The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation.

The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the

official position of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), and its printing and distribution does not
constitute an endorsement of views which may be expressed. Technical presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by
ASABE editorial committees; therefore, they are not to be presented as refereed publications. Citation of this work should state that it is
from an ASABE meeting paper. EXAMPLE: Author's Last Name, Initials. 2008. Title of Presentation. ASABE Paper No. 08----. St. Joseph,
Mich.: ASABE. For information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a technical presentation, please contact ASABE at
rutter@asabe.org or 269-429-0300 (2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA).


An ASABE Meeting Presentation

Paper Number: 08-2081

Biomass Storage and Handling: Status and Industry Needs

Gregory D. Williams, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
President, Facility Engineering Services, PA
201 O'Hara Lane Springdale, AR 72762
Phone: 479-263-6406 gwilliams@facilityengserv.com.
Jan C. Jofriet, Ph.D, P.Eng.
Professor Emeritus, School of Engineering, University of Guelph
Room: 231, Thornbrough Bldg. Guelph Ontario N1G 2W1
Voice: 519-824-4120 ext. 58612

Kurt A. Rosentrater, Ph.D.,
Agricultural and Bioprocess Engineer
USDA, ARS, Crop and Entomology Research Unit
2923 Medary Avenue, Brookings, SD, 57006, krosentr@ngirl.ars.usda.gov
Written for presentation at the
2008 ASABE Annual International Meeting
Sponsored by ASABE
Rhode Island Convention Center
Providence, Rhode Island
June 29 July 2, 2008
Abstract. Biofuels production has grown exponentially over the last decade as petroleum energy
prices continue to increase. To date, dry grind ethanol system has used the existing grain handling
marketing, and storage system. As feed stocks change to other biological materials for process into
fuel and energy, infrastructure to market, store and handle these materials must be developed. The
purpose of this paper is to summarize current industry practices, standards and design methods for
the storage and handling of various biomass materials. This paper will also identify areas of
standards development that the biomass industry will need from the agricultural engineering
community.

Keywords. Biofuels, Biomass, Bulk Storage, Silo, Bin, Material Handling

2

Introduction
Prices for oil are over 120 dollars per barrel and grain prices reach record highs, interest in
alternative energy produced from biomass has increased. Corn based ethanol is not
sustainable because of corn production limitations and demand as food and feed. Biomass is
available in higher quantities and technology is being developed to process cellulose into liquid
fuel. Although portions of the feedstock conversion technology are still developing, the United
States is moving forward with development of alternative value added fuels.
One such plan is the 25 x 25 vision which calls for the nations farms, ranches and forests to
produce the feedstock for the development of alternative fuels such as biodiesel and ethanol.
The USDA has estimated that the US farms forests and ranches will be able to provide in a
sustainable manner over a billion tons of biomass which could result in the displacement of 30%
of the liquid petroleum needs (USDA, 2005). Similarly, 25 x 25.org projects that biomass
related industries will provide 180 billion dollars in economic benefit and 4 to 5 million jobs
(2005).
A key component of this vision is the feedstock handling and storage infrastructure. Although
there is current debate whether cellulosic biomass processing facilities will be large
concentrated refineries or distributed facilities tied to local farming communities, the key
elements of storage and handling will remain the same. Only the location and size will vary.
The purpose of this paper is to summarize the state of the development of the storage and
handling of biomass on farms and front end facilities and discuss needs for engineering
standards to support this development. This paper will discuss material handling, storage and
their supporting design standards focusing mostly on dry biomass.
Types of Biomass
Storage and handling of biomass is highly dependent the type and form of the biomass. Loads
are dependent on the form of the biomass. Wikipedia describes biomass as living and recently
dead biological material that can be used as fuel or for industrial production of fuel
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass). Biomass can take many different forms of material these
include:
Whole Grains. Whole grains or seeds such as corn, wheat and sorghum fall
under this category. Whole grains serve as the most commonly used feedstock
for the ethanol and biodiesel production in the Untied States.
Stover and other crop residues. This includes stover from the production of corn,
straw from wheat production, and other plant residuals. As the price of whole
grains increase these forms of biomass are gaining interest and moving towards
the mainstream for ethanol production.
Whole grasses. Switch Grass and other perennial grasses fall under this
category.
Woody Biomass. Woody Biomass and other forest residues from forest
operations. This could include small diameter trees or residual from logging
operations. The forest products and paper related industries are gaining interest
in this form of biomass.
Food and Industrial Waste. Waste from food processing and general industry
which could include starch from potato processing, household wastes and other
general production wastes.

3
Algae. Grown in large tanks or tubular systems. This feed stock requires light,
heat, and CO
2
. This feedstock has one of the highest production densities of any
form of biomass.
Manure and Agricultural Waste. Agricultural wastes have been used for
thousands of years as a fuel source for heat and cooking. Today industrial size
farms are looking towards using waste to generate heat and steam.
Biomass Forms
Biomass can come in many forms and these forms determine, in part, how the material is stored
and handled. The form of the biomass is also important for hove Common forms of biomass
include:
Loose. Loose biomass is simply cut material gathered from the field. Loose
biomass is the least efficient form of biomass to store and transport. Examples
of this form of biomass include whole corn stalks, wheat straw, or cut grasses.
Chopped. Chopped biomass is loose biomass that is shaped by farm equipment
such as a forage harvester. This allows for easier transport and storage.
Baled. Baled biomass in loose biomass that is compressed into a more easily
transportable form. Bales come in a variety of sizes, but large round bales are
more suited for biomass facilities.
Pelleted. Pelleted biomass is formed and shaped biomass that has gone through
a mechanical process that dries, shapes and forms into an easily transportable
shape. This could involve a hammermill, pelleting equipment, and coolers.
Whole grains. Whole biomass consists of whole grains such as corn or wheat.
This is the most common feedstock in todays biofuel processing industry.
Powdered. Powdered biomass is material that has been dried and refined into a
powdered form.
Liquid. Biomass such as manure often comes in a liquid form.
Marketing system and supporting infrastructure for Plant Biomass
Biomass that is harvested and preprocessed or handled must be gathered and stored prior to
processing. No system exists today to handle, market, and store plant biomass. In the Untied
States and many other countries a similar system is already operating and is a key model for
the biomass biofuels industry. This industry is the grain elevator system. A complete
discussion of this system is included in Williams and Rosentrater (2004) and Rosentrater and
Williams (2004a). A brief description of the Grain Elevator System follows:
Grain Elevator System
Grain elevators store and handle a variety of agricultural commodities, including corn,
soybeans, wheat, barley, rice, canola, flax, etc. Some facilities handle a variety of commodities;
others will strictly handle only one type of commodity. There are two major types of grain
handling and storage facilities: country and terminal elevators. Country elevators are the
smaller local grain elevator facilities that are serviced by trucks, wagons, and limited rail access.
They tend to serve a smaller geographical area, often a rural community. The terminal elevator
is a gathering point for the commodities collected from the country elevators. Terminal
elevators can be further classified as inland and port elevators. They are structured to receive
grain from truck, rail, or ship, and usually ship outbound grain via ship or rail. Terminal
elevators are distribution points for export or wholesale to food process or feed companies.

