Wollo University: Kombolcha Institute of Technology

WOLLO UNIVERSITY
KOMBOLCHA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF CHEMICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING STREAM
COURSE NAME: - RESEARCH METHOD AND PROJECT PROPOSAL (CHEG 5251)
TARGET GROUP: - 5TH YEARS, 1ST SEMISTER
SECTION: - A
PROJECT ON PRODUCTION OF CHARCOAL BRIQUETTE FROM KOMBOLCHA

BIODEGRADABLE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM
NAME ID No
1. GETASEW GUADIE ……………………. WOUR/1307/10

2. DESTA ENDESHAW ……………………. WOUR/1102/10
3. GETASEW TEGEGNE …………………... WOUR/1308/10
May, 2014
KOMBOLCHA, ETHIOPIA
CHARCOAL BRIQUETTE PRODUCTION FROM BIODEGRADABLE KOMBOLCHA
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
DECLARATION
We declare that this project has been done by active participation of group members. It does not
involve any another person without the team member.
Name Signature Date

1 GETASEW GUADIE ____________
2 DESTA ENDESHAW ____________
3 GETASEW TEGEGNE ____________
WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page I

ABSTRACT
The study was done to explore the possibility of producing charcoal briquettes that could be used
for energy supply in small factories, for domestic cooking and etc. Kombolcha town is one of the
oldest, largest and commercial centers of the country which is situated in North-central
Ethiopia. Like most towns in the country settlement expansion and increase in number of
population is observed in the town. Despite its age old urban history of the town, waste disposal
practice is still backward and is inadequate, from environmental and public health protection
points of view. They are the most promising energy resources for developing countries like
Ethiopia. One of the favorable technologies for enhancing that property is charcoal Briquetting.
The primary objective of this work is to produce charcoal from the most promising wastes.
Specific objectives incudes sorting and characterization of biodegradable municipal solid waste,
to design carbonizer and manual press molding machine and to characterize charcoal
briquettes, Biodegradable municipal waste was collected from Kombolcha city. It’s production
process include: Collection of biodegradable municipal waste, Carbonization, Crushing and
Sieving, Binder Preparation, Binder – Charcoal Mixing, Briquetting charcoal (Compaction
&Drying) and drying and packing. The result obtained was density, moisture content, volatile
mater, ash content, fixed carbon content, caloric value of biodegradable municipal solid waste is
determined 157.3 kg/m3,18.15%, 66.95% ,4.07%,10.83% and 18.5MJ/kg respectively and also
charcoal briquette density, porosity Weight index, shatter resistance, moisture content,
volatile mater, ash content, fixed carbon content and caloric valueswere750.06kg/
m3,29.05%,92.377%,9.87%,29.4%,3.21%, 57.52% and 27.0MJ/kg. In this paper we perform
material and energy balance, sizing and design of main equipment’s, plant location and plant
layout is well done. Finally cost feasibility is estimated in birr by using plant capacity of 600
ton/year, with in 300 day/year.
Key words: Waste, Charcoal Briquette, Carbonization, Binder
WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page II

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Firstly, we would like to thanks our God for giving us the strength and wisdom to successfully
complete this work.
Secondly, we would like to express our heartfelt appreciation and thank to our research and
proposal teacher Mr. KEDIR for advising and sharing us his advice.
Last but not least, our sincere thanks to our entire friend those have patiently extended all sorts
of help for accomplishing our tasks.
WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page III

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
Page No
DECLARATION.........................................................................................................................................I
ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................................II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.........................................................................................................................III
LIST OF ACRONYMS..........................................................................................................................VIII
CHAPTER ONE..........................................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background.......................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of problem.........................................................................................................................2
1.3 Objectives..........................................................................................................................................3
1.3.1 General objective........................................................................................................................3
1.3.2 Specific objectives......................................................................................................................3
1.4 Significance of the Study...................................................................................................................3
1.5 Scope of the Study.............................................................................................................................5
CHAPTER TWO.........................................................................................................................................6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................................6
2.1 Solid waste and it’s management.......................................................................................................6
2.2 Physical, Chemical and Biological Characteristics of municipal solid waste.....................................6
2.3 Fundamental Aspects of Briquetting..................................................................................................7
2.4 Charcoal Briquette.............................................................................................................................8
2.5 Briquetting Technologies...................................................................................................................8
2.5.1 Piston press densification............................................................................................................9
2.5.2 Screw press densification............................................................................................................9
2.5.3 Role press densification............................................................................................................10
2.5.4 Pelletizes...................................................................................................................................10
2.5.5 Low pressure or manual presses...............................................................................................10
2.6 Step-by-step Production of Briquettes.............................................................................................10
2.6.1 Sorting......................................................................................................................................11
WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page IV

2.6.2 Shredding of Biomass Materials into small Pieces...................................................................11

2.6.3 Mixing......................................................................................................................................11
2.6.4 Carbonization............................................................................................................................11
2.6.5 Binder.......................................................................................................................................12
2.6.6 Addition of Water.....................................................................................................................13
2.6.7 Compaction & Drying..............................................................................................................13
2.7 Common binders used in densification............................................................................................13
2.8 Characteristics of briquettes.............................................................................................................14
2.8.1 Physical characteristics.............................................................................................................15
2.8.2 Combustion characteristic.........................................................................................................15
2.9 Factor Affecting Charcoal Briquette Production..............................................................................16
2.10 Applications of Briquettes.............................................................................................................16
CHAPTER THREE...................................................................................................................................17
3. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................17
3.1 Study area........................................................................................................................................17
3.2 Material and method..................................................................................................................17
3.2.1 Materials.......................................................................................................................................17
3.2.2 Chemical Used..........................................................................................................................17
3.3 Procedure of Charcoal Briquette Making...................................................................................18
3.3.1 Collection and sorting of biodegradable municipal waste.........................................................18
3.3.2 Characterization of biodegradable municipal solid waste.........................................................19
3.3.3 Drying.......................................................................................................................................22
3.3.4 Crushing...................................................................................................................................23
3.3.5 Carbonization and design of carbonizer....................................................................................23
3.3.6 Grinding and Sieving................................................................................................................24
3.3.7 Binder Preparation....................................................................................................................25
3.3.8 Binder – Charcoal Mixing........................................................................................................25
3.3.9 Briquetting charcoal (Compaction)...........................................................................................26
3.3.10. Drying and packing................................................................................................................27
3.4 Characterization of charcoal briquette.............................................................................................27
3.4.1 Determination of physical and combustion properties of charcoal briquettes...........................27
CHAPTER FOUR.....................................................................................................................................33
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................33
WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page V

4.1 Proximate Analysis..........................................................................................................................33

4.1.1 Density......................................................................................................................................33
4.1.2 Moisture content.......................................................................................................................33
4.1.3 Volatile matter..........................................................................................................................34
4.1.4 Ash content...............................................................................................................................34
4.1.4 Fixed carbon content.................................................................................................................34
4.1.5 Caloric value of biodegradable municipal solid waste..............................................................35
4.2 Characterization of charcoal briquette.............................................................................................35
4.2.1 Determination of physical and combustion properties of charcoal briquettes 4.2.1.1 Density. .35
4.2.2 Combustion properties of charcoal briquettes...........................................................................37
4.3 Factor Affect the Charcoal briquette................................................................................................39
4.4 Strength and weakness of our product.............................................................................................40
CHAPTER FIVE.......................................................................................................................................41
5 MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCE.............................................................................................41
5.1 Material balance..............................................................................................................................41
5.2 Energy balance................................................................................................................................47
5.3 Sizing and designing of major equipment........................................................................................49
5.3.1 Sizing of major equipment........................................................................................................49
5.3.2 Design of Major equipment......................................................................................................51
5.4 Economics Evaluation.....................................................................................................................60
5.4.1 Purchased equipment cost.........................................................................................................63
5.4.2 Manufacturing cost...................................................................................................................65
5.4.3 Profitability analysis.................................................................................................................68
5.4.4 Discounted Cash Flow rate.......................................................................................................69
5.5 Plant location and layout..................................................................................................................73
5.5.1 Plant location............................................................................................................................73
5.6 Health- and environmental impact of charcoal briquettes................................................................77
5.6.1 Health- and environment-relevant emissions............................................................................77
5.6.2 Emissions during carbonization process...................................................................................77
5.6.3 Environmental impact...............................................................................................................77
5.6.4 Public Health Effect..................................................................................................................78
CHAPTER SIX.........................................................................................................................................79
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION....................................................................................79
WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page VI

6.1 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................79
6.2 Recommendation.............................................................................................................................80
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................81
WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page VII

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Carbonizer equipment ( Elanda F. and Citra S.2018).................................................12

Figure 3-1: Flow sheet for charcoal briquette production from biodegradable municipal waste.18
Figure 3-2: Collecting and sorting biodegradable municipal solid waste.....................................19
Figure 3-3: Proximate analysis for biodegradable municipal solid waste.....................................21
Figure 3-4: Drying of sample........................................................................................................23
Figure 3-5: Carbonizer for carbonization of sample......................................................................24
Figure 3-6: Grinding and sieving...................................................................................................25
Figure 3-7: Mixing of starch, water and carbonized powder.........................................................26
Figure 3-8: manual mold equipment..............................................................................................27
Figure 3-9: Molded charcoal briquette..........................................................................................27
Figure 3-10: porosity index analyses.............................................................................................29
Figure 3-11: Proximate analysis for charcoal briquette.................................................................31
Figure 5-1: Process flow sheet of charcoal briquette production from biodegradable municipal
waste (BMSW)..............................................................................................................................46
Figure 5-2: combined or summarized flow diagram of charcoal of charcoal briquette production
from biodegradable municipal solid waste....................................................................................60
Figure 5-3: Plant layout.................................................................................................................76
WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page VIII

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Classification of the most important binders ((Ch. A. I. Raju1 et al,. 2014)..............14
Table 4-1: Properties of biodegradable municipal waste..............................................................35
Table 4-2: summery of property for charcoal briquette.................................................................39
Table 5-1: Chemical engineering equipment cost index...............................................................62
Table 5-2: purchased equipment cost (www.match.com).............................................................63
Table 5-3: Summary of direct cost................................................................................................64
Table 5-4: Summary of indirect cost.............................................................................................64
Table 5-5: Raw material................................................................................................................65
Table 5-6: Annual utilities requirement and costs.........................................................................65
Table 5-7: Labor cost.....................................................................................................................66
Table 5-8: Summary of economic data used in the DCFR profitability analysis..........................71
Table 5-9: Cash flow chart tabulated by Ms Excel........................................................................72
WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page IX

LIST OF ACRONYMS
BMSW Biodegradable Municipal Solid Waste

GCV Gross Caloric Value
FCI Fixed Capital Investment
WC Working Capital
TCI Total Capital Investment
GE General Expense
MC Manufacturing Cost
DPC Direct Production Cost
PV Present Value
NPV Net Present Value
PI Profitability Index
ROI Return on Investment
WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page X

TABLE OF CONTENTS
WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page XI

CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Waste quantities are generally growing in all countries all around the world. Every year billions
of tons of waste are generated. These wastes are result of activities in our homes, businesses and
industries. Disposal of this entire large amount is an enormous environmental problem with
many dimensions. Municipal, industrial and agricultural solid waste and biomass deposits cause
large scale pollution of land and water. The generation of waste causes a loss of materials and
energy and increase environmental costs on society for its collection, treatment and disposal. The
impacts of landfill and incineration are significant because of their potential for greenhouse gas
emissions (methane, carbon dioxide) and trans-boundary migration of organic micro-pollutants
(dioxins and furans) and volatile heavy metals.
The first organized municipal dump is in 500 BC outside ancient Athens in Greece, where
regulations required waste to be dumped at least a mile from the city limits and covered with soil
(Vuk, 1995).
Biodegradable materials can serve as an alternative renewable and carbon-neutral raw material
for the production of energy (Tumuluru, et al. 2010). There is scarcity of energy and there is the
need to source for alternative form of energy, which is different from convectional types.
According to information found from the municipality of Kombolcha town, 54%, 30% and 16%
of the waste generated from the town is biodegradable, disposable and recyclable respectively.
According to (Melaku 2008), the food wastes constitute 32.1% of the total household wastes by
weight. It is known that the total population of the town is about 58480. Taking this figure into
account, the daily, weekly, monthly and yearly solid waste generation rate of Kombolcha town is
estimated to 22.26, 155.82, 667.8 and 8,124.90 tons respectively. There is some variation in
figures when it is compared with other studies. For example, the annual generation rate of
Kombolcha according to Lem Ethiopia (2006) and Melaku (2008) was 11,897 tons and 9,125
tons respectively. It is highly recommended by the researcher that similar study should be taken
place with considerable factors, i.e. season, budget and number of participants.
WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page 1

1.2 Statement of problem
Improper disposal of wastes has got a number of social and environmental impacts. One of the
most important environmental effects is that, when biodegradable municipal wastes are left in
bulk in open air for considerable time, they are fermented by anaerobic bacteria in the presence
of moisture to emit methane (CH4) which has about 21 times as much greenhouse effect as
carbon dioxide (CO2). Hence, development of technologies for utilization of the biodegradable
municipal waste for fuel is vital to minimize the above mentioned problems. The finding of this
research can help new entrepreneurs develop new product using this waste. Proper biodegradable
municipal solid waste recycle is a significant challenge in many developing nations. In these
locations, where formal and centralized waste collection and re cycle services are often
unavailable, the entire bio degradable solid waste value chain needs to be considered and
evaluated for the feasibility of any given re cycle technology, in addition to the viability of the
technology itself. Waste treatment, reduction from its source, recycling of wastes or energy
recovery from the wastes is not well exercised. The main activities being done are collection and
dumping of wastes at dumping site which is far from the Kombolcha town. Rapid urbanization
and public service means rapid growth of the wastes, which in turn affects human health and
environmental conditions. Moreover, the waste generated in the city simply disposed on the road,
play station and waterway area unknowingly or carelessly without characterizing the waste and
sorting in to hazardous and non-hazardous, recyclable and non-recyclable. Among from different
recycled useful product; we chose charcoal briquette product since currently Kombolcha society
have energy problem and they use charcoal briquette as cooking fuel.

