Fuel 99 (2012) 55–63

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Estimation of higher heating value of biomass from proximate

analysis: A new approach
Daya Ram Nhuchhen, P. Abdul Salam ⇑
Energy Field of Study, Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Heating value of biomass is necessary to analyze and design any bio-energy systems. The experimental
Received 9 June 2011 methods to estimate the heating value are time consuming as well as expensive and have higher possi-
Received in revised form 8 April 2012 bilities of experimental errors. Many correlations have been published for estimating higher heating val-
Accepted 14 April 2012
ues of biomass, coal, and other solid fuels based on proximate analysis. In this paper, a new approach of
Available online 27 April 2012
linear correlations is proposed, developed, and analyzed for its forecasting errors. Two hundred and fifty
published data with the higher heating values ranging from 5.63 to 23.46 MJ/kg are used to develop the
Keywords:
correlations. The best correlation, which has least errors, is selected and subjected to develop non-linear
Biomass fuels
Higher heating value
correlations to decrease its estimation errors. The selected linear and non-linear correlations are vali-
Proximate analysis dated by using experimentally determined higher heating values of biomass. The correlations are also
Correlations compared with other published correlations.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (VM) and ash content (ASH) as solid, gaseous, and non-combustible
components, respectively in any solid fuels [4]. Proximate analysis
The rapidly growing energy demand is becoming a challenge for determines the gross biomass components in terms of fixed carbon
human development because of fast depleting energy resources, content, volatile matter, ash content, and moisture content of the
effects on the environment and national energy security. The world fuels. The proximate analysis is also relatively simple and cheap
energy related carbon dioxide emission will rise from 29.7 to 42.4 method of investigating properties of biomass [5]. Therefore, pop-
billion tons in the period of 2007–2035 while the global energy de- ularity of proximate values based correlations for estimating high-
mand will rise by 49% in the same period, at an average rate of 1.4% er heating values of fuels is increasing.
per year [1]. The growing demand for and depleting trend of fossils Demirbas [3] has developed a linear relation between HHVs and
fuels are major drive towards the threat on energy security and fixed carbon content of biomass with correlation coefficient of
economic growth. These challenges compelled to find alternative 0.9997. Demirbas [3] and Jimennez and Gonzalez [6] studied the
renewable energy resources in all around the world and diversify combined effect of fixed carbon and volatile matters on higher
the fuel mix. Biomass is one of the highly potential emerging en- heating values. Cordero et al. [7] presented a correlation for HHV
ergy resources having net balanced CO2 emissions. The utilization in terms of fixed carbon content and volatile matter for lignocellu-
of biomass resources and other organic waste materials need an loses materials and charcoal by using multiple regression analysis
extensive study of its physical, chemical, and thermodynamic of data in least squares fitting program. Parikh et al. [8] developed
properties. Higher heating value (HHV) of fuel is very important a correlation for HHV of biomass with ash content, volatile matter
to carry out the energy analysis of any systems. Bomb calorimeter and fixed carbon on the dry basis with absolute error of 3.74% and
is used to determine HHVs of solid and liquid fuels but this method bias error of 0.12%. The negative effect of ash content on higher
is sophisticated, time consuming, and costly [2]. To avoid such dif- heating values is studied by Sheng and Azevedo [9]. Artificial Neu-
ficulties, correlations have been developed to estimate heating val- ral Network (ANN) based correlation for HHV of coal is investigated
ues of fuel by using results of ultimate analysis and proximate by Patel et al. [10] which shows the non-linear effect of the both
analysis. ultimate and proximate components. The least square error based
The ultimate analysis gives elemental composition of fuels but correlations have been developed by Ahmaruzzaman [11] for chars
it is costly, and needs special arrangement of the experimentation by using results of proximate analysis including moisture content
[3]. Proximate analysis gives fixed carbon (FC), volatile matter with an average error of 13.13%. The development of new correla-
tion itself is not sufficient but error analysis is equally important to
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +66 2 524 5420; fax: +66 2 524 5439. make sure the accuracy of the estimated results. Yin [12] has pro-
E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Abdul Salam). posed new correlations in terms of volatile matter and fixed carbon

0016-2361/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.04.015
56 D.R. Nhuchhen, P. Abdul Salam / Fuel 99 (2012) 55–63

Table 1
Existing correlations for higher heating values of solid fuels based on proximate analysis.

Published correlation based on proximate analysis of fuels Type of fuel Error analysis
Absolute Average bias Coefficient of Sources
average error error (%) determination (R2)
(%)
HHV = 10.81408 + 0.3133(VM + FC) Lignocellulosic residues 4.43 1.16 0.53 [6]a
HHV = 0.196FC + 14.119 8.85 5.6 0.65 [3] a
HHV = 0.312FC + 0.1534VM Biomass 7.69 6.97 0.31 [3] a
HHV = 0.3543FC + 0.1708VM 5.68 4.26 0.25 [7] a
HHV = 35.43  0.1835 VM  0.3543ASH Lignocellulosic wastes and chars – – – [7]
HHV = 0.3536FC + 0.1559VM  0.0078ASH Solid carbonaceous materials 3.47 0.12 – [8]
(coal, lignite and biomass)
HHV = 19.914  0.2324ASH 3.78 0.30 0.53 [9]
HHV = 3.0368 + 0.2218VM + 0.2601FC Biomass 3.65 0.26 0.62 [9]
HHV = 0.03ASH  0.11MC + 0.33VM + 0.35FC Coal 1.49 – 0.98 [2]
HHV = 0.836MC8.155ASH3.559VM0.35FC0.626 5.37 – 0.97 [13]
HHV = 0.561MC6.137VM0.381FC0.666 Coal 5.59 – 0.97 [13]
HHV = 33.078  0.72MC + 0.012MC2  1.163MC3  0.324ASH2 5.41 – 0.97 [13]
a
The correlations are obtained from the sources but the errors analyses are obtained from Sheng and Azevedo [9].

