JFUE 3403 No.

of Pages 10, Model 5+

ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 February 2007 Disk Used

Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

www.fuelfirst.com

2 A correlation for calculating elemental composition from

3 proximate analysis of biomass materials

F
a,*
4 Jigisha Parikh , S.A. Channiwala b, G.K. Ghosal c

OO
5 a
Chemical Engineering Department, Sarvajanik College of Engineering and Technology, Surat 395 001, India
6 b
Mechanical Engineering Department, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat 395 007, India
7 c
Petroleum Refining and Petrochemical Technology Department, Laxminarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India
8 Received 8 December 2006; accepted 23 December 2006
9

PR
10 Abstract

11 Elemental composition of biomass is an important property, which defines the energy content and determines the clean and efficient
ED
12 use of the biomass materials. However, the ultimate analysis requires very expensive equipments and highly trained analysts. The prox-
13 imate analysis on the other hand only requires standard laboratory equipments and can be run by any competent scientist or engineer.
14 This work introduces a general correlation, based on proximate analysis of biomass materials, to calculate elemental composition,
15 derived using 200 data points and validated further for additional 50 data points. The entire spectrum of solid lignocellulosic materials
16 have been considered in the derivation of the present correlation, which is given as: C = 0.637FC + 0.455VM, H = 0.052FC + 0.062VM,
CT

17 O = 0.304FC + 0.476VM, where FC – 4.7–38.4% fixed carbon, VM – 57.2–90.6% volatile matter, C – 36.2–53.1% carbon, H – 4.36–8.3%
18 hydrogen and O – 31.37–49.5% oxygen in wt% on a dry basis. The average absolute error of these correlations are 3.21%, 4.79%, 3.4%
19 and bias error of 0.21%, 0.15% and 0.49% with respect to measured values C, H and O, respectively. The major advantage of these
20 correlations is their capability to compute elemental components of biomass materials from the simple proximate analysis and thereby
21 provides a useful tool for the modeling of combustion, gasification and pyrolysis processes.
E

22 Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

RR

23 Keywords: Biomass materials; Proximate analysis; Ultimate analysis

24

25 1. Introduction average absolute error of 1.45% and average bias error of 37

CO

0%. This generalized correlation, while being extremely 38

26 The field of thermo chemistry is one of the foundation useful in performance modeling of thermal systems, suffers 39
27 stones of our modern energy dependant society. The prox- from the drawback that it needs an elemental analysis as an 40
28 imate and ultimate analysis of biomass and coal are neces- input data, which needs expensive equipment and highly 41
29 sary for their efficient and clean utilization, while the HHV skilled analysts [2–4]. Considering this, another correlation 42
UN

30 of these materials determine the quantitative energy con- was developed for predicting higher heating value (HHV) 43
31 tent of these fuels. There exists a variety of correlations of solid fuels from the proximate analysis, which is much 44
32 for predicting HHV from ultimate analysis of fuel [1]. easier to perform and needs only a balance, a furnace 45
33 One such correlation, presented in the earlier work by and moderately trained analysts [5]. This correlation has 46
34 Channiwala and Parikh [1], encompasses the complete been derived using 450 data points and additional 100 data 47
35 spectrum of fuel ranging from gaseous, liquid, solid and points used for its validation, and it offers predictions with 48
36 refuse derived fuels. This correlation offers predictions with average absolute error of 3.74% and average bias error of 49
0.12%. 50
*
Corresponding author. During this study, it was observed that despite the rap- 51
E-mail address: kamal_parikh@yahoo.com (J. Parikh). idly developing biomass the literature and many recent 52

0016-2361/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.029

Please cite this article in press as: Parikh J et al., A correlation for calculating elemental composition from ..., Fuel (2007),
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.029
 JFUE 3403 No. of Pages 10, Model 5+
ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 February 2007 Disk Used

2 J. Parikh et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

53 conferences on finding new ways of extracting energy out 2.2. Step 2 : Selection of suitable data 104
54 of coal and biomass, relatively few efforts have been
55 devoted to finding correlations between feedstock composi- Through the process of collection and generation of 105
56 tion and properties. Another important fact revealed from data, information on about 250 biomass materials was col- 106
57 the literature review is that no correlation is available, to lected. Out of these, 200 data points have been used for the 107
58 predict elemental composition from proximate analysis of purpose of the derivation of the correlation, while 50 were 108
59 biomass materials except the correlation given by Vakkilai- used for validation of the correlation. 109
60 nen [6] specifically for black liquor only. The characteriza- In order to develop a generalized correlation to the 110
61 tion of biomass is vital for establishment of its potential as extent possible, care was taken to include data points of 111
62 well as the efficient operation of an energy conversion sys- the widest range of proximate analysis and ultimate analy- 112

F
63 tem. The analysis as above focuses towards the need for sis. Table 1 presents the summary of few such data points 113
64 development of correlations to predict elemental composi- used for derivation and validation of the correlation. In 114

