Ph.D.

Thesis

PRODUCTION OF BIODEGRADABLE BOARD AND ITS

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES USING CORN STRAW
(トウモロコシ藁を用いた生分解可能なバイオボードの作
製及びその強度)

Graduate School of Bioresources,

Mie University

Tingting WU

March, 2015
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. I

PREFACE ……………………………………………………………………...…...III
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... V

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................... VII

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background and significance of this study ............................................................. 1
1.2 Definition of biomass material ................................................................................ 2
1.3 Utilization of biomass material in the world ........................................................... 3
1.4 World utilization of corn and corn straw ................................................................. 6
1.5 Conventional paper pulp processing ..................................................................... 11
1.6 Purpose and content of this study .......................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 2. BIO-BOARD MAKING PROCESS ................................................... 13

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Basic principle for fiber bonding .......................................................................... 13
2.3 Preparation for experimental material ................................................................... 14
2.4 Board making process ........................................................................................... 15
2.5 Strength test ........................................................................................................... 16
2.6 Measurement of moisture content ......................................................................... 17
2.7 Results and discussions ......................................................................................... 18
2.8 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 24

CHAPTER 3. EFFECT OF PRESSURES ON THE STRENGTH OF BIO-BOARD

................................................................................................................ 26
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 26
3.2 Materials and methods .......................................................................................... 26
3.3 Results and discussion ........................................................................................... 33
3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 43

CHAPTER 4. RELATION BETWEEN REFINING DEGREE IN GRINDING

PROCESS AND SIZE OF FIBER ....................................................... 45
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 45
4.2 Materials and methods .......................................................................................... 45
4.3 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 48
4.4 Results ................................................................................................................... 50

－I－
 4.5 A experiment for effect of refining degree on the strength of bio-board .............. 51
4.6 Materials and methods .......................................................................................... 51
4.7 Results and discussion ........................................................................................... 56
4.8 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 70

CHAPTER 5. STRENGTH COMPARISON FOR CORN STRAW BIO-BOARD

AND OTHER MATERIALS ............................................................... 72
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 72
5.2 Materials and methods .......................................................................................... 73
5.3 Results and discussions ......................................................................................... 74
5.4 Strength comparison with wheat straw bio-board ................................................. 78
5.5 Materials and methods .......................................................................................... 79
5.6 Results and discussion ........................................................................................... 81
5.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 86

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. 87

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 88

－II－
 PREFACE
In order to keep the balance of carbon cycling and make the sustainable
development of recycling economy adequately, the low-carbon globalization has been
an objective tendency in recent years. One destination of this low-carbon action is to
fully utilize the existing biomass resource to produce a new friendly environmental
material called bio-board. Furthermore, products made by biomass materials will not
bring any environment pollutions after they were used. Bio-boards are also
decomposed by microorganism then changed into nutrient substance for vegetative
growth.
In this study, corn straw as one of the representative agricultural residues, is mainly
used as an experimental raw material. Firstly the background of world utilizations of
corn and corn straw is introduced in chapter 1. Basic knowledge of biomass including
cellulosic plants was mentioned. Also, other researches which were about biomass
material for the past few years were cited and used for reference.
Then, in chapter 2 it is going to develop and optimize the bio-board process to make
a bio-board. In board production experiment, two experimental conditions were
applied for making two different bio-boards. After the investigation of board making
process, bending test and tension strength test were conducted for the purpose of
surveying the rupture stress of bio-boards.
The results indicate that under all experimental conditions, making boards using raw
materials of corn straws was successful and the board making processes in this
research were feasible. The rupture stress of bio-board A is in range of 6.23MPa ~
10.84MPa and the rupture stress of bio-board B is in range of 12.90MPa ~ 16.95MPa.
The average of rupture stress of bio-board B is 14.36MPa and 1.6 times greater
compared with that of bio-board A 8.54MPa.
For chapter 2 indicated that the pressures in compressing process and the refining
degree of a grinder in grinding process for board making might affect the strength of
bio-board, As a result, the two important factors were investigated in Chapter 3 and
chapter 4 respectively. Five stages pressures of 2MPa, 4MPa, 6MPa, 8MPa, 10MPa
－III－
were applied to make boards. Besides, in chapter 5 bio-boards LFB (long fiber board)
and SFB (short fiber board) with two different lengths of fibers were prepared. After
bending and tension strength tests were performed, rupture stress, modulus of elasticity
and static toughness data of bio-board were obtained. The rupture stress varied in the
range of 21.25MPa ~ 30.78MPa in the bending test. On the other hand, the range of
rupture stress of 4.49MPa ~ 15.15MPa appeared in the tensile strength tests. Rupture
stress of bio-boards implied that rupture stress of five bio-boards were different,
however, the strength of bio-board was affected slightly by pressures. The average
range of Young’s modulus of bio-board is 1.4GPa~1.8GPa. Static toughness is larger as
pressure becomes higher. With 10MPa pressure bio-board has maximum static
toughness 85J. For the investigation of refining degree, the results showed that the
average of rupture stress varied in the range of 34.52MPa ~ 39.67MPa for LFB. On the
other hand, rupture stress range of 37.9MPa ~ 41.25MPa appeared in SFB in bending
test. In tensile strength, rupture stress varied in the range of 16.14MPa ~ 23.82MPa for
LFB. On the other hand, rupture stress range of 20.69MPa ~ 27.41MPa appeared in
SFB. The rupture stress of LFB and SFB resulted that generally rupture stress of SFB
is greater than the one of LFB. Short fiber had more influence than longer fiber the
strength of bio-board.
Finally, the comparison between corn straw bio-board and wheat straw in chapter 6
and the comparison with other chemical compound materials were studied and
discussed. Strength test was considered as one of the main investigated methods to
compare the mechanical properties of corn straw bio-board and other materials.
Basic mechanical properties of bio-board were investigated and the results proved
that bio-board could be created for use a packaging material, for heat insulation in
architecture, and as a mulch film for agricultural purposes.

－IV－
 LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1-1 Comparison of biomass and fossil system on Carbon cycling .................... 2
Fig. 1-2 Kenaf board Manufacturing Process. .......................................................... 4
Fig. 1-3 Scanning electron micrographs of cut surfaces of MDF made from the
three fiber types. ............................................................................................... 5
Fig. 1-4 Structure of maize ....................................................................................... 6
Fig. 1-5 World leading countries in maize production in 2006. ............................... 7
Fig. 1-6 World harvested area and yield of maize in 2006 ....................................... 8
Fig. 1-7 Chemical structures of major biomass components .................................... 9
Fig. 2-1 Process of hydrogen bonding between cellulose chains ........................... 14
Fig. 2-2 Flowchart of process for bio-board production ......................................... 16
Fig. 2-3 Tensile test setup for bio-board. ................................................................ 17
Fig. 2-4 Appearance of bio-board A and B 1(left: board A, right: board B, bottom:
section part)..................................................................................................... 18
Fig. 2-5 Specimens before tensile strength test ...................................................... 19
Fig. 2-6 Specimens after tensile strength test ......................................................... 19
Fig. 2-7 Tensile stress-strain curve of board A ....................................................... 20
Fig. 2-8 Tensile stress-strain curve of board B ....................................................... 20
Fig. 2-9 Tensile rupture stress of bio-board A ........................................................ 21
Fig. 2-10 Tensile rupture stress of bio-board B ...................................................... 22
Fig. 2-11 Moisture contents of bio-board A and B in wet base. ............................. 24
Fig. 2-12 Moisture contents of bio-board A and B in day base. ............................. 24
Fig. 3-1 present situation of sweet corn cultivation in this research ....................... 27
Fig. 3-2 Flow chart of Bio-board making process .................................................. 27
Fig. 3-3 An atmospheric refiner and the detail blades ............................................ 28
Fig. 3-4 Three-point-bending test machine ............................................................. 30
Fig. 3-5 Universal testing machine for tensile test ................................................. 31
Fig. 3-6 Dimension of specimen for tensile strength tests ...................................... 32
Fig. 3-7 Appearance of bio-board ........................................................................... 33
Fig. 3-8 Density of bio-boards ................................................................................ 34
Fig. 3-9 An electron micrograph of bio-board. ....................................................... 34
Fig. 3-10 Stress of bio-board A1 ............................................................................. 35
Fig. 3-11 Stress of bio-board B1 ............................................................................. 36
Fig. 3-12 Stress of bio-board C1 ............................................................................. 36
Fig. 3-13 Stress of bio-board D1 ............................................................................ 37
Fig. 3-14 Stress of bio-board E1 ............................................................................. 37
Fig. 3-15 Rupture stress of five provided Bio-board for bending test. ................... 38

－V－
Fig. 3-16 Stress-strain curve of bio-board A2......................................................... 39
Fig. 3-17 Stress-strain curve of bio-board B2......................................................... 39
Fig. 3-18 Stress-strain curve of bio-board C2......................................................... 40
Fig. 3-19 Stress-strain curve of bio-board D2 ........................................................ 40
Fig. 3-20 Stress-strain curve of bio-board E2 ......................................................... 41
Fig. 3-21 Rupture stress of five provided Bio-board for tensile test ...................... 41
Fig. 4-1 Corn straw pulp ......................................................................................... 46
Fig. 4-2 Digital microscope .................................................................................... 47
Fig. 4-3 Image of refined corn straw fibers ............................................................ 48
Fig. 4-4 Image of a single refined corn straw fiber ................................................ 49
Fig. 4-5 Fiber length measurement ......................................................................... 49
Fig. 4-6 fiber* distribution after grinding process .................................................. 50
Fig. 4-7 flow chart of board making process .......................................................... 52
Fig. 4-8 Types of screens ........................................................................................ 53
Fig. 4-9 Flow chart of fiber collection .................................................................... 53
Fig. 4-10 Specimen division and a supersonic wave cutter. ................................... 55
Fig. 4-11 Photos of LF bio-board (a: surface, b: bottom, c: section) ...................... 56
Fig. 4-12 Photos of SF bio-board (a: surface, b: bottom, c: section) ...................... 57
Fig. 4-13 Density of LFB ........................................................................................ 58
Fig. 4-14 Density of SFB ........................................................................................ 58
Fig. 4-15 stress-deflection of bio-board in bending test ......................................... 64
Fig. 4-16 Rupture stres of bio-board ....................................................................... 65
Fig. 4-17 comparison of stress-strain curve for LEB and SFB in tensile strength
test ................................................................................................................... 68
Fig. 4-18 Rupture stress of LFB in tensile test ....................................................... 69
Fig. 4-19 Rupture stress of SFB in tensile test ....................................................... 69
Fig. 5-1 Stress-deformation curve of CW in bending test. ..................................... 74
Fig. 5-2 Stress-deformation curve of PT in bending test. ....................................... 75
Fig. 5-3 Stress-deformation curve of PB in bending test. ....................................... 75
Fig. 5-4 Stress-deformation curve of CC in bending test. ...................................... 76
Fig. 5-5 Fractured appearance of four specimen samples ...................................... 77
Fig. 5-6 Maximum stress of four simples. .............................................................. 78
Fig. 5-7 flow chart of board making process .......................................................... 79
Fig. 5-8 Wheat straw bio-board ........................................................................... 82
Fig. 5-9 Stress-deformation curve of A1 WS bio-board in bending test ................ 83
Fig. 5-10 Stress-deformation curve of B1 WS bio-board in bending test .............. 83
Fig. 5-11 Stress-strain curve of A2 WS bio-board in tensile strength test .............. 84
Fig. 5-12 Stress-strain curve of B2 WS bio-board in tensile strength test .............. 85
Fig. 5-13 Rupture stress comparison for WS and CS ............................................. 85
－VI－
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Biomass and other energy sources: production and consumption in the
world ................................................................................................................. 3
Table 1-2 Composition of potential lignocellulosic biomass resources.................. 10
Table 1-3 Changes in composition of corn stalk and leaf with crop maturity ........ 10
Table 2-1 Board production conditions .................................................................. 15
Table 3-1 Condition of Bio-board production ........................................................ 29
Table 3-2 Average rupture stress of bio-board ........................................................ 42
Table 3-3 Young’s modulus of bio-boards .............................................................. 43
Table 3-4 Static toughness of bio-board ................................................................. 43
Table 4-1 Experimental condition for fiber collection ............................................ 47
Table 4-2 Board making experimental conditions .................................................. 54
Table 4-3 Average of rupture stress from LFB and SFB in bending test ................ 66
Table 4-4 Rupture stress of LEB and SFB in tensile strength test ....................... 68
Table 4-5 Average of Young’s modulus in stensile strength test ............................. 70
Table 4-6 Static toughness in stensile strength test ................................................. 70
Table 5-1 dimension and density of four samples .................................................. 73
Table 5-2 Experimental condition for making wheat straw bio-board ................... 80

－VII－
 Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Background and significance of this study

Barthes (1957) called polyethylene plastics a miraculous substance, however, it has

been regarded as the worst invention of 20th century by scientists (Dan Fletcher, 2010).
Plastic brings human many conveniences and can be used in a near infinite number of
ways (2013). In contrast, it threatens the environment as it is generally refined from
fossil oil. According to an investigation from Biomass Energy Centre (2010), because
of plastic’s low cost, people use it without considering the effects. Efforts have been
made to reduce its environmental impacts by shifting to the idea of sustainable
development, but much more effort needs to be made (Jose, 2002).
Moreover, excessive consumption of fossil resources particularly in large urban
areas has resulted high levels of pollution during the last few decades. To realize
carbon dioxide reduction targets as specified in the Kyoto Protocol as well as to
decrease reliance and dependence on the supply of fossil resources (Nibedita, 2012),
countries across the world have considered and directed state policies towards the
effective utilization of biomass for meeting their future energy demands. Therefore,
research into a new substitute for fossil-derived materials is under consideration by
scientists and other experts (Jorgelina, 2006).
The only other naturally-occurring, energy-containing carbon resource known that
is large enough to be used as a substitute for fossil fuels is biomass. Biomass is all
non-fossil organic materials that have intrinsic chemical energy content. In this study,
environmental-friendly material is going to be developed using biomass resources. It
means that many natural plant fibers can be universally utilized, then plant fibers return
to organic manure after it is used to bury in soil. Biomass material utilization is
significant for future life because when fossil resource is died out, many fossil products
could continue alive in human life. Furthermore, processing biomass material as raw
material with all the experimental processes does not bring any environmental burden,
because one of chemical adhesive are used in the experimental process, which is

－1－
special and unique characteristic from other similar biomass material researches (Itou,
2011). This research also investigates biomass material’s mechanical properties in
order to supply for different fields.

