done under rigid test conditions as pre-

scribed by ASTM Standard No.D 3172-73, "Proximate Analysis o f Coal and
Coke." The ASTM standard calls for heating the sample at 1740°F for
seven minutes. During this heating period the volatiles are driven
off.

The fundamental importance of proximate analysis is in the design

of combustion systems, especially grates and air handling equipment,
for two primary reasons: First, fixed carbon burns at a much slower
rate than volatiles and at a higher temperature [9,10]. This i s very
useful information for grate or fuel bed designers who must choose
materials properly for their expected temperature loading. Second, it
is important to determine the correct amount of underfire and overfire
air for efficient combustion. The underfire air is used to burn the
fixed carbon and the overfire air is used to burn the volatiles.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 9
Engineers must also design fire-boxes, ducts, fans, and pollution
abatement devices for the total volume of exhaust gases. Matter in the
solid state takes up much less volume than matter in the gaseous state.
In addition, the volume of gases from the combustion o f low volatile
fuel will be considerably less than for highly volatile fuels. This is
one contributing factor to the problems encountered in cofiring coal
with wood or RDF in a boiler designed originally f o r coal. Wood and
RDF have a much higher yield of gases for the same heat output required
by the boiler. This usually leads to a loss of efficiency and erosion
problems due to high gas velocities. The high velocities are also
coup1 ed with increased part i cul ate 1 oadi ng [ 111.

For many years proximate analyses have been used successfully to

determine the ratio of overfire versus underfire air for proper combus-
tion. This is done simply on the basis o f knowing the percentage of
fixed carbon to volatiles in the fuel. Once a total quantity of
deliverable air is chosen, it is split into two air streams, underfire
and overfire, in the same ratio respectively as volatile to fixed
carbon. This works very well in coal combustion where the percent
volatiles is usually low, however, there is some doubt now as to the
applicability of this method for higher volatile fuels such as wood and
RDF.

Table 3 lists some proximate analyses data for selected biomass

and fossil fuels.

The table shows the considerable differences between RDF, coal,

and wood, when it comes to proximate analysis. The coal is much higher
than wood or RDF in fixed carbon, but is similar in ash to RDF. The
two species of wood shown, illustrate how variable the ratio of fixed
carbon to volatile matter and ash content can be in different species
of wood.

Table 4, shows the statistics for the proximate analysis of the

nine wood pellet fuels tested in this study.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

10 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Table 3. Proximate Analyses o f Selected Dry Biomass Fuels.
Sources [9,12,13].

I I
1
4

Fixed Vol a t i1e

Fuel Type Carbon Matter Ash
~~ ~~ ~

RDF Type A 13.0 75.0 12.0

RDF Type D 13.0 71 .O 16.0

KY, No. 9 Coal 46.1 38.5 15.4

1 Cedar (Wood) I 21.0 1 77.0 I 2.0 1

11 Douglas F i r (Wood) I 13.7 I 86.2 I .1 11

Table 4. Proximate Analyses f o r P e l l e t Fuels (1-9).

X Volatile X Fixed Carbon % Ash

MIN 71.60 15.66 .21

1 MAX I 84.13 I 25.85 I 2.74 1

MEAN 77.56 21.03 1.41
SDEV 4.20 3.29 .94
.
Note: A l l data are on a (dry-basis)

3.1.3 Higher Heating Value (HHV)

Higher heating value i s p r i m a r i l y used as t h e b a s i s f o r energy

balance and/or e f f i c i e n c y c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r b o i l e r s , furnaces, and
m u l t i p l e f u e l comparisons. The HHV i s t h e q u a n t i t y o f heat released
d u r i n g complete (constant volume) combustion o f a f u e l . The products
o f combustion are brought t o t h e same temperature as t h e i n i t i a l
c o n s t i t u e n t s [2,5,14]. This represents t h e maximum a v a i l a b l e combus-
t i o n energy output t h a t can be expected.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 11
 HHV i s found by l a b o r a t o r y t e s t i n g , u s u a l l y i n an a d i a b a t i c bomb
calorimeter The a p p l i c a b l e ASTM Standard i s No. D 2015-77, "Gross
C a l o r i f i c Value o f a S o l i d by t h e A d i a b a t i c Bomb Calorimeter," and i s
g e n e r a l l y performed on an oven-dry3 sample. It i s assumed t h a t t h e
water formed by combustion o f hydrogen i s i n t h e l i q u i d phase a t f i n a l
e q u i l i b r i u m , t h i s i m p l i e s t h a t t h e heat o f v a p o r i z a t i o n o f water i s
i n c l u d e d i n t h e h i g h e r h e a t i n g value.

There have been a number o f o t h e r h e a t i n g values r e p o r t e d such as:

1) n e t o r lower h e a t i n g value (LHV) [3,5,7,10,15,16], and 2) lower
h e a t i n g value two (LHV2) [10,15]. These a r e d e f i n e d p r i m a r i l y t o
account f o r t h e energy losses due t o t h e water vapor formed d u r i n g
combustion and c a r r i e d as moisture i n t h e f u e l . Note t h a t , h i g h e r
h e a t i n g value (HHV) i s based on a l l water formed being i n t h e l i q u i d
state.

For LHV, t h e c i t e d references g e n e r a l l y agree t h a t lower h e a t i n g

value i s calculated by subtracting the l a t e n t heat o f vaporization
(hfg) from t h e h i g h e r h e a t i n g value. The value f o r hfg i s 1055 Btu/lbm
a t 68°F [Z].

Lower h e a t i n g value two (LHV2) i s a s o p h i s t i c a t e d m o d i f i c a t i o n t o

t h e HHV and accounts f o r t h e f a c t t h a t some o f t h e water i n wood o r any
s o l i d f u e l i s "bound" by molecular f o r c e s t h a t r e q u i r e more energy t o
break, i . e . vaporize, than i f t h e water were ''free". T h i s i d e a i s
presented i n d e t a i l i n a l a t e r s e c t i o n t i t l e d , "Moisture Content."

Table 5 l i s t s h i g h e r h e a t i n g values f o r a number o f wood, coal,

and RDF f u e l s . The examples were chosen t o represent t h e range of
HHV's f o r these f u e l types.

30ven-dry r e f e r s t o woody biomass t h a t has zero percent moisture

content.
BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:
12 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Table 5. Higher Heating Value o f S e l e c t e d Biomass Fuels.
Sources [5,6,7,8].

HHV (dry-basis)
Fuel Type (Btu/l bm)
WV, Rank D Coal 14730
1 ND, Rank J Coal I 7210
RDF, Type A 8100
RDF, Type D 7700
~~

RDF, Type 3 9796

S i t k a Spruce (Wood) 8100
Ponderosa Pine (Wood) 9100 - 9140
Ponderosa Pi ne (Bark) 9415 - 9616
Doug1 a s Fir (Wood) 8318 - 9200
1 Douglas Fir (Bark) I 9373 - 10845
1 Western H I 8626

Table 5 shows t h a t the average (wood-only) HHV i s 8747 (Btu/lbm),

for RDF the average i s 8532 (Btu/lbm), and f o r coal i t i s 10970
(Btu/lbm). The t a b l e i l l u s t r a t e s how close RDF and wood biomass can be
i n h i g h e r h e a t i n g value and how c o a l s HHV i s l a r g e r than e i t h e r RDF o r
wood by approximately 20 percent. Remember, these v a l u e s a r e only
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e and by no means a r e the comparisons made d e f i n i t i v e .

Table 8 c o n t a i n s HHV information for the pellet fuels t e s t e d .

3.1.4 Moisture Content

Moisture c o n t e n t (MC) o f a s o l i d fuel i s one o f the most c r i t i c a l

parameters a f f e c t i n g combustion [lo]. I t a f f e c t s the r a t e o f burning,
flaming temperature, and volume o f gases produced d u r i n g combustion.

BIOMASS FUEL CWCTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 13
Consequently, the moisture content alters boiler performance and
emission rates. It has been noted by several authors that combustion
of hogged wood fuel in typical boilers will cease or " b l a ~ k - o u t " at
~
approximately 67 percent moisture content wet-basis [17,18,19]. Black-
out usually necessitates the use of additional fossil fuel to maintain
combustion such as oil or natural gas. Moisture also lowers the heat
or Btu content per pound of fuel, which means a greater volume and mass
must be fired to achieve the same steam or heat load as compared to dry
fuel. The following section describes the typical calculations to
account for heat losses due to moisture content and some of the current
work being done to study the effect of moisture on combustion. The
applicable ASTM Standard is, No. E 871-82, "Moisture Analysis of
Part i cul ate Wood Fuel s . 'I

Moisture in fuel is described by one o f two equivalent ways,

either on a "wet" or "dry" percentage basis. Wet Basis (wb) is defined
as the weight of water in the sample (water weight), divided by the
total sample weight (sample weight) which includes dry fuel plus water.
Note, this is sometimes called an "as-is" basis.

%Mc,b = (water weight / sample weight) X 100

Dry Basis (db) moisture content (MC) is the weight of water in the
sample divided by the dry sample weight.

%Mc& = (water weight / dry sample weight) X 100

The conversion between %Mc,b and %MC& can be performed as follows:

and

4Black-out refers to the cessation of flaming combustion.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:
14 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
Both measures o f moisture content are used w i d e l y i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e
w i t h no d e f i n i t e preference shown.

The f o l l o w i n g describes e f f e c t o f moisture on t h e performance o f

s o l i d f u e l s by major t o p i c as f o l l o w s : 1) Heat Losses and Heating
Value Analysis, 2) Volumetric Expansion, 3) Flaming Temperature, and 4)
Rate o f Combustion.

1) Heat Losses and Heating Value Analysis

This a n a l y s i s draws h e a v i l y from t h e work g i v e n i n [ l o ] . Two

energy l o s s terms are developed here: a) energy used t o vaporize water
formed d u r i n g combustion, and b) t h e energy used t o vaporize t h e " f r e e "
and "bound" water i n t h e f u e l , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

a) Energy used to vaporize water formed during combustion

L e t QH2(BtU/hr) be t h e r a t e o f heat l o s s due t o v a p o r i z a t i o n o f

t h e water formed d u r i n g combustion by t h e o x i d a t i o n o f hydrogen; then,
Q H ~can be c a l c u l a t e d as f o l l o w s :

QH2 = MH2 * hfg (5)

where QH2 = r a t e o f energy r e q u i r e d t o vaporize water a t t h e reference

s t a t e o f 68OF, M H ~= mass r a t e o f water formation by combustion,
h,, = 1055(Btu/lbwH,O) a t 68°F. The lower h e a t i n g value, as mentioned
p r e v i o u s l y , can now be c a l c u l a t e d as f o l l o w s :

LHV = HHV - QHe/M,

where, LHV = lower heating value ( B t u / l b n A r y f u e l ) , HHV = higher

heating va ue (Btu/l bm-dry f u e l ) , ,M = mass r a t e o f d r y f u e l i n t o
combustor. Note t h a t QH2 i s d i v i d e d by ,M t o keep 1 IV on a " d r y " basis
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f HHV.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 15
 b) Energy used to vaporize the "free" and "bound"water in the fuel

The following discussion deals specifically with moisture in wood,

Yet , there is no reason why it is not generally applicable to any solid
fuel that is porous. First, the distinction between "free" and ''bound"
water must be made. Bound water is formed by adsorption along the
interface with cell walls and is rarely more than ten molecules thick.
Adsorption is the take-up of water by chemical reaction, i.e. heat is
actually evolved by adsorption, energy that later must be replaced if
the water is to vaporize. Free water is formed by absorption. Absorp-
tion is a physical process, due to capillary action, of water take-up
into the porous structure of a solid. There is only a very small
emission of heat due to absorption and it is considered negligible
compared to adsorption. There is always some water vapor in the porous
cell structure of a fuel, but its effect is also considered negligible.

The moisture content of wood at which a l l the free water is gone

but the bound water remains, is called the fiber saturation point
(FSP). For wood, the FSP is approximately, %Mc,b = 21.9. The energy
required to bring the bound water to the energy level of the free water
is not a constant, but a function of moisture content (below FSP).
This function is different for every fuel and can only be determined
experimentally. The equation for the average energy required to bring
the bound moisture in Douglas Fir wood to the energy level of the free
water, not to vaporize it is found in [ 101. H, is this required
energy and has the units of (Btu/lb). The equation for Hbw is a long
polynomial expression from regression analysis and will not be copied
here; however, Figure 2 shows the results.

It is now possible to define lower heating value two(LHV2), as

LHV2 is simply LHV minus the energy required to vaporize all water
carried in by the fuel, both bound and free. The expression for LHV2
is given as:

LHV2 = LHV -((Hbw t 1055) * (MC,,)) (7)

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

16 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Z
266320 ' Z
h

H
s
--
$. zmuo -
tii

549.60 -
117120 -
8 99280-

Figure 2. H, or the Adsorption Energy versus Moisture Content

(wet-basi s) . Source [ 101.

where LHV2 = lower heating value two(Btu/lbm-dry wood), H, = specific

energy loss due to bound water(Btu/lbm-water), 1055 = hf,(Btu/lbm-
water), and MC,, = moisture content dry-basis(1bm-water/lbm-dry wood).
Figure 3 shows the effect of moisture on the three heating values as
def ined above.

The energy required to vaporize the free water plus the bound
water that has been brought to the energy level of the free water can
be calculated as follows:

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 17
W
3

I;
W
a m.0-
z
zi 5850.00-
5400.00 -
4950.(10 -
4m.0 I I I I I I

Figure 3. The Effect of Moisture on the Heating Value(s) of Wood

Biomass. Based on Douglas Fir with an Assumed Higher
Heating Value of 8800 Btu/lbm.

where Qfw = energy r a t e required t o vaporize the f r e e water and bound

water t h a t has been raised t o the energy level of the f r e e water, i .e.
i t i s now "free" ( B t u / h r ) , M, = t o t a l mass r a t e of water brought i n by
the f u e l , units are (lbm/hr), hf, = 1055' (8tu/lb*water), as usual.

In t o t a l , the r a t e of energy required t o b r i n g a l l moisture t o the

vapor s t a t e a t 68°F i s Qtot, where:

I t should be noted t h a t these losses occur i n the combustion

chamber. When vaporization i s calculated or occurs a t 68°F there i s no
change in gas temperature, thus, no increase in the available energy of
the gases i s realized. That i s why t h i s t o t a l heat of vaporization i s
considered a loss. However, boiler exhaust temperatures are usually on

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

18 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICSOF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
t h e o r d e r o f 400°F [38], and water vapor a t 400°F and 1 atmosphere i s
superheated. T h i s means t h a t even more energy i s l o s t due t o combus-
t i o n heat wasted on superheating vapor t h a t i s sent o u t t h e stack.

2) Volumetric Expansion

The e f f e c t o f moisture on t h e volume o f f l u e gases can best be

understood by n o t i n g t h a t water undergoes an expansion o f approximately
5700 times i t s o r i g i n a l volume when s h i f t i n g s t a t e s ( l i q u i d t o a vapor)
i n t h e t y p i c a l furnace o p e r a t i o n [10,21]. An easy way t o estimate t h i s
expansion i s t o l o o k a t t h e s p e c i f i c volume o f water i n t h e l i q u i d
s t a t e , vf (ft3/lbm), a t t h e reference temperature 68'F, then, f i n d vg
(gaseous s p e c i f i c volume) i n t h e superheat t a b l e s a t atmospheric
pressure and t h e desired/estimated maximum combustion gas temperature.
Next, compute t h e r a t i o o f ( v d v f ) where t h i s value i s t h e expected
volume expansion parameter. f o r example, data from 121 g i v e as values
f o r vf and vg:

vf (68'F, sat.) = .016 (ft3/lbm)

vg (14.7 p s i , 1600°F) = 83.47 (ft3/lbm)

vJvf = 5216.9 ( v o l .gas/vol . l i q u i d ) (10)

Note t h a t t h i s c a l c u l a t e d value i s c l o s e t o t h e number c i t e d above, and

i s p r i m a r i l y a f u n c t i o n o f t h e chosen superheat temperature.

The main problem associated w i t h t h i s enormous expansion i s t h e

associated increased gas v e l o c i t y . Using t h e s i m p l e s t form o f t h e
C o n t i n u i t y Equation, Q = VA, where Q = v o l u m e t r i c f l o w r a t e , V = veloci-
ty, and A = area, one can see t h a t i f Q i s increased w h i l e h o l d i n g t h e
area A constant, t h e v e l o c i t y V must increase p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y .

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 19
 There are a number of problems caused by increased gas velocities,
especially if the furnace and/or boiler was not designed adequately for
high moisture fuel. These problems are:

Reduced combust i bl e gas and combust i bl e part i cul ate

residence time, i.e. increased particulate carryover and
unburned gases escape [3,11].
Increased erosion by particulate abrasion action,
especially in high ash fuels [18].
Emission control devices cease to function properly if
undersized for such volumetric and mass particulate
loading. It may also be necessary to increase the size
of induced draft fan motors to "keep-up" with the
required flow [3,10,11].
There is a potential for increased flue exhaust gas
temperature, thus, increased heat losses by sensible and
latent enthalpies [11,21].

3) Flaming Temperature

The method of calculating adiabatic flame temperature by the "free

energy minimization" method is described in [22]. Adiabatic flame
temperature is the maximum temperature that can be achieved for a given
fuel [22]. It is based on the theoretical concept of no changes in
kinetic or potential energy of the reactants. All energy is released
as heat. This condition is obviously never met in "real-life", but is
very useful for comparing different fuels potential heat transfer
properties, i .e. higher flame temperature means greater temperature
gradients to drive heat transfer from gases to water in boiler tubes.
Figure 4 shows the results of an analysis of the effect of moisture on
the adiabatic flame temperature for Douglas Fir and Yellow Pine. It is
interesting that the effect of moisture on flame temperature is almost
entirely linear. If the percentage temperature decrease from 15 to
50 percent moisture is calculated for Douglas Fir and for 20 to 50 per-
cent moisture for Yellow Pine the temperature decrease is 22 percent.
-) That is, the flame temperature is decreased by 22 percent in both
cases. This seems considerable, but the results might not be as
dramatic in a ''real" situation, due to many interrelated heat loss

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

20 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 I I I I I I I I I

Figure 4. The Effect of Moisture on the Adiabatic Flame Temperature o f

Yellow Pine and Douglas Fir Wood.

mechanisms [Z]. This type of study will become more relevant as at-
tempts are made to squeeze more and more energy out of wet fuel that
has in the past been considered waste, i.e. hogged fuel being burned
because it is cheaper than landfilling.