1.3 Objectives
1.3.1 General objective
The general objective of our project is to produce charcoal briquette from biodegradable
municipal waste.
1.3.2 Specific objectives
 To sort, characterize, carbonize and mold biodegradable municipal solid waste.
 To characterize charcoal briquette.
 To perform material balance, energy balance, sizing and design major equipment and
evaluate cost feasibility.
1.4 Significance of the Study
The production of charcoal briquette from bio degradable solid waste reduce environmental
pollution by recycling the biodegradable solid waste, reduce the cost spent for other source of
energy like wood charcoal. And also the study contribute to reduce the deforestation by
replacing wood charcoal with charcoal briquette that produce from biodegradable municipal
solid waste. It also contributes by creating job opportunity to un employed community, it
contributes the clean ness of the town, it improves the community health and the work will be
base line for those need to work in the recycling Kombolcha bio degradable solid waste. This
study will reduce the land for waste disposal and give economic benefit.
Besides the potential gains for waste pickers, the involved municipality may benefit from the
strengthening of the informal waste sector in several ways. Integrating the waste workers into the
municipal waste management schemes not only secures access to additional work force, but
likewise lessens the burden on social support measures for them since they may be given
capacity to care better for themselves and their families.
Production of charcoal briquette for utilization of the biodegradable municipal waste as cooking
fuel is vital to minimize the above mentioned problems under the statement of problem as

compared to other waste converting method like biogas production, bio char production,
composting and recycling.
1.5 Scope of the Study
In this work, only biodegradable municipal wastes will be going to be processed to charcoal
briquette in Kombolcha town. The raw material investigated here will biodegradable municipal
waste (i,e except non bio-degradable waste such as plastic, metal tin plate and etc.,). The studies
will cover Kombolcha town. Collecting, sorting and characterization of the bio degradable
Kombolcha municipal solid waste, drying and carbonizing biodegradable municipal solid waste,
molding the charcoal briquette in cylindrical form and then drying them. Producing charcoal
briquette manually by participating some labor worker was introducing sustainable recovery of
charcoal briquette from degradable solid waste to the society.

CHAPTER TWO
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Solid waste and it’s management
Solid waste management is one of the major challenges in many developing countries like
Ethiopia. Solid wastes from household, agro-industries and food industries dumped in open lands
or accumulated in open-dumping sites is one of the major problem in Ethiopian cities. Majority
of the wastes generated are not appropriately collected and dumped. Studies made in Ethiopian
cities (such as Addis Ababa, Jimma, Bahir Dar, Awassa, Mekelle, Adama and Diredawa )
indicated that, inadequate solid waste management has resulted in the accumulation of solid
waste on open lands, in water ways and drains (Beyene and Banerjee 2011; Regassaet al., 2011;
Hailemariam and Ajeme, 2014).
Kombolcha town is one of the oldest, largest and commercial centers of the country which is
situated in Amhara regional state. Like most towns in the country settlement expansion and
increase in number of population is observed in the town. Despite its age old urban history the
town, waste disposal practice is still inappropriate and inadequate from environmental and public
health protection points of view. There is no proper waste management system for the town at
present. Waste is simply dumped at environmentally sensitive locations, and posing pollution
impacts and public health treats. Hence, the need for design and implementation of a sustainable
and environmentally sound waste treatment facility becomes apparent.
2.2 Physical, Chemical and Biological Characteristics of municipal solid

waste
The major physical characteristics measured in waste are: (1) density, (2) size distribution of
components, and (3) moisture content. Other characteristics which may be used in making
decision about solid waste management are: (1) color, (2) voids, (3) shape of components, (4)
optical property, (5) magnetic properties, and (6) electric properties. Important chemical
properties measured for solid waste are: (1) moisture (water content can change chemical and

physical properties), (2) volatile matter, (3) ash, (4) fixed carbon, (5) fusing point of ash, (6)
calorific value, (7) percent of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, Sulphur and ash. Proximate analysis of
waste aims to determine moisture, volatile matter, ash and fixed carbon. Ultimate analysis of
waste aims to analyze percent of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, Sulphur and ash. From the research
conducted, the contents of carbon and nitrogen in food waste are 53%
and 0.68% respectively. These values vary somewhat from the ultimate values which are
48% and 2.6% for carbon and nitrogen respectively (Dereje, 2012).
2.3 Fundamental Aspects of Briquetting
Briquetting is the process of densification of biomass to produce homogeneous, uniformly sized

solid pieces of high bulk density which can be conveniently used as a fuel. It is important to
mention that biomass densification is simply a physical transformation that does not change the
chemical composition of biomass. Thus, the calorific value of biomass is not affected by
densification. Nevertheless, since non-densified products exhibit lower bulk density than pellets
and briquettes, fluffy materials (e.g., chips, sawdust, etc.) have lower energy density than
densified products. The process offers the following advantages:
 The net calorific value per unit volume is increased
 Easier handling
 Lower transportation cost
 The fuel produced is uniform in size and quality
 Disposal of residue is facilitated, and
 Environmental friendly fuels
It can be regarded as a waste control measure in the case of production of briquettes from
agricultural wastes. However, depending on the material of interest, briquetting can be used to
provide fuel source as a preventive measure to many ecological problems. During the briquetting
process, fine material is compacted into regular shape and size which does not separate during
transportation, storage or combustion. The briquetting of biomass is one sure way of fighting
climate change and ensure sustainable development due to the fact that it reduces dependence on
fossil fuel, use waste products, as well as it reduces pollution which may have resulted in case of
dumping (Emerhi, E. A.,2011).

2.4 Charcoal Briquette

They are uniform chunks of charcoal that are used in barbecue grills. The primary components of
these briquettes are char (traditional charcoal) and coal, such as sub-bituminous lignite or
anthracite. The best raw materials used to make traditional charcoal are from different types of
wood scraps such as beech, birch, hard maple, hickory, and oak.
Charcoal briquette can be produced from organic waste such as agricultural residues, sawdust,
and waste from house hold activities. Production technology is an essential element to improve
the overall yield in quality of charcoal briquette. The traditional wood charcoal are still been
used in many part of our country. Production of wood charcoal is the most traditional and
commonly used method.
2.5 Briquetting Technologies

Biomass densification represents a set of technologies for the conversion of biomass residues
into a convenient fuel. The technology is also known as briquetting or agglomeration. The
fundamental aspects of briquetting include, pressure of compaction, binding mechanism and
mechanism of compaction. Each of these will vary with the type of raw material. There are many
factors to consider before a biomass material qualifies as a feed stock for briquetting. Apart from
availability in large quantities, it should have the following characteristics:
Low moisture content: generally, in the range of 10-15% (Grover P.D. and Mishra S.K., 1996).
Low ash content with less alkaline material: The higher the ash content the greater the
slugging behavior (Grover P.D. and Mishra S.K., 1996).
Volatile matter: Biomass generally has high volatile matter content of around 70% to
86% and low char content (Aina, O.M etal, 2009).
Fixed carbon percentage: According (AYSE O and serdar Y. 2016) the average fixed carbon
content of biomass is fall in the range of 11.78%-24.16%.
Good flow characteristics: Briquettes can be produced with a density of 1.2 g/cm 3 from loose
biomass of bulk density 0.1-0.2 g/cm3 (Grover P.D. and Mishra S.K., 1996).
Generally, there are two types of briquettes produced from biomass: raw briquettes and
charcoal briquettes.
Depending on the types of equipment used, it could be categorized into five main types:

 Piston press densification

 Screw press densification
 Roll press densification
 Pelletizing
 Low pressure or manual presses (T.U. Onuegbu et al,.2012).
2.5.1 Piston press densification
High compaction technology or binder less technology consists of the piston press and the screw
press. The piston press acts in a discontinuous fashion with materials being fed into a cylinder
which is then compressed by a piston in to slightly-tapering die. The compressed material is
heated by fractional forces as it is pushed through the die. The diameter of the briquette is closely
related to the output of the machine (Jayashan karetal,.). There are two types of piston press.1)
the die and punch technology; and 2) hydraulic press. In the former, which is also known as ram
and die technology, biomass is punched in to a die by a reciprocating ram with a very high
pressure thereby compressing the mass to obtain a compacted product. The hydraulic press
process consists of first compacting the biomass in the vertical direction and then again in the
horizontal direction.
2.5.2 Screw press densification
In the screw process, material is fed continuously into a screw which forces the material into a
cylindrical die; this die is often heated to raise the temperature the point where lignin flow
occurred. Pressure builds up smoothly along the screw rather than discontinuously under the
impact of piston (JaanKerset al,).
The compaction ratio of screw presses ranges from 2.5: to 6:1 or even more. Due to the
application of high pressures, the temperature rises fluidizing the lignin present in the biomass
which acts as a binder. The outer surface of the briquettes obtained through this process is
carbonized and has a hole in the center which promotes better combustion (Maninderet al,.2012).

2.5.3 Role press densification
In a briquetting roller press, the feedstock falls in between two rollers, rotating in opposite
directions and is compacted into pillow –shaped briquettes. Briquetting biomass usually requires
a binder. This type of is used for briquetting carbonized biomass to produce charcoal briquettes
(T.U. Onuegbuet al,.2012).
2.5.4 Pelletizes
Pelletizing is closely related to briquetting except that it uses smaller dies (approximately 30mm)
so that the smaller products are called pellets. The pelletizer has a number of dies arranged as
holes bored on a thick steel or ring and the material is forced into the dies by means of two or
three rollers.
2.5.5 Low pressure or manual presses
There are different types of manual presses used for briquetting biomass feed stocks. They are
specifically designed for the purpose or adapted from existing implements used for other
purposes. Manually clay brick making presses are a good example. They are used both for raw
biomass feedstock or charcoal. Although it is time consuming, it is good alternative for small
scale operators who cannot afford an expensive briquetting unit. The main advantages of low
pressure briquetting are low capital costs, low operating costs and low level of skill required to
operate the technology. Low-pressure techniques are particularly suitable for briquetting green
plant waste such as bagasse (sugar cane residues) and sawdust. The wet material shaped under
low pressure in simple block presses or extrusion presses. The resulting briquette has a higher
density than the original material but still requires drying before it can be used. The dried
briquette has little mechanical strength and crumbles easily. The use of a binder is imperative
(T.U. Onuegbuet al,.2012).
2.6 Step-by-step Production of Briquettes

The briquetting process usually starts with the collection of the residues followed by size
reduction, drying and compaction by extruder or press. Briquetting can be carried out with or
without a binder. The one without a binder is more convenient, but it requires sophisticated and
costly presses and drying equipment (Tabil, 1997).

2.6.1 Sorting
All unwanted non-biodegradable municipal waste materials are separated manually from
biodegradable municipal solid waste and biodegradable municipal wastes are taken for the
process.
2.6.2 Shredding of Biomass Materials into small Pieces
Under this process, the biomass materials are chopped manually into small pieces so as to
enhance their workability and compactness. This process is not however general but depends on
the type of biomass feedstock. For example, while biomass feed stocks such as groundnut, waste,
bagasse, wheat straws, barley and maize straws and cobs would need to be chopped into small
sizes, biomass feed stocks such as coffee husks and saw dust would not require shredding.
2.6.3 Mixing
This is normally required in situations where different range of biomass feed stocks is to be used
primarily to optimize the burning characteristics of the final fuel. A typical example is when
biomass materials with high ash content are to be mixed with biomass material of low ash
content. Biomass with low energy content such as papers can be appropriately mixed with those
of high energy content. This helps to attain the right quality such as long burning period, non-
smoking and odor free. This will enable the briquettes to compete well in the market.
2.6.4 Carbonization
In this process the feedstock is first partially burned in an environment where fresh air is
controlled. The process is known as charring or carbonisation. Once carbonised, the materials are
then compacted using a briquette press. The advantage with carbonised briquettes is that they are
virtually smokeless – a key consideration for household users.
Carbonisation is a particular form of that process in chemical technology called pyrolysis that is
the breakdown of complex substances into simpler ones by heating. Carbonisation is the term
used when complex carbonaceous substances such as wood or agricultural residues are broken
down by heating into elemental carbon and chemical compounds which may also contain some
carbon in their chemical structure.

On the basis of the results from burning the organic waste into charcoal and carbonization
carried out for 8 hours, it was fund that the minimum temperature value was 143°C for burning
leaves, and the maximum temperature was 220°C in the case of burning twigs, with the average
temperature ranging from 162.22 °C to 199.67 °C (Elanda F and Citra S.2018). This shows the
difference in the temperature of carbonization process in the drum due to the difference in the
type of material used in the carbonization process. Another research conducted by (Pari et al.
2013) in the experimental study on the Combination Test of Combined Coconut Milk and
Coconut Shredded Fuel As an Alternative Fuel, indicates that the carbonization(pyrolysis)
process is the decomposition of biomass (lysis) into heat (pyro) at the temperature over 150°C
using different types of materials.
Figure 2-1: Carbonizer equipment ( Elanda F. and Citra S.2018).
2.6.5 Binder
The application of binder depends on the technique of briquetting employed. In addition to

biomass mixing, an appropriate binder is added and mixed with the biomass thoroughly,
especially if a low pressure technique is to be employed. This enhances the compactness of the
biomass materials and prevents them from disintegrating apart. According to Tabil ,1997, typical
examples of such binders include film binders (tar, petroleum asphalt and portland cement),
matrix binders (coal, and sodium silicate) and chemical binders (pitch water, sodium silicate and
lingo-sulfonates).

2.6.6 Addition of Water
Water is usually added to the feedstock to make them loose and easy to work on. Some biomass
materials require to be soaked in water for a number of days to ensure that they are soft enough
to work on (Musa, 2007).
2.6.7 Compaction & Drying
Finally, the feedstock is ready for compaction, either by machine or by hand. This will be
followed by ejection from the mould after some dwell time has been observed (Oladeji, 2011
Ph.D). Thereafter, the briquettes will need to be left to dry for up to a week (Wilaipon, 2008).
2.7 Common binders used in densification

Binders are substances, organic or inorganic, natural or synthetic, that can hold (bind) two things
or something together. Two types are combustible and non-combustible binders. Combustible
binders are binders that support combustion and can burn. Examples are starch, petroleum
residues, molasses, cottonseed oil etc. Non-combustible binders are binders that cannot support
combustion examples are clay, cement, limestone, etc. Starches have proved very satisfactory as
binders. Binders improve the binding characteristics of the biomass and produce a more durable
product. Binders also help reduce wear in production equipment and increase abrasion resistance
the fuel. The binder plays an important role in the final quality of the briquettes. Each binder has
a steady effect on (Ch. A. I. Raju1 et al,.2014):
 Briquette solidity (important in case of transportation)
 Sensitivity to moistness (important in case of long storing)
 Mineral matter content
 Market price
All this aspects also have a relative impact depending on the percentage of binder in the final
product. There are various binding agents in use which can be divided into two main groups:
organic and inorganic binders (Ch. A. I. Raju1 et al,. 2014).The most important binders are
shown in table

Table 2-1: Classification of the most important binders ((Ch. A. I. Raju1 et al,. 2014).
Organic binders Inorganic binders

Molasses Clay
Coal tar Cement
Bitumen Lime
Starch Sulfite liquor
Many binders have been proposed and used to produce charcoal briquettes. The properties
required of a binder are (Ch. A. I. Raju1 et al, 2014): -
 Produces a strong briquette.
 Produces a waterproof briquette.
 Does not detract from the quality of the coal.
 Does not interfere with the use of the coal.
 Is environmentally acceptable and economically viable.
2.8 Characteristics of briquettes