4
Biomass Distribution System
Similar to grain elevators, dry biomass must have a method to be gathered, stored and
marketed. This system must be based having the ability to load and unload, grade, store and
market the biomass. Although it is unlikely that biomass will be shipped internationally, it is
quite possible that a system of country and terminal elevators can be constructed to store and
handle biomass.
Additionally it is likely that this system will also be required to preprocess the biomass. On farm
equipment may not be able to fully preprocess the biomass into pellets or similar form. Such a
system will likely take chopped, loose or bailed biomass and covert it via a pellet mill into an
alternate form to distribute the biomass via rail.
Features of a biomass handling facility could include (1) receiving, (2) load out, (3) reclaim, (4)
storage, (5) drying, and (6) cleaning systems. Additionally, many biomass facilities will have
processing capability such as pelleting systems. Similar to the grain elevator system, country
type elevators could be constructed that will have the ability to receive from trucks or farm
equipment and load out typically to rail and semi truck. Other times, larger terminal elevators
will further distribute and gather the biomass as required. These systems will likely have
receiving and load out for rail and truck. All terminal elevators adjacent to water will have
receiving and shipping via waterborne vessels. A typical elevator arrangement is shown in
figure 1.
Dryer
Storage
Receiving
Loadout
Reclaim

Figure 1. A possible Elevator Arrangement
Types of Storages
There are a variety of storage types for agricultural commodities including: (1) flat storage, (2)
smooth wall steel bins and silos, (3) corrugated steel bins, (4) concrete bins and silos, (5)
bunkers. Flat storage consists of a pre-manufactured metal building or grain piles on the
ground covered by a tarp. Smooth wall steel bins are typically used when smaller quantities of
grain are stored. Corrugated steel bins offer economical storage in large quantities and are
represented by a large number of commercial manufacturers in the United States. Concrete
silos are an initially a more expensive option, but generally are least subject to wear, thus
lasting longer. Recently, they have become even more economical with the higher prices of
structural steel. Generally, silos are round as this is the most efficient and economical design,
but six or eight sided bins have been built from both steel and concrete in North America and
Europe. A brief discussion of each storage type is given as follows:

5
Silos. Silos are generally defined as structures where the height exceeds the
diameter and the rupture plane of the material intersects the wall. Industrial silos
can be of concrete or steel construction. Concrete silos are constructed using
jumpform or slipform construction methods. Steel silos are usually bolted or
welded smooth wall steel or corrugated steel sidewall silos. Concrete storage is
most expensive but highly desireable for high throughput due to its unmatched
durability. Steel silos are more economical than concrete but are not quite as
durable. The loading and unloading systems for silos are very ecomonical and
efficient.
Bunkers. Bunkers are retaining wall style structures that are built in place to hold
materials. Bunkers are designed as shallow storage structures. These
structures can be constructed using precaste segments, timber, steel or cast in
place concrete elements. Although the cost of constructing a bunker is relatively
low, the cost to load or unload the system is high.
Bins. Bins are typically flatter storage structures. Typically bins are part of a
receiving or handling system. Bins are not very deep so the design follows
shallow bin theory. Bins are typically constructed from steel but at times can be
constructed from concrete.
Flat Storage. Flat Storage consists of high bunker style walls with a metal
building or hoop type structure over the t op of retaining walls. These buildings
must be designed to hold back the potential lateral forces from the stored
material. Loading flat storage is generally pretty automated but the unloading of
flat storage is very labor intensive. The cost for flat storage is usually pretty
economical.
Dome Storage. Dome structures are used for large capacity storage and are
usually constructed using concrete construction methods. These structures are
costly and will likely be used where high capacity storage is required. Material
stored in dome type structures will require an unloader.
Tanks. Welded steel or concrete tanks will be used to store liquids including
wastes. It is anticipated that liquid biomass will be stored in tanks constructed
from these materials.
Storage Structure Design
There are design standards in place in the United States for the design of silos bunkers and
bins. These are published by a number of various engineering societies and organizations. In
general, however most standards in the United States describe loadings from only liquids,
granular solids and powders. Only a limited number of standards deal with materials similar to
biomass. No specific biomass loading standards have been developed in the United States.
Standards in use today include:
ASABE EP433 (2006). This standard is entitled Loads exerted by free flowing
grain on bins. This standard describes loadings for concentrically unloaded silos
storing whole grains. It is primarily written for grain silo loadings
ACI 313 (1997). This standard is known as Standard Practice for the design
and construction of concrete silos and stacking tubes for storing granular
materials. This standard provides design and loading information for concrete
silos storing granular solids
ACI 350 (2001). This standard is known as Code Requirements for
Environmental Engineering Concrete Structures and Commentary. This

6
standard describes the code requirements for industrial structures such as
wastewater treatment plants.
ASABE EP 545 (2005). This standard is entitled loads exerted by free-flowing
grains on shallow storage structures. This standard covers the design of
shallow storage structures such as flat storage or retaining wall type structures.
ASABE EP 538 (2007) Design loads for Bunker (Horizontal) Silos. This
standard discusses loads exerted by chopped silage on bunker type walls. This
standard describes
API 620 & 650 (1998 & 2001). These standards are developed by the American
Petroleum Institute for low pressure welded steel tanks. They are often used for
the design of low pressure liquid tanks that contain any type of liquid.
Other sources of design include international standards such as:
Eurocode 1 Actions on structures Part 4: Silos and tanks (2003). This is a fairly
complete standard describing loads on deep and shallow storage structures
loaded with granular solids. It also contains sections on structures loaded by
liquids.
AS 3774 (1997). The Australian Silo Load Code is entitled Loads on Bulk
Containers. This code describes loadings from bulk solids for deep and shallow
structures that hold .
National Farm building Code (1995). The Canadian farm building code describes
loading for agricultural structures.

The majority of the standards in existence today deal with the storage and handling of granular
materials stored deep and shallow storage. There is some description of loads from silage in a
limited number of standards. No standard currently
Economics of Storages
There are a number of factors that influence the design of a biomass storage facility. Although
initial costs are important, there are a number of additional factors that should be included in the
design and construction storage facilities. These include initial construction costs, durability,
and throughput.

Construction Costs. Initial construction cost of storage is a major consideration.
Bunkers and flat storage are usually the cheapest. The cheapest structures to
build are grain piles, flat storage is next. For silos corrugated grain storage is
the cheapest and concrete is about the most expensive.
Durability. The most expensive storage is generally the most durable. Steel
structures are made from plate element which generally dont hold up as well as
thicker concrete elements. Concrete silos can last under certain circumstances
one hundred years
Throughput. Throughput is the number of cylcles or turns that a facility will
experience during operations. Higher throughput facilities will wear out faster
that low throughput facilities requiring a more durable structure.

7
Operational costs. Operational costs are a major concern in the selection of a
storage facility. Manual loading and unloading such as with a front end loading
have very highly intensive operating costs. These costs are event greater in high
throughput facilities. Where labor costs are high automation is highly attractive.