4) Rate of Combustion

Most of the combustion experiments examining the rate of burning

have been carried out on small, usually cylindrical or cubic, single
particles [13,23,24,25,26]. These tests are performed in very sophis-
ticated devices where variables o f temperature, mass loss, and composi-
tion, can be controlled and measured accurately. Tests such as these
usually do not model spreader-stoker boilers, wood stoves, or dutch
ovens, but the information is still useful, qualitatively, if not
quantitatively.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 21
 A study on t h e e f f e c t o f moisture on sugar p i n e and w h i t e oak
under c o n d i t i o n s meant t o simulate a stoker-type furnace was r e p o r t e d
by [13,26]. A s i n g l e round p a r t i c l e was subjected t o parametric v a r i a -
t i o n s i n i n i t i a l temperature, Reynolds number, oxygen concentration,
moistur,e, wood type, and s i z e (10 and 20 mm d i a . ) .

The r e s u l t s o f t h i s study f o r moisture v a r i a t i o n a r e very i n t e r -

e s t i n g . As one would expect, moisture does slow t h e r a t e o f mass l o s s
o r burning. A t zero moisture t h e peak r e a c t i v i t y i s .045s-', a t 13%MC,
i t i s .031s-', and a t 71% C
,l, t h e peak r e a c t i v i t y i s .018s-l. Reactiv-
i t y i n t h i s case i s d e f i n e d as t h e time r a t e o f mass l o s s d i v i d e d by
t h e i n i t i a l mass, sometimes c a l l e d t h e normalized r e a c t i v i t y .

For a s a t u r a t e d lOmm p i n e specimen, moisture = 7l%wb, t h e normal-

i z e d r a t e o f burning o r r e a c t i v i t y r i s e s s h a r p l y t o a s h o r t , constant
plateau, then f a l l s s t e a d i l y u n t i l t h e end o f t h e burn. Previous
researchers had p o s t u l a t e d t h a t t h e r e would be very 1 i t t l e combustion
u n t i l t h e " f r e e " water was evaporated [26]. The data from [13,26] do
n o t support t h i s . There was a l s o d i r e c t v i s u a l observation o f flaming
t o support t h e f a c t t h a t combustion took place v i r t u a l l y d u r i n g t h e
e n t i r e experiment.

F i g u r e 5 i s an adaptation from [26] t h a t shows t h e e f f e c t o f mois-

t u r e on normalized burning r a t e . A very s i m i l a r study, b u t on 1.5 cm
p i n e cubes a t 1454'F, was performed [23]. The general r e s u l t i s t h e
same, i.e. moisture slows t h e r a t e o f burning. The data were d i s p l a y e d
d i f f e r e n t l y and i t g i v e s new i n s i g h t t o t h i s problem. F i g u r e 6 i s
adapted from [23]. I t shows t h a t t h e t o t a l burn time i s v i r t u a l l y a
l i n e a r f u n c t i o n o f moisture.

3.1.5 Bulk Density

Bulk Density i s used t o determine t h e heat content per u n i t volume

of fuel o r Q, ( B t u / f t 3 ) . Q, i s used t o compare d i f f e r e n t f u e l s h e a t i n g
values. There are two basic concerns:

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

22 TESTING AND WALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 (rd-tanin)--> \\
66.7% UCGIURE (ret-basis)--> 1\

Figure 5 . Normalized Burning Rate ( R e a c t i v i t y ) f o r a Pine Specimen a t

D i f f e r e n t Moisture Contents.

Figure 6. T o t a l Burning Time as a Function o f Moisture Content f o r

1.5 cm Pine Cubes.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND NALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 23
 1) Will the feed system be able to carry the necessary
volume of fuel to meet steam or heat load?
2) Can enough fuel be stockpiled to meet demand for ex-
tended periods? (Especially important for densified
fuels which generally require protection from moisture
or they will disintegrate.)

Q, is determined as follows:

Q, = HHV * Db
where Db = bulk density (1 bm/ft3) and Q,= volumetric heat content
(Btu/ft3). 0, is determined by an AS M technique requiring a container
with a volume of one cubic foot (ft3) as the basis of measurement and
accurate weighing. The ASTM Standarc is No. E 873-82, "Bulk Density o f
Densified Particulate Biomass Fuels." Currently, a standard does not
exist for nondensified biomass fuels.

Bulk Density is a requirement for the Association of Pellet Fuel

Industries (APFI) Standard, No. APFI-PF-1-88 [27]. This standard
requires a bulk density of 40 (lbm/ft3) for residential grade pellet
fuel. The Fiber Fuels Institute (FFI), recommends a bulk density of at
least 36 (lbm/ft3) [28]. Table 6, lists the high and low values of
bulk density reported for various fuels.

3.1.6 Particle Size

Particle Size is important for two reasons. One is the effect of

size on fuel feed systems. This is not as critical for belt/conveyor-
type feeders, but is important for auger-type feed systems as found in
pellet stoves. Auger systems are susceptible to bridging if the fuel
is small enough to lodge between the auger tines and feed tube wall.

Secondly, particle size is important for combustion efficiency and

erosion concerns. This is true for pelletized and as-is fuels, i.e
hoggbd wood, chips, RDF, etc.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

24 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Table 6. High and Low Range of Bulk Density for Selected Biomass
Fuel s . Sources [6,291.

I Wood (hogged) 10 20 I
1 Wood (pel 1e t ) I 32 I 42 l
I[ Wood (chips) I 18 I Z6 l
RDF ( a l l classes) 1.9 12.8

"Fines" are any particle l e s s t h a n 1/4 inch [14]. There are two
major concerns w i t h the quantity of fines i n a fuel source. F i r s t ,
since wood and RDF are usually 70 percent volatile matter o r more, the
r a t e of combustion i s directly proportional t o how quickly the required
heat reaches and pyrolyses the volatile material [14]. The r a t e of
heating i s dependent on the exposed surface area per u n i t volume of the
particle. Larger particles have a smaller r a t i o of surface area t o
volume and tend t o insulate themselves progressively d u r i n g combustion
by formation of a char layer w i t h low thermal conductivity [14,30].
Therefore, smaller particles are more reactive than larger particles.
T h i s increased rate of combustion requires greater a i r supply and t h i s
in turn can decrease efficiency by a number of mechanisms. These
mechanisms are: a ) greater f l u e gas temperature a t e x i t , b) l e s s
particle residence time (especially the f i n e s ) , and c) erosion due t o
i ncreased gas vel oci t i e s . Secondly, as part i cl e s i z e decreases there
i s an increased "dust" problem due t o wind carried biomass. There i s a
greater f i r e hazard due t o the explosive nature of fine particulate
fuel.

3.1.7 Durability

Fuel pellet durability i s a measure of a pellets propensity t o

produce fines while under physical agitation. A t present, there i s no
ASTM Standard available; however, t e s t s are currently being performed

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 25
which may become p a r t o f an ASTM Standard. T e s t i n g o f p e l l e t s p e r t h e
p r e l i m i n a r y ASTM Standard r e q u i r e s t h e use o f a tumbler o f s p e c i f i c
design, weighing apparatus accurate t o .1 gram, and a standard s e t o f
T y l e r s i eves.

P r o c e d u r a l l y t h e p e l l e t s are we ghed i n t o 250 gram samples and

loaded i n t o a tumbler (see Figure 7) and tumbled f o r 5 minutes a t 50
RPM. The tumbler i s then unloaded i n t o t h e t o p o f a s e t o f T y l e r
sieves numbered 8, 14, 28, 48, 100, and 200 and shaken f o r a time o f 3
minutes. When f i n i s h e d , t h e contents o f each s i e v e and pan are emptied
i n t o separate preweighed containers. The contents r e t a i n e d i n each
sieve are weighed t o t h e nearest 0.01 oz. The experiments a r e repeated
3 times f o r each sample.

Table 7 presents t h e l i s t i n g o f p e l l e t s t e s t e d and Figures 8 and 9

g r a p h i c a l l y compare t h e 16 d i f f e r e n t samples t h a t were t e s t e d . F i g u r e
8 p l o t s t h e percentages of p e l l e t s remaining a f t e r tumbling ( t h e more
durable t h e p e l l e t , t h e h i g h e r t h e percentage remaining). For example,
sample 14 was t h e most durable o f a l l t h e samples w i t h 99.4 percent
remaining as p e l l e t s . On t h e o t h e r hand sample 9 was t h e l e a s t durable
w i t h o n l y 91.2 percent remaining p e l l e t i z e d . F i g u r e 9 p l o t s t h e per-
centage breakdown o f t h e f i n e s a f t e r tumbling. Again, sample 14 i s t h e
most durable, having t h e lowest percentage o f f i n e s . Figure 9 i s
useful i n analyzing how t h e p e l l e t breaks up. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n can be
used t o t a r g e t areas f o r p e l l e t improvement.

The purpose o f durabi 1it y experiments was t o draw concl u s i ons as

t o why some p e l l e t s h o l d t o g e t h e r b e t t e r than others. The d i f f e r e n t
parameters explored i n c l u d e rape seed percentage, s a l t percentage, ash
percentage, method o f manufacture, and composition. Due t o t h e small
sample s i z e i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e t o present conclusions t h a t are s t a t i s -
t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t although i t i s p o s s i b l e t o l o o k a t general trends.

Rape seed i s an o i l y a g r i c u l t u r a l waste used t o h e l p t h e p e l l e t

m a t e r i a l p l a s t i c i z e and form i n t o p e l l e t s . The comparison o f rape seed

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

26 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Figure 7. Pellet Tumbler for Durability Testing.

Table 7. Specifications for Pellets Tested for Durability.

1 Specie I composition
iample Rape S a l t
-No. (%I (%I
Ash
(%I Methoc

FHLOF624-1 Pure Douglas F i r 1 1 0 0.21 NC PP

FHLOF624-2 Pure Douglas F i r 2 2 0 0.99 NC PP
PHCMX706-1 Douglas Fir/Red Alder 3 0 N/A N/A NC PP
PHCHF705-2 Pure Hem F i r 4 0 0.003 0.96 NC PP
EVCMX713-1 Red Alder/Hem Fir/Douglas Fir/Cedar 5 0.25 0 2.24 NC PP
WSPCO715-1 Pure Red Cedar a t least 1 year o l d 6 0.25 0 0.61 NC PP
KMPMX727-2 Red Alder/Maple/Myrt l e 4-5 years o l d 7 0.5 0 1.15 NC PP
SPCOF727-1 Douglas F i r 8 0.5 0.78 2.55 NC PP
WFPMX920-1 60% Hem Fir/40% S i t k a Spruce 9 0.25 0.19 2.43 NC PP
HSIMX824-1 Cedar/Spruce 10 trace N I A 0.7 NC PP
BCCPPB24-1 Pure Ponderosa Pine No Bark 11 0 0.001 0.22 NC PP
BTPMX920-1 50% Pine/50% F i r 12 0 N/A N/A C RE
WOMMX920-1 60% Douglas Fir140116 Ponderosa No Bar1 13 0 N/A N/A C RE
RMMMX920-1 60% Oouglas Fir/40% Ponderosa No Bar1 14 0 N/A N/A C RE
NWPM C m r c i a l Test P e l l e t 15
NUPM10-5 NUPM P e l l e t s A f t e r 10 Minute Tumble 16

NC = Non-Cmrcial
C = Comnercial
PP = P e l l e t Punch
RE = Rotary Extrusion

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND RlALUATlNG THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 27
 1 0 0

99
98
97
96

95
94

93
92
91

90
1 3 5 7 9 11
2 4 6 8 10 12 l 3 1 4 l 5 16
SAMPLE NUM3ER

figure 8. Pellets Retained After Tumble and Sieve Experiments Compared

by Sample Number. (Pellet content is listed in Table 7.)

B
4
L
w
10
9

8
7

6
-
ks$ssss
NO. 14

NO. 20
Essssss
NO. 4 8
CT
c 5
z
L Ezzzzm
NO. 200
g 3

2 PAN

0 I I 1 1 - 1 - 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I
1 3 5 7 9 11 15
2 4 6 8 1 0 12 l 3 1 4 16
SAMPLE NUMBER

figure 9. Breakdown of Fines After Tumble Sieve Experiments Compared

by Sample Number.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

28 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
percentages with all other factors held.constant is shown in the com-
parison between sample 1 and 2. Both samples were pelletized out of
the same raw material, pure Douglas Fir, but sample I contained 1
percent rape seed and sample 2 contained 2 percent rape seed. The
tests indicate that sample 2 with higher rape seed formed a better
pellet as expected.

Samples 8 and 9 were the lowest performing pellets and as indi-

cated in Table 7 they contained salt and dirt which gives the highest
ash contents. The low performance could be linked to the reoccurrence
of the impurities. Method of manufacture seemed to have no signifi-
cance on the durability of the pellets.

3.1.8 Specific Density

Similar to pellet durability, there is not a nationally recognized

standard for measuring biomass pellet specific density. Specific
density is a measure of a single pellets mass per unit volume, such as
(lbm/ft3). Biomass users are usually concerned with bulk density since
they deal with quantities of fuel on a "macro" scale. Bulk density
will help them size feed systems, design grates, and determine volumet-
ric firing rates to maintain steam load, etc. Specific density is an
important independent vari ab1 e when it comes to si ngl e part i cl e combus-
ti on kinetics.

Table 8 presents specific density information for 14 different

pel lets tested,.

3.1.9 Ash Fusion Temperature

Four temperatures are currently used to specify ash fusion temper-

ature as specified by standards such as ASTM No. 0-1857, "Fusibility o f
Coal Ash." The four temperatures are:
a) Initial Deformation Temperature (IT)
b) Softening Temperature (ST)

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 29
 Table 8. Physical Analyses Data for Pellets (1-14).

1 I HHV~
(Btu/lbm)
I 1
M C ~ BLKDC~ SPDd
(%) (lbm/ft ) (lbm/ft3) (in.)
Length Diameter
(in.)
75.32 .266 .256
83.92 .705 .317
MEAN 8721.26 6.98 41.84 81.26 .464 .287
SDEV 93.65 1.81 11.83 4.04 .174 .078

"HV
bMC
-- Higher Heating Value
Moi sture Content (wet-basi s)
CBLKD = Bulk Density
dSPD = Specific Density

c) Hemispherical Temperature (HT)

d) Fluid Temperature (FT)

These definitive terms refer to the shape f pecified cone of ash

it is subjected to increasing temperature under "standard" conditions.
This test can be performed in an oxidizing and/or reducing environ-
ment.5 This is important depending on which environment the ash will
be in. Furnaces operated at low excess air level or with poor mixing
would create local reducing environments. Table 9 gives the ash fusion
(fluid) temperatures for a number of species in oxidizing and reducing
environments.

Table 10 lists the range of ash fusion data for the pellet sam-
pl es.

It is interesting to note that the mean initial ash fusion temper-

ature is only 1.7 percent smaller than the mean fluid temperature.
Also, the average difference between MIN and MAX values is only 361"F,

'Examples of oxidizing and reducing reactions are shown in Figure 15.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:
30 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Table 9. Ash Fusion Temperatures f o r Selected Species o f Biomass
Fuels. Sources [7,28,31].

1 Ash Fusion Temperature

(fluid)

Oxi d i z ing Reducing

Spec ies

ASTM Rank hvA coal I Unav. I 2660

ASTM Rank subbit.C I Unav. I 2310

RDF (range) I 2200 - 2420 I 2160 - 2340

Wood (avg) I 2390a I 2410

Table 10. Ash Fusion Data f o r Fuels (1-9).

1I I Ash Fusion Temperature ( o x i d i z i n g ,

I
l I I I I 1
II ! II

Initial Softening Hemispherical Fluid

1 MIN I 2150 I 2160 I 2170 I 2195 I

1 MAX I 2500 I 2530 I 2540 I 2550 I
1) MEAN I 2340 I 2352 I 2363 I 2381 (I
SDEV 136 137 138 141

Note: A l l data are on a (dry-basis) .

aThe v a r i o u s ash f u s i o n temperatures ( I n i t i a l , F l u i d , e t c . )
r e f e r t o t h e i n c r e a s i n g " f l a t n e s s " o f a s p e c i f i e d cone o f ash
as i t experiences i n c r e a s i n g temperature. " I n i t i a l " i s l e a s t
deformed and " F l u i d " i s when t h e ash appears molten.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 31
not a significant amount considering the temperature variations associ-
ated with combustion in a furnace.

3.2 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and Refuse Derived Fuels (RDF)

In the five-state Pacific Northwest region being studied, it is

estimated that over 18,000 tons per day (TPD) of MSW are generated.
Eleven million Btu/ton of MSW is equivalent to over 32,000 Bbl (bar-
rels) per year of fuel oil. For local estimates of fuel availability,
an average of 4 lbs per person per day [32] should be used, with this
value expected to continue to increase in the future. This i s a con-
siderable amount of energy, much of which is being discarded in land-
fills. 6

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) have classi-
fied the different types of RDF into seven categories ranging from raw
MSW to the combustible portion being gasified. Varying degrees o f
processing may be desired based on the intended method of combustion,
the environmental concerns, and the recovery of Val uabl e recycl ab1 e
materi a1 s.

Of the present technologies for converting MSW to useful energy,

the most prevalent are mass burning of MSW or firing RDF in either
fluff or pellet form. Each of these technologies require different
degrees of processing. Each method is designed to balance the cost of
preparation against the need to minimize environmental impact and
maximize the Btu yield.

