Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Critical Review of Comminution Technology and Operational Logistics of Wood Chips

  • Forest Engineering (R Spinelli, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Forestry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of the Review

This review offers essential information on the factors affecting the efficiency of wood chip supply chains, and of comminution in particular. The paper indicates the pros and cons of alternative set ups, as well as the impact of specific technical choices, including machine setup and adjustments.

Recent Findings

Chipping performance is closely related to chipper characteristics and setup, and to feedstock type. In general, productivity is directly proportional to chipper power and piece size, as far as the latter is within the capacity of the machine in question. Blade wear, cut length, and screen size also have a strong impact on productivity and work quality—and so do operator experience, skill, and motivation. Daily production is affected by work organization and machine reliability: delay time may represent between 25 and 50% of actual work site time—occasionally more, especially when the interface with the transport fleet is not properly managed.

Summary

Wood biomass supply chains are characterized by comminution as their central process, since all automatic wood boilers require comminuted wood. Different supply chains are defined by what kind of feedstock is comminuted and where comminution takes place. In principle, one can comminute whole trees, logs, or logging residues—and comminution can occur on the cutover, at the landing or in a yard—be it a terminal or the factory wood yard. Comminution can be obtained by chipping, grinding, crushing, or shredding. Chipping is by far the most common method and is applied in different ways depending on work conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Lindstad BH, Pistorius T, Ferranti F, Dominguez G, Gorriz-Mifsud E, Kurttila M, et al. Forest-based bioenergy policies in five European countries: an explorative study of interactions with national and EU policies. Biomass Bioenergy. 2015;80:102–13.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Krausmann F, Erb K, Gingrich S, Lauk C, Haberl H, Global patterns of socioeconomic biomass flows in the year. A comprehensive assessment of supply, consumption and constraints. Ecol Econ. 2000;2008(65):471–87.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ericsson K, Nilsson L. Assessment of the potential biomass supply in Europe using a resource-focused approach. Biomass Bioenergy. 2016;30:1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ramos Pires Manso J, Bashiri Behmiri N. Renewable energy and sustainable development. Estud Econ Apl. 2013;31(1):7–33.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Asikainen A, Liiri H, Peltola S, Karjalainen T, Laitila J, Forest Energy Potential in Europe (EU27). Working papers 69. Joensuu: Finnish Forest Research Institute; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  6. FAO. 2016. FAOSTAT database (available at www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home). Rome.

  7. Elyakime B, Cabanettes A. Financial evaluation of two models for energy production in small French farm forests. Renew Energ. 2013;57:51–6.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Caserini S, Fraccaroli A, Monguzzi A, Moretti M, Angelino E. Stima dei consumi di legna da ardere ed uso domestico in Italia., Ricerca commissionata da APAT e ARPA Lombardia, Rapporto finale. 2008. (accessed 11-12-2019) http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/contentfiles/00004100/4156-stima-dei-consumi-di-legna-da-ardere.pdf

  9. FAO. State of the world’s forests 2007 (accessed 14-11-2019) http:// www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0773e/a0773e00.HTM; 2007.

  10. Anon. Production of unprocessed wood fuels 2016. Nr. ES 2017:09, 2017. Swedish Energy Agency, Eskilstuna, Sweden.

  11. Eriksson G, Kjellström B. Assessment of combined heat and power (CHP) integrated with wood-based ethanol production. Appl Energ. 2010;87:3632–41.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Han SK, Han HS, Bisson J. Effects of grate size on grinding productivity, fuel consumption, and particle size distribution. For Prod J. 2015;65:209–16.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bisson J, Han HS. Quality of feedstock produced from sorted forest residues. Am J Biomass Bioenerg. 2016;2:81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Stupak A, Asikainen A, Jonsel M, Karltun E, Lunnan A, et al. Sustainable utilisation of forest biomass for energy—possibilities and problems: policy, legislation, certification, and recommendations and guidelines in the Nordic, Baltic, and other European countries. Biomass Bioenergy. 2007;31:666–84.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Irdla M, Padari A, Kurvits V, Muiste P. The chipping cost of wood raw material for fuel in Estonian conditions. Forestry Studies. 2017;66:65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bisson J, Han SK, Han HS. Evaluating the system logistics of a biomass recovery operation in northern California. For Prod J. 2016;66(1/2):88–96.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Spinelli R, Nati C, Sozzi L, Magagnotti N, Picchi G. Physical characterization of commercial woodchips on the Italian energy market. Fuel. 2011;90:2198–202.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Stampfer K, Kanzian C. Current state and development possibilities of wood chip supply chains in Austria. Croat J For Eng. 2006;27:135–45.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mihelič M, Spinelli R, Poje A. Production of wood chips from logging residue under space-constrained conditions. Croat J For Eng. 2018;39(2):223–32.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kärhä K. Industrial supply chains and production machinery of forest chips in Finland. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011;35:3404–13.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Díaz-Yáñez O, Mola-Yudego B, Anttila P, Röser D, Asikainen A. Forest chips for energy in Europe: current procurement methods and potentials. Ren Sust Energ Rev. 2013;21:562–71.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pottie M, Guimier D. Preparation of forest biomass for optimal conversion. 1985. FERIC special report SR-32, Pointe Claire, Canada. 112 p.

  23. Eliasson L. Procurement systems for logging residues. I: Thorsén, Å., Björheden, R. and Eliasson, L. Efficient forest fuel supply systems. Composite report from a four year R&D programme 2007-2010. 2011 Skogforsk, Uppsala. ISBN: 978-91-977649-4-0.

  24. Brunberg T, Eliasson, L. Underlag för produktionsnorm för grotskotare. (productivity standards for forwarding of logging residues) 2013, Skogforsk, ISBN 978-91-979694-2-0. In Swedish.

  25. Laitila J, Asikainen A, Nuutinen Y. Forwarding of whole trees after manual and mechanized felling bunching in pre-commercial thinnings. Int J For Eng. 2007;18(2):29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cuchet E, Roux P, Spinelli R. Performance of a logging residue bundler in the temperate forests of France. Biomass Bioenergy. 2004;27:31–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kärhä K, Vartiamäki T. Productivity and costs of slash bundling in Nordic conditions. Biomass Bioenergy. 2006;30:1043–52.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nuutinen Y, Björheden R. Productivity and work processes of small-tree bundler Fixteri FX15a in energy wood harvesting from early pine dominated thinnings. Int J For Eng. 2016;27(1):29–42.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Picchi G. A supply chain evaluation of slash bundling under the conditions of mountain forestry. Biomass Bioenergy. 2012;36:339–45.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Spinelli R, Cavallo E, Eliasson L, Facello A, Magagnotti N. The effect of drum design on chipper performance. Renew Energ. 2015;81:57–61.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jernigan P, Gallagher T, Aulakh J, Tufts R, McDonald T. Implementing residue chippers on harvesting operations in the southeastern US for biomass recovery. Int J For Eng. 2013;24:129–36.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Spinelli R, Nati C, Magagnotti N. Recovering logging residue: experiences from the Italian eastern Alps. Croat J For Eng. 2007;28:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rawlings C, Rummer B, Seeley C, Thomas C, Morrison D, Han H, et al. A study of how to decrease the costs of collecting, processing and transporting slash. Missoula: Montana Community Development Corporation; 2004. p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  34. •• Eliasson L, Anerud E, Grönlund Ö, von Hofsten H. Managing moisture content during storage of logging residues at landings – effects of coverage strategies. Renew Energ. 2020;145:2510–5 This paper demonstrates several effective strategies for managing logging residues during storage, with the purpose of minimizing dry matter losses and increasing net energy content.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Marchi E, Magagnotti N, Berretti L, Neri F, Spinelli R. Comparing terrain and roadside chipping in Mediterranean pine salvage cuts. Croat J For Eng. 2011;32:587–98.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Spinelli R, De Francesco F, Eliasson L, Jessup E, Magagnotti N. An agile chipper truck for space-constrained operations. Biomass Bioenergy. 2015;81:137–43.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Asikainen A. Simulation of stump chrushing and truck transport of chips. Scand J For Res. 2010;25(3):245–50.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Picchi G, Eliasson L. Chip truck utilization for a container handling chipper truck when chipping logging residues and the effect of two grapple types on chipping efficiency. Int J For Eng. 2015;26(3):203–11.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Eliasson L, Eriksson A, Mohtashami S. Analysis of factors affecting productivity and costs for a high-performance chip supply system. Appl Energ. 2017;185:497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Spinelli R, Di Gironimo G, Esposito G, Magagnotti N. Alternative supply chains for logging residues under access constraints. Scand J For Res. 2014;29:266–74.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Manzone M, Spinelli R. Wood chipping performance of a modified forager. Biomass Bioenergy. 2013;55:101–6.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Björheden R. Comminution and transport -keys for more efficient forest fuel supply systems. I: Thorsén, Å., Björheden, R. and Eliasson, L. Efficient forest fuel supply systems. Composite report from a four year R&D programme 2007–2010. 2011. Skogforsk, Uppsala. ISBN: 978–91–977649-4-.

  43. Baker S, Westbrook M, Greene W. Evaluation of integrated harvesting systems in pine stands of the Southern United States. Biomass Bioenergy. 2010;34:720–7.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Belbo H, Talbot B. Systems analysis of ten supply chains for whole tree chips. Forests. 2014;5:2084–105.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hanzelka N, Bolding C, Sullivan J, Barrett S. Productivity and costs of utilizing small-diameter stems in a biomass-only harvest. Int J For Eng. 2016;27(1):43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Harrill H, Han HS. Productivity and cost of integrated harvesting of wood chips and sawlogs in stand conversion operations. Int J For Res. 2012:893079 (Open Journal), 10p.

  47. Mitchell D, Gallagher T. Chipping whole trees for fuel chips: a production study. South J Appl For. 2007;31:176–80.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Talbot B, Suadicani K. Analysis of two simulated in-field chipping and extraction systems in spruce thinnings. Biosyst Eng. 2005;91:283–92.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Läspä O, Nurmi J. Geometrical thinning in energy wood harvesting. Int J For Eng. 2016;29(3):171–8.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N. Comparison of two harvesting systems for the production of forest biomass from the thinning of Picea abies plantations. Scand J For Res. 2010;25(1):69–77.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Björheden R. Optimal point of comminution in the biomass supply chain. In: Talbot B, editor. Proceedings of the Nordic-Baltic Conference on Forest Operations, 23–25 September 2008 Copenhagen. Copenhagen: Danish Forest and Landscape; 2008. p. 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Angus-Hankin C, Stokes B, Twaddle A. The transportation of fuelwood from forest to facility. Biomass Bioenergy. 1995;9(1–5):191–203.

    Google Scholar 

  53. • Belbo H, Vivestadt H. Predicting delay factors when chipping wood at forest roadside landings. Int J For Eng. 2018;29(2):128–37 A good analysis of chipper utilization and downtime that confirms previous findings by Spinelli and Visser 2009, and develops them further.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Zamora-Cristales R, Boston K, Sessions J, Murphy G. Stochastic simulation and optimization of mobile chipping and transport of forest biomass from harvest residues. Silva Fennica. 2013;47:Id 937 22 p.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Zamora-Cristales R, Boston K, Sessions J, Murphy G. Economic impact of truck-machine interference in forest biomass recovery operations on steep terrain. For Prod J. 2013;63(5/6):162–73.

    Google Scholar 

  56. • Aalto M, Korpinen O, Loukola J, Ranta T. Achieving a smooth flow of fuel deliveries by truck to a urban biomass power plant in Helsinki, Finland - an agent based simulation. Int J For Eng. 2018;29(1):21–30 Using simple simulation techniques, the study exemplifies the importance of logistics and planning when building a wood chip supply chain.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Aminti G, De Francesco F, Lombardini C. The effect of harvesting method on biomass retention and operational efficiency in low-value mountain forests. Eur J For Res. 2016;135:755–64.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ghaffariyan MR, Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Brown M. Integrated harvesting for conventional log and energy wood assortments: a case study in a pine plantation in Western Australia. South Forests. 2015;77:249–54.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Peltola S, Kilpeläinen H, Asikainen A. Recovery rates of logging residue harvesting in Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karsten) dominated stands. Biomass Bioenergy. 2011;35:1545–51.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Spinelli R, Nati C, Magagnotti N. Recupero di biomassa. Alcune utilizzazioni in boschi alpini. Sherwood. 2006;119:21–7.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Nilsson B, Nilsson D, Thörnqvist T. Distribution and losses of logging residues at clear-felled areas during extraction for bioenergy: comparing dried- and fresh-stacked method. For. 2015;2015(6):4212–27.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Thiffault E, Béchard A, Paré D, Allen D. Recovery rate of harvest residues for bioenergy in boreal and temperate forests: a review. WIREs Energ Environ. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.157.23p.

  63. Spinelli R, Hartsough B. A survey of Italian chipping operations. Biomass Bioenergy. 2001;21(6):433–44.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Asikainen A. Discrete-event simulation of mechanised wood-harvesting systems. 1995. Research notesr. 38 University of Joensuu, faculty of forestry, Joensuu sid ISBN 951-708-357-2.