with mean absolute bias error of 0.67%. A multi linear regression 2.1. Estimation errors
modeling for estimating heating value of low rank coal is investi-
gated by Akkaya [13] who has developed a non-linear correlation Estimation error of ith sample of biomass ei (ei = Ei  Mi) is de-
for HHV using four variables of proximate analysis with coefficient fined as difference between estimated HHV value (Ei) and actual
of determinations (R2) of 0.97. Table 1 summarizes proximate anal- measured HHV value (Mi) of that sample. The correlation is said
ysis based existing correlations for various solid fuels from pub- to be the best fit of given set of points if the estimation error tends
lished literatures. to zero which is very difficult to achieve in correlation develop-
As shown in Table 1, the correlations developed in the past ment processes. Therefore, the estimation error is necessary to
mainly focused on linear form of constituents from proximate show the goodness of the proposed correlations. This study has
analysis and some correlations also used exponential as well as investigated three different forms of estimation errors to select
polynomial forms. In this study, we propose a new approach for the best correlations from all proposed correlations. The details
developing the correlation using the ratios of non-volatile, volatile, of estimating errors are described below:
and non-organic constituents of proximate analysis and analyze !,
X
N
the effects of the ratios on HHV. This study also investigates both Mean absolute error ðMAEÞ ¼ jei j N ð1Þ
linear and non-linear effects of such ratios on HHV of biomass. i¼1

!,
X
N
2. Methodology Average absolute error ðAAEÞ ¼ ðjei j=Mi Þ  100% N ð2Þ
i¼1

Different literatures on estimating higher heating values of fuels

using proximate analysis were analyzed and the possible new cor-
relations based on non-volatile, volatile, and non-organic ratios
were proposed (Table 2). The correlations were initially established
by considering various linear effects to simplify such correlations.
Table 2
The constant terms of proposed correlations were determined by Proposed new correlations for analysis of this study.
using the Microsoft Excel Solver Tool with the help of 250 different
Sl. no. Proposed correlations (on dry weight basis of proximate analysis)
published data of proximate analysis and higher heating values by
dry weight basis (Table 3). The main principle behind the determi- 1 HHV = a + bFC/VM
2 HHV = a + bVM/FC
nation of constant terms is to minimize the sum of square errors
3 HHV = a + bFC/ASH
between estimated and actual values of higher heating values. 4 HHV = a + bASH/FC
The goodness of the correlations was determined by analyzing dif- 5 HHV = a + bVM/ASH
ferent form of estimating errors which is described in Section 2.1. 6 HHV = a + bASH/VM
The best correlation is the one with the least error values among 7 HHV = a + bFC/VM + cVM/FC
8 HHV = a + bVM/ASH + cASH/VM
the all proposed correlations.
9 HHV = a + bFC/ASH + cASH/FC
Based on the extent of effect of different ratios of proximate 10 HHV = a + bFC/VM + cVM/ASH
data on heating values, the selected correlation is further analyzed 11 HHV = a + bVM/ASH + cASH/FC
for its non-linear effects to reduce the error level. The developed 12 HHV = a + bASH/FC + cFC/VM
13 HHV = a + bVM/FC + cASH/VM
correlations were validated by using 10 experimentally deter-
14 HHV = a + bASH/VM + cFC/ASH
mined higher heating value and proximate values and then com- 15 HHV = a + bFC/ASH + cVM/FC
pared with published correlations. The experimental data were 16 HHV = a + bFC/VM + cVM/ASH + dASH/FC
obtained from biomass samples at AIT which were collected for 17 HHV = a + bVM/FC + cASH/VM + dFC/ASH
two different months. The tests were carried out at AIT Energy lab- 18 HHV = a + b(FC + VM)/ASH
19 HHV = a + b(FC + ASH)/VM
oratory with the help of Bomb Calorimeter under the British Stan-
20 HHV = a + b(ASH + VM)/FC
dard (BS 4379) and proximate analysis under the American
Standard of Testing Materials. Note: a, b, c, and d are the constants of correlations to be determined.
 D.R. Nhuchhen, P. Abdul Salam / Fuel 99 (2012) 55–63 57

Table 3
Properties of biomass materials and its higher heating values.

