Fuel Processing Technology, 25 (1990) 89-100

89

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - - Printed in The Netherlands

Physical Testing of Fuel Briquettes

S.R. RICHARDS

Industrial Processing Division, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research,

P.O. Box 31-310, Lower Hutt (New Zealand)
(Received May 25th, 1989; accepted September 20th, 1989)

ABSTRACT
Four physical properties have been identified as being of greatest value when developing or
evaluating fuel briquette formulations or processes. They are resistances to crushing, impact, abrasion and water penetration. Arbitrary tests for these properties have evolved in this laboratory
during a decade of investigations of binders and formulations for briquetting coal fines and the
like. The simple test methods are described and some typical results are given.
Tests of several types of commercial and pilot process fuel briquettes have been used to set
realistic target values for these four physical properties. In the process development stages, it is
suggested that the tests should relate to the briquette material, rather than the briquette as an
entity, and that this can be achieved by transforming the raw data into various indices. These
would allow intra-laboratory or inter-laboratory comparisons of briquette formulations. This approach is illustrated by presenting results for compressive strength, impact resistance and abrasion resistance. The same could apply to water resistance and some suggestions are discussed.
The needs of research and development and of production in respect of briquette testing are
seen as different, but complementary. It is hoped that the paper will stimulate researchers and
producers alike to work towards the adoption of codes of standard practice in briquette testing.

INTRODUCTION

Rhys Jones and Schinzel have written comprehensive reviews of the science
and technology of coal briquetting [1,2 ] which cover the background of this
topic. The production of fuel briquettes began before the turn of the 20th century and the recognition of the need for quality control stems from around that
time [3,4]. However, despite prolonged efforts by the International Briquetting Association to establish standard test methods in North America, only
one standard (tentative) procedure was adopted by ASTM, Designation D267767T, but this was discontinued from 1986 [5]. Some of the history of the development of this and other standard procedures fofftesting fuel briquettes has
been recorded by Eckerd [6 ].
It is significant to note that ASTM D2677-67T is related to barbeque (charcoal) briquettes, because by the time the standard was adopted (1967), oil had
0378-3820/90/$03.50

1990 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

90
become the general heating fuel and the coal briquetting industry had ceased
to be significant in the USA energy market. Also, the failure of the fuel briquette industry to adopt standards probably reflects the severe competitiveness and the difficulties of trying to market a low value, high tonnage product
made by using widely varying raw materials and manufacturing methods. Suitability for purpose, customer satisfaction and economics would have ruled the
marketplace.
This paper identifies the physical tests which should be carried out in the
quality control laboratory to determine the handling performance of fuel briquettes and describes the simple practices adopted in this laboratory. The paper suggests ways of treating the test results so that intra- and inter-laboratory
comparisons can be made more meaningful, with the objective of encouraging
the adoption of international standards of performance. Combustion tests are
not considered in this paper, although environmental concerns make it just as
important to establish standards for permissable smoke emission during the
combustion of briquetted fuels.
IMPORTANT PHYSICALPROPERTIES
Over the past several decades, researchers and developers of coal and other
fuel briquettes have identified the important physical properties of their products to be compressive strength or crushing resistance, impact resistance, abrasion resistance, water resistance, weathering and density.
All of these properties relate to the effectiveness of the agglomeration process, i.e. strength and durability of the bonds holding the fuel particles together. Fuel briquettes need to be able to withstand the crushing loads they
receive in handling, transport, storage and firing. They should be able to resist
drops in conveyor belt transfers, from chutes into bins and off trucks onto the
ground. They should also be able to withstand the abrasion that occurs during
short distance conveying or long distance haulage. Fuel briquettes may be
transported in uncovered trucks and stored outdoors. Therefore they should
resist penetration by water, which in some cases may directly attack the binding agent or in other cases may lead to degradation by weathering processes,
such as freeze-thaw cycles. Other climatic conditions, such as high temperatures, can lead to briquette fusion in stockpiles if the binder softens. There are
two types of density to be considered in briquetting - - the density of a single
briquette and the bulk density of a large volume of briquettes. The former is
important in briquette formulation and quality and the latter in the packaging,
transport and marketing of fuel briquettes.
Not all of these properties are independent. Direct relationships would be
expected between compressive strength, impact resistance and abrasion resistance. Density usually follows compressive strength, but the reverse does not
necessarily hold true, since density cannot take account of the effectiveness of