The bottom line is that the cheapest up front cost does not necessarily add up to the most
economical storage system.
Biomass Elevator Systems
Dry biomass elevators will likely have the same systems as grain elevators. These systems will
consist of Receiving, Distribution, Reclaim and Load Out Systems. They are key elements for
any material storage and handling facility. These systems may vary somewhat depending on
biomass type. Over time it assumed that biomass will be placed into a form that will be easy to
transport and handle. Descriptions of common receiving and unloading systems are based on
material taken from Rosentrater and Williams (2004 a).
Receiving System
It is anticipated that most local biomass elevators receive grain with wagons and trucks
(and sometimes, but not as often, with rail cars) with transport capacities ranging from a few
hundred bushels up to approximately 1200 bu for the large semi trailers. Occasionally terminal
level biomass elevators will receive biomass via rail or ship. Providing adequate receiving
capacity is essential for facility operations, especially during the harvest season. The two most
common receiving options include gravity-flow pits that directly feed one or more bucket
elevators (which are one stage of the distribution process), and gravity-flow pits that feed
mechanical conveyors (typically belt or drag conveyors), that subsequently transport the
incoming biomass to one or more bucket elevators. Figure 2 illustrates both of these receiving
systems.
The first consideration when designing a receiving system is the physical nature of the
commodities that the facility must accommodate. Specifically, the angle of repose for these
matierials is a key factor for the design of these operations. When designing a receiving
system, the limiting factor for the design of any hopper is the valley angle of that hopper (i.e.,
the angle with respect to a horizontal plane that results from the conjunction of two nonparallel
surfaces, each at a unique angle with respect to that horizontal plane), because it must be
steeper than the materials angle of repose for the material to flow properly out of the hopper.
The valley angle for any hopper can be calculated as:
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
(

+

=

2 2
2 2
1
tan tan
tan tan
tan (1)
where is the valley angle that the hopper makes vis--vis a horizontal plane, is the angle of
one side of the hopper relative to that horizontal plane, and is the angle the other side of the
hopper relative to that horizontal plane. In practice, the five most commonly used valley angles
that receiving hoppers are designed to meet include 6-on-12 (26.57
o
), 8-on-12 (33.69
o
), 9-on-12
(36.87
o
), 10-on-12 (39.81
o
), and 12-on-12 (45
o
).
The pit structure should be designed to accommodate the maximum possible physical
holding capacity (i.e., volume) which, in practice, should be approximately 1200 bu; this will
accommodate the largest vehicles (i.e., hopper-bottom semi trailers) that will be transporting

8
biomass to the facility. Most receiving hoppers can be approximated as truncated pyramids,
and as such, their volume can be determined using the standard equation for a frustum of a
pyramid:
[ ]
2 1 2 1
A A A A
2
H
V + + = (2)
where V is the volume of the hopper (ft
3
or m
3
), H is the vertical height of the hopper (e.g.,
vertical distance from the hopper inlet to the hopper discharge; ft or m), A
1
is the area of the top
plane of the hopper (ft
2
or m
2
), and A
2
is the area of the discharge plane of the hopper (ft
2
or
m
2
).
Furthermore, the transport capacity (bu/hr) of the hopper discharge (e.g. orifice, gate, or
inlet into a conveyor) will need to be sized appropriately. For more information, refer to ASAE
standard D274.1 (ASAE, 2004). If not designed appropriately, this can become a bottleneck in
the facilitys ability to receive incoming biomass. As a point of reference, an emptying capacity
of 20,000 bu/h will completely empty a receiving pit of 1200 bu in 3.6 min, a capacity of 40,000
bu/h will completely empty the receiving pit in 1.8 min, and a capacity of 60,000 bu/h will
completely empty the receiving pit in 1.2 min. Ultimately, the ability to empty the receiving pit
will determine how long a truck driver or a rail car will have to wait to unload, which can become
problematic and potentially expensive during the harvest season.
Additionally, the location and size of the truck scale and sampling probe, whether
located adjacent to the facilitys office structure, or at a remote location, must also be
considered. Several manufacturers design standard units, but the analysis of pneumatic
transport systems remains essential, because an air velocity greater than the terminal velocity
of the grain sampled must be achieved in order for the system to work properly.

(a)


9

(b)
Figure 2. Gravity flow (a) and mechanical conveyor (b) receiving systems.

Distribution System
Biomass will need to be transported from the receiving area to the storage bins via the
distribution system, which consists of multiple pieces of equipment, such as bucket elevators,
distributors and gravity-flow spouting, belt conveyors, and drag conveyors (Figure 2). If bucket
elevator height is not a constraining factor (due to motor size limitations), then a gravity system
that primarily utilizes a distributor and spouting is generally more cost-effective for grain
distribution. If, however, bucket elevator height is a constraining factor, and a distributor with
spouting will not be able to fill all required bins, then a conveyor will need to be used to transport
the material from either the bucket elevator discharge, or a distributor outlet, to the appropriate
storage silos. It is anticipated that two types of conveyors will primarily be used: belt and drag.
Belt conveyors are typically more cost effective for conveying over large distances, but
intermediate discharges are problematic. Drag conveyors, on the other hand, do incur more
friction during operations, and will require larger motors, but can readily be used to discharge to
multiple locations. When designing conveying systems for grain transport and distribution, the
throughput capacity and required horsepower for each equipment piece to be used in the facility
are of prime importance

10

(a)






(b)

(c)

(d)
Figure 3. Typical Elements of a distribution system. Distribution systems generally entail
combinations of bucket elevators (a), distributors and spouting (b), belt conveyors (c), and/or
drag conveyors (d).
Reclaim System
Reclaim systems are used to remove product from storage, so that it can be transported
to another location within the facility (e.g., other storage bins), to the loadout system, or to turn
the bin. Turning the bin redistributes moisture, and as a result reduce the potential for
degradation and spoilage. In practice, one of the most commonly used reclaim options for
facilities includes the use of multiple-discharge, flat bin floors. Because of the stored materials
angle of repose, however, in order to completely empty this type of bin, either a bin sweep
auger, or a door large enough to accommodate a skid-steer loader must be provided. Another
commonly used configuration is the sand-filled, slick-coated conical hopper bin bottom. Flat-
floored silos with hopper-bottom bins typically require more mechanical components and thus

11
consume more operational power than hopper bottom bins, but offer greater effective bin
storage volume. Using hopper bottoms minimizes power consumption and mechanical
systems, but reduces effective storage volume due to the physical structure (e.g., sand and
concrete) required to construct the conical hoppers.
Loadout System
In major loadout operations it is common to dedicate the loadout system almost entirely to rail
cars, or ships in the case of facilities adjacent to waterways, and if present at all, truck loadout
has been relegated to secondary status. Over the last several years, railroad regulations have
become more stringent. More emphasis is being placed on accommodating 110-car unit trains,
which must be loaded in 15 h or less. Assuming an average train car size of 4000 bu, this will
result in a total of 440,000 bu, or 29,333 bu/h required loadout capacity. For an average train
car size of 5000 bu, this would result in a total of 550,000 total bu, or 36,667 bu/h required
loadout capacity. To account for time between car fillings (i.e., rail car progressioning),
however, systems are typically designed with 50,000 to 60,000 bu/h loadout capacities. For a
50,000 bu/h batch loadout scale, common operation requires 100 fill/empty cycles per hour, with
each draft at 30,000 lb (625 ft
3
, using 48 lb/ft
3
as a reference for whole grains).
Figure 3 illustrates the three most common types of high-throughput rail loadout systems
currently used in practice. Single-car, gravity flow, internal bulk scale, and single-car,
mechanical fill, external bulk scale, are typically used in large-grains facilities which may be
similar to biomass facilities. Another alternative is multiple-car, gravity flow/mechanical fill,
external bulk scale loadout systems are typically used in small-grains facilities. Many times the
bottleneck in a loadout system is not the bulk scale itself, but rather the ability to provide grain to
the scale. In the case of gravity systems, that would entail providing large enough surge bin
capacity (bu) above the scale. In the case of mechanical systems, that would entail providing a
bucket elevator or conveyor with a large enough rate of material throughput (bu/h). Other
design considerations include sampling of the outbound grain (for quality control, as well as
FGIS assessment), operator access to the rail car inlets, rail clearance regulations, and the
potential need to reclaim and recycle, or even to receive, grain from the rail cars.