Items segregated prior to mass burning MSW include tires (due to

their high sulfur content), large, noncombustible items, and infectious
medical wastes. Ferrous metals in the waste can be recovered from the

‘Legislative priorities for solid waste management are: 1) waste

reduction; 2) resource recovery/recycling; 3) energy conversion; and 4)
disposal .
BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:
32 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
ash by magnetic separators, and then sold as scrap. Some advantages of
mass burning MSW are:

0 little or no fuel preparation;

technology is well proven (25 years USA and Europe);
0 lower operating noise levels;
lower maintenance;
grate systems allow for cofiring of coal and sludge
waste from sewage plants; and
0 plant size can be minimized (no fuel processing
equipment is necessary.

Some disadvantages of mass burning are:

0 increased corrosion (high temperature, erosion,

condensation in the stack);
0 slagging and fouling; and
0 nonuniform heat input.

RDF fuels require extensive processing involving the separation of

combustible components from noncombustible components. Figure 10 shows
a typical flow diagram for processing RDF. The process may be supple-
mented by varying degrees of mechanical or manual sorting to recover
recyclable materi a1 s. For example, Reuters commerci a1 RDF pl ant in
Eden Prairie, Minnesota uses extensive manual labor to recover recycla-
ble materials. They claim that the sale of the recyclable materials
alone pays for virtually all o f the plant’s labor costs. Additional
revenue comes from the sale of RDF pellets at 645 per ton, which is
competitive with coal.

Some advantages of burning RDF are:

0 removal of sl ag-formi ng materi a1 s ;

0 more rapid and better combustion;
RDF may be cofired in existing coal burning boilers;
0 RDF may be stored;
0 more heterogeneous fuel;

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 33
 rLbfr Iff

Figure 10. RDF Processing Flow Diagrams.

reduced corrosion problems;

0 recyclable material is recovered; and
power plants have greater reliability.

Some disadvantages of burning RDF are:

higher fuel processing costs;

0 processing plants have a lower reliability; and
0 shredder explosions are not uncommon.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

34 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Pelletized RDF has a1 1 the advantages (and disadvantages) of
burning RDF as listed above, but also supports improved fuel handling
characteristics and allows for extended storage. After being pellet-
ized, RDF can be cofired in coal plants using the spreader-stoker
boilers having traveling or vibrating gates. It has been found that
pellets can be burned successfully with little effect on the perform-
ance of the boiler. Boiler efficiencies have been found to drop by 2
to 6 percent 133,341, however, because of the higher moisture content
of the pellets relative to the coal.

Some problems have been experienced during the storage of pel 1 ets.
These problems include pellet breakage and reduction of the heating
value with long term storage. During storage internal pile tempera-
tures tend to increase. In one case, although the increased tempera-
ture did not result in pile ignition, the plastic covering ignited
after ten months of storage.

For the conversion of waste to energy in electric power plants

using dedicated boiler technology, mass burning i s , on a large scale,
the most cost effective method to produce low electricity costs. As
the costs o f electricity increases, coarse RDF technology becomes more
cost effective. For cofiring, the mechanically prepared fluff is the
most cost effective 1341. Problems associated with cofiring RDF in
retrofitted boi 1 ers, such as boi 1 er sl agging and foul i ng, and reduced
emission control equipment efficiency, have shifted interest from using
modified existing boilers to cofiring RDF in boilers specifically
designed for this purpose.

On a small scale, facilities that generate between 10 and 200 TPD

of refuse and also require steam or hot water, can use on-site combus-
tion to reduce the volume of waste generated and reduce fuel costs.
Commonly used technologies include fluidized bed combustors (FBC)
(150-200 TPD), rotary kilns (150-200 TPD), excess air grate systems
(>75 TPD), and modular starved air systems which can burn as little as
one TPD. These small scale technologies should be of interest to

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 35
institutions such as universities, hospitals, correctional facilities,
and industrial sites as a solution to their waste problem, while reduc-
ing heating bills.

3.2.1 Fuel Classification, Higher Heating Value and Moisture

Content

Prior to any decision making as to whether a waste-to-energy

facility will be feasible, the fuel characteristics and availability
must be known.

To classify the Pacif c Northwest fuels, MSW samples from each o

the five states were collected to determine their composition, HHV and
moisture content. Upon receipt the samples were hand sorted into
eleven categories, then a representative sample from each of the com-
bustible categories was weighed and dried to determine individual and
overall moisture content and the higher heating value. Sample data for
Tacoma, Washington, are presented in Figure 1 1 and Table 11. Addition-
al data for other cities is presented in Appendix C. One sample each
of RDF fluff from Tacoma, Washington, and RDF pellets from Fairbanks,
Alaska, were received and tested. Moisture analysis was performed on
the fluff and pellets and found to be 38.3 percent and 6.3 percent, re-
spectively. Additionally, the higher heating value (HHV) of the pel-
lets were measured and an average value of 8400 Btu/lb was determined.
This is also a good approximation for RDF since the pellets were formed
from RDF using pellet presses. RDF pellets were not tested in the
combustion unit due to the oversize pellet size. It should be noted
that these are average heating values and that the actual energy con-
tent values may vary somewhat depending upon the season and the amount
of processing done.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

36 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 NON-RECYCLABLE (9%)

PtASTICS/LEATHERS (31X)

Figure 11. Composition o f MSW from Tacoma, Washington.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 37
Table 11. Moisture Content, Percent by Weight, and Heating Values f o r
MSW as Received from Tacoma, Washington.

HHV (Btu)
Percent Percent
Tacoma, WA by Weight Moisture High

Food Waste .61 72.38 50.62 50.62

Lawn/Garden 3.30 58.14 264.78 274.01

G1 ass 0.49 - - -
Wood 7.08 21.24 490.24 730.30

Rocks/Ash 0.00 - - -
Paper
Recycl ab1 e 20.29 31.21 1564.74 1721.80
Nonrecycl ab1 e 9.36 23.04 513.16 1098.76
Corrugated 3.27 42.15 242.73 242.73
Met a1 s 7.73 -
P1 a s t ics/Leather 30.67 43.64 2415.36 6105.49
Text i1es I 17.19 I 38.23 1253.41 2346.93
Totals I 100.00 1 36.70 I 6795.05 I 12750.64 1)

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

38 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 4.0 COMBUSTION OF BIOMASS FUELS

Much of the available literature on biomass combustion deals with

the thermochemistry of burning wood. The following material discusses
the fundamental relationships and processes as presently understood.

Biomass combustion is a complex phenomena by which a solid fuel is

thermochemically oxidized producing heat and gaseous by-products.
Three main steps in biomass combustion [35] are: 1) drying, 2) pyroly-
sis and flaming combustion, and 3) fixed carbon combustion. It should
be noted that in a fuel bed, such as found in a spreader-stoker or
dutch oven, these three processes are occurring simultaneously, but in
different 1 ocations.

1) Drying

Since most biomass fuels contain water, drying is a critical step.

Free and bound water must be evaporated before sufficient temperatures
for steps 2 and 3 occur.

2) Pyrolysis and Flaming Combustion

Pyrolysis is the chemical degradation of a solid fuel, due to

heating, that produces char (fixed carbon) and combust i bl e vapors
(volatiles). Pyrolysis consists of endothermic' and exothermic'
stages.

For wood the endothermic stage has two distinct temperature ranges
[9,19]. For temperatures less than 392"F, water vapor, formic acid,

'Endothermic: A process or change that takes place with absorption of

heat and requires high temperatures or initiation and maintenance. An
example is production of carbon monoxide and hydrogen by passing steam
over hot coke.
'Exothermic: A process or chemical reaction which is accompanied by
evolution of heat, for example, combustion reactions.
BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:
TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 39
 ' e

and acetic acid are released from the fuel. For temperatures between
392'F and 536OF, water vapor, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and a
number of organic acids are released. This is the "slow pyrolysis"
phase where largely noncombustible gases are formed [ 3 6 ] .

The exothermic stage of pyrolysis occurs between 536'F and 932°F

[9,19]. This is the "fast" or "active" pyrolysis zone. Highly flamma-
ble gases such as carbon monoxide, methane, aldehydes, methanol, and
hydrogen are released, also, highly flammable tars remain in the solid
phase as residue.

When sufficient oxygen and heat is present, the volatile compo-

nents released during the fast pyrolysis will burn in flaming combus-
tion. This provides a source of heat to continue the pyrolysis (heat
the solid) and increase the overall rate of reaction.

3) Fixed Carbon Combustion

Fixed carbon combustion, also known as glowing combustion, is an

exothermic process occurring at temperatures above 932'F [ 9 ] . This
type of combustion is typically recognized as charcoal briquets used
in a barbecue. For most biomass, fixed carbon represents only 10 to 20
percent of the solid fuel. However, this fixed carbon combustion acts
as the primary source of heat for the raw (cold) fuel that is usually
added on top of the fuel pile in grate-type systems. Glowing combus-
tion releases enough energy to vaporize moisture and volatiles in
hogged wood fuel with up to 50 percent (wet-basis) moisture content
[35]. The energy from flaming combustion is not needed to dry the fuel
[351*

4.1 Combustion Model and Efficiency

In its simplest form the burning of biomass fuels can be consid-

ered i s the combustion' of only carbon and hydrogen. The reaction equa-
tions for the oxidation of carbon and hydrogen are:

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

40 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 react ants products
c t 0, > CO,
heat release = 14,100 Btu/lb [37]

react ants products

H, t 1/20, -> H,O

heat release = 61,000 Btu/lb [37]

Equations (12) and (13) adequately describe the overall combustion pro-
cess if the process is 100 percent thermally efficient and there are no
other combustible elements such as sulfur and nitrogen. Since sulfur
is sometimes present in biomass fuels it may be necessary to include
the following equation for the oxidation o f sulfur to sulfur dioxide:

reactants products
s t 0, -> SO,
heat release = 4000 Btu/lb [37]

When combustion is 100 percent efficient it means that all combus-

tible elements have been fully oxidized to products releasing the
greatest possible heat energy. For biomass fuels this implies that all
carbon has been converted to carbon dioxide and all hydrogen to water.
Maximum temperature will correspond to this point because optimum
efficiency corresponds to reactions with the greatest heat release per
pound of fuel.

Combustion or flame temperature in "real-1 ife" burners will always

be less than the calculated adiabatic flame temperature (AFT), because
of heat losses. These losses include: 1) incomplete carbon and hydro-
gen oxidation; 2) combustion less than instantaneous; 3) radiation,
convection, and conduction losses; and 4) inherit ash heated in the
burner.

Combustion is never 100 percent efficient in actual burners.

Another indication of this is the amount of carbon monoxide (CO) in the

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 41
exhaust. Remember that one product of fast pyrolysis and possibly even
glowing combustion is carbon monoxide. If this CO is not later oxi-
dized to CO, during combustion then it exits the burner as a heat loss.
This loss is equal to 4340 Btu per pound of carbon in the fuel [lo].
This is true because the oxidation of CO to CO, releases 4340 Btu/lb by
the following equation:

react ants products

co t 1/20, -> CO,
heat release = 4340 Btu/lb

Gaseous products of slow and fast pyrolysis contain unburned

hydrocarbons and organic compounds, which for any number of reasons are
not broken down and compl etel y oxidized. They i ncl ude hydrocarbons,
and a wide class of organic compounds called polycyclic organic matter
(POM) [38]. These emissions can be substantial in low efficiency burn-
ers such as wood-stoves that are "stoked or damped-down'' and other
poorly designed combustion equipment. In most commercial and newer
residential appliances there is not significant heat loss from these
unburned emissions.

Figure 12 is a schematic representation of the primary processes

that occur in a fuel bed such as found in a spreader-stoker or dutch-
oven-type furnace. The curves to the right of the picture and text
show how combustion gas composition and temperature vary with height in
the fuel bed. Figure 12 shows approximately where the idealized com-
bustion equations [Eqs. (12), (13) and (15)] occur within a fuel bed.
Note that this is a schematic representation and the actual distribu-
tion of where the combustion reactions occur depends on many things;
some are, percent excess air, ratio of over to underfire air, and fuel
moisture content.

Another widely used measure of combustion efficiency is the com-

bustible material remaining in the ash that leaves the burner with the
exhaust gases (called fly ash) [39]. This ash usually contains

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

42 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICSOF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 SECONDARY OXIDATION ZONE
2co 0 2 -’ 2 c 0 2
OV ERFl RE c + 0 2 -’c 0 2
AIR BED TOP ti2 + 11202 -# ti20

PREHEAT ZONE

FUEL
- ignition
plane

P BED REDUCTION ZONE

c02 + c -> 2co
OXIDATION ZONE
c + 02 -’c02
8 GRATE ASH LAYER
cn ...................

t
b .I

F!
rn C
9 COMPOSITION
rn
0 AND TEMPERATURE
UNDERFIRE AIR
?i PLOTS
6
cn
v)

e Figure 12. Schematic Representation o f a Fuel Bed and t h e Basic Chemical Equations for t h e
Combustion o f Solid Biomass Fuel, i n c l u d i n g Composition and Temperature P l o t s .
Source [38].
inorganic (non-combusti ble) and organic (combustible) particulate. If
the combustion were 100 percent efficient there would be no combust bl e
in the fly ash, it would be burned to CO, and/or H,O.

Oxides of Nitroqen - Another indicator of combustion efficiency

is oxides of nitrogen. The presence of oxides of nitrogen (NO,) in the
exhaust gases may prove to be a useful indicator of combustion tempera-
ture. Usually, NO, is discussed for its contributing role in photo-
chemical reaction in smog production [38,40]. However, i t i s well
known that NO, formation is catalyzed by increasing temperature, and as
was discussed earlier, increasing temperature signifies increased
combustion efficiency.

There is a complicating factor for solids combustion. It is that

NO, can be formed in relatively substantial quantities by both air-born
and fuel-bound nitrogen. In well-mixed, flaming combustion NO, should
peak at the stoichiometric air/fuel ratio, but because of "kinetic
noneq~ilibrium"~effects, it i s found in a slightly oxygen rich envi-
ronment [40]. The NO, formed by air-born nitrogen is sometimes called
"thermal NO," because its formation is highly temperature dependent,
but it also depends on local oxygen concentration.

Nitrogen in fuel is usually bound to hydrogen or carbon atoms and

is sometimes called "chemical NO," when it is burned. Experiments have
shown that when fuel nitrogen compounds are present the overall NO,
level can significantly increase. Most interesting though is that fuel
bound NO, formation seems to be only slightly temperature dependent as
opposed to the strong temperature dependence of thermal NO, formation
[ 4 0 ] . Fortunately (from an air qual ity standpoint) , fuel-bound nitro-
gen is usually a very small percentage by weight of the elemental
components of biomass fuel i .e. = 0.0 to 1 .O percent.

'Kinetic 'nonequilibrium refers to a partially complete time-dependent

chemical reaction.
BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:
44 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
4.2 Environmental Considerations

Gaseous emissions and o t h e r p o l l u t a n t s are c u r r e n t l y r e g u l a t e d by

Federal, S t a t e o r l o c a l agencies. No attempt i s made t o c i t e exact
emission standards f o r a l l p o s s i b l e s i t u a t i o n s . This i s a very complex
s u b j e c t which depends on many f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g :

Type o f appliance
a) r e s i d e n t i a l wood stove
b) commerci a l / i n s t it u t ional b o i 1e r s

Size o f appliance (heat o r steam r a t i n g )

a) Btu/hr

Fuel used
a) coal, o i l , n a t u r a l gas
b) c o f i r e d ; coal + wood e t c .
c) RDF/MSW

Regul a t o r y Agency
a) area where appliance i s s i t u a t e d
b) time o f year
c) a i r q u a l i t y a t any p a r t i c u l a r time

I n f o r m a t i o n on emission standards s p e c i f i c t o a p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a l -
l a t i o n , can be obtained from t h e Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency (EPA),
Federal Register, o r i n d i v i d u a l S t a t e Environmental Agencies.

Emission r e g u l a t i o n s are enforced by t h r e e l e v e l s o f government:

Federal, S t a t e and l o c a l . The Federal agency i n charge o f s e t t i n g
standards and e n f o r c i n g them i s t h e Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency
(EPA). The EPA s e t s t h e standards f o r type o f emission, sampling
method and emission l e v e l . The S t a t e agencies (such as Oregon’s De-
partment o f Environmental Qualit y DEQ) , and loca1 agencies, are r e a l ly
t h e workhorses i n t h e program. T h e i r j o b i s t o provide a p e r m i t t i n g

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 45
process and make sure the EPA standards are met or exceeded, i.e. each
State has authority to raise the emission level standard above that
required by the EPA, but they may not provide variance for lowering
those standards.

Table 12 lists the EPA criteria and noncriteria emission species

for wood fired appliances. "Criteria" species refers to emissions that
are regulated by law and noncriteria species are those that are not
regulated at present but are being studied extensively for possible
inclusion. It should be noted that the criteria emission species
listed in Table 12 are enforced at some level for all combustion
devices including those that burn coal, oil, RDF and other biomass
fuels. Following is a brief description of each criteria emission.

Particulate - This is the fine liquid or solid particles that

exit the furnace stack. It consists of combustible, organic and non-
combustible (ash) material. The standard for sampling particulate i s
EPA Method 5. In many instances this is the only emission requirement
necessary to meet state certification. Along with particulate, some
areas have opacity" standards which limit the amount of visible smoke
emissions [3].

Sulfur Oxides CS0,l - SO, is formed by oxidation of fuel bound

sulfur during combustion. Sulfur content in wood fuel is usually so
low that SO, i s immeasurable, however, this may not be the case with
MSW/RDF fuels or in coal t biomass cofiring applications. The applica-
ble standard is EPA method 6. Some work suggests that even in bark
combustion with relatively high sulfur content most of the sulfur
(approximately 95 percent) remains in the ash [19].

Nitroclen Oxides (NOXI - Most licensing agencies do not regulate

NO, emissions. This is due to the fact that most local areas are not
subject to the atmospheric conditions leading to photochemical smog.

"Opacity is the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission of

light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:
46 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
Table 12. EPA C r i t e r i a and Non-Criteria Emission Species f o r Wood
Burning Devices .
Source [ 381.

