Fuel 84 (2005) 487494

www.fuelfirst.com

A correlation for calculating HHV from proximate analysis of solid fuels

Jigisha Parikha,*, S.A. Channiwalab, G.K. Ghosalc
a
Chemical Engineering Department, Sarvajanik College of Engineering and Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395001, India
Mechanical Engineering Department, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India
c
Chemical Engineering Department, Laxminarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India

Received 20 June 2004; received in revised form 16 October 2004; accepted 17 October 2004
Available online 19 November 2004

Abstract
Higher heating value (HHV) and composition of biomass, coal and other solid fuels, are important properties which define the energy
content and determine the clean and efficient use of these fuels. There exists a variety of correlations for predicting HHV from ultimate
analysis of fuels. However, the ultimate analysis requires very expensive equipments and highly trained analysts. The proximate analysis on
the other hand only requires standard laboratory equipments and can be run by any competent scientist or engineer. A few number of
correlations of HHV with proximate analysis have appeared in the solid fuel literature in the past but were focused on one fuel or dependent
on the country of origin. This work introduces a general correlation, based on proximate analysis of solid fuels, to calculate HHV, using 450
data points and validated further for additional 100 data points. The entire spectrum of solid carbonaceous materials like coals, lignite, all
types of biomass material, and char to residue-derived fuels have been considered in derivation of present correlation which is given as
below: HHVZ0.3536FCC0.1559VMK0.0078ASH (MJ/kg) (where FC 1.091.5% fixed carbon, VM 0.9290.6% volatile matter and Ash
0.1277.7% ash content in wt% on a dry basis). The average absolute error of this correlation is 3.74% and bias error is 0.12% with respect to
the measured value of HHV, which is much less than that of previous correlations of the similar kind. The major advantage of this correlation
is its capability to compute HHV of any fuel simply from its proximate analysis and thereby provides a useful tool for modeling of
combustion, gasification and pyrolysis processes. It can also be used in examining old/new data for probable errors when results lie much
outside the predicted results.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Solid fuels; Higher heating value (HHV); Proximate analysis

1. Introduction
The field of thermo chemistry is one of the foundation
stones of modern energy dependant society. The proximate
and ultimate analysis of biomass and coal are necessary for
their efficient and clean utilization while the HHV of these
materials determine the quantitative energy content of these
fuels. There exists a variety of correlations for predicting
HHV from ultimate analysis of fuel [1]. One such
correlation, presented in the earlier work by Channiwala
et al. [1], encompasses the complete spectrum of fuel
Abbreviations: ABE, average bias error; AAE, average absolute error;
AAD, average absolute deviation; ABD, average bias deviation; HHVc,
calculated HHV; MSW, municipal solid waste.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C91 261 3037289; fax: C91 261 2660099.
E-mail address: kamal_parikh@yahoo.com (J. Parikh).
0016-2361/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2004.10.010

ranging from gaseous, liquid, solid and refuse derived fuels.

It is of the form, HHVZ0.3491CC1.1783HC0.1005SK
0.1034OK0.0151NK0.0211A (MJ/kg) with the ranges as,
0%%C%92.25%, 0.43%%H%25.15%, 0%%O%50.00%,
0%%N%5.60%, 0%%S%94.08%, 0%%A%71.4%,
4.745 MJ/kg%HHV%55.345 MJ/kg. C, H, O, N, S and A
represents carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur and
ash contents of material respectively, expressed in mass
percentages on dry basis. This correlation offers predictions
with average absolute error of 1.45% and average bias error
of 0%. Although, this generalized correlation which being
extremely useful in performance modeling of thermal
systems, suffers from a drawback that it needs an elemental
analysis as an input data, which needs expensive equipments and highly skilled analysts [24].
There also exists a few correlations (Table 1) based
on proximate analysis/chemical analysis of solid fuels

488

J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 84 (2005) 487494

Table 1
Equations available in literature for HHV determination from proximate analysis
Sr. no.

