Fuel 275 (2020) 117865

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Laboratory investigation on underground coal gasification technique with T

real-time analysis
Ranjeet Mandala,b, , Tanmoy Maitya, S.K. Chaulyac, G.M. Prasadc
⁎

a
Department of Mining Machinery Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad 826004, Jharkhand, India
b
Research Education and Social Empowerment Society, Dudhichuwan, Chitra, 815351 Deoghar, Jharkhand, India
c
CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Barwa Road, Dhanbad, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Energy demand will continue rising in India due to increasing pressure of population; continuing urbanization;
Underground coal gasification significant expansion of better living standards of the middle class peoples; electrification in more and more
UCG villages; and modernization of agriculture, infrastructure and manufacturing sectors. In India, coal is the most
Real-time monitoring of UCG abundant and major fossil fuel which is going to play big role in meeting its energy demand. A major part of this
Syngas
requirement can be met by proper utilization of deep-seated coal. Underground coal gasification (UCG) process
Clean coal energy
is a clean coal technology for utilization of unminable coal. In this article, a novel simple laboratory model of
UCG is developed with advanced real-time control and monitoring. The experimental study is carried out on a
high-ash single coal block for 48 h period. In this experiment, synthesis gases are produced by the gasification of
coal block by using oxygen and steam as the main oxidising agents. Observation and analysis are made on the
characteristic of produced gases, coal-tar, cavity-growth under variable process conditions. This laboratory-
based experimental study will play a vital role for prediction on practically-difficult UCG process for successful
operation in actual field by reducing its complexity.

1. Introduction
Demand of energy is growing at a much higher rate than the growth
rate of the economy in India. It will continue rising in India due to
increasing pressure of population; continuing urbanization; significant
expansion of better living standards of the middle class peoples; elec-
trification in more and more villages; expansion of electrification of
Indian railways; more demand of electric vehicles; and modernization
of agriculture, infrastructure and manufacturing sectors. According to
an energy demonstrating exercise entitled India Energy Security
Scenarios (IESS), 2047, undertaken by NITI Aayog, India, the energy
demand of India is probably going to increase by about 2.7–3.2 times
between the years 2012 and 2040 [1]. In India, coal is a major fossil
fuel and it is used for electricity generation, steel production and var-
ious other purpose. In India, about 75% of produced coal is consumed in
power sector. As coal is the most abundant and major fossil fuel in this
country, it is going to play a big role in meeting about 70.87% of energy
demand of India during 2016–17 where as lignite contributed 3.63%
[2,3]. In India, coal will remain the most important source of energy till
2031–32 and possibly even further [4]. Geological resource of reserve
coal and lignite up to 1200 m depth are 3, 15, 148.81 and 44698.14
million tonnes respectively in the country as on dated 1st April, 2017
[5,6]. Table 1 shows the coal resource (up to 1200 m depth) in India
[7,8].
As upper layer coal is running out fast, the utilization of deep-seated
coal is the clear alternative left for energy security. But it is fraught with
many challenges. A major part of this requirement can be met by proper
utilization of deep-seated coal.
1.1. Challenges of mining of deep-seated coal
Mining of deep-seated coal seam is neither easy nor economically
viable through conventional mining. The problems associated with
mining of coal at greater depths are as follows [9]:
A. By underground methods
(i) Strata/roof support problems like coal bumps/rock bursts and
high vertical/horizontal stresses,
(ii) Emission of hazardous gases inside the underground mine
atmosphere,