OO
65 tion from the proximate analysis of biomass materials. total, 250 data points comprising 28 data points of pits, 115
shells and seeds, 80 data points for bark, wood and energy 116
66 2. Derivation of the correlation of elemental composition crops, 45 data points for straws/stalks/cobs, 47 data points 117
67 with the proximate analysis for fibrous material/hull-husk/dust and 50 data points for 118
miscellaneous material like grass, leaves, waste etc. have 119

PR
68 The steps involved in the development and derivation of been used for derivation and validation of the correlation. 120
69 correlations are listed below: The spectrum of samples was so selected that it approx- 121
imately represents the relative proportions of their occur- 122
70 2.1. Step 1 : Collection and generation of data rence in nature and thus permits the derivation of a truly 123
useful correlation. 124
71 To obtain the correlation, proximate and ultimate anal- The range of data points considered for correlation 125
ED
72 ysis data pertaining to different biomass-forest and agricul- between ultimate and proximate analysis includes the car- 126
73 tural wastes – have been used, so as to cover a wide range bon content between 36.2% and 53.1%, hydrogen content 127
74 of different values of fixed carbon, volatile matter, ash con- 4.36–8.3%, oxygen content 31.37–49.5%, volatile matter 128
75 tent as well as carbon, hydrogen and oxygen contents. content 57.2–90.6% and fixed carbon content 4.7–38.4% 129
(wt% on dry basis). 130
CT

76 2.1.1. Collection of data

77 Data pertaining to a large number of biomass materials 2.3. Step 3: Selection of suitable forms of correlations 131
78 like pits, shells, seeds, cobs, energy crops, fuel wood, bark,
79 straws, stalks, hull-husk, fibrous material etc., were col- The proximate analysis on a dry basis gives volatile mat- 132
E

80 lected from the published the literature. ter, ash and fixed carbon content whereas the ultimate 133
analysis shows carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc., in the ele- 134
RR

81 2.1.2. Generation of data mental composition. The fixed carbon indicates the extent 135
82 Since there are no standard sampling procedures speci- of non-volatile organic matter in the sample, which may 136
83 fied for biomass materials, the samples were collected with also contain oxygen along with hydrogen. The volatile 137
84 due care to get the most representative samples. The prep- matter content reflects extent of the volatile organic matter 138
85 aration of samples was carried out in accordance with in the sample. Considering both types of analysis i.e., ulti- 139
CO

86 ASTM D 2013-86 [7]. The procedure requires samples to mate and proximate, which indicate the presence of car- 140
87 be in powder form of up to 250 lm grain size. The proxi- bon, hydrogen, oxygen etc., in different forms, it is 141
88 mate analysis of samples were carried out in accordance logical to assume a relation between the results of these 142
89 with ASTM D 3172-73(84) [8] standard. The moisture con- two analyses. 143
90 tent in test samples was determined according to ASTM D In view of the above, it can be said that elemental car- 144
UN

91 3173-87 [9] method in a Sartorious infrared moisture meter. bon, hydrogen and oxygen are proportional to the fixed 145
92 The volatile matter contents in the test samples were deter- carbon and volatile matter content of the material. Hence, 146
93 mined according to ASTM D 3175-89 [10] modified it is assumed that carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are inde- 147
94 method for sparking fuels. For coconut shell, fiber, pith pendently a function of fixed carbon (FC, wt%) and vola- 148
95 and bagasse, ash fusion was observed at 950 °C and hence tile matter (VM, wt%). Table 2 presents the different 149
96 these samples were analyzed for volatile matter contents forms of algebraic expressions with criteria for their selec- 150
97 only up to 750 °C. Determination of the ash content in tion. An exhaustive computer algorithm has been devel- 151
98 the test samples was carried out according to ASTM D oped based on a generalized method of least squares to 152
99 3174-89 [11] method in the electric muffle furnace. The evaluate the constants of these assumed algebraic expres- 153
100 fixed carbon content of the test samples was calculated sions. It is worth noting that the algorithm is capable of 154
101 by difference. The ultimate analysis of these samples was incorporating any number of variables and data points. 155
102 carried out according to ASTM Standard D 3176 to 79– Using this algorithm and 200 data points, the constants 156
103 84 [12–14]. of these algebraic expressions were evaluated. 157

Please cite this article in press as: Parikh J et al., A correlation for calculating elemental composition from ..., Fuel (2007),
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.029
 Table 1

22 February 2007 Disk Used

JFUE 3403
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.029
Please cite this article in press as: Parikh J et al., A correlation for calculating elemental composition from ..., Fuel (2007),