91
bonding. Weathering becomes important for long term outdoor storage, but
the briquettes must first survive the sometimes severe handling treatments
they are likely to receive in industrial use before they get to storage. Therefore,
the first four properties have been identified as being the most important, although density has been fairly routinely measured as well.
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Whereas the crushing resistance of coal and coke is inferred from the results
of standard drop shatter tests [ 7 ] and abrasion tests [8 ], many fuel briquette
investigators have employed some form of direct crushing test to evaluate
bonding in their manufactured fuel [6,9-12]. Tests on limited samples of briquettes maximise progress in the development of new formulations or processes, especially in the evaluation of binders [ 11 ].
The compressive load on a briquette in a storage bin during filling is likely
to be relatively small. Taggart [ 13 ], states that the "equivalent liquid density"
of - 3 8 mm bituminous coal (bulk density 800 k g / m 3) in a bin is only 210 kg/
m 3. This means that the pressure on a coal briquette at a depth of 3 m would
only be about 6 kPa. Watmough's theory [14] predicts that for a briquette
stream free-falling into a bin at 5 tonne per hour through a height of 2 metres,
the average extra pressure exerted on a briquette already within the bin burden
will only be in the vicinity of one-hundredth of the pressure due to the burden
itself, and therefore can be neglected.
The crushing loads experienced by industrial fuel briquettes could be far
more severe than those experienced by domestic fuel briquettes. The highest
crushing loads would most likely occur during bucket-filling of a front-end
loader or during conveying in a screw-conveyor. Tests carried out in 100 and
150 m m diameter screw conveyors with roll-pressed 20 g starch-bonded coal
briquettes of compressive strength around 350 kPa showed that they could not
withstand the crushing forces in the conveyors [15]. In other situations even
greater compressive strengths may not overcome the problem. In some coalfired boiler feeding systems, e.g. in under-fed stokers, even the coal gets crushed,
so it would be unreasonable to expect coal briquettes to survive where the parent coal cannot. Tests on commercial fuel briquettes and on lump sub-bituminous coal have been used to establish a minimum target value of 375 kPa
for compressive strength. Whilst this value obviously far exceeds the crushing
loads that would occur in unenclosed belt conveyors and normal bin storage
operations, experience suggests that it would be wise to maintain compressive
strength above the 350 kPa level.

Testing for compressive strength

Compressive strength is the maximum crushing load a briquette can withstand before cracking or breaking. The test is made by placing a single bri-

92

Fig.1. Compressivestrength testing of coalbriquettes.

quette between two flat, parallel platens which have facial areas greater than
the projected area of the briquette. This can conveniently be achieved by using
a universal tensile testing machine. An increasing load is applied at a constant
rate, until the test specimen fails by cracking or breaking. The test setup is
shown in Fig. 1. The load at which the specimen fractures depends upon its
test configuration. For example, identical cylindrical briquettes made in a piston and cylinder die would register different compressive strengths if tested
with the cylinder upright rather than lying on its side. In general, the test
should be made with the briquette in its weakest orientation, unless this is
impractical, e.g. trying to balance a roll-pressed briquette on its edge. Thus
cylindrical and roll-pressed briquettes have been tested lying on their sides and
applying the load diametrically across the curved surfaces. The platens (theoretically) make point or line contacts with the rounded surfaces and failure
occurs as a result of pseudo-tensile forces in a more or less planar fracture along
the lines of contact between the briquette surfaces and the platens.
The test is most conveniently carried out on a mechanical or hydraulic tensile testing machine operated in the compression mode, but simpler and cheaper
controlled-rate loading devices have also been used [ 16 ]. The load at fracture
is read off a recorded stress-strain curve. A typical curve for roll-pressed, starchbonded coal briquettes is shown in Fig. 2. Usually we have made six measurements of fracture load under identical test conditions and reported the mean
value of the calculated stress as the compressive strength. Some results obtained from tests made during the development of approximately 20 g ovoid,
roll-pressed coal briquettes are given in Table 1. The average scatter of the

93

2OO

z 150

q
IO0

50

0"5

1.5

215

Movement mm

Fig. 2. Compressive load versus crosshead movement curve to obtain load at fracture.
TABLE1
Typical compressive strength test results; roll-pressed sub-bituminous coal briquettes/starch-based
binder
Run No.