Sl. no. Biomass materials Proximate analysis (% by wt. dry basis) Measured HHV (MJ/kg) Sources
FC VM ASH M
A. By products of fruits
1 Akhrot shell 18.78 79.98 1.20 20.01 [14]
2 Almond 21.54 76.83 1.63 20.01 [8]
3 Almond hulls 20.07 73.80 6.13 18.89 [12]
4 Almond shell 18.73 77.22 4.05 17.96 [18]
5 Almond shell 18.40 80.50 1.10 19.92 [12]
6 Almond shells 20.71 76.00 3.29 19.49 [12]
7 Black walnut pruning 18.56 80.69 0.78 19.83 [15]
8 Coconut coir 29.70 66.58 3.72 20.05 [8]
9 Coconut shell 22.10 77.19 0.71 20.50 [14]
10 Coconut shell 20.92 70.86 0.58 20.43 [16]
11 Coconut shell 21.60 70.20 1.17 18.45 [17]
12 Coconut shell powder 20.58 79.07 0.35 19.68 [8]
13 Coffee chaff 19.60 75.80 4.60 17.69 [8]
14 Cotton shell 16.90 68.50 14.60 16.38 [8]
15 Dried grain – soluble 12.84 82.50 3.89 21.75 [12]
16 Groundnut shell 21.60 72.70 5.70 19.85 [14]
17 Hazelnut seed coat 27.00 71.20 1.80 19.30 [3]
18 Hazelnut shell 28.30 69.30 2.40 19.20 [3]
19 Hazelnut shell 30.00 68.90 1.10 19.90 [12]
20 Macadamia shell 23.68 75.92 0.40 21.01 [8]
21 Peach pit 19.80 79.10 1.10 19.42 [8]
22 Peach pits 19.85 79.12 1.03 20.82 [15]
23 Peanut shell 13.60 80.41 5.99 18.46 [18]
24 Peanut shell 13.40 84.90 1.70 18.60 [12]
25 Pistachio shell 16.84 82.03 1.13 19.26 [8]
26 Pistachio shell 16.95 81.64 1.41 18.22 [12]
27 Pistachio soft shell 8.69 67.85 14.21 18.57 [18]
28 Spire mint 11.80 70.10 18.10 15.53 [8]
29 Sunflower seed shell 11.70 84.70 3.60 17.60 [12]
30 Tapero root skin scale scrapping 11.40 35.10 39.20 9.23 [8]
31 Walnut 20.80 78.50 0.70 19.97 [8]
32 Walnut shell 16.94 79.17 3.89 18.91 [18]
33 Walnuts shells 21.16 78.28 0.56 20.18 [15]
34 Wet grains 13.58 83.18 2.58 21.95 [12]
B. Agri-wastes
35 Apricot bagasse 15.80 80.31 3.89 18.56 [18]
36 Bagasse 7.00 70.90 22.10 14.26 [8]
37 Bagasse 11.90 86.30 1.80 18.17 [8]
38 Bagasse 14.95 73.78 11.27 17.33 [14]
39 Bagasse pith 10.60 86.60 2.80 17.19 [8]
40 Biomass mix 18.14 69.36 12.49 18.40 [12]
41 Coconut coir pith 28.82 66.02 5.16 18.07 [14]
42 Coconut stem 23.10 74.40 2.50 19.44 [8]
43 Corn cob 18.54 80.10 1.36 18.77 [8]
44 Corn cob 16.80 82.10 1.10 18.80 [8]
45 Corn cob 12.50 86.50 1.00 17.00 [3]
46 Corn stover 17.60 78.70 3.70 17.80 [3]
47 Corn stover 19.25 75.17 5.58 17.65 [15]
48 Corn stover 26.65 66.58 6.73 17.93 [12]
49 Corn straw 19.19 73.15 7.65 17.68 [12]
50 Cotton cake 11.58 83.65 4.77 17.50 [18]
51 Cotton stalk 17.30 65.40 17.30 15.83 [8]
52 Cotton stalk 18.80 76.10 5.10 17.40 [12]
53 Jawar straw 15.15 75.97 8.88 17.95 [14]
54 Millet straw 16.45 78.28 5.27 18.05 [14]
55 Mustard stalk 21.90 60.90 17.20 17.49 [8]
56 Paddy straw 11.80 72.70 15.50 14.52 [8]
57 Peach bagasse 6.15 91.98 1.87 16.24 [18]
58 Potato peel 9.56 84.15 6.29 17.18 [18]
59 Rape straw 17.81 76.54 4.65 18.34 [12]
60 Rapeseed 5.60 86.27 8.13 16.61 [18]
61 Rice husk bran 19.53 61.83 18.64 15.29 [14]
62 Rice husk patni-23 14.90 69.30 15.80 15.67 [14]
63 Rice straw 13.91 65.70 20.38 14.85 [14]
64 Rice straw 15.86 65.47 18.67 15.09 [12]
65 Rice straw ground 16.20 68.30 15.50 15.61 [8]
66 Soybean cake 16.00 76.86 7.14 18.30 [18]
67 Sugar cane straw 14.60 76.20 9.20 17.19 [12]
68 Sugarcane bagasse 13.15 83.66 3.20 18.73 [12]
69 Sugarcane bagasse 13.30 81.50 5.20 17.70 [12]
70 Sugarcane bagasse 14.70 82.60 2.70 17.32 [12]

(continued on next page)

58 D.R. Nhuchhen, P. Abdul Salam / Fuel 99 (2012) 55–63

Table 3 (continued)