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Mining Machinery Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad 826004, Jharkhand,
India and Research Education and Social Empowerment Society, Dudhichuwan, Chitra, 815351 Deoghar, Jharkhand, India..
E-mail address: ranjeetmandal145@gmail.com (R. Mandal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117865
Received 2 January 2020; Received in revised form 2 March 2020; Accepted 13 April 2020
0016-2361/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Mandal, et al.
Table 1
Coal deposits at different depths in India.
Coal deposits at different depth ranges Percentage of total coal deposits
0–300 m 62.74
300–600 m 30.07
600–1200 m 7.19
(iii) Excess temperature and humidity in underground mine gal-
lery, which calls proper ventilation and air-cooling,
(iv) Seepage of water in huge amount and its accumulation in the
underground gallery. It makes necessary to pump out the water
from underground to the surface, and
(v) Low production rate.
B. By opencast methods
(i) Requirement of huge capital investment for overburden re-
moval and availability of a large land for its dumping,
(ii) Environment pollution,
(iii) Problem of rehabilitation and resettlement of the peoples,
and
(iv) Involvement of long time duration for extraction of coal from
deep seated seam.
1.2. Preferred option for recovery of deep seated coal
The underground coal gasification (UCG) is a clean coal technology
for recovery of deep seated coal, the extraction of which is not only
difficult but also uneconomical by conventional methods. UCG process
is an environment friendly, economical and promising clean coal
technology for utilization of deep seated coal or unminable coal [10].
By this technology coal/lignite is first converted into syngas below
ground at high temperature and then it is transported to the above
ground through a borehole [11]. Syngas provide more calorific value
than coal. Generally, one tonne of coal has potential to produce approx.
2500 m3 of syngas [2]. This gas can be used in pollution free electricity
generation and as a feedstock of several chemical processes, such as
production of synthetic natural gas, hydrogen, urea, fertilizers. [12,13].
UCG technology is capable of producing 20 times more energy from a
similar coal asset than what is possible from coal seam gas or coal bed
methane [14]. UCG technology has several advantages compared to
conventional coal mining as well as surface coal gasification.
2. Underground coal gasification process
The underground coal gasification process involves drilling of sev-
eral vertical boreholes in a coal seam. One of them is called injection
borehole through which oxidants (air/oxygen and water steam) are fed
into a coal seam. Initially ignition is required for burning of coal at
bottom of injection borehole. During UCG process coal is ignited at
bottom of the injection borehole (i.e. near the coal seam) by variety of
ways, such as by using electric coils, gas firing [15].
After ignition oxygen is provided to the injection borehole for
continuous combustion of coal. The injected oxidants (oxygen/air)
react with coal below ground and to form a mixture of several gases
which is termed as syngas. It compress combustible gases namely me-
thane, hydrogen and carbon monoxide, and non-combustible gases such
as nitrogen and carbon dioxide. The syngas is transported to the surface
through another borehole called production borehole [12,13]. Rest of
those vertical boreholes (known as instrumentation boreholes) [as
shown in Fig. 1] are used for keeping various types of sensors for
monitoring of different parameters. The calorific value of the produced
gases by UCG process is very low if air injection is used. It is approxi-
mately one-eighth of the calorific value of petroleum gas and doubles
this figure if oxygen injection is used [16]. After coal gasification, the
2
Fuel 275 (2020) 117865
Fig. 1. The schematic diagram of UCG experimental set-up in laboratory scale.
cavity is formed in the underground coal seam. The rate of cavity
growth depends upon the rate of coal gasification and cavity’s size
depends upon the properties of coal (i.e. ash content in coal)[16].
Perkins and Sahajwalla (2006) [17] showed that the cavity growth rate
is a function of working parameters like temperature, cavity pressure,
water influx, and properties and structure of coal, [2,18].