1 Emission Species
~-
1 C r i t e r i a I Non-Criteria 1
~

Particulate *
*
SOX
*
NO,
Hydrocarbons *a

I1 co
Condensable Organics I
*
I *
POMb *
Formaldehyde *
T o t a l Carbonyls *
Phenol *

a T y p i c a l l y t h e r e i s a Primary Ambient A i r Q u a l i t y
Standard (PAAQS) s e t f o r a l l c r i t e r i a emissions;
however, none e x i s t s f o r hydrocarbons [38].
Some s t a t e s do have a standard f o r hydrocarbons.

bPOM = P o l y c y c l i c Organic M a t t e r

It should be noted that there are no NO, pollution abatement

methods (no devices) t h a t can be employed "on-line" i n t h e exhaust
stream. Only by r e d u c t i o n o f flame temperature can NO, formation be
decreased [ 7 ] . Operating a t low excess a i r l e v e l s , u s i n g low-turbu-
l e n c e d i f f u s i o n flame o p e r a t i o n and using water cooled furnaces helps
c o n t r o l NO, f o r m a t i on.

-
CO formation i s a r e s u l t o f poor combus-
tion. It can be a serious problem i n b o i l e r s f i r e d w i t h wet f u e l
because i t i s caused by low combustion temperatures, e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e
f l a m i n g combustion zone where much o f t h e CO i s converted t o CO, in

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 47
furnaces using overfire air. CO emission tests are not always required
by regulatory agencies, but it is much more widely tested than NO,.

Hvdrocarbons - Hydrocarbons are volatile gases that result from

the inc.omplete combustion of both the carbon and hydrogen in fuel.
Usually they result from incomplete pyrolysis and combustion of large
chain volatiles such as cellulose and formaldehyde [9]. Similar to
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon emissions are not usually a test require-
ment to meet state licensing laws.

The entire field of combustion technology and environmental stan-

dards for RDF/MSW is in a rapidly, growing stage. Table 13 shows the
current National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for any device
(including furnaces) which emit such pollutants.

In addition to the NAAQS, another set of standards called National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) comes from the
Clean Air Act Amendment of 1977 (CAAA). NESHAP regulates emissions for
which no NAAQS exists. At present the EPA has designated: asbestos,
beryllium, mercury and vinyl chloride as hazardous air pollutants [41].

In most locations for solely wood-fired furnaces of institutional

or commercial size there are no ash handling standards similar to the
EPA regulations for gaseous emissions. Many wood product industry
boilers in the five-state Northwest Region use the ash for roadfill.
However, for coal, RDF, or MSW furnaces there are EPA standards. Many
utility size boilers both coal, cofired, or pure RDF/MSW fired, use
water to quench and transport collected grate and fly ash.

Where sitting conditions permit, ash slurry is pumped to holding

ponds where the process may include water recovery and reuse [7].

For RDF/MSW or cofired plants, the EPA requires that bottom ash be
testdd for the heavy metals listed in Table 14.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

48 TESTING AND WALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICSOF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Table 13. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Source [41].
I

Primary Ssandard
Emission Species Averaging Period (w/m 1
Sulfur Dioxide 24 hr 365
Total Sus. Particulate 24 hr 260
Carbon Monoxide 8 hr 10,000
~ ~~~

Photo-Chemical Oxidants 1 hr 240

Nitrogen Dioxide Annual mean 100
~~

Non-Methane Hydrocarbon 3 hr 160

Lead and its compounds 1 calendar quarter 1.5

Tab1 e 14. EP Toxicity Parameters and Current Maximum A1 1 owabl e

Level s . Source [ 421 .

Max. Allowable Concentration

Metal Contaminant (milligrams/milliliters)
Arsenic 5.0
(I Barium I 100.0
11 Cadmium I 1 .o

1) Chromium I 5.0
Lead 5.0
Mercury .2
~~

Selenium 1 .o
Si 1 ver 5.0
I

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 49
 The trace metals Antimony, Beryllium, Copper, Nickel, Thallium,
and Zinc, are also under intense scrutiny as possible contaminants to
add to the EP Toxicity list [ 4 2 ] .

4.3 Equipment Considerations

4.3.1 Ash

Ash from biomass fuels is the single most destructive const t uen t
for furnaces and boilers. The three main problems with the ash n fuel
are :

1) Slagging/Deposition
2) Erosion
3) Corrosion

Slagging occurs when ash becomes softened or liquid and clings

tenaciously to grate, ceramic and waterfall surfaces. "Slagging" is a
term that is widely misused to describe two distinct entities. Slagg-
ing is defined as fused matter or re-solidified molten ash that forms
on furnace walls or other surfaces exposed mainly to radiant heat or
very high gas temperatures. Deposition is the process where cemented
or sintered ash builds up usually on convection surfaces such as super-
heater and re-heater tubes, but can also form on cooler furnace sur-
faces.

The major problems with slagging and deposition is that it reduces

heat transfer on heat exchange surfaces, and can bridge, plug and
mechanically destroy grates. Slagging and deposition can tear down
refractory by repeated 1 iquidizing and re-sol idification.

Erosion of furnace and boiler surfaces is largely due to dense,

hard, particulate ash which is in the gas stream. It is an important
topic because erosion can be rapid if the right conditions exist of
high ash concentration and high exhaust velocities.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

50 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Corrosion has been studied intensively by the coal furnace and
boiler industry. It is also gaining rapid attention in the cofiring
and RDF/MSW industry because of the highly corrosive nature of the
constituents in RDF and MSW. The major problem with corrosion is metal
wastage.

For salt-soaked wood fuel and RDF/MSW chlorine can cause severe
metal wastage. Chlorine in refuse is responsible for the most serious
corrosion of boiler tubes [ 4 ] . Sulfur, Sodium, potassium, lead and
zinc also do their share.

An extensive study of chloride corrosion from the burning of both

RDF and MSW cofired with high sulfur coal provide the following conclu-
sions [ 4 ] :

The conversion of chlorides to sulfates in ash deposits

by the action of SO, releases chlorine and hydrochloric
acid at the metal surfaces. This causes serious corro-
sion.
Chloride corrosion can be made negligible by increasing
the available sulfur in fuel to equal 2 percent by
weight of the refuse.
Cofiring of MSW with high sulfur coal for up to a 60/40
blend (Btu basis) will not increase the initial corro-
sion rate beyond that of coal alone.

Points B and C above are interesting and potentially valuable. There

are two major benefits to cofiring high sulfur coal, MSW/RDF, or salt
soaked wood biomass. One benefit is that decreased high-sulfur coal
input means less sulfur oxide emissions and subsequently less acid gas
emission, i.e. H,SO,, one component of "acid-rain". The other benefit
is that metal wastage by chloride corrosion is reduced significantly,
helping reduce maintenance and material cost.

Figure 13 shows the isothermal corrosion rate in (mils/hour) vs.

sulfur addition to refuse (MSW). The figure indicates that for sulfur
additions less than .75 percent the result is generally increased
corrosion, yet, beyond .75 percent there i s a dramatic corrosion

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICSOF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 51
 057 ,
OJI

024

026
i
I
\
\
*
e
h

0.22

a. e
g 0.6

g
oi
0
0.11

" om
0.01

om

Figure 13. Isothermal Corrosion Rates as a Function of Sulfur Addition

to Municipal Solid Waste. Source [ 4 ] .

reduction. The gaseous emissions were not included in this study, so a

judgment can not be made of the relative merit of corrosion inhibition
vs. emission quality. The overall idea seems worthwhile and more
studies should be done.

Conclusions from a second study on corrosion problems for refuse-

type fuels indicates that lead and zinc in the form of chlorides of
lead sulfates and chlorides of zinc, contribute to the corrosion in
power pl ants.

It is apparent that ash is a destructive element in operating

furnaces and boilers and may also be a toxic or harmful environmental
di sposal problem. Wood fuel s, in general, wi 1 1 cause fewer problems
because of their low ash content, low heavy metal and usually low

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

52 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
chloride concentrations. MSW/RDF fuels can cause significant problems
due to their overall ash content and chemical nature.

4.4 Methods of Combustion

There are many methods used to release the usable heat in the
waste fuels to produce usable power, however, there is considerable
confusion as to the classification of the methods of waste incinera-
tion. In the first method of classification, the differing combustion
systems are broken down into two categories according to the types o f
waste fuel they use, which are: 1) mass-burning systems which can take
raw MSW with minimal front-end processing, and 2) RDF systems which use
RDF alone or cofired with another fuel such as coal or wood. The
second classification method breaks down the combustion system accord-
ing to the actual process of combustion, which are: 1) excess air
systems which use an above-stoichiometric" amount of combustion air to
fully fire the wastes, and 2) starved air systems which use a below-
stoichiometric amount of combustion air to drive the combustible gases
off the waste in the primary chamber and then the gases are ignited in
a secondary chamber.

4.4.1 Excess Air Grate Systems

This is by far the most popular method for combustion among the
large and intermediate power producing facilities that are servicing
the waste disposal needs o f a municipality. These systems are almost
exclusively used as mass-burning units to accept MSW that is unpro-
cessed (or has had very little processing). These systems are versa-
tile and can accommodate other kinds of fuels for cofiring such as coal
or wood.

"Stoichiometric mixtures have the exact amount of oxygen to produce a

complete combustion reaction.
BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:
TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 53
 The most popular of these grates is the inclined stoker grate that
agitates the MSW for full burning as it travels down the grate.
Figure 14 shows how the inclined stoker grate works to fully combust
the fuel. The raw MSW is fed in at the top. It then rolls down under
the force of gravity as the reciprocating grate sections agitate the
fuel, exposing the unheated portion. Underfire air is fed in through
slits in the grate and overfire air is fed in over the rolling mass.
As the fuel travels down the grate, it goes through all processes of
combustion. At the end of the grate, the fuel has been completely
burned and the ash is removed.

The rotary kiln is used to agitate the fuel by turning it in a

horizontally inclined drum which acts as the agitating grate. The fuel
(which can be MSW or RDF) is fed in at the top of the drum and it goes
through similar combustion processes as the inclined grate. The ash is
removed at the bottom end o f the drum and the hot combustion gases are
directed into the heating elements o f the boiler. Figure 15 is a
simplified drawing of a rotary kiln. Unlike the inclined grate, the
rotary kiln is generally limited to smaller scale operations. The most

\ Fuel
Agitation
fpccd I \ \ \

Raw

(Ash)

Figure 14. Simplified Drawing of the Inclined Stoker Grate.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

54 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICSOF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Fuel Feed

Rotation

b n

Figure 15. Simplified Drawing of a Rotary Kiln Combustor.

popular version of the rotary kiln is the O’Conner rotary combustor

[331

4.4.2 Modular Starved Air Systems

The modular starved air system burns MSW or RDF in a two-step

process. In the primary chamber, the fuel is heated (pyrolyzed with
below-stoichiometric or starved air) to drive off the combustible and
other volatile gases. The combustible gases are pulled via an induc-
tion fan into the secondary chamber where actual ignition takes place
with above-stoichiometric (excess) air. Figure 16 shows a simp1 ified
cross-sect onal view of a typical modular incinerator.

4.4.3 Fluidized-Bed Combustion

Fluid zed-bed combustion (FBC) is a relatively new techno ogy that

was developed for the combustion o f coal. This method o f waste-to-
energy is still in its stages of development. Presently, there are

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND OIALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 55
 Figure 16. Simplified Cross Section of a Modular Starved Air
Incinerator.

only a handful of commercially operated FBC facilities. These fac l i -

ties are primarily used as on-si te waste-to-energy systems for interme-
diate users such as universities or industrial plants [32].

The waste fuel can either be burned directly or it can be gasified

(at starved air conditions) for use in a gas turbine. All FBC systems
require that the input fuel must be relatively clean, and in the case
of waste fuels, this means that only RDF can be used.

The FBC combustor works by having the RDF introduced on the "bed",
which is a grate with air flow from underneath. This air flow actually
suspends the fuel above the grate allowing for even agitation and
combustion. About 15 to 20 percent o f the fuel is actually "burned";
the remaining fuel is pyrolyzed under starved air conditions with the
combustible gases being vented off the top of the FBC reactor. The
combystible gases are then cleaned for use in a gas turbine or in a
boi 1 er .

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

56 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 4.4.4 RDF Cofired or Used Alone in Existing Boiler Designs

This is by far one of the most promising methods of waste-to-

energy because the waste fuel can be used in boilers that currently
burn other solid fuels, namely coal. In most cases, the processed RDF
has a heating value that is similar to coal and can replace and/or
supplement coal in existing boilers [ 4 3 ] . The opposite is also true:
coal can be used to replace or supplement RDF in boilers that were
built for RDF burning. RDF can be produced on-site, which is usually
the case for facilities that produce and sell power; or the RDF can be
produced off-site in a separate facility and then sold to individual
users as a replacement fuel for coal. The potentially large market for
RDF as a replacement fuel, especially among institutional and industri-
al boiler operators, has sparked the growth of an industry of commer-
cial RDF producers.

4.5 Cofiring

Cofiring is generally considered to be the combustion of biomass

with coal, but it may also be the concurrent firing of two dissimilar
biomass fuels such as wood and RDF. Currently published cofiring
experience is limited to large scale steam and electric plants. The
reason for this is that electric utilities have been studying and using
biomass a s a real supplement t o t h e i r normal coal fuel since the early
1970's. The attractiveness of biomass as a utility fuel is a function
of the price of fossil fuels, the technology base (especially for
retro-fitting), and system economics. Two main sections follow, one is
on the positive aspects of utilizing biomass for cofiring and the other
section discusses the negat ve aspects as they have been determ ned by
utility experience.

4.5.1 Positive Aspects

One of the best reasons for utilizing biomass is the price compa-
red to fossil fuels. Also, the price of most biomass fuels has not

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 57
increased as rapidly as fossil fuels [29]. However, biomass fuels are
sufficiently available in most localities to completely supply large
utilities and that is why cofiring is of importance. Although there
does not seem to be an eminent danger of a shortfall in primary energy,
i.e. coal, nuclear, and oil, it is a possibility and another motivation
for at least studying cofiring. Conversely, in many areas of the U.S.
there is a windfall of biomass, so much in fact that it is a real
disposal problem. For example, Port1 and Oregon, has recently performed
some rapid economic, societal, and political planning to determine what
to do when their current landfill becomes inoperable. The final deci-
sion is to truck their waste outside of the Portland Metro area to a
new landfill. Whole geographic areas may be affected, such as South-
east Alaska, where both MSW and wood biomass pose real disposal prob-
lems. The two main reasons for this are the fact that most of South-
east Alaska is public land and the areas that are private are unsuit-
able for landfilling (it is hard rock). The State of Alaska also
maintains emission standards that exceed the Federal requirements in
some cases.

A major reason for using biomass is to ameliorate the impact of

strict envi ronmenta regul at ions. Biomass can he1 p because it has been
shown to be cleaner in use than high sulfur fossil fuels [29]. One
major problem in burning coal is its sulfur content. Coal sulfur
content ranges from .5 to 5 percent by weight, and generally, 90 per-
cent or more of this will be converted to sulfur oxide pollutants.
These pollutants are primarily sulfur dioxide SO,, with 1 to 4 percent
sulfur trioxide SO, [ 7 ] . Wood and RDF have sulfur contents that range
from 0.0 to .1 percent and .1 to . 6 percent, respectively [6,7].
Obviously, the use of wood and/or RDF as additives to coal will de-
crease the overall output of sulfur oxides on a per-Btu-fired basis.

The production of biomass may also be less destructive to the

environment, i.e. mill residues, tree and seed farms, and RDF process-
ing plants, versus strip mining, nuclear waste disposal, and the cata-
strophic dangers of pipeline or tanker rupture.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

58 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 The presence of biomass processors in a local area that can act
cooperatively is a site-specific advantage for cofiring [29]. A study
was completed of cofiring wood chips with coal in interior Alaska [12].
An interesting problem was noted; they would like to clear more land
for agriculture and thin many stands of existing timber, but it is not
economically advantageous at present. Currently, the practice is to
pile and burn the biomass but this is expensive since it requires
repeat piling and burning up to four times to sufficiently reduce the
volume [ 121. A complete techno1 ogical and economic study was completed
for Fort Wainwright, Alaska, to assess the feasibility of using wood
biomass with coal to produce steam. The Fort Wainwright tests led to
the following technical and economic conclusions, respectively.

4.5.2 Technical Feasibility

Burning wood chips with coal for producing steam is technological-

ly feasible. The major problems were in fuel handling prior to burning
and in meeting peak demand. One problem was mixing, but through trial-
and-error the Fort Wainwright group found a suitable solution. Another
problem was inadequate chip hopper volume and freezing. Both o f these
problems could be dealt with by a minor investment in storage technolo-
9Y -
The last major problem was meeting peak steam load. The stoker at
Fort Wainwright was incapable of feeding enough fuel above an 80 per-
cent coal t 20 percent chip mixture to keep steam rates at desired
levels. This was mainly associated with the Fort Wainwright boiler and
could be eliminated with a high volume stoking system [12]. Desirable
facets of the operation were emissions all well below the State of
Alaska Standard of .1 grams per dry standard cubic foot for coal burn-
ing installations operating before July 1, 1972. There was also an 8
to 16 percent reduction in bottom ash.

etomss FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 59
 4.5.3 Economic Feasibility

As long as delivered wood chip moisture content is below 45 per-

cent wet-basis (and all chips during testing were less than 41.6 per-
cent moisture), all harvesting scenarios considered would result in a
cost less than coal per Btu. However, the harvesting scenarios all
assumed annual production of more than 20,000 tons o f chips. With
diminished output the harvesting would become economically infeasible.
Unfortunately, the Fort Wainwright plant could, at best, only use
approximately 50 percent of this 20,000 tons of chips. One or more
utilities using wood chips would solve this problem. The Fort Wain-
wright study showed promise as a consummate match of community need and
biomass use. There were problems but these are expected in any experi-
mental, retro-fitted design.