Sl. no. Biomass materials Proximate analysis (% by wt. dry basis) Measured HHV (MJ/kg) Sources
FC VM ASH M
71 Sun flower stalk and stover 5.17 85.85 8.98 15.87 [18]
72 Sweet sorghum bagasse 5.00 75.00 20.00 13.73 [8]
73 Tan oak 9.20 90.60 0.20 18.93 [8]
74 Wheat straw 24.00 69.60 6.40 18.91 [8]
75 Wheat straw 11.70 80.60 7.70 17.36 [8]
76 Wheat straw 10.98 82.12 6.90 17.99 [14]
77 Wheat straw 23.50 63.00 13.50 17.00 [3]
78 Wheat straw 19.80 71.30 8.90 17.51 [15]
C. Wood chips/tree species
79 Ailanthus wood 24.80 73.50 1.70 19.00 [3]
80 Bamboo wood 11.24 86.80 1.95 20.55 [14]
81 Beech wood 24.60 74.00 0.40 19.20 [3]
82 Black locust 18.26 80.94 0.80 19.71 [15]
83 Block wood 14.59 83.32 2.09 18.26 [14]
84 B-wood 21.62 76.53 1.85 20.05 [12]
85 Cabernet sauvignon 19.20 78.63 2.17 19.03 [8]
86 Canyon live oak 11.30 88.20 0.50 18.98 [8]
87 Casurina wood 19.58 78.58 1.83 18.77 [14]
88 Chaparral wood 18.68 75.19 6.13 18.61 [14]
89 Cotton stalk 22.43 70.89 6.68 18.26 [15]
90 Cotton stalks 19.90 62.90 17.20 15.83 [14]
91 Douglass fir 25.80 73.00 1.20 22.10 [8]
92 Douglass fir 17.70 81.50 0.80 21.05 [15]
93 Douglass fir wood 12.60 87.30 0.10 20.38 [14]
94 Dry subabul wood 18.52 81.02 1.20 19.78 [14]
95 Eucalyptus 21.30 75.35 3.35 18.64 [8]
96 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 17.82 81.42 0.76 19.42 [15]
97 Eucalyptus grandis 16.93 82.55 0.52 19.35 [8]
98 Eucalyptus bark 15.30 65.70 19.00 15.20 [8]
99 Eucalyptus globulus wood 17.30 81.60 1.10 19.23 [14]
100 Eucalyptus log 8.05 82.78 0.37 17.99 [16]
101 Eucalyptus saligna 17.90 82.00 0.10 20.08 [8]
102 Eucalyptus stalk 12.20 87.30 0.50 19.10 [8]
103 Eucalyptus wood 21.30 75.35 3.35 18.64 [14]
104 Eucalyptus wood 15.91 78.48 4.11 16.42 [19]
105 Fresh subabul wood 15.20 83.60 1.12 19.70 [14]
106 Hardwood 25.00 72.30 2.70 18.80 [3]
107 Hybrid poplar 6.87 89.69 3.44 17.14 [18]
108 Hybrid poplar 12.49 84.81 2.70 19.02 [12]
109 Jujuba wood 14.14 83.63 2.32 20.26 [14]
110 Loblolly pine 33.90 65.70 0.40 21.77 [8]
111 Loblolly pine bark 33.90 54.70 0.40 21.78 [15]
112 Madrone 12.00 87.80 0.20 19.51 [15]
113 Mango wood 11.36 85.64 2.98 19.17 [14]
114 Mulberry stick 22.80 75.10 2.10 18.36 [8]
115 Neem wood 12.19 85.86 1.93 20.26 [14]
116 Oak wood (large branch) 16.18 81.75 2.07 19.17 [12]
117 Oak wood (medium branch) 16.18 81.75 3.00 19.24 [12]
118 Oak wood (small branch) 18.50 77.45 4.05 19.20 [12]
119 Olive twigs 10.73 88.25 1.02 18.70 [8]
120 Pepper plant 20.86 64.71 14.44 15.39 [12]
121 Pine chips 21.65 72.40 5.95 19.79 [12]
122 Pine needles 26.12 72.38 1.50 20.12 [15]
123 Pine wood 15.70 73.60 11.30 16.64 [8]
124 Ply wood 15.77 82.14 2.09 18.96 [14]
125 Ponderosa pine 17.17 82.54 0.29 20.02 [15]
126 Poplar 16.35 82.32 1.33 19.38 [15]
127 Red alder 12.50 87.10 0.40 19.30 [15]
128 Red wood 19.92 79.72 0.36 20.72 [8]
129 Red wood 16.10 83.50 0.40 21.03 [15]
130 Softwood 28.10 70.00 1.70 20.00 [3]
131 Spruce wood 28.30 70.20 1.50 20.10 [3]
132 Subabul 13.80 85.20 1.00 16.66 [8]
133 Subabul wood 18.52 81.02 1.20 19.78 [8]
134 Western hemlock wood 15.20 84.80 2.20 20.05 [14]
135 White fir 16.58 83.17 0.25 19.95 [15]
136 White oak 17.20 81.28 1.52 19.42 [15]
137 Willow wood 16.07 82.22 1.71 19.59 [12]
138 Wood bark 31.80 66.60 1.60 20.50 [3]
139 Wood chips 23.50 76.40 0.10 19.92 [8]
140 Wood chips 15.40 83.40 1.20 20.03 [8]
D. Grasses/leaves/fibrous materials
141 Alfalfa stems 15.81 78.92 5.27 18.67 [12]
 D.R. Nhuchhen, P. Abdul Salam / Fuel 99 (2012) 55–63 59

Table 3 (continued)