Summary of few salient data used for derivation and validation of correlations
Serial no. Raw material Proximate analysis Ultimate analysis (wt% by dry basis) References
(wt% by dry basis) Carbon (%) Hydrogen (%) Oxygen (%)
FC VM ASH Measured Calculated Error Measured Calculated Error Measured Calculated Error
1 Olive pit 21.2 75.6 3.2 48.81 47.90 1.86% 6.23 5.79 7.07% 43.48 42.43 2.41% [15]
2 Peach pit 19.8 79.1 1.1 49.14 48.60 1.09% 6.34 5.93 6.41% 43.52 43.67 0.35% [16]
3
4
5
Coconut shell
Akhrot shell
Pistachio shellUN 22.1
18.78
16.84
77.19
79.98
82.03
0.71
1.2
1.13
50.22
49.81
48.79
49.20
48.35
48.05
2.03%
2.92%
1.52%
5.7
5.64
5.91
5.93
5.94
5.96
4.12%
5.24%
0.87%
42.56
42.94
43.41
43.46
43.78
44.17
2.12%
1.96%
1.74%
[17]
[17]
[18]

CO
6 Groundnut shell 19.48 73.72 6.8 45.72 45.95 0.51% 5.96 5.58 6.32% 41.02 41.01 0.02% PS
7 Brazil nut shell 22.2 76.1 1.7 49.15 48.77 0.78% 5.7 5.87 3.03% 42.8 42.97 0.40% [19]
8 Castor seed shell 20 72 8 44.25 45.50 2.82% 5.64 5.50 2.41% 41.94 40.35 3.79% [20]
9 Loblolly pine 33.9 65.7 0.4 56.3 51.49 8.55% 5.6 5.84 4.22% 37.7 41.58 10.29% [21]

RR
10 Douglas fir bark 32.79 65.46 1.75 53.1 50.67 4.57% 6.1 5.76 5.51% 40.6 41.13 1.30% [22]
11 Wood bark 31.8 66.6 1.6 53.1 50.56 4.78% 6.1 5.78 5.20% 40.6 41.37 1.89% [23]
12 Wood chips 23.5 76.4 0.1 48.1 49.73 3.39% 5.99 5.96 0.52% 45.74 43.51 4.87% [15]
13 Canyon live oak 11.3 88.2 0.5 47.84 47.33 1.07% 5.8 6.06 4.41% 45.76 45.42 0.75% [16]

J. Parikh et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

EC
14 Madrone 15.1 84.5 0.3 48.56 48.07 1.02% 6.05 6.02 0.43% 45.08 44.81 0.59% [16]

ARTICLE IN PRESS
15 Beech wood 24.6 74 0.4 49.5 49.34 0.32% 6.2 5.87 5.37% 41.2 42.70 3.65% [23]
16 Mango wood 11.36 85.64 2.98 46.24 46.20 0.08% 6.08 5.90 2.95% 44.42 44.22 0.45% [17]
17 Eucalyptus 16.15 82.62 1.23 47.1 47.88 1.66% 6.00 5.96 0.63% 45.43 44.24 2.63% PS
18
19
20
Subabul wood
Casuarina
Sudan grass
18.52
19.58
18.6
81.02
78.58
72.75
1.2
1.83
8.65
48.15
48.5
44.58
48.66
48.23
44.95 TE
1.06%
0.56%
0.83%
5.87
6.04
5.35
5.99
5.89
5.48
1.98%
2.48%
2.39%
44.75
43.32
39.18
44.20
43.36
40.28
1.24%
0.08%
2.82%
[17]
[17]
[18]

D
21 Babul 19.00 79.28 1.72 45.39 48.18 6.14% 6.12 5.90 3.54% 46.44 43.51 6.30% PS
22 Red wood 19.92 79.72 0.36 50.64 48.96 3.31% 5.98 5.98 0.03% 42.88 44.00 2.62% [18]
23 Spruce wood 28.3 70.2 1.5 51.9 49.97 3.72% 6.1 5.82 4.52% 40.9 42.02 2.73% [23]

PR
24 Peltophorum 15.82 82.45 1.73 45.99 47.59 3.48% 6.09 5.93 2.55% 45.88 44.06 3.98% PS
25 Orchard 14.6 83.3 2.1 49.15 47.20 3.96% 5.95 5.92 0.44% 43.24 44.09 1.96% [16]
26 Poplar 16.35 82.32 1.33 48.45 47.87 1.20% 5.85 5.95 1.78% 43.69 44.15 1.06% [18]
27 Blockwood 14.59 83.32 2.09 46.9 47.20 0.65% 6.07 5.92 2.40% 43.99 44.10 0.24% [17]
28
29
30
31
Corncob
Straw
Alfalfa seed straw
Wheat straw
18.54
18.3
20.15
23.5
80.1
77.3
72.6
63
1.36
3.4
7.25
13.5
46.58
47.1
46.76
45.5
48.26
46.83
45.87
43.63
3.60%
0.58%
1.91%
4.10%
5.87
6
5.4
5.1
5.93
5.74
5.55
5.13
1.03%
4.26%
2.76%
0.55%
OO45.46
43.3
40.72
34.1
43.76
42.36
40.68
37.13
3.73%
2.18%
0.09%
8.89%
[18]
[24]
[18]
[23]