Equation

1
2
3
4

HHVZ76.56K1.3 (VMCash)C7.03!10 (VMCash)

HHVZ354.3FCC170.8VM considering VMCFCCASHZ100
HHVZ0.196FCC14.119
HHVZK10814.08C313.3T where, TZ(FCCVM)
K3

Data points

Error

Sample

26
24
16
11

Mean diff. 6.34% max 21.2%

K7.74 to 4.42%
Mean diff. 2.20%
!10%

Lignite
BiomassCchar
Biomass
Biomass

nos. [2]
nos. [3]
nos. [5]
nos. [6]

HHV, MJ/kg, dry basis; FC, %wt, dry basis; VM, %wt, dry basis.

[2,3,57] but their use and applicability is limited to one

kind of fuel or the region only. The present study is focused
on the development of a correlation for predicting HHV of
solid fuels from its proximate analysis, which is much easy
to perform and needs only standard equipments and
moderately trained analysts. The correlation has been
derived using 450 data points and additional 100 data
points used for its validation. The derivation, validation and
comparative assessment with published correlations are
presented in the subsequent sections.

method for sparking fuels. For coconut shell, fiber, pith and
bagasse, ash fusion was observed at 950 8C and hence these
samples were analyzed for volatile matter contents only up
to 750 8C. Determination of the ash content in the test
samples was carried out according to ASTM D 3174-89 [12]
method in the electric muffle furnace. The fixed carbon
content of the test samples was calculated by difference. The
HHV of these materials was determined according to ASTM
D 2015-85 [13] method in a parr microprocessor controlled
oxygen Bomb Calorimeter (Model 1241 EF).

2. Derivation of correlation

2.2. Step 2: selection of suitable data

Steps involved in the development and derivation of

correlation are listed below:

Through, the process of collection and generation of

data, information of about 577 materials was collected. Out
of these, 450 data points have been used for the purpose of
the derivation of the correlation, while 100 were used for
validation of the correlation.
In order to develop a generalized correlation to the extent
possible, care was taken to include data points of the widest
range of proximate analysis and HHV. Table 2 presents the
summary of few such data points used for derivation and
validation of the correlation. In total, 450 data points
comprising of 30 data points for manufactured fuel, 13 data
points for coal and cokes, 321 data points for biomass
material, 25 data points for industrial waste, 11 municipal
solid waste, refuse and sludge and 50 data points for chars
have been used for derivation of the correlation and 100 data
points comprising of 13 coals, cokes and manufactured fuel,
70 biomass materials, 9 refuse material and 8 chars have
been used for validation of the correlation. It is worth
mentioning over here that equal weightage is given to
mature form of fuels and immature form of fuels like
biomass. Further, the composite fuels like industrial and
municipal solid waste, refuse derived fuels and sludge as
well as artificially prepared chars are also included as data
points in derivation of this correlation.
The spectrum of samples is so selected that it
approximately represents the relative proportions of their
occurrence in nature and thus permits the derivation of a
truly useful correlation.
The range of data points considered is such that the
volatile matter of the samples varied between 0.92 and
90.6%, the ash content between 0.1 and 77.7%, fixed carbon
content between 1.0 and 91.5%, and the heat content
between 5.63 and 39.388 MJ/kg (on dry basis).

2.1. Step 1: collection and generation of data

To obtain the correlation, proximate analysis data
pertaining to different biomass-forest and agricultural
wastes have been used as well as the chars resulting from
their thermal treatment in an inert atmosphere at different
temperature, so as to cover a wide range of chars from low
to high degree of carbonization and different coal and lignite
samples have also been considered to cover a widely
different values of Fixed Carbon, Volatile Matter and Ash
content.
2.1.1. Collection of data
Data pertaining to large number of fuels like coals/lignite/manufactured fuel/all kind of biomass/industry waste etc.
were collected from the published literature.
2.1.2. Generation of data
Since there are no standard sampling procedures
specified for biomass materials, the samples were collected
with due care to get the most representative samples.
Preparation of samples was carried out in accordance with
ASTM D 2013-86 [8]. The procedure requires samples to be
in powder form of up to 250 mm grain size. The proximate
analysis of samples were carried out in accordance with
ASTM D 3172-73(84) [9] standard. The moisture content in
test samples was determined according to ASTM D 3173-87
[10] method in sartorious infrared moisture meter.
The volatile matter contents in the test samples were
determined according to ASTM D 3175-89 [11] modified