Sl. no. Biomass materials Proximate analysis (% by wt. dry basis) Measured HHV (MJ/kg) Sources
FC VM ASH M
142 Apricot stone 17.83 81.13 1.04 18.80 [18]
143 Ash tree 14.12 80.13 5.75 18.06 [18]
144 Carrington intermediate wheatgrass 19.10 76.10 4.80 16.44 [23]
145 Carrington switch grass 18.70 76.60 4.80 18.45 [23]
146 Carrington tall wheatgrass 19.30 75.80 4.90 18.01 [23]
147 Casuarina equisetifolia leaf 16.46 73.50 3.93 18.48 [12]
148 Cedar cones 28.10 70.40 1.50 21.10 [8]
149 Cornelian cherry stone 23.80 73.54 2.96 19.02 [18]
150 Dal lake weed 3.60 47.70 48.70 8.89 [8]
151 Esparto plant 16.80 80.50 2.20 19.10 [12]
152 Eucalyptus stalk 12.20 87.30 0.50 19.10 [8]
153 Forest residue 20.00 79.80 0.20 19.50 [12]
154 French bean stalk 4.67 89.01 6.32 15.41 [18]
155 Grewia optiva (Bhimal) 14.20 85.50 0.30 18.00 [8]
156 Lantana camara leaf 11.83 70.46 7.26 18.50 [12]
157 Mentha pipertia 7.50 79.00 13.50 15.15 [8]
158 Miscalthus 12.40 87.20 0.40 19.30 [8]
159 Moringa oleifera leaves 10.70 67.80 21.50 14.23 [8]
160 Olive mare 25.83 69.45 4.72 21.06 [8]
161 Olive stones 19.50 78.30 2.20 20.23 [12]
162 Peach stone 20.79 78.16 1.05 19.52 [18]
163 Pine cone 15.15 77.96 6.89 18.55 [18]
164 Pine needle 13.20 9.09 77.70 5.70 [8]
165 Sena leaves 25.50 57.20 17.30 18.13 [8]
166 Shea meal 28.70 66.30 5.00 19.80 [12]
167 Soplillo 20.70 77.80 1.50 22.58 [12]
168 Sour cheery stone 14.10 80.85 5.05 17.59 [18]
169 Streeter intermediate wheatgrass 17.90 74.40 7.80 18.08 [23]
170 Streeter switch grass 17.70 76.50 5.80 18.06 [23]
171 Streeter tall wheatgrass 18.20 73.80 8.00 17.90 [23]
172 Sudan grass 18.60 72.75 8.65 17.39 [8]
173 Sugar cane leaves 14.90 77.40 7.70 17.41 [8]
174 Sun flower stalk 11.70 84.68 3.62 17.86 [18]
175 Switch grass 14.34 76.69 8.97 18.06 [12]
176 Tea bush 21.80 76.50 1.70 19.84 [8]
177 Tobacco leaf 11.20 72.60 17.20 15.00 [3]
178 Tobacco stalk 18.00 79.60 2.40 17.70 [3]
179 Water hyacinth 1.90 87.30 10.80 14.81 [8]
180 Western hemlock 15.20 84.80 2.20 20.05 [15]
181 White fir 16.58 83.17 0.25 19.95 [8]
E. Other waste materials
182 Alabama oak wood waste 21.90 74.70 3.30 19.23 [8]
183 Bamboo dust 9.30 74.20 16.50 15.89 [8]
184 Bamboo stick waste 47.70 12.70 39.60 17.66 [8]
185 Broad bean husk 8.68 85.44 5.88 16.07 [18]
186 Caster seed cake 25.20 67.90 6.90 21.01 [8]
187 Coffee husk 19.10 78.50 2.40 19.80 [12]
188 Cotton gin trash 15.10 67.30 17.60 16.42 [8]
189 Cotton gin waste 14.97 83.41 1.61 17.48 [8]
190 Cotton residue 20.59 72.80 6.61 16.90 [12]
191 Eucalyptus saw dust 16.20 83.60 0.20 18.50 [8]
192 Fly ash (bagasse fuel) 19.80 8.10 72.10 8.39 [8]
193 I pil I pil 17.70 79.90 2.40 20.22 [12]
194 Industrial waste (stalla) 20.10 75.10 4.80 18.93 [8]
195 Marrabu 17.20 81.30 1.50 20.72 [12]
196 Millet grain waste 14.50 77.10 8.40 15.21 [14]
197 Municipal solid waste moradabad 4.00 35.70 60.30 7.18 [8]
198 Municipality solid waste bareilly 5.00 25.00 70.00 5.63 [8]
199 Oil palm fruit bunch 16.46 78.20 4.53 16.96 [12]
200 Olive cake 34.60 62.10 2.80 21.60 [12]
201 Olive husk 26.10 70.30 3.60 19.00 [3]
202 Olive kernel 32.80 63.90 1.70 22.40 [12]
203 Olive kernel 1 24.25 73.62 2.13 19.90 [12]
204 Olive kernel shell 36.10 60.50 3.30 21.40 [12]
205 Olive pits 16.28 82.00 1.72 21.59 [12]
206 Palm kernels 17.59 77.28 5.14 20.71 [12]
207 Poultry pure waste 25.90 14.30 59.80 11.71 [8]
208 RDF 17.60 72.00 10.40 19.50 [14]
209 RDF 14.31 81.22 4.48 18.19 [19]
210 Rice hulls 15.80 63.60 20.60 14.89 [15]
211 Rice husk 16.95 61.81 21.24 14.69 [14]
212 Rice husk 16.30 61.20 22.50 16.47 [12]
213 Sal seed husk 28.06 62.54 9.40 20.60 [8]

(continued on next page)

60 D.R. Nhuchhen, P. Abdul Salam / Fuel 99 (2012) 55–63

Table 3 (continued)

Sl. no. Biomass materials Proximate analysis (% by wt. dry basis) Measured HHV (MJ/kg) Sources
FC VM ASH M
214 Saw dust 25.00 72.40 2.60 20.93 [8]
215 Saw dust + mustard 11.90 55.40 32.70 13.73 [8]
216 Sludge C1 8.61 53.01 38.38 13.92 [24]
217 Sludge C2 6.73 51.24 42.03 13.18 [24]
218 Sludge C3 6.99 49.98 43.03 12.56 [24]
219 Sludge C4 4.05 47.58 48.37 11.02 [24]
220 Sludge C5 5.96 42.25 51.79 10.14 [24]
221 Sludge H1 5.14 55.47 39.39 13.34 [24]
222 Sludge H2 6.84 52.57 40.60 12.77 [24]
223 Sludge H3 6.47 47.68 45.86 12.39 [24]
224 Sludge H4 3.86 50.42 45.72 11.14 [24]
225 Sludge sample 1 9.80 60.70 29.50 16.60 [20]
226 Sludge sample 2 11.50 72.50 16.00 20.90 [20]
227 Sludge sample 3 12.80 60.60 26.60 17.10 [20]
228 Sludge sample 4 9.70 59.30 31.00 16.80 [20]
229 Sludge sample 5 10.70 58.50 30.80 16.60 [20]
230 Sludge sample 6 5.90 50.80 43.30 13.30 [20]
231 Sludge sample 7 2.40 60.70 36.90 16.60 [20]
232 Sugar cane leaves 14.90 77.40 7.70 17.41 [8]
233 Sugarcane 14.95 73.78 11.27 17.33 [15]
234 Tannery waste 1.00 45.00 54.00 7.69 [8]
235 Tea waste 13.60 85.00 1.40 17.10 [8]
236 Vegetable food waste 16.35 78.77 4.88 19.23 [8]
237 Waste material 16.80 78.70 3.70 17.10 [3]
F. Briquettes/charcoals/pellets
238 Alfalfa pellet 14.77 74.35 9.96 17.84 [25]
239 Algae pellet 17.61 76.01 6.37 18.82 [25]
240 Charcoal 68.10 23.00 2.70 21.63 [21]
241 Charcoal 61.80 29.59 3.96 23.46 [22]
242 Cotton shells briquettes 17.10 77.80 5.10 19.06 [8]
243 Field grass pellet 17.29 75.30 7.40 18.93 [25]
244 Hemp pellet 17.71 74.89 7.40 20.17 [25]
245 Miscanthus pellet 17.40 80.21 2.37 19.00 [25]
246 Municipality waste pellet 10.68 77.38 11.90 17.32 [25]
247 Peanut shell pellet 21.77 74.41 3.82 20.15 [25]
248 Pine pellet 17.70 81.96 0.33 20.54 [25]
249 Lantana briquettes 11.90 20.80 67.30 7.69 [8]
250 Press mud briquettes 8.60 54.70 36.70 11.97 [8]