1.2 Definition of biomass material

Biomass is biological material derived from living, or recently living organisms. It

most often refers to plants or plant-based materials, which are specifically called
lignocellulosic biomass (2012). Biomass includes plant or animal matter that can be
converted into fibers or other industrial chemicals, including biofuels. Industrial
biomass can be grown from numerous types of plants, including miscanthus,
switchgrass(Brechbill, 2008), hemp, corn, poplar, willow, sorghum, sugarcane,
bamboo (Volk, 2000) and a variety of tree species, ranging from eucalyptus to oil palm
(palm oil). In the context of biomass for energy this is often used to mean both plant
and animal derived material. Within that definition from the Japanese Society of Plant
Physiologists, there are five basic categories of material: agricultural residues, virgin
wood, energy crops, food waste, and finally industrial waste and co-products such as
broken up pallets and textiles.
Biomass resource can be utilized substantially in endless number of times, on the
basic rail of carbon circulation by photosynthetic process. On the other hand, a fossil
resource is limited to a transitory use in principle. Additionally the traversal emission
of CO2 caused by fossil combustion gives influence on global climate (Fig.1-1).
R=resource (Yokoyama, 2008).

plant
[Biomass R.] (use) CO2(・・ Atmospheric CO2)

[Fossil R.] (use) CO2(・・ Atmospheric CO2) CO2 accumulation/air

Fig. 1-1 Comparison of biomass and fossil system on Carbon cycling

－2－
1.3 Utilization of biomass material in the world

The world’s energy markets rely heavily on the fossil fuels coal, petroleum crude oil,
and natural gas as sources of energy, fuels, and chemicals. Since millions of years are
required to form fossil fuels in the earth, their reserves are finite and subject to
depletion as they are consumed. The only other naturally-occurring, energy-containing
carbon resource known that is large enough to be used as a substitute for fossil fuels is
biomass. Biomass is all non-fossil organic materials that have intrinsic chemical
energy content. Thus, as an important renewable raw material, biomass has become the
focus of public attention.

Table 1-1 Biomass and other energy sources: production and consumption in the world

1998 percent
production Of total
quad btu production 1998 consumption

oil 152.0 40.0% 73.60 million barrels/day

Natural gas 85.5 22.5% 82.20 tcf/year
Coal 88.6 23.3% 5.01 billion tons/year
Nuclear 24.5 6.5% 2.30 trillion kWh/year
Hydroelectric 26.6 7.0% 2.60 trillion kWh/year
Biomass (other) 2.5 0.7% 196.00 billion kWh/year
Total 397.7 100%
Source: EIA, 1998
World production of biomass is estimated at 146 billion metric tons a year, mostly
wild plant growth (Cuff and Young, 1980). Biomass fuel is a renewable energy source
and its importance will increase as national energy policy and strategy focuses more
heavily on renewable sources and conservation. Biomass power plants have
advantages over fossil-fuel plants because their pollution emissions are less. Biomass
production and consumption in the world is given Table 1-1.(Mustafa Balat, 2005)

－3－
1.3.1 Asian area
Panasonic Malaysia developed an environmentally friendly material system for
manufacturing kenaf ( Hibiscus cannabinus) particle board. The process decreased
pollution, thus conserving Malaysia&s rich coral reef ecosystem. The technique for
manufacturing kenaf board was originally developed in cooperation with Kyoto
University using kenaf grown in China. In 2005, Panasonic succeed in developing a
process for growing kenaf in Malaysia that was suitable for manufacturing high quality
kenaf particle board. This process produces 30% waste, but the fiber is burned to
provide electric power for the manufacturing plant and the ash is returned to fields to
fertilize kenaf. The process of kenaf board manufacture is shown in figure 1-2
(Fujiwara, 2010).

Particle Formation
Process
Wood Particle Size
Waste Reduction Drying

Oversized Screening
Refinering Particles

Storage Storage
(Surface (Core) Adhesive
Manufacturing
)
Process
Glue Glue
Blending Blending
(Surface) (Core)

Top Forming Forming Bottom Forming

Hot Pressing
Curin
g
Sanding

Sawing Inspecting

Fig. 1-2 Kenaf board Manufacturing Process.

－4－
1.3.2 The American continent
Forest by-products, such as wood residues, are common in the United States
(Shahab, 2001). The forest products industry in North American traditionally uses
sawmill residues and small round logs as raw materials to manufacture fiberboard.
However, growing concern about the environment has led to changes of forest
management practices, resulting in significant reduction in wood harvest from our
national forests in the midst of growing demands. Increasing import of timber and fiber
supply is only a temporary solution. That is why it is a clear potential for the use of
agricultural fiber in manufacturing what have traditionally been wood based products
(Bowyer,1995; Clancy-Hepturn, 1998).

Fig. 1-3 Scanning electron micrographs of cut surfaces of MDF made from
the three fiber types.

It has been estimated that 400 million dry tons of crop residues are annually
produced in the United States (DOE, 2003). Since 1995, there has been a proliferation
of new manufacturing facilities in Canada and US to produce composite panels from
agricultural [Link] of these manufacturing plants produce particleboard from
wheat straw.
In 2007, X. Philip Ye (2007) and his partners had studied a medium density

－5－
fiberboards made from wheat and soybean straw. The MDF properties modulus of
elasticity, modulus of rupture, internal bond strength, thickness swell, and screw
holding capacity were evaluated. The Scanning electron micrographs of cut surfaces of
MDF made from the three fiber types were shown in figure 1-3.

1.4 World utilization of corn and corn straw

Maize as a kind of herbaceous biomass is used all over the world. Conversion forms
include physical conversion thermochemical conversion.
1.4.1 Structure and physiology
The maize plant is often 2.5 m (meters) (8 ft) in height, though some natural strains
can grow 12 m (40 ft) (Karl 2013). The stem has the appearance of a bamboo cane and
is commonly composed of 20 internodes of 18 cm (7 in) length. (Stevenson, 1972)
(Wellhausen, 1952) A leaf grows from each node, which is generally 9 cm (3.5 in) in
width and 120 cm (4 ft) in length, as fig.1-4 shows structure of maize, Ears develop
above a few of the leaves in the midsection of the plant, between the stem and leaf
sheath, elongating by 3 mm/day. They are female inflorescences, tightly enveloped by
several layers of ear leaves commonly called husks. Certain varieties of maize have
been bred to produce many additional developed ears. These are the source of the
"baby corn" used as a vegetable in Asian cuisine.

Fig. 1-4 Structure of maize

－6－
 The apex of the stem ends in the tassel, an inflorescence of male flowers. When the
tassel is mature and conditions are suitably warm and dry, anthers on the tassel dehisce
and release pollen. Maize pollen is anemophilous (dispersed by wind), and because of
its large settling velocity, most pollen falls within a few meters of the tassel.
Elongated stigmas, called silks, emerge from the whorl of husk leaves at the end of
the ear. They are often pale yellow and 7 in (178 mm) in length, like tufts of hair in
appearance. At the end of each is a carpel, which may develop into a "kernel" if
fertilized by a pollen grain. The pericarp of the fruit is fused with the seed coat referred
to as "caryopsis", typical of the grasses, and the entire kernel is often referred to as the
"seed". The cob is close to a multiple fruit in structure, except that the individual fruits
(the kernels) never fuse into a single mass. The grains are about the size of peas, and
adhere in regular rows around a white, pithy substance, which forms the ear (maximum
size of kernel in subspecies is reputedly 2.5 cm/1 in ( Grobman, Alexander (1961).).
An ear commonly holds 600 kernels. Young ears can be consumed raw, with the cob
and silk, but as the plant matures (usually during the summer months), the cob
becomes tougher and the silk dries to inedibility. By the end of the growing season, the
kernels dry out and become difficult to chew without cooking them tender first in
boiling water.
1.4.2 Production situation of corn in the world
Even though corn or maize is not one of the most economic crops in Thailand, there
has been an increasing utilization of corn cob in Power generation and solid fuel in
order to achieve zero-waste philosophy in corn processing industry.

USA.
Brazil
7.8%
USA China Brazil
China.2
Mexico India Argentina
5.5%
France Indonesia Italy
Canada Thailand

Fig. 1-5 World leading countries in maize production in 2006.

－7－
 The figure 1-5 and figure 1-6 above shows the 2006 production of maize around the
world, where USA is accounted for almost half of the world production and also with
the highest yield in the world. Although China has a similar amount of land for maize
plantation to USA, the lower yield in China makes its production only half of the USA
figure.

Fig. 1-6 World harvested area and yield of maize in 2006

1.4.3 Composition of lignocellulosic biomass

Lignocellulosic biomass is composed primarily of carbohydrate polymers (cellulose
and hemicellulose) and phenolic polymers (lignin). Lower concentrations of various
other compounds, such as proteins, acids, salts, and minerals, are also present.
(a) Cellulose
(30–50% of total feedstock dry matter) is a glucose polymer linked by ß–1,4
glycosidic bonds. The basic building block of this linear polymer is cellubiose, a
glucose-glucose dimer (dimer: two simpler molecules—monomers—combined to form
a polymer). Hydrolysis of cellulose results in individual glucose monomers. This
process is also known as saccharification.
(b) Hemicellulose
(20–40% of total feedstock dry matter) is a short, highly branched polymer of
five-carbon (C5) and six-carbon (C6) sugars. Specifically, hemicellulose contains
xylose and arabinose (C5 sugars) and galactose, glucose, and mannose (C6 sugars).
－8－
Hemicellulose is more readily hydrolyzed compared to cellulose because of its
branched, amorphous nature. A major product of hemicellulose hydrolysis is the C5
sugar xylose. Figure 1-7-c shows the structural formula of xylan. Other hemicelluloses
include glucomannan, but all hemicelluloses vary in amounts depending on tree
species and the part of the plant.
(b) Lignin
(15–25% of total feedstock dry matter), a polyphenolic structural constituent of
plants, is the largest non-carbohydrate fraction of lignocellulose. Unlike cellulose and
hemicellulose, lignin cannot be utilized in fermentation processes.
It is a compound whose constituent units, phenylpropane and its derivatives, are
bonded 3-dimensionally. Its structure is complex and not yet fully understood. Figure
1-7-d shows a constituent unit. Its complex 3-dimensional structure is decomposed
with difficulty by microorganisms and chemicals, and its function is therefore thought
to be conferring mechanical strength and protection. Cellulose, hemicellulose, and
lignin are universally found in many kinds of biomass, which are the most plentiful
natural carbon resources on the earth.

Fig. 1-7 Chemical structures of major biomass components

Agriculture-derived biomass, specifically crop residues from corn and small grains
and dedicated perennial grasses such as switchgrass, are emphasized in this report.
Table 1-2 lists general characteristics of these and other potential biomass resources
(Pordesimo, 2005).

－9－
 Table 1-2 Composition of potential lignocellulosic biomass resources

Unit: % of dry matter

cellulose Hemi lignin Acid Crude Ash

-cellulose detergent protein
lignin
Crop residues
Corn stover 38 26 19 4 5 6
Wheat straw 38 29 15 9 4 6
Soybean 33 14 - 14 5 6
Rye straw 31 25 - 3 3 6
Barley straw 42 28 - 7 7 11

In corn, soluble solids rapidly decrease and lignin and xylan increase shortly after
grain physiological maturity Table 1-3 (Pordesimo, L.O. 2005)

Table 1-3 Changes in composition of corn straw and leaf with crop maturity

Unit: % of dry matter

Physiological Post physiological
Corn stalk Late dent (110d*) maturity(153d) maturity (220d)

Structural glucan 35 35 35
Xylan 16 22 23
Lignin 15 20 19
Protein 3 4 4
Soluble solids 15 4 4

Corn leaf 18 23 32
Structural glucan 2 17 22
Xylan 4 13 16
Lignin 8 8 4
Protein 35 8 6
Source: Pordesimo, L.O. 2005
*Days after planting

－10－
1.5 Conventional paper pulp processing

The modem manufacture of paper evolved from an ancient art first developed in
China, ca. 105 A.D. Although the modem product differs considerably from its
ancestral materials, papermaking retains distinct similarities to the processes developed
by Ts’ai Lun in the Imperial Chinese Court. ’ In principle, paper is made by: 1) pulping,
to separate and clean the fibers; 2) beating and refining the fibers; 3) diluting. to form a
thin fiber slurry, suspended in solution; 4) forming a web of fibers on a thin screen; 5)
pressing the web to increase the density of the material; 6) drying to remove the
remaining moisture; and 7) finishing, to provide a suitable surface for the intended end
use.
All integrated pulp and paper mills involve the same general steps in the
manufacture of pulp and paper. These steps include: 1 ) raw material preparation (e.g.,
debarking and chipping); 2) me- chanical and/or chemical separation of the wood
fibers [i.e., grinding, refining, or digestion (cook- ing)] to dissolve the lignin and
extractives; 3) removal of coloring agents (primarily residual lig- nin) by bleaching;
and 4) paper formation and manufacture.
In this research, bio-board making processes are similar to that of papermaking
process, because agricultural fiber is similar to wood fiber in composition and function.
Cellulose and hemicellulose existing in agri-fibers plays an important role in
fiber-to-fiber bonding in board making process. This point become a significance
guiding principle

1.6 Purpose and content of this study

The main purpose of the present study deals with the manufacturing process for a
green biomass board using corn straw (stem and leaves). The unique different process
from other fiberboard is that any addition of binder was used in fiber bonding process.
Hydrogen bonding connection is considered as the basic board making principle. The
factor of pressures, length of fibers, pressing temperature in forming process on the
strength of biomass board are investigated and discussed.

－11－
 Mechanical properties such as density, bending strength, bending rupture stress,
tensile strength, tensile rupture stress, modulus of elasticity, wet basic moisture content
in bio-board are also studied after board making experiment.

－12－
 Chapter 2. Bio-board Making Process

2.1 Introduction

Although traditional methods are available for corn straw utilization such as animal
feed, fuel for cooking, and house-heating. Presently, corn straw as one of the biomass
resources is utilized in bioenergy field universally. However, for rural families more
than 50 percent of corn straw remains and most of them are still burnt in the field. This
kind of disposal method has caused environment concerns as it lead to air pollution and
has a bad influence on taking off and landing of airplane. Therefore, effective
technologies for corn straw disposal and utilization need to be developed.
In general, this research consists of two parts that develop processes for making a
bio-board using corn straw and some standard strength tests applied to investigate the
material properties in next part. Processes for making board is still under studied by
applying different experimental conditions. In strength test, materials properties
including tensile strength and tensile strength rupture stress are investigated.

