KNUST Briquette Machine Spring 2014

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, KUMASI
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
PROJECT REPORT
ON
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING OF A BRIQUETTING

MACHINE
DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF A BSc. DEGREE IN
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
BY
AMANOR, ISHMAEL NARTEY
MAY, 2014
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this thesis has not been submitted for a degree to any other University
and that it is entirely my own work and all help has been appropriately acknowledged.
AMANOR, ISHMAEL NARTEY …………………… …………………
(STUDENT) SIGNATURE DATE
1. PROF. EBENEZER MENSAH …………………… …………………
(SUPERVISOR) SIGNATURE DATE
2. DR. GEORGE YAW OBENG …………………… …………………
(SUPERVISOR) SIGNATURE DATE
ii
ABSTRACT
The demand for energy is becoming a critical challenge for the world as the population
continues to grow. This calls for Sustainable energy production and supply such as renewable
energy technologies. Renewable energy technologies are safe sources of energy that have a
much lower environmental impact than conventional energy technologies
In Ghana biomass is the most dominant source of energy and is used significantly in the
domestic sector notably charcoal and woodfuel. Despite huge amount of agricultural waste
generation in the rural areas, the rural folks use charcoal and woodfuel, which leads to
deforestation.
In this study, an appropriate, cost effective and easy to duplicate manually operated biomass
briquetting machine suitable for use in rural communities was designed and constructed, and
tested using jatropha curcas husk at different particle sizes of ≤2mm, ≤6mm and original
particle size. The physical properties of the briquette were determined at varying biomass-
binder ratios of 100:15, 100:25, 100:35 and 100:45 using cassava starch as the binding agent.
The physical properties of the briquette were significantly affected by the binder level and the
particle size using 95% confidence level. The durability range of the briquette produced by the
different particle sizes are higher at finer particle sizes with particle size ≤2mm having a
durability range of 81.9 to 92.3% and particle size ≤6mm and original particle size ranging
from 78.03 to 92.27% and 43.54 to 60.22% respectively. The best biomass-binder ratio on the
basis of the briquette durability (shatter index) was attained at the 100:25 blending ratio with
particle sizes ≤2mm and ≤6mm having a durability of 92.3% and 92.27% respectively, also
on the basis of water resistance (weathering resistance) of the briquette, the best blend was
attained at 100:25 ratio with particle size ≤6mm having a higher value of 10.7 hours. It was
concluded that the strength (durability) of the briquettes at the optimum biomass-binder ratios
were sufficient to withstand any mechanical handling compared to 83.26% reported by Sotsnde
et al in 2010. The biomass briquetting machine had a production capacity of about 488kg/hr.
iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this project to God Almighty, the late John Mensah Williams, and my entire
family.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am very obliged to those who have contributed massively to the success of my project and
academic career with the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi.
My special thanks goes to my project supervisors Professor Ebenezer Mensah, and Dr. George
Y. Obeng, who were able to direct me through their advice, time devotion, careful review And
helpful suggestion in writing this report on this work. In the same line, I appreciate MIT/IDIN
program and Technology Consultancy Centre (TCC) for sponsoring this research work and my
mother who sacrificed all in Order to bring me all to this level in my educational lives. I also
thank my brother Isaac Amanor and all my friends for their needed moral and financial
supports. Finally, I sincerely appreciate the entire technicians of the department of Agricultural
Engineering workshop for their guidance and help during the fabrication of the machine,
especially Mr. Yaw Koranteng.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION......................................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ iii
DEDICATION......................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. x
LIST OF PLATES .................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem statement ...................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Main Objectives .......................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Specific objectives....................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................................... 6

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 6
2.1 History of briquetting .................................................................................................. 6
2.2 The residual base ......................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Low moisture content .......................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Ash content and composition ............................................................................... 7
2.2.3 Flow characteristics ............................................................................................. 9
2.3 Characteristics of briquettes ...................................................................................... 11
2.4 Briquetting technology .............................................................................................. 11
2.4.1 High and medium pressure compaction ............................................................. 12
2.4.1.1 Screw press ..................................................................................................... 13
2.4.1.2 Piston press..................................................................................................... 14
2.4.2 Low pressure compaction .................................................................................. 14
2.4.2.1 Hand moulded briquettes ............................................................................... 15
vi
2.5 TECHNOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF THE BRIQUETTING PROCESS......... 16
2.5.1 Material humidity.............................................................................................. 16
2.5.2 Compacting pressure .......................................................................................... 17
2.5.3 Pressing temperature .......................................................................................... 17
2.5.4 Fraction largeness .............................................................................................. 18
CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................... 19

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................................................. 19
3.1 Conceptual designs .................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Description of the machine ....................................................................................... 20
3.3 Design of machine element and material selection ................................................... 21
3.3.1 Mould (cylinder) ................................................................................................ 22
3.3.3 Moulds cover back hinges and front lock .......................................................... 24
3.3.4 Piston rods ............................................................................................................... 25
3.3.5 Under plate (piston plate)................................................................................... 26
3.4 Construction of the machine ..................................................................................... 27
3.4.1 Construction of mould and mould box .............................................................. 27
3.4.2 Construction of piston and under plate .............................................................. 28
3.4.3 Construction of frame and mould cover ............................................................ 28
3.5 Testing of the machine .............................................................................................. 29
3.5.1 Biomass-binder Mixture .................................................................................... 29
3.5.2 Performance evaluation ........................................................................................... 30
3.5.3 Physical Properties Determination .......................................................................... 31
3.5.4 Data analysis ............................................................................................................ 32
CHARPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................... 33

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSIONS .................................................................................... 33
4.1 Machine capacity............................................................................................................ 33
4.2 Physical Properties of Jatropha husk Briquette .............................................................. 34
vii
4.2.1 Effect of the various binder levels on briquette produced from original particle size
.......................................................................................................................................... 34
4.2.2 Effect of the various binder levels on briquette produced from particle size less
than or equal to 6mm (≤6mm) ......................................................................................... 38
than or equal to 2mm (≤2mm) ......................................................................................... 39
4.3 Best particle size of jatropha husk and binder blend ...................................................... 41
CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................... 43

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................. 43
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 44
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................. 48
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Production of Some Major Agricultural Residues in Ghana. ................................... 2

Table 2.1: Ash content of some biomass material. .................................................................... 8
Table 2.2: Different between Piston Press and Screw Press. ................................................... 13
Table 3.1: component selection ............................................................................................... 27
Table 4.1: Production time components of the briquetting machine ....................................... 33
Table 4.2: Physical properties of jatropha husk briquette........................................................ 36
Table 4.3: Physical behaviour (characteristic) of jatropha husk briquette............................... 37
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Conceptual design 1 .......................................................................................... 19

Figure 3.2: Conceptual design 2 .......................................................................................... 19
Figure 3.3: Conceptual design 3 .............................................................................................. 19
Figure 3.4: The biomass briquetting machine.......................................................................... 20
Figure 3.5: Design of the briquetting machine ........................................................................ 21
Figure 3.6: briquette mould...................................................................................................... 22
Figure 3.7: (a) mould cover, (b) cross-sectional area of (a).................................................... 23
Figure 4.1: Mean percentage production time of the three stages of jatropha husk briquette . 34
Figure 4.2: Height stability of jatropha husk briquette (raw char) .......................................... 35
Figure 4.3: Height stability of jatropha husk briquette with particle size less than or equal to
6mm ............................................................................................................................. 39
2mm ............................................................................................................................. 40
Figure 4.5: Durability of jatropha husk briquette .................................................................... 41
Figure 4.6: Water resistance of jatropha husk briquette .......................................................... 42
x
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 2.1 Hand moulds for charcoal dust and molasses binder in Mali ................................... 16
Plate 2.2 Chinese semi-mechanised briquetting press ............................................................. 16
Plate 2.3: Manual briquetting press for biomass and waste paper in Benin ............................ 16
Plate 2.4: Manually produced briquettes from biomass and waste paper in Benin ................. 16
Plate 3.1: mould box under construction ................................................................................. 27
Plate 3.2: Piston under fabrication ....................................................................................... 28
Plate 3.3: Piston being machined in a lathe machine ............................................................... 28
Plate 3.4: Frame under construction ..................................................................................... 29
Plate 3.5: Frame after construction ..................................................................................... 29
Plate 3.6: Briquette of raw char (original particle size) at different binder level after drying. 30
Plate 3.7: Briquette of particle size less than or equal to 6mm at different binder level after
drying ......................................................................................................................... 30
drying ......................................................................................................................... 30
Plate 3.9: Biomass loading stage ......................................................................................... 31
Plate 3.10: Biomass compression stage ................................................................................... 31
Plate 3.11: Briquette ejection stage after briquette ejection .................................................... 31
Plate 3.12: Pistons at top dead center ...................................................................................... 31
xi
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
As the population of the world continues to grow, the demand for energy is becoming critical
challenge for the world’s energy leaders (Christoph Frei, 2012). Global energy consumption
has about doubled in the last three decades of the past century. In 2004, about 77.8% of the
primary energy consumption was from fossil fuels (32.8% oil, 21.1% natural gas, 24.1% coal),
5.4% from nuclear fuels, 16.5% from renewable resources, of which the main one was hydro
(5.5%) whereas the remaining 11% consisted of non-commercial biomasses such as wood, hay,
and other types of fodder, that in rural-economies still constitute the main resource (BP-Amoco,
2005). With improvements in energy efficiency it is expected that global energy demand
doubles by 2050. This is the consequence of global population growth, global economic
growth, continued urbanisation, as well as the resulting increased demand on mobility and other
energy dependent services (Christoph Frei et al., 2013).
Sustainable energy production and supply are tactical objectives for developed as well as
developing countries. The energy sector plays a crucial role in attaining the United Nations
Millennium Development Goals (Short, 2002), and the viability of modern economics is based
in part on the capacity of countries to ensure their energy supplies. Renewable energy
technologies are safe sources of energy that have a much lower environmental impact than
conventional energy technologies. Shell International predicts that renewable energy will
supply 60% of the world's energy by 2060.
Of the various renewable energy sources, bio-residues, of which agricultural residues form a
major component, can be most easily utilised to reduce the consumption of woodfuel (Hosier
and Svenningson, 1987). Biomass is attracting great attention over the world as a source of
renewable energy as well as an alternative to fossil fuels. Biomass resources supply over 14%
of the world’s energy needs (Demirbaş and Demirbaş, 2003;; McKendry, 2002). The potential
of biomass energy derived from forest and agricultural residues world-wide is estimated at
about 30 EJ/yr., compared to an annual world-wide energy demand of over 400 EJ (McKendry,
2002).
In Ghana biomass is the most dominant source of energy and is used significantly in the
domestic sector for cooking and many other heat applications. Woodfuels, in the form of forest
wood, charcoal and wood processing residues are the most dominant biomass forms of energy
1
in use in Ghana although crop residue and other non-woody materials also find some usage.
Most rural dwellers (about 70% of people in Ghana) and almost all farmers heavily depend on
fuel wood for all their domestic and other commercial activities that require heat. Use of
biomass in many commercial and institutional establishments all over the country is also a case
in point worthy of mention. About 70% of the total national energy consumption is accounted
for by biomass in either the direct or processed form (KITE, 1999). The attraction for biomass
has been premised on the following: ease of its production; sustainable supply advantages; and
environmental benefits (minimum environmental pollution). Several crops are being grown in
energy crop farming as feedstock for first generation biofuels. Jatropha curcas L. (JCL) has
been identified as the most suitable energy crop in tropical regions (Del Greco and Rademaker,
1998).
Biomass briquetting is the densification of loose biomass material to produce compact solid
composites of different sizes with the application of pressure. Briquetting of residues takes
place with the application of pressure, heat and binding agent on the loose materials to produce
the briquettes. They are often used as a development intervention to replace firewood, charcoal,
or other solid fuels. In the proper context biomass briquettes can save time, save money,
decrease local deforestation rates, and provide income generating opportunity. Briquettes are
held together by a binding agent or “binder”. This binding material can be any fibrous organic
material. The material must be partially decomposed in order to release the fibers necessary to
physically hold the briquette together (Boston Nyer, 2010). There are a lot of other agricultural
residues in Ghana that can be used for fuel briquette. Table 1 below shows the production of
some major crops and their residue in Ghana in 1990.
Table 1.1: Production of Some Major Agricultural Residues in Ghana.
Crop Residue Residue Total Crop Residue
Production Production Production
(t/t crop) ‘000 tonnes ‘000 tonnes
Maize Cob 1.00 553 553
Oil Palm Shells 0.45 429 193
Paddy Rice Husk 0.23 81 19
Sorghum Stalk 1.00 136 136
Millet Stalk 2.00 75 150
Groundnut Shell 0.5 113 56
Total 1,387 1,107
Source: Letus Power Plant, Hagan, 1997.
2
The worldwide experience of briquetting plants is not well known either in success or failure.
There have been more failures than success throughout the world because of over optimism
about the economic competitiveness of briquetting. Various technical problems have been
encountered but the main difficulty has been the fact that, in many places, briquettes are too
high in cost to compete with existing wood fuel (Ganiyu Tajudeen, 2007).
Attempts at briquette production are as old as attempts at cook stove technology. The Building
and Road Research Institute (BRRI) has been involved in briquetting investigation of the
pyrolytic by-product of char for quite some time. The char briquettes that got developed were
satisfactory fuel for grilling and drying purposes. The use of the briquettes developed at the
BRRI for general domestic cooking was inhibited by the fact that they were not strong enough
to support large cooking pots without disintegrating. The crushing strength thus needed to be
improved. The generally high price of the produced briquettes was another problem that
hindered widespread use of the briquettes in the domestic sector (Hagan, 1994).
The most advanced project in Ghana in briquetting is probably the sawdust briquetting plant of
2,200 tonnes/year capacity that was established by a Taiwanese entrepreneur and a Ghanaian
partner in Akim - Oda in 1984. The Plant, Chaowus Limited was producing uncarbonised
sawdust briquettes from sawdust obtained at no cost from sawmills in the Akim - Oda area.
In the past 10 years, there has been renewed interest, world-wide, in biomass as an energy
source. The reason for this situation is technological developments relating to the conversion,
crop production, etc. promise the application of biomass at lower cost and with higher
conversion efficiency than was possible previously (McKendry, 2002).
1.2 Problem statement
Solid waste management is one of the major problems in Ghana. This is not only found in the
urban areas but also at the rural areas. The major waste generated at the rural areas is
agricultural waste or residue (crop by-product). Despite this level of waste generation fuel for
heating, cooking and other purposes is a huge problem; hence the rural folks rely on woodfuel
and charcoal.
The realisation that deforestation and woodfuel shortages are likely to become serious
problems in Ghana has turned attention to other types of biomass fuel. In 1992 it was estimated
that about 1.5 million hectares of forest remained in Ghana, with an annual rate of deforestation
of about 22,000 hectares, or 1.5% (Agyekumhene, 2001, Agyarko, 1999).
3
Agricultural residues are, in principle, one of the major sources. They arise in large volumes
and in the rural areas which are often subject to some of the worst pressures of wood shortage.
The use of briquetting for conversion of agricultural residues is comparatively recent, however,
and has only been taken up in developing countries in the last few years. Main agricultural
residues that are produced are paddy chaff, coconut dregs, hay, groundnut skin, jatropha husk
and press cake, palm nut shell, maize cob and cotton stem. There is also bio waste as wood
dust. This wood dust is produced in big scale. Beside the problem of transportation, storage
and operation, open burning of this bio waste with traditional style without control can cause
critical air pollution. The impact of agricultural waste on the environment depends not only on
the amounts generated but also on the disposal methods used. Some of the disposal practices
pollute the environment. The potential threat posed by climate change, due to high emission
levels of greenhouse gases (CO2 being the most important one), has become a major stimulus
for renewable energy sources in general. When produced by sustainable means, biomass emits
roughly the same amount of carbon during conversion as is taken up during plant growth. The
use of biomass therefore does not contribute to a buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere (McKendry,
2002). Hence the need at the moment in the densification of this agricultural waste in
developing countries is the development of an appropriate briquetting machine suitable to the
local communities. For biomass to make a significant impact as fuel for rural communities, it
is imperative that an efficient, cost effective and easy to duplicate technology is developed
specifically for rural communities.
1.3 Main Objectives
The main objective of this study is to design, construct and test a briquetting machine.
1.4 Specific objectives
The specific objectives were to:

Design and construct a briquetting machine with the main feedstock being agricultural
residue.
To test the briquetting machine using different particle sizes of jatropha curcas husk at
varying binder levels.
To determine the physical properties of the jatropha curcas husk briquette.
4
5
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 History of briquetting
Briquetting is the densification of loose biomass material. Fuel briquettes emerged as a

significant business enterprise in the 20th century. In the 1950s, several economic methods
were developed to make briquettes without a binder where multitude of factories throughout
the world produced literally tens of millions of tons of usable and economic material that met
the household and industrial energy needs (Lardinois and Klundert, 1993). During the two
World Wars, households in many European countries made their own briquettes from soaked
waste paper and other combustible domestic waste using simple lever-operated presses.
Today’s industrial briquetting machines, although much larger and more complex, operate on
the same principle (Lardinois and Klundert, 1993). According to FAO (1990), briquetting could
be categorized into five main types depending on the types of equipment used; piston presses,
screw presses, roller press, pelletizing, manual presses and low pressure briquetting. Densified
biomass is acquiring increasing importance because of the growing domestic and industrial
applications for heating, combined heat and power (CHP) and electricity generation in many
countries. In countries such as Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden, for example, it
is becoming a major industry with pellets traded internationally. In Austria, the production of
pellets in 2002 was 150,000 tons but with the rapid expansion of small-scale pellets heating
systems, it was expected to reach 0.9 Mt/year by 2010 (Hood, 2010). In Europe this potential
has been estimated at around 200 Mt/year and is increasing continuously because advances in
technology allow the densification of biomass to be more competitive, driven by high demand.
There has been briquetting projects in many African countries such as Zimbabwe, Tanzania,
Uganda, Kenya, Sudan, Rwanda, Niger, Gambia, Ethiopia and Senegal, though not all of these
are still functional. The raw materials most commonly briquetted in Africa are coffee husks
and groundnut shells while sawdust and cotton stalks are also used to a limited extent (Hood,
2010).
The history of residue briquetting in Africa is largely one of single projects in various countries
which have usually not been successful (FAO, 1990). A survey carried by FAO, (1990) showed
that many briquetting plants in East Africa have been faced by outright failures while others
have had their operations marred by problems. According to this survey, it was difficult to find
a single agency-funded briquetting project which had been commissioned and was operating
6
fully satisfactorily. The reasons that seemed to explain this failure included; inappropriate or
mis-specified ordering of briquetting machinery, non-availability and high cost of the
briquetting machines’ spare parts, poor projects’ planning and implementation where free
supply of raw materials was assumed, low local prices of firewood and charcoal which
inhibited the marketing of briquettes and unacceptability of briquettes in the household sector
due to their ignition difficulties and smoke generation which caused indoor pollution, little
involvement of the private sector and early withdrawal of donor as well as lack of government
financial support. The main generalization that can be made about briquetting in Africa is that
it has often proved difficult to sell briquettes against the competitive price of wood or charcoal
and the very high capital cost of the briquetting plants. According to Eriksson and Prior (1990),
several biomass briquetting projects have been implemented in Kenya. Both direct briquetting
and carbonization/ briquetting were tried on a commercial basis but due to the high cost of
biomass briquettes compared with firewood, none of the plants was able to continue
production. In order to produce cheap biomass briquettes for the household sector, the general
trend nowadays in Africa is towards low pressure or manual briquetting. The Legacy
Foundation is taking the lead in promoting the technology in Africa. Production is mainly based
on women’s groups to produce their family needs and excess briquettes could be sold to
generate income (Eriksson and Prior, 1990).
2.2 The residual base
The potential agro-residues which do not pose any collection and drying problems, normally
associated with biomass are rice husk, groundnut shells, coffee husk, palm nut shell, jatropha
husk and maize cob.
There are many factors to consider before a biomass qualifies for use as feedstock for
briquetting. Apart from its availability in large quantities, it should have the following
characteristics:
2.2.1 Low moisture content
Moisture content should be as low as possible, generally in the range of 10-15 percent. High
moisture content will pose problems in grinding and excessive energy is required for drying.
2.2.2 Ash content and composition
Biomass residues normally have much lower ash content (except for rice husk with 20% ash)
but their ashes have a higher percentage of alkaline minerals, especially potash.
7
The ash content of some types of biomass is given in Table below.
Table 2.1: Ash content of some biomass material.

Biomass Ash content (%) Biomass Ash content (%)
Corn cob 1.2 Coffee husk 4.3
Jute stick 1.2 Cotton shell 4.6
Sawdust (mixed) 1.3 Tannin waste 4.8
Pine needle 1.5 Almond shell 4.8
Soya bean stalk 1.5 Areca nut shell 5.1
Bagasse 1.8 Castor stick 5.4
Coffee spent 1.8 Groundnut shell 6.0
Coconut shell 1.9 Coir pith 6.0
Sunflower stalk 1.9 Bagasse pith 8.0
Jowar straw 3.1 Bean straw 10.2
Olive pits 3.2 Barley straw 10.3
Arhar stalk 3.4 Paddy straw 15.5
Lantana camara 3.5 Tobacco dust 19.1
Subabul leaves 3.6 Jute dust 19.9
Tea waste 3.8 Rice husk 22.4
Tamarind husk 4.2 Deoiled bran 28.2
(Source: Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations Bangkok, April 1996)
The ash content of different types of biomass is an indicator of slagging behaviour of the
biomass. Generally, the greater the ash content the greater the slagging behaviour. But this does
not mean that biomass with lower ash content will not show any slagging behaviour. The
temperature of operation, the mineral compositions of ash and their percentage combined,
determine the slagging behaviour. If conditions are favorable, then the degree of slagging will
be greater. Minerals like SiO2 Na2O and K2O are more troublesome. Many authors have tried
to determine the slagging temperature of ash but they have not been successful because of the
complexity involved. Usually slagging takes place with biomass fuels containing more than
4% ash and non-slagging fuels with ash content less than 4%. According to the melting
compositions, they can be termed as fuels with a severe or moderate degree of slagging.
8
2.2.3 Flow characteristics
The material should be granular and uniform so that it can flow easily in bunkers and storage
silos. Some of the appropriate agro-residues are:
Jatropha curcas L. shell

Jatropha curcas L. is a non-edible perennial plant which is also known as physic nut or purging
nut. It belongs to the family of Euphorbiaceae and the tribe of Joannesieae (Sirisomboon et al.,
2007; De Jongh et al., 2010; Karaj & Müller, 2010). Chemical breakdown of the shells by either
thermo-chemical or bio-chemical processes, produces a solid residue. This residue is ash when
produced by combustion in air. The ash component forms a standard measurement parameter
for solid and liquid fuels and affects both the handling and processing costs of the overall
biomass energy conversion cost (McKendry, 2002). Depending on the magnitude of the ash
content, the available energy of the fuel is reduced proportionately (McKendry, 2002). Jatropha
husk ash fuses at temperatures above 750oC (Singh et al., 2008). At these high temperatures
the ash reacts to form a slag, which can reduce plant throughput in combustion equipment. The
shell is mechanically removed from the fruit in the first step during oil extraction. About one
tonne of shell material can be obtained from one hectare and this material can be used as a
source of energy. The chemical analysis of JCL shell has shown that it is made up of 34%, 10%
and 12% cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, respectively (Singh et al., 2008, Abreu, 2009).
Volatile matter, ash and fixed carbon content of the shell have been shown to be 69%, 15% and
16%, respectively (Singh et al., 2008). These results show that JCL shells have very high ash
content. This has an influence on the type of conversion technology that can be used to obtain
energy from the shells (Jingura et al, 2010). The caloric value of JCL shells is 11.1MJ kg-1
(Sotolongo et al., 2009). With this value and using a yield value of one tonne JCL shells per
hectare, shells can supply 11.1GJ ha-1 (Jingura et al, 2010). The chemical composition of JCL
shells seems to suggest that it is a good feedstock for biological conversion and for briquetting
(Singh et al., 2008).
9
Rice husk
When compared to sawdust, agro-residues have a higher ash content, higher potash content and
have poor flow characteristics. However, rice husk is an exceptional biomass. It has good
flowability, normally available with 10 percent moisture and the ash contains fewer alkaline
minerals, thereby it has a high ash sintering temperature. In fact, it makes an excellent fuel
although its calorific value is less than wood and other agro-residues.
Other biomass materials

