1. Effect of Moisture and Feedstock Variability on the Rheological Behavior of Corn Stover Particles
- Author
-
Cheng, Ziwei, Gao, David W., Powers, Fiona M., Navar, Ricardo, Leal, Juan H., Ajayi, Oyelayo O., and Semelsberger, Troy A.
- Subjects
Economics and Econometrics ,Fuel Technology ,Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment ,Energy Engineering and Power Technology - Abstract
Continuous feeding, processing, and handling of biomass powders is pivotal to the economic viability of integrated biorefineries. However, current challenges associated with the operational reliability of bulk solids handling and transport greatly impact the process economics and ultimately the widespread commercialization of integrated biorefineries. In this work, we examine the effect of moisture and feedstock variability on the flow behavior of corn stover biomass particles. The total flow energy, compressibility, shear properties, and wall friction angles were measured for corn stover samples A and B containing 0%, 15%, 25%, 50%, and 75% (mass fraction) moisture contents using a FT4 powder rheometer. In general, the flowability of both A and B was reduced when moisture was present as indicated by the stability and variable flow rate, compressibility, and shear tests. The 15% moisture sample had the highest flow energy, revealing the interplay between the increased surface tension and looser packing both of which were caused by liquid bridging. The 75% moisture sample had the highest compressibility and the lowest flowability factor (ffc). The trend in wall friction angle was found to be dependent upon the surface hydrophobicity of the wall material. The wall friction angle on the hydrophilic, stainless-steel surface increased with moisture and therefore poses additional handling challenges. On the other hand, the wall friction angle on the hydrophobic polymer surfaces were the lowest for samples with intermediate moisture contents. Sample B had greater bulk density, smaller compressibility, and greater flowability than the sample A, as suggested by the compressibility and shear tests. The wall friction angle of sample B was higher than or equal to that of sample A depending on both the type and the surface roughness of the wall material.
- Published
- 2022