2.2 Basic principle for fiber bonding

Corn stover-to-grain ratios are about 1:1 on a dry matter basis, and corn stover is
about 38% cellulose, 26% hemicellulose, and 19% lignin. Wheat straw yields, dry
matter basis, are about 1.3–1.4 lb straw per 1 lb grain. Wheat straw is about 38%
cellulose, 29% hemicellulose, and 15% lignin. Cellulose is a polymeric sugar
(polysaccharide) made up of repeating 1,4-ß-an hydroglucose units connected to each
other by 8-ether linkages. The long 1inear chains of cellulose permit the hydroxyl
functional groups on each anhydroglucose unit to interact with hydroxyl groups on
adjacent chains through hydrogen bonding and van der Waals forces according to
DoKyoung Lee (2007).
The basic principle of board producing experiment in this study is that take
advantage of the hydrogen bonding between cellulose chains and hydrogen molecules
showed in Figure 2.2.1. Cellulose is hydrophilic and insoluble in water with the

－13－
properties of highly resilient and impact resistant. Likewise, Hemicellulose can be used
in material for its function of resistant deforming and highly adhesive. To strengthen
the material, it dehydrates through pressurization and heating treatment of cellulose
and re-establishment connection between caudal ends of cellulose chain. The major
components of lignocellulosic wastes are cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin in varying
quantities. Therefore main components help producing bio-board effectively by using a
physical hot-pressing method.

Hydrone
bonding

Fiber recombined

Fig. 2-1 Process of hydrogen bonding between cellulose chains

2.3 Preparation for experimental material

Normal corn cultivar were collected from the farm in Mie University and died in a
well-ventilated building at room temperature for about 1 month (Richey, 1982). Corn
straw (cookies and leaves) was only selected for board making Conditions
For pretreatment process, long corn straws were cut into small chips when they
were in a dry state and ground by an electric mixer for about 5minutes. Straw fibers
would be separated in accordance with the length of corn fiber is about 0.5-1.5mm
(Yang, 2001). Second, water was added to the refined corn straw and they were soaked

－14－
in a calorstat for 72h at 35℃;
Table 2-1 presents the different conditions for producing bio-board in this study.
Pretreatment temperature is 70℃ using a calorstat and an ambient temperature of
20℃ was used during the experiment. The hot-presser can supply maximum pressure
of 11MPa, and therefore, a distinct difference is designed to determine between
compression pressures and drying pressures using 4MPa and 7MPa for each board
production.

Table 2-1 Board production conditions

Board Soaking compressing Drying Pressing Drying

number temperature pressure pressure Temperature[℃] Temperature[℃]
[℃] [MPa] [MPa]

No.A 70 4 4 100 110

No.B 20 7 7 100 110

2.4 Board making process

Figure 2-2 shows the flowchart of process for bio-board production. After
maceration they were transferred to an electric stone mill where they were ground with
water-filled. During this process, more active hydroxy groups of cellulose chain would
be exposed and as corn straw were de-fibrated in which micromolecule were made into
microfibers for a foundation of physical adsorption. It was good for separated fibers to
recombine with each other in compression process. The cubic compression mold was
made with specific dimensions of 100mm x 100mm x 25mm and some accessory
include a metal block, a steel plate and two meshes in the compression process. For the
purpose of evaporation where there is an array of 7x7 mm punched holes with 2mm in
diameter in cubic mold, metal block and the plate.

－15－
Corn straw chips Refined in a stone mill Compressionmold
Compression mold

Tension specimen Corn straw bio-board Hot-presser

Fig.2.4.1
Fig. 2-2 Flowchart of process for bio-board production

2.5 Strength test

Specimens for tensile test were taken from Board A, Board B and polyethylene
plastic tray using for food container. Each specimen was cut to an equal
length-to-width ratio (5:1) to set in the cradle of the tension apparatus with special end
grips owing to the delicate nature of biomass material and the smooth surface. The
grips consisted of inner sand paper that attached to the surface of the specimen,
providing extra frictional force as the jaws were tightened. Each specimen was
clamped within the jaws of the load frame and pulled at a uniform rate of 10mm/sec.
Separate sensor was fixed to the motor which provided power to the extensometer that
was used to measure accurately the strain resulting from the tension loading. Figure
2-3 is a picture showing the tension test setup.
Data were logged by an Amplifier and A/D convert. Calculations for the rupture
stress required measuring the physical parameters of the specimen (i.e., cross-sectional
area). Because it was a kind of cellulosic material, the surface of specimen is not as

－16－
well as metal. The thickness and width were determined 5 times finally using the
average value to calculate cross-sectional area. The rupture stress is given by Eq. 2.1:

P

A (2.1)
in which,  is the normal stress; P is the tensile load and A is the cross-sectional
area.

Fig. 2-3 Tensile test setup for bio-board.

2.6 Measurement of moisture content

The moisture content of biomass board in our experiment is an important physical

parameter of bio-based materials. In this study the moisture content of each specimen
was measured after the tensile test subsequently. The tested pieces were dried in a an
oven set at 105℃ for 24h. The moisture content measurement is in accordance with
wet base and dry base given by Eq.2.2 and Eq.2.3,
Mb  Ma
MC (W .B)  (2.2)
Ma

Mb  Ma
MC ( D.B)  (2.3)
Ma

－17－
 In which Ma is the masses of specimen after drying (g), Mb is the natural masses of
specimen before drying (g). W.B is moisture content measured under a wet benchmark
and D.B is moisture content measured under a dry benchmark. In order to measure the
moisture content of pieces which were in a tension state, finished specimen was put in
a hermetic aluminium vessel immediately after taken from the cradle of tension
apparatus.

2.7 Results and discussions

2.7.1 Board making
Bio-board was produced with different soaking temperatures, compressing
pressures, drying pressures after refining, de-fibrating, compressing and drying
processes. As figure 2-4 shows it is successful to make Board A and Board B using the
experimental conditions and processes developed in this research. Some distributed
fibers could be seen obviously on the surface of bio-board. However it was smooth as
the metal mashed was used to prevent from being stick to the mold. After measured the
volume size and checked the weight, the specific gravities were calculated for
0.857g/cm3 ~1.014 g/cm3. Thus, the average could be 0.929 g/cm3.

Fig. 2-4 Appearance of bio-board A and B 1(left: board A, right: board B, bottom: section part)

－18－
2.7.2 Strength test
Specimens before strength test were shown in figure 2-5 They were numbered and
displayed for the dimension of specimen was measured. After tensile strength test,
specimens failed. The photo in figure 2-6 shows the broken specimens image. It can be
seen from the broken specimen that fracture point of each specimen appeared in
different position of specimen. In addition, corn straw fiber which is clearly observed
on the edge of fracture point.

Fig. 2-5 Specimens before tensile strength test

Fig. 2-6 Specimens after tensile strength test

Figure 2-7 shows the tensile stress-strain curve of six specimens cut from board A.
In the strength test, bio-board specimen is pulled and deformed, stress increased with
the increase of strain for all the specimens. This process refers to be similar with elastic
deformation of metal. All of specimens show similar behavior. When the specimen is
－19－
fractured, the stress reached the maximum value then decreased sharply, in the end
stress varied to zero.

Fig. 2-7 Tensile stress-strain curve of board A

Fig. 2-8 Tensile stress-strain curve of board B

The stress-strain curve of each specimen has unique characteristics and shows a
different maximum stress. These changes are considered that arrangement of natural
fibers and the density of corn straw are different. Recombination of corn straw fibers is
also different at different areas in one bio-board.
In the case of the other condition, bio-board was produced and the stress-strain

－20－
curve is shown in figure 2-8. As well as bio-board A, the stress of 6 specimens
increased with the increase of strain. However, the inclination of stress-strain curve for
each specimen shows slight difference. When the specimen is fractured, the stress
reached the maximum value then decreased sharply, in the end stress varied to zero.
The stress-strain curve of each specimen shows a different maximum stress. The
difference of maximum stress for each specimen is attributed to the combination of
natural fibers and the density of corn straw at different areas in one bio-board.
Rupture stress of bio-board B is greater than that of bio-board A. The maximum
pressure in the forming process of bio-board B was 7MPa, it is higher than 4MPa
applied in bio-board A. This result indicated that maximum pressure applied in the
forming process effects the stress of bio-board significantly. Therefore, the pressure
applied on bio-board in forming process is important for the stress of bio-board
produced.

18
16
ruptress stress(MPa)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
number of test piece

Fig. 2-9 Tensile rupture stress of bio-board A

Tensile rupture stress of each specimen cut from Bio-board A is presented in figure
2-9. The rupture stress of 6 specimens are different, minimum rupture stress is
6.23MPa and maximum rupture stress is 10.84MPa. Rupture stress varied in the range
of 6.23MPa ~ 10.84MPa. The average of rupture stress for 6 specimens is 8.54MPa.

－21－
The 6 specimens were produced under the same producing condition, because they
were cut off from bio-board A. However, the rupture stress of 6 specimens shows
different values. The reason can be considered that the combination of natural fibers
and the density of corn straw at different areas in one Bio-board are different.
Figure 2-10 shows the rupture stress of bio-board B. The 6 specimens cut off from
bio-board B but their rupture stresses are different. The minimum rupture stress is
12.90MPa and maximum rupture stress is 16.95MPa. The rupture stress varied in the
range of 12.90MPa ~ 16.95MPa. The average of rupture stress for 6 specimens is
14.36MPa. As the same as bio-board A, the difference of rupture stress for6 specimens
was affected by the different combination of natural fibers and the density of corn
straw at different areas in one Bio-board.

18
16
rupture stress (MPa)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
number of test piece

Fig. 2-10 Tensile rupture stress of bio-board B

From the strength test result of two Bio-boards, the rupture stress of bio-board B is
greater than that of bio-board A. The average of rupture stress of bio-board B with
14.36MPa is 1.6 times greater compared with that of bio-board A. bio-board B was
produced under a condition of compressing and drying pressure 7MPa, which is higher
than 4MPa applied in bio-board A production. It can be indicated that pressure of
compressing and drying process influence the strength of bio-board directly. As

－22－
bio-board is a kind of biologic materials, by their very nature, are complex composite
structures whose components are intimately connected. Thus, pressure is a stimulus to
connection of corn straw fibers.
In case of polyethylene plastic using for food container, was tested by tensile test.
The rupture stress of polyethylene plastic is 0.72MPa. It can be indicated that strengths
of bio-board were 8~23 times greater as compared with the polystyrene plastic.
Bio-board produced in this experiment can be applied to food container in the way of
strength.

2.7.3 Moisture content

Results of moisture contents are illustrated in figure 2-9 which is moisture content
of wet base and in figure 2-10 which shows moisture content of dry base of bio-boards.
It can be observed from the results in figure 2-11 that moisture content of bio-board A
which was made by 4MPa varied slightly among the six specimens. The lowest value
is 2% which is from number 1 specimen and the highest value 7% came from number
4 specimen. On the other hand, moisture content of bio-board B reveals that great
variation happened in different specimen. The value ranges in 2%~9% which comes
from bio-board B made by 7MPa.
In addition, moisture content of bio-board A and B in dry base was shown in figure
2-12 The trend varies in moisture content is similar to that in wet base. It ranges in
2%~8% of bio-board A meanwhile the moisture content of bio-board B is in the range
of 3%~10%.

11
10 Boar
9
dA
8
moistrue content(%)

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
number of test piece

－23－
 Fig. 2-11 Moisture contents of bio-board A and B in wet base.

11
10 Board
9 A
8
moisture content (%)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
number of test piece

Fig. 2-12 Moisture contents of bio-board A and B in day base.

2.8 Conclusions

The main objective of this study is to investigate the possibility of producing

biodegradable biomass materials using corn straw. The processes of refining,
defibrating, forming and drying were applied to produce Bio-board with the
experimental conditions of compressing pressure 4MPa and 7MPa, drying temperature
110 degrees centigrade. Two pieces of Bio-board were produced and their properties
were investigated by tensile test.
(1) Bio-board can be produced under experimental conditions. The experimental
result indicates that all the processes applied in this experiment are suitable to produce
Bio-board and the experimental conditions were considered to be appropriate.
(2) The rupture stress of bio-board A is in range of 6.23MPa ~ 10.84MPa and the
rupture stress of bio-board B is in range of 12.90MPa ~ 16.95MPa. The rupture stress
of one bio-board are totally different, because of the differences in combination of
natural fibers in forming process, and the density of corn straw at different areas in one
Bio-board.
(3) The average of rupture stress of Bio-board B is 14.36MPa and 1.6 times greater

－24－
compared with that of Bio-board A 8.54MPa. Therefore, compressing pressure is an
important factor for the strength of Bio-board.
(4) The tensile test result of polystyrene plastic used in food container shows that
the rupture stress is 0.72MPa. The rupture stress of Bio-board is 8.6~23.5 times greater
in comparison to the polystyrene plastic.

－25－
 Chapter 3. Effect of pressures on the strength of

bio-board

3.1 Introduction

According to previous research about making bio-board using corn straw, the results
shows us that bio-board can be made successfully using corn straw and all the process
applied in the experiment is feasible.
In this chapter, the present research is dealing with proved manufacturing process
for bio-board using corn straw (stem and leaves). The principle of board making which
is different from other fiberboard is still hydrogen bonding. Effect of the pressure
applied in forming process on the strength of biomass board is investigated.
Additionally, the other mechanical properties such as rupture stress, Young’s modulus
and strain energy will also be studied and discussed.

3.2 Materials and methods

3.2.1 Board making experiments
(1) Basic principle
As Martin A. Hubbe (2006) says cellulose and hemicellulose, two of the main
components of fibers, are covered with hydroxyl groups. The oxygen atoms in these
groups are able to hydrogen bond to hydrogen atoms on adjacent fibers or water
molecules. Drying of bio-board causes some fiber-to-fiber hydrogen bonds to take the
place of fiber-to-water hydrogen bonds.
(2) Board making process
Sweet corn (Zea mays L. convar. mays) straws were used in this work. Sowing date
was on May 1st and harvested on August 10th (Liu 2009) at the Mie University
Bio-resource Department’s experimental farm. Figure 3-1 shows maize farm. After
harvesting, grains were removed. Stem and leaves were left in a ventilated storage
air-dried for two months.

－26－
 Fig. 3-1 present situation of sweet corn cultivation in this research

The five processes applied in previous experiment are used in the present study
which are cutting, soaking, grinding, compressing and drying showed in figure 3-2.
Compressing and drying procedures are carried out together and called “the forming
process”.

Corn straw Cutting Soaking Grinding

Performance test Drying Compressing

Fig. 3-2 Flow chart of Bio-board making process

During pretreatment, dry corn straws were cut into chips using an electric cutter,
then soaked in water at 22℃ for 168 hours for softening the straw fiber. In soaking
process, corn straw fiber bundles absorbed moisture from water condition. It is easier
to soften fiber bundles in wet condition than destroy the structure of lignocellulose

－27－
fibers in a dry state. Soaking process is a preparation to the fiberization of corn straws.
Soaked straw was then fiberized (pulped) by using an atmospheric refiner with
conical blades in figure 3-3 (Model A Beatfiner. Satomi. Corp.). The motor capacity is
11kw×4p-200, 60Hz, rotational speed is 1750 r.p.m (60Hz). The maximum flux control
is 0.05-0.1m3/min. Air pressure is 0.6MPa required. Grinding part is an assembling
conical cutters with blades. Dimension of cutter is 2.5mm×3.0mm×8°( blade
width×slot width×blade angle).

Fig. 3-3 An atmospheric refiner and the detail blades

Fiberization of corn straws at atmospheric pressure was carried out by passing the
damp cut straw along with running water through the refiner’ rotating blades. During
grinding process, fiber bundles would be fiberized by milling. Accordingly,
milled-corn straw was sieved to possess particle size using a screen with 2mm×2mm

－28－
hole size. The ground straws were fractionated into a fine fraction which possessed
particle size of 0.5mm~2mm. Grinding process was done with water. Therefore, corn
straw pulp as figure 2 shows was prepared before compressing.
A closed stainless steel die with some accessories including metal block, meshes,
were designed which enabled obtaining one square board, 100 mm long ,100 mm
width and 40mm depth. The calculated amount of ground corn straw was carefully
filled in the die, and prepressed by for pressing excess water out from the die. Holes
were drilled in the bottom of die, metal block and plate 2 mm in diameter, in a 7 mm×7
mm grid allowing water to escape in the forming process.
The desired pressure was applied at the maximum temperature of 110 ºC. It took
8-10 minutes until the die containing the samples reach the maximum temperature.
Forming experimental conditions are displayed in Table 3-1. As Pan (2009) described
during forming process hydrogen bonds hold the chains firmly together side-by-side
and forming micro fibrils with high tensile strength and water inside of bio-board
could be also evaporated by high temperature and pressure.

Table 3-1 Condition of Bio-board production

bio-board pressure (MPa) dying

No. temp. (℃)

A1,A2 2 110

B1,B2 4 110

C1,C2 6 110

D1,D2 8 110

E1,E2 10 110

3.2.2 Strength tests

Bending tests and tensile strength tests were conducted for the purpose of analyzing
the mechanical properties of bio-board.
In the Three-Point Bending Test shown in figure 3-4, five bio-boards named A1 to
E1 were trimmed to 50mm × 10mm × 1.2mm. 25 rectangular beam specimens

－29－
following standard JIS procedures and recommendations (JIS Z2248:1996) were
prepared. All dimensions were measured with an accuracy of + 0.02 mm. Capacity of
100 N load cell was fixed on a motor, applied at a uniform rate of 0.57 mm/s in its
vertical direction. Furthermore, the deformation signal was measured by a
potentiometer. Both signals of force and deformation were transmitted into an
amplifier and A/D convertor then logged in a computer. The bending stress of
bio-board was obtained by the quotients of bending moment and section modulus of
the specimen. Rupture stress was defined by quotients of maximum bending moment
and section modulus of specimen when the specimen was fractured. The classic
formula (William, 1957) for determining the bending stress is:

(3.1)

Where P = force at fracture of test specimen; Ls = bearing distance between

supports; b = width of test specimen; a = thickness of test specimen.

Fig. 3-4 Three-point-bending test machine

To determine the internal bond strength, tensile strength tests were done under

－30－
deformation control by using a universal testing machine shown in figure 3-5. Speed of
cross-head was 15mm/min. 20 specimens taken from five bio-boards named A2 ~ E2
were subject to tensile strength tests following standard JIS procedures and
recommendations (JIS z 2201) illustrated in figure 3-6.
Normal stress is defined by the quotients of axial load applied on specimen and
original cross-sectional area of the specimen. Rupture stress was obtained when the
axial load reaches to maximum value while the specimen was fractured. Rupture stress
is expressed below:

(3.2)

Where P = the maximum axial load, A= original cross-sectional area of gauge

section.

Fig. 3-5 Universal testing machine for tensile test

－31－
 P=60

D=12.5

L=50 R=15

P: length of reduced section, L: Gage length Fig. 3-6

Dimension
R: Radius of specimen
of fillet, for tensile strength tests
min. D: Diameter
3.2.3 Measurement of density and moisture content
Ten bio-boards were made to demonstrate the five experimental conditions. For
each of the experimental conditions, two bio-boards were made. They are named A1,
A2, ~, E1, E2.
Thickness of bio-board is measured as below. On one board three horizontal lines
and three perpendicular lines were drawn then the area of bio-board was divided into
sixteen square blocks. The area of each block was 25 mm×25mm. For thickness
measurement, eight points at the outer side of four blocks in the center of board were
chosen. Thus, densities of bio-board were determined as follows:
Density = hot presser dry weight (g)/ sample volume (cm3)
Moisture content analyze were done after strength tests: Numbered specimens were
cut into chips and weighted, oven dried at 100℃ till constant weight, and moisture
percentage was calculated according to JSPP (2007).

3.2.4 Young’s modulus and strain energy

In tensile strength test, Young’s modulus of bio-board was calculated from
stress-strain curve. The definition of material toughness is the amount of energy per
unit volume that a material can absorb before rupturing. It is also defined as a
material's resistance to fracture when stressed. On the other hand, the strain energy pre
unit volume is called the strain energy density and is the area underneath the
stress-strain curve up to the point of deformation. According to definitions, static
toughness of five bio-boards was calculated with formula (3.3).

－32－
 f
U   d (3.3)
0

Where, U= static toughness, σ= stress, ɛ= strain, ɛf = strain at fracture point.

3.3 Results and discussion

3.3.1 Board making
Bio-board of A1, B1, C1, D1, E1 were subjected to the bending test and A2, B2, C2,
D2, E2 were used for the tensile strength test. The dimension of all bio-boards were
100 mm×100 mm in area and in the range of 1.27 mm-1.56 mm in thickness. Figure
3-7 shows the front and side of one bio-board. This experiment proved that Bio-board
can be made successfully under all experimental conditions. Not only the Bio-board,
but the processes for making the Bio-board were also shown to be successful.
Density of bio-board displayed in figure 3-8 indicates that bio-board has respective
density at the range of 0.87g/cm3.-1.02g/cm3. With the five levels of pressure 2MPa to
10Mpa resulted in slight increase in the board density. Under condition of 2Mpa, board
density is minimal. The maximum density was observed in the condition of 8Mpa.

Fig. 3-7 Appearance of bio-board

The moisture contents of bio-board made in this study showed a range of 3% ~ 6%

in wet base. Properties of density and wet-basis moisture content of bio-boards are
similar to MDF (medium density fiberboard) 5 Type ~ 30 Type based on JIS A
5905-2003.

－33－
 Fig. 3-8 Density of bio-boards

3.3.2 Section of bio-board

In figure 3-9 on the right shows the section image of specimen under electron
microscope at magnifications. Corn straw fibers inside bio-board are observed
compacted and displayed irregular. The image on the left shows a dentation fracture
image of specimen. The fracture in specimen is rough. Uniform fibrous fracture is
visible in the fragment. One reason must be considered that a bio-board is a composite.
Its performance depends on the strength of its constituent units as well as their
geometries and unit-to-unit bonding.

5.0μm/div ×90 5.0μm/div ×180

Cross section (right) , dentation fracture of bio-board (left)

Fig. 3-9 An electron micrograph of bio-board.

－34－
3.3.3 Bending strength test
The 25 specimens obtained from board A1 to board E1 were provided for bending
test. The stress-deflection curves of five boards are shown in figure 3-10 to figure 3-14
changes of bending stress applied on five specimens are compared in the
stress-deflection curves. Generally, stress value increased with the increase of
deflection until reaching a maximum value. In addition, the curves of stress-deflection
almost approach a straight line before the fractures occurred. Specimens fractured at
approximately 2mm of deflection. Bending stress is called rupture stress when the
specimen fractured. After specimen fractured, bending stress decreased sharply and is
near to zero, however, bending stress still appears a few because some fibers were still
remained connecting.
Compared to the other four specimens in one bio-board a distinctly highest peak
value was observed in board A1-P1, B1-P1 and C1-P4. The stress-deflection curve
describes unique characteristics and shows different modulus of elastic and rupture
strength of each specimen.

Fig. 3-10 Stress of bio-board A1

－35－
Fig. 3-11 Stress of bio-board B1

Fig. 3-12 Stress of bio-board C1

－36－
 Fig. 3-13 Stress of bio-board D1

Fig. 3-14 Stress of bio-board E1

In figure 3-15, different rupture stress values bio-boards maximum value, average
value and minimum value were calculated from stress-deflection curves. The results
indicate that the higher pressure applied, the higher rupture stress was obtained,

－37－
however, under the pressure of 10MPa rupture stress decreased slightly. The variability
in density of bio-board also implies that at the pressure of 10Mpa density of board E1is
lower than board D1. On the other hand, minimal variability in rupture stress was
obtained in board D1.
The bending rupture stresses of board A1 to E1 is presented in figure3-15.
According to the results of strength test, it implies that rupture stress of five bio-boards
is obviously different. Maximum bending rupture stress 29.37Mpa occurred with the
condition of 8Mpa. Therefore, results of bending strength test prove 8Mpa pressure
applied in forming process is optimum condition to make bio-board.

35

30
Rupture stress (MPa)

25

20

15
Average
10
Max
5
Min
0
2 4 6 8 10

Maximum Pressure(MPa)

Fig. 3-15 Rupture stress of five provided Bio-board for bending test.

3.3.4 Tensile strength test

As an important mechanic property for bio-board study, tensile strength test was
conducted. Boards named A2, B2, C2, D2, E2 were used for tensile strength tests and
the stress-strain curves are shown in figure 3-16 to figure 3-20 All the curves indicates
in the beginning of the stress-strain curve, tensile stress increases with the increase of
strain, after the tensile stress reaches the maximum value, specimens were broken, then,
tensile stress decreases suddenly to zero. The maximum value is called tensile rupture

－38－
stress.

Fig. 3-16 Stress-strain curve of bio-board A2

Fig. 3-17 Stress-strain curve of bio-board B2

－39－
Fig. 3-18 Stress-strain curve of bio-board C2

Fig. 3-19 Stress-strain curve of bio-board D2

－40－
 16

P1
14
P2
stressσt (MPa) 12
P3
10
P4

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Strain ɛ

Fig. 3-20 Stress-strain curve of bio-board E2

16

14
Rupture stress (MPa)

12

10

6 Average

4 Max

2
Min

0
2 4 6 8 10

Maximum Pressure (MPa)

Fig. 3-21 Rupture stress of five provided Bio-board for tensile test

The tensile rupture stress of five bio-boards is shown in figure 3-21 with maximum
value, average value and minimum value. Rupture stress in tension obtained from
board A2 ~E2 showed a large variety between maximum stress and minimal stress in

－41－
one bio-board. In table 3-2 rupture stress reveals that the maximum 10.89MPa was
obtained in board E2 which was made by 10MPa pressure.
Compared to figure 12 showing bending rupture stress, rupture stressσtf is lower
than bending rupture stress σbf. According to “An Introduction to the Building Standard
Law NO.1452”, the bending stress of coniferous wood is higher than tensile stress
because bio-board as well as wood is essentially composed of cellulose hemicelluloses,
lignin, and extractives (Sjostrom 1993).
Bending rupture stress σbf and tensile strength rupture stress σtf are shown in table
3-2. This distinct variation could be explained by two reasons. First, Kageyama (1998)
in his teaching materials stated that stress distribution of fiber material are more
complex than metal. Stress distribution specimen in bending test performs in tension
under neutral axis while above neutral axis specimen was suffered from compression
behavior. For tensile strength test, specimen was suffered from tension force and only
tensile stress distribution was in the area of thrust surface. Second, stress of fibrous
bio-board may relate to fiber recombination because cellulose fiber has its own
mechanical properties proved by Isogai (The society of Polymer Science, Japen. 2009).

Table 3-2 Average rupture stress of bio-board

2MPa 4MPa 6MPa 8MPa 10MPa

𝜎𝑏𝑓
(MPa) 24.57 27.45 27.74 29.37 26.39

𝜎𝑡𝑓
6.43 10.85 9.07 9.46 10.89
(MPa)

3.3.1 Young’s modulus and strain energy

In tensile strength test, it seems that stress-strain curves almost approach a line
before the specimens fracture. Therefore, the correlation between stress and strain on
the approximate portion of stress-strain curve was modeled by a linear form. Young’s
modulus of bio-boards were calculated and displayed in table 3-3. It has been found

－42－
that the range of E in every bio-board is different. Four specimens of one board
showed various deformation performances. The average range of Young’s modulus of
bio-board is 1.4GPa~1.8GPa.

Table 3-3 Young’s modulus of bio-boards

pressure(MPa) range of E ( GPa) average E( GPa)

2 0.8~2.2 1.4

4 1.4~1.9 1.8

6 1.3~1.9 1.6

8 1.3~1.6 1.6

10 1.2~1.7 1.5

Average static toughness of five bio-boards is displayed in table 3-4. The results
found that pressure applied in forming process has a great influence on the specimens.
Board E2 made with the pressure of 10MPa has the maximum static toughness 85KPa,
in the opposite, Minimum static toughness 48.3KPa was obtained in board A2 which
was made with the pressure of 2MPa.

Table 3-4 Static toughness of bio-board

A2 B2 C2 D2 E2
Range
23~91 64~106 47~109 53~99 66~124
(KPa)

Average
48.3 76.5 67.5 74.0 85.0
(KPa)

3.4 Conclusion

In this chapter of research ten bio-boards were made with five experimental
conditions and strength test were carried out to investigate their mechanical properties.
The conclusions shown are as follows:
1) The results indicate that under all experimental conditions, making boards using
－43－
raw materials of corn straws was successful. Therefore, the board making process in
this research is feasible.
2) In the bending test and tensile strength tests, the results showed that the stress
increased with the increase of deformation for all Bio-boards. The stress reached a
maximum value when the specimen was failed, then stress decreased sharply finally to
zero.
3) The rupture stress varied in the range of 21.25MPa ~ 30.78MPa in the bending
test. On the other hand, rupture stress range of 4.49MPa ~ 15.15MPa appeared in the
tensile strength tests. Under the condition of 8MPa, bio-board has maximum bending
strength as high as 29.37MPa. In tensile strength, the highest rupture stress of
10.89MPa was resulted in the pressure of 10MPa.
4) The result of stress-strain curves of tensile strength test reveals that the average
range of Young’s modulus of bio-board is 1.4GPa~1.8GPa. Static toughness is larger as
pressure becomes higher. With 10MPa pressure bio-board has maximum static
toughness 85KPa.
The basic mechanical properties of bio-board were investigated and the results
proved that bio-board could be created for use a packaging material, for heat insulation
in architecture, and as a mulch film for agricultural purposes.

－44－
 Chapter 4. Relation Between Refining Degree in

grinding process and Size of Fiber

4.1 Introduction

This study will consider ways to improve the strength of bio-board for the purpose
of exploring various uses of bio-board. In chapter 3, the effect of pressure applied in
the forming process on the strength of bio-board was investigated. However, the results
indicated that the resulting strength of bio-board was not significantly influenced by
different pressures applied during the forming process. In addition, bio-board is a
composite, thus, its strength is affected by numerous uncertain factors. According to
previous research on bio-board making, many factors affect the strength of bio-board
such as pressure, temperature, moisture content, length of fiber and so on.
In the last chapter, it can also could be composed that with different degree of
refining, fiber were separated into several fractions, thus, satisfied size of fiber could
be obtained using specific screens. However it is known that plant fibers which belong
to lignocellulloses have complicated structure. Cellulose fibers are also divided into
several varieties, such as seed fiber, phloem fiber, stem fiber and so on. Herbaceous
fiber coming from corn straw is a sort of phloem fiber according to Lee (2007).
Therefore, it is still need further investigation about whether or not could fine size
distribution of fiber be obtained using specific screen.
In this chapter, corn straw will be used as an experimental sample and refined by a
blender machine. Obtained corn straw pulp is divided into four grades according to the
size of screen. After refining process, fiber size distribution of corn straw will be
measured and investigated by a sampling survey. Finally we will compare the
relationship between refining degree and fiber size’ distribution.

4.2 Materials and methods

Sweet corn (Zea mays L. convar. mays) straws were used in this work. Corn straw
was harvested on August 10th, 2013 (Liu 2009) at the Mie University Bio-resource

－45－
Department’s experimental farm. After harvesting, grains were removed. Stem and
leaves were left in a ventilated storage air-dried for two months.
During pretreatment, dry corn straws were cut into chips using an electric cutter,
then soaked in water at 22℃ for 168 hours for softening the straw fiber. Figure
4-1shows the state of corn straw pulp before and after refining.

before refining after refining

Fig. 4-1 Corn straw pulp

According to the experimental condition shown in table 4-1, soaked straw were then
fiberized (pulped) by using an atmospheric refiner with conical blades (Model A
Beatfiner. Satomi. Corp.). The motor capacity is 11kw×4p-200, 60Hz, rotational speed
is 1750 r.p.m (60Hz). The maximum flux control is 0.05-0.1m3/min. Air pressure is
0.6MPa required. Grinding part is an assembling conical cutter with blades. Dimension
of cutter is 2.5mm×3.0mm×8° (blade width × slot width × blade angle).
During grinding process, fiber bundles would be fiberized by milling. Accordingly,
milled-corn straw was sieved to possess particle size using a screen with the hole size
of 2mm×2mm and a sieve with hole dimension of 0.2mm×0.5mm.

－46－
 Table 4-1 Experimental condition for fiber collection

NO. Sieve size (mm) Refining time (min)

A1 0.2
5
A2 2
B1 0.2
10
B2 2

After grinding process, 10ml corn straw pulp was taken from four samples named
A1, A2, B1, B2, where there are approximately 80 individual fibers. Thus, four
samples containing 320 fibers were observed under a digital microscope (YAHATA
shotto company, Japan) shown in figure 4-2. Specification of microscope is 100-120V,
50Hz, 150W. The lamp is 12V, 100W (JCR12V100W10H).

Fig. 4-2 Digital microscope

First, 10ml’s fiberized corn straw pule which is from each sample is displayed on a
glass without extra water content. Only refined fibers are placed on glass plate. Then
arrange fibers separately using a tweezers, therefore, length of single fiber could be
measured and the appearance of fiber is observed clearly under the digital microscope
with the image processing software Focus-3D Vision FCS3D-MX.

－47－
4.3 Discussion

320 corn straw fibers were observed under a digital microscope, then, the length of
each fiber was measured after using the software Focus-3D Vision FCS3D-MX. Two
Images of single refined fiber taken by digital microscope are illustrated in figure 4-3
and figure 4-4. In the first image, there are two corn straw fibers with different width
and length. Also, the edge of fiber is not smooth for some scrappy fibers still adhere to
the main fiber. In the image of a single corn straw fiber shown in figure 4-4, two
cellulose fibers are clearly observed. Cells can be seen in the fiber which is on the top
because the outside layer is already removed by grinding. It also shows that a single
refined corn straw fiber contains several cellulose fibers which are refined for the
recombining in next forming process. In addition, it can be seen that the two cellulose
fibers were broken as the end of fiber was with a rough edge.

50μm/div

Fig. 4-3 Image of refined corn straw fibers

－48－
 180μm/div

Fig. 4-4 Image of a single refined corn straw fiber

30μm/div

Fig. 4-5 Fiber length measurement

Fiber measurement is conducted as the picture shows in figure 4-5.

Fiber which is drop through filter was measured and the results were shown in figure
4-6. The distribution of fibers showed that in the same refining time of 5 minutes, A1
whose fiber is collected by a 0.2 mm-hole-sieve mainly distributed in the range of
1.5~6mm, for the other A2, the fiber distribution ranges from 4mm to over 10 mm.
From these two kinds of fiber distributions, it can be known that a large fiber
distribution in short size was obtained using a small size sieve, on the other hand, the
bigger the sieve’s hole is, the longer fibers were obtained.
It also can be found that fibers were not refined with ideal uniform dimension as the
fiber with the length which is more than 4mm were existed in A2 and B2. In another
words, corn straw fiber were not refined individually that fiber bundles still remained..
－49－
Furthermore, with the refining time of 10 minutes, fibers were divided into two
varieties which is in the range of 0.5mm~2mm and the other is over 4mm. Therefore,
using different size of sieve can collect different grades of length of fiber.

50
A1
45
A2
40
35 B1
number of fiber

30 B2

25
20
15
10
5
0
0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 3-3.5 3.5-4 4～6 6～8 8～10 over
10
length of fiber (mm)

Fig. 4-6 fiber* distribution after grinding process

*fibers dropped through filter hole and were gathered to measure the size.

4.4 Results

1) Corn straw was ground into small dimension and the size of refined fiber length is
significant different. Several cellulose fibers could be contained in one refined corn
straw fiber and some cellulose fibers were broken.
2) Short fiber which is 0.5mm~2mm is mainly collected by 0.2mm-hole-sieve and
long fiber which is over 4mm is significantly obtained by 2mm-hole-sieve. With the
refining time of 10 minutes, fiber dimension were divided into two grades, however,
corn straw fiber were not refined individually that fiber bundles still remained in A2
and B2.

－50－
4.5 A experiment for effect of refining degree on the strength of

bio-board

As the basic principle of biomass material research, hydrogen bonding between

cellulose fibers played a major part in the boarding making process. It is still unknown
whether or not fiber bonding force is a valid consideration for determining bio-board
strength compared to hydrogen bonding force. Paper made from agricultural fibers has
lower tear strength (Schellenberger, 1995) and Ye (2007) also found that agricultural
wheat straw fiber which is made of MDF (medium density fiber-board), resulted in a
significantly higher modulus of elasticity. Ye’s study revealed that using wheat fiber
had significant effects on the strength of MDF.
Corn is a major crop in a number of countries, and, thus, corn straws are considered
a good fiber source for low grades of paper. Here, we also consider corn straws as an
ideal raw material for making bio-board. Corn straws are similar to sugarcane in
structural features with an average fiber length of 1.5mm (0.5mm-2.9mm) and an
average fiber width of 0.018mm (0.014mm-0.024mm). Typical fibers are fairly narrow,
thick walled and have blunt or pointed ends, according to Ilvessalo-pfaffli (1995). The
survey from Ilvessalo-pfaffli’s survey suggests if corn straw fiber is refined between
0.5mm to-2.9mm, the main bonding force maybe depend on fiber bonding. On the
other hand, if the length of fiber is less than 0.5mm, hydrogen bonding force may be
the primary bonding force.
In this chapter, we will discuss how the length of fiber or, in other words, the degree
of refining in the grinding process affects the strength of bio-board. First, in our study,
boards were divided into test groups of two different lengths of corn straw fibers. Then,
strength test were conducted on the boards. Finally, other mechanical properties, such
as the Modulus of Elasticity (MOE), modulus of rupture stress (MOR) and static
toughness (ST) were compared using the boards with two different fiber lengths.

4.6 Materials and methods

4.6.1 Board making experiment

－51－
 Sweet corn (Zea mays L. convar. mays) straws were used in this work. Corn straw
was harvested on August 10th, 2013 (Liu 2009) at the Mie University Bio-resource
Department’s experimental farm. After harvesting, grains were removed. Stem and
leaves were left in a ventilated storage air-dried for two months.
Five processes applied in previous experiment are used in the present study which
are cutting, soaking, grinding, compressing and drying showed in figure 4-7.

Corn straw Cutting Soaking Grinding

Bio-board Drying Compressing

Fig. 4-7 flow chart of board making process

During pretreatment, dry corn straws were cut into chips using an electric
cutter, then soaked in water at 22℃ for 168 hours for softening the straw fiber. In
soaking process, corn straw fiber bundles absorbed moisture from water condition. It is
easier to soften fiber bundles in a wet condition than destroy the structure of
lignocelluloses fibers in a dry state. Soaking process is a preparation to the fiberization
of corn straws. Soaked straw was then fiberized (pulped) by using an atmospheric
refiner with conical blades (Model A Beatfiner. Satomi. Corp.). The motor capacity is
11kw×4p-200, 60Hz, rotational speed is 1750 r.p.m (60Hz). The maximum flux control
is 0.05-0.1m3/min. Air pressure is 0.6MPa required. Grinding part is an assembling
conical cutter with blades. Dimension of cutter is 2.5mm×3.0mm×8° (blade width ×
slot width × blade angle).Fiberization of corn straws at atmospheric pressure was
carried out by passing the damp cut straw along with running water through the refiner’
rotating blades. During grinding process, fiber bundles would be fiberized by milling.
Accordingly, milled-corn straw was sieved to possess particle size using a screen with
the hole size of 2mm×2mm and a sieve with hole dimension of 0.5mm×0.5mm. Photo

－52－
of screen is shown in figure 4-8. Ground straws were fractionated into two fractions
which possessed particle size of 0.5mm~2mm and the one which is longer than 2mm.
The short type fibers which were collected by using SF type filter with the particle size
of 0.5mm is named SF (short fiber). On the other hand, long type fiber LF (long fiber)
is collected by LF type filter with particle size of 2mm. The flow chart of fiber
collection is shown in figure 4-9.

SF type LF type
particle size 0.5mm particle size 2mm
2mm

Fig. 4-8 Types of screens

Corn straw pulp

Fibers
for LF board
2mm×2mm
Fibers
0.5mm×0.5mm for SF board

Fig. 4-9 Flow chart of fiber collection

A closed stainless steel die with some accessories including metal block, meshes,
－53－
were designed which enabled obtaining one square board, 100 mm long ,100 mm
width and 40mm depth. The calculated amount of ground corn straw was carefully
filled in the die, and prepressed by for pressing excess water out from the die. Holes
were drilled in the bottom of die, metal block and plate 2 mm in diameter, in a 7 mm×7
mm grid allowing water to escape in the forming process.
The desired pressure was applied at the maximum temperature of 110 ºC. It took
8-10 minutes until the die containing the samples reach the maximum temperature.
Forming experimental conditions are displayed in table 4-2
Table 4-2 Board making experimental conditions

bio-board pressure (MPa) dying

No. temp. (℃)

LF1,SF1 2 110

LF2, SF2 4 110

LF 3, SF3 6 110

LF 4, SF 4 8 110

LF 5, SF 5 10 110

4.6.2 Strength test

Bending tests and tensile strength tests were conducted for the purpose of analyzing
the mechanical properties of bio-board. Specimens cut from one board were prepared
for both bending test and tensile strength test. Figure 4-10 shows the detail of specimen
division with a supersonic wave cutter which is used in specimen preparation.
In the Three-Point Bending Test, ten bio-boards named LF1 to SF5 were trimmed to
50mm×20mm×1.2mm. 40 rectangular beam specimens following standard JIS
procedures and recommendations (JIS Z2248:1996) were prepared. All dimensions
were measured with an accuracy of + 0.02 mm. Capacity of 100 N load cell was fixed
on a motor, applied at a uniform rate of 0.57 mm/s in its vertical direction. Furthermore,
the deformation signal was measured by a potentiometer. Both signals of force and
deformation were transmitted into an amplifier and A/D convertor then logged in a
computer. The bending stress of bio-board was obtained by the quotients of bending
－54－
moment and section modulus of the specimen. Rupture stress was defined by quotients
of maximum bending moment and section modulus of specimen when the specimen
was fractured. The classic formula for determining the bending stress is:

(4.1)

Where P = force at fracture of test specimen; Ls = bearing distance between

supports; b = width of test specimen; a = thickness of test specimen.

Fig. 4-10 Specimen division and a supersonic wave cutter.

To determine the internal bond strength, tensile strength tests were done under
deformation control by using a universal testing machine. Speed of cross-head was
15mm/min. 30 specimens taken from ten bio-boards named LF1 ~ SF5 were subject to
tensile strength tests following standard JIS procedures and recommendations (JIS z
2201).
Normal stress is defined by the quotients of axial load applied on specimen and
original cross-sectional area of the specimen. Rupture stress was obtained when the
axial load reaches to maximum value while the specimen was fractured. Rupture stress
is expressed below:

－55－
 (3.2)

Where P = the maximum axial load, A= original cross-sectional area of gauge

section.

4.7 Results and discussion

4.7.1 Board making
40 specimens from ten bio-boards were subjected to the bending test and 30
specimens were used for the tensile strength test. The dimension of SF bio-boards were
100 mm×100 mm in area and in the range of 1.19 mm-1.36 mm in thickness and for
LF bio-boards, the thickness is in the range from 1.15mm to 1.44mm. Figure 4-11 and
figure 4-12 shows the LF and SF bio-board individually.