Groundnut shell: Because of low ash (2-3%) and moisture content less than 10%, it is
also an excellent material for briquetting.
Cotton sticks: This material is required to be chopped and then stored in dry form. It
has a tendency to degrade during storage. Also, it has a higher content of alkaline
minerals and needs to be used with caution.
Bagasse/bagasse pith: These residues have high moisture content of 50% after milling,
hence drying is energy intensive. They have low ash content and a correspondingly high
heating value of the order of 4400 kcal/kg.
Pith: is the small fibrous material which has to be removed from bagasse before bagasse
is used as feedstock for making paper. Due to shortages of wood and increasing demand
for paper and pulp, an ever increasing number of paper units are switching over to
bagasse as feed material. The amount of pith available is almost equal to the tonnage of
paper produced by a paper mill. For example, a 60 TPD mill will generate 60 TPD of
bagasse pith. This material does not require milling before it is briquetted. At present,
this pith is available from sugar mills at much lower costs. This is a potential material
for briquetting.
Coffee husk: An excellent material for briquetting having low ash and available with
10 percent moisture content. The material is available in the coffee growing areas.
Mustard stalks: Like cotton sticks, it is also an appropriate material for briquetting.
Others: Other potential biomass residues suitable for briquetting are lentil stalks,
sawdust, and Lantana camara in hilly areas, tea wastes, and coir pith.
10
2.3 Characteristics of briquettes
Briquettes must be consistent or otherwise cracks, scratches could appear, and fine elements
would separate, which is not acceptable. Briquettes with higher density have a longer burning
time. The standard Ő-Norm M 7135 defines the briquette density value for the HP group (wood
briquettes) and for the RP group (crust briquettes) at more than 1.12 kg/dm 3 (g/cm3), and for
other briquettes this value must be more than 1 kg/dm3 (g/cm3). The standard DIN 51731
defines the interval of briquette density values from 1 to 1.4 kg/dm3 (g/cm3) (Križan, 2007,
Lehtikangas, 2001). The standard DIN 52182 (additional standard DIN 51731) also describes
the testing method for briquette density. A piece of briquette has to be weighed and its diameter
and length measured. Briquette density has to be evaluated before and after stabilization of
these values according to the following ratio.
ρN = mN/ VN (kg/dm3)
Where:
VN– briquette volume (dm3)
mN – briquette weight (kg)
Briquette strength is maximal pressure on the die, which is developed by a pressure test under
predetermined conditions. In order to examine the strength in pressure for cylindrical
briquettes, there are two suitable ground tests - test by cleft (pressure affecting a briquette which
is in a horizontal position) and a strength test with simple pressure (pressure affecting a
briquette which is in a vertical position) (Križan, 2007, Janković, 1997). It is also possible to
evaluate briquette quality by means of briquette hardness. Stronger briquettes have essentially
better quality. Briquette hardness and thereby briquette quality can be checked very easily by
inserting the briquette into water. A quality briquette should fall to the bottom in a moment
because it has a higher specific density than water. After that, when the briquette is dipped into
the water, if it falls to pieces in under 5 minutes, and that usually represents very low briquette
quality. When the briquette falls to pieces in under 15 minutes, it shows medium briquette
quality and in less than 20 minutes, it is sign of good briquette quality. However, this method
is only of an informative character (Križan, 2007).
2.4 Briquetting technology
The briquetting technologies can be divided into: high pressure compaction, medium pressure
compaction assisted by a heating device and low pressure compaction with a binding agent.
11
Depending on the type of material, the pressure applied and the binder used, different binding
methods are used. The physical properties (moisture content, bulk density, void volume and
thermal properties) of the biomass are the most important factors in the binding process of
biomass densification. The densification of biomass under high pressure results in mechanical
interlocking and increased adhesion/cohesion (molecular forces like van der Waal’s forces) of
the solid particles, which form intermolecular bonds in the contact area. Additives of high
viscous bonding media (binders), such as tar, molasses and other molecular weight organic
liquid can form bonds very similar to solid bridges. Adhesive forces at the solid/liquid interface
and cohesion forces within the solid are used for binding. Lignin of biomass/wood which is
deliberated under high pressure and/or temperature can also be assumed to help binding in this
way. Apart from lignin, which is gained from the feed material itself, other free atoms or
molecules (e.g. moisture) can be attracted from the surrounding atmosphere to form thin
adsorption layers. They also support the formation of bonds between the individual particles.
2.4.1 High and medium pressure compaction
High and medium pressure compaction normally does not use any additional binder. Normally,
the briquetting process bases either on screw press or piston press technology. For the Screw
Press Compress, the Biomass is extruded nonstop by the screw through a hot and taper block.
For Piston Press Compress method, the hardness at the touch part like at the compress and
block part is less compare with screw and block for Screw Press type. At the pass, the energy
using is less compare at this time. From quality aspect, the briquetting and production
procedure for Screw Press is more good compare with Piston Press type. The centre of pore
that is associated with briquetting process from Screw Pressure help in achieving the perfect
and flat burning. So, this briquette can be carbonized. Below is the list of the different between
Piston Press and Screw Press.
12
Table 2.2: Different between Piston Press and Screw Press.
Piston Press Screw Press
The optimum of raw material 10-15% 8-9%
Moisture Contain
The Hardness of between Low for compress and High for screw case
touch part block case
Output of machine Level by level Nonstop
production
Energy using 50 kWh/tone 60 kWh/tone
Briquette Density 1-1.2 gm/cm 1-1.4 gm/cm
Maintenances High Low
Briquette burning Not so good Very good
Performance
Carbonization to the coal Impossible Produce the good coal
Appropriate of gas changing Not appropriate Appropriate
Homogeneity in the Non-homogeneous Homogeneous
briquette
(Erikson, 1990)
Other briquetting technologies are less applicable in developing countries because of high
investment costs and large throughputs, e.g. roller-presses to produce pellets or briquettes.
2.4.1.1 Screw press
In a screw press or screw extruder, the rotating screw takes the material from the feed port,
through the barrel, and compacts it against a die which assists the build-up of a pressure
gradient along the screw. Thus, the extruder features three distinct zones: feed, transport, and
extrusion zones. The important forces that influence the compaction of the feed material play
their role mostly in the compression zone near to the extrusion die. The frictional forces
between feed material and barrel/screw, the internal friction in the material and external heating
device (of the extrusion zone) cause an increase in temperature (up to 300°C), which softens
the feed material. Lignin from the biomass is set free and acts as gliding and binding agent.
The speed of densification, the energy consumption of the press and the quality of the briquettes
produced depend on: flowability and cohesion of the feed material, particle size and
distribution, surface forces and adhesiveness. Screw presses produce high quality briquettes
with a homogenous structure and good combustibility, and they require only little maintenance.
The main disadvantage is that the wear of the screw leads to elevated spare part costs.
The merits and demerits of this technology are:
The output is continuous and the briquette is uniform in size.
The outer surface of the briquette is partially carbonized facilitating easy ignition and
combustion. This also protects the briquettes from ambient moisture.
13
A concentric hole in the briquette helps in combustion because of sufficient circulation
of air.
The machine runs very smoothly without any shock load.
The machine is light compared to the piston press because of the absence of
reciprocating parts and flywheel.
The machine parts and the oil used in the machine are free from dust or raw material
contamination.
The power requirement of the machine is high compared to that of piston press.
2.4.1.2 Piston press
Piston presses punch the feed material into a die with very high pressure, either mechanically
by a reciprocating ram powered by a massive flywheel, or by a hydraulically driven piston.
Thereby, the mass is compressed and forms a very dense briquette. Some modern
(hydraulically operated) machines apply pressure not only in longitudinal but also in radial
direction.
The merits and demerits of this technology are:
There is less relative motion between the ram and the biomass hence, the wear of the
ram is considerably reduced.
It is the most cost-effective technology currently offered by the Indian market.
Some operational experience has now been gained using different types of biomass.
The moisture content of the raw material should be less than 12% for the best results.
The quality of the briquettes goes down with an increase in production for the same
power.
Carbonisation of the outer layer is not possible. Briquettes are somewhat brittle.
2.4.2 Low pressure compaction
Low pressure briquetting needs a binding agent to assist the formation of bonds between the
biomass particles. There are various binding agents in use which can be divided into two main
groups: organic and inorganic binders. The most important binders are:
Organic binders
1. Molasses
2. Coal tar
3. Bitumen
4. Starch
14
5. Resin
Inorganic binders
1. Clay
2. Cement
3. Lime
4. Sulphite liquor
During the compaction process the briquettes are brought into shape without giving them
substantial strength. Only after a subsequent curing step (drying, burning, chemical reaction,
etc.) the “green” briquettes will develop the required strength and stability.
Some interesting low pressure compaction methods for briquettes from biomass are described
in the following text.
2.4.2.1 Hand moulded briquettes
Hand moulds are the simplest devices to form small quantities of briquettes. Plate 2.1 shows
hand moulds used in Mali for the production of briquettes from waste charcoal dust and
molasses as binding agent. The briquettes reach their final strength after drying in the sun or a
gentle heat treatment in a curing furnace.
A wide spread semi-mechanised method to form briquettes from mineral coal is found in China.
Ground coal is mixed with water and approximately 20% of clay binder and formed into so-
called honeycomb briquettes by a mechanized briquetting press (Plate 2.2). The “green”
briquettes reach their final strength and stability after drying some days in a dry environment.
A method to form briquettes from biomass was found in Kenya and Benin. There, biomass of
fine particle size (saw dust, rice husks, wood shavings, charcoal dust, etc.) was mixed with
approximately 20% of (waste) paper pulp and formed into briquettes in a manually operated
piston press (Plate 2.3).
The briquettes (Plate 2.4) were dried in the sun and gained strength due to the property of
paper fibre in building up hydrogen bonds among themselves and the biomass (Vest, 2003).
.
15
Plate 2.1: Hand moulds for charcoal dust Plate2.2: Chinese semi-mechanised
and molasses binder in Mali briquetting press (Beijing, 0086/10/677 812 07)
(Senegra, 00223/202507)
Plate 2.3: Manual briquetting press Plate 2.4: Manually produced briquettes
for biomass and waste paper from biomass and waste paper in
in Benin (DCAM, 00229/321129) Benin (DCAM, 00229/321129)
2.5 TECHNOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF THE BRIQUETTING PROCESS
2.5.1 Material humidity
If the production of briquettes with standard defined quality is required, it is necessary to know
the impact of the material humidity on the quality. For a growing tree water has a very positive
effect, because it is a necessary prerequisite for every vegetal organism to exist. For a cut tree,
water is unacceptable. Material humidity depends on the type of material. Every material has
its own specific nature. However, it is difficult to determine the optimal value of humidity for
briquetting. After analysis, the optimal value of material humidity for briquetting is from 10 %
to 18 %, which can be calculated according to type of material. If the humidity of the pressing
material is very low or very high (beyond the 10-18% interval) material elements are not
16
consistent and a briquette falls to pieces. Material humidity has an impact on lignin
plastification. The lignin softening temperature depends on the type of material and lignin
isolation method. The relations between material humidity, compacting pressure and pressing
temperature are very interesting. Pressing the material where temperature, pressure and
material humidity values are not in optimal interval results in a briquette that is not compact
and which can fall to pieces. It is possible to combine temperature effects on lignin
plastification with pressure briquetting. Nevertheless, when the material humidity is very high
it causes the excess water to turn into steam that tears a briquette to pieces. When the material
humidity is very low (lower than 10%), for a quality briquette very high pressure is required
and it is very expensive and uneconomic. Finding the optimal value of material humidity will
be one part of this experiment (Križan, 2007, Janković, 1997).
2.5.2 Compacting pressure
This factor is the most important factor with the main influence on briquette strength. Briquette
strength is higher when there is higher pressure. Briquette strength increases to the strength
limit of the compacting material. Briquette strength has an impact on briquette durability
because when the strength increases, the absorption of atmospheric humidity decreases.
Compacting pressure, seen from the viewpoint of complex analysis or research, is a very
interesting and very complicated parameter. Various parameters have an impact on compacting
pressure e.g. type of pressing material, temperature in the pressing chamber, pressing material
temperature and of course also the length, diameter and shape of the pressing chamber and the
manner of briquetting. The manner of briquetting has an impact on layer distribution in
briquettes and so on briquette strength. When warmed material is pressed, the briquettes have
a better density and better quality at lower pressure. Material warming during the briquetting
process reduces the needed pressure for briquetting of briquettes for the required quality. The
briquettes then have consistent shape and volume without cracks and scratches (Križan, 2007).
2.5.3 Pressing temperature
Pressing temperature has an expressive impact on briquette quality and strength. This
parameter determines the segregation of lignin from the cellular structure of the wood. Lignin
is very important in the briquetting process because its function in material pressing is to join
the fibres. In addition, lignin acts as a stabilization factor for the cellulose molecules in the cell
wall. The more lignin is included in the material the more the material can release it and then
the briquette quality is higher because lignin causes higher material strength. Lignin is released
17
only at specific pressing temperatures that have to be provided during the briquetting process.
The optimal value for pressing temperature for lignin plastification is approximately 120ºC,
but optimal temperature depends on the type of pressing material. It is not important to increase
the pressing temperature. When the temperature is out of optimal value range the briquette is
unstable, it has low strength that causes faster decay in burning, and the briquette burns for a
shorter time. Lower temperatures do not lead to high quality briquettes. Higher temperatures
cause the occurrence of highly volatile elements or pressing material to burn. With an increase
in the pressing temperature by constant compacting pressure, briquette strength is also
increased, but only to a specific value (Križan, 2007).
2.5.4 Fraction largeness
Fraction largeness has a very high impact on the briquetting process. The bigger the fraction
is, the more power is needed for briquetting. A briquette has lower homogeneity and stability.
An increase in fraction size results in the decrease of binding forces which lead to faster decay
in burning (the briquette burns faster and that is not an advantage). Increase of the fraction size
results in the increase of needed compacting pressure and a decrease of briquette quality
(Križan, 2007).
18
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
For the purpose of this study, mild steel was used for the construction of the machine. Mild
steel plates and rods were bought from a local mild steel market at Kumasi-Suame magazine
in Ghana. The machine was fabricated at the Agricultural Engineering workshop in the Kwame
Nkrumah University of Science and Technology-Kumasi (KNUST). The machine was
fabricated using electric arc welding machine.
3.1 Conceptual designs
Figure 3.1: Conceptual design 1 Figure 3.2: Conceptual design 2
Figure 3.3: Conceptual design 3
Conceptual design one operated with the aid of an electric motor. The compaction of biomass
material was as a result of a screw auger, pressing the material against a die at high pressure
(high pressure system).
19
The second conceptual design employed a hydraulic car jack for the compaction work. It
operated by a set of pistons pressing the biomass material against a closed lid (cover).
The third conceptual design was a manually operated lever arm press. It works by pressing the
biomass material in a cylindrical mould and it is one press at a time.
Conceptual design two was selected, based on the fact that it produces more briquettes at a time
unlike conceptual design type which produces one at a time.
3.2 Description of the machine
A manually operated biomass briquetting machine was designed and constructed (Figure 4).
The briquetting machine consist of 25 moulds each with an internal diameter of 70mm and a
depth of 190.5mm welded to a 6mm flat mild steel plate at the top and bottom and positioned
vertically over equal number of pistons. The pistons were made such that there was a clearance
of about 2mm between the piston head and the mould walls to allow the escape of water during
compaction. The opposite ends of the rods were welded on a flat metal plate of 12mm thickness
which rests on a 20 ton capacity hydraulic jack. The jack drives the pistons in and out of the
moulds during operation.
A
D
G
F
Figure 3.4: The biomass briquetting machine
A- mould cover, B- moulds, C- mould box, D- under plate, E- car jack (20 ton), F- body
frame and G- pistons.
A flat metal plate (A), 12mm thick, was hinged to the mould box to cover the open ends of the
moulds during compaction and opened during ejection of the briquettes. The vertical motion
of the pistons in the moulds and the ejection of compressed briquettes from the moulds was by
manual operation of the hydraulic jack (E). The hydraulic jack rests on angle bars welded to
20
the frame (F) of the machine. By this arrangement, the force from the hydraulic jack was
centrally applied to the metal plate bearing the pistons. The machine was fabricated using mild
steel and angle bars. Below is an orthographic view of the machine.
Figure 3.5: Design of the briquetting machine
3.3 Design of machine element and material selection
Properties of mild steal