65A
67A
67B
69A
70A
73A
76
76A
76B
76C

Load at fracture, kg~

Test#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

12.6
18.5
17.4
15.0
22.9
16.4
15.6
37.0
20.2
41.0

14.2
16.3
19.1
16.4
20.7
22.7
16.5
30.0
18.3
27.3

13.0
16.5
21.7
16.0
26.8
15.6
12.7
28.5
21.3
42.0

15.2
13.9
24.2
15.0
26.7
20.0
20.4
29.5
17.9
38.5

15.9
15.2
16.4
17.8
23.9
18.9
12.4
35.0
24.6
35.0

12.1
18.9
24.8
16.9
22.9
17.3
20.0
16.5
38.0

Mean
stress (kPa)

Target = 375kPa
Pass/Fail

237
285
354
278
413
318
290
588
340
688

F
F
F
F
P
F
F
P
F
P

aAverage variability on load at fracture ~ ___15%.

r e s u l t s ( + 15% ) a g r e e s q u i t e well w i t h t h a t o f G a r v i n [ 12 ], w h o a p p l i e d a m o r e
rigorous statistical analysis to illustrate the relative significances of various
b r i q u e t t i n g p a r a m e t e r s in c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h .
T h e l o a d a t f r a c t u r e p o i n t , i.e. t h e m a x i m u m load, is c o n v e r t e d i n t o s t r e s s
using the equation:
load at fracture
Stress = cross-sectional area of plane of fracture
I n p r a c t i c e we h a v e f o u n d t h a t e x p r e s s i n g t h e c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h as a stress,
Le. as f o r c e p e r u n i t a r e a r a t h e r t h a n as force, l a r g e l y r e m o v e s t h e d e p e n d e n c e

94
of compressive strength on briquette size and shape and makes it possible to
compare the strengths of the briquette materials rather than the briquettes per
se. Thus a briquette size or shape can be "designed" to meet industrial handling
requirements.
IMPACT RESISTANCE
Once a briquetting project reaches pilot production, an industrial-type standard drop shatter test, could be adapted from those existing for coal and coke
[7] or that due to Wright [4].
However, each test would require 250-1000 briquettes. For bench-scale laboratory research and development work, such productions would not only be
onerous, but also unwarranted. A more suitable standard test was needed for
laboratory use.

Testing for impact resistance

For small (approximately 1 cm 3) pellets Holley and Antonetti [ 17 ] used a
test in which 10 pellets at a time were dropped onto a steel plate from "a selected test height". The unbroken pellets were separated and re-dropped to a
maximum of 10 times. The number of drops for the 10 pellets were totalled and
divided by 10 and this average number of drops was reported as the impact
resistance. No analysis of the broken pellets was made, and the use of a nonstandard drop height made comparison difficult.
The development and evaluation of cheap binders has been an ongoing interest in this laboratory since the 1970's [ 15,18,19]. Impact resistance testing
is considered to be the best general diagnostic of briquette strength. We have
modified the drop test to suit our needs, in particular, ease of operation and
comparability of results.
We decided that a practical performance target for impact resistance of a
fuel briquette would be to sustain a number of falls from a stationary start and
a height of 2 metres onto a concrete floor. This test usually involves averaging
the results of 3 to 6 single drop tests. Each briquette is repeatedly dropped until
it fractures. The number of drops and the number of pieces the briquette breaks
into are recorded. These data are then used to calculate what is called the
impact resistance index (IRI) from the equation
IRI-- 100 Average number of drops
Average number of pieces
Some typical results obtained during the development of flour-bonded coal
briquettes are given in Table 2.
For laboratory work, an IRI value of 50 has been adopted as being the lowest
acceptable impact resistance for fuel briquettes being developed for industrial

95
TABLE 2

Typical drop test results: roll-pressed sub-bituminous coal briquettes/starch-based binder

Run N o .

N o . of drops/No, of pieces

IRI a

Target I R I = 50
Pass/Fail

Test#l

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

67

;3

;2

t2

_,
3

;2

43

68

62

42

!2

_,
3

!3

37

69

!2

12

_2
3

;3

48

70

_4

_2

_3

94

71

;
2

~4

_2
3

22

,2_2

71

72

_2
5

;2

;2

;2

,4

52

73

2
3

~
2

!
2

~3

~
4

72

73A

!
3

!
2

_1
4

z2

_2
3

54

76

53

~3

5,

~I

~,

72

76A

54

45

33

52

42

161

76B

~2

63

63

35

52

2~

203

76C

_~
2

a2

24

~3

150

aAverage percentage standard deviation on I R I ~ _+40%.