12
(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 4. Single-car, gravity flow, internal bulk scale (a), single-car, mechanical fill, external
bulk scale (b), and multiple-car, gravity flow/mechanical fill, external bulk scale (c)
loadout systems.
Pellet Processing
Many biomass storage facilites will need capability to prepare the biomass for storage
and processing. Pelleting is a process intended to densify materials which will improves
storage, handling, and shipping properties. Typically material is transported from the storage
bins to a preconditioner, where it is mixed with steam so that it is more amenable to the pelleting
process. Residence time in a conditioner of 20 sec is recommended, but various plants often
use longer times. After conditioning the biomass particles, they are then introduced into the
pellet mill, where a rotating roller forces the ingredients through circular die openings, which
typically have diameters smaller than in. Modern pellet mills can have die diameters up to 42
in, with effective pelleting surfaces of 1600 in
2
, can produce pelleted material at a rate of up to
50 ton/h, and can consume up to 800 hp. After processing, the pellets are then cooled
(horizontal or counterflow coolers are generally used), so that pellet temperature is reduced to
ambient (in order to avoid spoilage problems), screened to removed fines and broken pellets,
and then conveyed to storage, after which they will either be bagged or loaded out in bulk.
Fairfield (1994) provides extensive detail regarding mill pelleting systems.
Structural Design Loads
Loads on the walls of bins and silos depend on the properties of the biomass to be stored and
on the geometry of the bin or silo. The load on the wall of a shallow bin from a particulate solid
is fairly well established from our knowledge of soil mechanics. Many text (e.g. Lambe and
Whitman, 1969) deal with lateral loads on retaining walls and the theories associated with that.
The load or pressure is caused by a triangular mass of material resting against the wall
providing a pressure that increases linearly with depth from the surface of the material.

13
Because of internal friction the pressure is less than that of a liquid of the same mass density
and that reduction is referred to as the pressure ratio, K. K is a function of the internal angle of
friction of the material, , the friction angle between wall and stored material, , the wall slope
and the slope of the top of the material. K is also a function of the horizontal movement of the
wall. If it is allowed to move in the direction of the pressure the internal shear forces are fully
engaged to minimize the pressure; this is referred to as active pressure.
An immovable wall receives a larger at rest lateral pressure. This level of lateral pressure is
most relevant to the design of bins and silos. For silages in bunker silos, EP538 estimates the
at rest K, K
o
, as 1.5 times the active pressure ratio, K
a
. If the wall moves against the direction
of the pressure even larger pressures result to a maximum referred to as passive pressure.
This may be relevant to bin design when circular bin walls experience a reducion in
circumference because of a drop in temperature.
In deep bins and silo where the height to diameter ratio is 2 or greater the triangular wedge of
material causing the lateral pressure is intersected by the wall opposite the one under
consideration. Here a different theory developed by Janssen (1895) is more appropriate.
Lateral pressures do not increase linearly with depth but exhibit an exponential pressure curve
with a limiting value at great depth.
In shallow and deep bins a major factor affecting wall pressures is the mass density of the
retained biomass. If the biomass is compressible the mass density will most likely vary with
depth and this has to be taken into account. This will require that the pressure-density
relationship of the biomass has to be determined. Finally, many biomass materials contain
water and if the water content is high, the biomass may become saturated and liquid pressures
will increase the total wall pressures. Again, this should be taken into account in the design of
the bin or silo. The following sections outline in some detail the design information that is
available at this time (2008).
Lateral pressure in tower silos and deep bins due to compressible biomass
The following will focus on structural loads that are specific to tower silos and deep bins. Other
loads such as wind, snow, temperature changes and shrinkage may be found in building codes
relevant to the location where the silo is built.
The biomass exerts against the wall an outward (lateral) pressure which must be resisted by
tensile circumferential strength. Friction between biomass and silo wall causes a vertical
compressive force. An idealized model of particulate solid behaviour in a tube was used by
Janssen (1895) to predict the lateral pressure L as a function of y, the distance below the top of
the solids:
L(y) = g R/ {1 - exp(- K y/R)} (1)
in which is the mass density, g is the acceleration due to gravity, R is the hydraulic radius of
the silo cross section (D/4 for a circular cross section), is the wall friction coefficient and K is
the ratio of horizontal to vertical pressure. With units of in t/m
3
, g in m/s
2
and y and R in m,
the lateral pressure L will be in kPa or kN/m
2
. Eq. 1 assumes that the mass density of the
material, the pressure ratio and the friction coefficient are constant. This is a reasonable
assumption for dry grains and oilseeds which are only slightly compressible. For highly
compressible biomass, density is not constant and parameters K and may also vary.
Since 1895, many researchers have examined experimentally and analytically pressures in farm
tower silos for various types of biomass (e.g. Negi and Ogilvie, 1977; Negi et al., 1977; Pitt,
1983) A number of researchers have studied the density behavior of various silages and high

14
moisture corn (Wood, 1971; Arnold, 1974; Negi, 1974; Loewer Jr. and Ross, 1977; Jackson and
Lessard, 1977; Jofriet and Czajkowski, 1980; Jofriet et al., 1982; Jofriet and Daynard, 1982; Pitt,
1983; Negi et al. 1984; Negi et al., 1987). The International Silo Association Standards
Committee (1981) has a form of Eq. 1 to determine lateral wall pressure. Linear models are
used for the variation of mass density, pressure ratio and wall friction coefficient with vertical
pressure. Unfortunately, there is no published research work to substantiate these code
provisions. Law et al. (1992) studied the pressure ratio, K, experimentally in a number of grains
and found no evidence of a dependence on vertical stress. Negi et al. (1989) examined friction
coefficients and pressure ratios based on test results; they found nothing to support the ISA
(1981) provisions related to these parameters.
The National Farm Building Code (CCBFC, 1995) also uses Eq. 1 for silage silos in which the
silage does not become saturated. For top unloading silos, the Janssen lateral pressure is
approximated by a bilinear pressure diagram that assumes a lateral pressure of 4.0 kPa at the
top of the silage. At midheight, the pressure is calculated with Eq. 1 using the mean densities
provided in a table and the pressure ratios and friction coefficients in Table 1. At the bottom of
the biomass, the lateral pressure is again calculated with Eq. 1 but using a density 1.2 times the
ean value. For high moisture corn grain, the break point in the bilinear pressure diagram is 1/3
of the height from the top because research (Jofriet and Daynard, 1982) has shown that the
mean density in a silo filled with high moisture grain occurs well above midheight. There is
obviously a need to obtain design values for other types of biomass, especially pressure-density
relationships in the case of compressible materials.
Table 1 Pressure ratio and wall friction coefficient in tower silos (CCBFC, 1995)
Type of material Pressure ratio, K Friction coefficient,
Smooth wall Rough wall Smooth steel Concrete
Whole-plant silage 0.4 0.5 0.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.5
High moisture grain 0.5 0.5 0.25 - 0.35 0.35 - 0.45
The National Farm Building Code (CCBFC, 1995) has provisions for calculating the additional
hydrostatic pressure arising when silage becomes saturated in part of a silo. These provisions
assume that hydrostatic pressure does not dissipate through the wall. Stave silos are not likely
to be affected by hydrostatic pressure because silage juice can escape readily through the
joints. Comprehensive requirements for tower silo design in the case of wet silages were
described by Jofriet et al. (1992b).
In bottom unloading silos, a dome shaped cavity forms at the bottom and causes large
overpressures against the wall (Dickinson and Jofriet, 1987). Both the ISA Standards (1981)
and the National Farm Building Code (1995) have provisions to account for these
overpressures. Jofriet and Negi (1993) compared the two codes and concluded that the ISA
Standards had design pressures 50% greater than those specified in the NFBC and that the ISA
Standard pressures were unduly conservative.
Other design considerations for tower silos
In cast-in-place concrete bottom unloading silos, vertical bending moments will occur where the
dome reaction force acts against the wall. Jofriet (1989) recommended a maximum design
moment of 0.055 P for walls assumed to be hinged at the wall-floor junction and 0.12 P for walls
assumed to be fixed. P is the overpressure summed to a force over the height of the