F
32 Barley straw  1 13.29 82.41 4.3 45.47 45.96 1.08% 5.61 5.80 3.40% 44.57 43.27 2.92% [25]
33 Rye straw-kustro 15.01 83.02 1.97 46.63 47.34 1.51% 5.62 5.93 5.48% 45.85 44.08 3.86% [26]
34 Paddy straw 11.8 72.7 15.5 35.97 40.60 12.86% 5.28 5.12 3.01% 43.08 38.19 11.35% [20]
35 Corn stover 14.5 78.1 7.4 46.5 44.77 3.72% 5.81 5.60 3.68% 39.67 41.58 4.82% [27]
36 Cotton stalk 19.9 62.9 17.2 39.47 41.30 4.63% 5.07 4.93 2.67% 38.09 35.99 5.51% [15]

No. of Pages 10, Model 5+

37 Sugarcane bagasse 14.95 73.78 11.27 44.8 43.09 3.81% 5.35 5.35 0.03% 39.55 39.66 0.29% [18]
38 Coconut coir 29.7 66.58 3.72 50.29 49.21 2.14% 5.05 5.67 12.32% 39.63 40.72 2.75% [18]
39 Coconut fibre 26.6 70.6 2.8 46.43 49.07 5.68% 5.49 5.76 4.93% 43.78 41.69 4.77% [20]
40 Pine needles 26.12 72.38 1.5 48.21 49.57 2.82% 6.57 5.85 11.02% 43.72 42.39 3.03% [28]
41 Peanut hulls 21.09 73.02 5.89 45.77 46.66 1.94% 5.46 5.62 3.00% 39.56 41.17 4.07% [18]
42 RH  CP 4 12.4 63 24.6 38.7 36.56 5.52% 4.7 4.55 3.17% 31.37 33.76 7.61% [29]
43 Rice husk-patni 14.9 69.3 15.8 38.92 41.02 5.40% 5.1 5.07 0.56% 37.89 37.52 0.99% [30]
44 Saw dust 15.00 82.70 2.30 47.50 47.18 0.67% 6.07 5.91 2.68% 43.88 43.93 0.10% PS
(continued on next page)

3
 JFUE 3403 No. of Pages 10, Model 5+
ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 February 2007 Disk Used

4 J. Parikh et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

2.4. Step 4: Selection of the best correlation 158

References
To facilitate the selection of correlation, the average 159

[31]
[20]
[32]
[20]
[18]
[16]
absolute and bias errors for each of these correlations as 160
derived above were computed as follows: 161

2.22%
0.28%
0.27%
1.38%
0.67%
2.07%
Error Average Absolute Error
n  
1X  Calculated Value  Measured Value
¼ 100% ð1Þ
Calculated

n  Measured Value
i¼1
42.21
43.04
43.76
40.47
36.63
45.92
Average Bias Error

F
n  
1X Calculated Value  Measured Value
Oxygen (%)

¼ 100%
Measured

OO
n i¼1 Measured Value
43.16
43.88
41.04
36.38
44.99
41.3

ð2Þ 163
The correlation giving minimum error levels over 200 data 164
1.23%
4.13%
3.53%
5.44%
5.75%
1.09%

points was selected as the best one. 165

Error

PR
The following are the correlations which turned out to 166
be the best in this manner with an average absolute error 167
Calculated

of 3.21%, 4.79%, 3.4% and bias error of 0.21%, 0.15% 168

and 0.49% with respect to measured values of C, H and 169
5.77
5.88
5.89
5.57
4.96
6.10

O, respectively: 170
171
Hydrogen (%)

C ¼ 0:637FC þ 0:455VM ðwt%Þ ð3Þ

ED
Measured

H ¼ 0:052FC þ 0:062VM ðwt%Þ ð4Þ

5.69
6.13

5.89
5.26
6.03
5.7

O ¼ 0:304FC þ 0:476VM ðwt%Þ ð5Þ 173

Ultimate analysis (wt% by dry basis)

Covering the range of various contents as shown below: 174

3.15%

3.96%
2.15%

0.67%
1.64%
3.26%

CT
Error

57:2% 6 VM 6 90:6%
4:7% 6 FC 6 38:4%
Calculated

36:2% 6 C 6 53:1%
47.17
47.94
48.69

47.00
40.24
47.08

4:36% 6 H 6 8:3%
31:37% 6 O 6 49:5% 176
Carbon (%)

RR
Measured

where VM, FC, C, H and O represents volatile matter, 177

45.37
47.67

46.69
39.59
48.67

fixed carbon, elemental carbon, hydrogen and oxygen con- 178

49.5

tent of biomass material, respectively, expressed in mass 179

percentages on dry basis. 180
ASH

2.5

17.6
3.4
1.7

6.3

0.2
CO

From the data in Table 1, there is a good relation 181

(wt% by dry basis)
Proximate analysis

between the determined and the calculated elemental com- 182

82.1
74.7
76.5

69.7
67.3
90.6
VM

position and Eqs. (3)–(5) have given acceptable approxima- 183

tions to the measured values. 184
15.4
21.9
21.8

15.1
9.2
FC

24
UN

3. Validation of the correlation 185

Alabama oak wood waste

To confirm the validity of these equations, a variety of 186

various samples were examined. Table 1 shows the results 187
obtained, which demonstrate that the equations provide a 188
Cottongin trash
Coconut waste
Raw material

simple and rapid way to obtain good estimates of ele- 189

mental composition of various varieties of lignocellulosic 190
W-pallets
Tea bush

Tan oak

materials. 191
Table 1 (continued)

PS, present study.