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 4-11 Photos of LF bio-board (a: surface, b: bottom, c: section)

－56－
 (a) (b)

(c)
SF bio-board

Fig. 4-12 Photos of SF bio-board (a: surface, b: bottom, c: section)

It can be seen from the photos of LF and SF bio-board, the surface on which
separate fibers are obviously observed in LF type, in the opposite, on both surface and
bottom of SF bio-board, separate fibers could not be seen clearly. Two sides of board
look similar. It is proved that fiber division operation is successfully done before
compressing process.
Density of LF bio-board which is named LFB displayed in figure 4-13 indicates that
bio-board has respective density in the range of 929kg/m3-1050kg/m3. Pressure which
is from 2MPa to 10MPa increased with the increase of LFB density. For SFB density
showed in figure 4-14, it ranges from 976 kg/m3-1120kg/m3. The trend of density
variation is similar to LFB. The higher pressure the higher density was obtained.
Density under 2MPa is the minimum. It changes to increase, however, with the
pressures of 6MPa, 8MPa and 10MPa density does not increase significantly and
almost become stable.

－57－
 1100 LFB
1000

900

Density (kg/m3)
800

700

600

500
0 2 4 6 8 10
Maxmum pressure( MPa)

Fig. 4-13 Density of LFB

1200 SFB
1100

1000

900
Density( kg/m3)

800

700

600

500
0 2 4 6 8 10

Fig. 4-14 Density of SFB

Moisture contents of LFB is in the range of 7.4%~8.2% and SFB made in this study
showed a range of 6.4% ~ 8.0% in wet base. Properties of density and wet-basis
moisture content of bio-boards are similar to MDF (medium density fiberboard) 5 Type
~ 30 Type based on JIS A 5905-2003.

4.7.2 Bending strength test

80 specimens obtained from board LF1 to board SF5 were provided for bending test.

－58－
The stress-deflection curves of ten boards are shown in figure 4-15. The changes of
bending stress applied on four specimens of each bio-board are compared in the
stress-deflection curves. Generally, stress value increased with the increase of
deflection until reaching a maximum value. In addition, all the curves of
stress-deflection almost approach a straight line before the fractures occurred.
Specimens fractured at approximately 2.5mm of deflection. It implied bio-board has
certain pressure resistance. Bending stress is called rupture stress when the specimen
fractured. After specimen fractured, bending stress decreased sharply and is near to
zero, however, bending stress still appears a few because some fibers were still
remained connecting which happened in all specimens.
As bio-board are made of two lengths of fibers, under the same pressure applied in
forming process, variation of stress between LFB and SFB shows slight different. In
general, stress becomes greater as fiber becomes shorter. Under the pressure of 2MPa,
6MPa, 8MPa and 10MPa, maximum stress of SFB are greater than the one of LFB.
With the pressure of 4MPa, although maximum value is in specimen of L4-3 which is
from LFB, however, variation of fracture points from LFB is bigger than the one from
SFB. It can be seen in SFB 4MPa, stress of 4 specimens are in the range of 35MPa ~
40MPa, in the opposite, the stress of specimens in LFB with the same pressure 4MPa
shows the range from 35MPa to 45MPa. Uncertainty could be considered to explain
the stability of fracture points. As Mudit,C (1998) writes that the minimum fiber length
necessary to produce acceptable paper strength properties is dependent on many
factors, and fiber lengths are not unequivocally related to paper strength properties
(Young, 1997). Different fiber lengths are desirable for different properties in paper.
For example, longer fiber length is desirable for strength properties in paper, but they
tend to bunch together and as a result do not provide good formation. Shorter fibers on
the other hand provide excellent formation.

－59－
 45
LFB 2MPa
L2-1
40
35 L2-2

30 L2-3
Stress (MPa)

25 L2-4
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection (mm)

a. Stress-deflection curve of 2MPa LFB in bending test

45 SFB 2MPa
40 S2-1

35 S2-2

30 S2-3
Stress (MPa)

25 S2-4

20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection (mm)
b. Stress-deflection curve of 2MPa SFB in bending test

－60－
 45
LFB 4MPa
L4-
40
1
L4-
35
2
30 L4-
Stress (MPa)

25 3
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection(mm)

c. Stress-deflection curve of 4MPa LFB in bending test

45
SFB 4MPa
S4-1
40
S4-2
35
S4-3
30
S4-4
Stress (MPa)

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Deflection(mm)

d. Stress-deflection curve of 4MPa SFB in bending test

－61－
 45 LFB 6MPa
40 L6-
1
35 L6-
2
30 L6-
25 3
Stress(MPa)

20
15
10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8
Deflection(mm)

e. Stress-deflection curve of 6MPa LFB in bending test

45
SFB 6MPa
S6-
40
1
35 S6-
2
30 S6-
25 3
Stress(MPa)

20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection(mm)

f. Stress-deflection curve of 6MPa SFB in bending test

－62－
 50
LFB 8MPa
45 L8-1

40 L8-2
35 L8-3
Stress (MPa)

30
L8-4
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection (mm)

g. Stress-deflection curve of 8MPa LFB in bending test

50
SFB 8MPa
S8-1
45
40 S8-2

35 S8-3
Stress (MPa)

30 S8-4
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection (mm)
h. Stress-deflection curve of 8MPa SFB in bending test

－63－
 45
LFB 10MPa
L10-1
40
35 L10-2

Stress (MPa) 30 L10-3

25 L10-4
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Deflection (mm)
i. Stress-deflection curve of 10MPa LFB in bending test

45 SFB 10MPa
S10-
40 1
35 S10-
2
30
S10-
Stress (MPa)

25 3

20

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deflection (mm)

j. Stress-deflection curve of 10MPa SFB in bending test

Fig. 4-15 stress-deflection of bio-board in bending test

－64－
 In figure 4-16, different rupture stress values of bio-boards maximum value,
average value and minimum value were calculated from stress-deflection curves. The
results indicate that different rupture stress is obtained by different specimen which is
even from the same board.

50
type LFB
45
40
35
Rupture stress(MPa)

30
25
20
Average
15
Max
10
5 Min
0
2 4 6 8 10
Maximum Pressure(MPa)

50
type SFB
45
40
35
Rupture stress(MPa)

30
25
20
Average
15
10 Max
5 Min
0
2 4 6 8 10
Maximum Pressure(MPa)

Fig. 4-16 Rupture stress of bio-board

－65－
 Average of rupture stress from LFB and SFB in bending test are shown in table 4-4.
The resulting of strength test implies that rupture stress of ten bio-boards is obviously
different. The maximum bending rupture stress 41.25MPa occurred in SFB with the
condition of 8MPa. The minimum bending rupture stress is in LFB with the pressure of
2MPa. It is found except 4MPa, under other pressure conditions, rupture stress of SFB
is greater than the one of LFB. Therefore, results of bending strength test prove short
fiber bio-board with 8MPa pressure is the optimum condition to make bio-board.

Table 4-3 Average of rupture stress from LFB and SFB in bending test

2MPa 4MPa 6MPa 8MPa 10MPa

LFB
35.56 39.67 34.52 36.20 37.80
ARS(MPa)

SFB
39.32 37.90 39.19 41.25 38.13
ARS(MPa)

4.7.1 Tensile strength test

30 specimens were used in tensile strength test for the purpose of mechanical
property investigation. First, the relationship between stress and strain were shown in
figure 4-17 with ten graphs. For LFB and SFB are made with the same process,
under each pressure condition ( 2MPa, 4MPa, 6MPa, 8MPa, 10MPa), the comparison
of stress and strain can be seen obviously. It is found that in the beginning of all the
stress-strain curve, tensile stress increases with the increase of strain, after the tensile
stress reaches the maximum value, specimens were broken, then, tensile stress
decreases suddenly to zero. The maximum value is called tensile rupture stress.
According to the curves of stress-strain, it can be known that fracture points of 3
specimens taken from the same board are totally different. Thus, rupture stress were
not the same which were showed in table 4-5. The maximum, minimum and average of
rupture stress from LFB and SFB in tensile strength were shown in figure18-19. The
rupture stress of LFB and SFB resulted that generally rupture stress of SFB is greater
than the one of LFB.
As the curve of stress-strain shows a proportional line before the point of fracture,
－66－
the partial proportional curve was modeled and Young’s modulus was calculated which
were showed in table 4-6

25 25

LF SFB2-
20 20
B2- 1
1 15 SFB2-
15

Stressσt(MPa)
Stressσt(MPa)

2
10 10

5 5

0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
strain ɛ strain ɛ
a. Stress- strain curve of LFB and SFB made with 2MPa

35 35
30 LF 30 S
25 B4 25 F
-1 B…
Stressσt(MPa)

Stressσt(MPa)

20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 strain ɛ (mm)
0.01 0.02 0.03 0 strain ɛ (mm)
0.01 0.02 0.03

b. Stress- strain curve of LFB and SFB made with 4MPa

30 30
LFB SFB
25 25 6-1
6-1
20 LFB 20 SFB
6-2 6-2
Stressσt (MPa)

Stressσt (MPa)

15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 0.005 strain
0.01 ɛ 0.015
(mm) 0.02 0.025 0 strain ɛ (mm)
0.01 0.02 0.03

c. Stress- strain curve of LFB and SFB made with 6MPa

－67－
35 35
30 LF 30 SF
B8- B8
25 25
1 -1
Stressσt (MPa)

Stressσt (MPa)
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 0.005 Strain
0.01 ɛ 0.015
(mm) 0.02 0.025 0 Strain ɛ (mm)
0.01 0.02 0.03
d. Stress- strain curve of LFB and SFB made with 8MPa

30 30
25 LF SF
25
B10 B1
20 -1 20 0-1
Stressσt (MPa)

Stressσt (MPa)

15 15
10 10
5 5

0 0
0 0.01 Strain ɛ 0.02
(mm) 0.03 0 0.01 0.02
Strain ɛ (mm) 0.03

e. Stress- strain curve of LFB and SFB made with 10MPa

Fig. 4-17 comparison of stress-strain curve for LEB and SFB in tensile strength test

Table 4-4 Rupture stress of LEB and SFB in tensile strength test

Long Fiber Board (LFB) Short Fiber Board (SFB)

Applied P1 P2 P3 Ave. P1 P2 P3 Ave.

pressure( MPa) 33

2 12.43 19.75 16.23 16.14 22.83 19.44 19.82 20.69

4 27.27 23.33 23.33 23.82 22.31 26.86 30.02 26.40
6 20.35 25.45 18.70 21.50 25.65 25.90 23.36 24.97
8 21.45 25.48 24.12 23.69 26.23 29.03 26.97 27.41
10 26.15 21.91 21.63 23.23 24.57 24.29 27.06 25.31

－68－
 30
LFB
25

20
Rupture stress (MPa)

15

10 Max
Min
5
Ave

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
applied press ( MPa)

Fig. 4-18 Rupture stress of LFB in tensile test

35
SFB
30
Rupture stress (MPa)

25

20

15 Max

10 Min

Ave
5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
applied press ( MPa)

Fig. 4-19 Rupture stress of SFB in tensile test

It has been found that the range of E in every bio-board is different. 4 specimens of
one board showed various deformation performances. The average range of Young’s
modulus of LFB is 0.86GPa~2.45GPa, on the other hand Young’s modulus of SFB
ranges from 1.59GPa to 2.01GPa shown in table 4-5.

－69－
 Table 4-5 Average of Young’s modulus in tensile strength test

2MPa 4MPa 6MPa 8MPa 10MPa

LFB
0.86 1.33 1.36 2.45 1.43
Ave.(GPa)

SFB
1.59 2.07 1.73 2.01 1.80
Ave.(GPa)

Average static toughness of five bio-boards is displayed in table 4-6. The results
found that the length of fiber has a great influence on the specimens. It affects rupture
stress and also the static toughness. The results of static toughness showed that with the
pressure of 8MPa LFB has the maximum static toughness 297KPa for the reason that a
long fiber is with a greater elasticity property while a short fiber is easy to be broken
by tensile force.

Table 4-6 Static toughness in stensile strength test

2MPa 4MPa 6MPa 8MPa 10MPa

Range for
156~246 257~341 234~319 271~319 262~325
LFB(KPa)

Average
201 297 269 297 286
(KPa)

Range for
196~277 224~305 243~272 239~290 245~274
SFB(KPa)

Average
225 268 259 266 256
(KPa)

4.8 Conclusions

In this chapter, totally ten bio-boards which were divided into LFB and SFB were
made with five experimental conditions. Strength test were carried out to investigate
their mechanical properties. The conclusions shown are as follows:
1) The results indicate that under all experimental conditions, using two different
length of fiber for making boards was successful. Therefore, the board making process
－70－
and conditions in this research is feasible.
2) In strength tests, the results showed that the stress increased with the increase of
deformation for all Bio-boards in bending test. Also the stress is proportional with
strain before it fractures in tensile strength test. The stress reached a maximum value
when the specimen was failed, then stress decreased sharply finally to zero.
3) The average of rupture stress varied in the range of 34.52MPa ~ 39.67MPa for
LFB. On the other hand, rupture stress range of 37.9MPa ~ 41.25MPa appeared in SFB
in the bending test. In tensile strength, rupture stress varied in the range of 16.14MPa ~
23.82MPa for LFB. On the other hand, rupture stress range of 20.69MPa ~ 27.41MPa
appeared in SFB. The rupture stress of LFB and SFB resulted that generally rupture
stress of SFB is greater than the one of LFB. Short fiber had more influence than
longer fiber the strength of bio-board.
4) The result of stress-strain curves of tensile strength test reveals that the average
range of Young’s modulus of LFB is 0.86GPa~2.45GPa meanwhile the average range
of Young’s modulus for SFB shows a range of 1.59GPa~2.07GPa. There was not
obvious variation between LFB and SFB by static toughness.

－71－
 Chapter 5. Strength Comparison for Corn Straw

Bio-board and Other materials

5.1 Introduction

Corn straw bio-board is known as a friendly environmental material which is

biodegradable for the earth after being used. Because of strength test made in the
previous experiments, which indicated that corn straw bio-board has certain strength to
bear load. It could be considered to apply in packing materials potentially in daily life.
According to United States Environmental Protection Agency and American
Chemistry Council, polymers abound in nature (2005). Rubber tree cellulose has been
used as raw material to make manufactured polymeric and plastics. As many common
classes of polymers, they are composed of hydrocarbons, compounds of carbon and
hydrogen which indicated that cellulosic bio-board is an example of natural polymers.
In previous study, strength test was conducted and resulted that bio-board could bear
certain load, however, bio-board which is applied in package needs some more
investigations comparing with other packing materials. Polymer products package such
as polystyrene food containers, corrugated cases, woody boxes are common used in
super markets. The low cost and convenience of these package is popular and
welcomed by people, however, environment pollutions still threaten the human beings,
furthermore, woody resource is also decreasing yearly, because of which a new clear
package is possibly needed.
In this chapter, four packing materials which are a piece of wood, polystyrene food
try, package box for digital camera and a corrugated case were subjected to a strength
test. Then, comparison of rupture stress and Young’ modulus between corn straw
bio-board and the four packing materials was made and discussed. The study of the
other four materials’ mechanical properties helps to understand the application range of
bio-board.

－72－
5.2 Materials and methods

At first, a piece of cedar wood with the dimension of 10mm×250mm, a polystyrene

food container, a paper box for a digital camera case and a corrugated case were
prepared for strength tests. The four samples were named CW (cedar wood), PC
(polystyrene try), PB (paper box), CC (corrugated cases). The four test samples were
cleaned by removing dust from the surface. The film coating on PT was also taken off
from the body, for bio-board was not covered by any coating materials. table 5-1 shows
the dimension of specimens which were from the four materials.

Table 5-1 dimension and density of four samples

CW PT PB CC
Thickness (mm) 1.3~1.5 3.5~4 1.9~2 4.6~4.8

Width (mm) 11.6~11.8 9.3~10.1 10.1~10.8 24.8~25.25

Density of wet *0.38 *0.925~0.94 *0.085×10-6 *0.044×10-6

base ( g/cm3)
*data of density is cited from Whitfield (1996), wood museum (2014), [Link]
(2014)
Bending test was carried out by a strength test machine shown in figure 3-4 of
chapter 3 for investigating bending rupture stress of the four samples. In the
Three-Point Bending Test, 3 specimens cut from CW, PT and PB were trimmed to
50mm×10mm(±0.2mm) beam respectively. Because the special structure which is
called inner cushioning (Nakagawa, 2006) of CC that dimension of specimen for CC
was made 2.5times larger than the other three materials.
All dimensions were measured with an accuracy of + 0.02 mm. Capacity of 500 N
load cell was fixed on a motor, applied at a uniform rate of 15mm/min in its vertical
direction. Furthermore, the deformation signal was measured by a potentiometer. Both
signals of force and deformation were transmitted into an amplifier and A/D convertor
then logged in a computer. The bending stress of bio-board was obtained by the
quotients of bending moment and section modulus of the specimen. Rupture stress was

－73－
defined by quotients of maximum bending moment and section modulus of specimen
when the specimen was fractured. The classic formula for determining the bending
stress is the same to corn straw bio-board bending stress calculation defined in chapter
3.

5.3 Results and discussions

4 individual specimens were applied in bending stress test and the variation of
stress-deformation curves were compared as follows. figure 5-1 shows that stress of
CW increased with the increase of deformation before the specimen fractured. A
proportional liner could be found in the graph before the maximum point of stress.
After specimen was ruptured stress decreased sharply, however some fibers still
connected even specimen fractured. That is why between 2mm and 3mm the stress
stopped decreasing. As the continue increase of deformation, stress fell down to zero
which means specimen was fractured completely with certain deformation in bending
strength test. The variation stress-deformation for CW was mostly similar to bio-board
for CW belongs to wood and its cellulose content is approximately closed to corn
straw.
CW
70
60
Stress (MPa)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deformation (mm)

Fig. 5-1 Stress-deformation curve of CW in bending test.

In the other hand, figure 5-2 showed a quite different variation of stress-deformation
curve of PT. It seems that there was not any obvious yield point in the variation of
－74－
stress-deformation curve of PT, however, it could be found that before deformation
was 1mm, the stress varied with deformation as a proportional liner, the curves’
steepness was downward sloping after deformation was over 1mm. Deformation
increased until a fracture occurred than stress became zero.
PT
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Stress (MPa)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Deformation (mm)

Fig. 5-2 Stress-deformation curve of PT in bending test.

For the variation of stress-deformation curve of PB shown in figure 5-3, the

variation of curve differed slightly from CC, which was after specimen fractured, stress
decreased, however, the decrease of stress stopped and kept constantly at
approximately 3MPa. In the picture (c) shown in figure 5-5, it could be known that
there
PB
7
6
5
4
Stress (MPa)

3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deformation (mm)

Fig. 5-3 Stress-deformation curve of PB in bending test.

－75－
was not any fracture cracks occurred in PB specimen, which means the specimen of
PB failed but it was not completely broken by applying load. The behavior of the
specimen was considered to be similar as the ductile material.
In the last stress-deformation curve of CC displayed in figure 5-4, a specific
variation of stress and deformation was found. At first, before the specimen of CC
yield, the trend of stress and deformation which was a proportional liner was similar to
the other three materials. However, after over the yield point, stress decreased slightly
and then increased again. It could be seen that with two peaks and valleys which
reflected the trend of stress might continuously vary without falling down to zero,
because there was not any fractural cracks happening in specimen of CC in figure 5-5
(d). This variation might be considered that peaks and valleys happened in stress
variation was attributed to the cushioning properties of corrugated structures.

CC
0.35
0.3
0.25
Stress (MPa)

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Deformation (mm)

Fig. 5-4 Stress-deformation curve of CC in bending test.

The tested simples for CW and PT, it could be seen obvious cracks occurred
approximately at the middle of the specimens. In the opposite, there was not any cracks
happened in PB and CC which included particular properties of paper pulp products.

－76－
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 5-5 Fractured appearance of four specimen samples

( a: CW, b: PT, c: PB, d: CC)

Maximum stress values were shown in figure 5-6. Because PB and CC were not
ruptured even maximum stress has been reached, maximum stress could not be defined
as a rupture stress value for PB and CC. The resulting maximum stress for the four
simples are clear that the bending stress of 61.74MPa was occurred in CW which was
strongest strength compared to the other three simples. Minimum stress of CC was
0.259MPa and PT has a maximum stress of 1.606MPa. In addition, although
mechanical property of PB was similar to CC, the maximum stress of PB was
6.423MPa. The significant different maximum stress between CW and the other three
simples indicated that natural cellulosic material was stronger than the chemical
compound materials.
For the strength property of bio-board, which is similar to CW also has a large stress
for bending test. Compared with the other three PT, PB and CC, bio-board with a range
of 34.52MPa ~ 41.25MPa (calculated in chapter 4) bending stress was much larger.
Therefore, bio-board could also have potential applying in packaging materials.
－77－
 70
C
60 W
50 PT

Maximum stress (MPa)

40
30
20
10
0
CW PT PB
four simples CC

Fig. 5-6 Maximum stress of four simples.

5.4 Strength comparison with wheat straw bio-board

Agricultural residues are known as not only corn straw, also cereal straws. Among
them, wheat straw has big potential because of its wide availability and low cost
(Sarkar, 2012; Kim, 2004). Additionally, wheat straw has a large production in the
world whose chemical property is similar with corn straw. The average yield of wheat
straw is 1.3−1.4 kg/kg of wheat grain, with a world production of wheat estimated to
be around 680 million tons in 2011. Wheat straw contains 35−45% cellulose, 20−30%
hemicelluloses, and around 15% lignin, which makes it an attractive bio-board raw
material and other value-added products (Jose, 2012).
In this chapter, strength property of wheat straw is mainly studied comparing with
the strength of corn straw. Because wheat straw and corn straw has many
commonalities, also they are classified as biomass material. If the commonality of
mechanical property between wheat straw and corn straw could be found, it would help
researchers to find more similar biomass raw materials to produce bio-board. In
addition, the waste which has big potential to be reused is going to be recycled for the
limited natural resource is dying day by day.
Generally, board making process was applied using wheat straw. The flow of board
making process was the same as corn straw bio-board making process. Besides,
pretreatment was prepared using the same devices. Then, strength test including both

－78－
bending test and tensile strength test was conducted. Finally, rupture stress comparison
was made to investigate the difference in the strength of bio-board.

5.5 Materials and methods

5.5.1 Board making experiment
Wheat (Triticum aestivum L) straws were used in this work according to the NARO
(2014). Wheat straw was harvested on June 10th, 2013 at the Mie Prefecture farm.
After harvesting, grains were removed. Straw were left in a ventilated storage air-dried
for two months.
Five processes applied in previous experiment are used in the present study which
are cutting, soaking, grinding, compressing and drying showed in figure 5-7.

Wheat straw Cutting Soaking Grinding

Bio-board Drying Compressing

Fig. 5-7 flow chart of board making process

During pretreatment, dry corn straws were cut into chips using an electric cutter,
then soaked in water at 22℃ for 168 hours for softening the straw fiber. In soaking
process, wheat straw fiber absorbed moisture from water condition. Wheat straw was
felt softer than corn straw even though they both were soaked with the same condition.
Soaked wheat straw was then fiberized (pulped) by using an atmospheric refiner
with conical blades (Model A Beatfiner. Satomi. Corp.). The motor capacity is
11kw×4p-200, 60Hz, rotational speed is 1750 r.p.m (60Hz). The maximum flux control
is 0.05-0.1m3/min. Air pressure is 0.6MPa required. Grinding part is an assembling
conical cutter with blades. Dimension of cutter is 2.5mm×3.0mm×8° (blade width ×
slot width × blade angle).
Fiberization of corn straws at atmospheric pressure was carried out by passing the
damp cut straw along with running water through the refiner’ rotating blades. During

－79－
grinding process, fiber bundles would be fiberized by milling. Accordingly,
milled-corn straw was sieved to possess particle size using a screen with the hole
dimension of 0.5mm×0.5mm.
Four bio-boards were planned to be made with the experimental condition shown in
table 5-2. They are named A1, B1 which were made with the pressure of 2MPa and the
other two boards named A2, B2 were made by 8MPa

Table 5-2 Experimental condition for making wheat straw bio-board

bio-board pressure (MPa) dying

No. temp. (℃)

A1,B1 2 110

A2,B2 8 110

5.5.2 Strength test

Bending tests and tensile strength tests were conducted for the purpose of analyzing
the mechanical properties of wheat straw bio-board. Specimens cut from A1 and A2
were prepared for bending test and specimens from B1, B2 were used for tensile
strength test.
First, in the Three-Point Bending Test, 10 specimens were trimmed to 50mm×
20mm × 1.2mm rectangular beam following standard JIS procedures and
recommendations (JIS Z2248:1996). All dimensions were measured with an accuracy
of + 0.02 mm. Capacity of 100 N load cell was fixed on a motor, applied at a uniform
rate of 15mm/min in its vertical direction. Furthermore, the deformation signal was
measured by a potentiometer. Both signals of force and deformation were transmitted
into an amplifier and A/D convertor then logged in a computer. The bending stress of
bio-board was obtained by the quotients of bending moment and section modulus of
the specimen. Rupture stress was defined by quotients of maximum bending moment
and section modulus of specimen when the specimen was fractured. The classic
formula for determining the bending stress is the same to corn straw bio-board bending
stress calculation in chapter 3.
－80－
 Second, tensile strength tests were done under deformation control by using a
universal testing machine. Speed of cross-head was 15mm/min. 8 specimens taken
from A2 and B2 bio-board named TP1 ~ TP4 were subject to tensile strength tests
following standard JIS procedures and recommendations (JIS z 2201).
Normal stress is defined by the quotients of axial load applied on specimen and
original cross-sectional area of the specimen. Rupture stress was obtained when the
axial load reaches to maximum value while the specimen was fractured. Rupture stress
is calculated by the formula mentioned in chapter 3.

5.6 Results and discussion

5.6.1 Board making
Four bio-boards were made by the board making process proposed in this study. It
was successful for making bio-board using wheat straw. The dimension of bio-boards
were 100 mm×100 mm in area and in the range of 2.0mm-2.2 mm in thickness figure
5-8 shows the image of wheat straw bio-board. From the surface and the bottom of
bio-board, it showed that the color of two sides is brown and it is darker than corn
straw. Compared to corn straw board, few individual big fibers could be seen on both
sides in wheat straw board. It implied that wheat straw was not refined uniform well.
However the section was smooth with approximate the same height. Thus, dimension
of bio-board was not affected by non-uniform fiber.

a. surface b. bottom

－81－
 c. section
Fig. 5-8 Wheat straw bio-board

5.6.2 Strength comparison

Strength comparison for wheat straw (WS) and corn straw (CS) was discussed as
follows. Ten specimens were applied in bending stress test, unfortunately, one
specimen from A1 board was accidentally failed, it is why only four specimens were
displayed in figure 5-9. Generally, bending test resulted that in board A1 stress value
increased with the increase of deflection until reaching a maximum value, however the
peak of the curve is not obvious. Second, the curves of stress-deflection almost
approach a straight line before the fractures occurred. Specimens fractured at
approximately 1.5mm~2mm of deflection. Bending stress is called rupture stress when
the specimen fractured. After specimen fractured, bending stress decreased to zero,
however, bending stress still appears a few because some fibers were still remained
connecting. The trend of bending stress-deflection curve varied proportional increase
with the same behavior as CS bio-board.
In figure 5-10 displayed the results of bending test from B1 board. The trend of
stress-deformation curve showed the same behavior with A1, however, fractures were
faster than A1 for the specimens fractured before 2mm deformation.

－82－
 2MPa
25 T

bending stress (MPa)

P
1
20 T
P
15 2

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
deformation (mm)

Fig. 5-9 Stress-deformation curve of A1 WS bio-board in bending test

At the proportional line part, B1 increased more steeply than A1 which implied that
elastic modulus in B1 is greater than A1.

25 8MPa
T
20 P
bending stress (MPa)

1
15 T
P
10 2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
deformation (mm)
Fig. 5-10 Stress-deformation curve of B1 WS bio-board in bending test

Boards named A2, B2 were used for tensile strength tests and the stress-strain curves

－83－
are shown in figure 5-11 and figure 5-12. All the curves showed that in the beginning
of the stress-strain curve, tensile stress increases as strain becomes large, after the
tensile stress reaches the maximum value, specimens fractured, then, tensile stress
decreases suddenly to zero. The maximum value is called tensile rupture stress. It
could be found that specimens which was from board A2 fractured with a low rupture
stress, in the opposite, specimens cut from board B2 showed a high rupture stress value
and also the fractured point was at a larger strain value than the one in board A2.
The trend of stress-strain curve received from WS bio-board showed similar
behavior to the one of CS bio-board. It could be considered that first, WS and CS are
cereal residues which had almost the same chemical compound. Second, fibers
contained in the both raw materials shows similar length of range which is from
(0.5mm-2.9mm) for CS and (0.4mm-3.2mm) for WS (Mudit.C, 1998). Therefore,
board making process is feasible for WS to produce bio-board and the WS board
appears certain strength for application.