J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 84 (2005) 487494

489

Table 2
Summary of few salient data used for derivation and validation of correlation
Sr. no.

Raw material

Proximate analysis

Ultimate analysis

[% by wt. dry basis]

[% by wt. dry basis]

FC
1 Coals/coke
1
Northumber land no. 8-Anth.
coal
2
German-Anna
3
Coal sample
4
German Braunkohole lignite
5
L01
6
L14
7
Charcoal
8
Coke
2 Manufactured fuel/wood
9
Cotton shells briquettes
10
Lantana briquettes
11
Press mud briquettes
12
Block wood
13
Ply wood
3 Biomasspit/shells/seeds/cobs
14
Peach Pit
15
Macadamia shell
16
Pistachio shell
17
Hazelnut shell
18
Coconut shell powder
19
Cotton shells
20
Spire-mint
21
Corncob
22
Corncob
23
Cornstover
24
Corn cob
4 Biomasswood/energy crops
25
Wood Chips
26
Canyon live Oak
27
Red wood
28
Softwood
29
Spruce wood
30
Es
31
Pine wood
32
Subabul wood
33
Eucalyptus
34
Eucalyptus-Grandis
35
Sudan Grass
36
Subabul
5 Other biomassbarks/prunings
37
Douglas Fir
38
Loblolly Pine
39
Eucatlyptus bark
40
Almond
41
Cabernet Sauvignon
42
Walnut
43
Olive twigs
44
Wood chips
45
Coffee chaff
46
Tapero root skin scale scrapping
5 Other biomassstraws
47
Wheat straw
48
Paddy straw
49
Rice straw (ground)
50
Wheat straw

VM

ASH

Measured HHV
Dry basis

Calculated HHV

MJ/kg

MJ/kg

Reference

84.59

7.09

8.32

83.67

3.56

2.84

0.55

1.05

32.856

30.951

[14]

79.60
30.00
46.03
27.72
39.37
89.10
91.47

12.00
30.00
49.47
38.32
52.05
9.88
0.92

8.40
40.00
4.50
33.96
8.58
1.02
7.61

82.62

63.89

92.04
89.13

3.02

4.97

2.45
0.43

3.66

24.54

2.96
0.98

0.92

0.57

0.53
0.85

0.73

0.48

1
1

33.000
14.772
25.100
15.630
24.080
34.388
31.124

29.952
14.973
23.953
15.511
21.969
33.038
32.428

[15]
[16]
[15]
[4]
[4]
[17]
[18]

17.10
11.90
8.60
14.59
21.80

77.80
20.80
54.70
83.32
74.20

5.10
67.30
36.70
2.09
4.00

46.9

6.07

43.99

0.95

19.055
7.687
11.972
18.261
19.720

18.136
6.926
11.282
18.132
19.245

[16]
[16]
[16]
[PS]
[16]

19.80
23.68
16.84
28.30
20.58
16.90
11.80
18.54
12.50
17.60
16.80

79.10
75.92
82.03
69.30
79.07
68.50
70.10
80.10
86.50
78.70
82.10

1.10
0.40
1.13
1.40
0.35
14.60
18.10
1.36
1.00
3.70
1.10

49.14
54.41
48.79
52.9

37.23
46.58
49

6.34
4.99
5.91
5.6

5.34
5.87
5.4

43.52
39.69
43.41
42.7

33.38
45.46
44.6

0.48
0.36
0.56
1.4

5.95
0.47
0.4

0.02
0.01
0.01

0.01

19.423
21.010
19.260
19.300
19.675
16.376
15.530
18.770
17.000
17.800
18.795

19.324
20.206
18.734
20.800
19.601
16.541
14.960
19.033
17.898
18.464
18.731

[19]
[20]
[20]
[5]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[20]
[5]
[5]
[16]