The main purpose of briquetting material is to reduce the volume and thereby increasing the
energy density. When densification takes place, there are two quality aspects that need to be
considered, firstly, the briquette has to remain in solid form until it has served its purpose
(handling characteristics). Secondly, the briquette has to perform well as a fuel (fuel
characteristics). The first aspect, that the product should not crumble and disintegrate when
handled, stored and transported, is mainly a function of the quality of the densification process
for a given raw material. The second aspect is mainly related to the properties of the raw material
and the shape and density of the individual briquette, energy characteristics describe how the
briquette act and what it produces when burned. The calorific value of briquettes is an important
measure of the amount of energy released from every briquette when burned. Briquettes are
normally priced by weight, but still, the calorific value is the most important factor in
determining the competitiveness of the fuel. The calorific value varies with ash content and
moisture content. Different ash and moisture contents in briquettes result in different calorific
values (Ebo T.2012)

2.8.1 Physical characteristics
Density: According to (Aina O.M etal 2009), the density of saw dust briquette bonded with
starch give a density of 546 kg/m 3. The briquette charcoal produced from agro-waste has mean
density of 408.7 kg/m3 than both sugarcane bagasse and wood charcoal whose bulk densities are
289.0 kg/m3 and 349.0 kg/m3 respectively(Abdu Z and Sadiq A 2014).
Friability: This factor is a measurement of the briquette's resistance to mechanical action that
will affect them when handled and transported. Tests can be done either in a rotating drum or by
repeatedly dropping samples from a specified height. In both methods, the samples are screened
(20 mm sieve) and the fraction retained is used as an index of a briquette's friability.
Resistance to humidity: Inherent binders (lignin) and most externally added binders are water
soluble. This results in one of the weakest points in briquette quality, which is that briquettes
must not be subjected to water or humid air. Briquettes and pellets have to be stored under cover
and they do have a limited lifetime under humid conditions. The latter problem appears to be
only minor even in tropical countries. The dense, hard-surfaced briquettes produced in
mechanical piston presses and screw presses with heated dies have enough resistance to humidity
to withstand the rainy season (Ebo T.2012).
2.8.2 Combustion characteristic
Moisture content: The above value of moisture content obtained in our work was fall in the
range of 5-10% according to (Abdu Z and Sadiq A.2014).
Volatile matter: The volatile matter of charcoal briquette produced from agro-waste is in
the range of 20-30% according to (Abdu Z and Sadiq A 2014).
Ash content: The higher the fuel’s ash content, the lower its calorific value. As ash is an
impurity that will not burn, fuels with low ash content are better suited for thermal utilization
than fuels with high ash content. According to (Akowuah J.O etal 2012) higher ash content in a
fuel usually leads to higher dust emission and affects the combustion volume and efficiency.

The value of ash contents of charcoal briquettes recommended in (Jaya S.T etal 2010) for good
quality charcoal briquettes are fall in the range of 3-4%.
Fixed carbon percentage: This value of fixed carbon content is very low as compared with
(Abdu Z and Sadiq A.2014) that is from 70-75%.
Calorific/heating value: One of the most important characteristics of a fuel is its calorific value,
that is the amount of energy per kg it gives off when burned. Heating value can be determined
laboratorial experiment using oxygen bomb calorimeter. Although briquettes, as with most solid
fuels, are priced by weight or volume, market forces will eventually set the price of each fuel
according to its energy content. However, the production cost of briquettes is independent of
their calorific value as are the transportation and handling costs.
The briquette charcoal produced from agro-waste has a mean calorific value of 32.4 MJ/kg. The
charcoal briquette produced from bagasse has caloric value of 23.4 MJ/kg and wood charcoal has
8.27MJ/kg. The calorific value can thus be used to calculate the competitiveness of a processed
fuel in a given market situation. There is a range of other factors, such as ease of handling,
burning characteristics etc., which also influence the market value but calorific value is probably
the most important factor (Ebo T.2012).
2.9 Factor Affecting Charcoal Briquette Production
In order to produce good quality briquettes, feed preparation is very important. Factor affect
quality of charcoal briquettes are like their particle size, moisture content, diameter of the
mold ,starch content and temperature.
2.10 Applications of Briquettes
Briquettes have many numerous uses which include both domestic and small industrial cottage
application (Ahmed, et al. 2008). They are often used as a development intervention to replace
firewood, charcoal, or other solid fuels. This is because with the current fuel shortage and ever
rising prices, consumers are looking for affordable alternative fuels and briquettes fill the gaps.

CHAPTER THREE
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study area

Our study was conducted in Kombolcha town municipal solid waste disposal site.
3.2 Material and method
3.2.1 Materials
 Carbonizer for carbonizing charcoal
 Mortar for grinding
 Dryer ( sun light) for drying of raw material and charcoal briquette
 Mixer for mixing binder and carbonized charcoal
 Sieve for screening of grinded charcoal
 Manual press molding machine for shaping of briquette
 Oven for characterization of BMSW and charcoal briquette
 oxygen bomb calorimeter for characterization of charcoal briquette
 500 ml for preparing starch solution.
3.2.2 Chemical Used
 Binder (starch) for binder preparation

 Water for binder preparation and mixing
 Biodegradable municipal solid waste as raw material

3.3 Procedure of Charcoal Briquette Making
Figure 3-2: Flow sheet for charcoal briquette production from biodegradable municipal waste
3.3.1 Collection and sorting of biodegradable municipal waste
The municipal waste will essentially include unsorted household waste, chips and wood
sawdust, rice balls, metal, plastic, bottle ,unsold of charcoal recovered from the points of sale and
etc., .Those waste were sorted to remove plastic, metal, glass bottle and textiles and any other
non-degradable municipal waste.

Figure 3-3: Collecting and sorting biodegradable municipal solid waste
3.3.2 Characterization of biodegradable municipal solid waste
3.3.2.1 Proximate Analysis
Proximate analysis is the analysis of wastes to determine density, moisture content, ash content
and volatile matter.
Density: The density of the biodegradable municipal solid waste (BMSW) sample was
determined by weighing an empty cylindrical container of known volume and then carefully
filled with the BMSW sample. After filling, the container with the sample was weighed. Then
the mass of the containing sample were determined by subtracting the weight of container from
weight of sample and container.
M BMSW
ρ BMSW = ……………………….equation 3.1
V con
Where ρBMSW is density of BMSW (g/cm3), MBMSW is mass of BMSW (g) and Vcon is volume
of the container (cm3).

Percentage moisture content: It is determined by weighing a portion of a sample and oven

drying it at 105 0C for three hour. The change in weight was used to determine the sample’s
moisture content using the following relation.
MC (%)=B / A∗100 …………………equation 3.2
Where MC is moisture content, A is the mass of sample before drying, g and B is the change in
weight of sample before and after drying in oven.
Percentage volatile matter: volatile matter is defined as those products, exclusive of moisture,
given off by a material as gas or vapor. The high volatile matter content of a biomass material
indicates that during combustion, most of it will volatize and burn as gas in the cook stove (Aina
O.M etal,. 2009). The percentage volatile matter of BMSW was determined by placing the
sample in furnace until a constant weight was obtained. Then it were be kept in a furnace at a
temperature of 5500C for 10 minutes and weighing after cooling in desiccators to obtain the
change in weight. The percentage volatile matters were computed by using equation:
VM (%) = ( W 3−W
W2 )
2
∗100…………………………..equation 3.3
Where, VM (%) = percentage volatile matter of BMSW, W2 = furnace dried sample weight of
BMSW, g and W3 =change in weight of furnace dried BMSW before and after transferred to
furnace, g
Percentage ash content: Ash is the non-combustible inorganic residue that remains after a
complete combustion (Antonio Pedro N etal,.2014). A sample of the BMSW was placed in an
oven until a constant weight was obtained. The oven dried sample was then transferred in to the
furnace set at a temperature of 900 0C and left for about 30 minutes. Then after, the crucible and
its contents were be transferred to desiccators and then crucible and its contents were be
reweighed to obtain the weight of ash. The percentage ash content was calculated as the ratio of

weight of ash to that of weight of dry sample and will be determined by using following
equation.
AC (%) = ( WW 21 )∗100…………………………equation 3.4

Where, W1 = Initial weight of oven dried sample (g), W2 = weight of ash (g) and
AC (%) = percentage ash content.
Figure 3-4: Proximate analysis for biodegradable municipal solid waste

Percentage of fixed carbon: Carbon content refers to the percentage of carbon present in a
particular sample. Essentially, the fixed carbon of a fuel is the percentage of carbon available for
combustion. This is not equal to the total amount of carbon in the fuel (the ultimate carbon)
because there is also a significant amount that will be released as hydrocarbons in the volatiles.
Fixed carbon gives an indication of the proportion of char that remains after the devolatization
phase. The percentage fixed carbon of briquettes was calculated by subtracting the sum of PVM
and PAC from 100 (Tembe E.T etal 2014).
The same process was repeated until the completion of the samples.
PFC=100-(PMC+PVM+PAC)……………………………………………………equation3.5
Where, FC (%) =fixed carbon percentage, PMC=percentage of moisture content, PVM=
percentage volatile matter and PAC=Percentage ash content.

Caloric value: Calorific value determines the energy content of a fuel. It is the property of
biomass fuel that depends on its chemical composition and moisture content. The most important
fuel property is its calorific or heat value (Abah O.A etal 2010).
The gross calorific values of charcoal briquettes were determined using a standard Oxygen Bomb
calorimeter. The bomb was closed and charged in with oxygen up to 30 bars. The bomb was
fired up by depressing the ignite switch to burn the sample in an excess of oxygen. A
predetermined mass of each sample was burnt in the bomb calorimeter until complete
combustion was obtained. The 6200 calorimeter will automatically make all of the calculations
necessary to produce a gross heat of combustion for the sample. However, it is important that the
user understand these calculations to ensure the instrument is set up so the calculations match the
procedures and the units are consistent throughout the process. Analytical balance, oven, furnace
and 6200 calorimeters used in the experiment.
Hc=(WT-e1-e2e3)/m
Where, Hc = Gross heat of combustion, T= Observed temperature rise, W= Energy equivalent of
the calorimeter being used, e1= Heat produced by burning the nitrogen portion of the air trapped
in the bomb to form nitric acid, e2 = Heat produced by the formation of sulfuric acid from the
reaction of sulfur dioxide, water and oxygen, e3 = Heat produced by the heating wire and cotton
thread and m= mass of the sample. But in our laboratory bomb calorie meter is not available, so
we use PMC, PVC and PAC correlation to calculate the caloric heating value by this equation
(Sh.mesroghli,E.etal 2009).
GCV (MJ/Kg) =37:777- 0.647 M- 0.387A - 0.089VM R2= 0.97……………equation 3.6

Where GCV=gross caloric value, m =moisture content, A=ash content, VM=volatile mater
content and R =coefficient of determination.
3.3.3 Drying
Sorted waste contain many ingredients like food waste, chat leaf and stalk and other
biodegradable waste which contain high amount of moisture; then it dries by sunlight to reduce
the moisture content until it dried.

Figure 3-5: Drying of sample
3.3.4 Crushing
The sun dried biodegradable municipal solid waste was crushed manually. The crushed
biodegradable was then added to carbonizer for further processing.
3.3.5 Carbonization and design of carbonizer
The bio-degradable municipal waste was carbonized using the conventional drum method.
Design the furnace as carbonizer that is a simple cylindrical design fabricated to provide a means
of creating low oxygen environment, an outer large drum or metal cylinder was fabricate using a
drum of about 20 cm in height and 10cm diameter or width with an opening at the top for
loading the feedstock and have hole in lower side.
First construct the largest carbon steel cylinder with diameter of 18 cm and height of 20cm
that have five holes or above five at bottom or suitable metal plate and used as cover for the
top opening of the drum during firing. The second largest cylinder with diameter of 18cm and
height of 20 cm which is open at the bottom and opens at the top with in a size of third small
cylinder and put in largest one. Then the third smallest with diameter of 10cm and height of
12cm which is open at the bottom and have seven or above seven holes at the top and put in or
place in second largest cylinder.
Provide a fire port at the bottom of the drum and light through the wicks. At the start of the
carbonization process the lid will left open for approximately 10 minutes for the volatile gases to
escape. The lid was then closed thereafter; properly sealed to prevent air from entering. The

BMSW were left to carbonize for three hours and above. The fully carbonized material was
collected for further processing.
Figure 3-6: Carbonizer for carbonization of sample
3.3.6 Grinding and Sieving
The carbonized raw materials were grinded to fine particles and sieved using a sieve. The sieved
pulverized charcoal was measured and prepared for further processing.

Figure 3-7: Grinding and sieving

3.3.7 Binder Preparation
For the purpose of this work the starch were used as a binder. The binder materials were used for
strengthening the charcoal briquettes. Prepare binder concentrations by dissolving 150g of starch
in 100 ml of cold water to form a paste and 500 ml of water was put to boil. The paste was
gradually mixed with the boiling water and stirred gently while hot until smooth homogeneous
gelatinized starch solution was obtained.
3.3.8 Binder – Charcoal Mixing
Then the finely sieved sample was added and poured into a mixing bowl while still warm and
thoroughly agitated. Then every particle of carbonized char powder was mixed with the binder in
such a way that every particle of the carbonized material was coated with a film of the binder
until thick black compound was obtained. This will helps to attain the right quality such as long
burning period, non-smoking and odor free.

Figure 3-8: Mixing of starch, water and carbonized powder.
3.3.9 Briquetting charcoal (Compaction)
The starch mixed carbonized materials were pressed in a manual cylindrical briquetting moulds
fabricated from a recycled plastic pipes.
3.3.9.1 Design or Construction of manual briquetting press machine (mold machine)
Initially we selected the size (diameter = 4.5cm) of the charcoal briquette as a constant factor and
based on this we started to design a manual press charcoal briquetting machine.
In order to obtain a charcoal briquette of diameter 4.5 cm we needed to design a three cylinder of
the same diameter, where the raw materials are compressed. A cover of the same diameter is
done at the bottom on the same line which is guided on guide ways. A large cylinder of size (i.e.,
D=30cm and H=36cm) is designed on three small cylinder to hold them externally at bottom and
holds raw material internally. The press unit of height 87cm is designed internally in large
cylindered metal which has three metal plates attached in the same direction to circled metal
plate .In order to make the briquette highly compact we need to apply high pressure, so thickness
of the cylinder is made large to withstand this pressure.