15
overpressure. These bending moments are significant only over a height of D/2 from the center
of the unloading arm.
Wall friction causes a increasing vertical force from zero at the biomass surface to a maximum
at the floor. At each level, the force can be calculated by integrating the lateral pressure above
that level, multiplied by the friction coefficient. In some codes (e.g. CCBFC, 1995), a range of
values is provided for friction coefficients. For wall structural design, the upper value should be
selected to estimate compression force. To calculate hoop tension, the lower value should be
chosen.
The soil must carry the total load of biomass and structure. Probably more tower silos have
failed due to settlement and tilting than from any other cause. Design should take into account
the significant stresses that occur in the soil at a depth up to twice the diameter of the silo.
Therefore, seemingly firm soil conditions under the footing are not sufficient to guarantee that
the silo will not settle significantly or, worse, topple over due to uneven settlement. If no
information is available from previous silo structures, the owner and/or builder should obtain
expert advice.
Lateral pressure in a tower silo and deep bins from free-flowing biomass
The wall pressures in grain silos is well-documented by standards and codes. ASABE EP433
provides loads on the walls of bins with height to diameter ratio greater than two. Static loads
are based on the Janssen equation (Eq. 1). EP433 also has recommended values for the
friction coefficient and the pressure ratio (Table 2).
Table 2 Pressure ratio and wall friction coefficient in bins for free-flowing biomass
Friction coefficient, Type of material Pressure
ratio, K
Smooth steel Corrugated
steel
Concrete
Free-flowing grain 0.5 0.3 0.37 0.4
Dynamic pressures during discharge in plug flow bins are obtained by multiplying static
pressures with an overpressure factor of 1.4. CCBFC (1995) specifies an overpressure factor of
1.4 for cereal grains, shelled corn, soybeans and canola, 1.6 for flaxseed and canary seed.
EP433 and CCBFC (1995) deal only with concentric discharges. Dynamic overpressures with
eccentric discharge openings are complex; Eurocode 1, Part 4 (2003) has a comprehensive
treatment of wall loads of bins with eccentric discharge hoppers and openings.
Lateral pressure due to non-free-flowing biomass content in bunker silos and
shallow bins
Lateral pressures in bunker silos and shallow bins are based on soil mechanics (Lambe and
Whitman, 1969). The pressure from biomass is assumed to increase with depth like an
equivalent liquid:
L(y) = K g y (2)
in which L(y) is the pressure normal to the wall at a depth y below the top of the biomass, K is
the pressure ratio, is the mass density of the material and g is the acceleration due to gravity.
The pressure ratio K tends to be greater than the active pressure ratio because the wall is
relatively unmovable and the lateral strain in the material therefore is close to zero. Therefore,
K is closer to the at-rest pressure ratio, K
O
(Jaky, 1944; Terzaghi, 1943). A value of 1.5K
A
was

16
recommended for silage stored in bunker silos, where K
A
is the active pressure ratio (Terzaghi,
1943). The pressure ratio must take into account the slope of the wall and the biomass banked
up above the top of the wall since both these factors increase lateral pressure. Eq. 2 was
incorporated in ASABE EP538 (2007).
The presence of a tractor or bulldozer for filling and compaction introduces an additional load
against the wall with a distinct peak about 0.5m below the surface of the biomass (Zhao and
Jofriet 1992b). ASABE EP538 (2007) has provisions for these additional loads if applicable. In
case the compaction equipment is a tracked vehicle the design load should be a line load
applied 0.5 m below and parallel to the surface of the silage. For wheeled vehicles the
additional load is a point load.
Floor design
The major load on the floor of a bunker silo is the loading and unloading equipment driven over
it. Therefore, if paved, the pavement should be designed for the maximum wheel load
expected. This design is not straightforward because the slab is supported by the subgrade
which influences the amount of bending. A well compacted subgrade of at least 300 mm of
granular material will provide good support and the concrete floor will require little bending
strength. A floor cast on a poor subgrade will need to be much thicker and require more
reinforcement. As a rule, the latter is more expensive. The Portland Cement Association
provides detailed information on floor and subgrade thickness and reinforcing determination
(Packard, 1976; Spears, 1983).
Lateral pressure due to free-flowing biomass content in bunker silos and shallow
bins
Loads exerted by free-flowing biomass in shallow storage structures is governed by ASABE
EP545. This EP is restricted to bins with vertical walls and is intended mainly for corn, wheat
and soybeans. The lateral wall pressures in EP545 are identical to those in Eq. 2 with a
pressure ratio, K, specified to be 0.5. The internal angle of friction needed to calculate K are
gives as 27
o
for corn and wheat, and 29
o
for soybeans. The static coefficient of wall friction in
EP545 are listed in Table 3.
Table 3 Wall friction coefficient, , in bins for free-flowing biomass (EP545)
Type of biomass Steel Concrete Corrugated
steel
Plywood
Corn 0.25 0.35 0.50 0.44
Wheat 0.25 0.35 0.50 0.50
Soybeans 0.25 0.35 0.50 0.38
Both EP538 and EP545 give recommendations on how to deal with the top of the biomass
material sloping up from the wall, thus increasing the lateral wall pressure. EP538 handles this
by incorporating the sloping biomass surface into an increase in the pressure ratio, K, EP545 on
the other hand suggests that the grain height be modified to a larger equivalent grain height.

17
Material Handling
Material handling is an important component in moving product in and out of biomass storages.
In particular, screw conveyors, bucket elevators, belt conveyors, drag conveyors, and
pneumatic based systems can be used to move biomass depending on their forms. This
section includes some of the design requirements for these types of conveyors. This
information is taken from and summarized from papers by Rosentrater and Williams (2004a & b)
and adapted to this paper.
Screw Conveyors
As with other conveyor systems, when designing screw conveyors for material transport and
distribution, the throughput capacity and required power are of prime importance. The capacity
of a screw conveyor can be determined as:
( )
1
2
s
2
h
C
N P D D
4
Q

= (3)
where Q is the volumetric capacity (ft
3
/min), D
h
is the diameter of the helicoidal screw flighting
(in), D
s
is the diameter of the screw shaft (in), P is the pitch length along the screw (in), N is the
rotational speed of the screw (rev/min), and C
1
is a conversion factor of 1728 (in
3
/ft
3
). The
power required to drive a screw conveyor can be determined according to CEMA (1980):
o
m d
F
000 , 000 , 1
F BD L Q
000 , 500
F N L
P
(

\
|
+ |

\
|
= (4)
where P is the power required to drive the conveyor shaft (hp), which accounts for the power
necessary to overcome friction as well as transport the material, L is the length of the conveyor
(ft), N is the rotational speed of the screw (rev/min), F
d
(-) is an empirical diameter factor that
accounts for screw weight per unit length (Table 4), Q is the volumetric capacity of the conveyor
(ft
3
/h), BD is the bulk density of the material (lb/ft
3
), F
m
(-) is an empirical material factor related
to the physical properties of the material being conveyed (Table 2), and F
o
(-) is an empirical
factor that accounts for sizing small conveyor motors adequately to avoid overloading, and can
be determined according to CEMA (1980):
3368 . 0
t
HP 9142 . 1 Fo

= (5)
where HP
t
is the total calculated power for the screw conveyor prior to applying the F
o
motor
factor (i.e., the quantity inside the brackets of Equation 2, above). If, however, the total
calculated horsepower (i.e., inside the brackets) is greater than 5.2, then F
o
has a value of 1.0.