23.50
11.30
19.92
28.10
28.30
17.90
15.70
18.52
21.30
16.93
18.60
13.80

76.40
88.20
79.72
70.00
70.20
82.00
73.60
81.02
75.35
82.55
72.75
85.20

0.10
0.50
0.36
1.70
1.50
0.10
11.30
1.20
3.35
0.52
8.65
1.00

48.1
47.84
50.64
52.1
51.9
47.3

48.15
46.04
48.33
44.58

5.99
5.8
5.98
6.1
6.1
6

5.87
5.82
5.89
5.35

45.74
45.76
42.88
41
40.9
46.5

44.75
44.49
45.13
39.18

0.08
0.07
0.05
0.2
0.3
0.1

0.03
0.3
0.15
1.21

0
0.01
0.03

0
0
0.01
0.01

19.916
18.981
20.720
20.000
20.100
20.080
16.644
19.777
18.640
19.350
17.390
16.660

20.220
17.742
19.469
20.836
20.939
19.112
16.938
19.170
19.253
18.852
17.851
18.155

[21]
[19]
[20]
[5]
[5]
[3]
[16]
[PS]
[PS]
[20]
[20]
[16]

25.80
33.90
15.30
21.54
19.20
20.80
10.73
15.40
19.60
11.40

73.00
65.70
65.70
76.83
78.63
78.50
88.25
83.40
75.80
35.10

1.20
0.40
19.00
1.63
2.17
0.70
1.02
1.20
4.60
39.20

56.2
56.3

51.3
46.59
48.2

5.9
5.6

5.29
5.85
6.25

36.7
37.7

40.9
43.9
43.24

0
0

0.66
0.83
1.61

0
0

0.01
0.04

22.098
21.772
15.195
20.010
19.030
19.967
18.699
20.031
17.686
9.228

20.494
22.227
15.505
19.582
19.031
19.588
17.544
18.438
18.712
9.197

[22]
[23]
[16]
[20]
[20]
[16]
[6]
[16]
[16]
[16]

23.50
11.80
16.20
24.00

63.00
72.70
68.30
69.60

13.50
15.50
15.50
6.40

45.5
35.97

5.1
5.28

34.1
43.08

1.8
0.17

17.000
14.522
15.614
18.905

18.026
15.386
16.255
19.287
(continued on

[5]
[16]
[16]
[16]
next page)

490

J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 84 (2005) 487494

Table 2 (continued)
Sr. no.

Raw material

Proximate analysis

Ultimate analysis

[% by wt. dry basis]

[% by wt. dry basis]