10 2MPa
tensile stress (MPa)

T
8 P1
T
P2
6
T
P3
4

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
strain (mm)

Fig. 5-11 Stress-strain curve of A2 WS bio-board in tensile strength test

－84－
 8MPa
10 TP1

tensile stress (MPa)

8 TP2

6 TP3
TP4
4
2
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
strain (mm)

Fig. 5-12 Stress-strain curve of B2 WS bio-board in tensile strength test

In the comparison of rupture stress (RS) for WS and CS, the results were displayed
in figure 5-13. Under the condition of applied pressure 2MPa, it can be seen that RS
increased with the increase of applied pressure. For bending test, the RS of WS was
obviously smaller than the RS of CS. Furthermore, compared to RS of CS the tensile
strength RS of WS varied similarly to the former resulting in bending test. Generally,
variation of rupture stress for WS board resembles CS board, however, the strength CS
showed stronger than WS. It may be explained by some reasons such as the length of
fiber in CS was shorter than WS and the content of cellulose was different and so on.

40
BRS for
35 WS
TRS for
30 WS
rupture stress ( MPa)

BRS for
25 CS
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10
applied pressure ( MPa)

Fig. 5-13 Rupture stress comparison for WS and CS

－85－
5.7 Conclusion

After the bending stress investigation of CW, PT, PB, CC, resulting conclusions
could be known as follows.
1) The variation stress-deformation for CW was mostly similar to bio-board, on the
other hand, PT, PB and CC showed peaks and valleys in stress-deformation curves.
2) Cracks only occurred in CW and PT after specimen fractured, however, PB and CC
were yield without any cracks.
3) Resulting maximum stress of the four simples for bending test indicated that
strength of CW was the strongest.
4) Compared with the other three PT, PB and CC, bio-board with a range of
34.52MPa ~ 41.25MPa bending stress was much larger.
5) Investigation of bio-board mechanical property was made in this chapter using
wheat straw as a raw material. The resulting conclusions could be known as follows:
6) It was successful for making bio-board using wheat straw. The process for the
board making is feasible.
7) The trend of bending stress-deflection curve varied proportional increase with the
same behavior as CS bio-board before fracture. In tensile strength test, variation of
stress-strain curve for WS board was also similar to CS bio-board.
8) Rupture stress of strength test, variation of rupture stress for WS board resembles
CS board, however, the strength CS showed stronger than WS.
Therefore, it could be also potentially applied in packaging materials. Another
advantage of bio-board is that chemical adhesive was not added in board making
process, thus, low cost and friendly environmental characteristic is a representation of
bio-board comparing to other chemical compound package materials.

－86－
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author, firstly wishes to express her sincerest appreciation and gratitude to
Professor Xiulun Wang as an advisor. For his valuable guidance, advice and assistance
during the doctoral course and the completion of this study for author. Whenever, there
occurred problems to us, with his great help and much patient many technical problems
were solved and research could continuously head toward. His best understanding and
concern gave much confidence and power to the author to face some objective
problems such as the study environment which was quite different from the author’s
home country. Greatly, all these were overcame and experiments were completed
successfully. The author would also like to express her best regards to the evaluation
committee members Prof. Sato and Prof. Chinyama for their helpful advice and
constructive criticism.
In addition, the author would like to appreciate the Ministry of Education
(Monbousho-Japan) for providing the scholarship support for the completion of this
study program.
Special appreciation is due to Assoc. Prof. Koji Kito and all the biomass team
members Takeshi Tusji, Ryohei Nakai, Takaaki Suzuki, Jin Zhang (China), Winda
Rahamawati and Darma (Indonesia) for their fellowship and cooperation during her
stay in Japan.
Besides, the author also wish to thank the Professors and stuffs of the Center for
International Education and Research (CIER) for supplying Japanese classes to help
her understanding of foreign culture and improving Japanese skills.
The author indebted and convey enormous gratitude to her family and the
home-stay Kato’s family in Japan, for their moral support, love, pray, and everlasting
wishes for her success.
Last but not at the least, the author is grateful for all the Japanese friends for their
selfless help during the entire period of staying and study in Japan.

－87－
 References
1. Abramson, M., O. Shoseyov, Z. Shani, 2010. Plant cell wall reconstruction toward
improved lignocellulosic production and processability. Plant Sci. 178, 61−72.

2. Alcaide, L. J., F. L. Baldovin, and I. S. Parra. 1991, Characterization of cellulose

pulp from agricultural residues, TAPPI 74(1): 217-221.

3. Alcaide, L. J., F. L. Baldovin, and J. L. F. Herranz. 1993, Evaluation of

agricultural residues for paper manufacture, TAPPI 76(3): 169-173.

4. Alexander G. and S. Wilfredo, 1961 Races of Maize in Peru, Publication 915

National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council,Washington,D.C.

5. American Chemistry Council, “2005 National Post-Consumer Plastics Bottle

Recycling Report”

6. Belderok. R and H. Mesdag, H., 2000. Bread-Making Quality of Wheat, Springer,

p. 3, ISBN 0-7923-6383-3

7. Biomass Energy Centre. (2012 December 9). What is Biomass? Retrieved

December 9,2012 available from <[Link]

8. Bowyer, J.B., 1995. Wood and other raw materials for the 21st century. Forest
Products Journal 45 (2), 17–24.

9. Brechbill, S., Tyner, W.E.,2008, The Economics of Renewable Energy: Corn

Stover and Switchgrass. Purdue Extension ID-404-W, West Lafayette, IN.
Available from: <[Link]

10. Clancy-Hepturn, M. 1998. Agricultural residues: a promising alternative to virgin

wood fiber. Issue in Resources Conservation, Briefing Series No. 1 Resources
Conservation Alliance. Washington, DC.

11. Department of Energy Washington DC. 2003. Roadmap for Agriculture Biomass
Feedstock Supply in the United States, US Department of Energy,
DOE/NE-ID-11129

12. Dale S.N and Don, H.B. 1984. Fiber Size distribution, Bulk Density, and Ash
－88－
 Content of Peats in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Soil Science Society of
Americal Journal, Vol.48.(6):1320-1328.

13. Fletcher D, 2010, Worst Inventions Plastic Grocery Bags, Time Lists, The 50
worst inventations, P28.

14. Fujiwara. S, Naito S. and S. Ono, 2010 Surface material, a patent from Panasonic
elec works co. Ltd.

15. Demirbas, M.F., Balat, M., Balat, H., 2011. Biowastes-to-biofuels. Energ. Convers.
Manage. 2(4),1815-1828.

16. EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2000. International Energy Annual

Report, 1998. Washington, DC, USA.

17. Rowell R.M., A.Y. Raymond and J. K. Rowell, 1997. Paper and Composites from
Agro-Based Resources, Lewis Publ. 137-245.

18. Burgess G. ,1994, Generation of Cushion Curves from One Shock Pulse，
Packaging Technology and Science, 7(4):169.

19. Itou H., 2011（伊東 寛明）、植物繊維強化バイオプラスチックについて。

愛産研ニュース 5 月号.

20. History of Plastics, Polymer Plastics Company, LC. Available from

<[Link] June 2013.

21. Hurter, A. M., 1990 a, Utilization of annual plants and agricultural residues for the
production of pulp and paper, TAPPI Nonwood Plant Fiber Pulping Progress
Report No.19, 49-70.

22. Ilvessalo-Pfaffli, Marja-Sisko; 1995. Fiber Atlas: identification of papermaking

fibers, Springer-verlag, New York.

23. JIS P 8111：紙、板紙及び パ ル プ ―調湿 及 び 試 験の た め の 標準

状態

24. Jorgelina C. Pasqualino, Daniel,M., Joan, S., 2006. Synergic effects of biodiesel in
the biodegradability of fossil-derived fuels, Biomass and Bioenergy, 30: 874-879

－89－
25. Jose G.B Derraik, 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plstic debris:
a review, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44: 842-852.

26. JoséC. del Río, 2012. Structural Characterization of Wheat Straw Lignin as
Revealed by Analytical Pyrolysis, 2D-NMR, and Reductive Cleavage Methods.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 60:5922-5935.

27. Karl, J.R. 2013. The maximum leaf quantity of the maize subspecies. The Maize
Genetics Cooperation Newsletter. 86: 4, ISSN 1090-4573

28. Kellicutt, K.Q.：Basic Design For The Use of Fiberboard in Shipping Containers，
NoD1911，United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service ，Forest
Products Laboratory 12, 1951.

29. Kim, S.; Dale, B. E. 2004. Global potential bioethanol production from wasted
crops and crop residues. Biomass Bioenergy. 4: 361−375.

30. Kneeth P, Vogel and John J. B., 2002. Switchgrass Biomass Production in the
Midwest USA. Agronomy Journal,Vol.94:413-420.

31. Lee,D.K, 2007, Composition of Herbaceous Biomass Feedstocks, North central

Sun Grant Center, South Dakota State University Box 2140C, Brookings, SD
57007.

32. Mobarak, F. Fahmy, Y and H, Augustin. 1982. Binderless lignocellulose composite

from bagasse and mechanism of self-bonding Holzforschung, 36:131-135.

33. Mudit,C., 1998. Use of Nonwood Plant Fibers for Pulp and Paper Industry in Asia:
Potential in China. Master of forestry in wood science and forest products. Degree
paper, Aug.,Blacksburg, Virginial.

34. Mustafa,B. and A. Gunhaan. 2005. Biomass Energy in the World, Use of Biomass
and Potential Trends. Enery Sources, Taylor&Francis Inc.27:931-940.

35. NARO ( National Agricultural and Food Research Organization) July 7, 2014,
cited from [Link]

36. Nakagawa,Y and K Saito. 2006. Examination of Cushioning Property for

－90－
 Sleeve-structure Corrugated Fiberboard. Japan Institute of Navigation 116:
261-268.

37. National Burean of Statistcs of China, 2010. China Statistical Yearbook 2009.
China Statistics Press, Beijing, China.

38. Nibedita.S, Sumanta, K.G. and Satarupa,B. and Kaustav, A., 2012, Bioethanol
production from agricultural wastes: An overview. Applied Renewable Energy 37,
19-27.

39. Pordesimo, L.O., B.R. Hames, S. Sokhhansanj, and W.C. Edens. 2005. Variation in
corn stover composition and energy content with crop maturity. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 28: 366–374.

40. Richey,CB., J.B. Liljedahl, V.L. Lechtenberg. 1982. Corn Stover harvest for
energy production. Transactions of the ASAE 25(4): 834-839,844.

41. Roland,B., Mythologies. Selected and translated from the French by annettelavers.
the NOONDAY Press, New York,1957.

42. Saad MJ and I Kamal, 2012, Mechanical and physical of low density kenaf core
particleboards bonded with different resins. Journal of Science and
Technology,4(1): 17-31.

43. Sabharwal, H. S., 1995, Refiner mechanical and biomechanical pulping of jute,
Holzforschung, 49(6): 537-544.

44. Sarkar, N.; Ghosh, S. K.; Bannerjee, S.; Aikat, K. 2012. Bioethanol production
from agricultural wastes: An overview. Renewable Energy, 37:19−27.

45. Schellenberger, S., 1995. Overview of agrifibre utilization potential inAlberta. In:
Proc. Alberta Agripulp Workshop on Pulp from Crop Residues, June 1 –2.
Edmonton, Alberta: Clear Lake,Ltd.

46. Shahab,S., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P. O. Box. 2008. Oak Ridge Tennessee
37831-6422. Biomass Feedstock Supply Corn Stover Collection, Cost Estimates,
Proposed Research and Development Programs. An ASAE International Meeting
July30-August 1,2001.
－91－
47. Fujiwara, S., Ohno S and Y, Okudaira, 2010. Lightweight sliding door using
environment conscious kenaf boards, Panasonic Technology Journal, 58(3):56-58.
(Japanese).

48. Stevenson, J. C. and M.M. Goodman, 1972. Ecology of exotic races of maize. I.
leaf number and tillering of 16 races under four temperatures and two
photoperiods1. Crop Science 12 (6): 864

49. Sun, R., Lawther, J. M. and Banks, W. B. 1997. A tentative chemical structure of
wheat straw lignin. Ind. Crops Prod. 6: 1−8.

50. Sun,H. and X.L. Wang and K Kito, 2010, May. Production of Bio-board and Its
Mechanical Properties. Society of Environmental Conservation Engineering.
International Information Institute,Vol.13 No.3(B):1005-1011.

51. Terashima, N., K. Fukushima, L. He, and K. Takabe, 1993, Comprehensive model
of the lignified plant cell wall. In;

52. Jung, H. G., Buxton, D. R., Hatfield, R.D., Ralph, J., eds, 1994, Forage Cell Wall
Structure and Digestibility, American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society
of America, Madison, 36(1) :46.

53. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States, 2005 Facts and Figures, EPA530-R-06-011, October 2006 .

54. Volk T.A., L.P. Abrahamson, E.H. White, E. Neuhauser, E. Gray, C. Demeter, C.
Lindsey, J. Jarnefeld, D.J. Aneshansley, R. Pellerin and S. Edick (October 15–19,
2000). "Developing a Willow Biomass Crop Enterprise for Bioenergy and
Bioproducts in the United States". Proceedings of Bioenergy 2000. Adam's Mark
Hotel, Buffalo, New York, USA.

55. Wellhausen, E.J., L.M Roberts and E. Hernandez X., 1952. Races of Maize in
Mexico. The Bussey Institution of Harvard University.

56. Whitfield M. and Palmer, Jr. 1996. Nontoxic absorbent. U.S. Patent 08/332,900,
filed, Nov.1,1994 and issued Aug.6.

57. Yang,S.H., 2001,Vegetable Fiber Chemical Science. China Light Industry Press,
－92－
 Beijing, China.

58. Ye X.P. and J, Julson et al. 2007. Properties of Medium Density Fiberboards Made
from Renewable Biomass. Bioresource Technology 98: 1077-1084

59. Yokoyama, S. and Y. Matsumura, (eds) 2008. A guide for biomass production and
Utilization. The Asian Biomass Handbook. The Japan Institute of Energy, Tokyo,
Japan.

60. Yorgun, S., S. Þensöz and Ö. M. Koçkar. 2001. Characterization of the pyrolysis
oil produced in the slow pyrolysis of sunflower-extracted bagasse. Biomass and
Bioenergy 20:141–148.

61. Young, R. A.; 1997, Processing of Agro-Based Resources into Pulp and Paper,
Paper and composites from agro-based resoures, chapter6: 138-237

62. 砥 石 と 研 削 ・ 研 磨 の 総 合 情 報 サ イ ト . Cited on July,17,2014.

[Link]

63. 木材博物館 www. [Link]. July,17, 2014.

－93－