Ultimate strength = 400MPa
Yield strength (σy) a. tensional = 250MPa
b. shear = 145MPa
Modulus of elasticity (E) = 200GPa
Modulus of rigidity = 77.2GPa
Density (ρ) = 7860kg/m3
Coefficient of thermal expansion = 11.7GPa
(Source: Mechanics of Materials, sixth edition by Ferdinand P. Beer, et al., 2012.)
21
3.3.1 Mould (cylinder)
Diameter= 70mm
Figure 3.6: briquette mould
Briquette cross-sectional area (Ab1)

Ab1 = πr2, where r = 3.4925cm Ab1 = π (3.4925×10-2)2 = 3.832×10-3m2
Total area AbT = 3.832×10-3m2×25 = 0.0958m2
Design pressure (PCT) = 17.5 KN/m2
Force applied (FCT) = PCT × AbT = 17.5 KN/m2×0.0958m2
FCT = 1.6765KN
σ = p
σ = p
σ = (σ − σ ) + (σ − σ ) + (σ − σ )
σ = axial stress
σ = hoop stress
σ = radial stress = 0
σ = design yield stress
d = d = internal diameter =6.985cm
d = d = external diameter = 7.62cm
.
P= = 0.7 KPa
σ = 0.7 KPa
σ = 7.9761KPa
σ = 5.409KPa
σ < 250MPa
22
3.3.2 Mould cover
1.6765KN
FT = 1.6765KN
N
50.8cm b
b 50.8cm
50.8cm
(a) (b)
Figure 3.7: (a) mould cover, (b) cross-sectional area of (a)
Function: a. Resist bending (deflection)

b. Resist shearing
Constraint: a. Required length (L) = 20”
b. Force (F) = 1.6765 KN.
Under shearing
< σy where, Am = 50.8cm×b, F = 1.6765KN and σy = 145MPa
Am =
0.508×b = b = = 2.276×10-5m b ≥ 0.02276mm

.
Under bending
Allowable bending stress (σ ) =0.55 × yield strength
σ = 0.55 × 250 = 137.5MPa
Assuming the force will be distributed uniformly over the area;
BM = (Maximum bending moment)

.
w= = = 3.300KN/m
.
( . )( . )
BM = BM = 0.1065KNm
Sectional modulus of the cover is:

. × . ×
z= = , but z= → =
23
.
b = 11.811 × → b ≥ 11.811 × → b = 11.811 × ≥
. ×
3.2989 × 10 m b ≥ 3.3mm
3.3.3 Moulds cover back hinges and front lock
Force acting on the mould cover will be distributed between the back hinge and the locking
device.
.
Total force (FT) = 1.6765KN = 0.8383KN
Force in hinges (hf) = 0.8383KN

Number of hinges = 2
.
Force per hinge (Fh) = = → Fh = 0.41515KN
Function: Resist shearing and bending

Under shearing
.
τ= where; τ = 145MPa, A = πr and Q = Fh = 0.41515KN
1.5 × 0.41515
r = = 1.3670 × 10 → r ≥ 1.1692 × 10 m ≥ 1.1692mm
π(145 × 10 )
d ≥ 2.3384mm
Under bending
WL FhL Fh
r ≥ r ≥ w =
2πσ 2πσ L
L = 8cm = 0.08m
σ = 0.55 × 250 = 137.5MPa
. × .
r≥ r ≥ 3.375 × 10 m = 3.375mm, d ≥ 6.75mm
× . ×
Force on locker (Lf) = 0.8383KN

Function: Resist shearing and bending
Under shearing
.
τ= where; τ = 145MPa, A = πr and Q = hf = 0.41515KN
. × .
r = = 2.7604 × 10 → r ≥ 1.6614 × 10 m ≥ 1.6614mm
( × )
d≥ 3.3228mm
Under bending
24
WL WL hf
r ≥ r ≥ w =
2σ 2πσ L
.
L = 27cm = 0.27m w= = 3.1048KN/m
.
σ = 0.55 × 250 = 137.5MPa

( . )× .
r≥ r ≥ 1.9486 × 10 m = 1.9486mm, d ≥ 3.8973mm
× . ×
3.3.4 Piston rods
0.06706K
N
21.6cm
Figure 3.8: piston rod
Number of rods = 25
.
Force per rod = = 0.06706KN
Using Euler’s equation;; P = → P = 0.06706KN, L = 0.2159m

( )
I= → P = → r ≥
( . )( . × )
r ≥ ( )
= 2.0163 × 10 = ∜(1.1916 × 10 )
×
r ≥ 1.1916× 10 m ≈ 1.2mm d ≥ 2.4mm
25
3.3.5 Under plate (piston plate)
FT = 1.6765KN
FT = 1.6765KN
43.2cm
a
43.2cm a
43.2cm
(a) (b)
Figure 3.9: (a) under plate, (b) cross-sectional area of (a)
Function: a. Support bending load
b. Support shearing load
Constraint: a. Required length (L) = 17” =0.432m
b. Force (F) = 1.6765KN
Under bending
Assuming the force is distributed uniformly over the area;
.
BM = , where; W = = 3.8808KN/m
.
( . )×( . × )
BM = = 0.091KNm
σ = 137.5MPa
L×a BM 6(BM ) 6(BM )

z = → z = → a = → a = →
6 σ L×σ L×σ
( . )
a≥√
. ×( . × )
a ≥ 3.0318 × 10 m a ≥ 3.03mm
Under shearing
The maximum shear will occur at the middle;
.
τ= , where; A = 0.432 × a and τ = 145MPa
. × . . × .
τ= → a = ( ≥ 4.0146 × 10 m ≈ 0.04mm
. × )× .
26
Table 3.1: component selection
component Design consideration Calculated parameter Selected
size
Mould cover a. Shearing a. b ≥ b= 12mm
b. Bending 0.023mm
b. b ≥
3.3mm
moulds shearing σy = 5.409MPa t= 3mm
pistons Buckling d ≥ 2.4mm d= 25mm
Piston plate a. Shearing a. b= 0.04mm b= 12mm
b. Bending b. b ≥ 3.03mm
Hinges /Locker c. Shearing a.d≥ 6.75mm d= 25mm
d. Bending / d ≥ 3.8973mm
3.4 Construction of the machine
3.4.1 Construction of mould and mould box
The machine contains 25 moulds, each of 203mm length and a 76mm external diameter
galvanized pipe. The moulds were cut with a cutting disc and ground to ensure a uniform and
level height. The mould box is made up of the moulds and two 6mm mild steel plate and was
constructed by first cutting two 508×508mm size out of the 6mm plate. 25 circles of the same
size as the moulds with 15mm spacing between them was marked on the two plates and cut
using a gas welding touch. All the 25 moulds was carefully set straight between the two plates
with the aid of a spirit level and a try square and welded, this was done one after the other.
Plate 3.1: mould box under construction
27
3.4.2 Construction of piston and under plate
The machine requires equal number of pistons as the number of moulds to produce all the 25
briquettes required. The pistons are made up of 216mm long, 25mm rod and a 6mm round plate
with a diameter of 58mm. The pistons was constructed by positioning each rod and welded at
the center of the round plate. Each piston was put in a lathe machine and the round plate was
carefully turned to the required diameter. A plate, 12mm thick and 432mm × 432mm size was
cut and 25 holes of 1inch diameter with a clearance of about 1mm was centered in accordance
with the centers of the moulds and drilled using a drilling machine in a three step drilling
process. The pistons was inserted in the holes drilled on the base plate and welded upright to
ensure easy and free movement of pistons in the moulds during operation.
Plate 3.2: Piston under fabrication Plate 3.3: Piston being machined in a lathe
machine
3.4.3 Construction of frame and mould cover
The frame, which is the member that supports the mould box, the jack, mould cover and the
pistons with the base plate was constructed with a 51mm angle bars. The frame was made up
of six 762mm long vertical stands which support the weight of the mould box, mould cover
and the pistons with the base plate and also support the dynamic load that the jack would exert
during compaction of the biomass material. The six vertical bars were held in position with the
aid of eight 432mm long angle bars, welded horizontally between the vertical bars at
28
the top and down of the pressure side and also held with six 356mm angle bars at the side which
would support the mould cover when opened. Four 432mm long bars was welded at 216mm
from the top, which serves as a support for the mould box, it also have another two angle bars
welded at distance of 432mm from the top which serves as a seat for the under plate. The mould
cover, 12mm thick plate of size 508×508mm was hinged to the frame with the aid of two hinges
which were welded to the frame.
Plate 3.4: Frame under construction Plate 3.5: Frame after construction
3.5 Testing of the machine
For the purpose of this study, jatropha husk was used for the testing of the machine. The
jatropha husk sample was collected from a jatropha seed oil extraction plant at Yeji, Brong-
Ahafo region, Ghana. Cassava starch was prepared with cassava bought from a local market
and used as a binding agent mainly to overcome the major problem of material compaction and
post compaction recovery, which represents enormous waste in energy input (Faborode, 1998).
3.5.1 Biomass-binder Mixture
Jatropha husk sample in three different particle sizes (original particle size, particle size less
than or equal to 6mm and particle size less than or equal to 2mm) was mixed with an already
prepared cassava starch in proportions of 100:15, 100:25, 100:35 and 100:45 by weight
respectively. The starch and the biomass sample was well mixed without forming a mixture
with high moisture content because the formation of a mixture with higher moisture content
due to excess addition of water reduces both the durability and density of the briquette
29
(Mohamed, 2004). The biomass-binder mixture was hand fed into the moulds and compacted
to form the briquettes after which they were sun dried to constant weight.
15% 25%
45% 35%
Plate 3.6: Briquette of raw char (original particle size) at different binder level after drying
15% 25% 35% 45%
drying
15% 25% 35% 45%
drying
3.5.2 Performance evaluation
For the performance evaluation, five briquette samples were randomly selected from the
jatropha husk briquette for evaluation. During the densification process, the following statistic:
time for loading biomass into moulds, T1 in seconds, time for compressing the biomass, T2, in
seconds, and time for ejecting the biomass briquettes, T3, in seconds, were observed and
recorded in line with work of Adekoya, 1998. The production capacity of the machine in kg/hr
was recorded. On ejection of the briquettes from the moulds, the mass and the dimensions of
the briquettes were taken to determine the density in g/cm3 using an electronic weighing
30
balance and a caliper. The compressed density, relaxed density, relaxation ratio and
dimensional stability of the jatropha husk briquette were determined in accordance with the
methods described by Olorunnisola, 2007.
Plate 3.9: Biomass loading stage Plate 3.10: Biomass compression stage
Plate 3.11: Briquette ejection stage plate 3.12: Pistons at top dead center
after briquette ejection
3.5.3 Physical Properties Determination
The bulk density of the loose biomass sample was determined by weighing an empty
cylindrical container of known volume and mass, and then carefully filled with the biomass
sample. After filling every one-quarter portion of the container with the sample, it was tapped
on a table for some number of times to allow the material to settle down. After completely
filling the container, excess material at the top was removed by moving a straight edge over
31
the container. The mass of the containing sample was determined. The compressed density
(density immediately after compression) of the briquette was determined immediately after
ejection from the moulds as the ratio of measured weight to the calculated volume. The relaxed
density (density determined when dried) and relaxation ratio (ratio of compressed density to
relaxed density) of the briquette were determined in the dry condition of the briquette after 8
days of sun drying to a constant weight at an ambient temperature. The relaxed density was
calculated as the ratio of the briquette weight (g) to the new volume (cm3). This gives an
indication of the relative stability of the briquette after compression. The compaction ratio was
obtained from the ratio of the maximum density and the initial density of the jatropha husk
sample (Oladeji1, 2012). Briquette stability was measured in terms of its dimensional changes
when exposed to the atmosphere. The dimensional stability of the briquette was determined by
measuring the height at an interval of 0, 30, 60, 1440, 2880, 4320, 5760, 7200, 8640 and 10,080
minutes (Sotannde, 2010). Durability represents the measure of shear and impact forces a
briquette could withstand during handling, storage and transportation processes (Adapa, 2009).
The durability of the briquette was determined in accordance with the chartered index described
by (Suparin, 2008) after sun drying to a constant weight. The briquette was dropped repeatedly
from a height of 1.5m onto a metal base. The fraction of the briquette that remained unshattered
was used as an index of briquette durability (Sah, 1980), (Khankari, 1989). The durability
rating of the briquette was expressed as a percentage of the initial mass of the material
remaining on the metal plate and this gave an indication of the ability of the briquette to
withstand mechanical handling. Water resistance of the briquette was tested by immersing the
briquette in a container filled with cold tap water and measuring the time required for the onset
of dissolving in water. The higher the water resistance time, the more stable the briquette is in
terms of weathering resistance (Richards, 1990).
3.5.4 Data analysis
The experiment was set up with 5 replications. The data obtained from the test were analysed
for One-way single-factor analysis of Variance (ANOVA) at 95% confidence level using SPSS
software (version 16.0) and where significant differences were identified. The difference
between the mean values of the properties tested for were determined using the Fisher’s Least
Significant Difference (FLSD) at 5% level of significance.
32
CHARPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSIONS
4.1 Machine capacity
The mean biomass loading time, t1, mean biomass compaction time, t2, and the mean briquette
ejection time, t3 as well as their percentages of the total production time and the corresponding
mean mass of biomass-binder mixture (briquette) produced were recorded as shown in Table
4.1.
Table 4.1: Production time components of the briquetting machine

MEAN PRODUCTION TIME % OF TOTAL
TIME COMPONENTS (SEC) PRODUCTION TIME
Biomass loading time (t1) 38 30.65
Biomass compaction time 53 42.74
(t2)
Biomass ejection time (t3) 33 26.61
TOTAL 124 100
Mean mass of briquette produced = 16.83kg
The machine produces averagely 16.83kg of briquette in about 124 second’s time frame. From
table 1 above the mean biomass loading time of 38 seconds, mean biomass compaction time
of 53 seconds and mean biomass ejection time of 33 seconds were recorded respectively. The
production capacity of the machine was about 488kg/hr (tested with jatropha husk) as
compared to a machine capacity (tested with saw dust) of 43kg/hr reported by Obi in 2013. The
efficiency of the machine in terms of capacity is more by 10 times greater than what Obi
reported. The pie chart below shows the time of the various stages of the production as a
percentage of the total production time.
33
26% 31%
Biomass loading
time (t1)
Biomass
43% compaction time
(t2)
Biomass ejection
time (t3)
Figure 4.1: Mean percentage production time of the three stages of jatropha husk briquette
4.2 Physical Properties of Jatropha husk Briquette
The physical properties of the jatropha husk briquette are shown in Table 4.3. The influence of
binder level and particle size was significant on the physical properties of the briquette (P <
0.05). The compressed density of the raw char (RC) ranged from 1.11 to 1.46g/cm3 on the
addition of 15 to 45% cassava starch. The compressed density of the particle size less than or
equal to 6mm (≤6mm) ranged from 1.098 to 1.14 g/cm3 on the addition of 15 to 45% cassava
starch. The compressed density of the particle size less than or equal to 2mm (≤2mm) ranged
from 1.048 to 1.153g/cm3 on the addition of 15 to 45% cassava starch.
4.2.1 Effect of the various binder levels on briquette produced from original particle
size
The briquette produced from the raw char (original particle size) exhibited an unpredictable
behaviour during the test. The compressed densities of binder level 25%, 35% and 45% shows
no significant difference although 45% had a slightly higher value, with 15% binder recording
the least value. However the is no significant variation between the various binder levels in
terms of relaxed density, relaxation ratio and compaction ratio, although 45% binder level had
a slightly higher value in all. The durability of all the briquette was inversely proportional to
the compressed density and compaction ratio with 15% binder level showing a different
characteristic (having 1.11g/cm3 compressed density and 2.6:1 compaction ratio) and a higher
value of 60.22% recorded at binder level 35%. The durability of the briquette is attributed to
the strength of the briquette immediately and after some few days of compaction (initial
34
strength of the briquette) which affect or disturbs the bonds between the particles hence
reducing the durability of the briquette after drying. The various characteristics are presented
in table 4.3.
0.8
0.7
ABSOLUTE HEIGHT DIFFERENCE/CM
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
TIME/MINUTES
15% 25% 35% 45%
Figure 4.2: Height stability of jatropha husk briquette (raw char)
The height stability of the briquette which was measured in terms of its changes in height when
exposed to atmosphere is shown in Figure 4.2 above. From the figure, none of the briquette
was stable but the briquette with 25% binder had a least final difference in height (0.22cm) and
a water resistance time of 1.02 hours with 15% binder having the highest final difference in
height and a water resistance time of 0.56 hours. This implies that the final difference in height
of original particle size of (raw char) jatropha husk briquette is directly proportional to its water
resistance (weathering resistance) strength (with reference to figure 4.2).
35
Table 4.2: Physical properties of jatropha husk briquette
Particle size Compressed Relaxed Relaxation Compaction Durability Water
(% binder) density density ratio ratio resistance
𝐦𝐢 𝛒𝐜 𝛒𝐜
(𝛒𝐜 = ) (𝛒𝐫 = (𝛒𝐫) ((𝛒𝐛))
𝐯𝐢
𝐦𝐟
)
𝐯𝐟
g/cm3
% Hours
g/cm3
RC (15) 1.1070B .2435A 4.5344A 2.6307A 53.528G .5600D
RC (25) 1.3693A .2922A 4.7033A 3.2541A 51.260I 1.0198E
RC (35) 1.2911A .2634A 4.9601A 3.0682A 60.216A .8718A
RC (45) 1.4558A .2930A 5.0420A 3.4596A 43.540E .9368A
≤ 6mm (15) 1.1386B .6201D 1.8371C 2.7059A 90.638D 9.2590I
≤ 6mm (25) 1.0980B .6465C 1.6998C 2.6093A 92.270C 10.6988J
≤ 6mm (35) 1.1223B .4078B 2.8478B 2.6671A 80.950B 1.0568B
≤ 6mm (45) 1.1391B .4032B 2.8489B 2.7070A 78.026B 1.0716B
≤ 2mm (15) 1.0482B .5691H 2.1208C 5.0400B 90.440D .2134C
≤ 2mm (25) 1.1127B .6715C 1.6571C 2.6444A 92.296C .1632C
≤ 2mm (35) 1.1526B .7165E 1.6086C 2.7391A 81.936B .3599G
≤ 2mm (45) 1.1121B .5316G 2.0932C 2.6427A 84.182H .7767H
Significance 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
level
Bulk density
𝛒𝐛 =
𝟎. 𝟒𝟐𝟏kg/cm
3
Mean values with the same alphabet in each column are not significantly different (P < 0.05)
using Fisher’ least significance difference (FLSD).
36
Table 4.3: Physical behaviour (characteristic) of jatropha husk briquette
Particle % binder Mean Mean Initial Mean Mean Final
size initial initial handling final final handling
mass height property mass height property
g cm after cm After
production g drying
Raw char 15 669.62 13.78 Break 139.9 13.38 Moderately

easily the strong
first two
days
Raw char 25 758.72 13.76 Break 162.58 13.78 Strong and
easily the easy to
first 24 handle
hours
Raw char 35 833.52 14.66 Bit 167.12 15.2 Strong and
stronger easy to
after 1 handle
hour
Raw char 45 862.62 14.86 Break 173.98 15.22 Moderately
easily even strong
after 3
days
≤6mm 15 579.02 12.58 A little 318.94 13.06 Very strong
difficult to and easy to
handle handle
≤6mm 25 678.5 14.46 Easy to 363.26 14.2 Very strong
handle and easy to
handle
≤6mm 35 681.34 15 Difficult to 244.8 14.56 Very strong
handle and easy to
handle
≤6mm 45 745.62 15.76 Very 243.76 15.1 Very
difficult to strong and
handle easy to
handle
≤2mm 15 565.22 13.4 Very easy 334.28 13.48 Very strong
to handle and easy to
handle
handle
handle
≤2mm 45 627.26 14.66 Very easy 302 14.6 Very strong
handle
37
than or equal to 6mm (≤6mm)
Briquette produced from particle size less than or equal to 6mm shows no significant variation
in the compressed density likewise for the compaction ratio for the various binder levels,
although 45% binder recorded the highest value of 1.14g/cm3 and 2.707:1 respectively. The
25% binder recorded the highest relaxed density of 0.65g/cm3 with 15, 35 and 45% binders
recording 0.62g/cm3, 0.41g/cm3 and 0.40 g/cm3 respectively. From table 4.3 above, it was
observed that the durability of the briquette produced by particle size less than or equal to 6mm
is directly proportional to the relaxed density with the higher value of 92.27% and a low value
of 78.026% recorded at 25 and 45% binder levels respectively. It was also observed that the
relaxed density is inversely proportional to the relaxation ratio, which means that the greater
the relaxed density the lower the relaxation ratio of the briquette. Therefore the greater the
weight lost and increase in height during drying, the lower the relaxed density which causes
higher relaxation ratio that decreases the durability of the briquette. Once again the initial
strength (easiness to handle) has a great influence on the durability of the briquette (refer to
table 4.3 above). The water resistance of the briquette was observed to be directly proportional
to the durability and relaxed density, with 25% binder recording approximately 10.7 hours and
15, 35 and 45% recording 9.3, 1.1 and 1.1 hours respectively.
38
1.2
1
ABSOLUTE HEIHGT DIFFERENCE/CM
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
TIME/MINUTES
15% 25% 35% 45%
6mm
The height stability of the briquette produced from particle size less than or equal to 6mm
which was measured in terms of its changes in height when exposed to atmosphere is shown
in Figure 4.3. From the figure, briquette produced with 35% binder appeared to be most stable
between the 3rd and 5th day, but 25% binder had the least maximum change in height, hence it
can be concluded that the two binder levels were the most stable briquettes when exposed to
the atmosphere compared to briquettes at other binder levels.
than or equal to 2mm (≤2mm)
The briquette produced by particle size less than or equal to 2mm was observed to have
approximately constant characteristic with all four binder level in terms of compressed density,
relaxation ratio and compaction ratio. From table 4.2 it was observed that only 15% binder had
a higher compaction ratio of 5:1 with the rest recording a value of nearly 3:1. From table 4.3
the initial strength of briquette produced from particle size less than or equal to 2mm is very
high and very easy to handle, therefore the final durability of the briquette is only dependent
39
on the relaxed density which also depend on the strength of the bond or the cohesion between
the biomass particles forming the briquette. The strength of the bond was also observed to
depend on the height stability, which is shown on the figure 4.4 below.
0.4
0.35
0.3
ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE/CM
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
TIME/MINUTES
15% 25% 35% 45%
2mm
From the figure above 25% binder recorded zero (0) change in final height and a corresponding
92.3% durability and 35% binder having 0.18 change in height and a durability of 81.94%,
with 15% and 45% recording 0.08 and 0.14 change in height and 90.44% and 84.18%
respectively. Based on this observation a relationship can be established that the durability of
briquette produced from carbonized jatropha husk with particle size less than or equal to 2mm
is directly proportional to the height stability of the briquette after drying to an equilibrium
weight.
The water resistance capacity of the briquette with particle size less than or equal to 2mm from
table 4.2, increases with increasing binder level. Although 15% binder recorded a slightly
40
higher duration of 0.21 hours than 25% which had duration of 0.16 hours, they showed no
significant difference.
4.3 Best particle size of jatropha husk and binder blend
The best blend of biomass-binder ratio was assessed on the basis of the briquette initial strength
and final durability of the briquette since this two parameters are a measure of the compressed
density of the major indices for assessing the combustion, handling characteristics and ignition
behaviour of briquettes as reported by Sotannde in 2010. From table 4.2 above, the compressed
densities of briquettes produced from particle size less than or equal to 6mm and particle size
less than or equal to 2mm do not have any significant variation the durability of the briquette
depends on the relaxed density, which is the final density of the briquette after sun drying to
an equilibrium weight. It was also observed that the relaxed density is dependent to some
extend on the initial strength of the briquette and the height stability of the briquette.
100.0
90.64 92.27 90.44 92.3
90.0
80.95 81.94 84.18
78.03
80.0
70.0
60.2
% DURABLE
60.0 53.5 51.3

50.0 43.5
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1
PARTICLE SIZE, % BINDER
RC, 15 RC, 25 RC, 35 RC, 45 <6mm 15 <6mm, 25

<6mm, 35 <6mm 45 <2mm, 15 <2mm, 25 <2mm, 35 <2mm, 45
Figure 4.5: Durability of jatropha husk briquette
From figure 4.5 above, it was observed that the durability of particle size less than or equal to
2mm with 25% binder had a higher value of 92.3% and particle size less than or equal to 6mm
with 25% binder had the second high value of 92.27%. This two blends produced briquette
41
which are more durable than what was reported by other researchers using different biomass
with starch as binder Sotannde et al. (2010) and Obi (2013) reported 83.26% and 91.43%
respectively.
12.0
10.7
10.0
TIME FOR ONSET OF DESOLVING/HOURS
9.26
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
1.02 0.87 0.94 1.06 1.07
0.56 0.78
0.21 0.16 0.36
.0
1
PARTICLE SIZE, % BINDER
RC, 15 RC, 25 RC, 35 RC, 45 <6mm, 15 <6mm, 25

<6mm, 35 <6mm, 45 <2mm, 15 <2mm, 25 <2mm, 35 <2mm, 45
Figure 4.6: Water resistance of jatropha husk briquette
From figure 4.6, comparing the particle size at different binder levels it was observed that
particle size less than or equal to 6mm with 15% and 25% binder had the highest water
resistance (weathering resistance) with values of 9.26 hours and 10.7 hours respectively. From
the water resistance test it was also observed that the finer particle size dissolve easily in water
although it had the highest range of durability.
In terms of quality jatropha husk briquette production using the manual briquetting machine it
is recommended that particle size less than or equal to 2mm or 6mm with starch as a binder in
the ratio of 100:25 is used for durable briquette.
42
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
In this study the following conclusions were arrived at:
1. A manual biomass briquetting machine suitable for the production of biomass

briquettes on a small scale with a production capacity of 488kg/hr was designed and
constructed and used in the production of biomass briquette using carbonized jatropha
husk.
2. The physical properties of the jatropha husk briquette were found to be significantly
affected by the particle size and binder level.
3. Briquette with higher durability was produced using the constructed briquetting
machine. Though for best jatropha husk briquette quality on the basis of relaxed density,
initial handling strength and durability, particle size less than or equal to 2mm and 6mm
with a binder blending ratio of 100:25 should be used.
Further studies are recommended in the following areas:
1. Determination of capacity of the machine using different biomass at varying particle

size and binder level.
2. Determine the heating value and combustion properties of the briquette produced by
the machine.
3. Introduction of electrically controlled pistons to perform the compaction instead of
using manually operated hydraulic car jack.
43
REFERENCES
1. Adapa, P., Tabil, L. and Schoenau, G. (2009). Compaction Characteristics of Barley,

Canola, Oat and Wheat Straw, Biosystems Engineering (1 - 10).
2. Adekoya, L. O. (1998). Briquetting of Agricultural Wastes: A Preliminary Study.
Proceedings of the CIGR Inter-Sections Symposium. National Center for Agricultural
Mechanization, Ilorin, Nigeria, pp. 218 – 225.
3. A.Olorunnisola (2007). “Production of Fuel Briquettes from Waste Paper and Coconut
Husk Admixtures”. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal.
Manuscript EE 06 006. Vol. IX. February, 2005.
4. Beijing Mei Tan Xi Jie Zhang, , Chaoyang District, Baizhinwan, Shimenchun Lu No.
1,Beijing, China phone: 0086/10/677 812 07.
5. BP-Amoco, (2005). Statistical Review of World Energy.
6. Christoph Frei, (2012) official publication of the world energy council to mark the
world energy leaders’ summit, Istanbul.
7. Christoph Frei et al. World energy council, (2013), world energy issues monitor report.
P. 2.
8. DCAM, Mr. Raphael Edoo, B.P. 173, Cotonou, Benin phone: 00229/321129.
9. Del Greco, G.V. and Rademaker, L., (1998). The Jatropha energy system: An integrated
approach to decentralised and sustainable energy production at the village level.
Workshop on the potential of Jatropha curcas in rural development and environment
protection. Harare, 1998 May 13-15.
10. Demirbaş, A. and Demirbaş, M.F., (2003). Biomass and wastes: Upgrading alternative
fuels. Energy Sources, Vol. 25, pp. 317-329.
11. Dr.-Ing. Heino Vest (2003). Small Scale Briquetting and Carbonisation of Organic
Residues for Fuel. Pp 1-8.
12. Eriksson S, Prior M (1990). The Briquetting of Agricultural Wastes for Fuel, FAO,
Agriculture and consumer protection Department, Rome pp 10-25.
13. Erikson, S.; M. Prior; (1990). Briquetting of agricultural wastes for fuel FAO
Environment and Energy Paper 11 Rome, Italy.
14. Faborode, M. O. (1998). Rural Domestic and Agro-Industrial Energy from Biofuels
Proceedings of the CIGR Inter-Sections Symposium. National Center for Agricultural
Mechanization, Ilorin, Nigeria, pp. 129 – 140
44
15. FAO (1990). The briquetting of agricultural wastes for fuel. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Via delle Treme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy,
pp 2-33.
16. Ganiyu Tajudeen, (2007). Design and Construction of Briquetting Machine with Slicer
1 1-2
17. Grover, P. D.; S. K. Mishra, (1996) Biomass Briquetting: Technology and Practices
FAO, Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia Bangkok, Thailand,
April, 1996.
18. Hagan E. B., (1994). Production of Sawdust Briquettes in Kumasi
19. Hood AH (2010). Biomass Briquetting in Sudan: A Feasibilty Study. Women’s Refuge
Commision pp 100-120.
20. Hosier, R. and Svenningson, P.J. (1987), ‘‘Biomass briquettes in the Dominican
Republic Part I: Social and Economic Feasibility.’’ Biomass, 13, pp. 199-217.
21. I. Edjekumhene, S. Bonsu, Atakora, R. Atta-Konadu, and A. Brew-Hammond, ( 2001)
“Implementation of renewable energy technologiesopportunities and barriers,” Ghana
country study, Kumasi Institute of Technology and Environment.
22. Janković, S. (1997): Mechanical properties of light compositive biobriquettes, Facta
Universitatis Series Working and Living Environmental Protection, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.
59-64.
23. Khankari, K. K., Shrivastava, M. and Morey, R. V. (1989). Densification
Characteristics of Rice Husk. ASAE Paper No. 89-6093. St. Joseph, MI: ASABE.
24. KITE, 1999, Energy Use in some peri-urban areas in Kumasi.
25. P. McKendry, (2002). Bioresource Technology 83,pp. 37–46
26. Križan, P.: Research of factors influence on quality of wood briquettes, Journal Acta
Montanistica Slovaca, Vol. 12, No.3, pp. 223-230, 2007.
27. Križan, P.( 2007): Impact of factors at biomass compacting process, 13. International
conference TOP 2007, Senec, Slovakia, pp. 381-386.
28. Lardinois I, Klundert A (1993). Organic Waste: Options for Small-Scale Resource
Recovery Urban Solid Waste Series1. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: TOOL, pp 50-61.
29. Lehtikangas, P.(2001): Quality properties of pelletised sawdust, logging residues and
bark, Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 19, pp. 351-360,
30. Mohamed, F. M., Ahmed, Y. M. Z. and Shalabi, M. E. H. (2004). Effect of Organic
Binders on the Quality of Manganese Ore Sinter Fines Briquettes. TESCE, Vol. 30,
No.2, pp. 871 – 889.
45
31. Oladeji1, J. T. and Enweremadu, C. C. (2012). The Effects of Some Processing
Parameters on Physical and Densification Characteristics of Corncob Briquettes.
International Journal of Energy Engineering, 2(1): 22-27.
32. P.D. Grover & S.K. Mishra, (1996). Food and agriculture organization of the United
Nations Bangkok, April 1996, biomass briquetting: technology and practices, field
document no.46. Regional Information Service Center for Asia on Appropriate
Technology (RISE-AT) Institute for Science and Technology Research and
Development (IST) P.O Box 111, Chiang Mai University Chiang Mai 50202, Thailand
http://www.ist.cmu.ac.th/riseat.
33. P. Križan,Ľ. Šooš, Đ. Vukelić, (2009) A study of impact technological parametres on
the briquetting process,Working and Living Environmental Protection Vol. 6, No 1, pp.
39 – 47.
34. Richards, S. R. (1990). Physical Testing of Fuel Briquettes, Fuel Processing
Technology, 25: 89 - 100.
35. Sah, P., Singh, B. and Agrawal, U. (1980). Compaction Behavior of Straw. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering-India, 18(1), pp. 89 - 96.
36. Short, C. (2002). Energy for the Poor. Underpinning the Millennium Development
Goals. Department for International Development (DFID), government of United
Kingdom, London. Produced for DFID by Future Energy Solutions. DFID 1 Palace
Street London SW1E 5HE. p. 32.
37. SENEGRA, Mr. Hamidou Doucoure, B.P. 1731, Bamako, Mali phone: 00223/202507
38. Suparin, C., Suwit, S. and Prattana, K. (2008). Development of Fuel Briquettes from
Biomass-Lignite Blends. Chiang. Mai. J. Sci., 35(1): 43 – 50.
39. Sotannde, O. A., Oluyege, A. O. and Abah, G. B. (2010). Physical and Combustion
Properties of Briquettes from Sawdust of Azadirachta indica. Journal of Forestry
Research, 21(1): 63 – 67.
40. T. Agyarko, (1999). “Forestry outlook study for Africa (FOSA): Ghana,” tech.
rep.,Ministry of Lands and Forestry.
41. TechnoServe Guatemala report, (2010). Kristen Matsumura & Boston Nyer, Jatropha
fuel Briquettes, University of Colorado Engineering for Developing Communities
Program, p. 4.
42. Thuku L. Nyakeru, Joseph M. Keriko, Benson H. K. Karanja (2012). Journal of
Environmental Science and Water Resources Vol. 1(4), pp. 74 – 79, May
http://www.wudpeckerresearchjournals.org/JESWR.
46
47
APPENDIX
1.0 DENSITY (ρ)=