FC
51
Wheat straw
11.70
52
Coconut stem
23.10
5 Other biomassstalks
53
Cotton stalk
17.30
54
Musturd stalk (A)
21.90
55
Eucalyptus stalk
12.20
56
Mulberry stick
22.80
5 Other biomassfibrous material/leaves/grass
57
Coconut coir
29.70
58
Bagasse
7.00
59
Bagasse
11.90
60
Bagasse pith
10.60
61
Sweet sorghum bagasse
5.00
62
Moringa-oleifera (leaves)
10.70
63
Sena leaves
25.50
64
Sugar cane leaves
14.90
65
Olive marc
25.83
66
Miscalthus (elephanta grass)
12.40
67
Dal lake weed
3.60
68
Tea bush
21.80
5 Other biomasshull/husk/dust
69
Sal seed husk
28.06
70
Bamboo dust
9.30
71
Eucalyptus saw dust
16.20
72
Saw dust
25.00
73
Saw dustCmusturd
11.90
5 Other biomassothers/misc.
74
Mentha Piperita
7.50
75
Grewia optiva (Bhimal)
14.20
76
Water hyacinth
1.90
77
Ceder cones
28.10
6 Biomass waste material
78
Tea waste
13.60
79
Bamboo stick waste
47.70
80
Tannary waste
1.00
81
Fly ash (Bagasse fuel)
19.80
82
Pine needle (40% clay)
13.20
83
Castor seed cake
25.20
6 Biomass waste materialmillgin industry waste
84
Cotton gin waste
14.97
85
Cottongin Trash
15.10
86
Alabama Oak wood waste
21.90
87
White Fir
16.58
88
Tan Oak
9.20
6 Biomass waste materialrefuse/MSW
89
Industrial waste (stalla)
20.10
90
Poultry pure waste
25.90
91
Municipal Solid Waste-Bareilly
5.00
92
Municipal Solid Waste-Morada4.00
bad
7 Biomass chars
93
Redwood char-790-1020 8F
67.70
94
Oak char-820-1185 8F
59.30
95
Coconut shell char-750 8C
87.17
96
QrC550
82.20
97
PhC 300
31.30
98
EsC700
91.50
99
Rice husk char
41.20
100
Rose apple char
12.20
PS, present study.

VM

Measured HHV
Dry basis

Calculated HHV

Reference

ASH

MJ/kg

MJ/kg

80.60
74.40

7.70
2.50

17.355
19.436

16.643
19.748

[16]
[16]

65.40
60.90
87.30
75.10

17.30
17.20
0.50
2.10

39.47

44.23

5.07

6.61

39.14

46.25

1.2

0.51

0.02

15.830
17.489
19.097
18.356

16.178
17.104
17.920
19.754

[20]
[16]
[16]
[16]

66.58
70.90
86.30
86.60
75.00
67.80
57.20
77.40
69.45
87.20
47.70
76.50

3.72
22.10
1.80
2.80
20.00
21.50
17.30
7.70
4.72
0.40
48.70
1.70

50.29

36.2
39.75

19.12
47.67

5.05

4.72
5.55

2
6.13

39.63

37.49
46.82

25.96
43.16

0.45

4.29
0.17

4.22
1.33

0.16

20.050
14.258
18.167
17.192
13.730
14.232
18.125
17.410
21.055
19.297
8.887
19.842

20.853
13.356
17.648
17.227
13.305
14.186
17.799
17.275
19.924
17.976
8.330
19.622

[20]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[6]
[16]
[16]
[16]

62.54
74.20
83.60
72.40
55.40

9.40
16.50
0.20
2.60
32.70

48.12

49.37

6.55

6.4

35.93

42.01

2.02

20.600
15.890
18.502
20.930
13.727

19.599
14.728
18.760
20.107
12.590

[24]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]

79.00
85.50
87.30
70.40

13.50
0.30
10.80
1.50

15.153
18.000
14.806
21.097

14.863
18.348
14.198
20.900

[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]

85.00
12.70
45.00
8.10
9.09
67.90

1.40
39.60
54.00
72.10
77.70
6.90

48.6

5.5

39.5

0.5

17.100
17.657
7.685
8.385
5.700
21.010

18.050
18.538
6.948
7.702
5.479
19.443

[5]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]

83.41
67.30
74.70
83.17
90.60

1.61
17.60
3.30
0.25
0.20

42.66
39.59
49.5
49
48.67

6.05
5.26
5.7
5.98
6.03

49.5
36.38
41.3
44.75
44.99

0.18
2.09
0.2
0.05
0.06

0
0
0
0.01
0.04

17.483
16.420
19.228
19.950
18.934

18.284
15.694
19.364
18.827
17.376

[PS]
[20]
[25]
[20]
[19]

75.10
14.30
25.00
35.70

4.80
59.80
70.00
60.30

18.928
11.712
5.630
7.183

18.778
10.921
5.120
6.510

[16]
[16]
[16]
[16]