Biomass-based cofiring installations may be desirable in areas

with large local biomass supplies. One particular advantage is that
cofiring installations are not as sensitive to economies of scale such
as in the nuclear industry where it is infeasible to build ‘Ismall”
plants because of the investments in environmental studies, safety and
security engineering.

Table 15 contains economic data and motivational reasons for

cofiring in some actual situations.

Table 15, demonstrates considerable promise for cofiring wood

wastes with coal and even oil. In fact, there is very little evidence
of technical reasons against cofiring wood, and the economics look good
for si te-specific instal 1 ations.

The following discussion covers some 1 iterature on the positive

aspects of cofiring RDF fuel with coal in utility boilers.

Madison Gas and Electric Co. (MGE), Blount Station (BS), Madison,
WI, has been burning RDF on a small but continuing scale since 1979.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

60 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Table 15. The Economics of Cofiring at Several Commercial Boiler
Sites. Source [29].

Fuel Costa
Cofiring* Purchase '
P1 ant Species Type Basis bio. other Motivation
1 Hardwood wastes Btu coal fav. economic
.6 1.5 comm. interest
2 Hardwood wastes Btu oi 1 fav. economic
.6 5.0 comm. interest
7 ______~ I I I

Softwood sawdust marg. economic

4 ISoftwood Aspen I wt*

I *SOa11.7 I fav. economic
comm. interest
Contaminated
Seed Corn
1 N/A IN/A N/A fav. economic
ldisposal prob.

*Plant 1: Northern States Power, Red Wing, Minnesota

Plant 2: Northern States Power, French Island Wisconsin
Plant 3: Grandhaven Board o f Light and Power, Michigan
Plant 4: Lake Superior District Power Co.
Plant 5: Cedar Falls Utilities
aCost figures are dollars per mi lion Btu and not corrected for
infl at ion.

BS burned 13,816 tons o f RDF in 1984 and MGE declares that the per-
formance o f t h e f u e l has been s a t i s f a c t o r y [ 4 4 ] . BS has experienced no
technical boiler problems not attributable to normal wear. In fact,
stack emissions tests indicate that particulate emissions were not
increased while cofiring and hydrochloric acid (HCL) emissions were no
greater than they would be while burning a typical Midwest coal.

Despite the rosy technical picture, MGE has not been able to
operate the BS plant for a profit. It should be mentioned that it
continues operation because of support from the public sector.

Department of Electric and Water Utilities (DEWD), Mcintosh Power

Plant (MPP), City of Lakeland FL. Facility processes and burns an

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 61
average of 150 tons of raw MSW per day. The "processing" is a complete
MSW-to-RDF plant. The MPP is the largest refuse-to-energy electric
generating station in the U.S. [ 4 4 ] . The MSW-to-RDF processing facili-
ty is specifically designed to provide a supplemental fuel (10 percent)
for the MPP boilers. It currently produces a revenue of $30,000 per
month.

For this plant the RDF has three to four times as much ash as the
coal being burned, but since the unit was designed with this in mind
there have been no problems. The boiler - Efficiency is reduced due to
high moisture content (38 percent) and cold air introduced by the RDF
pneumatic conveying system. However, it is noted that SO, emissions
are down. Boiler Corrosion tests have shown that RDF burning could be
doubled before significant corrosion occurs. Technically, the opera-
tion sounds efficient, however, it took two years to identify and
correct the initial processing and burning problems. Despite this long
"learning curve," the DEWD predicts the benefits, both environmental
and economic, to be gained during the lifetime of the plant show solid
waste disposal and power generation are profitable and compatible. The
DEWD believes the benefits of reducing coal use and slowing landfill
expansion should offset the cost of retro-fitting existing plants, or
building new ones. This seems true if information such as that given
in the DEWD report is made available, i.e. if we learn from others
trials.

The preceding discussion indicates that cofiring woody or RDF

biomass with coal (or oil) is technically feasible and economically
beneficial in many circumstances. However, there are some technologi-
cal problems that have been experienced while cofiring RDF in particu-
lar.

4.5.4 Negative Aspects

*There are problems associated with both the quantity and quality
of RDF ash. Extreme values of ash content range from 4.3 to 53.8

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

62 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
percent by dry weight [ 6 ] . Secondly, typical ash fusion temperatures
are lower for RDF than coal in an oxidizing environment and nearly the
same in a reducing environment [44]. This means that RDF ash has a
greater potential to soften and stick to boiler surfaces and reduce
heat transfer efficiency. "High" heat release boilers should be avoid-
ed for cofiring RDF [44]. Glass and aluminum can cause severe slagging
problems if major quantities are not screened out.

There have been five material handling problems identified in the

past. They are:

1) Dust along transport lines and in receiving stations.

2) RDF compaction and odors in storage bins due to long
storage times.
3) Inconsistent RDF fuel reclaim flow due to bridging and
corrosion.
4) Oversized materials, textiles, and wire plugging air
lock feeder and/or transport lines.
5) Variation in RDF heat input to the boiler due to volu-
metric feed systems and inconsistent RDF heating value.

Detailed computer simulations have shown that a typical 200MW

boiler will see a 1.9 to 4.2 percent decrease in efficiency at 20
percent RDF firing (heat input basis) [ 6 ] . There are two main reasons
for this: 1) increased flue gas exit temperature, and 2) increased
flue gas flowrate.

Increased flue gas flowrate is caused by higher excess combustion

air necessary for proper firing of RDF. The reason for this is because
of the high moisture content, and the higher reactivity of the cofired
fuel, whether it is wood or RDF. The increased flowrate is also due to
higher fuel mass flowrates to achieve the same Btu output as coal.

Increased flue gas exit temperature is due to the higher excess

air requirements, and in many installations the preheat section (using
exhaust gas) does not heat the RDF combustion air used for pneumatic

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 63
transport [ l l ] . Decreased heat transfer due to slagging can also
increase flue gas temperature.

The results of 1) and 2) above is to incur boiler losses due to

dry gas, heat loss, water vapor heat loss, and unburned combustibles
(carried out by increased volumetric flowrates).

Steam generator manufacturers recommend maximum RDF cofiring rates

of 20 percent of the total fuel heat input to insure HC1 concentrations
in the combustion gas are low enough to avoid increased corrosion on
metal boiler surfaces [ l l ] . The primary problem seems to be when
bottom ash piles up onto water wall tubes, especially in tangentially
fired units. Low oxygen levels and a reducing atmosphere next to the
tubes catalyzes tube wastage due to RDF contact. Fortunately, no
increased corrosion of superheater tube surfaces has been reported.

Currently, RDF cofiring plants have had little difficulty meeting

Federal or State air quality standards. This may change rapidly howev-
er as there is current work on developing rigorous standards for a host
o f "new" pollutants including: acid gases (H,SO,, HCl, SO,, HF, NH,),
heavy metal particulate, including (Pb, Zn, Cr, Sn,..), and trace
organic compounds such as dioxin and furan [ 4 4 ] .

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

64 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 5.0 EXPERIMENTAL COMBUSTION OF WOOD BIOMASS PELLETS

The Department of Mechanical Engineering at Oregon State Universi-

ty has built a Biomass Combustion Unit to burn pelletized biomass
fuels. The BCU was designed to aid in the thermodynamic analysis of
pellet fuel combustion and was used to analyze nine different pellet
fuels under varying conditions of percent excess air (EA%), fuel flow-
rate, and percent underfire air (UF%). The unabridged report on exper-
imental combustion is found in reference [ 4 5 ] .

5.1 Apparatus

Figures 17 and 18 show the BCU and a schematic of the associated

equipment. Figure 17 shows the location of the under and overfire air
tubes and shows the feed tube where wood biomass pellet fuel enters via
a metering drum and horizontal auger. The fuel then drops by gravity
onto the grate. The "cool ing water .feedtube" shown wrapped around the
feed system, is there to prevent overheating of the auger system and to
prevent pre-combustion of the pellets. Figure 17 also shows the port
where combustion gases exit the BCU and continue to other test equip-
ment and eventually are exhausted to the atmosphere.

To prevent damage to the stainless steel outer shell of the BCU

and to promote thermal stability, the BCU is lined with three inches of
high temperature cerami c refractory.

Figure 18 shows the major components of the system and are brief-
ly described in the following. The combustion air is delivered by a
compressor, flows through a desiccant + cotton - fiber filter and then
into the "Air Dryer." The air is then metered to the underfire port,
the overfire port and the cooling port for the "opacity monitor." The
metering is by four rotometers or "Flowmeters". Once the UF and OF air
is used for combustion and passes through the BCU, it goes to the
"Opacity Monitor" where a measure of the exhausts opacity is made.
Opacity, is the propensity for the exhaust to diminish light travel,

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 65
 AUGER

Figure 17. Cutaway View o f t h e Biomass Combustion U n i t (BCU). Shows

Important Components Including: O v e r f i r e Air Tube,
U n d e r f i r e Air P o r t , Grate, Ceramic R e f r a c t o r y , Exhaust
P o r t , and P e l l e t Fuel Feed Mechanism.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

66 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 l
I
o LEGEND
TEMPERATURE SENSOR

PRESSURE SENSOR
W T
STDPER D R S y r b X-Y

TABLE
PROBE

1@ I
TEMP. L PRESS. SENSOR

, GAS FLOV DIRECTION

TT'S THERMDCOVPLES ANALYSIS PROBES

1
PARTICULATE
SAMPLING
B TRAIN
+
FLOVHETERS

8
v,
Prn A I R HEATERS

r!
CONTROL UNIT \ 14
rn
0

POCO
I '
I

GAS
ANALYSIS
DATA
I

ACQUISITION
SmPm
I

MOTW
CMROU
HEATER
VARIABLE
POWER
\./ bl P I
UNIT UNIT SUPPLY
I
rn
c; I' I 1 I
-t
9
Figure 18. Schematic o f the E n t i r e Experimental F a c i l i t y . Shows Flows o f I n l e t A i r , P e l l e t Fuel and
Exhaust Gases.
i.e. the greater the opacity the more "smokey" is the exhaust. It is
measured on a scale from one to one hundred percent. Finally the spent
combustion gases are drawn into the "Main Exhaust". However, during a
portion o f a test run the "Particulate Sampling Train" i s used to draw
a fraction of the exhaust gases through a glass fiber filter. This
filter i s later analyzed for the amount of particulate and the ratio of
combustible to noncombustible components in the particulate (fly ash).

The triangular box to the right o f the BCU in Fig. 18 i s the "Fuel
Hopper". Fuel is placed in the hopper and then transported by means of
a motor driven metering drum down into the feed tube where a separate
motor-driven horizontal auger pushes the fuel into the combustion
chamber.

Above the BCU is the the X-Y gas and temperature probe table. The
"X-Y Probe Table" consists of computer controlled stepper motors that
turn screw shafts in both the horizontal and vertical directions.

Two (type-k ) stainless steel clad thermocouple probes and a gas

analysis probe were used in the experiment. The gas analysis probe is
the sampling end of a combustion gas analysis unit which measures the
following parameters:

1) Carbon dioxide;
2) Oxygen;
3) Carbon monoxide;
4) Oxides of nitrogen;
5) Sulfur dioxide;
6) Combustible hydrocarbons; and
7) "Real-time" for each sample that was "data-logged".

Other sensors provided additional information when needed. They

incl uded, pressure gages, part i cul ate sampl i ng train, and more type-k
thermocouples. Shown schematically in Figure 18 is the "Control Unit".
The heart of this system is a microcomputer. This computer and some

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

68 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
associated data acquisition hardware was used to gather temperature and
gas composition data from the probes. It also gathered temperature
data from a number of other locations in the system and gives the
commands that move the stepper motors.

To aid the investigation, a Quick-Basic program was written that

combined all functions. This meant that most of the data acquisition
was automatic and required no additional work besides setting the
initial program parameters such as length of run and sampling rate and
starting the program. Specifically, the only data reported in this
experimental investigation that was not "data-logged" by the Control
Unit was the data from the "Particulate Sampling Train" and fuel
flowrate.

5.2 Experiments

The Biomass Combustion Unit (BCU) facility was used to perform t h e

three following experiments:

1) Determine the oDtimal EA% and UF%'for one fuel. Optimal

refers to the most thermodynamically complete combus-
tion, i.e. combustion that is 100 percent efficient by
the First Law of Thermodynamics.
2) Test the characteristics and efficiency of multinle
fuels over a ranqe of feed rates and excess air (ERA)
holdinq UF% constant.
3) Test multiDle fuels for the effect o f increasinq the
underfire air temDerature to amroximatelv 300°F.

These experiments were performed while fixing many variables

constant and attempting to operate in a "steady-state" manner. Steady-
state implies that no changes in inlet air or fuel mass flows or prop-
erties occurred and the combustion proceeded with unchanged charac-
teristics in time. The underfire air and overfire flowrates and tem-
peratures, the pressure in the BCU, and the fuel mass flowrate were
held constant for all test runs.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 69
 The temperature and gas analysis probes were positioned 20 inches
above the grate for a l l experiments and the overfire a i r tube was
placed 4 inches above the grate. Test runs were for e i t h e r 1 or 1-1/2
hour duration with 30 d a t a points taken equally spaced in time for a l l
re1 evant vari ab1 es.

5.2.1 Optimal Firing Conditions

This experiment was performed t o determ ne. the " o p t mal percent-
ages of underfire a i r (UFX) and excess a i r (EA%) f o r one pel 1e t specie.
"Optimal" for this s e t of experiments i s when the combustion gases are
highest i n measured carbon dioxide (CO,). When CO, i s a maximum, the
available carbon in the fuel i s being burned most completely (produces
the greatest liberation of heat). Hydrogen (H,), i s the other main
combustible constituent in the wood pellets, b u t combustion t e s t s
indicate very l i t t l e combustible hydrocarbons i n the measured exhaust
which indicates t h a t "most" H, i s burned t o water vapor before reaching
the gas analysis probe. Other gas properties were analyzed in a more
qualitative sense t o help support the findings based on measured CO,
percent. Table 16, gives these variables.

Tests were performed with excess a i r level chosen and then the
five UF% air levels were randomly chosen in time. The experimental
matrix was designed for EA% values of 30 percent, 40 percent and
50 percent; however, the final value varied because of the s l i g h t l y
variable nature of the fuel feed system. For each block, 30 data
points were collected over one hour.

Test Results

Figure 19 i s a p l o t of six scaled gas parameters versus UF% a t a

specified level of EA%. The "scaled" variables are the actual values
divided by the largest value in a column, i . e . a l l CO, values i n a
column were divided by the maximum CO, value in t h a t column. This

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

70 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Table 16. Gas Property Values at Optimal Firing.

ir ~ ~
Expected Value at Optimal
1I Vari ab1 e I Firing Condition 1
Temperature
~~
I Maxi mum It
Carbon Monoxide Minimum
Oxides of Nitrogen Maxi mum
Particulate (fly ash) Minimum
Combustible (% in fly ash) Minimum

FEEDRATE = 42,246.(Btu/hr) : EXCESS AIR = 41.0 %

1.16 -
. 1.02 -
0
5
+
0.88-
2 0.74 -
5
L1-
0.60 -
V, 0.46 -
a
c3
0.32 '-

w
2 0.18-
0
v, 0.04 -
-0.lO 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1

10.00 14.50 19.00 23.50 28.00 32.50 37.00 41.50 46.00 50.50 55.00
UNDER FIRE AIR (X)

Figure 19. Gas Parameters for Pellet (1) Scaled by the Largest Value
i n the Test Column. The Gas Parameters are Plotted as a
Function o f UF% at a Level o f 41.0% Excess Air (41.0 EA%).

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 71
yields plots with a l l the dependent variables sca ed from zero t o one
which makes qualitative analysis of trends easy..

A t 30 percent underfire a i r , Figure 19 shows t h a t Temperature,

CO,, and NO, are a t maximums, Particulate i s near minimum, CO and
combustibles are a t true minimums. This corresponds well t o the pre-
dicted optimal solution shown in Table 16. A t an excess a i r level of
41.0 percent and 30 percent underfire a i r the combustion of t h i s pellet
fuel was optimal.

Plots l i k e Figure 19 were produced for t e s t s a t other excess a i r

levels. The trends in scaled gas parameters were very similar. They
showed an optimal UF% of nearly 30 percent. One major difference
occurred a t the excess air level of 87 percent and higher. A t this
level a l l curves were " f l a t " and located close t o each other. I t i s
h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h i s e f f e c t i s due t o t h e f a c t t h a t a t v e r y h i g h
excess a i r levels the fuel bed experiences turbulence and there i s no
distinguishable "over" or "under" f i r e a i r . This hypothesis i s
supported by visual observation. I t was observed t h a t only a very thin
fuel bed existed a t this EA% level, while a t the other two ower levels
there were well developed fuel beds.

A new variable i s defined as the C0,-based efficiency (C02EFF).

I t s the measured percentage of CO, i n the combustion gases divided by
the percentage of CO, calculated for the complete ("theoretical" or
"stoichiometric") combustion of the available fuel. C02EFF i s defined
as

'OEEFF = ( C02measuredC02theoret ica 1) x 100

I t i s assumed that the combustion energy losses due t o CO production,

combustibles i n f l y ash, and hydrocarbons, i s negligible. This i s
supported by the data for these three loss mechanisms which shows t h a t
t h e i r percentages or measure i n parts per million (ppm) i s very small.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

72 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Figure 20 shows t h e constant EA% curves f o r C02EFF versus UF%.
The p l o t s f o r excess a i r values o f 41.0 percent and 87.23 percent have
t h e same shape. They r u n p a r a l l e l b u t a t d i f f e r e n t " l e v e l s " o f EA%.
T h e i r e f f i c i e n c i e s range between 70 and 95 percent. The curve a t 20.8
percent excess a i r shows a marked average drop i n e f f i c i e n c y . T h i s i s
due t o oxygen " s t a r v a t i o n " o f t h e combusting f u e l bed. The f i n a l con-
c l u s i o n i s t h a t t h e optimal operating p o i n t i s a t 30 percent u n d e r f i r e
a i r and 41.0 percent excess a i r .