The UCG process involves four steps: drilling, linking, ignition and
gasification. There are various methods for preparing a coal seam for in
situ gasification. The adaptability of UCG methods is dependent on geo-
mining conditions such as natural permeability of the coal seam; geo-
chemistry of the coal; thickness, depth, width and inclination of coal
seam [19,12]. The UCG process has been categorized into three phases
for gasification process in in situ namely, oxidation, reduction and
pyrolysis zone [20]. This process is a slow and takes long duration for
complete gasification of coal.
2.1. Important reaction during gasification
During coal gasification many chemical reactions happen, then coal
converting into syngas which is a mixture of carbon monoxide (CO) and
hydrogen gas (H2 ).
burning
C (s ) + H2 O (g ) CO (g ) + H2 (g )
Syngas can be processed to form synthetic natural gas (CH4 ) by
reacting it with additional hydrogen.
CO (g ) + 3H2 (g ) CH4 (g ) + H2 O (g )
Synthetic natural gas can also be produced by heating coal with
steam.
2C (s ) + 2H2 O (g ) CH4 (g ) + CO2 (g )
The coal gasification depends on the flow rate of the oxidants to the
coal seam. The thermochemical efficiency of the process is also de-
pendent on the ratio of oxygen and steam fed into the cavity, which is
controlled by using different types of flow control valves [21].
2.2. Major benefits of UCG
The major benefit of UCG process is that it does not create the
problems of rehabilitation and resettlement of the people because, it
requires less area in comparison to opencast mines. UCG has both en-
vironmental friendly as well as economic benefits such as smaller
carbon footprint compared to conventional mining methods and also
surface coal gasification; reduced land compensation and occupancy
time-frame; less pollution (e.g., lower fugitive noise, dust, vehicle
R. Mandal, et al.
fumes) from site operations; easily and economically power generation
through UCG-integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC); no surface
gasifier required for production of methanol, synthetic natural gas,
hydrogen, fossil fuel, chemical, ammonia, fertilizer; no coal washing
and fines disposal required at mine sites; low risk of surface water
pollution; easily carbon dioxide (CO2 ) capture and remove; capital and
operating costs are lower than in traditional mining; product gas
(syngas) can be directly transported to the end user through pipe [22].
3. Importance of laboratory experiment of UCG
Underground coal gasification is a complex process as it depends on
many factors such as geological and geohydrological analysis of strata,
physical and chemical properties of coal, process parameters, seismic
events, analysis of produced gases in real time, [11]. Coal chemistry i.e.
the properties of coal are most important factors, those influence the
underground coal gasification process. Lignite or lowrank coals are
preferable for UCG process because its reactivity is more and due to this
require less capital cost. The lignite and low-rank coal has high
moisture content and because of this the bed temperature drops and the
flow of molten slag may be stopped. Coals with low sulphur contain
lowers ground water contaminants and build-up better quantity gasi-
fication. Again, the low-ash coal (LAC) and medium-ash coal (MAC)
generate a higher surface area (i.e. cavity) for reactants and led to ef-
ficient gasification. In high ash coal (HAC), CO2 may be used with O2
and steam as oxidants for production of high quality syngas through
UCG process [23].
UCG process is conceptually very simple but its implementation in
actual field is difficult. Before actual implementation of UCG tech-
nology at a site, it is necessary to have selection of appropriate site,
study on technical possibility, prediction on growth rate of cavity,
economical feasibility, safety aspect for successful operation [24–26].
The main problems are accuracy in seam drilling with linking between
injection and production boreholes, controlling the reaction within the
coal seam, controlling parameters of geohydrology and heat mass
losses, producing high-quality syngas, and its derivative, from the sur-
face.
Laboratory experiment of UCG process plays a vital role for pre-
diction on UCG process which is helpful for successful operation in
actual field and reduces its complexity. The others important process