30.00
25.80
9.93
14.70
68.10
6.60
5.90
22.20

2.30
14.90
2.90
3.10
0.60
1.90
52.90
65.60

75.6
67.7
88.95
87.1
57.8
92.7

3.3
2.4
0.73
2.4
5
1.6

18.4
14.4
6.04
6.9
36.5
3.3

0.2
0.4
1.38
0.5
0.2
0.4

0.2
0.2
0

28.844
24.796
31.124
32.720
22.840
32.204
14.944
7.577

28.598
24.874
32.349
31.333
21.680
33.369
15.076
7.263

[25]
[25]
[PS]
[3]
[3]
[3]
[16]
[16]

J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 84 (2005) 487494

491

Table 3
List of algebraic equations tested for the development of correlation
Sr. no.

Proposed equation

Criteria for selection

HHVZaFCCbVMCcAsh

HHVZaFCCb(FC/VM)CcVMCdAsh

HHVZaFCCbFC2Cc(FC*VM)CdVMCeVM2CdAsh

4
5

HHVZa1FCCb1VM
HHVZa1FCCb2VMc2

6
7
8
9
10

HHVZa2FCCb3VMc3
HHVZa3FCd3Cb2VMc2
HHVZa4FCd4Cb1VM
HHVZa1FCCb2VMc2Cd2Ash
HHVZaCb(FCCVM)CcAsh

Assuming fuel HHV to be a linear function of its volatile, non-volatile and inorganic
constituents
Assuming fuel HHV to be a linear function of its volatile, non-volatile and inorganic
constituents and combining the effect of ratio of non volatility to volatility
Based on Kucukbayraks criteria [2] of assuming fuel HHV to be a polynomial
function of its volatile, non-volatile and inorganic constituents
Based on Corderos criteria [3]
Assuming nonlinear effect of a volatile matter on HHV (Based on Kucukbayraks
criteria [2])
Assuming nonlinear effect of a volatile matter on HHV
Assuming nonlinear effect of a volatile and a non volatile matter on HHV
Assuming nonlinear effect of a non volatile matter on HHV
Assuming nonlinear effect of a volatile matter on HHV
Assuming combined effect of a volatile and a non volatile matter on HHV (Based on
Jimenezs criteria [6])

HHV, MJ/kg, dry basis; FC, %wt, dry basis; VM, %wt, dry basis.

2.3. Step 3: selection of suitable forms of correlations

3.74% and bias error of 0.12% with respect to measured

values of HHV

The basis of the equation should be such that there is no

reason to restrict its applicability to coal/lignocellulosic
material but it should be equally valid for any organic
substance.
Heating value is proportional to the carbon content and
hydrogen content present in the sample. Hence, HHV is
assumed to be the function of fixed carbon (FC, wt%) and
volatile matter (VM, wt%). Also, the diluent effect of
mineral matter/ash is considered in the development of the
correlation. Table 3 presents the different forms of
expressions along with the criteria for their selection. An
exhaustive computer algorithm has been developed based
on generalized method of least squares to evaluate the
constants of these assumed algebraic expressions. It is worth
to note that the algorithm is capable to incorporate any
number of variables and data points. Using this algorithm
and 450 data points the constants of these 10 algebraic
expressions were evaluated.
2.4. Step 4: selection of the best correlation
To facilitate the selection of correlation, the average
absolute and bias errors for each of these 10 correlations as
derived above were computed as follows

n 
1X
HHVc K HHV 

Average Absolute Error Z
100%
n iZ1 
HHV

Average Bias Error Z

1
n

n 
X
iZ1

(3)

From the data in Table 2, there is a good relation between

the determined and the calculated HHV and the Eq. (3)
has given acceptable approximations to the measured
values.

3. Validation of the correlation

To confirm the validity of this equation, a variety of
various samples were examined. Table 2 shows the results
obtained which demonstrate that the equation provides a
simple and rapid way to obtain good estimates of heating
values of lignocellulosics and other materials.
Validation of the correlation developed under the
present work has been carried out by comparison of
computed and measured values of HHV over 550 data
points which include 450 data points used for the
derivation and 100 data points, specially used for the
validation of the correlation. The measured and computed
values of HHV data have been presented graphically in
Figs. 17. Fig. 8 presents this comparison for a whole
range of fuels. The error band of G5% has been also
shown in these figures.

(1)

4. Comparison with other equations from the literature

(2)

The validation of present correlation has further been

established by comparing its predictions with
the predictions of few published correlations. However, it
is to be noted here that the published correlations are valid
only for the fuels for which they are derived. Hence, this
comparison is purely for academic interest.

HHVc K HHV
100%
HHV

HHVZ0:3536FCC0:1559VMK0:0078ASHMJ=kg

The correlation giving minimum error levels over 450

data points was selected as the best one.
The following is the correlation, which turned out to be
the best in this manner with an average absolute error of

492

J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 84 (2005) 487494

Fig. 1. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (coal).

Fig. 3. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (wood).

To compare the present equation with existing ones, four

equations have been selected from the literature (Table 1).
Figs. 17 show the heating values calculated from these
equations for all the different group of samples used for the
present work.

It is observed that the average absolute error of

Kucukbayrak [2], Cordero [3], Demirbas [5] and Jimenez
[6] for the entire spectrum of fuels considered herein are in
the order of 17.91, 6.66, 13.81 and 10.18%, respectively,

Fig. 2. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (shell/seed).

Fig. 4. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (stalks).

J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 84 (2005) 487494

493

Fig. 7. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (char).

Fig. 5. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (hull/husk/dust).

while the bias error for the same correlations are found to be
9.74, 6.18, K7.23 and 3.02%, respectively. The comparison
was also made for different categories of fuels from which
the above correlations were derived and it was observed
that irrespective of the fact whether a fuel falls under
the classification of coal, biomass, refuse or chars,

Fig. 6. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (waste/industry

waste/refuse/MSW).

the values of average absolute and bias error with the

present correlation are either minimum or comparable to
minimum.
It must, however, be emphasized that when taken over a
whole range of fuels (Fig. 8), the proposed correlation gives
the absolute and bias errors which are the lowest as
compared to any published correlation. With these minimum values of average absolute and bias error as 3.74 and
0.12%, respectively, the validity and merits of the proposed
correlation stands established.
It is remarkable in this comparison to look at the chart
where the new equation (present work) leads to significantly
lower deviations in spite of the fact that some of these data
points were among those used by these authors to fit their
equation and the present work also used the same analytical
and experimental heating values reported by these authors.
The most significant difference of practical interest arises
from the fact that the derived equation is covering a wide
range of carbonaceous materials. While the other reported

Fig. 8. Comparison between measured and predicted HHV (whole range).

494

J. Parikh et al. / Fuel 84 (2005) 487494

equations as seen from the comparison in chart cannot be

extended for such a wide range.

5. Utility of the proposed correlation

Having established the validity and merits of the
proposed unified correlation, few of its applications have
been summarized below:
(i) The correlation can be used for HHV computation of
any solid fuel and biomass material, from its proximate
analysis.
(ii) In performance modeling exercise of combustion,
gasification and pyrolysis process.
(iii) The correlation provides the facility of using HHV as
an algebraic expression in terms of fuel constituents,
which in turn is useful in studying the influence of
proximate analysis of a fuel on process performance.

6. Conclusions
The present correlation has been derived based on a large
number of data points having widely varying proximate
composition and encompassing all categories of solid
carbonaceous materials. This means that, within the
specified range of FC, VM and Ash as wt%, and within
the stated absolute error limit of 3.74%, the present
correlation may be accepted as general correlation for
estimating HHV on dry basis.
Also, it must be noted that the equation compares very
well with the other reported equations in the literature. The
main advantage of this correlation is, based on only
proximate analysis data, it provides a rapid, easy
and economical estimation of the HHV. This may be of
particular interest in the contexts where more sophisticated
and expensive equipments for experimental HHV measurement or elemental analysis are not always available.