Figure 3-9: manual mold equipment
3.3.10. Drying and packing
The molded briquettes were placed on clean aluminum trays and dry in the sun for 2 days.
Drying the briquettes is done in the sun, on the ground.
Figure 3-10: Molded charcoal briquette

So, it is likely that these briquettes are vary in their shape/size Then charcoal briquette in a tray
was collected, dry them under the sunlight, and pack them in a plastic bag.
3.4 Characterization of charcoal briquette
3.4.1 Determination of physical and combustion properties of charcoal briquettes
Density, porosity index, shatter resistance, percentage volatile matter, percentage ash content,
percentage fixed carbon and gross calorific value of the BMSW briquettes were determined.
Density: One of the major indices for assessing the combustion and handling characteristics and
ignition behavior of briquettes is density. It is defined as structural packing of the molecules of
the substance in a given volume (Oladeji J. Tetal,.2014). The weights of briquettes were
determined in the laboratory using digital balance. Volumes of briquettes were determined by a
simple calculations based on the direct measurement of height and diameter of the briquettes
since briquettes were cylindrical in shape. The volume was evaluated using.
M br
ρ br= …………………equation 3.7
V br
Vbr= πR H………………….equation 3.8
2
Where, R=radius of the briquette, cm, H=height of the briquette, cm, M br= mass of charcoal
briquettes in g, Vbr=volume of briquettes, cm3, π= mathematical constant i.e. 3.14 and
ρbr=density of charcoal briquette, g/cm3
Porosity index: The porosity of briquettes was determined based on the amount of water each
sample absorbs. A pre weighed briquette was immersed in water for 30 seconds. Then the
briquettes were taken out of water and reweighed to obtain the wet weight of briquette. The
weight of water absorbed was determined by subtracting dry weight of the briquette from wet
weight of the briquette. The porosity index was calculated as the ratio of the mass of water
absorbed to the mass of the sample briquette immersed in water (Ikelle I. and Mbam n.2014).
Similarly another batch was introduced and the same process was repeated until the completion
of the samples. Then porosity index is calculated by using;
( W w−W s )
PI ( % )= ∗100………………………..equation 3.9
Ws
Where, PI= porosity index, Ws=dry weight of the sample briquette (g) and Ww=wet weight of
the sample briquette after immersed in water (g).

Figure 3-11: porosity index analyses
Shatter resistance: The durability of the briquettes were determined in accordance with Aina
O.M etal,. 2009. Each briquette sample was allowed to drop from a height of 2m onto a concrete
floor five times. The durability (%) can be calculated as the ratio of the final weight of the
briquette retained after five drops to the initial weight of the briquette. The fraction of the
briquette that remained shattered was used as an index of briquette durability. The percentage
weight loss of briquettes were expressed as a percentage of the initial mass of the material
remaining on the solid base, while the shatter resistance was obtained by subtracting the
percentage weight loss from 100 as presented by following equation.
W 1−W 2
W L ( %) = ∗100 ………………...equation 3.10
W1
SR (%) =100- WL ………………………………..equation 3.11
Where WL (%) = weight loss percentage, W1 =weight of briquette before shattering (g), W2=
weight of briquette after shattering (g) and SR (%) =shatter resistance percentage

Percentage moisture content: It is determined by weighing a portion of a sample and oven

drying it at 105 0C for three hour. The change in weight was used to determine the sample’s
moisture content using the following relation.
B
MC ( % ) = ∗100…………………equation 3.12
A
Where MC is moisture content, A is the mass of sample before drying, g and B is the change in
weight of sample before and after drying in oven.
Percentage volatile matter: Volatile matter refers to the part of a biomass material that is
released as volatile gases. It is defined as those products, exclusive of moisture, given off by a
material as gas or vapor. Biomass generally has high volatile matter content of around 70% to
86% and low char content. The high volatile matter content of a biomass material indicates that
during combustion, most of it was volatize and burn as gas in the cook stove. The percentage
volatile matter of the briquettes were determined in accordance with, (Aina, O.M etal,. 2009).A
portion of a briquette will be kept in an oven until a constant weight of the sample is obtained.
The oven dried sample was kept in the muffle furnace at a temperature of 550 0C for 10 minutes.
After which the volatile matter in it was have escaped, the crucible and its contents retrieved and
cooled in a desiccators and weighed after cooling to obtain weight of volatile part of the sample
i.e the change in weight of the sample before and after transferred to furnace. The analytical
balances were used to weigh the weight of sample. The percentage volatile matter is the ratio of
weight of volatile matter to weight of oven dried sample. Finally another batch was introduced
and the same process was repeated until the completion of the samples.
W 2−W 3
VM ( % )= ∗100 …………………… equation 3.13
W2
Where, VM (%) = percentage volatile matter, W 2 =oven dried sample weight, g and W3 =weight
of oven dried sample after heating in furnace, g
Ash content: All chemical breakdown of a biomass fuel produce a solid residue, which in cases
can be called ash. Ash is the non-combustible inorganic residue that retains after a complete
combustion. The ash can cause problems for thermo-chemical conversion process, and

particularly for combustion because some chemical compounds in the ash can react to form slag.
The amount of ash is an important data when biomass is used as fuel in boilers, because at high
temperatures can melt and cause fouling of equipment. The residual ash is undesirable, so the
lower level is the best fuel quality. Ash is expected to have values for commercial fuels from
0.6% to 9.8%, energy crops from 1% to 9.6%, cereals from 1.8% to 4.8% and industrial waste
from 0.4% to 22.6%. General values may appear in a range from levels below 5–20% (Antonio
Pedro N etal,.2014). A portion of a sample of the briquette was placed in an oven until it is free
of moisture content. The oven dried sample was then placed in a pre-weighed crucible. This was
be transferred in to the furnace set at a temperature of 900 0C and left for about 30 minutes.
During this time the sample was turned to white ash. Then after, the crucible and its contents
were be transferred to desiccators and then cooled. After cooling the crucible and its contents
were reweighed to obtain the weight of ash. The same process was repeated until the completion
of the samples. The percentage ash contents were calculated as the ratio of weight of ash to that
of weight of dry sample and will be determined by: -
PAC= ( WW 12 )∗100…………………………………...equation 3.14

Where, W1 = weight of oven dried sample (g), W2 =weight of oven dried sample after complete
combustion in furnace i.e. weight of ash (g) and PAC= percentage ash content
Figure 3-12: Proximate analysis for charcoal briquette

Percentage of fixed carbon: Carbon content refers to the percentage of carbon present in a
particular sample. Essentially, the fixed carbon of a fuel is the percentage of carbon available for
combustion. This is not equal to the total amount of carbon in the fuel (the ultimate carbon)
because there is also a significant amount that was released as hydrocarbons in the volatiles.
Fixed carbon gives an indication of the proportion of char that remains after the devolatization
phase. The percentage fixed carbon of briquettes was calculated by subtracting the sum of PMC,
PVM and PAC from 100 (Ekhuemelo D.O etal,.2014). The same process was repeated until the
completion of the samples.
FC (%) =100- (PMC+PAC +PVM)……………………………………….equation 3.15

Where, FC (%) = fixed carbon percentage, PAC=Percentage ash content and PVM= percentage
volatile matter.
Caloric value: The caloric value is measured by oxygen bomb caloric meter. But the equipment
is not available in the laboratory; so we use literature to calculate the gross caloric value by using
PMC, PVC and PAC that already calculated. But in our laboratory bomb calorie meter is not
available, so we use PMC, PVC and PAC correlation to calculate the caloric heating value by
this equation (Sh.mesroghli,E.etal 2009)
GCV=37.777-0.647 MC-0.387AC-0.089VM R2=0.97………equation 3.16

Where PM is moisture content, AC is content, VM is volatile matter and R is coefficient of
determination.

CHAPTER FOUR
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The characterization of the biodegradable municipal solid waste and charcoal briquette
production from biodegradable municipal were studied. Density, moisture content, volatile
matter, ash content, fixed carbon content and caloric heat value of biodegradable municipal solid
wastes were determined. The physical and combustion properties of the charcoal briquettes
examined in this work were limited to density, porosity index, shatter resistance, percentage
moisture content, percentage volatile matter, percentage ash content, fixed carbon percentage and
calorific heat value.
4.1 Proximate Analysis
4.1.1 Density
Density was determined by using-by-using equation 3.1

ρBmsw= MBMSW/Vcon where M=0.8 kg and V=πD2*h /4 where h=20cm and D=18cm
Then V=π(18cm)2*20cm /4=5086.8cm3=0.005086m3
0.8 kg
Therefore, ρBmsw= 0.005086 m3 =157.3 kg /m3
This implies the biodegradable municipal solid waste has low energy density therefore it is
difficult to store for a long time. Then it is better to increase its density by drying, carbonizing
and molding biodegradable municipal solid waste while using directly for charcoal purpose.
4.1.2 Moisture content
The moisture content of BMSW was determined by weighing 31.4 gram of the sample and
drying it in oven at 105 0 C until three hours or until mass of a sample was constant (5.7g ).
B
It is determined using equation 3.2 i.e., MC ( % ) = ∗100 %
A
Where B=5.7g and A=31.4g
5.7
MC (%) = ∗100 % =18.15%.
31.4

That means biodegradable municipal solid waste has high moisture content and it implies very
difficult to prepare charcoal briquettes simply from BMSW. Therefore further drying before
carbonization is needed to lower the moisture content of this biodegradable municipal solid
waste for charcoal briquette production.
4.1.3 Volatile matter
The percentage volatile matter was computed using equation 3.3
VM ( % )=( W 2−W
W2 )
3
∗100where W2=31.4 g and W3=10.38 g
VM ( % )=( )∗100=66.95%
31.4−10.38
31.4
And the average value of 66.95% was recorded at 550 ⁰C for 10min.This highest value of
volatile matter enhances the biodegradable municipal solid waste to be easily ignited. As
compared with volatile matter of charcoal briquettes it is too high. This is because of easily
disintegration or unbounded biodegradable municipal solid waste. However the structure of
charcoal briquette is strongly bonded with binder starch
4.1.4 Ash content
The percentage ash contents were calculated as the ratio of weight of ash to that of weight of dry
Sample, it is determined using equation 3.4
AC ( % )=( WW 21 )∗100Where W2=2.13g and W1=52.3g

AC ( % )=(
52.3 )
2.13
∗100=4.07% was recorded at 900°C.
This is lower than ash content of charcoal briquette and this variation is because of starch blinded
to charcoal briquette. In the fresh biodegradable municipal solid waste particle are not bonded to
each other and this allows adequate flow of oxygen in the internal part of in internal part of this
waste. However in the charcoal briquettes particles are bonded to each other because of starch
added which makes high ash content.
4.1.4 Fixed carbon content
Using equation 3.5 we calculated FCC

Fixed carbon content (%) =100-(MC+VM+AC)

=100-(18.15+66.95+4.07) =10.83%
According (AYSE O and Serdar Y. 2016) the average fixed carbon content of biomass is fall in
the range of 11.78%-24.16%. The total fixed carbon content obtained in our work is 10.83%.
This result may not fit the literature value range because our raw material contain high moisture
content materials like food waste( fruits peel and spoiled vegetables) and other wet materials.
4.1.5 Caloric value of biodegradable municipal solid waste
Using equation 3.6 the heating caloric value of BMSW is calculated.

GCV=37.777-0.647*PMC-0.387*PAC-0.089*PVC
=37.777-0.647*18.15-0.387*4.07-0.089*66.95=18.5kJ/kg
Summary of physical and combustion characteristics of biodegradable municipal solid wastes are
given in the following table.
Table 4-2: Properties of biodegradable municipal waste
Properties Numerical value

Density 157.3kg/m3
Moisture content 18.15%
Volatile matter 66.95%
Ash content 4.07%
Fixed carbon 10.83
Caloric value 18.5kJ/kg
4.2 Characterization of charcoal briquette
4.2.1 Determination of physical and combustion properties of charcoal briquettes

4.2.1.1 Density
The density of charcoal briquette was calculated by using equation 3.7 and 3.8
M br πD 2
Ρc br = and Vcbr= ∗H
V br 4
H=13cm and D=4.5cm
Vcbr= π (4.5 2)/4∗13 =2.0665*10^-4

ρcbr=0.155kg/2.0665*10^-4=750.06kg/m3
This value implies that the charcoal briquettes produced from biodegradable municipal solid
waste in our work has high density as compared density of wood charcoal, density of charcoal
briquette produced from sugarcane bagasse and that produced from sawdust.
According to (Aina O.M etal 2009), the density of charcoal briquette bonded with starch give a
density of 546 kg/m3.The diameter of mold or cylinder has an effect on density of charcoal
briquettes.
4.2.1.2 Porosity index (weight, %)
Porosity is a measure of the void spaces in a material and is a fraction of the volume of voids
over the total volume; it generally lies between 0-1. Porosity index is the ratio of weight of water
absorbed to dry weight of sample briquette when immersed to water. The lower the porosity
index of the briquettes the higher the density of the briquettes produced. A briquette with higher
porosity index has lower water resistance capacity. Hence, briquettes having low porosity index
are desirable to storage and water resistance.
Porosity index was calculated by using equation 3.9.
( W w−W s )
PI ( % )= ∗100where Ww = 95.5g and Ws=74g
Ws
PI (%)=(95.5−74)/74∗100=29.05%
The above value of porosity index obtained was exist between 0 and 1 that has low water
resistance. Therefore if charcoal briquettes have higher porosity index, it will absorb more water
and will be disintegrated easily.
4.2.1.3 Shatter resistance (weight, %)
The Shatter resistance was calculated by using equation 3.10 and 3.11.
WL (%) = (W1-W2)/ W1 *100
SR (%) =100- WL
Where W1=45.9g and W2=42.4 g
WL (%) = (45.9-42.4)/ 45.9*100=7.623%
Therefore SR (%) =100- 7.623=92.377%

The above values of shatter resistance obtained shows high shatter resistance. That means
reaction force of denser charcoal briquettes has higher shatter resistance than that of less
denser charcoal briquettes when they are allowed to fall from 2m height from top to the
ground. This leads denser charcoal briquettes are more chance to lose part of it. Higher shatter
resistance implies a lower weight loss and high stability and resistance to handling stress.
Therefore charcoal briquette produced in our work has good durability.
4.2.2 Combustion properties of charcoal briquettes
4.2.2.1 Moisture content
The moisture content of charcoal briquette is calculated by using equation 3.12

B
MC ( % ) = where B=54.7g and A=5.4g
A
54.7 g
MC ( % ) = =9.87%
5.4 g
The above value of moisture content obtained in our work was fall in the range of 5-10% according
to(Abdu Z and Sadiq A.2014 ).If moisture content of charcoal briquettes greater than this value it may
shatter in furnace.
4.2.2.2 Volatile matter
The volatile matter of charcoal briquettes is calculated by using equation 3.13 as follows.
W 2−W 3
VM (%)¿ ∗100
W2
W2=93.24 g and W3=65.82
¿ 93.24−65.82
VM ( % )= ∗100=29.4 %
93.24
The above values of volatile matter obtained in our works are in the range of 20-30%
according to (Abdu Z and Sadiq A 2014). A charcoal briquette with low volatile content
tends to incomplete combustion which leads to insignificant amount of smoke and release of
toxic gas.

4.2.2.3 Ash content
Ash is the non-combustible inorganic residue that remains after complete combustion. Ash
content has a significant influence on the heat transfer to the surface of the fuel as well as the
diffusion of oxygen to the fuel surface during combustion.
Then the ash content was obtained by using equation 3.14 as follows
The PAC= ( WW 21 )∗100

Where for sample 1 W 2=3.15∧W 1=98.23
PAC= ( 98.23
3.15
)∗100=3.21 %
The above value of ash contents of charcoal briquettes obtained in our work is in th range of as
compared to or as recommended in (Jaya S.T etal 2010) ash content for good quality charcoal
briquettes is fall in the range of 3-4%.
The higher the fuel’s ash content, the lower its calorific value. As ash is an impurity that will not
burn, fuels with low ash content are better suited for thermal utilization than fuels with high ash
content. According to (Akowuah J.O etal 2012) higher ash content in a fuel usually leads to
higher dust emission and affects the combustion volume and efficiency.
4.2.2.4 Fixed carbon percentage
The fixed carbon of the briquette is a percentage of carbon (solid fuel) available for charcoal
briquette combustion.
The value of fixed carbon of charcoal briquettes obtained was calculated by using equation 3.15
as follows:
FC (%)=100−¿)
FC (%)=100−¿) = 100-(9.87+29.4+3.21) =57.52% was obtained in our work.
This value of fixed carbon content is very low as compared with ( Abdu Z and Sadiq A.2014)
that is from 70-75%.Since the fixed carbon content is more related to carbonation process,
during the carbonation process we use manual made carbonizer equipment this may leak air to
combust the raw material in little manner. So it reduces the fixed carbon content.

