Comparison of specifications and methods of wood chips

Comparison of Saw Particle Size and Method

Pellet Specification & Method Comparisons

While the PFI and ISO standards appear to be very similar in many respects, it is important to note the subtle differences between the two in the specification and the reference test method.

While the Paste and ISO standards seem very similar in many ways, it is important to note the often subtle differences in the specifications and the referenced test methods, as PFI and ISO are not even comparable.

The PFI standard and the ISO 17225-2 standard are compared in terms of both specifications and methods.

Recently, I was asked to compare the methods and specifications referenced in the PFI standards with the seemingly similar ISO 17225-2 standard.

Keep in mind that the PFI standard is developed for the North American sawdust industry, and in most cases the newly released ISO standards are very similar to the previous ENplus standards, which serve the European market for wood chips. The ENplus and CANplus standards now refer to the quality class specifications A1, A2 and B, as described in ISO 17225-2, but the manufacturer mainly produces "A1".

Bear in mind that the PFI standards were developed for the North American wood pellet industry, while in most cases, the published published ISO standards closely resemble former EN standards, which were written for the European markets. ENplus and CANplus now reference the specifications for quality classes A1, A2 and B, as outlined in ISO 17225-2, but producers concentrated "A1 grade."

In addition, although the PFI standard includes advanced, standard and general level standards, but the vast majority of producers to create high-level. This article compares the advanced level of PFI with the requirements of ISO 17225-2 A1.

Also, while the Pancy standard for premium, standard and utility grades, the vast majority of producers manufacture premium grade. This exercise compares the requirements of PFI's premium grade with ISO 17225-2 A1 grade.

The PFI standard allows a range of 40-48 lbs / cubic feet of bulk density, while ISO 17225-2 covers 600-750 kg / kg, (37.5 to 46.8 lb / ft3). The test method is different in that they use different sizes of containers, different compression methods and different pouring heights. In addition to these differences, these two methods have a large degree of variability, depending on personal technology. Despite these differences and inherent variability, both methods seem to produce similar results.

Pf specifications allow a bulk density range of 40 to 48 pounds per cubic foot, while ISO 17225-2 references a range of 600 to 750 kilograms (kg) per cubic meter. (37.5 to 46.8 pounds per cubic foot). The test equipment are different in that they use different-sized containers, different methods of compaction and different pour heights. In addition to these differences, both measures inherently have a large degree of variability as a result of the test being dependent on individual technique. despite all of these differences and the inherent variability, the two methods do seem to generate similar results

The diameter of the PFI is 0.230-0.285 inches (5.84-7.24 mm (mm)), which is based on the US manufacturer's main use of a quarter inch mold and some slightly larger molds. ISO 17225-2 requires the manufacturer to use a tolerance of 6 or 8 mm, each allowing ± 1 mm, allowing a range of 5 to 9 mm (0.197 to 0.354 inches), assuming a 6 mm diameter closest to a conventional quarter-inch (6.35 mm) Size, the producer is expected to use 6mm. Not sure how the 8mm diameter product will affect the performance of the stove. The average diameter of the two test methods is measured using calipers.

PBC's diameter range is 0.230 to 0.285 inches (5.84 to 7.24 millimeters (mm). This is with the understanding that US dom dominantly use a one-quarter-inch die and some slightly larger die sizes. ISO 17225-2 requires that producer declare 6 or 9 mm to 1 mm (0.197 to 0.354 inches). Given that the 6 mm diameter most exact resembles the customary one-quarter-inch (6.35 mm & lt; RTI ID = 0.0 & gt; ) die size, it would be expected that producers would declare 6 mm. It is uncertain as to how the 8 mm diameter product would affect stove performance. Both test methods using calipers to measure the diameter where the mean value is reported.

As for durability, the PFI method follows the drum method, with dimensions of 12 inches by 12 inches by 5.5 inches (305 mm x 305 mm x 140 mm). The ISO method uses a slightly smaller drum (300 mm x 300 mm x 120 mm). No differences in size were found to result in significant differences in test results.

For the durability, the PFI method under the tumbler method, where the chamber dimensions are 12 inches by 12 inches by 5.5 inches (305 mm by 305 mm by 140 mm). The ISO method uses a similar tumbler that just slightly smaller (300 mm by 300 mm by 120 mm). I have not found the differences in the box dimensions to cause a significant difference in test results, but in theory, the slightly larger box can suggest a slightly more aggressive test for the PFI method.

PFI defines fines as materials that can pass through a one-eighth inch screen (3.175-mm square hole). For ISO 17225-2, fines are defined as materials through a 3.15 mm round hole screen. Even though dimensions 3.175 and 3.15 look similar, because PFI is a square hole, and ISO is a round hole, the aperture size difference is about 30%. Thus, the PFI test classifies a larger portion of the material as fine particles, although it has comparable fines for ISO requirements (0.5% for reference materials for bagged materials). In addition, when tested by the PFI method, the durability test results were reduced by about 0.7.

Pine defined fines as material passing through a one-eighth-inch wire mesh screen (3.175-mm square hole). For ISO 17225-2, fines are defined as material passing through a 3.15-mm round hole screen. Even though the screen dimensions 3.175 and 3.15 seem similar, because the PFI screen has square holes and the ISO screen has round holes, the difference in aperture size is about 30 percent. As such, the PFI test classifies a larger portion of the material as fines making it harder to pass the PFI fines test, despite having a applicable fines requirement for ISO (both reference a fines limit of 0.5 percent for bagged material). In addition, this causes the durability test result to berated 0.7 lower when tested via the PFI method.

For ash content, PFI and ISO use a fairly similar ashing temperature, PFI is 580-600 degrees Celsius, ISO is 550 ℃. I have not seen any significant difference between these temperatures, and I think these two methods provide comparable results. PFI ash limit of 1%, ISO 17225-2 ash limit of 0.7%.

For ash content, both PFI and ISO use similar facilities for ashing, 580 to 600 degrees Celsius for PFI, and 550 C for ISO. I have not seen a significant difference between these temperatures, and I consider these two methods