Validation of the correlation developed under the pres- 192

ent work has been carried out by comparison of computed 193
Serial no.

and measured values of elemental analysis over 150 data 194

points. The measured and computed values of elemental 195
45
46
47
48
49
50

analysis of data have been presented graphically in Figs. 196

Please cite this article in press as: Parikh J et al., A correlation for calculating elemental composition from ..., Fuel (2007),
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.029
 22 February 2007 Disk Used
JFUE 3403
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.029
Please cite this article in press as: Parikh J et al., A correlation for calculating elemental composition from ..., Fuel (2007),

Table 2
List of algebraic equations tested for the development of correlation
Serial
no.
1
UN
Proposed equation

C = aFC + b(FC/VM) + cVM H = aFC + b(FC/VM) +cVM O = aFC + b(FC/VM) + cVM

Criteria for selection

Assuming elemental carbon C,

CO H, O is distributed in fixed
carbon and volatile matter
linearly and is also a function
of its ratio
2 C = aFC + bFC2 + c(FC * VM) + dVM
+eVM2
RRH = aFC + bFC2 + c(FC * VM) + dVM +eVM2 O = aFC + bFC2 + c(FC * VM) + dVM
+eVM2
Assuming elemental carbon C,
H, O to be polynomial
function of its fixed carbon

J. Parikh et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

EC
and volatile matter content

ARTICLE IN PRESS
3 C = a1FC + b1VM H = a1FC + b1VM O = a1FC + b1VM Assuming elemental carbon C,
H, O to be linear function of
its fixed carbon and volatile

TE
matter content
4 C = a1FC + b2VMC2 H = a1FC + b2VMC2 O = a1FC + b2VMC2 Assuming elemental carbon C,
H, O to be linear function of
its fixed carbon and nonlinear

C = a2FC + b3VMC3 H = a2FC + b3VMC3 D O = a2FC + b3VMC3

function of its volatile matter
content

PR
5 Assuming nonlinear effect of
volatile matter on elemental C,
H and O
6 C = a3FCd3 + b2VMC2 H = a3FCd3 + b2VMC2 O = a3FCd3 + b2VMC2 Assuming nonlinear effect of

OO
volatile matter and nonvolatile
matter on elemental C, H and
O
7 C = a4FCd4 + b1VM H = a4FCd4 + b1VM O = a4FCd4 + b1VM Assuming linear effect of

F
volatile matter and nonlinear
effect of nonvolatile matter on
elemental C, H and O
8 C = FC + bVM H = FC + bVM O = FC + bVM Assuming linear effect of
volatile matter and

No. of Pages 10, Model 5+

considering nonvolatile matter
as constant
C, wt% dry basis; H, wt% dry basis; O, wt% dry basis; FC, wt% dry basis; VM, wt% dry basis.

5
 JFUE 3403 No. of Pages 10, Model 5+
ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 February 2007 Disk Used

6 J. Parikh et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

Pit / Shell / Seeds Pit / Shell / Seeds

55 50
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line -- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. ABS ERROR = 3.23 % AV. ABS ERROR = 2.38 %
AV. BIAS ERROR = -1.37 % AV. BIAS ERROR = - 0.24 %
NO. OF DATA = 18 NO. OF DATA = 18

50 45

Predicted Value
Predicted Value

(O%)
(C%)

40
45

F
OO
35
40 35 40 45 50
40 45 50 55
Measured Value (O%)
Measured Value (C%)
Fig. 1c. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental oxygen
Fig. 1a. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental carbon (pit/shell/seed).

PR
(pit/shell/seed).

Pit / Shell /Seeds

7
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
Wood / Bark / Energy Crops / Pruning
55
AV. ABS ERROR = 6.83 % -- - - - - +/- 7 % Line
AV. BIAS ERROR = 3.05 %
ED
AV. ABS ERROR = 2.55 %
NO. OF DATA = 18 AV. BIAS ERROR = - 0.85 %
NO. OF DATA = 61
6
Predicted Value

50
Predicted Value

(C%)
(H%)

CT

5 45
E

40
4 40 45 50 55
RR

4 5 6 7 Measured Value (C%)

Measured Value (H%)
Fig. 2a. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental carbon
Fig. 1b. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental hydro- (wood/bark/energy crops/pruning).
gen (pit/shell/seed).
CO

197 1a–1c, 2a–2c, 3a–3c, 4a–4c, 5a–5c. Figs. 6a–6c present this Wood / Bark / Energy Crops / Pruning
198 comparison for a whole range of fuels. The error band of 7
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
199 ±7% has been also shown in these figures. The study of this AV. ABS ERROR = 2.66 %
200 comparison indicates that the average absolute errors for AV. BIAS ERROR = 0.28 %
UN

201 pit/shell/seeds, wood/bark/energy crops/pruning, straw/ NO. OF DATA = 61

Predicted Value

202 stalk, hull/husk/dust, miscellaneous material and whole

(H%)

203 range of biomass materials are 3.23%, 2.55%, 3.71%,

5.5
204 3.42%, 4.06% and 3.2%, respectively, for carbon content,
205 6.83%, 2.66%, 5.67%, 6.49%, 5.64% and 4.78%, respec-
206 tively, for hydrogen content and 2.38%, 2.39%, 4.47%,
207 4.06%, 4.89% and 3.4%, respectively, for oxygen content
208 while the average bias errors are 1.37%, 0.85%,
209 2.83%, 0.48%, 2.26% and 0.21%, respectively, for carbon 4
210 content, 3.05%, 0.28%, 0.43%, 1.78%, 2.26% and 4 5 6 7
211 0.17%, respectively, for hydrogen content and 0.24%, Measured Value (H%)
212 0.92%, 2.62%, 1.86%, 1.35% and 0.51%, respectively, Fig. 2b. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental hydro-
213 for oxygen content. gen (wood/bark/energy crops/pruning).

Please cite this article in press as: Parikh J et al., A correlation for calculating elemental composition from ..., Fuel (2007),
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.029
 JFUE 3403 No. of Pages 10, Model 5+
ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 February 2007 Disk Used

J. Parikh et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 7

Wood / Bark
Hull/ /Energy
Husk / Crops
Dust / Pruning Straw / Stalk
507 50
-- --
- ------ - +/-7+/-7
% % Line
Line -- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV.
AV. ABSABS ERROR
ERROR= =2.39 % %
6.49 AV. ABS ERROR = 4.47 %
AV.
AV. BIAS
BIAS ERROR
ERROR = =0.92
-1.78
% % AV. BIAS ERROR = -2.62 %
NO.
NO. OFOF DATA = =61 29
DATA 45 NO. OF POINTS = 23
Value

456
Value

Predicted Value
(O%)
Predicted

(O%)
(H%)

40
Predicted

405
35

F
OO
354 30
4 5 6 7 30 35 40 45 50
35 40 45 50
Measured Value (H%) Measured Value (O%)
Measured Value (O%)
Fig. 3c. Comparison between measured and calculated values oxygen
Fig. 2c. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental oxygen
(straw/stalk).

PR
(wood/bark/energy crops/pruning).

Straw / Stalk Hull / Husk / Dust

55 55
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. ABS ERROR = 3.71 %
AV. ABS ERROR = 3.42 %
AV. BIAS ERROR = 2.83 % AV. BIAS ERROR = -0.48 %
ED
50 NO. OF POINTS = 23 50 NO. OF DATA = 29
Predicted Value

Predicted Value
(C%)
(C%)

45 45
CT

40 40
E

35 35
35 40 45 50 55 35 40 45 50 55
Measured Value (C%)
RR

Measured Value (C%)

Fig. 4a. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental carbon
Fig. 3a. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental carbon
(hull/husk/dust).
(straw/stalk).
CO

Straw / Stalk
7 Hull / Husk / Dust
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. ABS ERROR = 5.67 %
7
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. BIAS ERROR = 0.43 % AV. ABS ERROR = 6.49 %
NO. OF POINTS = 23 AV. BIAS ERROR = -1.78 %
NO. OF DATA = 29
6
UN
Predicted Value

6
Predicted Value
(H%)

(H%)

5 5

4 4
4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7
Measured Value (H%) Measured Value (H%)

Fig. 3b. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental hydro- Fig. 4b. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental hydro-
gen (straw/stalk). gen (hull/husk/dust).

Please cite this article in press as: Parikh J et al., A correlation for calculating elemental composition from ..., Fuel (2007),
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.029
 JFUE 3403 No. of Pages 10, Model 5+
ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 February 2007 Disk Used

8 J. Parikh et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

Hull / Husk / Dust Miscellaneous

50 50
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line -- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. ABS ERROR = 4.06 % AV. ABS ERROR = 4.89 %
AV. BIAS ERROR = 1.86 % AV. BIAS ERROR = 1.35 %
NO. OF DATA = 29. NO. OF DATA = 25
45 45

Predicted Value
Predicted Value

(O%)
40
(O%)

40

35 35

F
OO
30 30
30 35 40 45 50 30 35 40 45 50
Measured Value (O%) Measured Value (O%)
Fig. 4c. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental oxygen Fig. 5c. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental oxygen
(hull/husk/dust). (miscellaneous).