18
Table 4. Screw conveyor diameter factors (based on CEMA, 1980).

Screw Diameter (in) Diameter Factor, Fd (-)


4 12
6 18
9 31
10 37
12 55
14 78
16 106
18 135
20 165
24 235


19
Table 5. Feed ingredient material factors (based on CEMA, 1980).

Ingredient Bulk Density (lb/ft
3
) Material Factor, Fm (-)


Alfalfa, Meal 22 0.6
Alfalfa, Pellets 43 0.5
Bakery Byproducts 41 0.6
Barley, Meal 28 0.4
Barley, Whole 48 0.5
Blood, Dried 45 2.0
Bonemeal 60 1.7
Brewer's Grains, Dry 30 0.5
Corn, Cracked 45 0.7
Corn, Shelled 45 0.4
Cornmeal 40 0.5
Cottonseed Hulls 12 0.9
Deflourinated Phosphate 89 1.8
Dicalcium Phosphate 50 1.6
Dyna-K 70 1.7
Egg Powder 19 1.0
Feather Meal 30 1.0
Fish Meal 40 1.0
Limestone, Crushed 90 2.0
Lysine 38 1.5
Meat Scraps 40 1.5
Milo, Whole 45 0.5
Milo, Ground 41 0.6
Oat, Flour 35 0.5
Oats, Whole 26 0.4
Oyster Shells, Ground 60 2.0
Pro Pak 42 0.6
Rice, Flour 35 0.6
Rice, Grits 45 0.4
Salt 80 1.7
Soybean Meal 40 0.7
Soybeans, Whole 48 1.0
Wheat 48 0.4
Wheat Midds 35 0.5

20
Bucket Elevators
Bucket elevators are the primary mechanism used to transport biomass and other materials
vertically (e.g., from the receiving pit to the top of the elevator for subsequent distribution to
appropriate storage bins). The volumetric capacity of a bucket elevator can be determined as:
2
1 r s f c
C
C V C C C C
Q

= (6)
where Q is the volumetric capacity of the bucket elevator (bu/hr), C
c
is the capacity of each cup
(in3/cup), C
f
is the fill of each cup (%, expressed as a decimal), C
s
is the linear spacing of cups
per unit length of belt (number of cups/ft), C
r
is the number of cup rows across the width of the
belt, V is the linear belt speed (ft/min), C
1
is a conversion factor of 60 (min/h), C
2
is a conversion
factor of 2150.42 (in
3
/bu). The power required to drive a bucket elevator can be determined
according to Bloome et al. (1978):
1 2 1
R
1
2490
Q
C C
H BD Q 1 . 1
P
|
|

\
|
+

= (7)
where P is the power required to drive the elevator shaft (hp), Q is the volumetric capacity of the
elevator (ft
3
/h), BD is the bulk density of the material being conveyed (lb/ft
3
), H is the total
vertical distance between the head and tail shafts of the elevator (ft), C
1
is a conversion factor of
33,000 (ft
.
lb/min/hp), C
2
is a conversion factor of 60 (min/h), and R
1
is the efficiency of the motor
speed reducer (which typically ranges from 0.85 to 0.95). This equation has been empirically
adapted to:
1 2 1
f w
R C C
S H T Q
P


= (8)
where P is the power required to drive the elevator shaft (hp), Q is the volumetric capacity of the
elevator (bu/h), T
w
is the test weight (lb/bu), H is the total vertical distance between the head
and tail shafts of the elevator (ft), S
f
is an empirical service factor of 1.1(-), C
1
is a conversion
factor of 33,000 (ft
.
lb/min/hp), C
2
is a conversion factor of 60 (min/h), and R
1
is the efficiency of
the motor speed reducer (which typically ranges from 0.85 to 0.95). Many times an additional
10% is added to the Equation 5 above to empirically account for friction losses within the
elevator. Power consumption has been further simplified by using empirical relationships:
( ) 000036 . 0 D H Q P
a
+ = (9)
where P is the power required to drive the elevator (hp), Q is the volumetric capacity of the
elevator (bu/h), H is the total vertical distance between the head and tail shafts of the elevator
(ft), and D
a
is an additional distance of 5 ft, which empirically accounts for frictional losses within
the elevator.
Belt Conveyors
Belt conveyors offer the simultaneous advantages of high throughput and relatively low required
power for transport over substantial travel distances. Belt conveyors are typically entirely
enclosed, which improves dust control when compared to the open belt conveyors that have
historically been used. The capacity of a belt conveyor can be determined according to CEMA
(1994):
1
C A V Q = (10)

21
where Q is the volumetric capacity (i.e., throughput or volumetric flowrate [bu/min]), V is the belt
speed (ft/min), A is the cross-sectional area of the material on the belt (which typically assumes
the shape of a combination of trapezoidal area with a circular segment area [ft
2
]), and C
1
is a
conversion factor of 0.8036 (bu/ft
3
). The power required to drive a belt conveyor can be
determined according to CEMA (1994):
( ) ( ) [ ]
V
R C
T T T H K L W W 015 . 0 W K K K L
P
1 1
ac am p y m b b y x t

+ + + + + +
= (11)
where P is the power required to drive the conveyor head shaft (hp), L is the conveyor length,
defined from head pulley shaft to tail pulley shaft (ft), K
t
is the temperature correction factor,
which is related to belt thermal expansion and flexibility (-), K
x
is the frictional resistance factor
that accounts for the interaction between the belt and the idlers (lb/ft), K
y
is the factor that
accounts for the resistance of the material load to flexure as it passes over the idlers (-), W
m
is
weight of the material per unit length of belt (lb/ft), W
b
is the weight of the belt per unit length
(lb/ft), H is the change in vertical height from the tail shaft to the head shaft (ft), T
p
is the tension
force resulting from the belts resistance to bending around the head and tail pulleys (lb), T
am
is
the tension force resulting from the force necessary to accelerate material as it is fed onto the
belt (lb), T
ac
is the tension force resulting from conveyor accessories such as plows, trippers,
and belt cleaning devices (lb), V is the linear belt speed (ft/min), C
1
is a conversion factor of
33,000 (ft
.
lb/min/hp), and R
1
is the efficiency of the motor speed reducer (which typically ranges
from 0.85 to 0.95). This equation has been empirically adapted to a somewhat simpler form:
( ) ( ) [ ]
V
R C
225 H L 035 . 0 W 58 . 0 W 05 . 0 W 00068 . 0 L
P
1 1
m b m