Bulk density ρ =
= .
= 0.4208g/cm
2.0 PHYSICAL PARAMETERS
2.1 Original particle size (15% binder level)
Mass/(g) Diameter/(cm) Height /(cm)

Sample No. Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
(Mi) (Mf) (di) (df) (hi) (hf)
s1 681.3 131.9 7.2 7 13.3 13.6
s2 710.5 153.8 7.3 7.5 13.4 14
s3 695.4 152.3 7.4 7.3 13.8 13
s4 569.7 114.6 7.8 7.5 14.6 13.1
s5 691.2 146.9 7.9 7.7 13.8 13.2

s1 751.3 160.4 7 7 13.8 13.5
s2 726.2 159.1 7 7 13.5 13.4
s3 723.7 158.8 7.1 7.2 13.6 13.5
s4 810.5 174.1 7.4 7.2 13.9 14.3
s5 781.9 160.5 7.3 7.5 14 14.2

Sample No. Initial Final (Mf) Initial Final Initial Final
(Mi) (di) (df) (hi) (hf)
s1 826.9 178.3 7.2 7.5 14.5 15
s2 867.2 180.3 7.8 7.2 15 15.3
s3 857.5 176 7.8 7.3 14.7 15.7
s4 802.4 129.2 7.1 7 14.7 15.2
s5 813.6 171.8 7.6 7.4 14.4 14.8
48

s1 823.1 153.5 7 7.3 13.6 15
s2 845.7 154.2 7.2 7 15.5 15.5
s3 883.6 195 7 7 15 15
s4 890.9 196.2 7 7 15.2 15.4
s5 869.8 171 7.5 7 15 15.2
2.5 Particle size less than or equal to 6mm (15% binder level)
Mass/(g) Diameter/(cm) Height /(cm

Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
Sample No. (Mi) (Mf) (di) (df) (hi) (hf)
s1 589.6 333.7 7.2 7.1 12.7 13.3
s2 576.6 307 7 7 12.5 12.7
s3 591.5 323.1 7.2 7.1 12.8 13.3
s4 561.3 301.6 7 7 12.4 13
s5 576.1 329.3 7.5 7.2 12.5 13

s1 670 371.2 7.3 7.1 14.5 14.4
s2 669.4 364.2 7.4 7 14.2 14
s3 671.8 357.2 7.2 7.1 14.2 14.3
s4 689.2 358.5 7.6 7.2 14.6 14.2
s5 692.1 365.2 7.4 7.1 14.8 14.1

Sample Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
No. (Mi) (Mf) (di) (df) (hi) (hf)
s1 674.4 267.5 7.1 7.1 14.5 14.6
s2 680 284.2 7 7 15.5 15.3
s3 670 257.8 7.5 7.5 14.5 14.6
s4 691.8 246.3 7.3 7.3 15.5 14
s5 690.5 168.2 7.4 7.4 15 14.3
49

s1 720 222 7.1 7 15.9 15.8
s2 718.1 282.7 7.5 7.2 15.5 15
s3 749.3 243.5 7.5 7.2 15.8 15
s4 787.9 234.2 7.1 7.2 15.8 14.5
s5 752.8 236.4 7.2 7.1 15.8 15.2

s1 546.5 321.7 7 7.1 13 13.1
s2 555.1 325.3 7.2 7 13 13.1
s3 580.5 349.2 7.2 7 13.5 13.5
s4 564 330.4 7.2 7 13.5 13.7
s5 580 344.8 7.2 7 14 14

s1 568 337.5 7 7.1 13 13
s2 569.6 339.2 7 7 13.2 13.2
s3 588.7 356.8 7 7.1 13.3 13.3
s4 589.5 355.1 7.4 7.1 13.6 13.6
s5 597 362 7 7 13.5 13.5

s1 615.8 373.6 7.4 7 13.5 13.5
s2 603 362.5 7.2 7.1 13.3 13.2
s3 641.7 399.9 7.1 7.1 13.8 14
s4 626.5 388.4 7 7 13.5 13.8
s5 627.8 391.7 7 7.1 13.5 13.8
50

s1 630.9 297.2 7 7.1 15 14.7
s2 622 297.4 7 7 14.5 14.6
s3 633.3 302.6 7 7.1 15 14.8
s4 606.6 293.6 7 7 14 14
s5 643.5 319.2 7 7 14.8 14.9
3.0 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Density, (m/v)/ relaxation ratio compaction ratio

(g/cm)
Sample No. Compressed Relaxed (ρr = ρc/ρr ρc/ρb
(ρc = Mi/Vi) Mf/Vf)
s1 1.2581 0.252 4.9925 2.9898
s2 1.2668 0.2487 5.0937 3.0105
s3 1.1717 0.2799 4.1861 2.7845
s4 0.8166 0.198 4.1242 1.9406
s5 1.0218 0.239 4.2753 2.4282
Mean 1.107 0.24352 4.53436 2.63072

(g/cm)
s1 1.4146 0.3087 4.5824 3.3617
s2 1.3978 0.3085 4.531 3.3218
s3 1.344 0.2889 4.6521 3.1939
s4 1.3558 0.299 4.5344 3.222
s5 1.3344 0.2558 5.2166 3.1711
Mean 1.36932 0.29218 4.7033 3.2541
51

(g/cm)
s1 1.4007 0.2691 5.2051 3.3287
s2 1.2099 0.2894 4.1807 2.8752
s3 1.2208 0.2678 4.5586 2.9011
s4 1.3787 0.2209 6.2412 3.2764
s5 1.2455 0.2699 4.6147 2.9598
mean 1.29112 0.26342 4.96006 3.06824

(g/cm)
s1 1.5726 0.2456 6.4031 3.7372
s2 1.3401 0.2585 5.1841 3.1846
s3 1.5307 0.3378 4.5314 3.6376
s4 1.523 0.331 4.6012 3.6193
s5 1.3125 0.2923 4.4902 3.1191
Mean 1.45578 0.29304 5.042 3.45956

(g/cm)
s1 1.1402 0.6337 1.7993 2.7096
s2 1.1986 0.6281 1.9083 2.8484
s3 1.135 0.6136 1.8497 2.6972
s4 1.1762 0.6028 1.9512 2.7952
s5 1.0432 0.6221 1.6769 2.4791
Mean 1.13864 0.62006 1.83708 2.7059
52

(g/cm)
s1 1.104 0.6511 1.6956 2.6236
s2 1.0961 0.676 1.6214 2.6048
s3 1.162 0.6309 1.8418 2.7614
s4 1.0406 0.6201 1.6781 2.4729
s5 1.0873 0.6542 1.662 2.5839
Mean 1.098 0.64646 1.69978 2.60932

(g/cm)
s1 1.1747 0.4628 2.5382 2.7916
s2 1.14 0.4827 2.3617 2.7091
s3 1.0459 0.3997 2.6167 2.4855
s4 1.1806 0.4203 2.8089 2.8056
s5 1.0703 0.2735 3.9133 2.5435
Mean 1.1223 0.4078 2.84776 2.66706

(g/cm)
s1 1.1437 0.3651 3.1326 2.7179
s2 1.0487 0.4629 2.2655 2.4922
s3 1.0735 0.3987 2.6925 2.5511
s4 1.2595 0.3967 3.1749 2.9931
s5 1.1702 0.3928 2.9791 2.7809
Mean 1.13912 0.40324 2.84892 2.70704
53

(g/cm)
s1 1.0923 0.2613 4.1803 9.9342
s2 1.0488 0.6452 1.6255 3.8629
s3 1.0561 0.6721 1.5713 3.7341
s4 1.0261 0.6267 1.6373 3.891
s5 1.0175 0.64 1.5898 3.778
Mean 1.04816 0.56906 2.12084 5.04004

(g/cm)
s1 1.1353 0.6557 1.7314 2.698
s2 1.1213 0.6677 1.6793 2.6647
s3 1.1502 0.6776 1.6975 2.7334
s4 1.0078 0.6595 1.5281 2.395
s5 1.1491 0.6968 1.6491 2.7308
Mean 1.11274 0.67146 1.65708 2.64438

(g/cm)
s1 1.0606 0.7191 1.4749 2.5204
s2 1.1136 0.6936 1.6055 2.6464
s3 1.1745 0.7215 1.6279 2.7911
s4 1.2059 0.7313 1.649 2.8657
s5 1.2084 0.7169 1.6856 2.8717
Mean 1.1526 0.71648 1.60858 2.73906
54

(g/cm)
s1 1.0929 0.5107 2.14 2.5972
s2 1.1146 0.5293 2.1058 2.6488
s3 1.0971 0.5164 2.1245 2.6072
s4 1.1259 0.5449 2.0663 2.6756
s5 1.1298 0.5567 2.0295 2.6849
Mean 1.11206 0.5316 2.09322 2.64274
4.0 STRENGTH PROPERTIES

Shatter index = durability =
× 100
Shatter index Water resistance

Replicate Mass Mass shattered % shattered Durability hours
(g) (g) (%)
S1 131.9 61.5 46.63 53.37 0.533
S2 153.8 62.2 40.44 59.56 0.5
S3 152.3 60.4 39.66 60.34 0.534
S4 114.6 67.3 58.73 41.27 0.7
S5 146.9 68.9 46.90 53.1 0.533

(g) (g) (%)
S1 160.4 82.9 51.68 48.32 0.966
S2 159.1 76.7 48.21 51.79 1.167
S3 158.8 78.5 49.43 50.57 0.833
S4 174.1 83.4 47.90 52.1 0.966
S5 160.5 74.6 46.48 53.52 1.167

(g) (g) (%)
S1 178.3 67.0 37.58 62.42 0.783
S2 180.3 66.0 36.61 63.39 1.05
S3 176 69.1 39.26 60.74 0.683
S4 129.2 60.2 46.59 53.41 0.783
S5 171.8 66.8 38.88 61.12 1.06
55

(g) (g) (%)
S1 153.5 80.9 52.70 47.3 0.917
S2 154.2 89.3 44.94 55.06 0.833
S3 195.0 130.6 66.97 33.03 1.05
S4 196.2 135.1 68.86 31.14 0.917
S5 171.0 83.5 48.83 51.17 0.967

(g) (g) (%)
S1 333.7 20.5 13.93 87 9.25
S2 307 21.8 7.10 92.9 9.245
S3 323.1 25.1 7.77 92.23 9.25
S4 301.6 30.2 10.01 89.99 9.5
S5 329.3 29.4 8.93 91.07 9.05

(g) (g) (%)
S1 371.2 36.3 9.78 90.22 10.75
S2 364.2 16.5 4.53 95.47 10.743
S3 357.2 31.5 8.82 91.18 10.751
S4 358.5 15.6 4.35 95.65 10.75
S5 365.2 40.8 11.17 88.83 10.5

