Fuel 87 (2008) 30773081

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . f u e l fi r s t . c o m

Development of a new proximate analysis based correlation

to predict caloric value of coal
A.K. Majumder *, Rachana Jain, P. Banerjee, J.P. Barnwal
Advanced Materials and Processes Research Institute (CSIR), Department of Mineral Engineering, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462026, India

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

Article history: The experimental determination of higher heating value (HHV) of solid fuels is a cost intensive process, as
Received 22 June 2007 it requires special instrumentation and highly trained analyst to operate it, where as proximate analysis
Received in revised form 14 March 2008 data can be obtained relatively easily using an ordinary mufe furnace. Therefore, to simplify the task and
Accepted 16 April 2008
to reduce the cost of analysis many correlations were developed for determining HHV from proximate
Available online 12 May 2008
analysis of solid fuels. An attempt has been made in this paper to evaluate the applicability of these cor-
relations with a special focus on Indian coals. It has been observed that the developed correlations are
Keywords:
either complex in nature or by-pass the effect of important variables like moisture and ash contents of
Higher heating value (HHV)
Proximate analysis
coals. An effort has, therefore, been made to develop a simple correlation based on proximate analysis
Coal data for predicting HHV of coal (as-received basis). The model presented here is developed using analyses
Model of 250 coal samples and its signicance lies in involvement of all the major variables affecting the HHV.
The developed model appears to be better than the existing models and has the following form:
HHV 0:03A  0:11M 0:33V M 0:35F C :

2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction is, therefore, being attempted by various research groups. As a re-

In any thermal power plant determinations of caloric value,
proximate analysis and ultimate analysis are common practice to
assess the quality of coals. Caloric value is dened as the amount
of heat evolved when a unit weight of the coal is burnt completely
and the combustion products cooled to a standard temperature of
298 K [1]. It is usually expressed as higher heating value (HHV) (also
termed gross caloric value, GCV). HHV of a coal sample is measured
experimentally using a Bomb calorimeter. This method of analysis is
cost intensive, as it requires sophisticated equipment and a trained
chemist. On the other hand moisture (M), volatile matter (VM), ash
(A) and xed carbon (FC) are determined easily by proximate analy-
sis of coal using a simple mufe furnace, which is comparatively
cheaper than a Bomb calorimeter and can be performed by a moder-
ately trained chemist. The ultimate analysis of coals also requires
very expensive equipment and highly trained analyst.
In India, due to non-availability of consistent power supply and
higher industrial tariffs many industries are opting for coal-red
captive power plants. Quick assessment of coal quality by cheaper
means to run the boilers efciently is a pre-requisite. Accurate pre-
diction of caloric value of coal based on proximate analysis data
sult, varieties of correlations [1,2] have been developed to predict
HHV of coals from proximate analysis data recently. Apart from
saving the efforts involved in experimental determination of
HHV, the correlations thus developed may also nd useful applica-
tions in performance modeling exercise of coal combustion, gasi-
cation and pyrolysis process. Therefore, the prediction accuracy
and versatility of any correlation like this are of immense
importance.
Accordingly, in this paper the existing correlations are rst re-
viewed and the need for developing a simpler correlation is then
discussed. To test the prediction accuracy and the versatility of
the existing correlations covering the entire range of the character-
istics of thermal coals available in India proximate analysis and
HHV values of around 250 coal samples have been determined
carefully. The limitations of the existing correlations in predicting
the HHV values from the proximate analysis data are then high-
lighted. An effort has also been made to develop a much simpler
but better correlation based on the experimental data to outper-
form the existing correlations.
2. Review of existing models

Many correlations have been developed for predicting the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 755 2489509. caloric values of coal. An attempt has been made in this paper
E-mail address: majumder1965@gmail.com (A.K. Majumder). to evaluate them.

0016-2361/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2008.04.008
3078 A.K. Majumder et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 30773081
Goutal [3] proposed a correlation (1) taking volatile matter and
xed carbon (on dry ash free basis) as important constituents
C G 82F C aV M 1
Here FC and VM denotes xed carbon and volatile matter respec-
tively and a is a constant that depends on volatile matter and
has different values at different volatile matter content. CG is the
caloric value in Kcal/kg. The xed carbon of different coals is as-
sumed to be of xed composition and hence of xed caloric value.
The composition and caloric value of volatile matter differ from
coal to coal and are assumed to depend on the nature of coal. These
assumptions limit the utility of this correlation.
Schuster [4] proposed a correlation (2) based on volatile matter
only (on dry ash free basis). The limiting factor of this equation is
that it requires samples to be in ash free form, which needs pre-
processing of coal. Secondly it is based on volatile matter (VM) only,
which alone is not able to govern the exact HHV of coal
HHV 4:183  103  8000 V M  70  1:65  V M 2 pur. Coal samples collected from these regions were ground to
Kucukbayrak et al. [5] have given a unied correlation (3) for esti-
mating caloric values of lignites. It was based on volatile matter
and ash (in wt.% on dry basis) and HHV is determined in MJ/kg. In
this equation HHV was assumed to be a polynomial function of vol-
atile matter (VM) and inorganic constituents or ash (A) of coal
HHV 76:56  1:3V M A 7:03  103 V M A2 3 following the ASTM procedure. The HHV determination of coal is
A simple Eq. (4) based on proximate analysis is presented by Cor-
dero et al. [6], which allows calculation of HHV of lignocellulosics
and charcoals. Here HHV is expressed in KJ/kg (dry basis), VM and
FC are in weight percent on dry basis. This equation shows the
dependence of caloric value on xed carbon and volatile matter.
This equation has been derived from multiple linear regression
analysis using least square-tting programme. It may be observed
from Eq. (4) that the weightage on xed carbon is more than double
the weightage of volatile matter on the HHV which probably limits
the application of this equation only for coal of high xed carbon
content
HHV 354:3F C 170:8V M 4 carbon combinely decide the nature of coal and more precisely
For the determination of HHV of biomass fuels Demirbas [7] has gi-
ven a correlation (5) by means of regression analysis. This correla-
tion consists of only one independent variable i.e. xed carbon (in
wt.% on as-received basis) and HHV is in MJ/kg. Similar comments
as given in Eq. (1) may, therefore, be given to this correlation too
HHV 0:196F C 14:119 5
In 1991 Jimenez and Gonzalez [8] proposed a new correlation (6)
(taking lignocellulosic wastes) based on xed carbon and volatile
matter. Here HHV is in KJ/kg (dry basis), VM and FC are in wt.% on
dry basis. This equation may not be applicable for Indian high ash
coals as it does not incorporate the effect of this important variable
HHV 1084:08 313:3T 6
where
T F C V M
Parikh et al. [2] have given a correlation (7) considering volatile
matter, xed carbon and ash in wt.% on dry basis and HHV is deter-
mined in MJ/kg. This equation will probably be best suited for coals
having high xed carbon contents as it has been considered the
most dominating factor in the equation
HHV 0:3536F C 0:1559V M  0:0078A 7
Various other correlations also exist [9,10] but they also suffer from
similar limitations as mentioned above.
Recently, some nonlinear models for the estimation of HHV of
Indian coals were proposed by Patel et al. [1] based on articial
neural networks (ANN) methodology. The complexity of these
models limits their applicability.
In view of the above it is imperative that there is an urgent need
to develop a simple but reliable model to predict the HHV of coals
of various sources from the proximate analysis data involving all
the major variables. To minimize the efforts and time involved in
pre-processing it is also desirable to develop this model based on
data as-received basis.
3. Experimental
Coal samples were collected from coalelds of central India,
which are well-known as South Eastern Coalelds Limited (SECL).
The coal deposits of SECL occur in ve districts of Chhattisgarh
named as Bilaspur, Korba, Raigarh, Surguja and Korea and in three
districts of Madhya Pradesh named as Shahdol, Umaria and Anup-
212 lm size and representative samples were then taken by con-
ventional coning and quartering method for analysis. Moisture,
volatile matter, ash and xed carbon contents of these samples
were determined by thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) using
ASTM-D5142 proximate analyzer (Model TGA-601). HHV of these
samples were determined by Bomb calorimeter (Model AC-350)
not an easy task as it has both mineral and macerals. Errors may
arise due to difculty in producing a representative sample for
such a heterogeneous material, lack of reproducibility between
samples and between analysts and incomplete combustion of sam-
ple. Thus keeping all these factors in mind analysis was performed
with great attention. Around 250 samples were analyzed to cover
the entire range of moisture, ash and volatile matter contents of
thermal coals normally used.
4. Development of correlation
It is well-known that ash, volatile matter, moisture and xed
its HHV as a fuel. Therefore, the results obtained were carefully
examined for observing the impacts of ash, moisture, volatile mat-
ter and xed carbon on the HHV of coal. It was observed that ash
and moisture have negative effects on HHV. To show the impacts
of ash and moisture contents of coals on HHV, the HHV values
are plotted as a function of the added value of both the variables
35
30
25
HHV(MJ/kg)
20
15
10
5
0
0 20 40 60
% (M+ ASH)
Fig. 1. Effects of moisture and ash contents on HHV of coal.
 A.K. Majumder et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 30773081 3079

35 (Fig. 1). It was further observed that xed carbon and volatile mat-
ter contents both have positive effects on the HHV of coals and the
30 impacts are shown in Fig. 2 in the similar fashion as in Fig. 1.
Out of 250 data 164 data covering a wide range of moisture, ash
25 and volatile matter were selected to generate the correlation and
HHV(MJ/kg)

86 data points were kept separately for the validation purposes.

20
To maintain the conciseness of paper only 50 data covering the en-
15 tire range of proximate analysis (as-received basis) are shown in
Table 1. It may be observed from this table that moisture content
10 varies from 0.8% to 15%, ash content varies from 8% to 50%, volatile
matter content varies from 4% to 30% and xed carbon contents
5 range from 24% to 62% while the range of HHV varies from 12.5
to 26 MJ/kg. For the development of model all the 164 data were
0
taken into consideration. The method of multiple linear regression
0 20 40 60 80 100
analysis has been adapted for the model development. It helps us
% (VM + FC) in modeling the relationship between two or more explanatory
variables and a response variable by tting a linear equation to
Fig. 2. Effects of volatile matter and xed carbon contents on HHV of coal.
the observed data. Every value of the independent variable (x) is
associated with a value of the dependent variable (Y). The basic
model for the multiple linear regression (8) for n observations is
expressed as
Table 1
Proximate analysis data of coal along with experimental HHV values Y i b0 b1 xi1 b2 xi2    bp xip ei 8

S. no. % Ash %M % VM % FC HHV (MJ/kg)

1 43.45 4.87 21.79 29.89 15.79
2 40.35 3.02 23.22 33.41 18.16 30
3 38.32 5.51 22.72 33.45 17.63
4 45.68 4.15 21.78 28.39 15.22 2
R = 0.9783
5 48.65 4.32 20.08 26.95 13.54
Predicted HHV(MJ/kg)

6 46.00 5.11 21.12 27.77 14.27 25

7 27.17 8.34 17.37 47.12 20.37
8 52.06 3.97 19.72 24.25 13.11
9 37.26 7.64 15.34 39.76 17.00
10 38.96 6.45 16.35 38.24 16.67 20
11 21.57 7.31 21.12 50.00 22.97
12 10.96 11.80 17.08 60.16 24.62
13 25.05 6.78 21.83 46.34 21.86
14 23.63 7.35 21.02 48.00 22.14
15 34.95 5.78 18.87 40.40 18.78
15
16 23.34 7.55 20.77 48.34 22.34
17 15.33 11.83 13.70 59.14 23.40
18 28.58 6.00 21.03 44.39 20.88
19 31.85 5.82 19.54 42.79 19.63 10
20 24.85 7.16 19.21 48.78 21.63 10 15 20 25 30
21 33.51 5.10 19.80 41.59 19.03
22 43.23 4.60 17.51 34.66 15.95 Measured HHV (MJ/kg)
23 40.82 3.52 20.83 34.83 17.44
24 16.69 11.38 16.94 54.99 22.53 Fig. 3. Correlation between the measured and the experimental values of HHV.
25 40.19 6.61 15.97 37.23 12.75
26 21.84 11.79 14.78 51.59 20.93
27 33.18 7.19 16.74 42.89 18.80
28 42.54 5.93 15.73 35.80 15.74
29 45.26 6.55 14.63 33.56 14.52
30 28.69 10.35 14.50 46.46 19.23 30
31 37.57 8.16 16.33 37.94 16.57
32 31.42 7.21 27.52 33.85 18.71
Predicted HHV(MJ/kg)