parameters involved during in situ gasification, such as flow rate of
oxidants feed to the injection well; temperature of inlet, outlet and
reaction zone; cavity pressure; seismic event; subsidence of overburden
and coal seam; hydrogeology of coal seam; analysis and quality of
produced gases. The UCG process cannot continue without the supply
of oxidants (i.e. oxygen/air, steam) in certain ratio. Therefore, in UCG
technique above process parameters to be required continuously mon-
itoring for successful operations in actual field. Ideal UCG temperatures
(greater than 1000 °C ) are similar to those of conventional surface coal
gasification. Achieving the ideal temperature of UCG process depends
on control of the water influx and oxidants flow rate [20,27]. Gasifi-
cation temperature is normally estimated before beginning of the op-
eration by considering the input of certain oxidants, and it is monitored
continuously during the operation. The temperature of gasification
zone as well as surrounding strata is a most important process para-
meters which required continuously monitoring for successful opera-
tion in both actual filed as well as laboratory experiment. During and
after gasification of coal in underground, there may be changes in strata
conditions due to cavity formation. The seismic event may also occur
due to rock fracturing and propagation of transient dynamic waves
through the surrounding rock mass. So, it is also essential to monitor
strata conditions and seismic events during in situ coal gasification.
4. Description of the experimental set-up
Before starting the UCG process at the site, a laboratory scale
3
Fuel 275 (2020) 117865
investigation on the this technique in a practical scenario is necessary.
Monitoring system plays vital role for successful operation of UCG
process and reduces its complexity [28,29]. For this purpose an ex-
perimental set-up has been established at Indian Institute of Technology
(Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad in India. In this experiment, design
and developed a monitoring system for the purpose of studies on UCG
process in a laboratory scale, which is shown in Fig. 1. The main ob-
jective of this experiment is to produce gasification data for Indian coals
at the laboratory scale by using developed UCG experimental set-up. In
UCG process, some additional vertical boreholes are drilled on the coal
seam, which are called instrumentation boreholes [Fig. 1]. Inside the
instrumentation boreholes various sensors such as thermocouples,
pressure transducer, geophones, are placed for monitoring of operating
parameters. The process instrumentation plays important role in UCG
process for monitoring of various parameters. The main function of
monitoring unit is to control and monitors all sensors and process in-
strumentations such as thermocouples, data logger, solenoid valves,
air/oxygen injecting unit, and gas analyzing unit automatically. The
process instrumentation and control unit receives updated information
as developed UCG technique and also provide logical control to UCG
laboratory experiment.
4.1. Methodology
With a view to providing the importance of laboratory-scale study
on underground gasification technique before its implementation in the
field, a UCG model was prepared on a coal block collected from Santhal
Pargana Coal Mines of ECL at Chitra, Deoghar in India. The dimension
of coal block was 45 cm in length, 35 cm in width and 28 cm in height.
The properties of the coal block used in this experiment are described in
Table 2. On this coal block, three vertical boreholes were created and
they were linked to each other by horizontal borehole of these three
vertical boreholes, are was intended for use as injection borehole, an-
other as production borehole and rest was instrumentation boreholes
[Fig. 2(a) and (b)]. The depth of each vertical borehole was 10 cm and
the length of horizontal borehole was 32 cm. The production borehole
is actually vertical, but in this experiment the horizontal borehole was
used as the production borehole. The prepared UCG model was placed
on a platform of recalcitrant brick and it was covered with clay slime
over the outer surface which is shown in Fig. 3.
An oxygen gas cylinder and a mini steam generator were connected
to the injection borehole through the inlet pipes and a T-junction. In
oxygen flow line a regulator, a gas flow meter and a non-return valve
(NRV) and a ball valve were connected to control the flow rate of
oxygen. Similarly, in steam flow line another non-return valve (NRV)
and a ball valve were connected. Non-return valves were used on both
sides for prevention of reverse flow. As temperature control is essential
to maintain the temperature in the gasifier. Two K-type thermocouples
namely, TC1 and TC2 were put inside the vertical instrumentation
boreholes of coal blocks at a distance of 10 cm separated from one
another for measurement of temperature at different points of
Table 2
Properties of the coal block sample.
Parameter Value
Moisture 9.1 %
Ash 10.0 %
Volatile matter 23.9 %
Fixed carbon 57.0 %
Carbon 67.0 %
Hydrogen 3.4 %
Nitrogen 1.5 %
Sulphur 0.3 %
Carbonate CO2 0.08 %
Phosphorus 0.012 %
Gross calorific value 6340 K cal/kg
R. Mandal, et al.
Fig. 2. Preparation of coal blocks for UCG laboratory model (a) Coring at Rock Specimen Preparation Laboratory, (b) after coring of coal block.
Fig. 3. Pictorial view of UCG experimental set-up in laboratory scale.
gasification zones during coal burning/gasifying. These thermocouples
were connected to a temperature indicator for continuous display ga-
sification zone’s temperature (in degree Celsius). A stainless steel pipe
hose of 25 mm diameter was used for connection between production
borehole and gas chamber. Fig. 3 shows pictorial view of UCG labora-
tory experiment in pilot scale.
4.2. Investigation
First, combustion was initiated by placing a piece of camphor inside
the injection borehole. After that, end of injection borehole was sealed
by mud and then oxidants (oxygen) were continued to supply into the
injection well to sustain gasification process. The pure oxygen (O2 ) was
used for oxidizing of coal at below ground. Then steam was used as for
increasing CO/H2 ratio of product gas, conversion of solid fuel into
4
Fuel 275 (2020) 117865
calorific gases and reducing greenhouse gas emission. The molar feed
ratio of the feed gases was controlled by using a rotameter. A rotameter
was used for measurement of the volumetric flow rate of oxidants
feeding to the injection borehole. The ignition front was found to spread
in both axial and radial directions liberating heat for the progress of
gasification reactions. After coal combustion gas accumulated inside
the borehole and started coming out through production well and goes
to gas chamber. This gas is known as syngas. The production borehole
was connected to the gas chamber via a stainless steel pipe hose for
transportation syngas to gas chamber. During the experimental period,
gas samples may be collected on individual vacutainers at a fixed time
interval for off-line analysis by using a gas chromatograph.
4.3. Observation
4.3.1. Temperature
The duration of experiment has 48 h including 3 h ignition time (ti )
and 15 h quench time (tq ). During ti only oxygen is fed for the com-
bustion and during tq oxygen is stopped to feed. The temperature re-
corded by high range K-type thermocouples (TC1 and TC2) at gasifi-
cation zone. The two thermocouples TC1 and TC2 measured
temperature data of oxidation and reduction zones respectively. The
temperature variation at gasification zone during experiment is re-
presented in Fig. 4. In this experiment the gasifier’s temperature was
also analysed by using thermal imaging camera at different time period,
two of them are shown in Fig. 5(a) and (b). From Fig.5(a) and (b) it is
clear that the temperature of oxidation zone is greater than reduction
and pyrolysis/draying zones.
4.3.2. Produced gases
The injected oxidants react with coal to form a product gas, which is
subsequently brought to the surface, cleaned and used as a fuel or
chemical feedstock. The final product gas consists mainly of hydrogen,
carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen. The produced
gases are passed through and analyzed in real time (during gasification)
by a developed gas analysing unit. Concentration of hydrogen, me-
thane, carbon monoxide, oxygen, and carbon dioxide gases were mea-
sured in real time with the help of respective gas sensors, which were
mounted over the gas chamber. The developed sensor board for gas
analysis is shown in Fig. 6. Five sensors are used to measure the re-
spective gases simultaneously with sampling period of 10 s controlled
by a microcontroller and displaying through a data-management
R. Mandal, et al. Fuel 275 (2020) 117865