+ + + +
= (12)
where P is the power required to drive the conveyor (hp), L is the conveyor length, defined from
head pulley shaft to tail pulley shaft (ft), W
m
is weight of the material per unit length of belt (lb/ft),
W
b
is the weight of the belt per unit length (lb/ft), H is the change in vertical height from the tail
shaft to the head shaft (ft), V is the linear belt speed (ft/min), C
1
is a conversion factor of 33,000
(ft
.
lb/min/hp), and R
1
is the efficiency of the motor speed reducer (which typically ranges from
0.85 to 0.95).
Drag Conveyors
Drag conveyors offer the advantage of multiple discharges along their length, although frictional
resistance is considerably greater, and therefore motor sizes are also appreciably greater, than
belt conveyors with comparable capacities. The capacity of a belt conveyor can be determined
as:
1
C w h V Q = (13)
where Q is the volumetric throughput (bu/min) of the conveyor, V is the linear chain speed
(ft/min), h is the height of the material mass at a given cross section inside the conveyor (ft), and
is a function of the height of the flighting used, w is the width of the conveyor (ft), and C
1
is a
conversion factor of 0.8036 (bu/ft
3
). The power required for a drag conveyor can be determined
according to:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ]
V
R C
h 044 . 0 sin cos F W sin cos F W sin cos F W L 1 . 1
P
1 1
2
c c m m c c

+ + + + +
= (14)
where P is the power required to drive the conveyor (hp), L is the conveyor length, from head
shaft to tail shaft (ft), W
c
is the weight of the chain and flighting per unit length of conveyor (lb/ft),

22
F
c
is the coefficient of kinetic friction between the chain and flights and the conveyor floor (-), is
the slope of the conveyor relative to a horizontal plane (
o
), W
m
is the weight of the material per
unit length of conveyor (lb/ft), F
m
is the coefficient of kinetic friction between the material and the
conveyor floor (-), h is the average depth of the material in the conveyor (ft), V is the linear chain
speed (ft/min), C
1
is a conversion factor of 33,000 (ft
.
lb/min/hp), and R
1
is the efficiency of the
motor speed reducer (which typically ranges from 0.85 to 0.95). For horizontal use with
soybeans, this equation has been empirically adapted to a simpler form:
56000
L Q
P

= (15)
where P is the power required to drive the conveyor (hp), Q is the volumetric capacity of the
conveyor (bu/h), and L is the length of the conveyor (ft). For horizontal use with corn or small
grains, it has been empirically adapted to:
75000
L Q
P

= (16)
where P is the power required to drive the conveyor (hp), Q is the volumetric capacity of the
conveyor (bu/h), and L is the length of the conveyor (ft). If the conveyor is at an incline, then
Equations 15 and 16 must be empirically modified to account for the change in potential energy
in the system. This is accomplished by increasing them by adding an additional power
requirement:
30000
H Q
P
a

= (17)
where P
a
is the additional power required due to the conveyors incline (hp), Q is the volumetric
capacity of the conveyor (bu/h), and H is the change in elevation from the conveyors tail shaft
to head shaft (ft).
Compressed Air or Pneumatic Systems
Compressed air systems could be used in biomass facilities, primarily as a means of providing
sources of distributed pneumatic power throughout the plant to operate air-actuated gates and
other equipment. These systems typically include air filters, compressors, coolers, receivers
(i.e., storage tanks), dryers, valves, and piping. The overall design of the entire system is
dependent on the requirements of each individual air cylinder in the plant. Each pneumatic
cylinder will require a specific volume of air to operate, which can be determined as:
1
C
V L C S
Q

= (18)
where Q is volumetric flowrate required by a given air cylinder to operate (ft
3
/min), S is a factor
to account for cylinder operation (1 for a single stroke direction [i.e., extend or return]; 2 for
bidirectional operation [i.e., actuate and return]), C is the rate of cylinder cycles (strokes/h), L is
the cylinder stroke length (in), V is the air consumption rate (ft
3
/in of stroke), and C
1
is a
conversion factor of 60 (min/h). The total number of cylinders will determine the total required
volume for the compressed air system. In practice, air compressors are typically sized up to
200% of total calculated required air volume, in order to provide for adequate system operation.
Typical operating pressure in a pipeline is between 70 and 100 psi. The maximum pipe length
used will actually depend on pipe diameter, and should not have more than 0.5 psi pressure
drop (due to friction losses) for a given pipe run. Pipes are typically installed with a slope of 1 in

23
drop for every 10 ft of horizontal length (approximately a 0.5
o
slope) so that moisture will flow
downstream. Additionally, vertical piping is typically installed with a drain trap located at the
bottom end of each line to collect and remove moisture from the pipeline. Ambler (1994)
provides a more detailed discussion regarding the design of compressed air systems for feed
mills.
Industry Needs
In order to support the development of a biomass storage and handling infrastructure
development there must be standards developed for their design. Although the authors of this
paper believe that there will be a number of similarities between todays grain handling facilities
and the next generation biomass handling facilities, there are a large number of deficiencies in
engineering standards required to adequately design these facilities. In particular, the following
items should be developed:
Physical Properties for flow, handling and storage design
To date, Material properties developed are for industrial commodities or grains and other
agricultural commodities used for feed or food. Physical properties for structural load
calculation are required for the design and construction of most types of storage. Biomass
forms that exist today or those that may possibly be developed. Specifically, any standard or
study should address the following physical properties
Bulk Density. As specific biomass types have a range of densities that must be
considered to develop design loads and conveyor power requirements
Density Pressure Relationships. For biomass that is sensitive to compaction and
consolidation pressure-density relationships are required to develop design
loads. In many cases consolidation may be time-dependent.
Angle of internal friction, f. This property is used to calculate the lateral to
vertical Coefficient, K for granular materials. This in turn is used to determine
lateral loads on storage structure walls.
Coefficient of Friction, . This property is determined by shear cell tests. Wall
friction values increase when material is at rest. For some materials these
properties can vary quite substantially. This property is used to calclulate wall
loads.
Cohesion and flow function. Physical properties that influence flow and lateral
loading must be determined. Cohesive materials will not flow well and may
require special mechanical equipment to assist flow.
Practical size and ranges. This property must be determined to help classify the
stored materials.
Moisture Content. Bulk materials will exhibit different flow patterns under
different moisture conditions. If moisture content is high, saturation conditions
will affect wall pressures in bins and silos.
Methodologies for performing these tests will not be described in this paper but are described in
references such as Rotter 2001.

24
Standards Needed
The design of specialized handling systems for biomass storage and handling systems is going
to require the ability
Biomass Design Loads. Granular materials are well understood. Some
processed biomass will behave like granular materials. Other forms of Biomass
will not flow or handle like granular materials. Limited work has been completed
on silage storage but more work is needed to determine if these standards are
applicable to biomass storage loads.
Physical Properties. A database of physical properties should be developed for
the various forms and types of biomass. These properties should be used as
input data in the design load standards
Design of specialized structures. Specialized structures will likely be developed
for the storage and handling of biomass in full scale production facilities.
Standards or design guides should be developed for these specialized
structures.

Summary.
ASABE has the opportunity to be involved in the development of standards to support the
developing biomass based bio-energy build-out . Specific standards will need to incorporate
loading and design information for storage and handling of biomass. To date, no one has
examined this information.
References

ACI 313 1997 Standard Practice for Design and Construction of Concrete Silos and Stacking
Tubes for Storing Granular Materials ACI 313-97. American Concrete Institute.
Ambler, R. F. 1994. Compressed air systems. In Feed Manufacturing Technology IV, pp. 320-
330. Arlington, VA: American Feed Industry Association.
API. 1998. Recommended Rules for the Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-
Pressure, Storage Tanks. API Standard 620. Washington, DC: American Petroleum
Institute.
API. 2002. Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage. API Standard 620. Washington, DC: American
Petroleum Institute.
Arnold, L.R. 1974. Density-pressure-seepage relationships of whole plant corn silage in tower
silos. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Crop Science Dept., University of Guelph, Guelph, ON.
AS 3774-1996. 1996. Loads On Bulk Solids Containers Australian Standards. Standards
Association of Austrlia, Syndney.
ASAE EP 433 2006. Loads exerted by free flowing grains on bins ASABE Engineering
Practice EP433. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. St.Joseph,
Michigan.
ASAE 538.1 2007. Loads for Bunker (Horizontal) Silos ASABE Engineering Practice EP538.1.
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. St.Joseph, Michigan.

