Upload
tie-mendes-tavares
View
122
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Use of moisture meters to determine
moisture content of wood fuel.Tiê Mendes Tavares
Waterford Institute of Technology
Summary
Introduction
Objectives
Methodology
Results
Conclusion
Acknowledgment
Introduction
The experiment aims to evaluate the viability in measure the moisture
content using two different moisture meter (Wile Bio and BM2).
Samples from freshly shredded brash bales.
Samples were collected at Medite – Coillte Panel Products.
Laboratory and data processing was made at WIT Forestry Labs.
Objectives
Compare the accuracy of using moisture meters compared to oven drying, for
more rapid determination of moisture content.
Moisture content as determined in WIT by oven drying
Moisture content as determined by Moisture meter 1 (Biomass Moisture Meter BM2)
Moisture content as determined by Moisture meter 2 (Wile Bio Moisture Meter)
Compare the accuracy of them using samples at a range of moisture contents.
Determination of the number of replicate measurements needed to gain a
reasonable estimate of moisture content of shredded brash bundles.
Methodology
Results
BM 2 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 WIT
49.5% 56.5% 49.5% 36.9%
60.0% 54.4% 49.8% 40.8%
48.5% 57.6% 48.5% 40.2%
49.5% 51.1% 43.4% 36.9%
44.0% 55.6% 47.0% 36.9%
33.5% 55.4% 44.6% 36.3%
47.0% 56.4% 46.2% 38.6%
57.0% 54.6% 46.4% 39.0%
44.0% 53.0% 43.8% 36.3%
55.0% 53.3% 54.8% 34.6%
48.0% 52.9% 43.4% 37.9%
27.0% 52.5% 40.2% 33.8%
52.5% 53.2% 47.3% 34.6%
36.5% 53.3% 43.7% 36.9%
33.5% 52.2% 45.7% 37.9%
31.0% 49.5% 41.3% 34.0%
43.0% 53.6% 40.7% 31.8%
28.0% 53.2% 42.6% 35.0%
45.0% 53.4% 45.6% 38.2%
41.0% 51.9% 45.3% 36.6%
39.0% 53.3% 45.3% 37.8%
42.5% 52.2% 44.4% 42.2%
40.5% 55.5% 49.4% 40.0%
41.0% 57.6% 43.6% 40.4%
Sample
Moisture ContentMethod
51.4%
53.4%
51.9%
50.4%
52.2%
50.3%
53.1%
52.0%
1
2
3
8
7
6
5
4
BM 2 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 WIT
x̄ 43.2% 53.8% 45.5% 37.2% 51.8%
σ 8.7% 2.0% 3.3% 2.5% 1.1%
x:̄ Average of all samples in each method
σ: Standard Deviation of all samplein each method
Method
x̄ σ x̄ σ x̄ σ x̄ σ
1 53% 6% 56% 2% 49% 1% 39% 2%
2 42% 6% 54% 3% 45% 3% 37% 2%
3 49% 3% 55% 3% 45% 3% 38% 2%
4 43% 8% 53% 3% 46% 2% 35% 0%
5 41% 7% 53% 1% 46% 1% 36% 1%
6 34% 12% 52% 1% 42% 1% 34% 1%
7 42% 7% 53% 2% 45% 1% 38% 1%
8 41% 7% 55% 1% 46% 6% 41% 2%
WB 3 WB 4Sample
Average and Standard DeviationBM 2 WB 2
Results
43.2%
53.8%
45.5%
37.2%
51.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
BM 2 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 WIT
Mois
ture
Conte
nt
Method
Average of all samples in each method
Results
BM 2 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4 WIT
46.5% 33.9% 28.1% 25.2%
51.0% 34.2% 29.7% 20.5%
50.0% 32.0% 29.2% 22.1%
14.5% 21.9% 14.0% Low
17.5% 20.6% 14.3% Low
18.5% 22.1% 14.0% Low
10.5% 18.0% Low Low
11.5% 18.7% Low Low
11.5% 18.3% Low Low
1.5% 17.0% Low Low
1.0% 17.3% Low Low
1.0% 17.1% Low Low
Moisture Content
SampleMethod
1 27.1%
2 22.9%
3 13.8%
4 11.4%
x̄ σ x̄ σ x̄ σ x̄ σ
1 49% 2% 33% 1% 29% 1% 23% 2%
2 17% 2% 22% 1% 14% 0% Low Low
3 11% 1% 18% 0% Low Low Low Low
4 1% 0% 17% 0% Low Low Low Low
SampleBM 2 WB 2 WB 3 WB 4
Average and Standard Deviation
1 - After 6 hours
2 - 24 hours
3 - 30 hours
4 - 48 hours
Conclusion
Wile Bio was the more accurate and precise of the two meters.
Both of the moisture meters are faster than the standard oven-drying
method.
Wile Bio is fastest.
Moisture Meter BM2 is not precise and gave a measurement far from the oven-
drying method.
Might be caused because of the lack of adjustments and tools in the display.
Heterogeneity of the bale is an issue as it has different parts of the tree with
different properties what make it more difficult to measure the moisture and
the collection of a representative sample.
Acknowledgment
Waterford Institute of Technology
Tom Kent
Enda Coates
Nicholas Mockler
Coillte Panel Products – Medite
Oliver Gras
Darren O Loughlin