Fig. 4. Graphical representation of temperature variation at gasification zone during experiment.

software. The flow chart of this gas monitoring process is presented in

Fig. 7. During analysis of the produced gases, the gas components found
were mainly H2 , O2 , N2 , CO, CH 4 and CO2 . Fig. 8 represents the gra-
phical view of the variation of produced gases concentration during the
first 40 h of experiment (till the starting of quenching period). The
figure also shows the oxygen and steam feed during this period. It is
observed from the variation in the figure that concentration of pro-
duced gases change when feed ratio of oxidants to the injection bore-
hole change.
The produced gases used in electricity generation, chemical and
fertilizer industry by separation its components or increase its con-
centration with the help of gas treatment and conversion units between
gasifier and gas usage. One of the popular and important techniques for
gas separation is the use of membranes. Some of the types of mem-
branes are polybenzimidazole meniscus membranes, CO2 – selective
membranes, hydrogen-selective membranes, hybrid membranes-con-
densation process, higher H2 /CO2 selective membranes [30].

Fig. 6. Gas chamber with gas monitoring unit.

4.3.3. Coal tar
Coal tars and un-reacted water vapour were also come out through
production borehole during gasification. Produced coal tar was also
analysed by FTIR (Fourier Transfer Infra-red) spectroscopy method by
using the Agilent Technologies make FTIR Spectrometer (Cary 600
series). In this technique, an absorbance spectra of the coal-tar sample is
created which provides information about the unique chemical bonds
and molecular structure of the material.
The Fig. 9 is the graphical representation of organic molecules
present in produced coal-tar during coal gasification. In this waveform,
four different peaks are found at different wave numbers. These peaks
of absorbance vs wave number graph show different functional groups
present in the produced coal tar, which are indicated against the cor-
responding wave number [31]. Fig. 9 shows that the produced coal tar
contain mainly alcohol (both polymeric and H-bonded).

Fig. 5. Body temperature of coal block by measuring thermal imaging camera (a) After 22.75 h (during gasification time), (b) After gasification (during quench time).

5
R. Mandal, et al.
Fig. 7. Flow chart of gas monitoring unit.
Fig. 8. Graphical view of concentration of produced gases against oxidants feed.
4.3.4. Cavity growth
The cavity formed inside the coal block is assessed after the com-
pletion of gasification process. A probe camera is used to get the inside
view of the cavity formation and is presented in Fig. 10(a). An optical
pictorial view of the same cavity is obtained after breaking the coal
block and is presented in Fig. 10(b). The dimensions of the cavity are
also measured. It is observed that the rate of cavity formation and it’s
size depend on the rate of gasification (feed molar ratio of oxidants) and
ash content in the coal respectively. As long as the coal gasification
process continues the cavity formation by this process also keeps
growing [32]. It is observed that during cavity formation cracks are also
generated in the coal block that helps boosting of the gasification rate.
5. Conclusions
The implementation of the UCG technique in the actual field re-
quires knowledge of different scientific field such as coal geology, geo-
mining, automation, chemical, and process engineering. Significant
investment is necessary to build the complete real system for successful
6
Fuel 275 (2020) 117865
operation and control of the gasification process from the surface. In
this paper, a laboratory based UCG model is designed, developed and
experiment was conducted with real-time advanced monitoring of
syngas characteristic, temperatures, cavity formation, coal-tar through
monitoring software and instruments. The simple experimental set-up
was made by using a single-piece coal block from an Indian mine.
The main motivation for moving toward UCG technique as future
energy security and utilization of deep-seated coal is the economic,
environmental and other benefits over the conventional mining
methods. UCG technique has extended the scope for gasifying coal di-
rectly from a coal seam. This experimental study is helpful for assess-
ment of the behaviour of process parameters for adoption of UCG
technology. It is observed that the rate of gasification depends upon
feed molar ratio of oxidants (i.e. oxygen and steam ratio) into the in-
jection well. When water steam slightly increases to the injection
borehole, the productions of CO and H2 gas increase. This laboratory-
based UCG process study can now forecast on the sustainability and
standardisation before the actual field implementation.
R. Mandal, et al. Fuel 275 (2020) 117865

Fig. 9. Graphical representation of functional group presents in produced coal tar.

Fig. 10. Pictorial view of coal block after gasification for cavity analysis (a) By using a probe camera, (b) After braking of coal block.

Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Aayog N. Draft National Energy Policy, Government of India, New Delhi.
[2] Mathur DK, Lamba BP, A, Sharma RK. Underground coal gasification a future source
of energy security. 8th Biennial International Conference & Exposition on Petroleum
Geophysics, IRS, ONGC, Hyderabad, India. 2010. p. 1–9.
[3] C.S. Office. Energy Statistics 2018, Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi; 2018. pp. 1–110.
[4] Policy IE. Report of the expert committee. Government of India, Planning
Commission, New Delhi; 2006. p. 1–148.
[5] M. of Mines, Coal & Lignite, Indian Minerals Yearbook – 2017, Government of India,
Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur.
[6] Patra S, Dirghangi SS, Rudra A, Dutta S, Ghosh S, Varma AK, Shome D, Kalpana M.
Effects of thermal maturity on biomarker distributions in Gondwana coals from the
Satpura and Damodar Valley Basins India. Int J Coal Geol 2018;196:63–81.
[7] Khadse A, Qayyumi M, Mahajani S, Aghalayam P. Underground coal gasification: a
new clean coal utilization technique for India. Energy 2007;32(11):2061–71.
[8] M. of Coal, Annual Report 2017-18, Organisational Structure and Functions,
Government of India, Ministry of Coal, New Delhi; 2018. pp. 1–140.
[9] Mandal R, Maity T, Chaulya SK, Prasad GM, Verma RP. Automation of underground
coal mines using PLC. J Mines Met Fuels 2015;2016:174–80 Special Issue on
MENTCA.
[10] Kumari G, Vairakannu P. Laboratory scale studies on CO2 oxy-fuel combustion in
the context of underground coal gasification. J CO2 Util 2017;21:177–90.
[11] Board AERC, Pana C. Review of underground coal gasification with reference to
alberta’s potential; 2009.
[12] Wiatowski M, Stanczyk K, Swiadrowski J, Kapusta K, Cybulski K, Krause E,
Grabowski J, Rogut J, Howaniec N, Smolinski A. Semi-technical underground coal
gasification (UCG) using the shaft method in experimental Mine?Barbara? Fuel
2012;99:170–9.
[13] Kostúr K. Simulation analysis of shape gasifying front. In 14th International
Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC). IEEE; 2013. pp. 167–170.
[14] Blinderman MS, Jones RM. Underground Coal Gasification and Power Generation,
Coal New Horizon, Gasification Technologies Conferens, San Francisco, USA.
[15] Daggupati S, Mandapati RN, Mahajani SM, Ganesh A, Sapru RK, Sharma RK,
Aghalayam P. Laboratory studies on cavity growth and product gas composition in
the context of underground coal gasification. Energy 2011;36(3):1776–84.
[16] Bhutto AW, Bazmi AA, Zahedi G. Underground coal gasification: from fundamentals
to applications. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2013;39(1):189–214.
[17] Perkins G, Sahajwalla V. A numerical study of the effects of operating conditions
and coal properties on cavity growth in underground coal gasification. Energy Fuels
2006;20(2):596–608.
[18] Samdani G, Aghalayam P, Ganesh A, Mahajani S. A process model for underground
coal gasification–part-iii: Parametric studies and ucg process performance. Fuel
2018;234:392–405.
[19] Mandal R, Kumar R, Ansari MS, Kumar D, Chaulya SK, Prasad GM, Singh AK, Maity
T. Underground coal gasification techniques for different geo-mining conditions, Int
J Oil Gas Coal Technol.https://doi.org/10.1504/IJOGCT.2018.10013762.
[20] Thorsness CB, Hill RW, Stephens DR. Preliminary results from an in situ coal ga-
sification experiment using explosive fracturing. Div Fuel Chem Am Chem Soc Prepr
22(1).
[21] Kačur J, Kostúr K. Approaches to the gas control in UCG. Acta Polytech
2017;57(3):182–200.
[22] Mandal R, Verma RP, Chaulya SK, Prasad GM, Singh AK, Maity T. Underground coal
gasification: an economical and environmental friendly energy resource in India. In