!,
X
N The constants of coefficient of the terms VM/FC, FC/ASH, and
Average bias error ðABEÞ ¼ ðei =Mi Þ  100% N ð3Þ ASH/VM are found 0.2135, 0.0234, and 1.9584, respectively.
i¼1
This indicates that FC/ASH has the least positive effect whereas
where i and N refer to specific sample of a biomass, and total num- ASH/VM has the highest negative effect on the heating value of bio-
ber of samples, respectively. mass fuels. The effect of FC/ASH is quite small as compared to the
The lower value of AAE indicates the less error in prediction and effect of VM/FC and ASH/VM. Therefore, the term, FC/ASH is omit-
closed to measured data whereas the more positive value of ABE ted for the further analysis of linear correlation at higher order to
represents overestimation and more negative is an indication of develop non-linear relations with minimum estimation errors.
underestimation as compared to the measured values. Therefore, The directly proportionate relation of volatile matter and fixed
the correlation with less AAE and ABE closed to zero is considered carbon content with higher heating value is found in different liter-
as the best one. Similarly, the mean absolute error gives the atures [3,7–9]. The indirect relationship of heating values with ash
amount of error in MJ/kg. The correlation with lower MAE helps content of fuel is presented in few studies [2,8,9,13]. It is reported
to estimate HHV precisely. that only ash content has indirect relationship with heating values
except in Cordero et al. [7]. Present study shows the negative effect
3. Results and discussion of combined volatile and fixed carbon content in the ratio form. Po-
sitive effect of ratio FC/ASH was observed in the developed correla-
Data of various proximate analysis and higher heating values of tion which can be explained by the dominant nature of high positive
biomass materials have been obtained from different published lit- effect of fixed carbon over diluting behavior of mineral (ash) content
eratures. The set of data used has values of FC, VM, and ASH ranges of fuels. In addition to this, the most significant negative effect of
from 1.00 to 68.10%, 8.10–91.98%, and 0.10–77.70%, respectively, ASH/VM is the result of diluting effect of ASH at numerator as well
by dry weight basis. The actual higher heating values of biomass as the term VM at denominator with positive effect.
materials considered for the analysis varies from 5.63 to Present study also investigated non-linear effects of the major
23.46 MJ/kg. As discussed in Section 2, the constant terms are ratios from the developed linear correlation to minimize errors in
determined for all 20 proposed correlations and the results are tab- the estimated values. As FC/ASH has the least negligible effect than
ulated in Table 4. The best selected linear correlation (SN. 17) has other two ratios, the non-linear correlation is developed by using
MAE, AAE, and ABE of 1.39 MJ/kg, 9.43%, and 1.68%, respectively. VM/FC and ASH/VM to show the non-linear effects on HHVs of
 D.R. Nhuchhen, P. Abdul Salam / Fuel 99 (2012) 55–63 61

Table 4
Correlations developed in this study.

Sl. no. Correlations MAE (MJ/kg) AAE (%) ABE (%) LSSEa
1 HHV = 17.9242  0.0581FC/VM 2.05 14.66 4.53 2113
2 HHV = 19.0794  0.2137VM/FC 1.88 13.51 4.10 1868
3 HHV = 17.5073 + 0.0071VM/ASH 1.96 13.97 4.26 1951
4 HHV = 18.4281  2.0052ASH/VM 1.69 11.56 2.29 1307
5 HHV = 18.4492  0.4275ASH/FC 1.64 11.47 2.59 1330
6 HHV = 17.4325 + 0.0373FC/ASH 1.90 13.66 4.18 1893
7 HHV = 19.5037  1.0111FC/VM  0.2392VM/FC 1.87 13.37 3.98 1836
8 HHV = 18.1205 + 0.0052VM/ASH  1.9191ASH/VM 1.62 11.02 2.19 1227
9 HHV = 18.0662 + 0.0276FC/ASH  0.4031ASH/FC 1.53 10.74 2.44 1212
10 HHV = 17.4753 + 0.1084FC/VM + 0.0071VM/ASH 1.96 13.97 4.26 1951
11 HHV = 18.1429 + 0.0050VM/ASH  0.4082ASH/FC 1.57 10.97 2.49 1251
12 HHV = 18.5540  0.4295ASH/FC  0.3633FC/VM 1.65 11.47 2.56 1325
13 HHV = 19.6930  0.2286VM/FC  2.0497ASH/VM 1.49 10.05 1.77 1027
14 HHV = 18.0412  1.8988ASH/VM + 0.0282FC/ASH 1.58 10.77 2.14 1184
15 HHV = 18.5435 + 0.0333FC/ASH  0.1932VM/FC 1.76 12.71 3.82 1696
16 HHV = 18.2145  0.2341FC/VM + 0.0049VM/ASH  0.4098ASH/FC 1.58 10.98 2.47 1249
17 HHV = 19.2880  0.2135VM/FC  1.9584ASH/VM + 0.0234FC/ASH 1.39 9.43 1.68 943
18 HHV = 17.4842 + 0.0061(FC + VM)/ASH 1.95 13.91 4.24 1938
19 HHV = 18.5837  1.2499(FC + ASH)/VM 1.84 12.34 3.05 1608
20 HHV = 19.1743  0.1876(ASH + VM)/FC 1.73 12.39 3.30 1554
a
LSSE = Least Sum Square Error.

Table 5
Non-linear effect on the selected linear correlation.