(g) (g) (%)
S1 267.5 28.9 10.80 89.2 0.867
S2 284.2 60.00 21.11 78.89 1
S3 257.8 62.1 24.09 75.91 1.5
S4 246.3 30.2 12.26 87.74 0.867
S5 168.2 45.4 26.99 73.01 1.05
56

(g) (g) (%)
S1 222 45.6 20.54 79.46 0.933
S2 282.7 54.5 19.28 80.72 0.917
S3 243.6 59.7 24.51 75.49 1.1
S4 234.2 56.9 24.3 75.7 1.475
S5 236.4 50.2 21.24 78.76 0.933

(g) (g) (%)
S1 321.7 42.3 13.15 86.85 0.1
S2 325.3 25.6 7.87 92.13 0.5
S3 349.2 31.8 9.11 90.89 0.167
S4 330.4 36.9 11.17 88.83 0.2
S5 344.8 22.4 6.50 93.5 0.1

(g) (g) (%)
S1 337.5 36.2 10.73 89.27 0.133
S2 339.2 18.8 5.54 94.46 0.1833
S3 356.8 16.9 4.74 95.26 0.1167
S4 355.1 40.2 11.32 88.68 0.133
S5 362.0 22.4 6.19 93.81 0.25

(g) (g) (%)
S1 373.6 48.3 12.93 87.07 0.35
S2 362.5 94.5 26.07 73.93 0.4833
S3 399.9 96.6 24.16 75.84 0.2833
S4 388.4 30.2 7.78 92.22 0.35
S5 391.7 75.9 19.38 80.62 0.333
57

(g) (g) (%)
S1 297.2 39.6 13.32 86.68 0.5667
S2 297.4 60.5 20.34 79.66 0.7
S3 302.6 66.9 22.11 77.89 0.8333
S4 293.6 30.2 10.29 89.71 1.3333
S5 319.2 41.6 13.03 86.97 0.45
58
5.0 HIEGHT STABILITY OF THE BRIQUETTE
5.1.1 ORIGINAL PARTICLE SIZE
Biomass-binder blend of 100:15
height/cm
No./Time 0min 30min 60min 1440min 2880min 4320min 5760min 7200min 8640min 10080min
s1 13.3 13.6 13.8 13.5 13.6 13.5 13.5 14.2 13.5 13.6
s2 13.4 13.5 13.6 13 13.2 13.3 13.5 13.2 13 14
s3 13.8 14 14.1 13 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.8 13.6 13
s4 14.6 14.2 14.2 13.2 13.4 13.5 13.7 14.1 13 13.1
s5 13.8 13.7 13.9 13.5 13.5 13.7 13.7 14.5 14 13.2
mean 0 0.7 0.3 0.62 0.5 0.4 0.36 0.46 0.52 0.76
difference
5.1.2 Biomass-binder blend of 100:25
height/cm
No/Time 0min 30min 60min 1440min 2880min 4320min 5760min 7200min 8640min 10080min
s1 13.8 13.6 13.8 13.6 13.9 14 14.6 13.1 14 13.5
s2 13.5 13.5 13.5 13 13.5 14.2 14.7 13.2 13.8 13.4
s3 13.6 13.6 13.6 12.5 12.6 13 13.4 12.6 13.5 13.5
s4 13.9 13.9 13.6 14 14.2 13.8 13.5 13.2 13.8 14.3
s5 14 14 14.1 14.5 14.5 13.9 13.4 13.2 13.8 14.2
mean
difference 0 0.04 0.08 0.48 0.38 0.34 0.64 0.7 0.18 0.22
59
height/cm
1 14.5 15.5 15.6 15.4 15.3 14.9 14.6 14.9 15 15
2 15 15 15.1 14.5 14.7 15 15.5 15 15.2 15.3
3 14.7 15.4 15.6 15.5 15.2 15.1 15 14.7 15 15.7
4 14.7 15 15.1 14.8 14.2 13.9 13.5 13.5 14 15.2
5 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.6 14.5 14.5 14.6 14.8
mean
difference 0 0.4 0.5 0.48 0.46 0.36 0.44 0.34 0.38 0.54
height/cm
s1 13.6 13.7 13.8 14 14.3 14.8 15 14 15 15
s2 15.5 15.6 15.8 14.9 15.1 15.5 15.9 14.5 15.2 15.5
s3 15 15.1 15.3 14.5 14.4 14.7 14.8 14.8 14.8 15
s4 15.2 15.5 15.6 14.8 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.9 15.3 15.4
s5 15 15.1 15.1 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 15.1 15 15.2
mean
difference 0 0.14 0.26 0.48 0.54 0.5 0.58 0.4 0.4 0.36
60
5.2 PARTICLE SIZE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 6MM (<6MM)
height/cm
No,/Time 0min 30min 60min 1440min 2880min 4320min 5760min 7200min 8640min 10080min
s1 12.7 13.2 13.3 13.3 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.2 13.2 13.3
s2 12.5 12.8 13.1 13 13.1 12.7 12.5 12.6 12.6 12.7
s3 12.8 13 13.4 13.3 13.2 13 13 13.4 12.7 13.3
s4 12.4 13.1 13.2 13.4 13 12.8 12.8 12.9 13.1 13
s5 12.5 12.9 13.5 13.5 13.2 13.1 13.1 12.7 13 13
mean
difference 0 0.42 0.72 0.72 0.54 0.36 0.32 0.38 0.38 0.48
5.2.2Biomass-binder blend of 100:25
height/cm
s1 14.5 14.7 14.7 14.3 14.3 14.4 14.5 14 14.5 14.4
s2 14.2 14.3 14.3 14 14 13.9 13.9 14.2 14.1 14
s3 14.2 14.4 14.4 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.5 14.3 14.2 14.3
s4 14.6 14.8 15 14.1 14 13.9 13.9 14.5 14.3 14.2
s5 14.8 14.9 14.9 14.6 14.5 14.5 14.4 14.5 14.1 14.1
mean
difference 0 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.26 0.3 0.34 0.2 0.22 0.34
61
height/cm
s1 14.5 14.7 14.8 14.9 14.7 14.6 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.6
s2 15.5 15.5 15 15.1 15.2 15.1 15.1 15.5 15.5 15.3
s3 14.5 14.7 14.8 14.7 14.7 14.8 14.8 14.5 14.6 14.6
s4 15.5 15.5 15.2 15.1 15.1 15 15 15.2 15.3 14.9
s5 15 15 15.3 15.1 15.2 15 14.8 14.5 14.4 14.3
mean
difference 0 0.08 0.34 0.38 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.16 0.18 0.34
height/cm
s1 17 16.2 16.1 16.1 16.1 16 16 15.7 15.8 15.8
s2 15.5 16 16.4 15.6 15.3 15.2 14.9 15 14.9 15
s3 15.8 15.5 15.5 16 16 16.1 16.1 15 14.9 15
s4 15.8 16.2 16.2 15.8 15.5 15.2 15 15 14.8 14.5
s5 15.8 15.5 15.5 15 15 14.9 14.7 14.6 14.5 15.2
mean
difference 0 0.46 0.56 0.4 0.48 0.6 0.76 0.92 1 0.88
62
5.3 PARTICLE SIZE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 2MM (<2MM)
height/cm
No 0min 30min 60min 1440min 2880min 4320min 5760min 7200min 8640min 10080min
s1 13 13 13.2 13 13.2 13.1 13.1 13 13.1 13.1
s2 13 13 13 13.2 13.3 13.1 13.1 13 13 13.1
s3 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.2 13.5 13.4 13.3 13.3 13.4 13.5
s4 13.5 13.5 14 13.4 13.5 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.7
s5 14 14 14 13.7 13.8 13.6 13.9 14 14 14
mean
difference 0 0 0.14 0.18 0.14 0.16 0.1 0.06 0.08 0.08
height/cm
No 0min 30min 60min 1440min 2880min 4320min 5760min 7200min 8640min 10080min
s1 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
s2 13.2 13.2 13.5 13.1 13 13 13 13 13.1 13.2
s3 13.3 13.3 13.4 13.2 13.2 13.1 13.2 13.2 13.3 13.3
s4 13.6 13.6 13.5 13.5 13.2 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.6
s5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.6 13.6 13.4 13.5 13.5 13.6 13.5
mean
difference 0 0 0.1 0.08 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.06 0
63
height/cm
No. 0min 30min 60min 1440min 2880min 4320min 5760min 7200min 8640min 10080min
s1 13.5 13.5 13.7 13.2 13.1 13.2 13.4 13.5 13.5 13.5
s2 13.3 13.5 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.3 13.3 13.3 13.2 13.2
s3 13.8 14 14.3 14 14 14 14 14 13.8 14
s4 13.5 13.8 14 14 14 13.8 13.8 13.7 13.7 13.8
s5 13.5 13.8 13.8 13.6 13.8 13.5 13.5 13.4 13.5 13.8
mean
difference 0 0.2 0.36 0.28 0.34 0.16 0.12 0.1 0.06 0.18
height/cm
No. 0min 30min 60min 1440min 2880min 4320min 5760min 7200min 8640min 10080min
s1 15 14.7 14.8 14.8 14.6 14.7 14.6 14.6 14.5 14.7
s2 14.5 14.6 14.5 14.5 14.6 14.6 14.5 14.6 14.5 14.6
s3 15 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.8
s4 14 14.2 14.2 14.1 14 14 14 14 14.1 14
s5 14.8 15 15 15 14.8 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9 14.9
mean
difference 0 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.2 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.14
64

KNUST Briquette Machine Spring 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KNUST Briquette Machine Spring 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KNUST Briquette Machine Spring 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING OF A BRIQUETTING

DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

AMANOR, ISHMAEL NARTEY

AMANOR, ISHMAEL NARTEY …………………… …………………

(STUDENT) SIGNATURE DATE

1. PROF. EBENEZER MENSAH …………………… …………………

(SUPERVISOR) SIGNATURE DATE

2. DR. GEORGE YAW OBENG …………………… …………………

(SUPERVISOR) SIGNATURE DATE

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Problem statement ...................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Main Objectives .......................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Specific objectives....................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 History of briquetting .................................................................................................. 6

2.2 The residual base ......................................................................................................... 7

2.2.1 Low moisture content .......................................................................................... 7

2.2.2 Ash content and composition ............................................................................... 7

2.2.3 Flow characteristics ............................................................................................. 9

2.3 Characteristics of briquettes ...................................................................................... 11

2.4 Briquetting technology .............................................................................................. 11

2.4.1 High and medium pressure compaction ............................................................. 12

2.4.1.1 Screw press ..................................................................................................... 13

2.4.1.2 Piston press..................................................................................................... 14

2.4.2 Low pressure compaction .................................................................................. 14

2.4.2.1 Hand moulded briquettes ............................................................................... 15

2.5.1 Material humidity.............................................................................................. 16

2.5.2 Compacting pressure .......................................................................................... 17

2.5.3 Pressing temperature .......................................................................................... 17

2.5.4 Fraction largeness .............................................................................................. 18

CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................... 19

3.1 Conceptual designs .................................................................................................... 19

3.2 Description of the machine ....................................................................................... 20

3.3 Design of machine element and material selection ................................................... 21

3.3.1 Mould (cylinder) ................................................................................................ 22

3.3.3 Moulds cover back hinges and front lock .......................................................... 24

3.3.4 Piston rods ............................................................................................................... 25

3.3.5 Under plate (piston plate)................................................................................... 26

3.4 Construction of the machine ..................................................................................... 27

3.4.1 Construction of mould and mould box .............................................................. 27

3.4.2 Construction of piston and under plate .............................................................. 28

3.4.3 Construction of frame and mould cover ............................................................ 28

3.5 Testing of the machine .............................................................................................. 29

3.5.1 Biomass-binder Mixture .................................................................................... 29

3.5.2 Performance evaluation ........................................................................................... 30

3.5.3 Physical Properties Determination .......................................................................... 31

3.5.4 Data analysis ............................................................................................................ 32

CHARPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................... 33

4.1 Machine capacity............................................................................................................ 33

4.2 Physical Properties of Jatropha husk Briquette .............................................................. 34

CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................... 43

Table 1.1: Production of Some Major Agricultural Residues in Ghana. ................................... 2

Figure 3.1: Conceptual design 1 .......................................................................................... 19

1.2 Problem statement

1.3 Main Objectives

1.4 Specific objectives

The specific objectives were to: