Forest Science and Practice

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 206–213 | Cite as

Performance of a small-scale chipper for professional rural contractors

  • Raffaele Spinelli
  • Natascia Magagnotti
Research Article


The study determined the productivity, fuel consumption and product quality obtained with a new tractor-powered drum chipper, designed to reduce the gap between industrial chippers and small-scale chippers. The machine was tested with poplar logs and beech slabs, considered as representative of the raw material commonly used for energy wood production. After accounting for accessory work and delays, productivity of green chips ranged between 4 and 6 tons per scheduled machine hour, which was very good for a tractor-powered unit. Specific fuel consumption of oven-dry chips varied between 2.5 and 3.0 L per ton, or 0.6 L per m3. These figures compared favourably with those obtained from previous studies of both smaller and bigger chippers. Chip quality was very good. Samples contained no oversize particles, qualifying for use in small-scale plants. The average size of beech chips was significantly larger than for poplar chips, possibly due to the higher strength of beech wood.


biomass energy fuel consumption productivity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bailey AP, Basford WD, Penlington N, Park JR, Keatinge JDH, Rehman T, Tranter RB, Yates CM. 2003. A comparison of energy use in conventional and integrated arable farming systems in the UK. Agric Ecosys Environ, 97: 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Björheden R, Apel K, Shiba M, Thompson M. 1995. IUFRO forest work study nomenclature. Department of Operational Efficiency, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Garpenberg, p 16.Google Scholar
  3. Björheden R. 2000. Integrating production of timber and energy — a comprehensive view. New Zealand J For Sci, 30: 67–78.Google Scholar
  4. Cardias-Williams F, Thomas T. 2006. Some key issues concerning current poplar production and future marketing in the United Kingdom. New For, 31: 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gustavsson L, Karlsson A. 2003. Heating detached houses in urban areas. Energy, 28: 851–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. HCL (Husky Computers Ltd.). 1991. Husky Hunter 16 User Guide. HCL, Aldwick, Bognor Regis, United Kingdom, p 444.Google Scholar
  7. Kofman P. 1995. Siwork 3: User guide. Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Vejle, Denmark, p 37.Google Scholar
  8. Liss JE. 1986. Drivningsmetoder för självverksamma skogsägare vid tillvaratagande av bränsleflis (Methods used by self-employed forest owners for harvesting fuel chips). SLU, Garpenberg, Sweden, p 66.Google Scholar
  9. Magagnotti N, Nati C, Pari L, Spinelli R, Visser R. 2011. Assessing the cost of stump-site debarking in eucalypt plantations. Biosyst Eng, 110: 443–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Magagnotti N, Spinelli R. 2012. COST Action FP0902 — Good practice guideline for biomass production studies. CNR IVALSA, Florence, Italy, p 41.Google Scholar
  11. Mikkola HJ, Ahokas J. 2010. Indirect energy input of agricultural machinery in bioenergy production. Renewable Energy, 35: 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moldenhauer MC, Bolding MC. 2009. Parcelization of South Carolina’s private forestland: Loggers’ reactions to a growing threat. For Prod J, 59: 37–43.Google Scholar
  13. Nati C, Spinelli R, Fabbri P. 2010. Wood chips size distribution in relation to blade wear and screen use. Biomass Bioenergy, 34: 583–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Papworth R, Erickson J. 1966. Power requirements for producing wood chips. For Prod J, 16: 31–36.Google Scholar
  15. Pellizzi G. 1992. Use of energy and labour in Italian agriculture. J Agric Eng Res, 52: 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reynolds C. 1998. Woodfuel chipping: field trials. Technical Development Branch Technical Note No. 9/98. Forestry Commission, Rugeley, UK, p 12.Google Scholar
  17. Röser D, Mola-Yudego B, Prinz R, Emer B, Sikanen L. 2012. Chipping operations and efficiency in different operational environments. Silva Fenn, 46: 275–286.Google Scholar
  18. Spinelli R, Cavallo E, Facello A. 2012. A new comminution device for high-quality chip production. Fuel Process Technol, 99: 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Spinelli R, Hartsough B. 2001. A survey of Italian chipping operations. Biomass Bioenergy, 21: 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Spinelli R, Ivorra L, Magagnotti N, Picchi G. 2011a. Performance of a mobile mechanical screen to improve the commercial quality of wood chips for energy. Bioresour Technol, 102: 7366–7370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Paletto G, Preti C. 2011c. Determining the impact of some wood characteristics on the performance of a mobile chipper. Silva Fenn, 45: 85–95.Google Scholar
  22. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N. 2010. A tool for productivity and cost forecasting of decentralised wood chipping. For Policy Econ, 12: 194–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Spinelli R, Nati C, Sozzi L, Magagnotti N, Picchi G. 2011b. Physical characterization of commercial woodchips on the Italian energy market. Fuel, 90: 2198–2202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spinelli R, Visser RJM. 2009. Analyzing and estimating delays in wood chipping operations. Biomass Bioenergy, 33: 429–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Strehler A. 2000. Technologies of wood combustion. Ecol Eng, 16: 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stupak I, Asikainen A, Jonsell M, Karltun E, Lunnan A, Mizaraitė D, Pasanen K, Pärn H, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Röser D, Schroeder M, Varnagirytė I, Vilkriste L, Callesen I, Clarke N, Gaitnieks T, Ingerslev M, Mandre M, Ozolincius R, Saarsalmi A, Armolaitis K, Helmisaari H-S, Indriksons A, Kairiukstis L, Katzensteiner K, Kukkola M, Ots K, Ravn HP, Tamminen P. 2007. 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, 31: 666–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Väätäinen K, Asikainen A, Sikanen L, Ala-Fossi A. 2006. The cost effect of forest machine relocations on logging costs in Finland. For Stud, 45: 135–141.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Beijing Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNR IVALSASesto Fiorentino (FI)Italy
  2. 2.CNR IVALSAS. Michele all’Adige (TN)Italy

Personalised recommendations