7
R. Mandal, et al.
All India Seminar on Mining? Recent Advances, Challenges and Scenario Beyond
2015 (MRACSB15), 2014. pp. 118–131.
[23] Kumari G, Vairakannu P. CO2-O2 dry reforming based underground coal gasifica-
tion using low and high ash Indian coals. Fuel 2018;216:301–12.
[24] Jiang L, Chen Z, Ali SF. Thermal-hydro-chemical-mechanical alteration of coal
pores in underground coal gasification. Fuel 2020;262:116543 .
[25] Verma RP, Mandal R, Chaulya SK, Singh PK, Singh AK, Prasad GM. Contamination
of groundwater due to underground coal gasification. Int J Water Resour Environ
Eng 2014;6(12):303–11.
[26] Yang D, Koukouzas N, Green M, Sheng Y. Recent development on underground coal
gasification and subsequent CO2 storage. J Energy Inst 2016;89(4):469–84.
[27] Hyder Z. Site characterization, sustainability evaluation and life cycle emissions
assessment of underground coal gasification [Ph.D. thesis]. Virginia Tech; 2012.
[28] Kačur J, Laciak M, Durdán M. Remote monitoring and control of the UCG process.
In 12th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC), 2011. IEEE; 2011. pp.
176–180.
[29] Kostúr K, Sasvári T. Research of lignite underground gasification. Acta Montanistica
Slovaca 2010;15(2):121–33.
[30] Merkel TC, Zhou M, Baker RW. Carbon dioxide capture with membranes at an igcc
power plant. J Membrane Sci 2012;389:441–50.
[31] Shearer GL. An evaluation of fourier transform infrared spectroscopy for the
characterization of organic compounds in art and archaeology [Ph.D. thesis].
University of London; 1989.
[32] Najafi M, Jalali SME, KhaloKakaie R, Forouhandeh F. Prediction of cavity growth
rate during underground coal gasification using multiple regression analysis. Int J
Coal Sci Technol 2015;2(4):318–24.
Ranjeet Mandal is working as Secretary in Research Education and Social Empowerment
Society, Dudhichuwan, Chitra, Deoghar, Jharkhand, India. He has completed in B. Tech
(EIE), P.G. Diploma (Industrial Automation) and pursuing part-time Ph.D in Department
of Mining Machinery Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of
Fuel 275 (2020) 117865
Mines), Dhanbad, India. He has published 6 research papers in international cited jour-
nals and 5 papers in national conferences. He has 9 years of experience in the field of
research and teaching. His areas of research are underground coal gasification, automa-
tion, gas sensors, PLC, and mine surveillance system.
Dr. Tanmoy Maity is currently working as Associate Professor in the Department of
Mining Machinery Engineering of Indian Institute of Technology ( Indian School of
Mines), Dhanbad, India. He has graduated in Electrical Engineering from Calcutta
University, India and Ph.D from Bengal Engineering & Science University, Shibpur, India.
He has authored more than fifty research articles in reputed journals and more than fifty
in conference proceedings. He has already guided six PhD scholars. He has completed a
number of funded research projects and organised many industry sponsored training
programme.
Dr. Swades Kumar Chaulya has been working as a scientist since 1993 at a national
laboratory, presently known as CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CSIR-
CIMFR), Dhanbad under the aegis of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR),
Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India. He has published 37 research
papers in international cited journals, 41 papers in national journals, about 80 papers in
various conferences. There are 13 national and international patents in his credit, and
most of which have been commercialized.
Dr. Girendra Mohan Prasad is working as a Senior Principal Scientist in Central Institute
of Mining and Fuel Research (CSIR-CIMFR), Dhanbad, India. His areas of research are
studies of various electrical and electronic properties of semiconductor materials, optical
fiber communication, fiber-optic sensor development and communication system for
mining and allied industries. He has published 14 research papers in international jour-
nals, 6 papers in national journals, and presented 23 papers in International/National
conferences.