or domestic applications. For pilot studies or commercial manufacture the test

would revert to screening at a particular sieve mesh chosen to give the same
IRI.
ABRASION

RESISTANCE

Again, standard tumble abrasion tests exist for coal and coke [8], for which
25-50 kg of sample are required. For laboratory testing, a scaled-down tumble
test requiring about 1 kg of sample was developed to suit 5-30 g fuel briquettes
made in bench- and small pilot-scale equipment. Even this test requires 35200 briquettes, so fewer abrasion tests have been carried out during the early
stages of fuel briquette developments.
Obviously, briquette shape will affect abrasion in a drum tumble test. Everything else being equal, briquettes with sharp edges will report a lower abrasion
resistance than those with rounded shapes. This was evident when testing 10
g, 25 mm diameter cylindrical peat briquettes. The top and bottom rims were
abraded until they became rounded, whilst the central parts of the cylinders
were largely unaffected.

Testing for abrasion resistance

The tumbler drum has the internal dimensions 270 mm long200 mm diameter and is fitted with a single 38 mm wide lifter welded normal to the inside

96
TABLE 3
Typical abrasion test results: roll-pressedsub-bituminouscoal briquettes/starch-based binder
Run No.

Abrasionresistance
(60 briquettes in tumbler)
% retained on 1/8" BS mesh

Target = 95% oversize

Pass/Fail

67
67A
67B
68
69
69A
70
73A
76
76A
76B
76C

89.2
91.5
94.4
82.3
91.6
94.1
96.6
73.8
87.3
97.4
98.4
96.7

F
F
F
F
F
F
P
F
F
P
P
P

of the drum over its full length. For a given fuel briquette size and shape, e.g.
as produced in a double roll-press, a fixed number of briquettes approximating
to 1 kg is charged to the drum. The charge is fixed by number rather t h a n by
mass, because coming from a constant volume mould, it is believed t h a t the
variation in briquette masses between different production runs (using the
same press and the same coal) will have less of an effect on abrasion t h a n the
change in surface area due to the variation in the number of briquettes. The
drum is sealed and rotated on a tumbler drive for 100 revolutions at 50 rpm.
The charge is screened on a 1/8" or 3 mm BS mesh wire screen and the percentage oversize is reported as the abrasion resistance.
Our abrasion resistance target involving ~ 20 g, 44 33 22 mm, ovoid, flourbonded coal briquettes (60 in each test) was 95% + 1/8" mesh. Some results
of single tumble tests are listed in Table 3. Briquette formulations which met
the targets for compressive strength (375 kPa ) and impact resistance (IRI = 50 )
usually also met the 95% abrasion resistance requirement (compare Tables 1,
2 and 3). No a t t e m p t has been made to correlate our tumbler test with the
standard methods for coal and coke.
WATER RESISTANCE
W h e n agglomeration is achieved through binderless, hot briquetting or the
use of an insoluble binder, coal briquettes are usually resistant to water. On
the other hand, m a n y fuel briquettes are bonded using water-sensitive binders
and include porous filler materials, e.g. charcoal or coke. In such cases it may
be necessary to water-proof and routinely test the products.

97

The need for a briquetted fuel to be water resistant depends to a large extent
upon its end use. Most, if not all, manufacturers of barbecue briquettes, using
starch or other water-soluble binders, market their products in a packaged
form to avoid despoilage by short exposures to rain or accidental wetting. On
the other hand, manufacturers of industrial fuel briquettes usually have to face
up to weather-proofing their products to accommodate transport in open wagons or trucks and outdoor stockpiling. Thus the majority of industrial fuel
briquettes have incorporated water insoluble binders or some water-proofing
method to protect any soluble binder.
Some investigators have used a weathering test [4 ] instead of a water resistance test. The weathering test goes beyond testing the binder or bonding
achieved during manufacture to include a test of the stability of the filler material, coal, lignite, char, etc., under climatic conditions of outdoor storage. The
water resistance test used in our work is not intended as a measure of long term
weathering resistance.

Testing for water resistance

We have adopted a simple immersion-in-water test on a single briquette, to
evaluate the resistance against absorption of water and disintegration. A
weighed briquette is immersed in cold tap-water and checked for any tendency
to disintegrate by applying finger pressure at about 10 minute intervals. If the
briquette survives 30 minutes immersion it is withdrawn, wiped to remove surface moisture and reweighed. The results have been reported separately in descriptive terms of tendency and time to disintegrate and percent absorption.
It is suggested that a water resistance index (WRI), where
WRI-- 1 0 0 - % water absorbed after 30 minutes immersion
could provide a more quantitative comparison.
Our experience with pitch-bonded char, water-proofed starch-bonded coal
[ 15 ] and peat-bonded coal briquettes [ 19 ] has shown water absorptions of less
than 7%, i.e. a W R I > 93. A value of 95 for WRI would be a reasonable target
for most briquette types which maintain integrity after 30 minutes immersion.
GENERAL DISCUSSION

Laboratory testing
The four tests outlined in this paper have provided sound and useful criteria
for the evaluation of~briquette binders and formulations [ 15,16 ]. We have found
it convenient to use our drop shatter test as a preliminary guide to estimate
satisfactory strength before carrying out the more difficult and time-consuming tests for compressive strength and abrasion. Compression testing is intro-

98
duced after the briquettes have achieved the IRI target value. If crushing resistance proves satisfactory, greater quantities of briquettes are produced and
abrasion testing then becomes possible. Because water resistance, the fourth
test, only requires a single briquette at a time, it is usually operated, along with
the drop test, from the start, especially when the binder is water-sensitive.
One of the frustrations of briquetting research has been the lack of yardsticks to set the goals for briquette performance. In our work we have worked
backwards, so to speak, by evaluating the properties of parent coals and commercially briquetted products [15] (few as they are in New Zealand). The
interest in briquetting fluctuates, but what happens in respect of quality control and quality assurance in the industry in the future, will develop out of
laboratory research and development work. Therefore, it would seem reasonable that the researchers in this field should provide the lead towards standardisation in testing.

The need for standardisation

The uneven distributions of coal and populations between countries has led
to international trading opportunities, including a new one which appears to
be a growing demand for a wood or charcoal replacement in densely-populated,
developing countries [20]. Obviously, if coal or bio-coal briquettes (coal fines
bonded with biomass) [21-23] are produced to satisfy this demand, commercial and environmental benefits would result from improved quality standards
in both physical and combustion properties.
After many years of fuel briquetting in the western world, the industry has
not adopted national, let alone international standards of quality. Various
company and research investigators (e.g. see Refs. 9 and 10) have developed
and used their own test procedures and standards, but these may not be acceptable if international trade in fuel briquettes requires assurances that their
use will be less detrimental to earth's environment than burning firewood.
Apart from the physical properties discussed in this paper, it is just as important to address the combustion properties, especially those concerning health
and environmental issues, such as carcinogens, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides
and smoke emissions.
Several economic and environmental impacts on today's coal industry may
encourage a trend back to briquetting. Modern mechanical extraction methods
and customer demands for graded coals, free of dust and fines, often leave the
coalminer with a surplus of fine coal. A growing awareness of air pollution will
favour smokeless and clean-burning solid fuels, and may lead to renewed interest in coal briquetting, especially after carbonisation. Reduced levels of smoke
emission have been reported from biocoal briquettes [ 18,23 ], which may avoid
the need for prior carbonisation of the coal.
If fuel briquette productions are likely to again become commercially im-

99

portant, it would perhaps be pertinent to examine in detail the reasons why

standardisation of quality was not adopted during their first wave of popularity. It may be that the elevation in world consciousness and concern for the
environment will take precedence over purely commercial issues and provide
a climate receptive to quality standards, which would be beneficial to both the
producer and the user alike.
CONCLUSIONS

Commercial opportunities could arise out of the needs for non-polluting solid
fuels and combustible waste utilisation especially in markets which have traditionally used wood for domestic heating and cooking. The timely development of standardised testing procedures for both physical and combustion
properties would enhance confidence in any rejuvenated fuel briquetting
industry.
Four laboratory tests are recommended to monitor the physical strength
properties of briquetted fuels either during process development or commercial
production. They are a drop shatter test, a crushing resistance test, a tumbler
abrasion test and an immersion water resistance test.
The results of these tests can be converted into separate indices which will
allow briquette properties to be more easily compared between various testing
laboratories.
Expressing compressive strength as a stress rather than as a force permits
comparisons of binder or material performance, per se, independently of briquette size.

REFERENCES
1 Rhys Jones, D.C., 1963. In: Lowry, H.H. (Ed.), Briquetting, Chemistry of Coal Utilization,
(suppl. Vol.). Wiley, New York, NY, Ch. 16, pp. 675-753.
2 Schinzel, W. 1981. In: Elliott, M.A. (Ed.), Briquetting, Chemistry of Coal Utilization, (2nd
suppl. Vol. ). Wiley, New York, NY, Ch. 11, pp. 609-664.
3 Mills, J.E., 1911. Binders for Coal Briquets, Investigations made at the Fuel-Testing Plant
St. Louis, MO. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 24, Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC,
56 pp.
4 Wright, Ch.L., 1911. Briquetting Test at the United States Fuel-Testing Plant, Norfolk, VA,
1907-8. U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 30, Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC, 41 pp.
5 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vo105.05 Gaseous Fuels, Coal and Coke, Oct. 1986.
6 Eckerd, J., 1967. Development of standard procedures for testing fuel briquets, Proc. 10th
Biennial Conf. of the Institute for Briquetting and Agglomeration, Albuquerque, NM, pp.
95-99.
7 See for example: ASTM D440-49, D3038-72 and BS1016: Part 13.
8 See for example: ASTM D441-45, D3402-81 and BS1016: Part 13.
9 Goos, A.W., 1963. Factors relating to charcoal briquet quality, Proc. 8th Biennial Conf. of
the Institute for Briquetting and Agglomeration, Denver, CO, pp. 85-91.

100
10 Ervin, H.O., 1963. Some evaluation methods for barbeque briquets, ibid. pp. 92-98.
11 Nelson, S.G., Kuby, O.A., Girimont, J.A., Peterson, C.A. and Saller, E., 1982. A literature
Review and Binder and Coal Selection for Research Studies on Coal Agglomeration. US
Department of Energy Topical Report No. DOE/FE/05147--T3, February 26.
12 Garvin, J.P., 1983. A statistical evaluation of the effect of composition on the strength of fuel
pellets. Proc. 18th Biennial Conf. of the Institute for Briquetting and Agglomeration, Colorado Springs, CO, August, pp. 19-29.
13 Taggart, A.F., 1945. Handbook of Mineral Dressing, Ores and Industrial Minerals. Wiley,
New York, NY.
14 Watmough, K.N., 1979. Solids flow measurement by impact, Int. Powder Technology and
Bulk Solids Exhibition and Congress, Birmingham 6-9 March, p. M22.
15 Richards, S.R., 1985. Pilot production of briquettes from coal fines, paper 9-3, Proc. 1st Coal
Res. Conf., Wellington, NZ, 15-17 Oct., Coal Res. Assoc. of New Zealand, Wellington, 1985.
16 Llewellyn, W., 1987. Smokeless fuel production from sub-bituminous coal, paper R9.2, Proc.
2nd Coal Res. Conf., Wellington, 2-4 Nov., Coal Res. Assoc. of New Zealand.
17 Holley, C.A. and Antonetti, J.M., 1977. Agglomeration of Coal Fines, Proc. Institute for
Briquetting and Agglomeration, 15th Biennial Conf., Montreal, August, pp. 1-12.
18 Richards, S.R. and Mills, R., 1978. Smokeless fuels from waste materials, Proc. 6th National
Chemical Engineering Conference, Surfers Paradise, Nov. 6-8, Royal Australian Chemical
Institute, pp. 190-196.
19 Richards, S.R., 1990. Briquetting peat and peat-coal mixtures, Fuel Processing Technology,
25 (1990) 175-190.
20 Eckholm, E., 1975. The Other Energy Crisis: Firewood, Worldwatch Paper No. 1, September,
Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC.
21 Bhattacharaya, S.C., Saunier, G.Y. and Shah, N. and Islam, N., 1984. Densification of biomass residues in Asia. In: Egneus, H. and Ellegard, A. (Eds.), Bioenergy 84, Conf. Proc. 1521 June, Gothenburg, Sweden. Elsevier Applied Science Publ., Barking U.K. Vol. III, pp.
559-563.
22 Bhattacharya, S.C., 1987. Biocoal from Residues and Wastes, brochure promoting the Asian
Institute of Technology-German Agency for Technical Cooperation biocoal project, Asian
Institute of Technology, Bangkok.
23 Maruyama, T. and Takemichi, S., 1987. Combustion characteristics of biocoal (coal-wood
briquettes), Int. Symp. on Coal Combustion. Institute of Thermal Engineering and Science,
Tsinghua University, Beijing, Sept. 7-10.