References
[1] Channiwala SA, Parikh PP. A unified correlation for estimating HHV
of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. Fuel 2002;81:105163.
[2] Kucukbayrak S, Durus B, Mericboyu AE, Kadioglu E. Estimation of
calorific values of Turkish lignites. Fuel 1991;70:97981.
[3] Cordero T, Marquez F, Rodriquez-Mirasol J, Rodriguez JJ. Predicting
heating values of lignocellulosic and carbonaceous materials from
proximate analysis. Fuel 2001;80:156771.

[4] Fernandez P, Diaz RM, Xiberta J. Fuel 1997;76(10):9515.

[5] Demirbas A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels.
Fuel 1997;76(5):4314.
[6] Jimenez L, Gonzalez F. Study of the physical and chemical properties
of lignocellulosic residues with a view to the production of fuels. Fuel
1991;70:94750.
[7] Raveendran K, Ganesh A. Heating value of biomass and biomass
pyrolysis products. Fuel 1996;75(15):171520.
[8] ASTM D 2013-86, Standard method of preparing coal samples for
analysis, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, section 5, vol. 05.05, Annual
book of standards; 1989. p. 226.
[9] ASTM D 3172-73(84), Standards method of proximate analysis of
coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke section 5, vol. 05.05,
Annual book of ASTM standards; 1989. p. 299.
[10] ASTM D 3173-87, Standards test method for moisture in the analysis
sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, section 5,
vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 300.
[11] ASTM D 3175-89, Standards test method for volatile matter in the
analysis sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke,
section 5, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 305.
[12] ASTM D 3174-89, Standards test method for ash in the analysis
sample of coal and coke, in gaseous fuels; coal and coke, section 5,
vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 302.
[13] ASTM D 2015-85, Standards test method for gross calorific value of
coal and coke by the adiabatic bomb calorimeter, in gaseous fuels;
coal and coke, section 5, vol. 05-05; 1989. p. 251.
[14] IGT. Chicago, Illinois, Preparation of coal conversion systems
technical data book, Project 8964 final report, Contact No. E (4918)-1730, Available From NTIS, Springfield, Virginia, USA: US
Department of Commerce; 1976.
[15] Bliek A. Mathematical modeling of a co-current fixed bed coal
gasifier. PhD Thesis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Twente University; 1984.
[16] Grover PD, Iyer PVR, Rao TR. Biomass-thermochemical characterization, 3rd ed. IIT-Delhi and MNES; 2002.
[17] Rose JW, Cooper JR. Technical Data on Fuel, 7th ed. British National
Committee of the World Energy Conference, Edinburgh; 1977.
[18] Spiers HM. Technical data on fuel, 6th ed. New York: Wiley; 1962.
[19] Rossi A. Fuel characteristics of wood and non-wood biomass fuels. In:
Tillman DA, Jahn EC, editors. Progress in biomass conversion, vol. 5.
New York: Academic Press; 1984. p. 69.
[20] Jenkins BM, Ebeling JM. Correlation of physical and chemical
properties of terrestrial biomass with conversion: symposium energy
from biomass and waste IX IGT; 1985. p. 371.
[21] Jenkins BM. Downdraft gasification characteristics of major California residue derived fuels. PhD Thesis, Davis: University of
California; 1980.
[22] Tillman DA. Wood as an energy resource. New York: Academic
Press; 1978.
[23] Risser PG. Agricultural and forestry residues. In: Soffer SS,
Zaborsky OR, editors. Biomass conversion processes for energy and
fuels. New York: Plenum Press; 1981. p. 2556.
[24] Grover PD, Anuradha G. Thermochemical characterization of
biomass for gasification, Report on physico-chemical parameters of
biomass residues, IIT-Delhi; 1988.
[25] Boley EC, Landers WS. Entrainment drying and carbonization of
wood waste, Report of investigation 7282, Bureau of Mines,
Washington; 1969.

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.