Fixed carbon positively correlated with carbon monoxide, with less fixed carbon contained in
the charcoal briquettes gave less carbon monoxide and prolong cooking time by its low heat
release. A lower fixed carbon, a better result during combustion and a lesser probability of CO2
generation. Charcoal Briquettes having high volatile matter have lower fixed carbon, which low
fixed carbon tends to be harder, heavier, stronger and easier to ignite than briquettes containing
high fixed carbon (Akowuah J.O etal 2012).
4.2.2.5 Caloric value
By using equation 3.16 we can calculate caloric value of charcoal briquette.

GCV (MJ/kg)=37.777-0.647*M-0.387*A-0.089*VM
GCV (MJ/kg)=37.777-0.647*9.87-0.387*3.21-0.089*29.4
GCV (MJ/kg) = 27.05 MJ/Kg
The above caloric value of charcoal briquette produced from biodegradable municipal waste is
higher than that of caloric value of wood charcoal 8.27 MJ/kg and higher than charcoal briquette
produced from bagasse which has caloric value of 23.4 MJ/kg according to (Abdu Z and Sadiq
A.2014).
Caloric value gives the indication of the quantity of fuel required to generate a specific amount
of energy and it is the standard measure of the energy content of a fuel. The higher calorific
value denotes the high quality of charcoal briquettes. It gives the indication of the quantity of
fuel required to generate a specific amount of energy.
Summary of physical and combustion characteristics of charcoal briquettes obtained from two
experiments are given in the following
Table 4-3: summery of property for charcoal briquette
Properties Value obtained

Density 750.06 kg/m3
Porosity index weight 29.05%
Shatter resistance 92.377%
Moisture content 9.87%
Volatile matter 29.4%
Ash content 3.21%
Fixed carbon percentage 57.52%
Caloric value 27.53 MJ/kg
4.3 Factor Affect the Charcoal briquette

Factor that affect charcoal briquette includes particle size, diameter of the mold, binder or starch
content. The binder or starches content affect the quality of charcoal briquettes by their amount.
In our work we use 25% of starch content to produce charcoal briquette. According to( Jaya S.T
etal 2010) ) the charcoal briquettes that good qualities was obtained at starch content from 25-
30%.Below that content of starch the charcoal briquette shatter easily like during transportation.
The particle size of our raw material is 4 mm. By this particle size we get the charcoal briquette
with moisture content of 9.87%, density of 750.06 kg/m3, volatile matter of 29.4%, ash content
of 3.21%, fixed carbon percentage of 57.52% and caloric value of 27.5 MJ/kg. Therefore,
according to (Jaya S.T etal 2010) the charcoal briquettes that good qualities was obtained at
particle size of less than 4 mm. The two different diameter of cylinder may show variation
property of charcoal briquette. This shows the relationship between property of charcoal and
diameter of the mold. At small diameter of mold cylinder low porosity index weight or less
number of pores was obtained and has low shatter resistance. But at large diameter of the mold
or cylinder has high porosity index weight and high shatter resistance.
4.4 Strength and weakness of our product

Strength
The charcoal briquette obtained from thus work has better heating value as compared to wood
charcoal and charcoal briquette produced from molasses. Some of physical and combustion
characteristics of charcoal briquette tested in this work were fall in the range and some other
characteristics where not fall in the range as compared to other literature.
Weakness
Fixed carbon content affected by carbonization process performed in our work that was made
manually is allowing little amount of oxygen since the carbonizer has hole at the bottom and at
the top.

CHAPTER FIVE
5 MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCE
5.1 Material balance

The general material balance equation is:
Accumulation = (input − output) + (generation − consumption)
Assumption
 Plant capacity is 600 ton/Yr in 300 day/year depend on waste generated in Kombolcha town per
day.
 Steady state process
 Basis : one operation day per 24 hour
 Batch process
Since it is steady state process Accumulation=0, generation=0 because no material is generated and
consumption=0
Material balance based on laboratory work
Mass balance on drying
Mwd=?
Drying
Mbmsw = 4780g
Md=2500g
Where: Mwd = mass of water evaporated from drying

Mwb= mass of biodegradable municipal solid waste
Md =mass of dried sample
Over all mass balance
Input=output
Mws =Mwd+Md……………………………………………………………. (*)
From (*) above Mwd =Mws-Md=4780g-2500g=2280g
Amount of water evaporated from drier can be calculated by using component mass balance:
4780g*Xwd=Mwd*1
(Xwd)= 2280g/4780g*100=58.15% .This implies that high amount of water is evaporated by using natural
dryer sunlight than that is obtained from drying of biodegradable municipal solid waste in oven for three
hours. This is due to drying time of sample in sunlight for three and above three days in order to
accessible for carbonization, grinding and for further process makes high amount of water is removed.
Mass balance on carbonizer
Carbonizer
Md=2500g Mwc=?
Mcbmsw=997g
Where: Md= mass of dried biodegradable municipal solid waste

Mwc= mass of water evaporated from carbonizer
Mcbmsw= mass of carbonized raw material
Input= out put
Md =Mwc+Mcrm………………………………………………………………… (**)
From (**) Mwc=Md-Mcbmsw
Therefore, Mwc=2500g-997g=1503g of water evaporated from carbonizer

Amount of water evaporated from carbonizer can be calculated by using component mass balance:
2500g*Xwc=Mwc*1
(Xwc)= 1503g/2500g*100=60.12%
Mass balance on grinding:
Assumption: no loss here
Mass in=mass out
Mcbmsw= 997g Mg= 997g

Grinding
Mass balance on sieve
Mg= 997g Ms= 832g

Sieve
Mo=?
Where, Mo=mass of oversize sample ,Ms =mass of sieved sample and Mg=mass of grinded
material
Overall material balance
Mg=Mo+Ms........................................................................... (***)
From (***), Mo = Mg - Ms=997g-832g=165g is amount of oversize material recycled to grinder.
Mass balance on mixing
Ms=150g Mw=500g
Mg=832g Mixing Mm=?

Assumption: no loss on mixing
Ms=mass of starch added
Mm= mass of mixing material
Mw= masse of water added on mixing
Mg= mass of grinded material
Over all mass balance on mixing
In put= out put
Ms+ Mw + Mg =Mm…………………………………………………………… (****)
Mm=832g+500g+150g=1482g
Mass balance on final drying
Mwd=?
Mm= 1482g Drying Mdcb= 1120g
Mm=mass of mixing material
Mwd= mass of evaporated water
Mdcb =mass of dried charcoal briquette
Input= out put
Mm=Mwd+Mb…………………………………………………………………… (*****)
From (******) Mwd= Mm- Mdcb=1482g-1120g=362g

Amount of water evaporated from drier can be calculated by using component mass balance:
1482g*Xwd=362g*1
(Xwd)= 1362 /1482g*100=24.43%
Then by using above all laboratory data the material balance based plant capacity operating day was done
as follows:
600,000 kg/ yr
Plant capacity = =2000kg/day of charcoal briquette produced in one day.
300 day / yr
Then to scale up the laboratory data to industrial scale
From our laboratory work we get 1120 g from 4780 g of BMSW.
2000 kg/day
Scale factor= =1785.7
1.12 kg/day
Therefore, by multiplying this scale factor by all laboratory scale result the following combined
block flow diagram summarized as follows:

BMSW Tin=25°C Tout=65°C Water evaporated

Drying
Mwd=4071.4
Mbmsw = 8535.6 kg/day
Tin=25°C
Md=4464.3 kg/day
Carbonizer
Water evaporated
Mwc=2684kg/day
Tout=181.5°C Mcbmsw=1780.3 kg/day
Grinding
Mg=1780.3 kg/day
Mo=294.6 kg/day is
Sieving
recycled to grinder
Ms=1485.7 kg/day
Starch added Water added
Ms=267.8 kg/day Mixing Mw=892.8 kg/day
Tin=25°C Mm=2646.4 kg/day
Drying Mwd=646.42 kg/day

Tout=65°C Mdcb=1999.9 kg/day

Figure 5-13: Process flow sheet of charcoal briquette production from biodegradable
5.2 Energy balance
municipal waste (BMSW).
General equation of energy conservation
Energy in put +generation=energy output- consumption +accumulation
Energy balance on Drying
Drying
Mbmsw= 8535.6 kg/day Mwd=4071.4 kg/day
Tin=25°C Tout=65°C
Md=4464.3 kg/day
Q=mcpΔT
¿ 8535.6 kg /day∗3.457 KJ /kgK∗(338−273) K
=1180302 KJ/day
Energy balance on carbonizer
When a proper temperature read at 181.5 oC (Elanda F and Citra S. 2018) the majority
biodegradable municipal solid waste remains unburned ready to convert in to charcoal.
Md=2646.4 kg/day Mcbmsw =1780.3 kg/day

Carbonizer
Tin=25⁰c T out=181.5⁰c
Mwd=2684 kg/day
Q=McpΔT

Q=heat flow rate of carbonizer (kJ/day)
Cp=specific heat capacity of dried biodegradable municipal solid waste (kJ/kgK)
ΔT =temperature difference (oc)
Q =mcpΔT
Q =4464.3 kg /day∗3.55 KJ /kgK∗(454.5−298)K
Q =2480253 KJ/day is required to carbonize dried biodegradable municipal solid waste.
Energy balance on final drying
Mm=2646.4 kg/day Drying Mdcb=1999.9 kg/day
T in=25⁰c Tout=65⁰c
Mwd=646.42 kg/day
Q =mcpΔT
Q =heat flow rate (kJ/day)
M = mass flow rate (kg/day)
Cp = specific heat capacity of charcoal briquette(KJ/kgK)
ΔT=Temperature difference (oc)
Q=mcpΔT
¿ 2646.4 kg /day∗1.397 KJ /kgK (338−273) K
=147880 KJ/day is required to dry charcoal briquette

5.3 Sizing and designing of major equipment
5.3.1 Sizing of major equipment
Assume a three hour cycle operate at constant temperature and pressure of 25ºC and 1atm,
respectively.
Basis: one day in 24 hour
Sizing of equipment is depending on the material balance calculated before.
5.3.1.1 Sizing on drier
Material of construction carbon steel
Material handled BMSW
Density of dried BMSW 159.6 kg/m3
Amount of mass handled 8535.6 kg /day
Capacity of dried charcoal briquette will be calculated as follows:
Mbmsw+15 %Mbmsw
V= m/ρ =
ρbmsw
8535.6 kg /day+15 %∗8535.6 kg/day

= =61.5 m 3
159.6 kg /m3
If the mixer is 85% full on each cycle, then the volume of the mixer will be:
V=61.5/8= 7.7 m3/cycle
5.3.1.2 Sizing of grinder
Material handled Carbonized BMSW
Density of dried BMSW 1450 kg/m3

1780.3 kg
+0.15∗1780.3 kg/day
Mbmsw day
V= = =12.83m3
ρbmsw 159.6 kg
m3
If the grinder is full on each three cycle, then the volume of the mixer will be:
V=12.83/8= 1.6 m3/cycle
5.3.1.3 Sizing of sieve
Mesh size 4mm
Material handled Carbonized BMSW
Density of dried BMSW 1450 kg/m3
1780.3 kg
+0.15∗1780.3 kg/day
Mbmsw day
V= = =12.83m3
ρbmsw 159.6 kg
m3
If the grinder is full on each three cycle, then the volume of the mixer will be:
V=12.83/8= 1.6 m3/cycle
5.3.1.4 Sizing of mixer
Material handled starch, water& carbonized BMSW
Density of handled material 1.0037 kg/m3

Required mass per day 2646.3 kg/day
Capacity of handled material is calculated as follows:
Then by using 15% safety factor or If the mixer is 85% full on each cycle, then the volume of
the mixer will be:
Mm+15 %Mm Ms+15 %Ms Mw +15 %Mw

V= m/ρ= + +
ρ ρ ρ
1485.7 kg 267.8 kg
+15 %∗1485.7 kg/day +15 %∗267.8 kg /day
day day 892.8+15 %∗892.8 kg /day
¿ + +
1450 kg/ m 3 561 kg /m3 1000 kg/m 3
= 1.178+0.548+1.026
=2.75m3
Therefore, If the mixer is 85% full on each cycle the volume of the mixer will be:
V=2.75/8=0.34m3/cycle
5.3.2 Design of Major equipment
5.3.2.1 Design of carbonizer
Material of construction is carbon steel
Material handled is biodegradable municipal solid waste and dried raw material handled is
4464.3 kg/day.
Required mass of dried BMSW is 4464.3 kg/day
Mdbmsw+15 %Mdbsw
V= m/ρ=
ρdbmsw
4464.3 kg
+ 15 %∗4464.3 kg /day
= day =3.54 m3
1450 kg /m3
Assume carbonizer full 85%then its volume became

3.54
V= 8 =0.4425 m3/cycle
5.3.2.2 Design of Screw Press Briquetting or mold Machine Design
Assumptions
Capacity of briquetting machine 2646.4 kg/day
Density of fresh charcoal briquettes 800 - 900 kg/m-3
Diameter of the briquettes 4.5cm
Length of the briquettes 13cm
Each part of screw presses are designed and specified as follows
A) Calculation of velocity flow
Mass flow rate=number of dies*area of dies *velocity*density of fresh briquettes
110.3 kg/hr=1*3.14/4*(0.045)2*850kg/m3*V
Therefore V= 81.63m3=82 m/s
V =82/3=27.33 m/s=27 m =0.45m/min
The speed of briquette would be abnormally high resulting in high friction resistance and loss of
power. This can be brought down to acceptable level by increasing number of dies. Thus, by
increasing the 3 number of dies would lower the briquettes rate.
B) Design of die diameter of screw press
Charcoal briquette was assumed for easy handling, feeding and strength during transport
cylindrical briquette of 4.5cm diameter and13 cm long would be most suitable.
Briquette size 4.5cm that is equal to internal diameter of briquette and length of die will be
13cm. Selecting 4.5cm of charcoal briquette.
Assume pitch circle diameter is 50mm
Diameter of outer circle (D1) = 50X 2 + (45+ 4 + 4) = 153 mm=15.3mm ≈ 15 cm
Therefore, 150 mm diameter of barrel and total length of the barrel 350 mm was used for screw
press as per the screw requirement. The barrel of the extruder was made up of by using 16 gauge
M.S. sheets with the thickness 5 mm was used for operating the screw inside the barrel. The total
weight of the barrel was 10 kg.
Calculation of Geometric constant (K) for circular cross – section

4
πR
K= ∗Ld=¿
8
Where,
Diameter of the die (D3) = 22.5 cm = 0.225 m
Radius of die (R) = 0.125 m
Length of die (Ld) = 13 cm = 0.13 m
Screw rotate at 140rpm
Correction factor (Fdt) = 0.98
Viscosity of mix at the die (μ) = 49.7 NS/m2
π ( 0.125 )4
K= ∗0.13=0.00074
8
Calculation of pressure
P=¿
Assumption
Screw rotate at 140rpm
Correction factor (Fdt) = 0.98
Viscosity of mix at the die (μ) = 49.7 NS/m2
G1=7.06*10^6 and G2=7.1*10^8
Screw diameter will be 100mm and lengths of screw will 40mm
Therefore P=¿
=6510.25N/m2
Calculation of force
Force =Pressure* Area=P*(π/D^2)
Where, Diameter of the barrel (D1) = 15 cm = 0.15 m
F=6510.2*(π/(0.15)^2= 114.98N=0.115KN

Calculation of power requirement

Power input= Force*Velocity
Power input = 0.115 X 0.45 = 0.052 kN-m/min = 8.625*10^-4 kN-m/sec = 8.625*10^-4 kW
For large pitch but high friction due to material combination, thread efficiency of the order of 40
per cent would be reasonable.
Considering 40% thread efficiency,
Input power = 8.625*10^-4 kW /0.4
Input power = 2.156*10^-3 kW = 2.156 W
Then, considering 20% frictional losses,
Power required = 2.156X 1.20= 2.587W
Power required in horse power=2.587W/746= 3.468*10^-3 hp = 2.587*10^-3 kW
Also considering 70% belt drive efficiency of cotton belt
Total power required =3.468*10^-3 /0.7 = 4.95*10^-3 hp =3.695*10^-3 kW
Therefore the 4.95*10^-3 hp, 1440 rpm electric motor was used.
C) Drive mechanism
The briquetting machine was driven by electrical motor with the help of pulley drive. Thus, the
4.95*10^-3 hp, 1440 rpm electric motor was sufficient and used for operating briquetting
machine. The driving pulley was mounted on motor shaft and driven pulley mounted on the
connecting rod for power transmission to obtain desired speed for operating the briquetting
machine.
D Briquetting stand
The base was important component which required where all other components viz. screw
assembly; the drive bearing and briquetting barrel were fitted. The briquetting stand was made
up of 16 gauge M.S. sheet with 5 mm thickness. The total weight of the base stand was 10 kg.
The total numbers of 12 bolts were used for fitting briquetting frame. The size of the bolt was
used 1cm diameter and 15 cm height which was used and placed inside at the time of foundation.
E) Main shaft
The main shaft was used for transmitting the power from driven wheel to screw press. The
diameter of the main shaft was 30 mm and length of the main shaft was 900 mm. The total

weight of the shaft was 5 kg. The main shaft and screw shaft was coupled with the help of
housing. The dimensions of housing were 80 mm X 80 mm with 25 mm thickness was used
F) Belt
The cotton belts required little attention, therefore cotton belts are mostly used in farm
machinery and belt conveyor etc. The cotton belt was selected on the basis of 70 per cent
efficiency. The thickness of the belt was 6 mm. The length of the belt was determined by using
following formula
π 2
L1= ∗( D 4+ D 5 ) +[( D 4−D 5 ) /4 C ]∗2C
2
Where, L1 = length of the belt, m C = center to center distance between two pulley, m D4 =
diameter of driving pulley, m D5 = diameter of driven pulley, m
[ ]
2
π ( 0.05−0.5 )
L1= ∗( 0.05+0.5 ) + ∗2∗2.1=0.08635+0.10125=0.1876 m
2 4∗2.1
Thus, the total length of the belt was 0.1876 m was used to run the briquetting machine.
G) Feeding hopper
The feeding hopper was provided to feed the mixed substrate.
5.3.2.3 Design of rotary dryer
Size of rotary dryer can be estimated for the following case. The feed is charcoal briquette
material at 250c ambient temperature to be dried from 34.3% initial moisture to 16.4% final
moisture in rotary dryer at a rate of 110.3kg/h. the hot air enters the dryer at 180 oc with a
humidity of 0.013 with the condition that the temperature of the solid leaving the dryer must
not exceed 110oc and air velocity must not exceed 0.8m/s in order to avoid the moisture
content of the charcoal briquette cps=3.55kJ/kg.k. Then recommend the diameter, length and
other parameter.
Assumption
Basis of calculation is 1 hr operation

Solid contains 54.3 % initial moisture

Mass of dry solid = MS = 110.3 (1-0.343) = 72.47kg/hr

Moisture in the wet solid = X1 = 34.3/65.7 = 0.522
Moisture in the dry solid = X2 = 16.4/83.6= 0.196
Water evaporated, MS, evaporated = MS (X1 – X2)
= 110.3 (0.522 – 0.196) = 35.95 Kg
Given data:
TS1 = 25oC; TG2 = 1800C; Y2 = 0.013
Let us assume that the exit temperature of the gas is TG1 = 65oC and for solid TS2 =100oc
Now enthalpy of different streams (suppose ref temp = 0oC)
HS1 = [CPS + (4.187) X1] [TS1 – 0]
= [3.55 + (4.187) 0.522] [25 – 0] = 143.4 KJ/kg dry air
HS2 = [CPS + (4.187) X1] [TS2 – 0]
= [3.55+ (4.187) 0.196] [100 – 0] = 436.9 kJ/kg dry solid
Hg2 = [1.005 + (1.88) 0.013] [180 – 0] + (0.013) (2500) = 217.79 KJ/kg
Hg1 = [1.005 + (1.88) Y1] [65 – 0] + Y1 (2500)
= 65.3 + 2622.2Y1…………………………………………………….equation (*)
Overall mass balance

GS (Y1 – Y2) = MS (X1 – X2)
GS (Y1 – 0.013) = 35.95(0.522-0.196)

GS = 11.72/(Y1 – 0.013)
MS [HS2 – HS1] = GS [Hg2 – Hg1]
72.4 [436.9 – 143.4] = 35.95/(Y1 – 0.013) × (217.79 – 65.3-2622.2Y1)
Y1 = 0.0578 and Gs = 35.96/(Y1 – 0.013) = 802.68Kg/h

Shell Diameter
Volume of humid inlet gas (1800C and Y2 = 0.013)

VH2 = 1.183 m3/Kg dry air
Volume of humid exit gas (650C and Y1 = 0.0578)
VH1 = 1.008 m3/Kg dry air

The max. volumetric gas flow rate = Gs*VH2

= 802.68 × 1.183 = 949.57 m3/h
The working velocity i.e., superficial velocity = 0.8 – 0.345 × 0.8= 0.524 m/s
0.264m3/s¿ π /4 × d2 (0.524), d = 0.8 m, say 1m
Heat Transfer Unit

Dryer is divided into three zones and therefore, the stage wise calculation of
temperature and humidity of the stream can be obtained by material and energy
balance.
Stage III
Very less water left for vaporization in stage III. Consider solid is at TSB, the wet bulb
temperature of the air at location between III & II.
assume TSB = TSA = 65oC
Enthalpy of solid at the inlet to stage III
HSB =[3.55 + (0.196) (4.187)] (65-0)
= 284.09 KJ/kg dry solid
Humid heat of gas entering stage III(CHB)
CHB = [1.005 + (1.88) (0.013)]
= 1.029 KJ/kg.K
Heat balance over stage III
MS [HS2 - HSB ] = GS (CHB)III (180 – TGB),35.95(436.9-284.09)=802.68*1.029*(180-TGB)
TGB = 173.340C
Adiabatic saturation temperature of air entering stage II (173.340C & humidity of 0.013)
is 65.30C.
At the boundary B, ∆TB = 173.34 -65.3 = 108.040C
At end 2, ∆T2 = 180 -100 = 800C
Where logarithmic mean temperature difference (LMTD) calculated as:
LMTDIII = (∆T)m = 108.04-80/ln(108.04/80) = 93.320C

(NtG)III = T2 –TGB/(∆T)m = 180 -173.34/93.32 = 0.0714

Stage II
Use heat balance equation over stage II to calculate the value of TGA. The calculated TGA value
can be used to estimate the number of transfer units.
Since YB = 0.013
HGB = [1.005 + 1.88 YB] (173.34-0) + 2500 (YB) = 210.94 KJ/Kg

HAS = [3.55 + CPS X1] (TSA -0) = [3.55 + (4.187) (0.522)] (65)
=372.81 KJ/ (Kg dry solid)
Enthalpy balance:
MS (HSB – HSA) = GS (HGB – HGA)
72.4(173.34 – 372.81) =802.68 (210.94- HGA)
HGA =228.93KJ/Kg
Once HGA value is known then TGA can be calculated using the following equation
HGA = 228.93= [1.005 + 0.0578 (1.88)] [TGA - 0] + 0.0578 (2500)

TGA = 75.810c
At section A temp difference ∆TA = 75.81-65 = 10.810C and ∆TB = 108.040C

(∆T)m = (108.04-10.81)/ ln(108.04/10.81) =42.24 0C
Number of transfer unit = (NtG)II = TGB – TGA/(∆T)M
= (173.34– 75.81)/42.24 = 2.31
To validate the assumed value of exit gas temperature i.e. TG1 = 650C, first do an
energy balance over stage I.
GS (Hg2 – Hg1) = MS (HS2 – HS2)
802.68 (217.79 – Hg1) = 72.4 (436.9 – 143.4)
Hg1 =191.320C
Stage I
(∆T)1 = 65-25 = 400C
(∆T)A = 10.810C
(∆T)M = 40-10.81/ln (40/10.81) = 22.31oc

Number of transfer unit, NtG = 0.0714+2.31+0.485 = 2.86

Length of Transfer Unit:
Avg. mass flow rate = [802.68(1.013) + 802.68(1.0578)]/2
= 831.1 Kg/h
The gas mass flow rate, G= 831.1/3600)/ᴨ/ 4 × (1)2
= 0.294Kg/m2.S
Volumetric heat transfer coeff Ua= (237 (G‟)0.67)/d
Ua = (237 × (0.294)0.67)/1 = 104.36W/m3.K

Humid heat at the ends
CH2 = 1.005 + 1.88 (0.013) = 1.029
CH1 = 1.005 + 1.88 (0.0578) = 1.114
Average humid heat CH = (1.029 + 1.114)/2 = 1.071 KJ/Kg. K
Length of transfer unit, LT = G‟. CH/ua
=0.294*1.071/104.36=3.02
Length of dryer, L = NtG. LT
= 2.86 × 3.02 = 8.6 m

Diameter of drier d = 1m and L = 8.6 m

Figure 5-14: combined or summarized flow diagram of charcoal of charcoal briquette production
from biodegradable municipal solid waste
5.4 Economics Evaluation

One Plant design is accepted must present process that is capable of operating under conditions
which will yield profit. Since net profit equals total value minus all expenses.it is essential that
the chemical engineer be aware of the many different types of cost involved in the
manufacturing processes capital must allocate for the direct. Plant expenses such as those for
raw material, land, building, utility, labor and equipment. Besides direct expenses and many
others indirect expenses are administrative salary product distribution cost and cost for interplant
communication.
Capital investment is required for every industrial process and determination of necessary
investment is an important part of a plant design process. The total investment for any process

consist fixed capital investment for practical equipment and facilities in the plant plus working
capital which must be available to pay salaries keep raw materials and products on hand. And
handle other special items requiring the direct cost outline. When the cost for any type of
commercial process is to be determined sufficient accuracy has to be provided for reliable
decision. There are many factors affecting investment and production cost. These are
1. Source of equipment
2. Price fluctuation
3. Company policies
4. Operating and rate of production
5. Governmental policies
Before this plant can be put into operation money must be supplied to purchased and install the
necessary machinery and equipment. Land and service facilities must be obtained and the plant
must be erected completely with all piping controls and services the capital needed to supply the
necessary manufacturing and plant facilities is called the fixed capital investment, while that
necessary for the operation of plant is termed the working capital. The sum of the fixed capital
investment and the working is known as the total capital investment. Generally the working
capital amounts 10-20%of the total capital investment.

Table 5-4: Chemical engineering equipment cost index
Year Chemical engineering price cost index

2010 550.8
2011 585.7
2012 584.6
2013 567.3
2014 576.1
2015 556.8
2018 ?
Then by using extrapolation we get cost index of present 2018 as follows
Cost index for 2014=576.1
Cost index for 2015=556.8
Cost index for 2018=Y
2015-2014/556.8-576.3=2018-2015/Y-576.3…………… (*)
Then by solving * Y=498.9 i,e cost index for 2018
By using following the website

www.match.com
www.alibaba.com
We get the cost of each equipment in 2014
Then the present cost of each equipment calculated by using formula:
C2=C1*(I2/I1) *(cap.2/cap.1)n
Where n=0.49 for mixer
n=0.4 for dryer
n=0.6 for carbonizer
n=0.6 for grinder

n=0.6 for mold machine
5.4.1 Purchased equipment cost
Table 5-5: purchased equipment cost (www.match.com)
No Equipment Material type No Size Unit Cost in birr

1 Carbonizer 1 4464.3 59400
2 Grinder 1 1.6 M3 55798
3 Sieve 1 1.6 M3 45900
4 Mixer 1 0.34 M3 45901
5 Dryer 2 8.6 M 410593.7
6 Mold machine 1 0.34 M3 144800
Total equipment cost( purchased equipment cost )=762,393 birr
Charcoal briquette production is one solid processing plant
Direct cost
A) Purchased equipment cost:-100% of PEC= 762,393 birr
B) Purchased equipment installation cost:45% of PEC=0.45*762393=343077 birr
C) Instrument and control (installed):9% of PEC=0.09*762393=68615 birr
D) Piping (installed):-16% of PEC=0.16*762393=121983 birr
E) Electrical installed:-10% of PEC=0.1*762393=76239 birr
F) Building including services: 25% of PEC=0.25*762393=190598 birr
G) Yard improvement :( 13% of PEC) = 0.13*762393=99112 birr
H) Service facilities :( 40%of PEC) =0.4*761393=304957 birr
I) Land :(6% of PEC) =0.06*762393=45744 birr
Therefore total direct cost =2,012,718 birr

Table 5-6: Summary of direct cost
s.no Component %value Amount in birr

A Purchased equipment cost 100 762,393
B Purchased equipment Installation 45 343077
C Instrument and control 9 68615
D Piping installation 16 121983
E Electrical installation 10 76239
F Building process 25 190598
G Yard improvement 13 99112
H Service facilities 40 304957
I Land 6 45744
Total direct cost =2,012,718 birr
Indirect cost:
a) Engineering and supervision :(33% of PEC) =0.33*762393=251589 birr
b) Construction expenses :( 39% of PEC) =0.39*1324797=297333birr
Total direct and indirect cost (TC)= 2,561,640 birr
c) Contractor’s fee (CF) :( 5% 0f TC) =0.05*2561640=128082 birr
d) Contingency(C) :( 10% of TC) =0.1*2561640=256164 birr
Table 5-7: Summary of indirect cost
s.no Component %value Amount in birr

Engineering and
A 33 251589
supervision
B Construction expenses 39 297333
Total indirect cost=548922

Fixed capital Investment:

Fixed capital investment (FCI) = TC+CF+C=2945886 birr
Working capital Investment (WCI)

Total capital investment (TCI) = FCI + WC, where WC=15%TCI
TCI=FCI+15%TCI
TCI=FCI/0.85= 2945886/0.85=3465748 birr
WC=15%TCI=0.15*3465748 =519862birr
5.4.2 Manufacturing cost
MC=DPC+FC+POC
Table 5-8: Raw material
Raw material Amount(kg/day) Price in birr

Biodegradable municipal solid 8535.6 800
waste sorting
Starch 267.8 11853
Total 12653
Utilities
Electricity and water are the two major utilities required by the charcoal briquette plant. Table
below shows annual requirements and associated costs at full production capacity. The total
annual cost of utilities is estimated to be 259411 birr
Table 5-9: Annual utilities requirement and costs
No Description Quantity Unit of Unit cost in Total cost per

measure birr year
1 Water 892.8 M3 5 birr/m3 13.4
2 Electricity 158.685 KW 0.45/kwh 259397
Total 259411

Manpower or labor cost

Total manpower requirement include skilled and unskilled labor. Correspondingly, the total
annual labor cost including fringe benefits, is estimated to be 406524 Birr Table.. below
shows the list of manpower required and the estimated annual labor costs.
Table 5-10: Labor cost
Required Salary per Salary annually

Labor Position
number month in birr in birr
1 General Manager 1 7992 79920
2 Secretary 1 1998 19980
3 Production Manager 1 4995 49950
Administration and
4 1 4000 4000
Finance Manager
5 Accountants 1 5999 59990
6 Sales Person 1 2997 29970
7 Operators 3 4498 44980
8 Chemist 1 2775.4 27754
9 Electrician 1 1499 14990
10 Mechanics 1 1499 14990
11 Messenger and cleaner 1 600 6000
9 Guards 3 1800 18000
Total 16 33,877 406,524
Therefore Manufacturing cost calculated as follows
TCI=3465748 birr
Plant capacity=600ton/yr
WC=519862 birr
MC=DPC+FC+POC
TCI=WC+FCI
FCI=TCI-WC=TCI-0.15TCI=0.85TCI
FCI=2945886 birr/yr

FCI=2945886 birr/yr/600000kg/yr=4.9 birr/kg
A). direct production cost
1). Raw material cost= 12653 birr from table
2). Cost of operating labor (COL) or Labor cost= 406,524 birr from table
3).utility cost= 259411 birr from table
4). Direct supervision and clerical labor (DSC):17% of operating labor= 0.17*406524=69109
birr
5) .Maintenance (M) and repair is 6% 0f fixed capital investment= 0.06*2945886=176753 birr
6).operating supplies is 15% of fixed capital investment = 0.15*2945886=441882.9 birr
7) .laboratory charges is 15% of cost of operating labor = 0.15*406524=60978 birr
8). Patent and royalties is 3% of total production cost=0.03*TPC
DPC= 808676+0.03TPC
B. Fixed charges
1).depreciation is 10% of fixed capital investment= 0.1*2945886=294588.6 birr
2). Local tax is 2.5% of fixed capital investment = 0.025*2945886=73647 birr
3). Insurance 0.7% of fixed capital investment =0.007*2945886 =20621 birr
4) Assume rent=0
Total=388856 birr
C. plant overhead cost
POC=60% of Cost of operating labor, cost of supervision and cost of repair and maintenance.
0.6*(COL+SV+M) =0.6*(406524+0.294+69109) =285380 birr
MC=DPC+FC+POC=808676+0.03TPC+0.647+285380=1094057+0.03TPC

General expense
GE=AC (Administrative cost) +DSC (development and selling price cost) +RDC (research and
development cost).
a). AC=0.15*(COL+SV+M)= 0.15*(406524+0.294+69109)=771345 birr
b). Selling price cost is 5% of total production cost =5%*TPC
c). Research and development is 5% of total production cost =5%*TPC
d). Financial interest is 5% of total production cost =5%*TPC
TPC= 1094057+71345+0.03TPC+0.05*TPC+0.05*TPC+0.05*TPC=1165402+0.18TPC
0.82 TPC=1865402
TPC= 2194591 birr/yr
Therefore DPC= 808676+0.03TPC=874,514 birr and GE=1100534 birr
Unit production cost = TPC/Capacity
V=m/ρ=600000kg/yr/850kg/m3= 705.882 m3/yr=705882 kg/yr
birr
Unit production cost = 2194591 /705882 kg / yr=3.11 birr /kg
yr
Selling price =7 birr/kg
Total selling price (TSP) =3.11 birr/kg*705882 kg/yr=4941176 birr/yr
5.4.3 Profitability analysis
Profit before tax
Gross profit =TSP-TPC= 4941176-2194591 birr/yr=2746585 birr
Profit after tax
Standard tax rate =35%
Tax=35% (gross earning)

= 961305 birr
Net profit after tax=Profit before tax-tax=1,785,280 birr
Return on investment (ROI) =(net profit/total capital investment)*100%
= (1,785,280/3465748)*100%=0.515=51.5%
FCI 2945886
Payback period= =
DP+ NP 1,785,280+ 0.49
=1.65 i,e 2 year
5.4.4 Discounted Cash Flow rate
The discount flow rate of return is the return obtained from an investment in which all
investment and cash flows are discounted. It is determined by setting the NPW equation equal to
zero and solving for the discount rate that satisfies relation. We calculate the discounted rate of
return of the project and values at individual years, considering the plant capacity starting with
75% capacity at the first year and 90% capacity in the second year and with 100% capacity the
remaining six project life. Detail manipulation of the economic data calculation for first three
years were shown below or calculated as follows:-
First year
Percent rate of operating time=75%

Production rate =75% of annual production rate=0.75*600000 kg/yr=4.5*10^5 kg/yr
Variable cost (VC) =0.75*variable cost=0.75*874514=655885.5 birr/yr
Fixed cost (FC)=fixed charge except depreciation +POC=285380+94268=379648.4 birr/yr
General expense (GE) =1100534 birr/yr
BY using MACRs half five year convention
Depreciation=1/2*(FCI/5) =0.1*FCI=0.1*2945886=294588.6birr/yr
TPC=VC+FC+GE=655885.5+379648.4+1100534=2136067.9 birr/yr
Annual sale=price per kg*Annual product=7*4.5*10^5=3150000 birr/yr
Gross profit=Annual sale –TPC=3150000-2136067.9=1013932 birr/yr
Net income=Growth Profit-Income tax=1013932-(0.35*1013932) =659055.8 birr/yr

Cash flow=Net income+ depreciation=659055.8+294588.6=953644.4 birr/yr
Second year
Production rate =90% of annual production rate=0.9*600000 kg/yr=5.4*10^5 kg/yr
Variable cost=90%*variable cost=0.9*874514=787062.6 birr/yr
Fixed cost=fixed charge except depreciation +POC=285380+94268=379648.4 birr/yr
GE=1100534 birr/yr
Depreciation=1/2*(FCI/10)=20%*FCI=0.2*2945886=589177.2 birr/yr
TPC=VC+FC+GE=787062.6+379648.4+1100534=2267245 birr/yr
Annual sale=price per kg*Annual product=7*5.4*10^5=3780000 birr/yr
Gross profit=Annual sale –TPC=3780000-2267245=1512755 birr/yr
Net income=Growth profit-Income tax=1512755-(0.35*1512755) =983290.75 birr/yr
Cash flow=Net income+ depreciation=983290.75+589177.2=1572467.95 birr/yr
Third year
Production rate =100% of annual production rate=1*600000 kg/yr=6*10^5kg/yr
Variable cost=100%*variable cost=1*874514=874514 birr
Fixed cost=fixed charge except depreciation +POC=285380+94268=379648.4 birr
GE=1100534 birr
Depreciation=20%*FCI=0.2*2945886=589177.2 birr/year
TPC=VC+FC+GE=874514+379648.4+1100534=2354696.4 birr
Annual sale=price per kg*Annual product=7*6*10^5=4200000 birr/year
Gross profit=Annual sale –TPC=4200000-2354696.4=1845303.6 birr/year
Net income=Growth profit-Income tax=1845303.6-(0.35*1845303.6) =1199447.34 birr/year
Cash flow=Net income+ depreciation=1199447.34+589177.2=1788624.54 birr/year
Summary of economic data for remaining five years are tabulated as in the following table.

Table 5-11: Summary of economic data used in the DCFR profitability analysis
year Product Sales TPC($/yr) or cash Gross Depreciation

rate (%) revenue(birr1 operating expense in profit(birr/yr) In birr
0^5 /yr) birr
1 0.75 31.5 2136067.9 1013932 294588.6
2 0.9 37.8 2267245 1512755 589177.2
3 1 42 2354696.4 1845303.6 589177.2
4 1 42 2354696.4 1845303.6 589177.2
5 1 42 2354696.4 1845303.6 589177.2
6 1 42 2354696.4 1845303.6 589177.2
7 1 42 2354696.4 1845303.6 589177.2
8 1 42 2354696.4 1845303.6 294588.6
sum 7.65 321.3 18531491.3 13598508.6 4124240.4
Cash flow
Assumption
We assumed that plant would cease production after 8 years of operation and at that time the
land would be sold for the same price it was purchased for, the working capital would be sold at
its estimated value and the plant equipment would have no salvage value. The net present value
(NPV) is obtained
CF 1 CF 2
NPV=−CFo + 1
+ 2+
(1+ IRR) (1+ IRR)
CF 3 CF 4 CF 5 CF 6 CF 7 C 28
+ + + + +
( 1+ IRR ) ( 1+ IRR ) ( 1+ IRR ) ( 1+ IRR ) ( 1+ IRR ) ( 1+ IRR )8
3 4 5 6 7

Table 5-12: Cash flow chart tabulated by Ms Excel
year of operation -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
land -45744
fixed capital -1000000 -1945886
Total capital investment -1045744 -2420004
working capital -519862
sales or income expenses(A) 3150000 3780000 4200000 4200000 4200000 4200000 4200000 4200000
cash operating expense(B) 2136067.9 2267245 2354696.4 2354696.4 2354696.4 2354696.4 2354696.4 2354696.4
depreciation (C) 294588.6 589177.2 589177.2 589177.2 589177.2 589177.2 589177.2 294588.6
total operating expenses(D=B+C) 2430656.5 2856422.2 2943873.6 2943873.6 2943873.6 2943873.6 2943873.6 2649285
operating income(E=A-B) 1013932.1 1512755 1845303.6 1845303.6 1845303.6 1845303.6 1845303.6 1845303.6
net income before tax(F=E-C) 719343.5 923577.8 1256126.4 1256126.4 1256126.4 1256126.4 1256126.4 1550715
federal income taxes(G=35%*F) 251770.23 323252.23 439644.24 439644.24 439644.24 439644.24 439644.24 542750.25
net income after taxes(H=F-G) 467573.28 600325.57 816482.16 816482.16 816482.16 816482.16 816482.16 1007964.8
after tax cash flow(I=H+C) 762161.88 1189502.77 1405659.36 1405659.36 1405659.4 1405659.4 1405659.4 1302553.4
capital recovery 56560
cumulative cash flow -3511492 -2749330 -1559827.355 -154168 1251491.37 2657150.7 4062810.1 5468469.4 6771022.8 6827583
IRR 17%
Or calculating internal rate of return IRR by setting NPV=0
CF 1 CF 2
NPV= 1
+ 2+
(1+ IRR) (1+ IRR)
CF 3 CF 4 CF 5 CF 6 CF 7 C 28
3
+ 4
+ 5
+ 6
+ 7
+ 8
(1+ IRR) (1+ IRR) (1+ IRR) (1+ IRR) (1+ IRR) (1+ IRR)
+−2749330 −1559827
0=−¿ 3511492 + +
(1+ IRR)1 (1+ IRR)2
−154168 1251491 2657151 4062810 5468469 6771023
3
+ 4
+ 5
+ 6
+ 7
+ 8
(1+ IRR) (1+ IRR) (1+ IRR) (1+ IRR) (1+ IRR) (1+ IRR)
Therefore by simplifying above equation IRR=17.3% almost the same as done on Ms excel.

−2749330 −1559827
PV= + +
(1+0.173)1 (1+0.173)2
−154168 1251491 2657151 4062810 5468469 6771023
3
+ 4
+ 5
+ 6
+ 7
+ 8
(1+0.173) (1+ 0.173) (1+0.173) (1+ 0.173) (1+0.173) (1+ 0.173)
=-2343844.8-1133653.7-95521.3+661052.1+1196537.1+1559690.5+1789697.7+1889166.3
=3523123.91 birr
Therefore PV>0 the project is accepted
NPV=-3511492+PV=-3511492+3523123.91=11631.91 birr
Hence NPV>0, Project is accepted
Profitability index (PI)or NPV ratio=PV /PV cash out flow=3523123.91/3511492=1.0033
PI>1, hence project is accepted
5.5 Plant location and layout
5.5.1 Plant location
The guiding principle is that the plant should be located where the cost of production and
distribution of products are a minimum bearing in mind factors such as space for future
expansion. It is convenient to list the more important factors influencing plant location as
follows:
 Market Area
 Raw Material’s Supply
 Transport facilities
 Availability of labor
 Availability of utilities (water, electricity, etc.)
 Availability of land
 Effluent disposal
 Climate condition
 Political & Strategic considerations

A. Marketing Area:
The location of the plant can be suitably selected depending on the availability of the product
in that area. If the market is close by the plant the transportation costs can be reduced to a large
extent.

B. Raw Material Supply
The availability of the raw material is also a key component to determine the plant
location. It is preferable to locate the plant close to the stored jimma town municipal waste
stream.
C. Transport:
The transports of material to and from the plant will a prime factor to determine the location of
the plant. It is always preferred that the plant has all the facility of all the three modes of
transport (Rail, road and waterway).
D Availability of labor
Labor is necessary from the construction phase of the plant to the production phase. The
Location of the plant should be such that there is availability of human resource around the
area. Usually the skilled laborers are picked up from outside the site area. But the unskilled
laborers are also in need.
E. Availability of Utilities
The process requires water for cooling and also for the emergency requirements of the plant.
Therefore it is always essential that there is a source of water near the plant. Rivers are generally
preferred as a source of water. Power is another major utility. The power supply to the plant
should be undisturbed.
It is always preferable to generate the power required to run the plant like grinder.
F. Effluent Disposal
The waste that is produced is generally in the form of liquid. The effluents are disposed
generally to the sea. Therefore there should be a provision for this kind of disposal.

G. land
sufficient suitable land must be available for the proposed plant for future expansion.
The land should be ideally flat, well drained and have suitable load bearing characteristics.
H. Climate
Adverse climate conditions at a site will increase costs. Abnormally low temperatures will
require the provision of additional insulation and special heating for equipment’s and pipe
runs. Stronger structure is necessary in locations subject to high winds.
I. Political and Strategic Considerations:

Capital grants concessions and other inducements are often given by governments to
direct
new investment to preferred locations such as areas of high unemployment the
availability of
such grants can be the overriding consideration in site selection
5.5.2 Plant Layout
A chemical plant should essentially contain the following units.
Storage area for raw materials and products
Maintenance workshop
Store house for maintenance and operating supplies
Laboratories
Fire Station and Effluent Disposal plant
Offices for general administration.

Figure 5-15: Plant layout

5.6 Health- and environmental impact of charcoal briquettes
5.6.1 Health- and environment-relevant emissions
Charcoal production can have negative health impacts during the production process and use.
They are generally associated with smoke inhalation and carbon monoxide poisoning
5.6.2 Emissions during carbonization process
Carbonization takes place under limited supply of oxygen. Thus, apart from the emission of
carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen compound and dust, products of incomplete combustion (PIC),
such as carbon monoxide (CO), vapors and liquid, soot and acids like formic and acetic acid, are
released. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are also emitted, which are known to be carcinogenic
5.6.3 Environmental impact
When charcoal is produced by carbonization, energy is lost through the emission of pyrolysis
gases, which comprise a condensable fraction consisting of an energy-rich mix of compounds
(methanol, acetic acid, water vapour and tars) that can be extracted through condensation
(although this is rarely done in practice); and non-condensable gases, such as CO2, CO,
hydrogen, methane (CH4) and other light hydrocarbons, as well as particulate matter and more
complex compounds, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Emissions during carbonization
have higher GWP values than emissions from charcoal burning (Chidumayo and Gumbo, 2013)
because of these gaseous by-products, which are emitted directly into the atmosphere
Environmentally, the use of biomass briquettes produces much fewer greenhouse gases,
specifically, 13.8% to 41.7% CO2 and NOX. Charcoal briquettes are also fairly resistant to water
degradation, an improvement over the difficulties encountered with the burning of wet coal.
However, the briquettes are best used only as a supplement to coal. The use of co-firing creates
an energy that is not as high as pure coal, but emits fewer pollutants and cuts down on the release
of previously sequestered carbon. The continuous release of carbon and other greenhouse gasses
into the atmosphere leads to an increase in global temperatures.

5.6.4 Public Health Effect
The smoke produced during the process in an indoor cooking environment can lead to multiple
respiratory illnesses. It is also one means of getting rid of solid wastes which is hazardous for
health .While charcoal briquette production is the primary focus of this work, the consumption of
wood fuels has significant effect on livelihood and public health implications on communities
who engage in production charcoal briquette production plant. These populations most often
sustain additional adverse effects associated with fuel combustion, including respiratory illness
due to inhalation of high levels of particulate matter. The majority (63.2%) of all respondents
prefer to use wood exclusively as a cooking fuel, most often because it is cheap and widely
available. Despite its use in varied environments (i.e. closed rooms vs. outdoors), women remain
at higher risk of these illnesses as compared to men, as they are typically responsible for meals
and use wood as a cooking fuel.

CHAPTER SIX
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 Conclusion
This work shows the characteristics of biodegradable municipal solid waste and charcoal
briquette such as density, moisture content, ash content, volatile matter, fixed carbon percentage
and caloric value. Characterization of raw material is very useful to determine which raw
material is suitable for production of charcoal briquette. Biodegradable municipal solid waste has
lowest density, high moisture content, high volatile matte, low fixed carbon percentage and low
caloric value.
The charcoal briquette produced is characterized accordingly. It has high density, moisture
content that is typical, has high volatile content, has typical ash content and low fixed carbon
content as compared to other charcoal briquette produced from different feedstock. The shatter
resistance and porosity index shows generally durability rating of the charcoal briquettes
suggests that they could be transported over a long distance without disintegrating. The charcoal
briquette produced in this work has highest caloric value as compared to caloric value of wood
charcoal, charcoal briquette produced from agro-waste and that produced from sugarcane
bagasse and it has lowest caloric value as compared to charcoal briquette produced from wood
residue. It was concluded that the conversion of biodegradable municipal solid waste into
briquette charcoal is an effective means of managing the solid wastes or reducing problem which
come by this wastes. The use of charcoal briquette is to be encouraged to reduce deforestation
for the purpose of people using it as wood charcoal and reduce waste generated. On the
environmental front, the charcoal briquettes could be used to reduce the quantities of wood and
charcoal consumed by ordinary households. This work is aimed to help in the management of
solid waste and could be used as a tool for taking a decision towards waste produced or
generated daily in various sectors of activities in Jimma town.
The designed plant is aim to use 600 ton/year of biodegradable municipal solid waste as raw
material within 300 days /year. Material balance, energy balance, equipment sizing design and
economic analysis was performing for it and plant site is located for it. Economic analysis was

evaluated in order to confirm the feasibility charcoal production preliminary plant design. Then
profitability performed include net annual profit, ROI, payback period, NPV, PV, PI and IRR
were 1785280 birr,51.5%, 2 year,11631.91 birr,3523123.91 birr,1.0033 and 17.3% respectively.
6.2 Recommendation
Based on the project on charcoal briquettes produced from biodegradable municipal solid waste
we recommended the following:
 Kombolcha is the most polluted town by waste in our country. So further research or
project must have done to characterize those wastes for charcoal briquette production.
 Some percentage of municipal waste in Kombolcha town is plastic and it is better to
produce another product such as fuel oil, plastic biomass briquetting and etc. to reduce
waste generally in Kombolcha town.
 To achieve maximum yield of charcoal briquette using the biodegradable municipal solid
waste as raw material the optimum condition such as volatile matter, ash content, fixed
carbon percentage, density and etc. must be staged with other research or with production
of charcoal briquette production from another feedstock.
 Moreover, further or different design and construction of carbonizer and manual press
machine for charcoal briquettes is required for this work to be efficient.
 Characterization of biodegradable municipal solid waste, Carbonization and
Characterization of briquettes, scaling up of the briquetting machine and mold machine
and its economic viability are an open area of study for this work.

REFERENCES
Abdu Z. and Sadiq A. (2014). Production and characterization of charcoal briquette by

carbonization of agro-waste, Department of chemical engineering, volume4(2), pp.44-47,
Maduguri,Nigeria
Ahmed, S., Rahman, M. M., Islam, M.M., Mashud, M., Nawsher, M., and Ali, M. (2008), Moral
Role of Biomass Briquetting in the Renewable Energy Sector and Poverty Diminution for
Bangladesh Proceedings of the 4th BSME-ASME International Conference on Thermal
Engineering 27-29 December, 2008, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Akowuah J. O., Kemausuor F. and Mitchual S. J. Physico-Chemical Characteristics and
Market Potential of Sawdust Charcoal Briquette. Proceedings of the 55th International
Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology. August 27-31, 2012.
Ayse Ozyuguran and Serdar Yaman,prediction of caloric value of biomass from proximate
analyses. International conference on energy and environmental research, department of
chemical engineering,Turkey,Vol.107,pp.130-136.2017
Beyene, H. & Banerjee, S. (2011). Assessment of the Pollution Status of the Solid Waste
Disposal Site of Addis Ababa City with Some Selected Trace Elements, Ethiopia. World
Applied Sciences Journal 14 (7): 1048-1057.
Briquetting agricultural waste as an energy source in Ghana. Quartey, Ebo Tawiah.T.U.

Onuegbu, I.M. Ogbu, and C.Ejikeme.1, January-March 2012, International Journal of
Plant, Animal and EnvironmentalSciences, Vol. 2. 2231-4490.
Chidumayo, E.N. & Gumbo, D.J. 2013. The environmental impacts of charcoal production in
tropical ecosystems of the world: a synthesis. Energy for Sustainable Development,
17(2): 86– 94 (DOI 10.1016/j.esd.2012.07.004).
Density, Shatter index, and Combustion properties of briquettes produced from groundnut shells,
rice husks and saw dust of Daniellia oliveri. Tembe, E.T., Otache, P.O. and Ekhuemelo,
D.O. October 31, 2014, Journal of Applied Biosciences, Vol. 82, pp. 7372 – 7378. 1997–
5902.
Dereje .T . M. Study of domestic solid waste management In jimma town. Masters of Science
in Chemical Engineering.pp.42.
Jaan Kers, PriitKulu, Aare Aruniit, Viktor Laurmaa, Peter Križan,LubomirŠooš andÜloKask. 4,
200, Estonian Journal of Engineering,, Vol. 16, pp. 307-316.
Elanda Fikri and Citra Sartika.Study on use and composition of charcoal briquettes from organic
waste. Department of Envirmental health. 2018,Vol.19,2,pp.81-88

Emerhi, E. A. Physical and combustion properties of briquettes produced from sawdust of three
hardwood species and different organic binders. Advances in Applied Science
Research.2011, Vol. 2, 6, pp. 236-246
Hailemariam, M. &Ajeme, A. (2014). Solid Waste Management in Adama, Ethiopia: Aspects

and Challenges. International Journal of Environmental and Ecological Engineering
Vol:8, No:9.
JayaShankar Tumuluru, Christopher T. Wright, Kevin L.Kenny and J. Richard Hess.AReview on

Biomass Densification Technologies for Energy Application.s.l. :Indaho
NationalLaboratory, August,2010.
Heat Energy From Value-Added Sawdust Briquettes Of Albizia Zygia. Aina, O.M.,Adetogun,
A.C. And Iyiola, K.A. 1, 2009, Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and
Management, Vol. 2.
Investigation into Viability of Briquettes from different Agricultural Residues as Alternatives to

Wood and Kerosene Fuels. Oladeji, J.T. 8, Ogbomoso, Nigeria : s.n., 2013, New York
Science Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 78-83. 1554-0200.
Lem Ethiopia, 2006. Study on total waste management of Jimma southern Ethiopia
Melaku Tegegn, 2008. Household solid waste generation rate and physical composition analysis,
in Jimma town, Ethiopia.
Musa, N.A., (2007), ―Comparative Fuel Characterization of Rice Husk and Groundnut Shell
Briquettes NJRED, Vol. 6, No. 2.pp 23-26.
Oladeji, J. T. (2012), ―Comparative Study of Briquetting of Few Selected Agro-Residues

Commonly Found in Nigeria Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 13(2):80-86.
Pari G., Mahfudin Jajuli, 2012. Charcoal making technology, charcoal briquettes and activated
charcoal and its utilization. Appropriate Technology. Agency for Forestry Research and
Development, Ministry of Forestry. 1–9.
Physical and combustion properties of briquettes from sawdust of Azadirachta indica. Abah, O.
A. Sotannde A. O. Oluyege G. B. 1, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria : s.n., 2010, Journal of
Forestry Research, Vol. 21, pp. 63−67.
Production and Characterization of Fuel Briquettes from Banana Leaves Waste. Bianca G. de
Oliveira Maia, Ozair Souza, Cintia Marangoni, DachamirHotza, Antonio Pedro N. de
Oliveira,Noeli Sellin. s.l. : The Italian Association of Chemical Engineering, 2014, Vol.
37, pp. 439-444.2283-9216.
Regassa, N., Sundaraa, R.D. &Seboka, B.B. (2011). Challenges and Opportunities in Municipal
Solid WasteManagement: Case of Addis Ababa City, Central Ethiopia. J Hum Ecol,
33(3): 179-190.

S.h.Mesrghli,E.Jorjani and S.chehreh chuganiEstimation of gross caloric value based on coal

analyses using regression and neuaral networksgeology International journal of
coal ,Department of mining engineering,vol.29,pp.49-54
Studies on Development of Fuel Briquettes using Biodegradable Waste Materials. Ch. A. I.

Raju1, U.Praveena, M. Satya, K. RamyaJyothi, Prof. S. SarveswaraRao. March 31, 2014,
Journal of Bioprocessing and Chemical Engineering
Tabil, L. G., (1997), ―Binding and Pelleting characteristics of alfalfa‖ An Unpublished Ph.D
diss. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada:- University of Saskatchewan, Department of
Agricultural and Bio-resources Engineering.
The Study Of Briquettes Produced With Bitumen, Caso4 And Starch As Binders. Ikelle Issie
Ikelle and, Mbam Nwabueze Joseph. 6, 2014, American Journal of Engineering
Research, Vol. 3, pp. 221-226. 2320-0847.
Vuk D. 1995. Gospodarjenje z odpadki. Moderna organizacija Kranj, 1995
Wilaipon, P., (2008), ―The Effect of Briquetting Pressure on Banana-Peel Briquette and the
banana Waste in Northern Thailand. American Journal of Applied Sciences 6(1): 167-
171.
www.match.com
www.alibaba.com

Wollo University: Kombolcha Institute of Technology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wollo University: Kombolcha Institute of Technology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WOLLO UNIVERSITY

KOMBOLCHA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF CHEMICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING STREAM

COURSE NAME: - RESEARCH METHOD AND PROJECT PROPOSAL (CHEG 5251)

TARGET GROUP: - 5TH YEARS, 1ST SEMISTER

PROJECT ON PRODUCTION OF CHARCOAL BRIQUETTE FROM KOMBOLCHA

1. GETASEW GUADIE ……………………. WOUR/1307/10

Name Signature Date

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page I

Key words: Waste, Charcoal Briquette, Carbonization, Binder

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page II

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page III

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page IV

2.6.2 Shredding of Biomass Materials into small Pieces...................................................................11

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page V

4.1 Proximate Analysis..........................................................................................................................33

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page VI

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page VII

Figure 2-1: Carbonizer equipment ( Elanda F. and Citra S.2018).................................................12

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page VIII

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page IX

BMSW Biodegradable Municipal Solid Waste

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page X

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page XI

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page 1

1.2 Statement of problem

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page 2

1.3.1 General objective

1.3.2 Specific objectives

 To sort, characterize, carbonize and mold biodegradable municipal solid waste.

 To characterize charcoal briquette.

1.4 Significance of the Study

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page 3

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page 4

2.1 Solid waste and it’s management

2.2 Physical, Chemical and Biological Characteristics of municipal solid

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page 5

2.3 Fundamental Aspects of Briquetting

Briquetting is the process of densification of biomass to produce homogeneous, uniformly sized

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page 6

2.4 Charcoal Briquette

2.5 Briquetting Technologies

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page 7

 Piston press densification

2.5.1 Piston press densification

2.5.2 Screw press densification

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page 8

2.5.3 Role press densification

2.5.5 Low pressure or manual presses

2.6 Step-by-step Production of Briquettes

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page 9

2.6.2 Shredding of Biomass Materials into small Pieces

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page 10

Figure 2-1: Carbonizer equipment ( Elanda F. and Citra S.2018).

The application of binder depends on the technique of briquetting employed. In addition to

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page 11

2.6.6 Addition of Water

2.6.7 Compaction & Drying

2.7 Common binders used in densification

WOLLO UNIVERSITY, KIOT Page 12