25
ASAE EP 545 2005. Loads exerted by free flowing grains on shallow storages ASABE
Engineering Practice EP545. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
St.Joseph, Michigan.
Bloome, P. S. Harp, and J. Garton. 1978. Bucket elevators. OSU Extension Facts No. 1106.
Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State University.
CCBFC 1995. National Farm Building Code of Canada 1995. Canadian Commission on
Building and Fire Codes, National Research Council of Canada, NRCC No. 38732,
Ottawa, Canada.
ENV 1991-4 (1995) Eurocode 1: Basis of Design and Actions on Structures. Part 4: Actions on
Silos and Tanks, CEN, Bruessels.
USDA 2005 Biomass as a Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry. The Technical
Feasbility of a Billion Ton Supply.
CEMA. 1980. Screw Conveyors. Washington, D. C.: Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers
Association.
CEMA. 1994. Belt Conveyors for Bulk Materials. Manassas, VA: Conveyor Equipment
Manufacturers Association.
CEMA. 1995. Classification and Definitions of Bulk Materials. Manassas, VA: Conveyor
Equipment Manufacturers Association.
Dickinson, R.R. and J.C. Jofriet. 1987. The functional design of silos storing highly cohesive
bulk solids. Bulk Solid Handling, 7(2):187-192.
International Silo Association Standards Committee. 1981. ISA recommended practice for the
design and construction of 1) top unloading stave silos; 2) top unloading monolithic
concrete farm silos; 3) atmosphere controlled bottom unloading concrete stave farm
silos; 4) atmosphere controlled bottom unloading monolithic concrete farm silos. ISA
Inc., Des Moines, IO.
Jackson, H.A. and J.R. Lessard. 1977. Effect of moisture content on corn silage density and
storage losses in a large tower silo. Can. Agric. Eng., 19:57-58.
Janssen, H.A. 1895. Versuch ber Getreidedruck in Silozellen. Zeitschrift des Vereines
Deutscher Ingenieure, 39:1045-1049.
Jofriet, J.C. and J. Czajkowski. 1980. A parametric study of wholeplant corn silage pressures
and loads in tower silos. Canadian Agric. Eng., 22(1):1-7.
Jofriet, J.C., P. Shapton and T.B. Daynard. 1982. Haylage densities, pressures and capacities
in tower silos. Can. Agric. Eng., 24(2): 141-148.
Jofriet, J.C. and T.B. Daynard. 1982. Pressure-density models for whole shelled, ground
shelled and ground ear corn. ASAE Transactions, 25(3):725-729 & 734.
Jofriet, J.C., Q. Zhao and S.C. Negi. 1992a. Design recommendations for structural loads on
horizontal silo walls. Can. Agric. Eng., 34(1):95-104.
Jofriet, J.C., Z. Yao and S.C. Negi. 1992b. Tower silo design loads for wet silages. Can. Agric.
Eng., 34(4):375-381.
Jofriet, J.C. and S.C. Negi. 1993. Toward a standard for silo design loads. ASAE Summer Mtg.,
Spokane, WA, Paper no. 93-4065.
Jaky, J. 1944. The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. J. of the Soc. Of Hungarian Architects
and Engineers, 1944:355-358.
Lambe, T.W. and R.V. Whitman, 1969. Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.
Law, G.J., S.C. Negi and J.C. Jofriet. 1992. Stress-strain behavior of barley in a model bin.

26
Powder Handling and Processing, 12(1):65-69.
Loewer, O.J. Jr. and I.J. Ross. 1977. Properties of ground shelled corn as related to forces in
bulk storage structures. Trans. ASAE, 20(1):155-156.
Meiering, A.G., M.G. Courtin, S.F. Spoelstra, G. Pahlow, H. Honig, R.E. Subden and E. Zimmer.
1988. Fermentation kinetics and toxic gas production of silages. Trans. ASAE,
31(2):141-147.
Negi, S.C. 1974. Pressure developed by silage materials in cylindrical tower silos. Unpublished
Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. Of Agric. Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC.
Negi, S.C. and J.R. Ogilvie. 1977. Silage pressures in tower silos. Part I: theoretical and design
considerations. Can. Agric. Engng., 19(2):92-97.
Negi, S.C., J.R. Ogilvie and E.R. Norris. 1977. Silage pressures in tower silos. Part II:
measurement of physical properties and effect of silo characteristics. Can. Agric.
Engng., 19(2):98-106.
Negi, S.C. Jofriet, J.C. and J. Buchanan-Smith. 1984. Densities, pressures and capacities of
corn silage in tower silos. Canadian Agric. Eng., 26(1):43-47.
Negi, S.C., J.R. Ogilvie and J.C. Jofriet. 1987. Some mechanical and rheological properties of
silages. Can. Agric. Eng., 29(1):59-64.
Negi, S.C., S. Quah and J.C. Jofriet. 1989. In-situ determination of friction coefficient and
pressure ratio for alfalfa haylage in a concrete silo. Can. Agric. Eng., 31(2): 245-248.
Packard, R.G. 1976. Slab thickness design for industrial concrete floors on grade. Portland
Cement Association, IS195.01D, pp16. PCA, Skokie, IL.
Pitt, R.E. 1983. Mathematical prediction of density and temperature of ensiled forage. Trans.
ASAE, 26(5):1522-1527,1532.
Rosentrater, K. R. and G. D. Williams, 2004. Design Considerations for the Construction and
Operation of Grain Elevator Facilities. Part II: Process Engineering. ASAE Paper N.
044146. St. Joseph, MI.: ASAE.
Rosentrater, K. R. and G. D. Williams, 2004. Design Considerations for the Construction and
Operation of Feed Milling Facilities. Part II: Process Engineering. ASAE Paper N.
044144. St. Joseph, MI.: ASAE.
Rotter, J.M. 2001. Guide for the Economic Design of Circular Metal Silos. New York: Spon
Press.
Spears, R.E. 1983. Concrete floors on ground. Portland Cement Assoc. EB075.02D, Skokie, IL.
Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
USDA (2005) Biomass as a Feedstock for Bioeneryg and Bioproducts Industry: The feasibility
of a Billion Ton Annual Supply. Oakridge National Laboratory. US Department of
Energy. Oakridge TN.
Williams, G. D. and K. A. Rosentrater. 2004. Design Considerations for the Construction and
Operation of Grain Elevator Facilities. Part I: Planning, Structural, and Life Safety
Considerations. ASAE Paper No. 044143. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE.
Wood, J.G.M. 1971. The properties of ensiled crops and why we have to design them. Proc.
Int. Silage and Research Conference, National Silo Association, Waterloo, Iowa.
Zhao, Q. and J.C. Jofriet. 1992a. Structural loads on bunker silo walls: numerical study. J.
Agric. Eng. Res., 51:1-13.

27
Zhao, Q. and J.C. Jofriet. 1992b. Wall loads on bunker silos due to compactions. Can. Agric.
Eng. 34(1):83-94.