PR
Miscellaneous
55 Whole Range
-- - - - - +/- 7 % Line 60
AV. ABS ERROR = 4.06 % -- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. BIAS ERROR = 2.26 %
AV. ABS ERROR = 3.20 %
55
ED
NO. OF DATA = 25 AV. BIAS ERROR = 0.20 %
50 NO. OF DATA = 156
Predicted Value
Predicted Value

50
(C%)
(C%)

45 45
CT

40
40
35
E

35 30
35 40 45 50 55 30 40 50 60
RR

Measured Value (C%) Measured Value (C%)

Fig. 5a. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental carbon Fig. 6a. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental carbon
(miscellaneous). (whole range of biomass materials).
CO

Miscellaneous Whole Range

7 8
-- - - - - +/- 7 % Line -- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. ABS ERROR = 5.64 % AV. ABS ERROR = 4.78 %
AV. BIAS ERROR = -2.26 % AV. BIAS ERROR = -0.17 %
NO. OF DATA = 25 NO. OF DATA = 156
7
UN

Predicted Value

6
Predicted Value

(H%)
(H%)

5
5

4 4
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Measured Value (H%) Measured Value (H%)

Fig. 5b. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental hydro- Fig. 6b. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental hydro-
gen (miscellaneous). gen (whole range of biomass materials).

Please cite this article in press as: Parikh J et al., A correlation for calculating elemental composition from ..., Fuel (2007),
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.029
 JFUE 3403 No. of Pages 10, Model 5+
ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 February 2007 Disk Used

J. Parikh et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 9

Whole Range 6. Limitations of the present correlations 248

55
-- - - - - +/-7 % Line
AV. ABS ERROR = 3.4 % The correlations for estimation of C, H and O from 249
50 AV. BIAS ERROR = 0.51 %
NO. OF DATA = 156 proximate analysis are derived based on available data in 250
the literature wherein measurement of oxygen is not explic- 251
Predicted Value

45
itly defined. Further, material may contain Nitrogen and 252
(O%)

40
Sulfur too. As a result, the use of these correlations needs 253
a prior knowledge of nitrogen and sulfur to make more 254
35 correct predictions. 255

F
30 References 256

OO
25 [1] Channiwala SA, Parikh PP. A unified correlation for estimating HHV 257
25 35 45 55 of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. Fuel 2002;81:1051–63. 258
Measured Value (O%) [2] Kucukbayrak S, Durus B, Mericboyu AE, Kadioglu E. Estimation of 259
calorific values of Turkish lignites. Fuel 1991;70:979–81. 260
Fig. 6c. Comparison between measured and calculated elemental oxygen [3] Cordero T, Marquez F, Rodriquez – Mirasol J, Rodriguez JJ. 261
(whole range of biomass materials). Predicting heating values of lignocellulosic and carbonaceous mate- 262
rials from proximate analysis. Fuel 2001;80:1567–71. 263

PR
[4] Fernandez P, Diaz RM, Xiberta J. Correlations of properties of 264
Spanish coals with their natural radionuclides contents. Fuel 265
214 4. Utility of the correlations 1997;76(10):951–5. 266
[5] Parikh J, Channiwala SA, Ghosal GK. A correlation for calculating 267
215 Having established the validity and merits of the pro- HHV from proximate analysis of solid fuels. Fuel 2005;84:487–94. 268
216 posed correlations, a few of its applications have been sum- [6] Vakkilainen EK. Estimation of elemental composition from proxi- 269
270
ED
217 marized below: mate analysis of black liquor. PAPERI JA PUU – Paper Timber
2000;82(7):450–4. 271
[7] ASTM D 2013-86, Standard method of preparing coal samples for 272
218 (i) The correlations can be used for computation of ele- analysis, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke section 5, Annual book of 273
219 mental composition (C, H and O) and HHV of any standards, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 226. 274
220 biomass material, from its proximate analysis. [8] ASTM D 3172 – 73(84), Standards method of proximate analysis of 275
CT

221 (ii) They are useful in performance modeling, combus- coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke section 5, Annual book 276
of ASTM standards, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 299. 277
222 tion, gasification and pyrolysis processes. [9] ASTM D 3173-87, Standards test method for moisture in the analysis 278
223 (iii) The correlation provides the facility of using elemen- sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke section 5, 279
224 tal component as an algebraic expression in terms of Annual book of ASTM standards, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 300. 280
E

225 fuel constituents, which in turn is useful in studying [10] ASTM D 3175-89, Standards test method for volatile matter in the 281
226 the energy balance and influence of proximate analy- analysis sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke 282
section 5, Annual book of ASTM standards, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 305. 283
RR

227 sis of a fuel on process performance. [11] ASTM D 3174-89, Standards test method for ash in the analysis 284
228 sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke section 5, 285
Annual book of ASTM standards, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 302. 286
229 5. Conclusions [12] ASTM D 3176-84, Standards method for ultimate analysis of coal and 287
coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, section 5, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 308. 288
[13] ASTM D 3178-84, Standards test method for carbon and hydrogen in 289
CO

