PHYSICAL AND RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF
`MANURE PRODUCTS
`
`H. Landry, C. Laguë, M. Roberge
`
`ABSTRACT. Selected physical and rheological properties deemed to influence the performances of handling and land
`application equipment were quantified for different types of manure at different levels of total solids concentration (TS)
`ranging from 10% to 50% on a wet mass basis. The selected properties included total solids concentration, bulk density,
`particle size distribution, friction characteristics, and shearing behavior and were measured for dairy cattle, sheep, poultry,
`and pig manure. The bulk density of all manure products was found to increase with TS and the values for poultry and pig
`manure were not significantly different at the tested TS levels. The measured density values were in close agreement with ASAE
`D384. The proposed modified geometric mean length of the particles was found to significantly increase as TS became smaller.
`The static friction coefficients of all manure types with the exception of pig manure on the different surface materials
`[plywood, plastic, steel (bare and painted )] did not exhibit large differences and a single linear equation was suggested to
`predict the static friction coefficient as a function of TS. Animal manures were described as pseudoplastic fluids and the
`consistency coefficients were found to increase with TS for all manure types. The apparent viscosity of the tested manure
`products was well correlated to TS. The implications of the property results obtained in this study as well as future research
`are discussed.
`Keywords. Handling, Land application, Manure, Physical properties, Rheological properties.
`
`LITERATURE REVIEW
`Published research results are readily available in the area
`of manure chemical properties. Much fewer journal articles
`have targeted the physical and flow properties of manure
`products and most of the manure characterization efforts
`have focused on liquid manure and slurry.
`Kumar et al. (1972) studied the flow properties of animal
`waste slurries. They concluded that the viscosity of dairy
`cattle slurry decreased with an increase in dilution and an
`increase in temperature. They also noticed that the flow of
`slurry is Newtonian at solids contents below 5%. The
`addition of sawdust up to as much as 10% by weight of the
`amount of manure decreased the viscosity of a slurry having
`a total solids content of up to approximately 9%.
`Hashimoto and Chen (1976) attempted to identify a
`parameter that would mathematically describe the rheologi-
`cal properties of aerated and fresh dairy cattle, poultry and
`swine waste slurries and that could be easily and precisely
`measured experimentally. They also tried to describe proce-
`dures to estimate the effect of rheological properties on
`pumping, mixing and aerating livestock waste slurries. Their
`study showed that the rheological consistency coefficient (K)
`and rheological behavior index (n) of livestock waste slurries
`can be expressed in terms of the equilibrium sludge volume
`fraction (ΦL) as:
`
`(1)
`
`bL
`
`2
`
`f=
`bK
`1
`
`P
`
`roper recycling of animal manure is of paramount
`importance to increase the sustainability and social
`acceptance of intensive livestock production. As the
`environmental and agronomic requirements for ef-
`fective and safe land application of manure products become
`more prescriptive, equipment used in manure management
`systems are subjected to higher performance expectations.
`Solid and semi−solid manure products represent potential al-
`ternatives to reduce some of the environmental and societal
`problems that may be associated with liquid manure manage-
`ment. Commercial equipment designed to handle and land
`apply solid and semi−solid manure do exhibit large coeffi-
`cients of variation for both transversal and longitudinal prod-
`uct distribution (Bisang, 1987; Wilhoit et al., 1993; Frick et
`al., 2001; Thirion and Chabot, 2003). Appropriate knowl-
`edge of the physical and flow properties of the products to be
`handled is fundamental to the design and operation of effi-
`cient systems.
`
`Article was submitted for review in March 2003; approved for
`publication by the Power & Machinery Division of ASAE in November
`2003.
`The authors are Hubert Landry, ASAE Student Member, Graduate
`Student, Claude Laguë, ASAE Member Engineer, Professor and Dean,
`Martin Roberge, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural and
`Bioresource Engineering, College of Engineering, University of
`Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. Corresponding author: Hubert
`Landry, Department of Agricultural and Bioresource Engineering,
`University of Saskatchewan, 57 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
`S7N 5A9; phone: 306−966−5303; fax: 306−966−5334; e−mail:
`Hubert.Landry@asae.org.
`
`)
`
`
`
`L
`
`(2)
`
`+
`
`b
`
`4
`
`ln(
`f
`
`=
`bn
`3
`where b1 to b4 are constants.
`Values of these constants were given for the tested animal
`manures and were found to be dependent on the range of ΦL.
`Relationships have also been established to relate mixer
`power characteristics and pressure head loss in pipeline
`
`Vol. 20(3): 277−288
`
`E 2004 American Society of Agricultural Engineers ISSN 0883−8542
`
`277
`
`Applied Engineering in Agriculture
`
`Exhibit 2097
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 1 of 12
`
`

`

`transport of slurries to K, n, the effective viscosity, and
`generalized Reynolds number. A method of determining ΦL
`is also presented, but to the authors’ knowledge, the
`equilibrium sludge volume fraction has never been widely
`used in manure characterization.
`Rheological consistency index, flow behavior index,
`specific heat, and thermal conductivity of beef cattle manure
`were determined by Chen (1982). Density was also measured
`for solid contents ranging from 1% to 99%. The results
`suggested that the density of manure increased as the total
`solids concentration increased for manure with less than 16%
`TS. For manure with TS higher than 50%, the bulk density of
`the manure dropped much below the liquid manure density.
`The study also included rheological properties for TS ranging
`from 1% to 14%. Beef cattle slurries were described as
`non−Newtonian pseudoplastic fluids, the deviation from
`Newtonian behavior increasing with TS.
`Using a constant temperature rotational viscometer, Chen
`and Shetler (1983) investigated the effect of temperature on
`the rheological properties of cattle manure having total solids
`concentrations ranging from 2.5% to 19.3%. The experi-
`mented shear rates ranged from 20 to 200 s−1 and tempera-
`tures varied from 14_C to 64_C. This study confirmed
`previous findings that beef cattle manure slurry is a
`non−Newtonian pseudoplastic fluid and a power−law equa-
`tion could be used in this range of shear rates. The rheological
`behavior index (n) was found to decrease exponentially with
`TS, but was not affected by temperature while the rheological
`consistency index (K), in general, increased as TS increased.
`The apparent viscosity of the slurry decreased exponentially
`as temperature increased, and increased as TS increased. An
`equation relating the apparent viscosity to TS and to the
`absolute temperature was given.
`Chen (1986) later proposed a rheological model for
`manure slurries and applied this model to experimental data
`of cattle manure slurry obtained using a rotational viscome-
`ter. He found that cattle manure slurry showed negligible
`yield stress and that the Bingham Plastic, Herschel−Bulkley
`and Casson models were not applicable. The power law
`model could be used only for sieved slurries with TS below
`4.5%. He also observed a curvilinear relationship of shear
`stress and shear rate in the logarithmic plot for high TS
`slurries due to the existence of a limiting viscosity. He
`proposed the following rheological model for beef cattle
`manure slurry:
`
`·
`
`g·
`
`
` ht =
`+
`(3)
`’’
`n
`’’K g
`
`0
`where τ is the shear stress, g· is the shear rate, η0 is the limiting
`viscosity, and K” and n” are rheological parameters.
`Nonlinear least square regression was used to fit the proposed
`model to the experimental rheological data for slurries
`having TS above 4.5%. The results showed that the proposed
`model was well correlated to the experimental data. The
`value of n” for sieved slurries did not vary with TS or
`temperature, having an average value of 0.307 with a
`standard deviation of 0.054. Equations expressing η0 and K”
`in terms of TS and temperature were also obtained. The
`values of η0 and K” were found to increase as TS increased
`and to decrease as temperature increased.
`Achkari−Begdouri and Goodrich (1992) studied the
`rheological properties of Moroccan dairy cattle manure with
`total solids concentrations ranging from 2.5% to 12% at
`
`temperatures between 20°C and 60°C. Their results showed
`that in the ranges of total solids and temperature of the study,
`Moroccan dairy cattle manure behaved as a pseudoplastic
`fluid. Two equations based on the total solids content and the
`temperature, one expressing the consistency coefficient and
`the other to predict the flow behavior index, were proposed.
`Solid and semi−solid manures have not been studied as
`much as liquid manure and slurry in terms of physical
`properties. A few studies have mentioned the effect of
`manure properties on the performance of various mecha-
`nisms. In their study of spreader distribution patterns for
`poultry litter, Wilhoit et al. (1993) made observations on the
`effect of particle size on spreading distances. They concluded
`that large particles were distributed more evenly and on a
`larger width when compared to smaller particles that landed
`closer to the spreader. Wilhoit et al. (1994) also observed the
`effects of particle size distribution while developing a drop
`applicator for poultry litter. They concluded that their gravity
`flow metering system was not appropriate due to the presence
`of clumps blocking the flow of material from the hopper.
`Observations were made by Wilhoit and Ling (1996) to the
`effect that the nature of wood and fly ash caused the spreading
`uniformity to be inconsistent from trial to trial. In their design
`of an applicator for side dressing row crops with solid wastes,
`Glancey and Adams (1996) identified maximum lump size
`and moisture content as the physical properties presenting
`potential problems in raw manure conveying.
`Glancey and Hoffman (1996) measured physical proper-
`ties of poultry manure and compost under different manage-
`ment practices. They investigated trends in the measured
`properties to develop general guidelines for the design and
`analysis of material handling systems, transportation equip-
`ment and spreaders. They concluded that wet bulk density
`was dependent on moisture content for all the solid wastes
`evaluated and that knowledge of moisture content was
`therefore more important than the type or source of material.
`The static friction characteristics suggested that there was
`little practical difference between the different products.
`Another trend identified by the authors indicated that all
`unscreened waste materials contained large lumps. This
`presents potential design problems in developing conveying
`systems to handle unscreened materials.
`Agnew et al. (2003) used an air pycnometer to measure the
`air volume and density of compost. The free air space (FAS)
`and bulk density of manure compost, municipal solid waste
`compost, and mixtures of biosolids and amendment materials
`were measured at various moisture contents and compressive
`loads. Their results indicated that the FAS decreased with
`loading and increasing moisture content while the wet bulk
`density increased with loading and increasing moisture
`content. A linear relationship was established between FAS
`and bulk density for all the materials tested under loads.
`Malgeryd and Wetterberg (1996) reported the efforts of
`the Swedish National Machinery Testing Institute and the
`Swedish Institute of Agricultural Engineering to provide the
`necessary knowledge of how the physical properties of
`manures and slurries affect the spreading of different
`machines. They highlighted the fact that there is a lack of
`general knowledge about which properties are important in
`practice and how they should be measured. For manures that
`can be pumped, four properties were considered significant,
`namely, fluidity, separation tendency, risk of clogging and
`dry matter content. For manures that cannot be pumped, five
`
`278
`
`APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE
`
`Exhibit 2097
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 2 of 12
`
`

`

`properties were deemed important: bulk density, stacking
`ability or consistency, comminuting resistance, heterogene-
`ity and dry matter content. Methods were suggested for
`measuring those properties. Their results suggested that there
`is no clear relationship between the active angle of repose and
`the dry matter content for non−pumpable manures and that
`bulk density and the active angle of repose are closely related
`to each other. The active angle of repose could be estimated
`from the bulk density, which is easier to measure.
`Thirion et al. (1998) experienced difficulties in trying to
`implement the test methods outlined by Malgeryd and
`Wetterberg (1996). They measured manure properties in-
`cluding normal stress, shear stress, bulk density, friction
`coefficient, straw content and dry matter content. They
`included numerous comments on the difficulty of obtaining
`reliable results and proposed a method for obtaining a
`numerical value of manure heterogeneity.
`Landry and Laguë (1999) studied selected physical
`properties of papermill residues. They measured bulk
`density, moisture content, angle of repose, friction coeffi-
`cient on different materials and particle size distribution.
`They concluded that while the values of the selected
`properties were relatively constant among samples that
`originated from the same papermill, there could also be large
`variations depending upon the specific origin of the products.
`The literature review clearly demonstrates the variability
`that exists in manure properties and the lack of widely
`accepted and used methods to measure those physical and
`rheological properties. More data are required to highlight
`general trends and to develop design guidelines for manure
`handling and land application equipment.
`
`OBJECTIVE
`The objective of the work reported herein was to measure
`selected physical and rheological properties of different
`types of manure products at different levels of total solids
`concentration with an emphasis on the solid and semi−solid
`ranges.
`
`MATERIALS AND METHODS
`Based on the review of previous work, the properties that
`were deemed having the most influence on the performances
`of manure handling and land application equipment were
`identified as: (a) total solids concentration, (b) bulk density,
`(c) particle size distribution, (d) friction characteristics, and
`(e) shearing properties. Four types of manure were investi-
`gated: (1) dairy cattle, (2) sheep, (3) poultry, and (4) pig.
`Manure samples were collected from the facilities on the
`University of Saskatchewan farm (Saskatoon, Saskatche-
`wan, Canada). The dairy, pig, and poultry (laying hens) barns
`all featured scrapers to move the manure out of the buildings.
`The dairy and poultry barns were scraped twice a day and the
`manure went directly into underground pits. The pig manure
`was stored in a room at the end of the barn and that room was
`periodically emptied. Fresh samples were collected after
`scraping, just before the manure entered the pits. In the case
`of sheep manure, the samples were collected from outside
`pens and contained a large proportion of straw. A small
`amount of chopped straw was used in the free stall barn where
`the dairy cattle manure samples were collected. No bedding
`material was used in the pig and poultry barns. With the
`
`objective of characterizing the manure products in the state
`they would be when handled and/or land applied, the samples
`were not submitted to any treatment (e.g., separation,
`screening, etc.) prior to testing. Several large samples
`(approximately 150 L per sample) were collected for each
`type of manure to avoid using the same material more than
`once. In order to reach the targeted total solids concentra-
`tions, the raw samples were either dried outside or diluted
`with water. Based on the initial and targeted total solids
`concentrations, the amount of water to add was estimated by
`weighing the samples. The TS of the samples was measured
`daily during the preparation phase. The majority of the tested
`samples went through one wetting or drying cycle, two
`wetting phases were sometimes necessary to reach the
`desired TS level. The samples were stored and handled in
`170−L barrels and were tested as soon as the targeted TS level
`was reached. All property measurements were replicated on
`four sub−samples.
`
`TOTAL SOLIDS CONCENTRATION
`The total solids (TS) concentration of the manure products
`was determined by drying the samples in an oven overnight
`at 103°C (ASAE Standards, 2002a). TS was the ratio of
`oven−dry weight to wet weight and was expressed as a
`percentage.
`
`BULK DENSITY
`The bulk density of manure products was measured in an
`uncompacted state by weighing large containers of known
`volume filled with manure according to the procedure
`described by Glancey and Hoffman (1996). A weighing
`apparatus was designed and built to accommodate large
`samples (i.e., 170−L barrels). The apparatus was made of a
`platform supported by two load cells (2224−N capacity;
`±1.11 N nonlinearity; ±0.67 N hysteresis; Interface, Scotts-
`dale, Ariz.) and allowed for easy placement of the barrels.
`The load cells with the data acquisition system were
`calibrated using a universal testing machine (Model 1011,
`Instron Corporation, Canton, Mass.). All the test apparatuses
`that required calibration featured load cells (weighing
`apparatus, shearbox and large−scale viscometer) and the
`universal testing machine was used. Observations were made
`by Thirion et al. (1998) and Frick et al. (2001) to the effect
`that density values are affected by the measurement method.
`The chosen method consisted of manually handling the
`samples to create a consistent state of compaction for the
`entire test series. Once the barrels were filled to the desired
`level, opposite sides of the barrels were alternately lifted and
`dropped twice on the ground from an approximately 300−mm
`height to compact and level the material.
`
`PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
`A modified soil sieves shaker and a screen set were used
`to determine the particle size distribution of the manure
`samples using a procedure adapted from ASAE S424.1
`(ASAE Standards, 2002b). The size openings of the screen set
`used in this study were 25.4, 16.4, 8.7, 5.2, and 1.2 mm. The
`samples were placed on the top screen (25.4−mm openings),
`shaken for 90 s, and the screens were finally weighed on a
`laboratory scale to determine the amount of manure retained
`on each screen.
`
`Vol. 20(3): 277−288
`
`279
`
`Exhibit 2097
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 3 of 12
`
`

`

`= torque input by instrument (N−m)
`M
`= effective length of spindle (m)
`L
`The appropriate values of Rc, Rb, and L were obtained
`from the Brookfield documentation in the case of the
`laboratory viscometer. For the large viscometer, the integra-
`tion of the apparatus parameters into equation 4 gave a shear
`rate, in s−1, equal to 0.239 times the rotational velocity of the
`barrel in revolutions per minute. The immersion depth of the
`spindle was used as the effective length for the large unit.
`Four normal loads were used for the direct shear tests (7.0,
`22.5, 38.1, and 70.7 kPa) and the rate of shear was constant
`at 1.2 mm/min. The standard procedure ASTM D3080−98
`(ASTM, 1998) was followed.
`
`RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
`Table 1 summarizes the results obtained for the total solids
`concentration of the tested animal manures. It can be seen
`that some of the tested samples exhibited variability, as
`assessed by the values of standard deviation. However, the
`ANOVA performed on the TS results indicated that the
`measured TS values are similar enough to proceed to
`comparisons between the different waste products based on
`the target TS level. The original total solids concentrations of
`the dairy cattle, sheep, and pig manure samples were around
`15%, 30%, and 25%, respectively. For the poultry manure
`samples, two different initial levels of TS were observed
`(12% and 18% approximately) depending on the amount of
`water that got into the manure from leaking drinkers.
`Samples with a TS level corresponding to a target value were
`tested as is.
`
`SOLID MANURE PRODUCTS
`Solid manure products can be compared on the basis of the
`properties presented in table 2. As it can be seen from the bulk
`density results included in table 2, poultry and pig manure are
`similar products while dairy cattle and sheep manure show
`significant differences at most TS levels. Using the density
`
`Fixed backplate
`
`Shaft
`
`Spindle
`
`Barrel support
`
`Load cell
`
`Lever arm
`
`90−degree gearbox
`
`Figure 1. Schematic representation of the large−scale viscometer.
`
`FRICTION CHARACTERISTICS
`The values of the static friction coefficient of manure
`products on different surface materials were measured using
`the inclined plane method (Mohsenin, 1986). Four different
`surfaces, representative of possible candidate materials for
`the construction of manure handling and land application
`equipment, were selected: steel (bare and painted), plastic
`(PVC), and plywood. An inclined plane apparatus was
`designed and built to measure the static coefficients of
`friction of manure products. The apparatus featured an
`electric motor giving a constant angular inclination velocity
`of 0.007 rad/s. For the static coefficient of friction experi-
`ments, the samples were placed and held in a fiberglass ring
`having a diameter of 300 mm and a height of 30 mm. The
`angle of repose of manure products was also measured
`according to the method described by Henderson et al. (1997)
`using an apparatus made of a cylinder that could be lifted
`from a base plane to let the sample flow out of it and form a
`pile. The radius of the pile was measured at four different
`locations 90 degrees apart on the base plane. The height of the
`pile was also measured and the angle of repose was calculated
`as the arc tangent of the ratio of the height to the average
`radius. Approximately 10 to 15 L of manure were used for
`each angle of repose measurement.
`
`SHEARING PROPERTIES
`Depending on the total solids concentration of the product
`that was tested, three different apparatuses were used to
`characterize the relation between shear stress and shear rate:
`the shearbox apparatus (Model No. 25301, Wykeham
`Ferrance Engineering Ltd., Slough, England), a laboratory
`rotational viscometer (DV−III+ Digital Rheometer, Brook-
`field, Middleboro, Mass.), and a large−scale rotational
`viscometer. The large−scale viscometer was designed and
`built to accommodate the 170−L barrels that were used in the
`study. It was also introduced to compare the results obtained
`with small and very large samples (0.5 L−samples were used
`with the laboratory viscometer compared to approximately
`85 L−samples for the large−scale unit). The large−scale
`viscometer is illustrated in figure 1. The barrel was rotated
`through the 90−degree gearbox and the torque calculated
`from the force measured via a load cell located between a
`fixed back plate and a rigid member attached to the
`freewheeling spindle shaft. The rotational speeds varied from
`0.3 to 100 rpm and 3 to 100 rpm for the laboratory and
`large−scale viscometer, respectively. The shear rate and
`shear stress were calculated using equations 4 and 5,
`respectively.
`
`)2
`
`b
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`
`=
`
`S
`
`w
`2
`2
`RR
`b
`
`(
`
`22
`RR
`bc
`−
`2
`R
`c
`
`M
`p
`2
`LR
`
`b2
`
`=
`’
`
`F
`
`where
`= shear rate (s−1)
`S
`W = angular velocity of spindle (lab) or container
`(large) (rad/s)
`= radius of container (m)
`= radius of spindle (m)
`= shear stress (Pa)
`
`Rc
`Rb
`F’
`
`280
`
`APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE
`
`Exhibit 2097
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 4 of 12
`
`

`

`Target TS LevelTarget TS Level
`
`(%)
`50
`
`Table 1. Average total solids concentration for
`the manure products evaluated.
`Measured TS (%)
`Sheep
`Poultry
`53.0 a
`47.3 b
`(3.1)
`(1.9)
`41.5 a
`41.5 a
`(4.9)
`(0.9)
`30.7 a
`34.5 a
`(1.9)
`(0.6)
`18.4 a
`21.2 a
`(2.5)
`(4.2)
`13.8 a
`14.5 ab
`(0.1)
`(0.6)
`10.4 b
`10.3 b
`(0.3)
`(0.3)
`
`Dairy Cattle
`47.8[a]ab[b]
`(3.1)[c]
`44.4 a
`(4.7)
`33.5 a
`(1.6)
`23.4 a
`(1.7)
`14.2 ab
`(0.4)
`8.9 a
`(0.2)
`
`Pig
`48.0 ab
`(1.7)
`41.7 a
`(5.2)
`32.0 a
`(4.5)
`22.8 a
`(0.2)
`14.8 b
`(0.04)
`10.7 b
`(0.6)
`
`40
`
`30
`
`20
`
`15
`
`10
`
`[a] Average value.
`[b] Values within each TS level row not followed by the same letter are
`significantly different as determined by Fisher’s LSD test at the 1%
`level.
`[c] Standard deviation.
`
`values obtained at the appropriate TS level, the results are
`very similar to those outlined in ASAE D384.1 (ASAE
`Standards, 2002c). According to the ASAE standard, the
`density in kg/m3 of fresh manure is 990 for dairy cattle
`(14.0%TS), 1000 for sheep (27.5%TS) and for layer
`(25.0%TS), and 990 for swine (13.1%TS). Using the TS level
`closest to the ASAE standard, the comparisons (ASAE vs.
`
`current study) of density values in kg/m3 become dairy cattle
`(990 vs. 973); sheep (1000 vs. 521); layer (1000 vs. 1028);
`swine (990 vs. 1026). The only major difference is in sheep
`manure. This difference was due to the presence of a large
`proportion of straw in the sheep manure that was used in this
`study. The densities of all manure products were expected to
`become stable near the liquid density as TS becomes small.
`Relationships between density and total solids concentra-
`tion were obtained and are presented in figures 2 and 3. The
`following equations were obtained by polynomial regression
`analysis, using third order models and forcing the density at
`0% TS to be 1000 (the density is in kg/m3):
`Poultry and pig:
` Density = −0.0235 TS3 + 1.19 TS2 – 11.2 TS + 1000;
` R2 = 0.83
`(6)
`Dairy cattle:
` Density = 0.0367 TS3 – 2.38 TS2 + 14.6 TS + 1000;
` R2 = 0.93
`Sheep:
` Density = 0.00860 TS3 – 0.873 TS2 + 8.90 TS + 1000;
` R2 = 0.91
`(8)
`Equations 6, 7, and 8 can be used to obtain a reasonable
`approximation of the bulk density of poultry and pig, dairy
`cattle and sheep manure respectively. It can be seen on
`
`(7)
`
`Target TS LevelTarget TS Level
`
`(%)
`
`50
`
`5050
`
`
`
`4040
`
`
`
`3030
`
`
`2020
`20
`
`Table 2. Density, static coefficients of friction, and angle of repose for the solid manure products evaluated.
`Measured and Calculated Properties
`Static Coefficient of Friction (dimensionless)
`Plastic
`Painted Steel
`Bare Steel
`Plywood
`0.93 a
`0.90 a
`0.80 a
`0.88 a
`(0.0082)
`(0.026)
`(0.0050)
`(0.042)
`0.79 b
`0.68 b
`0.66 b
`0.73 b
`(0.048)
`(0.029)
`(0.028)
`(0.051)
`0.88 a
`0.89 a
`0.79 a
`0.82 a
`(0.022)
`(0.017)
`(0.018)
`(0.013)
`0.86 ab
`0.84 a
`0.89 c
`0.83 a
`(0.052)
`(0.042)
`(0.045)
`(0.029)
`0.88 a
`0.82 a
`0.79 a
`0.88 a
`(0.029)
`(0.031)
`(0.021)
`(0.065)
`0.86 a
`0.83 a
`0.83 a
`0.81 a
`(0.056)
`(0.021)
`(0.022)
`(0.057)
`0.83 a
`0.89 a
`0.86 a
`0.90 a
`(0.051)
`(0.039)
`(0.030)
`(0.047)
`2.3 b
`2.3 b
`1.5 b
`6.4 b
`(0.43)
`(0.80)
`(0.22)
`(0.94)
`1.0 a
`1.0 a
`0.95 a
`0.91 a
`(0.052)
`(0.027)
`(0.036)
`(0.051)
`0.93 a
`0.96 a
`0.91 a
`0.92 a
`(0.021)
`(0.019)
`(0.055)
`(0.088)
`0.87 a
`1.1 a
`1.0 a
`3.4 b
`(0.062)
`(0.078)
`(0.20)
`(0.38)
`0.95 a
`1.0 a
`0.80 a
`7.8 c
`(0.12)
`(0.17)
`(0.080)
`(0.49)
`1.2
`1.1
`1.1
`1.0
`(0.030)
`(0.10)
`(0.03)
`(0.070)
`
`These samples were not solid enough to measure the static coefficient of friction, the geo-These samples were not solid enough to measure the static coefficient of friction, the geo-
`metric mean length and the angle of repose.
`
`Angle of ReposeAngle of Repose
`
`(_)
`n.a.[d]
`
`32.2 a
`(1.3)
`36.1 a
`(5.3)
`30.1 a
`(2.2)
`n.a
`
`48.0 a
`(6.8)
`40.3 a
`(2.9)
`n.a
`
`n.a
`
`33.8
`(0.9)
`n.a.
`
`n.a
`
`n.a
`
`Manure Type
`Dairy cattle
`
`Sheep
`
`Poultry
`
`Pig
`
`Dairy cattle
`
`Sheep
`
`Poultry
`
`Pig
`
`Dairy cattle
`
`Sheep
`
`Poultry
`
`Pig
`
`Dairy cattle
`
`Sheep
`
`Poultry
`
`Pig
`
`DensityDensity
`
`(kg/m3)
`238.4[a] a[b]
`(20.1)[c]
`332.3 b
`(20.3)
`607.5 c
`(75.3)
`552.5 c
`(18.1)
`198.6 a
`(7.9)
`556.9 b
`(52.1)
`884.7 c
`(117.2)
`948.7 c
`(30)
`267.1 a
`(6.6)
`520.8 b
`(34.9)
`1028.2 c
`(45.5)
`1140.9 c
`(112.3)
`411.0 a
`(32.1)
`1051.2 b
`(60.2)
`1091.8 b
`(63.9)
`1090.0 b
`(77.3)
`
`[a] Average value.
`[b] Values within each TS level row and property column not followed by the same letter are significantly different as determined by Fisher’s LSD test
`at the 1% level.
`[c] Standard deviation.
`[d] Data not available.
`
`Vol. 20(3): 277−288
`
`281
`
`Exhibit 2097
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 5 of 12
`
`

`

`Table 3. Average modified geometric mean length and standard
`deviation for dairy cattle, sheep, poultry and pig manure.
`Standard
`Deviation
`(mm)
`1.7
`0.27
`0.46
`1.3
`1.1
`0.29
`0.77
`0.34
`0.12
`0.53
`0.95
`0.41
`0.45
`0.36
`1.0
`0.25
`0.0
`0.17
`0.96
`
`
`Sheep (b)Sheep (b)
`Sheep (b)
`
`
`Poultry (c)Poultry (c)
`Poultry (c)
`
`Average Xgm’[a]
`(mm)
`14.0 a
`12.6 ab
`11.2 bc
`9.6 c
`9.5 c
`11.6 a
`11.1 a
`10.1 b
`6.5 c
`5.4 d
`18.9 a
`14.2 b
`13.4 b
`10.9 c
`18.6 a
`19.7 a
`12.6 b
`11.3 b
`12.0 b
`
`
`Dairy cattle (a[b])Dairy cattle (a[b])
`Dairy cattle (a[b])
`
`Pig (c)
`
`Pig (c)Pig (c)
`
`Average TS
`(%)
`16.8
`23.4
`33.5
`44.4
`47.7
`18.4
`30.7
`41.5
`53.0
`64.8
`34.5
`41.5
`46.2
`47.3
`27.4
`31.0
`41.7
`44.5
`48.1
`[a] Modified geometric mean length.
`[b] Values within each manure type group (rows) and manure type
`column not followed by the same letter are significantly different as
`determined by Fisher’s LSD test at the 1% level.
`
`1400
`
`1200
`
`Pig
`
`Poultry
`
`1000
`
`Density (kg/m3)
`
`800
`
`600
`
`400
`
`200
`
`0
`
`0
`
`10
`
`20
`
`30
`
`40
`
`50
`
`60
`
`Total solids concentration (%)
`
`Figure 2. Bulk density values for poultry and pig manure and regression
`curve.
`
`Dairy
`Sheep
`
`10
`
`20
`
`30
`
`40
`
`50
`
`60
`
`70
`
`Total solids concentration (%)
`
`1200
`
`1000
`
`800
`
`600
`
`400
`
`200
`
`Density (kg/m3)
`
`0
`
`0
`
`Figure 3. Bulk density values for dairy cattle and sheep manure and re-
`spective regression curves.
`
`figures 2 and 3 that some density measurements yielded high
`values, up to 260 kg/m3 greater than the density of water
`(1000 kg/m3). Although density values above 1000 kg/m3
`were also reported by Chen (1982), a bias induced by the
`initial tension/compression state of the load cells on the
`weighing apparatus as well as vibration during measure-
`ments are potential causes that may have yielded high density
`results.
`Modified geometric mean lengths (Xgm’) are presented in
`table 3. Large lumps were observed on the top screen
`(25.4−mm openings) yielding an overestimation of the
`particles’ geometric mean length, as calculated according to
`ASAE S424.1 (ASAE Standards, 2002b). The calculations
`were then adapted using 16.4 mm as the largest size opening
`to obtain the modified value (Xgm’). Observations were
`made on the size of the lumps collected on the top screen.
`Their largest dimension was generally between 30 and 50
`mm, but large 100− to 150−mm lumps were also observed, as
`mentioned by Glancey and Hoffman (1996). These lumps
`will affect the conveying behavior of the waste products, but
`it becomes difficult to predict how without prior knowledge
`of their mechanical strength. The data included in table 3
`allow seeing the effect of total solids concentration on the
`characteristic dimensions of the particles for each manure
`type. It can be seen that as the total solids concentration
`decreased, or as the manure products became wetter, the
`modified geometric mean length became significantly
`higher. This was due to the increased aggregation ability of
`the animal wastes as the proportion of water in the manure
`increased. The data of table 3 also indicate there was no
`
`significant difference in the overall average modified
`geometric mean length of poultry and pig manure. Also, the
`difference between dairy cattle manure and sheep manure in
`terms of modified geometric mean length was not very
`important, as suggested by the values of table 3. Predictive
`equations 9 and 10 for the modified geometric mean length
`of dairy cattle and sheep manure as well as for poultry and pig
`manure were obtained (fig. 4).
`
`Dairy cattle and sheep:
` Xgm’ [mm] = 16.1 – 0.16 TS; R2 = 0.83
`
`(9)
`
`Poultry and pig:
` Xgm’ [mm] = 31.9 – 0.43 TS; R2 = 0.84
`The results obtained for the static friction coefficients
`indicate that while a fair amount of variability could be
`observed, similar values of friction coefficient were also
`present in the database. The large values of static coefficient
`
`(10)
`
`Dairy&Sheep
`Poultry&Pig
`Linear (Dairy&Sheep)
`Linear (Poultry&Pig)
`
`Y
`
`25
`
`20
`
`15
`
`10
`
`5
`
`0
`
`Modified geometric mean length (mm)
`
`10
`
`20
`
`30
`
`40
`
`50
`
`60
`
`70
`
`Total solids concentration (%)
`
`Figure 4. Modified geometric mean length of dairy cattle, sheep, poultry,
`and pig manure as a function of total solids concentration.
`
`282
`
`APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE
`
`Exhibit 2097
`Bazooka v. Nuhn - IPR2024-00098
`Page 6 of 12
`
`

`

`of friction for pig manure could not be explained. More
`measurements would be required to see if pig manure really
`exhibits such large friction coefficients or if the values
`obtained were marg