Sl. no. Developed correlations (linear to non-linear effect) MAE (MJ/ AAE ABE LSSE
kg) (%) (%)
1 HHV = 19.2880  0.2135VM/FC  1.9584ASH/VM + 0.0234FC/ASH 1.39 9.43 1.68 943
2 HHV = 20.7623  0.4400VM/FC + 0.0071(VM/FC)2  5.2902ASH/VM + 0.4421(ASH/VM)2 + 0.0143FC/ASH 1.09 6.67 1.00 580
3 HHV = 20.7106  0.3285VM/FC + 0.0053(VM/FC)2  9.6570ASH/VM + 2.6491(ASH/VM)2  0.1967(ASH/ 0.98 6.05 0.82 455
VM)3 + 0.0091FC/ASH
4 HHV = 20.7999  0.3214VM/FC + 0.0051(VM/FC)2  11.2277ASH/VM + 4.4953(ASH/VM)2  0.7223(ASH/ 0.96 5.88 0.80 440
VM)3 + 0.0383(ASH/VM)4 + 0.0076FC/ASH

Table 6
Validation of developed correlations using experimentally determined data.

Biomass materials Proximate analysis (% dry weight Measured HHV (MJ/kg) Linear correlation Non-linear correlation
basis)
FC VM ASH M Estimated HHV % Difference error (%) Estimated HHV % Difference error (%)
(MJ/kg) EL ((EL  M)/M)100 (MJ/kg) ENL ((ENL  M)/M)100
Grasses 1 16.51 71.98 11.51 15.39 18.27 19 17.82 16
Grasses 2 18.00 71.53 10.47 16.16 18.37 14 18.07 12
Fresh leaves 1 13.51 74.67 11.82 15.19 18.04 19 17.52 15
Fresh leaves 2 49.56 44.44 6.00 17.78 19.12 8 19.14 8
Fresh wood 1 21.40 77.05 1.55 15.40 18.90 23 19.59 27
Fresh wood 2 16.92 81.92 1.16 18.32 18.69 2 19.32 5
Dry leaves 1 19.02 75.25 5.73 20.78 18.53 11 18.80 9
Dry leaves 2 16.43 76.43 7.14 18.13 18.34 1 18.42 2
Dry wood 1 18.21 77.94 3.86 17.48 18.54 6 19.01 9
Dry wood 2 17.87 79.58 2.55 16.41 18.58 13 19.17 17

biomass. The results obtained are presented in Table 5 with its materials with different characteristics. The validated results are
decreasing values of the least sum square error (LSSE) in the higher presented in Table 6 with its percentage error. The non-linear cor-
order correlations. The second degree effect of VM/FC is quite small relation estimates with lower percentage errors than the linear.
while ASH/VM has still significant effect. Therefore, the term VM/ However, the percentage error gap is found lower in the linear
FC is omitted while analyzing the effect of third and forth degree correlation.
of the term ASH/VM. As the effect of fourth power of ASH/VM is
less significant, the further higher degree analysis of ASH/VM is
3.2. Comparative study with published correlations
terminated. The LSSE is reduced to 440 from 943 units upon taking
consideration of non-linear effects.
The validation of correlations is further carried out with other
published correlations by using same experimentally determined
3.1. Validation of selected correlations data to observe the trustworthiness of estimated HHVs. The detail
results are presented in Table 7 which shows that the proposed lin-
The validations were carried out for the selected linear and non- ear correlation has lower errors level among other published corre-
linear correlations to ensure compatibility with other biomass lations except Sheng and Azevedo [9]. Percentage error gap is also
62 D.R. Nhuchhen, P. Abdul Salam / Fuel 99 (2012) 55–63

Table 7
Comparative study with other published correlations.

Correlations Sources MAE AAE ABE Percentage difference

(MJ/kg) (%) (%) error (%)
Lower Upper Gap
limit limit
HHV = 19.2880  0.2135VM/FC  1.9584ASH/VM + 0.0234FC/ASH Present study 1.88 11.47 9.30 11 23 34
(Linear)
HHV = 20.7999  0.3214VM/FC + 0.0051(VM/FC)2  11.2277ASH/VM + 4.4953(ASH/ Present study 1.98 11.99 10.09 9 27 36
VM)2  0.7223(ASH/VM)3 + 0.0383(ASH/VM)4 + 0.0076FC/ASH (Non-linear)
HHV = 0.196FC + 14.119 [3] 2.00 11.72 7.06 14 34 48
HHV = 0.3543FC + 0.1708VM [7] 2.96 17.80 16.66 6 41 47
HHV = 0.3536FC + 0.1559VM  0.0078ASH [8] 2.14 12.63 9.85 11 37 48
HHV = 19.914  0.2324ASH [9] 1.81 10.94 8.82 11 27 38

28 It has MAE, AAE, and ABE of 1.39 MJ/kg, 9.43% and 1.68%,
Estimated higher heating values

26 respectively.
24
b. The non-linear correlation is:
22
(MJ/kg)

20
18
HHV ¼ 20:7999  0:3214  VM=FC þ 0:0051  ðVM=FCÞ2
16  11:2277  ASH=VM þ 4:4953  ðASH=VMÞ2
14
Linear Non-linear [9]  0:7223  ðASH=VMÞ3 þ 0:0383  ðASH=VMÞ4
12 [3] [7] [8] þ 0:0076  FC=ASH ð5Þ
10
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 The error values MAE, AAE, and ABE are 0.96 MJ/kg, 5.88%, and
Measured higher heating values (MJ/kg) 0.80%, respectively.
The developed correlations are validated and then compared
Fig. 1. Validation and comparative study of correlations developed. with published correlations by using experimentally determined
data. The proposed linear correlation has better ABE compared
with the published correlations such as Demirbas [3] and Cordero
et al. [7] (refer Table 1) whereas ABE is higher as compared to
found minimum in the same proposed linear correlation. The pro- Jimennez and Gonzales [6], Parikh et al. [8] and Sheng and Azevedo
posed non-linear correlation has also lower estimation errors with [9]. However, AAE is found higher than existing correlations. The
that of the most of compared correlations. Fig. 1 compares esti- non-linear correlation minimizes the values of ABE, AAE and
mated and measured HHVs for six correlations including both lin- MAE as compared to the linear correlation. The estimation errors
ear and non-linear correlations developed in this study. The of the non-linear correlation are quite similar to the published cor-
correlations by Demirbas [3], Cordero et al. [7] and Parikh et al. relations. Therefore, the non-linear effect is very important while
[8] with the term FC over estimate the HHV as compared to corre- new correlations are developed. Comparative studies establish a
lations proposed in this study because of the high fixed carbon con- wider suitability of estimating HHVs through the developed corre-
tent. This indicates that the correlations proposed in this study are lations based on ratios of constituents from proximate analysis.
applicable for wider range of fixed carbon content of biomass un-
like other published correlations. Percentage difference errors
were also analyzed which showed that the correlations proposed Acknowledgment
in this study have lesser percentage errors than others (Table 7).
One of the authors, Mr. Daya Ram Nhuchhen, would like to
4. Conclusions acknowledge the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway, for providing
scholarship to study at the Asian Institute of Technology.
Experimental procedure of determining the higher heating val-
ues of any fuels in laboratory is time consuming and expensive.
References
The derivation of various correlations helps to ease such difficul-
ties. Therefore, a new approach for developing correlations by [1] Energy Information Administration. International Energy Outlook 2010.
using the ratios of non-volatile, volatile, and non-organic constitu- National Energy Information Center, US Energy Information Administration,
ents of proximate analysis from biomass materials is presented. Washington, DC, <http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484%282010%29.pdf>;
2010 [retrieved 17.09.10].
New correlations have been developed by the principle of minimiz- [2] Majumder AK, Jain R, Banerjee P, Barnwal JP. Development of a new proximate
ing sum square error using 250 data. This study proposes the fol- analysis based correlation to predict calorific value of coal. Fuel
lowing linear and non-linear correlations for estimating HHVs of 2008;87:3077–81.
[3] Demirbas A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels. Fuel
biomass: 1996;76:431–4.
[4] Lyons GJ, Lunny F, Pollocks HP. A procedure for estimating the value of forest
a. The linear correlation is: fuels. Biomass 1985;8:283–300.
[5] Basu P. Biomass gasification and pyrolysis: practical design and theory. United
States: Elsevier Academic Press; 2010.
HHV ¼ 19:2880  0:2135  VM=FC þ 0:0234  FC=ASH [6] Jimennez L, Gonzales F. Study of the physical and chemical properties of
lignocellulosic residues with a view to the production of fuels. Fuel
 1:9584  ASH=VM ð4Þ 1991;70:947–50.
 D.R. Nhuchhen, P. Abdul Salam / Fuel 99 (2012) 55–63 63

[7] Cordero T, Marquez F, Mirasol JR, Rodriguez JJ. Predicting heating values of [18] Kucukbayrak S, Durus B, Mericboyu AE, Kadioglu E. Estimation of calorific
lignocellulosics and carbonaceous materials from proximate analysis. Fuel values of Turkish lignites. Fuel 1991;70:979–81.
2001;80:1567–71. [19] Sompop J. Equilibrium models, thermodynamic analyses and experimental
[8] Parikh J, Channiwala SA, Ghosal GK. A correlation for calculating HHV from investigation of multistage air–steam down draft gasifier. Doctoral
proximate analysis of solid fuels. Fuel 2005;84:487–94. dissertation no. ET-08-04. Thailand: Asian Institute of Technology; 2008.
[9] Sheng C, Azevedo JLT. Estimating the higher heating value of biomass fuels [20] Thipkhunthod P, Meeyoo V, Rangsunvigit P, Kitiyanan B, Siemanond K,
from basic analysis data. Biomass Bioenergy 2005;28:499–507. Rirksomboon T. Predicting the heating values of sewage sludge in Thailand
[10] Patel SU, Kumar BJ, Badhe YP, Sharma BK, Saha S, Biswas S, et al. Estimation of from proximate and ultimate analyses. Fuel 2005;84:849–57.
gross calorific value of coals using artificial neural networks. Fuel [21] Salam PA. A comparative study of hydrodynamics and gasification
2007;87:334–44. performance of two type of spouted bed reactor designs. Doctoral
[11] Ahmaruzzaman M. Proximate analyses and predicting HHV of chars obtained dissertation no. ET-05-01. Thailand: Asian Institute of Technology; 2005.
from co-cracking of petroleum vacuum residue with coal, plastics and [22] Jakkapong U. An investigation of air steam multistage gasifier engine system.
biomass. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:5043–50. Master thesis study no. ET-08-07. Thailand: Asian Institute of Technology;
[12] Yin CY. Prediction of higher heating values of biomass from proximate and 2008.
ultimate analyses. Fuel 2011;90:1128–32. [23] Benson S, Laumb M. Chemical and heat value characterization of perennial
[13] Akkaya AV. Proximate analysis based multiple regression models for higher herbaceous biomass mixtures. Analysis report. Grand Forks, North Dakota:
heating value estimation of low rank coals. Fuel Process Technol Microbeam Technologies, Inc.; 2010.
2009;90:165–70. [24] Thipkhunthod P, Meeyoo V, Rangsunvigit P, Kitiyanan B, Seimanond K,
[14] Channiwala SA, Parikh PP. A unified correlation for estimating HHV of solid, Rirksomboon T. Sewage sludge heating value prediction through proximate
liquid and gaseous fuels. Fuel 2002;81:1051–63. and ultimate analyses. Asian J Energy Environ 2006;7:324–35.
[15] Gaur S, Reed T. Thermal data for natural and synthetic fuels. Biomass energy [25] Roesch H, Dascomb J, Greska B, Krothapalli A. Prediction of producer gas
foundation. Woodgas: proximate and ultimate analysis; 1998. <http:// composition for small scale commercial downdraft gasifiers. Energy and
www.woodgas.com/biomass.htm> [retrieved 15.02.11]. Sustainability Center, Florida State University. <http://esc.fsu.edu/documents/
[16] Wickramasinghe TA. A multistage gasifier engine system. Master thesis study Hans_Publication.pdf> [retrieved 08.03.12].
no. ET-01-24. Thailand: Asian Institute of Technology; 2008.
[17] Hla SS. A study of biomass gasifier engine system. Master thesis study no. ET-
99-18. Thailand: Asian Institute of Technology; 1999.