230 The present correlations have been derived based on a the analysis sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, 290
231 large number of data points having widely varying proxi- section 5, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 315. 291
232 mate and elemental composition and encompassing all cat- [14] ASTM D 3179-84, Standards test method for nitrogen in the analysis 292
233 egories of solid lignocellulosic materials. This means that, sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, section 5, 293
234 within the specified range of FC, VM, ash, carbon, hydro- vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 519. 294
[15] Jenkins BM. Downdraft gasification characteristics of major Califor- 295
UN

235 gen and oxygen as wt%, and within the stated average nia residue derived fuels. Ph.D thesis, University of California, Davis, 296
236 absolute error limit of 3.21%, 4.79% and 3.4% with respect 1980. 297
237 to measured values of C, H and O, respectively, the present [16] Rossi A. Fuel characteristics of wood and non-wood biomass fuels. 298
238 correlations may be accepted as ‘general correlations’ for In: Tillman DA, Jahn EC, editors. Progress in biomass conversion, 299
239 estimating elemental composition of biomass materials on vol. 5. New York: Academic Press; 1984. p. 69. 300
[17] Channiwala SA. On biomass gasification process and technology 301
240 dry basis. development – some analytical and experimental investigations. Ph.D 302
241 The main advantage of these correlations is, based on thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, IIT, Mumbai; 1992. 303
242 using only proximate analysis data, which provides a rapid, [18] Jenkins BM, Ebeling JM. Correlation of physical and chemical 304
243 easy and economical estimation of the elemental compo- properties of terrestrial biomass with conversion: symposium energy 305
244 nents. This may be of particular interest in the contexts from biomass and waste IX IGT; 1985. p. 371. 306
[19] Bonelli PR, Della Rocca PA, Cerrella EG, Cukierman AL. Effect of 307
245 where more sophisticated and expensive equipments for pyrolysis temperature on composition, surface properties and thermal 308
246 experimental elemental components measurement are not degradation rates of Brazil nut shells. Bioresour Technol 309
247 always available. 2001;76:15–22. 310

Please cite this article in press as: Parikh J et al., A correlation for calculating elemental composition from ..., Fuel (2007),
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.029
 JFUE 3403 No. of Pages 10, Model 5+
ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 February 2007 Disk Used

10 J. Parikh et al. / Fuel xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

311 [20] Grover PD, Iyer PVR, Rao TR. Biomass – thermochemical charac- [27] Gregory MK, Rose GR, Nandi SP, Onischak M, Zabransky RF, 327
312 terization. third ed. IIT Delhi: MNES; 2002. Babu SR. Development of biomass gasification to produce substitute 328
313 [21] Risser PG. Agricultural and forestry residues. In: Soffer SS, Zaborsky fuel. In: Proceedings 14th biomass thermochemical conversion 329
314 OR, editors. Biomass conversion processes for energy and fuels. New contracot’s meeting; 1982. p. 71–147. 330
315 York: Plenum Press; 1981. p. 25–56. [28] Grover PD, Anuradha G. Thermochemical characterization of 331
316 [22] Tran DQ, Rai C. A kinetic model for pyrolysis of Douglas fir bark. biomass for gasification, Report on physico-chemical parameters of 332
317 Fuel 1978;57:293–8. biomass residues, IIT – Delhi; 1988. 333
318 [23] Demirbas A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels. [29] Mansaray KG, Ghaly AE. Determination of kinetic parameters of 334
319 Fuel 1997;76(5):431–4. rice husks in oxygen using TGA. Biomass Bioenerg 1999;17:19–31. 335
320 [24] Sainz-Diaz CI, Griffiths AJ. Activated carbon from solid wastes using [30] Maheshwari RC. Utilization of rice husk as fuel. Ph.D thesis, 336
321 a pilot scale batch flaming pyrolyzer. Fuel 2000;79:1863–71. Agricultural Engineering Department, IIT, Kharagpur, India; 1975. 337
322 [25] Ghaly AE, Ergudenler A. A comparative study on the thermal [31] Boley EC, Landers WS. Entrainment drying and carbonization of 338

F
323 decomposition of four cereal straws in an oxidizing atmosphere. wood waste, Report of investigation 7282, Bureau of Mines, 339
324 Bioresour Technol 1994;50:201–8. Washington; 1969. 340
325 [26] Ghaly AE, Ergudenler A. Reaction kinetics of rye straw for [32] Reina J, Velo E, Puigjaner L. Kinetic study of the pyrolysis of waste 341

OO
326 thermochemical conversion. Can J Chem Eng 1994;72:651–6. wood. Ind Eng Chem Res 1998;37:4290–5. 342
343

PR
ED
E CT
RR
CO
UN

Please cite this article in press as: Parikh J et al., A correlation for calculating elemental composition from ..., Fuel (2007),
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.029