Figure 21, shows a p l o t o f t h e surface o f t h e curve which

represents t h e numerical approximation f o r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f COEEFF
as a f u n c t i o n o f EA% and UFX. A six-parameter, second-order polynomial
was ''fit" by t h e method o f least-squares t o t h e 15 mean C0,-based effi-
ciency data p o i n t s from experiment number 1.

For this model, R2 = 85.68 percent i s an i n d i c a t o r of a f a i r l y

strong a s s o c i a t i o n between t h e two independent v a r i a b l e s (EA% and UF%)
and t h e dependent v a r i a b l e (C02EFF). Unfortunately, because t h e r e i s
o n l y one observation a t each p o i n t t h e r e i s no e r r o r term o r variance
f o r t h i s model. I t i s assumed t h a t the q u a l i t a t i v e evidence using
Figures 19 and 20 h e l p support t h e model's v a l i d i t y .

Next, t h e equation t h a t describes t h e surface i n Figure 21 was

d i f f e r e n t i a t e d w i t h respect t o t h e two independent v a r i a b l e s and t h e
subsequent equations were' s e t equal t o zero and solved simultaneously.
The s o l u t i o n was a s t a t i o n a r y p o i n t f o r t h e C02EFF surface and a maxi-
mum by v i s u a l observance o f Figure 21. The c a l c u l a t e d optimal f i r i n g
c o n d i t i o n was found t o be C02EFF = 96.2 percent a t EA% = 59.5, and
UF% = 35.46. This corresponds f a i r l y w e l l w i t h t h e optimal p o i n t found
by g r a p h i c a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e raw data (Figures 19 and 20) which gave a
s o l u t i o n o f EA% = 41.0 and UF% = 30.0.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 73
 m.00 -
95.00 -
90.00 -
-
N
>-
85.00 -
3 80.00 -
w
0 75.00 -
LL

knI 70.00 -

12.00 16.00 20.00 24.00 28.00 32hO 36:00 40:00 44:OO 4 8 b 5: 00

PERCENT UNDER FIRE AIR

Figure 20. Level Curves o f CO Based E f f i c i e n c y as a Function o f Under

F i r e Air Percent a r D i f f e r e n t Excess Air Percents.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

74 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 60

eo
EXCESS AIR
1.0
(EA81

Figure 21. C0,-Based E f f i c i e n c y Surface as a Function o f Excess Air

Percent and U n d e r f i r e Air Percent. T h i s Represents a
Numerical Approximation o f t h e "True" Functional
R e l a t i o n s h i p and Uses 15 D i s c r e t e Data Points t o F i t t h e
Model.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 75
 5.2.2 Multiple Fuels Comparison

This experiment was performed t o investigate how different wood

fuel p e l l e t s would perform during combustion with identical i n p u t
values of fuel feed r a t e (FFR), excess a i r percent (EA%), and underfire
a i r percent (UF%). Originally i t was planned t o perform the t e s t s a t
"exactly" the same feed r a t e (mass basis), and levels of excess and un-
d e r f i r e a i r percents. However, due t o the fuel feed v a r i a b i l i t y i t was
not possible t o hold FFR o r EA% constant. Fortunately the UF% was held
constant a t 30 percent, and the v a r i a b i l i t y in FFR and EA% was only
10.2 and 27.4 percent respectively.

Each t e s t was for one half hour with 30 equally spaced gas
analysis data points taken. The order of fuel p e l l e t f i r i n g was ran-
domized t o negate any time series effects. As mentioned above the FFR
and EA% levels were preset t o be the same f o r a l l t e s t s b u t there was
s l i g h t v a r i a b i l i t y between tests. The FFR and EA% during any one t e s t
was controlled very precisely. This v a r i a b i l i t y i n FFR i s attributable
t o the difference in feed characteristics between fuels, however, no
attempt was made t o correlate whether t h i s was due t o dimensional, den-
s i t y , or other related p e l l e t physical variables.

The easiest way t o compare the performance of each fuel was t o

tabu1 a t e minimum (MIN), maximum (MAX), mean, and percent standard devi-
ation (%SDEV) data in tabular form. Table 17, shows the fuel code and
associated test number along with the input parameters of FFR and EA%.
Note t h a t UF% was held constant a t 30.0. These data show t h a t the FFR
varied by only 10.2 percent whereas the EA% varied by 27.4 percent. I t
i s also true t h a t the range of EA% i s within the "starved" or low EA%
level (20.8 percent) and "turbulent" o r high EA% level as found i n the
optimal f i r i n g experiment.

Table 18 contains various combustion gas data for t h i s experiment.

The table shows t h a t the gas temperature only varied by 5 . 2 percent and
similarly the C0,-based efficiency varied by only 5.4 percent. This

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

76 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 FFR EA%
Code (Btu/hr) (%I
ir-1 I 42246.5 I 41.0

5 42158.4 29.2

2 35208.1 50.4

6 40735.1 33.1

7 33798.3 52.4
-

4 40469.6 28.7

3 34912.2 52.3

37437.8
31019.2

MIN: 31019.2
ir I MAX: 42246.5 I 68.2

I 1 MEAN: 37553.9 I 44.7

SDEVa: 10.2 1 27.4

%SOEV = (standard deviation/mean) x 100. This is used

because it is a more meaningful measure of the variance
for comparing differe.nt variables.

Table 18. Combustion Gas Data for Experiment #2.

Gas 7 Particulate Combustible

MIN 4.1T79.4 I .029 [ .98

I MAX 1576.8 188.2 215.0 .705 89.6

iI MEAN 125.7 154.4 .204 16.3

I
XSDEV 41.6 I 27.2 1 123.3 1 166.8

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 77
indicates that despite the difference in ash content, moisture content,
elemental, proximate, and ash fusion analyses, these fuels burn with
very similar properties under similar input conditions. The carbon
monoxide levels show a 41.6 percent deviation, but that is reduced to
33 percent if the far outlier (4.1 percent CO) is not considered.

The particulate (fly ash) data are highly skewed by pellets coded
(4), (8), and ( 9 ) , which had values of particulate in the tenth's range
while all other pellets had values in the hundredth's. Opacity was
measured for all experiments but was not reported because it was zero
for all runs except the tests which correspond and to pellet (8) which
has the highest salt content. The salt content is determined by the
percent chlorine by ultimate analysis. This result is reasonable be-
cause pellets (8) and (9) had the highest ash and chlorine contents of
all pellets. Pellet (8) had ash = 2.55 percent, C1 = .78 percent and
pellet (9) had ash = 2 . 4 3 percent, C1 = .19 percent. Pellet (4) had a
moderately high ash content of .96 percent and no chlorine, but its
specie is Hemlock Fir which is noted in the forest products industry
for burning with high opacity and particulate.

The NO, data ranges from 79.4 to 215.0 parts per million with
%SDEV equal to 27.2. The data on particulate and combustibles in fly
ash has the largest spread. This may be due to the fact that these
quantities were sampled for only 15 minutes for each test, and had a
greater margin for human error than the "data-logged'' variables.

It was mentioned in the optimal firing experiment that fuel feed

rate has little effect on the C0,-based combustion efficiency (C02EFF),
at least over the ranges experienced during these tests. To support
this hypothesis the data in the multiple fuels experiment were exam-
i ned.

Figure 22 shows C02EFF as a function of FFR (Btu/hr). A linear

regression showed the slope (bl) to be very small (bl = 4.87E-4). The
slope represents the unit change in C02EFF expected for a unit change
in FFR. Statistical analysis show that there is no relationship
BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:
78 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 92.00
96*00
iz 88.00
U
1 0

tj 84.00 0

w 0 0
L2 80.00
LL 0

ts 76.00 0
8
2 72.00
g 68.00
V
64.00
60.00 -
50000 31500 52600 33900 35200 36500 37800 39100 40400 41700 42 100
FUEL FEEDRATE (Btu/hr)

Figure 22. Plot and Linear Regression Line for Carbon Dioxide Based
Efficiency (C02EFF) versus Fuel Feed Rate (FFR) for
Experiment #2.

between FFR and C02EFF. This assumes that the linear model is appro-
priate and by observation of the data that appears as the best choice.

The most striking observation made was that after the tests with
the salty pellets there was visible ash in the grate after "cool-down".
For all prior tests, no matter how long the test sequence, there was
never any visibly remaining'ash' aside from a "few specks". There was
also fine crystalline matter deposited on metal surfaces in the BCU
combustion chamber. These surfaces were the gas analysis probes at mid
to upper height and the cooling water feed tube. Both of these sur-
faces were relatively compared to the rest of the chamber and
thus acted as condensing surfaces. Most dramatically, there was evi-
dence of corrosion (pitting of stainless steel surfaces) after less
than one hour of burning these fuels that were high in ash and salt
content.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 79
 5.2.3 Effect of Preheated Combustion Air

This experiment was performed to investigate the effect of in-

creased underfire air temperature on combustion efficiency. Tests
("hot-tests") were completed on five pellet species coded ( I ) , (E),
(4), (8), and (9). The results of a hot test were compared to the
previous results of a "cold-test" on the same pellet.

Simi 1 ar to Experiments #1 and #2, there was undesired variabi 1 i ty

in the fuel feed rate. The original experimental plan was to have each
pellet fed to the Biomass Combustion Unit at the same rate (mass basis)
as the respective cold-test. The mean difference of cold-test minus
hot-test fuel feed rate was -6611.4 (Btu/hr), or a decrease of 16.1
percent from the mean hot-test feed rate. The following analysis as-
sumes that the fuel feed rate vari abi 1 i ty is inconsequenti a1 compared
t o t h e e f f e c t o f t h e heated u n d e r f i r e a i r .

Test methods were identical to the multiple fuel experiment except

that the underfire air temperature was increased to a mean of 306.4'F.
This represents a mean temperature rise of 230'F above the cold-test
temperature, with a standard deviation of only .I8 percent.

The five pellet samples were chosen randomly except for pellets
(8) and (9). These pellets were chosen because they were the worst
fuels in terms of ash and corrosion problems as observed in and it was
desired to observe them under other operating conditions. The test was
randomized to reduce time series effects.

Table 19 shows the results of the hot underfire air tests versus
the cold underfire air tests. "GTEMP" is the combustion gas tempera-
ture and COEEFF is the C0,-based efficiency as for the previous experi-
ments.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

80 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
Table 19. Combustion Gas Temperature and C0,-based Efficiency Data for
Cold and Hot Underfire Air Tests.

1 SDEV 1 106.33 I ,6.34 I 128.1 I 9.67

aTheoretically, this value cannot be greater than 100 percent

but this more extreme value (103.90) is due to random experi-
mental error. The combustion can be considered to be nearly
100 percent efficient based on measured CO,.

The graphical evidence in Figure 23 appears to show that the hot-

tests increase efficiency by a significant margin. The increase howev-
er cannot be substantiated by statistical analysis without further tes-
ting. There is a significant increase in the exit temperature.

Increasing the underfire air temperature by 230'F on average did

not increase the combustion efficiency (COZEFF) by a statistically
significant amount (95 percent confidence level). Increasing the
underfire air temperature did however increase the combustion gas
temperature by 87.4"F. The average exit temperature for the preheat
incoming air only 6.2 percent larger than the mean cold-test exit gas
temperature. Many hogged-fuel boilers operate with preheated air.
These test results indicate that preheated air i s utilized in fuel dry-
ing rather than driving combustion further to completion. Some fur-
naces require as much as 200 percent excess (preheated) air. They find
that this is necessary to sustain combustion o f "wet" fuel.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 81
 llo.OO I
I
lo3.00 4 P I

k~68.00-
61.00-
? 54.00-
(v

847.00-
40.00 ! I I I I I 1 1 I I .I
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 lO.00
PELLET CODE NUMBER

Figure 23. Carbon Dioxide Based Efficiency (COPEFF) versus Fuel Code,
for Cold and Hot Tests.

The particulate (fly ash), combustible (in fly ash), NO,, and oth-
er data were not analyzed since they did not present significant vari-
ability from the cold to hot tests. For more detailed information on
the previous three experiments and the wood pellet fuels see reference
[451

5.3 Conclusions

Results show that two very important measures of combustion

efficiency (gas temperature and carbon dioxide based efficiency) varied
by only 5.2 and 5.4 percent respectively. This indicates that all nine
different wood fuel pellet types behave very similarly under the
prescribed range of operating parameters. The overall mean efficiency
for all tests was 82.1 percent and the overall mean temperature was
1420.1 'F.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

82 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Particulate (fly ash) and combustible ( i n fly ash) data showed the
greatest variability. There was evidence of a relationship between
maximum values for both particulate and combustible and the percentages
of ash and chlor ne in the pellet fuel. The greater the percentage o f
ash and chlorine (salt), the greater was the fly ash problem, also,
combustion effic ency was decreased by combustible losses (unburned
hydrocarbons) in the fly ash.

Carbon monoxide and Oxides of Nitrogen showed the next greatest

variability, but neither had data values greater than 215.0 parts per
million (215.0 ppm is a very small quantity, i.e. 1 ppm = .001
grams/l iter = 6.2E-5 1 bm/ft3) a

Visual evidence indicates that pellet fuels produced from salt

laden material are corrosive, produce the largest quantities of ash,
and form the only slag or clinker formations of all nine fuels. The
corrosion is directly attributable to salt content (or more
specifically, chloride ions and compounds formed during combustion).

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Gershman, et al., Small Scale Municipal S o l i d Waste Energy Sys-

tems, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1986.
2. Sonntag, R.E. and Van Wylen, G., "Chemical Reactions,"
Intr oduction t o Thermodynamics, Classical and S t a t i s t i c a l , 2nd.
ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1982, pp. 449-500.
3. Junge, D.C., "Boilers Fired with Wood and Bark Residue," Research
B u l l e t i n 1 7 , Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State Univ.,
Corvallis, OR, 1975.
4. Vaughan, D.A., Krause, H.H. and Boyd, W.K., "Chloride Corrosion
and its Inhibition in Refuse Firing," Proceedings o f the I n t e r -
national Conference on Ash Deposits and Corrosion from I m p u r i t i e s
i n Combust ion Gases, New Engl and Coll ege, Henni ker, NH, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, June 26-July 1, 1977, pp. 473-
493.
5. Domalski, E.S., Jobe, T.L. Jr., and Milne, T.A., "Thermodynamic
Data for Biomass Conversion and Waste Incineration," Report No.
SERI/SP-271-2839, Solar Energy Research Institute, Golden, CO,
Sept. 1986.
6. Guidelines f o r C o f i r i n g Refuse-Derived Fuel i n E l e c t r i c U t i l i t y
B o i l e r s (Volume 3 : Appendices), CS-5754, Vol. 3 , Research Project
1861-1, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, June
1988.
7. Singer, J.G., ed., Combustion, Fossil Power Systems, 3rd ed.,
Combustion Engineering, Inc., Windsor, CT, 1981.
8. Wilson, P.L., Funck, J.W., and Avery, R.B., "Fuelwood Characteris-
tics of Northwestern Conifers and Hardwoods," Research B u l l e t i n
60, Forest Research Laboratory, College o f Forestry, Oregon S t a t e
University, Sept. 1987.
9. Browne, F.L., "Theories o f the Combustion of Wood and its Con-
trol, '' Report 2136, USDA Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI,
Dec. 1958.
10. Dadkhah-Nikoo, A., "Analysis of Wood Combustion and Combustion
Systems for a Combined Cycle Wood-Fired Power P1 ant, I' Masters
Thesis, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Oregon State Univ., Aug.
1985.
11. Guide7 ines for C o f i r i n g Refuse-Derived Fuel i n E l e c t r i c U t i 7 i t y
B o i l e r s (Volume 1 : Executive Summary), CS-5754, Vol. 1, Research
Project 1861-1, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA,
June 1988.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 85
12. Sampson, G.R., Richmond, A.P., Brewster, G.A., and Gasbarro, A.F.,
" P o t e n t i a l f o r C o - f i r i n g Wood Chips w i t h Coal i n I n t e r i o r Alaska,"
B o n n e v i l l e Power A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Report No. DE-AI79-84BP17610,
P a c i f i c Northwest Research S t a t i o n (USDA Forest Service), P o r t l a n d
OR, J u l y 1987.

13. Simmons, W.W. and Ragland K.W., "Burning Rate o f M i l l i m e t e r Sized

Wood P a r t ic l es i n a Furnace, 'I Combust ion Science and Techno logy,
.
Vol 46, 1986, pp. 1-15.

14. Smith, W. R. , "Wood Fuel Preparation, Progress i n Biomass

Conversion, Vol. 2, Academic Press, Inc., 1980, pp. 181-211.

15. Dadkhah-Nikoo, A. and Bushnell, D.J., " A n a l y s i s o f Wood Combustion

Based on t h e F i r s t and Second Laws o f Thermodynamics," Journal o f
.
Znergy Resources Technology, Vol 109, Sept. 1987, pp.129-141.

16. P a c i f i c Northwest and Alaska Bioenergy Program Glossary, U.S.

Department o f Energy, B o n n e v i l l e Power A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , P o r t l a n d
OR, March 1986.

17. Levie, B., Diebold, P., and West, R., " P y r o l y s i s and Combustion o f
Refuse Derived Fuel," S o l a r Energy Research I n s t i t u t e , Golden, CO,
1988.

18. L e v i , M.P. and O'Grady, M.J., "Decisionmaker's Guide t o Wood Fuel

f o r Small I n d u s t r i a l Energy Users," .Department o f Energy, Contract
No. EG-77-C-01-4042, S o l a r Energy Research I n s t i t u t e , Golden, CO,
Feb. 1980.

19. M a r t i n , W. and Koenigshofer, D.R., "Development and T e s t i n g o f a

Small Wood Combustion System," Fuels from Biomass and Wastes, Eds.
Klass D.L. and Emert, G.H., pp. 567-581.

20. Stafford, J.L., "Drying Bagasse Using B o i l e r F l u e Gas," Confer-

ence: Hawaiian Sugar Technologists Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii ,
Nov. 1975.

21. Westphal , J.A., "Dehydration, Heat Recovery and D e n s i f i c a t i o n o f

Fuel f o r D i r e c t Combustion," Presented t o : N o r t h American Sawmill
and Panel C l i n i c Wood Energy Workshop, P o r t l a n d OR, March 1980.

