Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063

www.fuelrst.com

A unied correlation for estimating HHV of solid, liquid

and gaseous fuels q
S.A. Channiwala a,*, P.P. Parikh b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, S.V.R. College of Engineering and Technology, Surat 395 007, Gujarat, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, IIT, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India
Received 10 January 2001; accepted 3 August 2001; available online 28 August 2001

Abstract
A unied correlation for computation of higher heating value (HHV) from elemental analysis of fuels is proposed in this paper. This
correlation has been derived using 225 data points and validated for additional 50 data points. The entire spectrum of fuels ranging from
gaseous, liquid, coals, biomass material, char to residue-derived fuels has been considered in derivation of present correlation. The validity
of this correlation has been established for fuels having wide range of elemental composition, i.e. C 0.0092.25%, H 0.4325.15%,
O 0.0050.00%, N 0.005.60%, S 0.0094.08% and Ash 0.0071.4%. The correlation offers an average absolute error of
1.45% and bias error as 0.00% and thereby establishes its versatility. Complete details of few salient data points, the methodology used for
derivation of the correlation and the base assumptions made for derivation are the important constituents of this work. A summary of
published correlations along with their basis also forms an important component of present work. q 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Unied correlation; Higher heating value; Thermal systems

1. Introduction [25] in 1958 while comparing the validity of aforesaid as

Higher heating value (HHV) is an important fuel property
which denes the energy content of the fuel. Estimation of
HHV from the elemental composition of fuel is one of the
basic steps in performance modelling and calculations on
thermal systems. Numerous correlations for calculation of
HHV from elemental composition are available in the litera-
ture [128], out of which the 22 important ones have been
presented with their corresponding basis and assumptions in
Table 1. Most of these relations have been derived for coals.
Studies related with comparison and validity of these corre-
lations for coals as well as other fuels have drawn attention
of many researchers. Selvig [1] in 1945 compared the valid-
ity of Dulong [1], Strache and Lant [2], Steuer [3], Vondra-
cek [4], D'Huart [5], Schuster [6,7], Grummel and Davis
[8,9], Gumz [11], Sumegi [12] and Mott and Spooner's [13]
correlations for wide range of coals. He concluded that
Vondracek [4] and Grummel and Davis [8,9] correlation
offer better predictions as compared to other ones. Himus
* Corresponding author. Present address: Department of Material
Systems and Life Science School of Engineering, Toyama University,
Gofuku, Toyama 930-8555, Japan.
E-mail address: sac@svrec.ernet.in (S.A. Channiwala).
q
Published rst on the web via Fuelrst.comhttp://www.fuelrst.com
0016-2361/02/$ - see front matter q 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
PII: S 0016-236 1(01)00131-4
well as Seylor's correlation [10], again recommended use of
Grummel and Davis [8,9] correlation for coals. Grummel
and Davis correlation [8,9] has also been recommended for
coal chars by IGT [26], whose comparative analysis
included Dulong [1], Mott and Spooner [13], Grummel
and Davis [8,9] and Boie's [14] correlations. Applicability
of various correlations for wider range of fuels was tested by
Van Krevelon [27], who found Boie's correlation [14] to be
applicable to coals as well as hydrocarbon fuels. Such
comparative validity analysis for biomass materials was
carried out by Grabosky and Bain [15] with reference to
the correlations of Dulong [1], Dulong-Berthelot [15,27],
IGT [16] and Tillman [17]. IGT [16] correlation was stated
to be reasonably valid for biomass materials and chars.
Grabosky and Bain [15] observed existence of nearly linear
relationship between enthalpy of formation and molar (C/
H) p ratio of biomass materials. Based on this important
observation and using the pertinent combustion reactions,
Grabosky et. al. [15] proposed their own correlation which
is claimed to offer predictions within 2% accuracy. Jenkins
[18,19] based on his doctoral work and later based on the
analysis of some 57 biomass materials has also derived
HHV correlations for biomass materials. Beckman et al.
[20] have recently reported a HHV correlation for biomass
derived oils. Wilson [21], Chang [22], Khan and Abu
1052 S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063

Table 1
Survey of published HHV correlations (Note: (i) HHV is in MJ/kg expressed on dry basis. (ii) C,H,O,N,S, A, Cl and P represent carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen, sulphur, ash, chlorine and phosphorous content of material, respectively, expressed in % by mass on dry basis. (iii) Co and Ci represents organic and
inorganic Carbon, respectively, expressed in % by mass on dry basis. (iv) F, represented foods in waste, expressed in % by mass on dry basis. (v) CP represents
mass percent of cardboard and paper on dry basis in waste. (vi) PLR represents mass percent of plastic, rubber and leather in the dry waste mixture. (vii) All the
reported HHV correlations are converted to MJ/kg with the following conversion factor.1 Btu=lbm 2:3261 1023 MJ=kg; 1 cal=kg 4:186 1023 MJ=kg:
(viii) p indicates composition in % by mass on dry, ash free basis)

Sr. No. Name of Correlation Basis and assumptions

investigator

1 Dulong's (1880) [1] HHVp 0:3383Cp 1 1:443Hp 2 Op =8 1
0:0942Sp MJ=kg
2 Strache and Lant HHVp 0:3406Cp 1 1:4324Hp 2 0:1532Op 1
(1924) [2] 0:1047Sp MJ=kg
3 Steuer (1926) [3] HHVp 0:3391Cp 2 3=8Op 1
0:23863=8Op 1 1:444Hp 2 1=16Op 1
0:1047Sp MJ=kg
4 Vondrecek (1927) HHVp 0:373 2 0:00026 Cp Cp 1 1:444Hp 2
[4] 1=10Op 1 0:1047Sp MJ=kg
5 D'Huart (1930) [5] HHVp 0:3391Cp 1 1:4337Hp 1 0:0931Sp 2
0:1273Op
6 Schuster (1931) HHVp 1:0632 1 1:486 1023 Op Cp =3 1
[6,7] Hp 2 Op 2 Sp =8 MJ=kg
7 Grummel and Davis HHVp 0:0152Hp 1 0:9875Cp =3 1 Hp 2
(1933) [8,9] Op 2 Sp =8 MJ=kg
8 Seyler (1938) [10] HHVp 0:519Cp 1 1:625Hp 1 0:001Op2 2
17:87 MJ=kg
9 Gumz (1938) [11] HHVp 0:3403Cp 1 1:2432Hp 1 0:0628Np 1
0:1909Sp 2 0:0984Op MJ=kg
10 Sumegi (1939) [12] HHVp 0:3391Cp 2 0:75Op =21
1:444H 2 0:125Op =2 1 0:1047Sp
11 Mott and Spooner HHVp 0:3361Cp 1 1:419Hp 2 0:1453Op 1
(1940) [13] 0:0942Sp MJ=kg Op # 15% 0:3361Cp 1
1:419Hp 2 0:1532 2 0:0007Op Op 1
0:0942Sp MJ=kg Op . 15%
12 Boie (1953) [14] HHVp 0:3517Cp 1 1:1626Hp 1 0:1047Sp 2
0:111Op MJ=kg
Np 1 Op 2 1
13 Dulong-Berthelot HHVp 0:3414Cp 1 1:4445 Hp 2
8
[15,27] 10:093 Sp MJ=kg
The correlation is based on pertinent combustion reactions
and concept of available hydrogen. It is derived from coal
properties and has the accuracy of ^1.5% for low oxygen
coals. For high oxygen coals deviations are as large as 57%
This is the modied version of Dulong's correlation. It has the
accuracy of 2% for whole range of coals
This is modied version of Dulong's correlation in which
association of oxygen is considered with both carbon and
hydrogen. This correlation predicts HHV within 2% for entire
range of coals
This correlation allows for bond energy of carbon and
considers more availability of hydrogen as compared to
Dulong's. The predication of this correlation are found to be
within 1.5% for whole range of coals
This is modied version of Dulong's correlation. It covers
complete range of coals and predicts HHV within 2%
This is a different type of correlation based on the assumption
that the amount of heat evolved by fuels on complete
combustion is proportional to the amount of oxygen or air
consumed and that this constant of proportionality depends on
oxygen content of the fuel. Predictions of this correlation are
claimed to be superior than that of Dulong's correlation
This correlation is also derived based on the same assumption
that the amount of heat evolved by fuels on complete
combustion is proportional to the oxygen or air consumed.
However the constant of proportionality is assumed to be
proportional to the hydrogen content of the fuel and not on
oxygen content as assumed by Schuster. The predictions of
HHV by this correlation lie within 1.3% for whole range of
coals
Seyler in 1938 found that the ratio of the heat of formation to
the percentage of fuel oxygen was a linear function of the
oxygen content of fuel. This correlation is based on this
nding and predicts HHV within 1% (as claimed by Seyler)
This correlation incorporates the effect of fuel nitrogen and
predicts HHV within 2% for whole range of coals
This is a modied version of Steuers correlation and is derived
on the basis of association of oxygen with both carbon and
hydrogen. The correlation predicts within 2% for whole range
of coals
This correlation is developed on the assumption that two third
of the oxygen is associated with the hydrogen and one third
with the carbon of coal. The caloric value of carbon in
bituminous coals is taken as 33.61 MJ/kg which takes are for
heat of decomposition of coal. The prediction of this
correlation are claimed to be within 1.2%
This is a more general correlation as it is derived based on the
properties of hydrocarbon fuels. The predictions of this
correlation usually lie within 1.8%
This is a modied version of Dulong's correlation in which
effect of fuel nitrogen is introduced. The predictions of this
correlation are claimed to be superior than that of Dulong's
correlation
 S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063 1053

Table 1 (continued)

Sr. No. Name of Correlation Basis and assumptions

investigator

14 IGT (1978) [16] HHV 0:341C 1 1:323H 1 0:0685 2 0:0153A 2 This is perhaps the most general HHV correlation derived
0:1194O 1 N MJ=kg from the properties of more than 700 coal samples. The
predictions of this correlation usually lie within 1.2% for
whole range of coals
15 Tillman (1978) [17] HHV 0:4373C 2 0:3059 MJ=kg a; HHV Tillman observed that the HHV of biomass materials is a very
0:4373 C 2 1:6701 MJ=kg b (modied) strong function of its carbon content and based on this he
derived the correlation (a) for wood and wood barks and later
on modied as (b) to cover whole range of biomass materials.
The predictions of this correlation for biomass materials are
found to be within 5%
16 Jenkins (1980) [18] HHV 0:4791C 1 0:6676H 1 0:0589O 2 This correlation is derived based on 19 data points of biomass
(1985) [19] 1:2077S 2 8:42 MJ=kg a; HHV 20:763 1 material and using the multiple regression analysis. The
0:301C 1 0:525H 1 0:064O MJ=kg b predictions of this correlation are found to be within 7%. Later
he derived a more general correlation using 57 data points
pertaining to biomass materials
17 Grabosky and Bain HHV 0:328C 1 1:4306H 2 0:0237N 1 This correlation is derived for biomass materials based on the
(1981) [13] 0:0929S 2 1 2 A=10040:11H=C 1 pertinent reactions of C, H, S and N to CO2, H2O, SO2 and
0:3466 MJ=kg NO2. The predictions of this correlations are claimed to be
within 1.5%
18 Beckman et al. HHV 0:352C 1 0:944H 1 0:105S 2 O This correlation is derived for biomass derived oils. The
(1990) [20] predictions are observed to be within 5%
19 Wilson (1972) [21] HHV 0:352Co 1 1:507H 2 0:1384O 2 This correlation is derived for municipal solid waste. It is
0:1485Ci 1 0:09263S 1 0:02419N MJ=kg derived from thermo chemical principles, heating value of
carbon and sulphur, types of carbon present and the formation
of water
20 Chang (1979) [22] HHVp 35:8368 1 0:7523Hp 2 0:2674Sp 2 This correlation is derived for waste material and its
0:4654Op 2 0:3814Clp 2 0:2802Np MJ=kg predictions for 150 pure organic compounds are found to be
within 1.48%
21 Khan and Abu- HHV 0:0535F 1 32:6CP 1 0:3722PLR MJ=kg This is a new approach for estimating HHV of municipal solid
Gharah (1991) [23] waste based on the primary combustible components such as
paper, plastic, rubber, leather and food
22 Niessen (1995) [24] HHVp 0:2322Cp 1 0:7655Hp 2 0:072Op 2 This correlation is derived for waste water sludges on dry and
0:0419Np 1 0:0698Sp 1 0:0262Clp 1 ash free basis. It showed an under prediction by 6% when
0:1814Pp MJ=kg tested for 80 data points of such sludges

Gharah [23] and Niessen [24] presents the correlation for
municipal waste, refuse and sludge.
Buckley et al. [28] presents detailed discussion by Rigo
HG on evaluation of data on HHVs and elemental analyses
for refuse derived fuels. They observed Chang [22] correla-
tion as superior one for refuse with error levels of 1.48%.
Niessen [24] carried out similar study and found that for
sludge most of existing correlation over predicts the HHV
values and based on this observation he derived his own
corelation which under predicts the HHV only by 6% for
over 80 sludge samples.
Study of the published correlations and the com-
parative analysis presented by Selvig [1], Himus [25],
Krevelon [27], IGT [26], Grabosky and Bain [15],
Buckley et al. [28] and Niessen [24] highlights the
following points:
with different assumptions regarding association of
oxygen with hydrogen or carbon [15,1016,1820].
(b) The correlations based on the assumption that
the HHV of fuel is proportional to the amount of
oxygen/air required for its complete combustion, the
constant of proportionality being represented either as
a function of oxygen or hydrogen content in the fuel
[69].
2. Except a few [14,15,17,1924] all other correlations are
derived for coals. When applied to biomass materials
they under predict the HHV [17] and over predicts for
refuse and sludge [24].
3. Except IGT [16], by and large all the correlations are
based on limited and/or investigator's own data points.
Application of these correlations to a wider spectrum of
fuels result in larger errors in estimation of HHV.

1. The published correlations can be divided in two main The analysis as above focuses the need for development
categories: of a unied correlation which can encompass the entire
(a) The correlations based upon the combustion reac- spectrum of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. It is in
tions of C, H and S to CO2, H2O and SO2, respectively, this context that the present work has its relevance. The
1054 S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063
following sections describe the evolution of a unied corre-
lation for estimating HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels
from their elemental composition.
2. Derivation of unied correlation
Steps involved in development and derivation of unied
correlation are listed below:
2.1. Step 1: collection and generation of data
Collection of data. Data pertaining to large number of
solid, liquid and gaseous fuels were collected from the
published literature. The major sources of data are:
JANAF Tables [29], Refs. [1820,24,26,3039].
Generation of data. The data points generated during the
present work can be divided in two classes. Class I refers to
the biomass materials while Class II to the biomass chars.
Since there are no standard sampling procedures specied
for biomass materials, the samples of both the classes were
collected with due care to get the most representative
samples. Preparation of samples was carried out in accor-
dance with ASTM D 2013-86 [40] for both the classes. The
procedure requires samples to be in powder form of upto
250 mm grain size. Some difculties were encountered in
preparation of 250 mm size samples of brous materials like
bagasse, coconut bre and cottongin waste. These samples
were cut to approximately 1 mm size using stainless steel
scissors and used for analysis. The proximate analysis of all
the samples were carried out in accordance with ASTM D
3172-73 (84) [41] Standard. The moisture content in test
samples was determined according to ASTM D 3173-87
[42] method in a Sartorious infrared moisture meter. The
volatile matter contents in the test samples were determined
according to ASTM D 3175-89 [43] modied method for
sparking fuels. This method was programmed in DuPont
series 9900 thermal analyser. All the samples except coco-
nut shell, bre, pith and bagasse, were analysed with this
program. For Coconut shell, bre, pith and bagasse, ash
fusion was observed at 9508C and hence these samples
were analysed for volatile matter contents only upto
7508C. Determination of the ash content in the test samples
was carried out according to ASTM D 3174-89 [44] method
in the electric mufe furnace. The xed carbon content of
the test samples was calculated by difference [44]. The ulti-
mate analysis of these samples was carried out according to
ASTM Standard D 3176 to 7984 [4548] using Carlo Erba
elemental analyser Model 1106. The HHV of these materi-
als was determined according to ASTM D 2015-85 [49]
method in a parr microprocessor controlled Oxygen Bomb
Calorimeter, Model 1241 EF.
Table 2 gives the data on proximate and ultimate analysis
along with the measured HHV values for the materials
analysed during the course of this work.
2.2. Step 2: selection of suitable data
Through the process of collection and generation of data,
information about over 300 fuels was collected. Out of
these, 225 data points have been used for the purpose of
the derivation of the correlation, while 50 were used for
validation of the correlation. The selected data points satis-
ed the following criteria:
1. If it is a published data, adherence to the procedures of
ultimate analysis has been clearly stated by the corre-
sponding author (ASTM D 3176-84, D 3177-84, D
3178-84, D 3179-84 [4548]. Similarly adherence to
ASTM D 2015-85 [49] or D 3286-85 [50] is stated
with reference to bomb calorimetry, were strictly
observed. For the data points generated in the course of
present work, all the above procedures were strictly
observed.
2. One of the most proved correlation was selected for each
of the gaseous, liquid and solid fuels and ensured that the
published data points reasonably satisfy the correspond-
ing correlation. This method crosschecked the accuracy
of the data points. Boie's [14] correlation has been used
for gaseous and liquid fuels, IGT correlation [16] for
coals, Tillman [17] and Jenkins [18,19] for biomass
materials and Grummel and Davis [8,9] correlation for
chars. The error level of all the selected data was limited
to 5%.
In order to develop a generalised and unied correlation
to the extent possible, care was taken to include data points
of widest range of elemental composition and HHV. Table 3
presents the summary of few such data points used for deri-
vation and validation of the unied correlation. In total 225
data points comprising of 6 data points for gaseous fuels, 40
data points for liquid fuels, 49 data points for coals and
cokes, 95 data points for terrestrial and aquatic biomass
material, 21 data points for industrial waste, municipal
solid waste, refuse and sludge and 14 data points for chars
have been used for derivation of the correlation and 50
data points comprising of 5 gaseous fuels, 11 liquid fuels,
13 coals and cokes, 16 biomass materials, 3 refuse materials
and 2 chars have been used for validation of the correlation.
It is worth mentioning over here that equal weightage is
given to matured form of fuels like coals, liquid and
gaseous fuels and immatured form of fuels like biomass
(95 data points for each form). Further, the composite
fuels like industrial and municipal solid waste refuse
derived fuels and sludge as well as articially prepared
chars are also included as data points in derivation of this
unied correlation.
The spectrum of fuel is so selected that it approximately
represents the relative proportions of their occurrence in
nature and thus permits the derivation of a truly unied
correlation.
Table 2
Proximate analysis, ultimate analysis and hhv data for locally available biomass material and chars (Note: p oxygen by difference)

Sr. No. Material Moisture Proximate analysis% by wt (dry Ultimately analysis% by wt (dry basis) HHV MJ/kg
content% by basis) (dry basis)
wt (wet-basis)
FC VM ASH C H Op N

1 Coconut shell 8.27 22.1 77.19 0.71 50.22 5.70 43.37 0.00 20.498
2 Akhrot shell 8.76 18.78 79.98 1.20 49.81 5.64 42.94 0.41 20.008
3 Groudnut shell 8.10 21.60 72.70 5.70 48.59 5.64 39.49 0.58 19.849
4 Fresh subabul wood 12.50 15.20 83.60 1.12 46.24 5.80 46.59 0.25 19.698
5 Dry subabul wood 7.56 18.52 81.02 1.20 48.15 5.87 44.75 0.03 19.777
6 Eucalyptus wood 16.40 21.30 75.35 3.35 46.04 5.82 44.49 0.30 18.640
7 Casurina wood 12.70 19.58 78.58 1.83 48.50 6.24 43.12 0.31 18.769
8 Bamboo wood 11.50 11.24 86.80 1.95 48.76 6.32 42.77 0.20 20.547
9 Neem wood 12.30 12.19 85.86 1.93 48.26 6.27 43.46 0.08 20.257
10 Mango wood 14.10 11.36 85.64 2.98 46.24 6.08 44.42 0.28 19.170
11 Jujuba wood 12.50 14.14 83.63 2.32 47.63 6.12 43.78 0.15 19.773
12 Ply wood 13.79 15.77 82.14 2.09 48.13 5.87 42.46 1.45 18.955
13 Block wood 12.16 14.59 83.32 2.09 46.90 6.07 43.99 0.95 18.261
14 Millet straw 5.06 16.45 78.28 5.27 43.71 5.85 45.16 0.01 18.047
15 Wheat straw 8.87 10.98 82.12 6.90 42.95 5.35 46.99 0.00 17.988
16 Jawar straw 7.50 15.15 75.97 8.88 42.10 5.60 43.38 0.04 17.951
17 Rice straw 8.10 13.91 65.70 20.38 35.68 4.62 39.14 0.28 14.850
18 Rice husk 8.47 16.95 61.81 21.24 38.50 5.20 34.61 0.45 14.693
19 Rice husk bran 8.48 19.53 61.83 18.64 38.92 5.12 36.77 0.55 15.290
20 Coconut coir pith 19.77 28.82 66.02 5.16 43.36 4.98 44.87 1.63 18.067
21 Sugarcane bagasse 51.01 13.15 83.66 3.20 45.48 5.96 45.21 0.15 18.730
S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063

22 Millet grain waste 5.20 14.50 77.10 8.40 40.56 5.24 45.50 0.40 15.206
23 Cottongin waste 4.99 14.97 83.41 1.61 42.66 6.05 49.50 0.18 17.483
24 Subabul wood char (9508C) 15.44 74.5 21.65 3.95 83.61 1.95 10.48 0.014 30.353
25 Casuria wood char (9508C) 23.20 71.53 15.23 13.24 77.54 0.93 5.62 2.67 27.120
26 Eucelyptus wood char (9508C) 21.00 19.22 70.32 10.45 76.10 1.33 11.1 1.02 27.597
27 Coconut shell char (7508C) 16.41 9.93 87.17 2.90 88.95 0.73 6.04 1.38 31.124
28 Rice husk char (7508C) 6.45 8.50 46.30 45.20 31.51 2.50 19.34 1.45 10.935
1055
1056 S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063

Table 3
Summary of few salient data used for derivation and validation of unied correlation

Sr.No. Fuel name Proximate analysis Ultimately analysis Measured HHV Ref.
(% by mass, dry basis) (% by mass, dry basis) (dry basis) (MJ/kg)

FC% VM% ASH% C% H% O% N% S%

Gaseous fuels
1 Methane, CH4 74.85 25.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 55.345 [30]
2 Propane,C3 H8 81.70 18.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.237 [30]
3 LPG (ethane, C2H6 0.57% propane, 82.40 17.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.602 [51]
C3H8 30.94%, isobutane,
C4H10 62.69%, n-butane,
C4H10 5.8% by vol.)
4 Hydrogen sulphide, H2 S 0.00 5.92 0.00 0.00 94.08 16.410 [29]
Liquid fuels
5 n-Pentane, C5 H12 83.22 16.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.539 [30]
6 n-Eicosane, C20 H42 85.01 14.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.04 [30]
7 Benzene, C6 H6 92.25 7.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.788 [30]
8 n-Octyl benzene, C14 H22 88.34 11.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.525 [30]
9 Aviation gasoline 85.10 14.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.302 [30]
10 Diesel oil 86.50 13.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.700 [30]
11 Heavy fuel oil 0.04 85.40 11.40 0.20 0.16 2.80 42.900 [30]
12 Methanol 37.50 12.50 50.00 0.00 0.00 22.69 [30]
13 Pyrolytic oil 0.50 57.00 7.70 33.20 1.10 0.20 24.700 [52]
14 Wood-tar 39.58 42.61 17.84 63.03 5.31 12.06 1.76 0.00 25.722 [39]
15 Oil from digested sludge 71.40 8.80 14.20 5.60 34.300 [53]
Solid fuels: coal/coke
16 Anthracite coal 90.60 1.34 8.06 86.78 1.63 1.96 0.65 0.92 31.840 [38]
17 Pittsburgh seam coal 55.80 33.90 10.30 75.50 5.00 4.90 1.20 3.10 31.751 [17]
18 Northumberland No. 8 Anth. Coal 84.59 7.09 8.32 83.67 3.56 2.84 0.55 1.05 32.856 [26]
19 Northumerland No. 81/2 Sem. Anth. 63.14 9.12 27.74 62.45 2.83 3.82 0.94 2.17 24.726 [26]
Coal
20 German-HVB bittu minus 60.25 33.45 6.30 76.65 4.78 10.87 0.54 0.42 31.00 [55]
21 Jefferson, Pratl -mvb coal 4.58 85.29 4.55 3.16 1.45 0.96 34.594 [26]
22 Green Ind. No. 3 -hvBb coal 41.53 40.93 17.55 62.70 4.84 6.29 1.36 7.17 27.357 [26]
23 Converse School Sub C Coal 23.39 52.57 24.04 53.07 4.09 17.53 0.55 0.72 21.672 [26]
24 Jhanjra Bonbahal Seam Coal R- VII 24.92 59.37 3.68 10.11 1.41 0.43 24.082 [54]
25 German Braunkohole lignite 46.03 49.47 4.50 63.89 4.97 24.54 0.57 0.48 25.10 [55]
26 Coke 91.47 0.92 7.61 89.13 0.43 0.98 0.85 1.00 31.124 [55]
27 Charcoal 89.10 9.88 1.02 92.04 2.45 2.96 0.53 1.00 34.388 [30]
Biomass material
28 Peat 3.00 56.00 5.00 35.00 1.00 0.00 20.667 [56]
29 Coconut shell 22.10 77.19 0.71 50.22 5.70 43.37 0.00 0.00 20.498 [39]
30 Oak bark 5.30 49.70 5.40 39.30 0.20 0.10 19.420 [57]
31 Western Hemlock wood 15.20 84.80 2.20 50.40 5.80 41.40 0.10 0.10 20.051 [17]
32 Douglass r wood 12.60 87.30 0.10 50.64 6.18 43.00 0.06 0.02 20.377 [32]
33 Chaparral wood 18.68 75.19 6.13 46.90 5.08 40.17 0.54 0.03 18.610 [19]
34 Eucalyptus Globulus wood 17.30 81.60 1.10 48.18 5.92 44.18 0.39 0.01 19.23 [19]
35 Cotton stalks 19.90 62.90 17.20 39.47 5.07 38.09 1.25 0.02 15.831 [18]
36 Bagasse 14.95 73.78 11.27 44.80 5.35 39.55 0.38 0.01 17.330 [19]
37 Rice husks Patni-23 14.90 69.30 15.80 38.92 5.10 37.89 2.17 0.12 15.673 [58]
38 Dry Subabul wood 18.52 81.02 1.20 48.15 5.87 44.75 0.03 0.00 19.777 [39]
39 Ply wood 15.77 82.14 2.09 48.13 5.87 42.46 1.45 0.00 18.955 [39]
40 Saw dust 5.83 47.13 5.86 40.35 0.65 0.16 19.970 [61]
41 Soquel point Giant Brown Kelp 57.90 42.10 27.80 3.73 23.69 1.63 1.05 10.747 [62]
Refuse, MSW, animal waste etc.
42 MSW 12.00 47.60 6.00 32.90 1.20 0.30 19.879 [59]
43 Sewage sludge 71.40 14.20 2.10 10.50 1.10 0.70 4.745 [17]
44 Missippi hyacinth digested slurry 60.70 39.30 31.70 3.82 23.20 1.98 0.00 12.28 [60]
45 RDF 17.60 72.00 10.40 44.72 6.21 38.36 0.69 0.00 19.495 [18]
46 Animal waste 23.50 35.10 5.30 38.70 2.50 0.40 13.400 [63]
Chars
47 Red wood char (8001725 F) 72.0 23.90 4.10 78.80 3.50 13.20 0.20 0.20 30.472 [35]
48 MSW char 41.20 54.90 0.80 1.80 1.10 0.20 18.655 [59]
49 ERCO char 57.76 24.00 18.26 65.86 2.57 12.80 0.40 0.10 24.161 [64]
50 Lignite char 89.00 1.10 8.90 0.70 0.30 31.30 [55]
 S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063
Table 4
Details of assumed correlations (Note: (i) C, H, O,N,S, and A represents carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur and ash, respectively, in % by mass on dry
basis. (ii) ai represent a constant in ith term)
Sr. No. Correlation
1 HHV 0:328C 1 1:419H 1 0:0928S
2 HHV 0:328C 1 1:419H 1 0:0928S 2a1 O 1 N 1 a2 A 1 a3
3 HHV a1 0:328C 1 1:419H 1 0:0928S 1 a2 O 1 N 1 a3 A
4 HHV a1 0:328C 1 1:419H 1 0:0928S 2 0:0238N 1 a2 O 1 a3 A
5 HHV a1 C 2 a2 H 1 a3 S 1 a4 O 1 a5 N 1 a6 A 1 a7
6 HHV a1 C 1 a2 H 1 a3 S 1 a4 O 1 a5 N 1 a6 A
7 HHV a1 C 1 a2 H 1 a3 S 1 a4 O 1 N 1 a5 A 1 a6
8 HHV a1 C 1 a2 H 1 a3 S 1 a4 O 1 N 1 a5 A
 
9 O
HHV a1 C 1 a2 H 2 1 a3 S
8
10 HHV a1 C 1 a2 H 1 a3 S 1 a4 O
11 HHV a1 H=1 2 A=100 1 a2 C=3 1 H 2 O 2 S=8
12 HHV a1 O=1 2 A=100 1 a2 C=3 1 H 2 O 2 S=8
13 HHV a1 C=1 2 A=100 1 a2 C=3 1 H 2 O 2 S=8
14 HHV a1 C=1 2 A=100 1 a2 H=1 2 A=100 1 a2 O 1 N=
1 2 A=100 1 a4 S=1 2 A=100 1 a5 C=3 1 H 2 O 2 S=8
15 HHV a1 C 1 a2 H 1 a3 O2 =1 2 A=100 1 a4 1 2 A=100
16 HHV a1 C 1 a2 H 1 a3 O 1 a4 O2 =1 2 A=100 1 a5 S
17 HHV a1 C 1 a2
" #
18 Cp
HHV a1 1 a2 O 1 N 1 a3 A
H (C/H) * molar ratio and considering the effect of O, N, and A on Fuel
2.3. Step 3: selection of suitable forms of correlations
Assumption made in published correlations were used for
formulation of 18 different algebraic expressions (correla-
tions) relating HHV and elemental composition of fuels.
Table 4 presents these expressions along with the assump-
tions based upon which the corresponding formulation has
been carried out. An exhaustive computer algorithm has
been developed based on generalised method of least
sequares to evaluate the constants of these assumed algebric
1057
Criteria for selection
Basic correlation based on pertinent combustion reactions of C, H, and
S to, CO2, H2O, and SO2, respectively. Effect of bond energies and
presence of O, N, and A in fuel is neglected
Based on pertinent combustion reactions of C, H, and S to CO2, H2O
and SO2, respectively. The effect of O, N, A and bond energies are
introduced through constants a1, a2, and a3, respectively
Based pertinent combustion reactions of C, H, and S to CO2, H2O and
SO2, respectively. The effect of bond energies, O, N and A introduced
through constants a1, a2 and a3, respectively
Based on pertinent combustion reaction of C, H and S to CO2, H2O an
SO2, respectively. The effect of CH bond and A is introduced through
constants a1, a2 and a3, respectively, while effect of N is introduced
based on endothermic reaction of N to NO2
Assuming fuel HHV to be linear function of its constituents
Assuming HHV to be the linear function of its constituents
Assuming fuel HHV to be linear function of its constituents and
combining the effect of O and N
Assuming fuel HHV to be linear function of its constituents and
combing the effect of O and N
Based on DULONG'S criteria of available hydrogen
Modied version of DULONG'S correlation
Assuming fuel HHV to be proportional to the amount of oxygen or air
required for the complete combustion and the constant of
proportionality to be proportional to hydrogen content of the fuel
(based on Grummel and Davis criteria)
Assuming fuel HHV to be proportional to the amount of oxygen or air
required for the complete combustion and the constant of
proportionality to be proportional to oxygen content of the fuel (based
on SCHUSTER'S criteria)
Assuming fuel HHV to be proportional to the amount of oxygen or air
required for the complete combustion and the constant of
proportionality to be proportional to carbon content of the fuel
Assuming fuel HHV to be proportional to the amount of oxygen or air
required for the complete combustion and the constants of
proportionality to be proportional to fuel constituents
Assuming enthalpy of formation to be linear function of fuel oxygen as
observed by SEYLOR
Based on MOTT and SPOONERS criteria of nonlinear effect of O2 on
HHV of highly oxygenated fuels
Assuming fuel HHV to be linear function of carbon only (based on
TILLMAN'S criteria)
Assuming fuel HHV to be dependent on degree of maturity of fuel i.e.
(Based on Grabosky's criteria)
expressions. It is worth to note that the algorithm is capable
to incorporate any number of variables and data points.
Using this algorithm and 225 data points the constants of
these 18 algebraic expressions were evaluated.
2.4. Step 4: selection of the best correlation
To facilitate the selection of unied correlation, the aver-
age absolute and bias errors for each of these 18 correlations
1058 S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063

Fig. 1. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (gaseous fuels). Fig. 3. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (coals).

as derived above were computed as follows: values of HHV:

HHV 0:3491C 1 1:1783H 1 0:1005S
n  
1X 
 HHVc 2HHV 100%
Average absolute error   1 2 0:1034O20:0151N 2 0:0211A MJ=kg 3
n i1 HHV
0% # C # 92.25%, 0.43% # H # 25.15%, 0.00% #
O # 50.00%,0.00% # N # 5.60%, 0.00% # S # 94.08%,
n   0.00% # A # 71.4%, 4.745 MJ/kg # HHV # 55.345 MJ/
1X 
 HHVc 2HHV 100%
Average bias error   2 kg where, C, H, O, N, S and A represents carbon, hydrogen,
n i1 HHV
oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur and ash contents of material,
respectively, expressed in mass percentages on dry basis.
The correlation giving minimum error levels over 225
data points was selected as the best one.
The following is the correlation which turned out to be 3. Validation of the unied correlation
the best in this manner with an average absolute error of
1.45% and bias error of 0.00% with respect to measured Validation of the unied correlation developed under the

Fig. 2. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (liquid fuels). Fig. 4. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (biomass material).
 S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063
Fig. 5. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (residue).
present work has been carried out by comparison of
computed and measured values of HHV over 275 data
points which include 225 data points used for the derivation
and 50 data points, specially used for the validation of the
correlation. The measured and computed values of HHV
data has been presented graphically at Figs. 16 for
gaseous, liquid and solid fuels, the solid fuels being further
sub-divided into coals, biomass, refuse and chars, respec-
tively. Fig. 7 presents this comparison for whole range of
fuels. The error band of ^ 3% has been also shown on these
gures to indicate the error limits. The study of this compar-
ison indicates that the average absolute deviation a for
gaseous fuels, liquid fuels, coals, biomass, refuse, chars
and entire spectrum of fuels are 0.588, 0.299, 0.295,
0.369, 0.406, 0.241 and 0.337 MJ/kg, respectively, while
bias deviations are of the order of 20.445, 0.00, 0.045,
20.026, 0.164, 0.031 and 0.00 MJ/kg, respectively. Simi-
larly the average absolute error for gaseous fuels, liquid
fuels, coals, biomass, refuse, chars and entire spectrum of
fuels are 1.18, 0.772, 1.04, 1.94, 2.58, 0.951, and 1.45%,
respectively, except for few gaseous fuels like CO, C2 H2
and C2 H4. The bias errors for these categories are found
to be 20.92, 0.00, 0.14, 20.17, 1.30, 0.08, 0.00%,
respectively.
It is worth mentioning over here that the ASTM bomb
calorimeter standards [49,50] specify the reproducibility
limit of 240 J/g while the present correlation for the entire
range of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels offers the prediction
within 337 J/g which is quite comparable with the measure-
ment uncertainties if one consider the widely varying nature
of data and the source of its collection.
The validation of present unied correlation has further
been established by comparing its predictions with the
predictions of few widely used correlations. However, it is
1059
Fig. 6. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (chars).
to be noted here that the published correlations are valid
only for the fuels for which they are derived. Hence, this
comparison is purely for academic interest. It is observed
that the average absolute error for Dulong's [1], Vondrecek
[4], Grummel and Davis [8,9], Boie [14], IGT [26], Tillman
[17], Jenkins [18,19] and Niesson [24] for the entire
spectrum of fuels considered herein are of the order of
6.94, 1.89, 5.65, 1.93, 2.15, 7.26, 12.34 and 33.6%, respec-
tively, while the bias error for the same correlations are
found to be 24.33, 0.07, 21.47, 0.13, 20.39, 22.95,
210.60 and 233.6%, respectively. The comparison was
also made for different categories of fuels for which above
correlations were derived and it was observed that irre-
spective of the fact whether the fuel falls under the classi-
cation of gaseous, liquid, coal, biomass, refuse or chars,
the values of average absolute and bias error with the
present unied correlation are either minimum or compar-
able to minimum.
It must, however, be emphasised that when taken over the
whole range of fuels, the proposed unied correlations gives
the absolute and bias errors which are the lowest as
compared to any published correlation. With these mini-
mum values of average absolute and bias error as 1.45
and 0.00%, respectively, the validity and merits of the
proposed unied correlation stands established.
The validity of proposed unied correlation is also
examined for the materials like, graphite, mixed garbage,
mixed paper, waste water sludges, plastic, leather, rubber,
polyvinyl chloride, polyurethane, and others as presented in
Table 5 which are not generally classied as recognised
fuels and further that these data points are not used in deri-
vation and validation of present unied correlation. It is
observed that except for few materials where bond energies
and/or ash levels are quite high, the present unied correla-
tion handles the predictions within ^3%. It's validity is
observed even for very high chlorine content materials
like polyvinyl chloride Cl 45:41%:
1060 S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063
Fig. 7. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (whole range of fuels).
4. Utility of the proposed unied correlation
Having established the validity and merits of the
proposed unied correlation, few of its applications have
been summarised below:
(i) The correlation can be used for HHV computation of
any solid, liquid and gaseous fuel, from its elemental
composition.
(ii) The correlation can also be used to verify the accuracy
of measured data of HHV and elemental composition.
(iii) In performance modelling exercise of combustion,
gasication and pyrolysis process, the correlation pro-
vides the facility of using HHV as an algebraic expression
in terms of fuel constituents which in turn is useful in
studying the inuence of elemental composition of the
fuel on process performance.
5. Conclusions
The present correlation has been derived based upon a
large number of data points having widely varying elemen-
tal composition and encompassing all categories of solid,
liquid and gaseous fuels. This means in that, within the speci-
ed ranges of C, H, O, N, S and Ash as 0.0092.25, 0.43
25.15, 0.0050.00, 0.005.60, 0.0094.08 and 0.0071.4%,
respectively, and within the stated absolute error limit of
1.45%, the present correlation may be accepted as `unied
correlation' for estimating HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous
fuels from their ultimate analysis, expressed on dry basis.
6. Limitations of the present unied correlation
Though the correlation has been derived over the entire
spectrum of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels, it does suffer
from the following limitations:
(i) Beyond the specied ranges of C, H, O, N, S and Ash,
the predictive accuracy of the correlation does not hold
good. For example HHV of H2 H 100%; CO C
42:86; O 57:14% and municipal metallic waste A
90:49% as predicted by the present correlation has the
error of the order of 216.59, 210.88 and 2101.41%,
respectively.
(ii) For highly unsaturated hydrocarbon fuels like acetyl-
ene (C2 H2) and ethylene (C2H4), the correlation is
Table 5
Application of Unied HHV Correlation to Some Combustible Materials (Different From Those Considered in Derivation and Validation)

Sr. No. Name of the material Proximate analysis (% by Ultimately analysis (% mass, dry basis) Measured Calculated Error Ei (%) Ref.
mass, dry basis) HHV (dry HHVc (dry
basis) (MJ/kg) basis) (MJ/kg)
FC% VM% Ash% C% H% O% N% S% Cl%

1 Graphite (graphitic carbon) 100 100 1 33.82 34.91 3.22 [29]

2 Average refuse 28.98 35.66 4.80 29.52 0.89 0.14 14.404 14.442 0.26 [65]
3 Mixed garbage-I 11.64 72.36 16.00 44.99 6.43 28.76 3.30 0.52 19.729 19.974 1.24 [66]
4 Vegetable food waste 16.35 78.77 4.88 49.06 6.62 37.55 1.68 0.20 19.230 20.936 8.87 [66]
5 Mixed paper 9.40 84.60 6.00 43.41 5.82 44.32 0.25 0.20 17.611 17.319 2 1.66 [67]
6 Municipal waste (metallic) 90.49 4.54 0.63 4.28 0.05 0.01 1.725 2 0.024 2 101.41 [67]
7 Waste water digested primary 15.01 50.91 34.08 37.13 4.28 16.76 6.25 1.50 2.22 15.601 15.61 0.05 [24]
and secondary sludge
8 Zimpro heat conditioned sludge 2.67 41.49 55.84 26.42 3.67 11.41 1.89 0.77 0.12 11.223 11.238 0.14 [24]
9 Polyurethane 8.32 87.29 4.38 63.27 6.26 17.65 5.99 0.02 2.42 26.104 27.458 5.186 [24,67]
10 Polyvinyl chloride 10.87 87.06 2.06 45.14 5.61 1.56 0.08 0.14 45.41 22.734 22.177 2 2.45 [24,67]
11 Polyethylene 0.07 98.74 1.19 84.54 14.18 0.00 0.06 0.03 45.883 46.198 0.69 [24,67]
12 Leather shoe 15.41 61.72 22.87 42.01 5.32 22.83 5.98 1.0 18.201 18.101 2 0.55 [24,67]
13 Rubber 5.0 85.00 10.00 77.65 10.35 2.0 26.347 39.239 48.93 [24,67]
14 Oil paint 16.30 66.85 9.63 5.20 2.00 31.161 33.773 8.38 [24,67]
15 Tyres 27.79 65.59 6.62 79.10 6.8 5.90 0.10 1.50 32.341 35.026 8.30 [24,67]
S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063

16 Plastic lm 6.72 67.21 9.72 15.82 0.46 0.07 32.199 33.139 2.92 [24,67]
1061
1062 S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063
observed to be under predicting the HHV by 17.74 and
6.85%, respectively. This is due to their bond energy
levels being less than that of normal fuels.
(iii) For combustible material likes certain category of
leather, plastic, rubber and minerals where oxygen pene-
tration for combustion of C, H, and S is difcult either due
to very strong CH bond or due to very high ash content,
the predictions of present correlation does not hold good.
(iv) In general, for the materials whose bond energy
levels are lower than the normal fuels, the present corre-
lation under predicts the HHV values while for the
materials whose bond energy levels are substantially
higher than the normal fuels, the present unied correla-
tion is found to over predict the HHV values.
Acknowledgements
Authors gratefully acknowledges the physical and moral
support provided by the staff of Biomass Gasication
Project, I.C. Engine laboratory and Chemical Laboratory
of IIT, Mumbai. The nancial support provided by depart-
ment of non-conventional energy sources, Government of
India is also gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Selvig WA, Gibson IH. Caloric value of coal. In: Lowry HH, editor.
Chemistry of coal utilization, vol. 1. New York: Wiley, 1945. p. 139.
[2] Strache H, Lant R. Kohlenchemie. Leipzig: Akademische Verlags-
gesellschaft, 1924. p. 476.
[3] Steuer W. Brennstoff-Chem 1926;7:3447.
[4] Vondracek R. Brennstoff-Chem 1927;8:223.
[5] D'Huart K. Die Warme 1930;53:3137 Chem Abstr 1930;24:5966.
[6] Schuster F. Glukauf 1931;67:2325.
[7] Schuster F. Brennstoff-Chem 1934;25:456.
[8] Grummel ES, Davis IA. Fuel 1933;12:199203.
[9] Grummel ES, Davis IA. Colliery Guradian 1933;146:11545.
[10] Seylor AC. Proc S Wales Inst Engrs 1938;53:254.
[11] Gumz W. Feuerungstech 1938;26:3223 Chem Abstr 1939;33:6556.
[12] Sumegi L. Magyar Mernok Epiteszegylet Kozlonye 1939;73:3456
Chem Abstr 1940;34:1459.
[13] Mott RA, Spooner CE. Fuel 1940:22631, also pages 24251.
[14] Boie W. Energietechnik 1953;3:309.
[15] Grabosky M, Bain R. Properties of biomass relevant to gasication.
In: Reed TB, editor. Biomass gasiaction principles and technol-
ogy. New Jersey: Noyes Data Corporation, 1981. p. 4169.
[16] IGT. Coal Conversion Systems Technical Data Book, DOE Contract
EX 76-C-01-2286. Springeld, VA: NTIS, 1978.
[17] Tillman DA. Wood as an Energy resources. New York: Academic
Press, 1978.
[18] Jenkins BM Downdraft Gasication charcteristics of major california
residue derived fuels. PhD Thesis, University of California, Davis,
1980.
[19] Jenkins B, EbelingJM. Correlation of physical and chemical proper-
ties of terrestrial biomass with conversion: symposium energy from
biomass and waste IX IGT, 1985. p. 371.
[20] Beckman D, Elliot DC, Gevert B, Hornell C, Omtman A, Solantausta
Y, Talenheimo V. Techno-economic assessment of selected biomass
liquefaction process. Report No. 697, VTT, Finlan, ESPOO, 1990.
[21] Wilson DL. Prediction of heat of combustion of solid wastes form
ultimate analysis. Environ Sci Technol 1972;6(13):111921.
[22] Chang YC. Estimating heat of combustion for waste material. Pollut
Engng 1979:29.
[23] Khan MZA, Abu-Gharah ZH. New approach for estimating energy
content of municipal solid waste. J Environ Engng 1991;117(3):376
80.
[24] Niessen WR. Combustion and incineration process application in
environmental engineering. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1995. p. 118,
13747 and 1638.
[25] Himus GW. [FE-1730-21] Elements of fuel technology. London:
Leonard Hill, 1958.
[26] IGT. Chicago, Illinois, Preparation of coal conversion systems tech-
nical data book, Project 8964 nal report, Contact No. E (49-18)-
1730, Available From NTIS, US Department of Commerce, Spring-
eld, Virginia, USA, 1976.
[27] Van Krevelon DW, Schuyer Y. Coal science-aspects of coal consti-
tution. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1957. p. 194.
[28] Buckley TJ, Domalski ES [Discussion by Rigo HG]. Evaluation of
data on higher heating values and elemental analysis for refuse
derived fuels. 13th Biennial ASME Solid Waster Processing Confer-
ence, Philadelphia, PA. p. 1624 of discussion supplement, 14 May
1988.
[29] Stull DR, Prophet H. JANAF thermochemicals tables, NSRDS-NRS-
37 Washington. 2nd ed. 1971.
[30] Rose JW, Cooper JR, editors. British National Committee of The
World Energy Conference, Edinburgh 7th ed. British National
Committee of The World Energy Conference, Edinburgh 1977.
[31] Spiers HM. Technical data on fuel. 6th ed. New York: Wiley, 1962.
[32] Rossi A. Fuel characteristics of wood and non-wood biomass fuels.
In: Tillman DA, Jahn EC, editors. Progress in biomass conversion,
vol. 5. New York: Academic Press, 1984. p. 69.
[33] Anuradha G. Studies on characterisation of biomass for gasicaton.
PhD Thesis, Chemical Engineering Department, IIT-Delhi, 1990.
[34] Grover PD, Anuradha G. Thermochemical characterisation of
biomass for gasication. Report on physico-chemical parameters of
biomass residues, IIT-Delhi 1988.
[35] Boley EC, Landers WS. Enterainment drying and carbonization of
wood waster, Report of investigation 7282, Bureau of Mines,
Washington, 1969.
[36] Pober KW, Bauer HF. The nature of pyrolytic oil from municipal
solid waster. In: Anderson LL, Tillman DA, editors. Fuels from
waste. New York: Academic Press, 1977. p. 7386.
[37] Reed TB. Biomass gasication-principles and technology. New
Jersey: Noyes Data Corporation, 1981.
[38] Domalski ES, Jobe TL, Milne TA. Thermodynamic data for biomass
conversion and waste incineration, SERI/SP-271-2839, A product of
the solar technical information programme. USA: SERI, 1986.
[39] Channiwala SA. On biomass gasication process and technology
developments some analytical and experimental investigations.
PhD Thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, IIT, Mumbai 1992.
[40] ASTM D 2013-86, Standard method of preparing coal samples for
analysis, in gaseous fuels; coal and Coke, Section 5, vol. 05.05,
Annual book of standards, 1989. p. 226.
[41] ASTM D 3172-73 (84), Standards method for proximate analysis of
coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke section 5, vol. 05-05,
Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 299.
[42] ASTM D 3173-87, Standards test method for moisture in the analysis
sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, Section 5,
vol. 05-05, Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 300.
[43] ASTM D 3175-89, Standards, test method for volatile matter in the
analysis sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke,
Section 5, vol. 05-05, Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 305.
[44] ASTM D 3174-89, Standards test method for ash in the analysis
sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, Section 5,
vol. 05-05, Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 302.
[45] STM D 3176-84, Standards method for ultimate analysis of coal and
 S.A. Channiwala, P.P. Parikh / Fuel 81 (2002) 10511063
coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, Section 5, vol. 05-05, Annual
book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 308.
[46] D 3177-84, Standards test method for total sulfur in the analysis
samples of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, Section
5, vol.05-05, Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 311.
[47] ASTM D 3178-84, Standard test method for carobn and hydrogen in
the analysis sample of coals and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke,
Section 5, vol. 05-05, Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 315.
[48] ASTM D 3179-84, Standard test method for nitrogen in the analysis
samples of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels, coal and coke, Section 5,
vol. 05-05 Annual book of ASTM standards, 1989. p. 519.
[49] ASTM D 2015-85, Standard test method for gross caloric value of
coal and coke by the adiabatic bomb calorimeter, in gaseous fuels;
coal and coke, Section 5, vol. 05-05, Annual book of ASTM stan-
dards, 1989. p. 251.
[50] ASTM, D 3286-85, Standard test method for gross caloric value of
coal and coke by the isoperibol bomb calorimeter, in gaseous fuels;
coal and coke, Section 5, vol. 05-05, Annual book of ASTM stan-
dards, 1989. p. 327.
[51] Denny LC, Luxon LL, Hall BE, l, editors. Handbook of butane
propane gases 4th ed. Los Angeles, California, USA: Chilton, 1962.
[52] Elliot DC. Process development for direct liquefaction of biomass. In:
Klass LD, Evert GH, editors. Fuels From Biomass and Waste, Ann
Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science, 1981. p. 43550.
[53] Suzuki A, Nakamura T, Yokoyama S, Ogi T, Koguchi K. An
advanced treatment of sewage sludge, by direct thermochemicals
liquefaction. In: Bridgwater AV, Kuester JL, editors. Research in
thermichemical biomass conversion. New York: Elsevier, 1985. p.
81626.
[54] CFRI. Indian coals, vols. 18. Dhanbad, Bihar: CFRI, 1979.
[55] Bliek A. Mathematical modelling of a co-current xed bed coal gasi-
er. PhD Thesis, Twente University of Technology, Eindhoven, The
Netherlands, 1984.
[56] Miles TR. Biomass preparation for thermochemical conversion. In:
1063
Bridgwater AV, editor. Thermochemical processing of biomass.
London: Butterworths, 1984.
[57] Risser PG. Agricultural and forestry residues. In: Soffer SS, Zaborsky
OR, editors. Biomass conversion process for energy and fuels. New
York: Plenum Press, 1981. p. 2556.
[58] Maheshwari RC. Utiliization of rice husk as fuel. PhD Thesis, Agri-
cultural Engineering Department, IIT, Khragpur, 1975.
[59] Sanner WS, Ortuglio C, Walters JG, Wolfson DE. Conversion of
municipal and industrial refuse into useful materials by pyrolysis.
Report No. RI 7428, US Bureau of Mines, August 1970.
[60] Klass DL, Ghosh S. Methane production by anaerobic digestion of
water hyacinth. In: Klass LD, Emmert OH, editors. Fuels from
biomass and wastes. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science, 1981. p. 129
49.
[61] Leory DD. Particulate cleanup of low energy gas produced in a
biomass uised bed gasire. PhD Thesis, Texas A and M University,
1983. p. 52.
[62] Chynoweth DP, Klass DL, Ghosh S. Biomethanation of giant brown
kelp Macrocystis pyrigera, Energy from biomass and wastes.
Washington: IGT, 1978. p. 22952.
[63] Probstein RF, Hicks RE. Synthetic fuels. New York: McGraw Hill,
1982. p. 450.
[64] Jasas G, Kasper J. Gas turbine demonstration of pyrolysis-derived
fuels. Proceedings of the 14th Biomass Thermochemicals Conversion
Contractor's Meeting, 1982. p. 487545.
[65] Niessen WR, Chansky SH, Field EL, Dimitriou AN, La Manita CR,
Zinn RE, Lamb TJ, Sarom AS. Systems study of air pollution from
municipal incineration. NAPCA, US DHEW, Contract CPA-22-69-
23, March, 1970.
[66] Niessen WR, Alsobrook AF. Municipal and industrial refuse: compo-
sition and rates. Proceedings of 1972 ASME Incin. Conference,
ASME, New York, 1972. p. 319.
[67] Kaiser ER. Chemical analysis of refuse components. Proceedings of
1966 National Incin. Conference, ASME, New York, 1966. p. 84.