  65. Assirelli A, Civitarese V, Fanigliulo R, Pari L, Pochi D, Santangelo E, et al. Effect of piece size and tree part on chipper performance. Biomass Bioenergy. 2013;54:77–82.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Bergström D, Di Fulvio F. Review of efficiencies in comminuting forest fuels. Int J For Eng. 2019;30(1):45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Kuptz D, Hartmann H. The effect of raw material and machine setting on chipping performance and fuel quality – a German case study. Int J For Eng. 2015;26(1):60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Facello A, Cavallo E, Magagnotti N, Paletto G, Spinelli R. The effect of chipper cut length on wood fuel processing performance. Fuel Proc Technol. 2013;116:228–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N. The effect of raw material, cut length, and chip discharge on the performance of an industrial chipper. For Prod J. 2013;62:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Facello A, Cavallo E, Magagnotti N, Paletto G, Spinelli R. The effect of knife wear on chip quality and processing cost of chestnut and locust fuel wood. Biomass Bioenergy. 2013;59:468–76.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Grönlund Ö, Eliasson L. Effects of knife wear on the performance and fuel consumption for a drum chipper. Proceedings of the 2013 Formec conference, September 30 to October 2, 2013. Stralsund, Germany.

  72. Nati C, Eliasson L, Spinelli R. Effect of chipper type, biomass type and blade wear on productivity, fuel consumption and product quality. Croat J For Eng. 2014;35(1):1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N. Using disposable chipper knives to decrease wood fuel processing cost. Fuel Proc Technol. 2014;126:415–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N. Determining long-term chipper usage, productivity and fuel consumption. Biomass Bioenergy. 2014;66:442–9.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Spinelli R, Glushkov S, Markov I. Managing chipper knife wear to increase chip quality and reduce chipping cost. Biomass Bioenergy. 2014;62:117–22.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Eliasson L, von Hofsten H, Johannesson T, Spinelli R, Thierfelder T. Effects of sieve size on chipper productivity, fuel consumption and chip size distribution for open drum chippers. Croat J For Eng. 2015;36(1):11–8.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Nati C, Spinelli R, Fabbri PG. Wood chips size distribution in relation to blade wear and screen use. Biomass Bioenergy. 2010;34(5):583–7.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Mola-Yudego B, Picchi G, Röser D, Spinelli R. Assessing chipper productivity and operator effects in forest biomass operations. Silva Fennica. 2015: 49 (5): art. no. 1342: 14 p.

  79. Röser D, Mola-Yudego B, Prinz R, Emer B, Sikanen L. Chipping operations and efficiency in different operational environments. Silva Fennica. 2012;46:275–86.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Windisch J, Väätäinen K, Anttila P, Nivala M, Laitila J, Asikainen A, et al. Discrete-event simulation of an information-based raw material allocation process for increasing the efficiency of an energy wood supply chain. Appl Energ. 2015;140:315–23.

    Google Scholar 

  81. •• Spinelli R, de Arruda Moura AC. Productivity and Utilization Benchmarks for Chain Flail Delimber-Debarkers-Chippers Used in Fast-Growing Plantations. Croat J For Eng. 2019;40(1):65–80 One of the few multi-team long-term studies offering (among other things) a clear indication about the importance of operator effects when estimating chipper productivity.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Marques A, Rasinmäki J, Soares R, Amorim P. Planning woody biomass supply in hot systems under variable chips energy content. Biomass Bioenergy. 2018;108:265–77.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Spinelli R, Visser R. Analyzing and estimating delays in wood chipping operations. Biomass Bioenergy. 2009;33(3):429–33.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N. A tool for productivity and cost forecasting of decentralised wood chipping. For Pol Econ. 2010;12(3):194–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CNR IBE, Florence, Italy

    Raffaele Spinelli

  2. Skogforsk, Uppsala, Sweden

    Lars Eliasson

  3. North Arizona University, Flagstaff, AR, USA

    Han-Sup Han

Authors
  1. Raffaele Spinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lars Eliasson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Han-Sup Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raffaele Spinelli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Raffaele Spinelli, Lars Eliasson, and Han-Sup Han declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Forest Engineering

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spinelli, R., Eliasson, L. & Han, HS. A Critical Review of Comminution Technology and Operational Logistics of Wood Chips. Curr Forestry Rep 6, 210–219 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-020-00120-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-020-00120-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation