classification of lignocellulose raw materials regarding selected … · 2014-08-23 · method part...
TRANSCRIPT
Classification of lignocellulose raw materials
regarding selected material properties and
regarding the requirements of three competitors to
reveal options for alternative use
Johann TrischlerLinnæus University, Växjö-Sweden
1
Content
• Introduction
– Background
– The considered competitors
– Raw material
• Methods
– Relative method
– Cluster analysis
• Results– Expression of competition
• Conclusion
2
Background I
• Competitors: particleboard production, pulp and papermaking, thermal energy recovery
• Increase of competition on the raw material
• Variation of regional access of raw material
• Other sources? - residues/ by-products
• Substitution of wood by monocotyledons
3
Background II
Lowering competition
• Using the same raw materials
– More efficient use
– Cascade use (down-, upgrading)
– Recycling
• Using alternative raw materials
– Raw material diversification
4
Aim
Searching an expression of competition which
supports evaluating alternative raw materials
5
Considered competitors I
Particleboard producing industry
• Relationship between the raw material and board
– Density, stiffness, strength, dimensional stability, internal bond strength, surface strength, appearance
• Influence on additives and production process
– Dimensional stability, internal bond strength, surface strength, colour
• Other influences on the board
– Design of the board, design of the particles
6
Considered competitors II
Pulp and papermaking industry
• Dimensions of the fibres
– Slenderness ratio
– Flexibility coefficient
– Runkel ratio
• Amount of fibres
7
Considered competitors III
Thermal energy recovery industry
• Moisture content
• Calorific value
• Proportions of fixed carbon and volatiles
• Ash or residue content
• Alkali metal content (ash melting point)
8
The raw material
9
Criterion Unit Explained byLimitations/Advantages
Particleboard
Density g/m3 Mass at MC=15%Volume
X ~ weightedaverage
Wettability ° Water drop contact angle X < 70°
pH-value - pH X > average
Amount of fibres
% Percentage of fibres X > average
Energy
Calorific value MWh/m3 Mass at MC=15%Volume
X < average
Ash content % In percentage of mass X < average
Ash melting point
°CChemical composition
(Ca+Mg : K+Na)X < average
Pulp andpaper
Slenderness-ratio
-Length of fibre
Diameter of fibreX > 70
Flexibility coefficient
-Lumen diameterDiameter of fibre
X > 70
Runkel-ratio -2 * cell wall thickness
Lumen diameter of fibreX < 1.25
Method part I
The relative method
10
Method part II
The relative method
11
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Pu
lp &
Pa
pe
rma
kin
g
Energy
Picea abies Pinus sylvestris Abies alba
Larix spp. Pseudotsuga menziesii Betula spp.
Alnus glutinosa Populus nigra Populus tremula
P. tremula x p. tremuloides Salix (short rotation) Fraxinus excelsior
Fagus sylvatica Quercus spp. Tilia spp.
Acer platanoides Paulownia spp. Miscanthus spp.
Phalaris arundinacea Triticum spp. (straw) Brassica napus (straw)
Method part III
Cluster analysis
12
Results
An expression of competition
• Highest competition: medium density, high amount of fibres– Relative method: at least 80% for one competitor and at least 50% for the others
– Cluster analysis: Pinus sylvestris to Pseudotsuga menziesii
• Medium competition: medium/low density, fast growing– Relative method: between 50% and 80% for all competitors
– Clyster analysis: Populus tremula to Populus nigra
• Low competition: high density, small & low amount of fibres– Relative method: more than 30% for all competitors but for one lower than 50%
– Cluster analysis: Fagus sylvatica to Quercus spp.
• Lowest competition: high differences compared to wood– Relative method: for one competitor lower than 30%
– Cluster analysis: not included (monocotyledons)
13
Conclusion
• An attempt to express competition of raw material among particleboard producing-, pulp and papermaking- and thermal energy recovery industry
• Relative method: Comparing the species based on relativity should show the suitability of the raw material
• Cluster analysis: Distances between wood species is smaller than between wood and monocotyledons
• Highest competition on coniferous raw material, lowest competition on monocotyledon raw material
14