22. Tillman, D.A. and Anderson, L.L., "Computer M o d e l l i n g o f Wood

Combustion w i t h Emphasis on A d i a b a t i c Flame Temperature," Journal
of Applied Polymer Science: Applied Polymer Symposium 37, John
Wiley and Sons, 1983, pp. 761-775.

23. H u f f , E.R., " E f f e c t o f Size, Shape, Density, Moisture, and Furnace

Wall Temperature on Burning Times o f Wood Pieces," Fundamentals of
Thermochemical Biomass Conversion, E l s e v i e r Appl i e d Science Pub-
' l i s h e r s , New York, NY, 1982, pp. 761-766.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

a6 TESTING AND RlALUATlNG THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
24. Kanury, A.M., "Mass Regression i n t h e P y r o l y s i s o f Pine Wood
Macrocyl i n d e r s i n a N i t r o g e n Atmosphere - An Experimental Study,"
Combustion Science and Technology, Vol. 9, 1974, pp. 31-36.
25. Kanury, A.M., "Thermal Decomposition K i n e t i c s o f Wood P y r o l y s i s , "
Combustion and Flame, Vol. 18, 1972, pp. 75-83.
26. Simmons, W.W. and Ragland K.W., " S i n g l e P a r t i c l e Combustion
A n a l y s i s o f Wood, " Fundamenta7s of Thermo-Chemical Biomass Conver-
sion, E l s e v i e r A p p l i e d Science Publishers, New York, 1982, pp.
777-792.

27. Standard for Densified Wood Pellet Fuel f o r Residential Use,

Standard No. APFI-PF-1-88, A s s o c i a t i o n o f P e l l e t Fuel I n d u s t r i e s ,
Sparks, NV, May 1988.

28. Fiber Fuels Institute, "Biomass Fuels Standard S p e c i f i c a t i o n s

Development F i n a l Report," Duluth, MN, 1988, Department o f Energy,
C o n t r a c t No. DE-FG05-830R21390.

29. Evaluation of Biomass Systems for Electricity Generation, Report

No. EPRI AP-2265, P r o j e c t 1348-7, E l e c t r i c Power Research I n s t i -
t u t e , Palo A l t o , CA, Feb. 1982.

30. Kanury, A.M., "Rate o f Burning o f Wood," Combustion Science and

Techno7ogy, Vol. 5, 1972, pp. 135-146.
31. Kerekes, Z.E., Bryers, R.W., and Sauer, A.R., "The I n f l u e n c e o f
Heavy Metals Pb and Zn on Corrosion and Deposits i n Refuse-Fired
Steam Generators, I' Proceedings o f the International Conference on
Ash Deposits and Corrosion from Impurities in Combustion Gases,
New England College, Henni ker, NH, American S o c i e t y o f Mechanical
Engineers, June 2 6 4 u l y 1, 1977, pp. 455-471.

32. "Energy from Waste: On-Si t e Heat-Recovery I n c i n e r a t i o n , I' Power,

March 1987.
33. Sengupta, S. and Wong, K.-F. V., eds., Resource Recovery from
Solid Wastes, (Proceedings o f a conference h e l d i n Miami Beach,
FL, May 10-12, 1982), Pergamon Press, New York, 1982.
34. Wolpin, B., " P e l l e t s Promise P r o f i t s f o r Minnesota RDF Plant,"
World Wastes, January 1988.
35. T u t t l e , K.L., "Combustion Mechanisms i n Wood F i r e d B o i l e r s , " Ph.D
Thesis, Dept. o f Mechanical Engineering, Oregon S t a t e Univ.,
C o r v a l l i s , OR, June 1978.

36. Bench-Scale Combustion Characterization of Cleaned Kentucky No. 9

Coals, Report No. CS-5070, Research P r o j e c t 2425-4, E l e c t r i c Power
Research I n s t i t u t e , Palo A l t o , CA, Feb. 1987.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS a7
37. Shafizadeh, F . , Fuels from Wood Waste, Anderson, L.L. and Tillman,
D.A., Eds., Academic Press, Inc., 1977.
38. DeAngelis, D.G., Ruffin, D.S., Peters, J.A., and Reznick, R.B.,
"Source Assessment: Residential Combustion o f Wood," Report No.
68-02-1874, Task No. 23, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-
600/2-80-0426, March 1980.
39. Junge, D.J., "The Combustion Characteristics of Pelletized Douglas
Fir Bark," Report No. 12, U.S. Department of Energy, Contract No.
EY-76-C-06-2227, Task Agreement No. 22, Sept. 1979.
40. Glassman, I., "Environmental Combustion Considerations, I'

Combustion, 2nd ed., Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL, 1987, pp.
318-385.
41. Techno7ogy Assessment: Municipa7 So7id Waste as a U t i 7 i t y Fue7,
Report No. EPRI CS-2409, Project 1255-3, Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA, May 1982.
42. Atili, B., Cueto, H., and Daugherty, K . , "Determining Acid Gases,
Trace Metals, and Organics from Cofiring Blends o f Coal and Densi-
f i e d Refuse-Derived Fuel (dRDF)," D r a f t Document submitted t o
Argonne National Laboratory, by North Texas State University,
Contract No. 33071401, October 31, 1987.
43. Hickman, H.L. Jr., Turner, W.D., Hopper, R., et al., Thermal
Conversion Systems f o r Municipa7 S o l i d Waste, Park Ridge, NJ,
Noyes, 1984.
44. "Municipal Sol id Waste as a Uti1 ity Fuel Proceedings, Madison,
,'I

WI, Nov. 1986, Report No. CS-4900-SR, Electric Power Research

Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
45. Haluzak, C., "Experimental Combustion Analysis and Development of
Representative Fuel Specifications for Selected Wood and Refuse
Derived Fuel Pellets from the Pacific Northwest," Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Oregon State University, May
1989.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 APPENDIX A

Pellet Codes

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTPIG AND WALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 Pellet Sample Coding Used in this Report
and for Other Work Performed at OSU.

i
OSU Code Name Report Code
BCC P P824-1 AB*
FHLDF624-1AB
FHLDF624-2AB
PHCHF706-2AB
EVCMX713-1AB
WSPCD715-1AB
KMPMX727-2AB
SPCDF727-1 AB
1 WFPMX920-1AB I 9
1 PHCMX706-1 I 10
HSIMX824-1 11
BTPMX920-1 12
WDMMX920-1
RMMMX920-1

*A => Pellets were analyzed for Proximate and Ultimate Analysis.

B => Pellets were burned for the experimental data analyzed in this
report.
If an "A" or "B" is not present, this means that the pellets were
anal yzed for a subset of the variables included in this report excluding
ul ti mate and proximate analysis and experimental burning.
4

BlOklASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESl ING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 APPENDIX B

Pellet Fuel Data

BICIMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TEljTlNG AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 PELLET SAMPLE DATA

Pellet Code: 1

Pel 1 et Species = Ponderosa Pine (wood only)

Location of Raw Material = Lower "Pan Handle" Idaho
Grade = Commercial Pellet

U1 timate anal vsis (dry weight basis)

% Carbon = 51.20 % Hydrogen = 6.35
% Oxygen = 41.97 % Nitrogen = .25
% Sulphur = 01 % Chlorine = .01
- .22
0

% Ash

Proximate Anal vsis (dry weight basis)

X Fixed Carbon = 16.63 X Volatile = 83.15
% Ash = same as in ultimate analysis

Ash Fusion Data

Initial = 2450.00 ( O F )

H/W = 2470.00 ( O F )

1/2-H/W = 2480.00 (OF)

Fluid = 2510.00 ( O F )

Additional Pel 1 et Fuel Parameters

Rapeseed Supplement (% wet basis )" = 0.00
Higher Heating Value = 8967.63 (Btu/lbm)
Moisture Content (% wet basis ) = 8.25
Bulk Density = 38.63 (lbm/ft3)
Specific Density = 81.28 (lbm/ft3)
Mean Length = .266 (inches)
Mean Diameter = .323 (inches)

'Rapeseed was added in small percentages, to some hog,ged .biomass that was
collected by OSU to be made into pellets. The rapeseed'aids in pellet
manufacture.

BIOMASS FUEL CWCTERIZATION:

TEST NG AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 97
 PELLET SAMPLE DATA

P e l l e t Code: 2

P e l l e t Species = Douglas F i r (wood t bark)

Location o f Raw M a t e r i a l = C e n t r a l Western Oregon
Grade = Non-Commercial (made f o r OSU)

i U l t i m a t e A n a l y s i s ( d r y weight b a s i s )

% Carbon = 50.82 % Hydrogen = 6.35

% Oxygen = 42.54 % N i t r o g e n = .06
% Sulphur = .02 % C h l o r i n e = 0.00
% Ash = .21

Proximate A n a l y s i s ( d r y weight b a s i s )

% Fixed Carbon = 15.66 % V o l a t i l e = 84.13

% Ash = same as i n u l t i m a t e a n a l y s i s

Ash Fusion Data

I n i t i a l = 2510.00 ( O F )

H/W = unav. ( O F )
1/2-H/W = unav. ( O F )

F l u i d = 2540.00 ( O F )

A d d i t i o n a l Pel 1e t Fuel Parameters

Rapeseed Supplement (% wet ba i )a =1.00

Higher Heat ing Val ue = 8928.29 ( B t u / l bm)
M o i s t u r e Content (% wet b a s i s ) = 11.20
Bulk Density = 45.50 (1 bm/ft3)
Specific Density = 80.64 ( l b m / f t 3 )
Mean Length = .701 (inches)
Mean Diameter = .312 (inches)

aRapeseed was added i n small percentages t o some hogged biomass t h a t was

c o l l e c t e d by OSU t o be made i n t o p e l l e t s . The rapeseed a i d s i n p e l l e t
manufacture.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

98 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 PELLET SAMPLE DATA

Pellet Code: 3
Pel 1e t Species = Douglas F i r (wood t bark)
Location o f Raw M a t e r i a l = Central Western Oregon
Grade = Non-Commercial (made f o r OSU)

U l t i m a t e Analvsis ( d r y weight basis)

X Carbon = 53.29 % Hydrogen = 6.16
% Oxygen = 39.42 % Nitrogen = .13
X Sulphur = .01 % Chlorine = 0.00
X Ash = .99

Proximate Analvsis ( d r y weight b a s i s )

% Fixed Carbon = 20.88 % V o l a t i l e = 78.13
X Ash = same as i n u l t i m a t e a n a l y s i s

Ash Fusion Data

Initial = 2210.00 ( O F )

H/W = unav. (OF)

1/2-H/W = unav. ( O F )

Fluid = 2250.00 ( O F )

A d d i t i o n a l Pel l e t Fuel Parameters

Rapeseed Supplement (% wet basis)' = 2.00

Higher Heating Value = 8970.01 (Btu/lbm)
Moisture Content ( X wet b a s i s ) = 11.20
Bulk Density = 45.50 (1 bm/ft3)
Speci f i c Density = 80.64 (lbm/ft3)
Mean Length = .701 (inches)
Mean Diameter = .312 (inches)

'Rapeseed was added i n small percentages t o some hogged biomass t h a t was

c o l l e c t e d by OSU t o be made i n t o p e l l e t s . The rapeseed a i d s i n p e l l e t
manufacture.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TEST1UG AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 99
 PELLET SAMPLE DATA

Pellet Code: 4
Pel 1e t Species = Hemlock F i r (wood t bark)
Location o f Raw M a t e r i a l = Central Western Oregon
Grade = Non-Commercial (made f o r OSU)

U l t i m a t e Analysis ( d r y weight b a s i s )

% Carbon = 51.16 % Hydrogen = 6.09

% Oxygen = 41.68 % N i t r o g e n = .10
% Sulphur = .01 X C h l o r i n e = 0.003
% Ash = .96

Proximate Analvsis ( d r y weight b a s i s )

% Fixed Carbon = 21.06 % V o l a t i l e = 77.98

% Ash = same as i n u l t i m a t e a n a l y s i s

Ash Fusion Data

I n i t i a l = 2500.00 ( O F )

H/W = 2530.00 ( O F )

1/2-H/W = 2540.00 ( O F )

F l u i d = 2550.00 ( O F )

A d d i t i o n a l Pel 1e t Fuel Parameters

Rapeseed Supplement (% wet basis)a = 0.00

Higher Heating Value = 8786.94 (Btu/lbm)
Moisture Content (% wet basis) = 8.40
Bulk Density = 48.16 ( l b m / f t i )
Specific Density = 83.92 ( l b m / f t )
Mean Length = .518 (inches)
Mean Diameter = ,310 (inches)

allapeseed was added i n small percentages t o some hogged biomass t h a t was

c o l l e c t e d by OSU t o be made i n t o p e l l e t s . The rapeseed a i d s i n p e l l e t
manufacture.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

100 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 PELLET SAMPLE DATA

Pellet Code: 5
Pel 1 et Species = Alder, Hemlock Fir, Douglas Fir, Cedar
(wood+bark)
Location of Raw Material = Central Coast Oregon
Grade = Non-Commercial (made for OSU)

Ultimate Analysis (dry weight basis)

% Carbon = 53.41 % Hydrogen = 6.05
% Oxygen = 37.99 % Nitrogen = .27
% Sulphur = .03 % Chlorine = 0.00
% Ash = 2.24

Proximate Analysis (dry weight basis)

% Fixed Carbon = 23.78 X Volatile = 73.98
% Ash = same as in ultimate analysis

Ash Fusion Data

Initial = 2260.00 (OF)

H/W = 2270.00 (OF)

1/2-H/W = 2275.00 (OF)

Fluid = 2280.00 (OF)

Additional Pel 1 et Fuel Parameters

Rapeseed Supplement ( X wet basis)' = 0.25
Higher Heating Val ue = 9185.71 (Btu/lbm)
Moisture Content ( X wet basis) = 3.40
Bulk Density = 44.47 (lbm/ft3)
Specific Density = 81.57 (lbm/ft3)
Mean Length = .317 (inches)
Mean Diameter = .315 (inches)

'Rapeseed was added in small percentages to some hogged biomass that was
collected by OSU to be made into pellets. The rapeseed aids in pellet
manufacture.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZ4TION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 101
 PELLET SAMPLE DATA

Pellet Code: 6
Pel 1e t Species = Cedar (wood + bark)
Location o f Raw M a t e r i a l = South Central Oregon
Grade = Non-Commercial (made f o r OSU)

U l t i m a t e Analysis ( d r y weight basis)

% Carbon = 52.10 % Hydrogen = 6.15
% Oxygen = 41.03 % Nitrogen = .01
% Sulphur = .01 % Chlorine = 0.00
% Ash = .61

Proximate Analysis ( d r y weight basis)

% Fixed Carbon = 18.69 % V o l a t i l e = 80.70
% Ash = same as i n u l t i m a t e a n a l y s i s

Ash Fusion Data

Initial = 2220.00 ( O F )

H/W = 2230.00 ( O F )

1/2-H/W = 2240.00 ( O F )

Fluid. = 2250.00 ( O F )

A d d i t i o n a l Pel 1e t Fuel Parameters

Rapeseed Supplement (% wet ba i s ) a = 0.25
Higher Heating Value = 9141.63 (Btu/lbm)
Moisture Content (% wet basis) = 7.80
Bulk Density = 48.95 (1bm/ft3)
S p e c i f i c Density = 82.38 (lbm/ft3)
Mean Length = .46 (inches)
Mean Diameter = .307 (inches)

'Rapeseed was added i n small percentages t o some hogged biomass t h a t was

c o l l e c t e d by OSU t o be made i n t o p e l l e t s . The rapeseed a i d s i n p e l l e t
manufacture.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

102 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 PELLET SAMPLE DATA

P e l l e t Code: 7

Pel 1e t Species = Red Alder, some Maple/Myrtle

(wood t bark)
Location o f Raw M a t e r i a l = Central Coast Oregon
Grade = Non-Commercial (made f o r OSU)

U l t i m a t e A n a l y s i s (dry weight basis)

% Carbon = 50.35 X Hydrogen = 5.92
% Oxygen = 42.29 % N i t r o g e n = .27
% Sulphur = .03 X C h l o r i n e = 0.00
% Ash = 1.15

Proximate A n a l y s i s (dry weight basis)

X Fixed Carbon = 19.25 X V o l a t i l e = 79.60
% Ash = same as i n u l t i m a t e a n a l y s i s

Ash Fusion Data

I n i t i a l = 2220.00 ( O F )

H/W = 2220.00 ( O F )

1/2-H/W = 2230 .OO ( O F )

F l u i d = 2240.00 ( O F )

= A
Rapeseed Supplement (% wet basis)a = 0.50
Higher Heating Value = 8688.26 (Btu/lbm)
Moisture Content (% wet b a s i s ) = 6.60
Bulk Density = 53.34 (1bm/ft3)
Speci f ic Densi t y = 82.86 ( l b m / f t 3 )
Mean Length = .705 (inches)
Mean Diameter = .305 (inches)

'Rapeseed was added i n small percentages t o some hogged biomass t h a t was

c o l l e c t e d by OSU t o be made i n t o p e l l e t s . The rapeseed a i d s i n p e l l e t
manufacture.

BlOllJIASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 103
 PELLET SAMPLE DATA

Pellet Code: 8
Pel 1 et Species = Douglas Fir (wood t bark)
Location of Raw Material = Central Coast Oregon
Grade = Non-Commercial (made for OSU)

Ultimate Analysis (dry weight basis)

% Carbon = 54.16 % Hydrogen = 5.93
% Oxygen = 37.11 % Nitrogen = -18
% Sulphur = .07 % Chlorine = 0.78
% Ash = 2.55

Proximate Analvsi s (dry weight basis)

% Fixed Carbon = 25.85 % Volatile = 71.60
% Ash = same as in ultimate analysis

Ash Fusion Data

Initial = 2450.00 (OF)

H/W = 2460.00 (OF)

1/2-H/W = 2470.00 (OF)

Fluid = 2480.00 (OF)

Additional Pellet Fuel Parameters

Rapeseed Supplement (% wet basis)" = 0.50
Higher Heating Val ue = 9284.34 (Btu/l bm)
Moisture Content (% wet basis) = 8.00
Bul k Density = 43.14 (lbm/ft3)
Specific Density = 79.70 (lbm/ft3)
Mean Length = .376 (inches)
Mean Diameter = .314 (inches)

aRapeseed was added in small percentages to some hogged biomass that was
collected by OSU to be made into pellets. The rapeseed aids in pellet
manufacture.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

104 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 PELLET SAMPLE DATA

P e l l e t Code: 9

P e l l e t Species = Hemlock F i r and S i t k a Spruce

(wood t bark)
L o c a t i o n o f Raw M a t e r i a l = Southeast Coastal Alaska
Grade = Non-Commercial (made f o r OSU)

U l t i m a t e A n a l y s i s (dry weight b a s i s )
% Carbon = 50.55 X Hydrogen = 6.04
% Oxygen = 40.40 X N i t r o g e n = .35
% Sulphur = .04 % C h l o r i n e = 0.19
X Ash = 2.43

Proximate a n a l v s i s ( d r y weight b a s i s )
% F i x e d Carbon = 24.27 % V o l a t i l e = 73.30
X Ash = same as i n u l t i m a t e a n a l y s i s

Ash Fusion Data

I n i t i a l = 2150.00 ( O F )

H/W = 2160.00 ( O F )

1/2-H/W = 2170.00 (0,F)

Fluid = 2195.00 ( O F )

A d d i t i o n a l P e l l e t Fuel Parameters
Rapeseed Supplement (% wet basis)' = 0.25
Higher Heating Value = 8799.78 (Btu/lbm)
M o i s t u r e Content (X wet b a s i s ) = 14.40
Bulk Density = 37.21 ( l b m / f t 3 )
Speci f ic Dens it y = 75.32 ( l b m / f t 3 )
Mean Length = .601 (inches)
Mean Diameter = .305 (inches)

'Rapeseed was added i n small percentages t o some hogged biomass t h a t was

c o l l e c t e d by OSU t o be made i n t o p e l l e t s . The rapeseed a i d s i n p e l l e t
manufacture.

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESi'ING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 PELLET SAMPLE DATA

Pellet Code: 10
Pel 1 et Species = Douglas Fir and Alder (wood t bark)
Location o f Raw Material = Central Western Oregon
Grade = Non-Commercial (made for O N )

Pel 1 et Fuel Parameters

Higher Heat i ng Val ue = 8960.40 (Btu/lbm)
Moisture Content (% wet basis) = 4.90
Bulk Density = 47.70 (1 bm/ft3)
Specific Density = 81.76 (1 bm/ft3)
Mean Length = .392 (inches)
Mean Diameter = .309 (inches)

PELLET SAMPLE DATA

Pellet Code: 11
Pellet Species = Cedar and Spruce (wood + bark)
Location of Raw Material = Central "Pan-Handle" Idaho
Grade = Commercial

Pel 1 et Fuel Parameters

Higher Heating Value = 8964.52 (Btu/l bm)
Moisture Content (% wet basis) = 9.13
Bulk Density = 43.68 (lbm/ft3)
Specific Density = 81.08 (1 bm/ft3)
Mean Length = .545 (inches)
Mean Diameter = .309 (inches)

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

106 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICSOF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 PELLET SAMPLE DATA

P e l l e t Code: 12
Pel 1 et Species = True Fir and Pine (wood and bark)
Location of Raw Material = Northwestern Montana
Grade = Commercial

Pel 1 et Fuel Parameters

Higher Heating Value = 8850.21 (Btu/lbm)
Moisture Content (% wet basis) = 7.00
Bulk Density = 41.40 (1 bm/ft3)
Specific Density = 81.56 (1 bm/ft3)
Mean Length = ,500 (inches)
Mean Diameter = .256 (inches)

PELLET SAMPLE DATA

P e l l e t Code: 13

Pel 1 et Species = Douglas F i r and Ponderosa Pine

(wood + bark)
Location of Raw Material = Northwestern Montana
Grade = Commercial

pel 1 et Fuel Parameters

Higher Heating Value = 8755.31 (Btu/lbm)
Moisture Content (% wet basis) = 4.60
Bul k Density = 44.77 (lbm/ft3)
Specific Density = 82.65 (lbm/ft3)
Mean Length = .495 (inches)
Mean Diameter = .314 (inches)

BIOMAIS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 107
 PELLET SAMPLE DATA

Pellet Code: 14
Pel 1 et Species = Douglas Fir and Ponderosa Pine
(wood + bark)
Location of Raw Material = Northwestern Montana
Grade = Commercial

Pel 1 et Fuel Parameters

Higher Heating Val ue = 8637.99 (Btu/l bm)
Moisture Content (% wet basis) = 6.90
Bulk Density = 46.02 (lbm/ft3)
Specific Density = 81.64 (1 bm/ft3)
Mean Length = .596 (inches)
Mean Diameter = .317 (inches)

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 APPENDIX C

MSW Fuel Data

BlOlHASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 ANCHORAGE,AK
MS W-COMPOSITION

FOOD WASTE (15%)

NON-FERROUS METALS

FERROUS METALS (9%)

PAPER (50%)

PLASTICS/LEATHERS (6%)

Anchorage, AK

% by Weight

Food Waste 15.20

Lawn/Garden 6.50
G1 ass 7.00
Wood 1.20
Rocks/As h 1.70
Paper 49.9
Ferrous Metals . , 9.25
Non-Ferrous Metals 1.25
P1 a s t ics/Leathers . 5.90 .
Text i1es 2.10 .

100.00

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTIIUG AND WALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 113
 JUNEAU,AK
MSW-COMPOSITION

NON-RECYCLABLE (1 7%)

PLASTICSLEATHERS (32%)

Juneau, AK
~

Sol i d Waste Weight ( l b s ) % by Weight % Moisture

Food Waste 3.42 11.22 74.62

L awn/Ga r den 0.23 0.77 70.94
G1 ass 2.55 8.38 -
Wood 0.49 1.61 20.00
Rocks/As h 0.00 0.00 -
Paper
Recycl ab1 e 3.43 11.26 52.17
Non-Recycl ab1 e 5.13 16.85 50.83
Corrugated 1.25 4.11 56.56
Metals 2.11 6.92 -
P1 astics/Leathers 9.69 31.83 59.54
T e x t i 1 es 2.15 7.06 48.99
Total s 30.44 100.00 57.15

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZ4TION:

114 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 BOISEJD
MS W-COMPOSITION

I RECYCLABLE (11%)
NON-RECYCI

CORRUGATED
4%)

(2%)

ROCK S/ASH (30%)

PLASTICSLEATHERS (1 ZZ)

Boise, ID

Sol i d Waste I Weight (lbs) 1 % by Weight % Moisture

Food Waste 0.42 2.02 54.78

Lawn/Garden 2.89 13.96 35.94
G1 ass 0.11 0.53 -
Wood 1.33 6.42 17.29
Rocks/As h 6.29 ' 30.39 -
Paper
Recycl ab1 e 2.21 10.67 14.14
Non-Recycl ab1 e 2.19 10.60 19.57
Corrugated 0.10 0.49 23.53
Metals ' 1.40 6.77 -
P1 astics/Leathers 2.54 12.25 5.00
Text i1es 1.22 5.91 4.41

Totals - 20.71 100.00 18.94

115
 IDAHO FALLSJD
MSW-COMPOSITION

LAWN/GARDEN (1 0%)
NON-2EC .YC?

PLASTICSLEATHERS (1 5%

CORRUGATED (12%) CLABLE (7%)

Idaho F a l l s , ID

S o l i d Waste Weight ( l b s ) % by Weight I % Moisture

Food Waste 0.69 3.06 55.37
Lawn/Garden 2.38 10.50 28.02
G1 ass 0.11 0.48 -
Wood 2.37 10.42 16.21
Roc ks/As h 1.13 4.96 -
Paper
Recycl ab1 e 1.63 7.16 21.04
Non-Recycl ab1 e 6.56 28.86 15.31
Corrugated 2.83 12.45 15.90
Metals 0.54 2.39 -
P1 a s t ics/Leathers 3.35 14.75 13.29
Text i1es 1.13 4.97 6.44

Totals I 22.72 100.00 I 17.91

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

116 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 TWIN FALLS,ID
M S W -C 0MP 0SITI0N
LAWN/GAf?DEN (2%)

FOOD WASTE (23%)

IN-8ECYCLABLE (1 1X)

PLASTlCShEATHERS

RECYCLABLE (10%)

Twin F a l l s , I D

S o l i d Waste Weight ( l b s ) % by Weight % Moisture

Food Waste 6.32 22.83 74.99

Lawn/G a r de n 0.63 2.28 51.12
G1 ass 0.11 0.40 -
Wood 0.32 1.14 24.09
Rocks/As h 2.54 9.17
Paper
Recycl ab1 e 2.75 9.92 45.34
Non-Recycl ab1 e 3.11 11.23 40.86
Corrugated 1.15 4.14 43.02
Metals 3.60 13.03 -
P1 astics/Leathers 6.18 22.35 14.09
Text i1 es 0.97 3.50

Totals 27.66 100.00 44.09

BlOM&SS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTINGAND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 117
 BILLINGS,MT
MSW -COMPOSITION
LAWN/GARDEN (25%)

NON-RECYCLABLE (1 5%)

(5%)

PLASTICS/LEATt iERS (1SX)

-I-=-=-

RECYCLABLE (21s.) ’

B i l l i n g s , MT

Sol i d Waste Weight ( l b s ) % by Weight % Moisture

Food Waste 0.91 5.45 67.76

Lawn/Garden 4.18 25.05 57.93
G1 ass 0.04 0.21 -
Wood 0.07 0.43 18.06
Rocks/As h 0.00 0.00 -
Paper
Recycl ab1 e 3.54 21.23 21.38
Non-Recycl ab1 e 2.56 15.31 23.21
Corrugated 0.40 2.41 32.76
Metals 0.96 5.76 -
P1 astics/Leathers 2.73 16.38 7.48
Text i1es 1.30 7.77 27.45
Totals 16.70 I 100.00 I 32.46

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 HELENA,MT
MSW-COMPOSITION

NON-3ECYCLABLE (1 9%)

(1 3%)

PLASTICS/LEATHERS (30%)
ROCKWASH (Z)

'Helena, MT

S o l i d Waste . Weight (1 b s ) % by Weight % Moisture

Food Waste 5.31 12.85 43.07

Lawn/Garden 4.81 11.64 54.33
Glass : 0.42 1.02 -
Wood 1.50 3.64 13.41
Rocks/As h 0.64 1.54 -
Paper
Recycl ab1 e 5.87 14.22 25.69
Non-Recycl ab1 e , 7.76 18.78 36.98
Corrugated 2.01 4.87 20.29
Metals 0.00 0.00 -
P1 astics/Leathers 12.31 29.81 36.94
Text i1es 0.67 1.62 33.49

1 -1
~~

Totals 41.30 100.00 36.42

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 119
 MISSOULA,MT
MSW-COMPOSITION

FOOD WASTE (9%)

PLASTICSLEATHERS (1 2s

RECYCLABLE (17%)

Missoula, MT

S o l i d Waste Weight ( l b s ) I % by Weight % Moisture

Food Waste 3.92 8.91 60.84

Lawn/Garden 1.65 3.76 62.14
G1 ass 0.00 0.00 -
Wood 3.90 8.87 18.23
Rocks/As h 6.86 15.61 -
Paper
Recycl a b l e 7.48 17.01 28.70
Non-Recycl ab1 e 4.25 9.67 20.30
Corrugated 3.25 7.40 43.53
Metals 5.00 11.38 -
P1 astics/Leathers 5.47 12.45 16.40
T e x t i 1es 2.17 4.93 11.25
Totals 43.96 I 100.00 30.19

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

120 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 BEND-SISTERS,OR
COMPOSITION

LAWN/GARDEN (0%)

PLASTICSLEATHERS (1 2’

NON-RECYCLABLE (3%

RECYCLABLE (43%)

Bend-Sisters, OR

S o l i d Waste Weight ( l b s ) I % by Weight % Moisture

Food Waste 5.20 19.92 54.07

Lawn/Garden 0.00 0.00 0.00
G1 ass 1.49 5.72 -
Wood 0.71 2.72 16.22
Rocks/Ash 0.00 0.00 -
Paper
Recycl ab1 e 11.34 43.46 52.60
Non-Recycl ab1 e 0.86 3.30 19.81
Corrugated 1.60 6.14 26.41
Metals 1.88 7.20 -
Plastics/Leathers 3.01 11.53 29.65
Text i1e s I 0.00 I 0.00 0.00

Total s 26.08 100.00 45.67

BlONlASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESlING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 121
 PORTLAND,OR
MS W-COMPOSITION

MIS ELLANEOUS ORGANICS (7%)

LAWN/GARDEN (1 OX)

NON-FERROUS METAL.s (1s

PAPER (35%) -

DISPOSABLE DIAPERS
PLASTICSLEATHERS (8%) FERROUS METALS (6%)

Portland, OR

Solid Waste % by Weight % Moisture

Food Waste 8.80
L awn/Ga rd en 10.00
G1 ass 3.60
Paper 34.80
D i sposabl e Diapers 1.50
P1 astics/Leathers 7.90
Non-Ferrous Metals 1.10
Ferrous Metals 6.00
Wood 8.00
Roc ks/As h 5.50
Text i1 es 3.80
Misc. Organics 6.70
Other 2.50
Total I 100.00 I 23.06

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

122 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 CORVALLIS,OR
COMPOSITION

ROCKWASH (1%) 7 WOOD (12%)

NON-RECYCLABLE (1 0%)

LAWN/GARDEN (1 1X)

CORRUGATED (8%)

OOD WASTE (4%)

PLASTICSLEATHERS (1 5%:

-/
RECYCLABLE ( 3 Z )A

Corval 1i s , OR

Sol i d Waste Weight ( l b s ) 96 by Weight X Moisture

~

Food Waste 1.30 4.30 72.13

Lawn/Garden 3.25 10.76 53.86
G1 ass 0.35 1.16 -
Wood 3.60 11.92 11.24
Roc ks/As h 0.25 0.83 -
Paper
Recycl ab1 e 9.80 32.45 20.64

'
Non-Recycl ab1 e 3.02 10.00 21.61
Corrugated 2.28 7.55 24.62
Metals I 1.50 4.97 -
P1 astics/Leathers 4.65 15.40 3.5
Text i1 es 0.20 0.66 21.43

Totals 30.20 100.00 23.25

BIOMP SS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTI?IG AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 123
 WENATCHEE,WA
MS W-COMPOSITION

ROCKS,

(1 5%)

uot

THERS (1 7%)

METALS (8s.) RECYCLABLE (9%)

Wenatchee, WA

Sol i d Waste Weight ( l b s ) % by Weight 1 % Moisture

Food Waste 4.61 14.60 71.87
Lawn/(; a r den 1.63 5.15 43.04
G1 ass 0.61 1.93 -
Paper
Recycl ab1 e 2.94 9.32 37.34
Non-Recycl ab1 e 6.93 21.95 31.22
Corrugated 0.84 2.65 41.69
Roc ks/As h 0.71 2.25 -
P1 astics/Leathers 5.43 17.20 12.91
Metals 2.53 8.02 -
Wood 3.98 12.59 19.27
Text i1es 1.37 4.34 36.13
Totals 31.58 100.00 34.58

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

124 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS
 ASTM RDF Classifications

Class I Form Description

RD F- 1 Municipal solid waste as a fuel in an as-
discarded form without oversize bulky
waste
RDF-2 Coarse MSW processed to coarse particle size
(cRDF) with or without ferrous metal separation,
such that 95% by weight passes through a
6-inch-square mesh screen
RDF-3 F1 uf f Shredded fuel derived form MSW processed
(fRDF) for the removal of metal, glass, and
other entrained organics; particle size
of this material i s such that 95% by
weight passes through a 2-inch-square
mesh screen; also called "fluff RDF"
RDF-4 Combustible waste fraction processed into
powdered form, 95% by weight passing
through a 10-mesh screen (0.05-inch
square)
RDF-5 Dens i f i ed Combustible waste fraction densified
(dRDF) (compressed) into pel 1 ets, sl ugs,
cubettes, briquettes, or similar forms
RDF-6 Liquid Combustible waste fraction processed into
a liquid fuel
RDF-7 I Gas Combustible waste fraction processed into
a gaseous fuel
Source: The American Society of Testing and Materials (E-38.01, #-776
t o E-791-81) ; and ANL/CNSV-TM-120, Vol . 4

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

TESTlPlG AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS 125
 S o r t i n g and U l t i m a t e Analysis o f RDF Types

Coarse Wet F1u f f Powdered

Property RDF RDF RDF RDF

Paper 45.5 29.9 74.0 71.7

Plastics 3.2 2.3 3.4 4.6
Rubber, Leather 2.1 1.6 1.9 2.1
Wood 3.2 2.3 2.8 3.0
Text i1es 3.2 2.2 4.3 4.8
Yard Waste 10.5 4.9 9.4 6.2
Food 10.6 3.4 3.0 3.6
Fines 10.5 3.4 0.6 1.6
G1 ass, Cerami cs 9.6 0 0.04 0
Metals
Ferrous 0.3 0 0.21 0
A1 umi num 0.7 0 0.01 0
Other Nonferrous 0.3 0 0.07 0
Moisture - 50. Oc - -
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

U l t i m a t e Analysis (%)

Moisture 26.4 50.0 25.2 2.0

Carbon 26.8 22.0 33.8 44.1
Hydrogen 3.6 3.0 4.5 5.9
Oxygen 21.3 17.5 27.9 36.1
Nitrogen 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7
Chlorine 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7
Sul f u r 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3
Inorganic Matter 20.7 6.6 7.3 10.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

HHV (Btu/lb) 4677 3835 5841 7556

BIOMASS FUEL CHARACTERIZATION:

126 TESTING AND EVALUATING THE COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED BIOMASS FUELS