33 9.69 13.57 14.30 62.44 22.41

34 12.52 12.34 16.14 59.00 23.55 25
35 18.77 11.30 15.39 54.54 21.62
36 34.60 7.36 17.26 40.78 18.07
37 17.49 14.85 10.32 57.34 21.16
38 24.07 11.06 18.56 46.31 20.13
20
39 19.57 11.45 18.58 50.40 21.66
40 29.39 8.28 17.01 45.32 19.59
41 20.49 0.85 25.20 53.46 28.37
42 21.80 9.43 30.20 38.57 21.46 15
43 26.42 9.35 16.23 48.00 20.45
44 41.90 6.86 3.62 47.62 15.43
45 19.71 11.60 12.91 55.78 22.47
46 24.26 11.19 12.78 51.77 20.97
10
47 16.57 13.27 12.84 57.32 22.64 10 15 20 25 30
48 50.50 5.50 15.49 28.51 16.18
49 8.35 11.79 18.36 61.50 25.63
Measured HHV(MJ/kg)
50 20.88 12.71 12.29 54.12 21.53
Fig. 4. Comparison between the measured and the experimental values of HHV.
3080 A.K. Majumder et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 30773081

Table 2 Table 2 (continued)

Comparative data from a published [1] article and the predicted data from the present
correlation S. no. %M % % % FC HHV HHV Absolute
Ash VM measured predicted relative
S. no. %M % % % FC HHV HHV Absolute (MJ/kg) (MJ/kg) error
Ash VM measured predicted relative
(MJ/kg) (MJ/kg) error 74 7.4 24.3 27.1 41.2 20.7 21.8 5.3
75 7.1 29.0 28.1 35.8 20.9 20.2 3.6
1 6.0 38.0 26.3 29.7 17.2 17.3 0.6 76 5.7 37.5 23.2 33.6 17.3 17.7 1.9
2 5.8 41.1 23.9 29.2 15.5 16.2 4.5 77 8.9 35.9 23.2 32.0 16.4 16.8 2.4
3 7.5 34.0 26.2 32.3 17.6 18.1 2.7 78 5.5 40.1 24.2 30.2 16.9 16.7 0.6
4 7.6 32.4 22.5 37.5 17.5 18.7 7.2 79 5.1 46.5 20.8 27.6 13.9 14.6 4.7
5 8.3 32.5 27.0 32.2 17.2 18.3 6.1
6 5.8 44.7 22.5 27.0 14.1 14.9 5.7
7 5.7 47.8 22.3 24.2 12.6 13.8 9.6
8 6.8 41.8 25.0 26.4 15.1 15.5 2.4
9 4.4 35.6 27.6 32.4 18.2 18.9 4.0 where b are the regression coefcients, i = 1, 2, 3, . . . and e is the
10 4.6 39.7 25.5 30.2 16.7 17.3 3.3
measure of model deviation. Relationship between the variables is
11 5.5 35.5 28.7 30.3 18.0 18.4 2.1
12 4.8 35.5 28.4 31.3 18.3 18.7 2.3
then plotted to identify the trend that has the best t. The best t-
13 7.1 34.4 27.7 30.8 18.1 18.1 0.1 ted trend is selected based on the minimum value of the sum of
14 9.5 17.6 29.1 43.8 22.6 23.4 3.6 squares of deviation of the various data points from the line ob-
15 7.2 17.4 30.0 45.4 23.3 24.5 5.1 tained. The mathematical computation of the regression coefcients
16 5.2 36.7 28.2 29.9 17.3 18.1 4.8
involves matrix computations. The best possible values of the
17 6.7 24.8 26.8 41.7 20.0 22.0 10.1
18 6.2 28.1 27.4 38.3 18.3 20.9 14.5 regression coefcients in the equation are determined by the meth-
19 7.1 33.5 25.5 33.9 16.1 18.5 14.7 od of least squares.
20 6.4 39.3 22.5 31.8 17.1 16.7 2.5 Regression equations obtained in this analysis were compared
21 5.7 36.6 27.7 30.0 14.9 17.9 20.5
on the basis of coefcient of multiple determinations (R2), which
22 5.6 42.4 26.1 25.9 15.8 15.8 0.0
23 7.0 40.7 24.4 27.9 18.9 15.8 16.4
is calculated based on the formula (9)
24 9.9 28.2 27.5 34.4 18.0 19.2 6.7 Pn _
25 7.2 34.4 25.3 33.1 15.7 18.1 15.1 Y i  Y i 2
R2 1  Pi1
n
9
26 10.0 34.5 24.7 30.8 20.5 16.8 18.1  2
i1 Y i  Y
27 5.4 30.0 29.4 35.2 18.6 20.5 10.6
28 8.2 31.7 27.3 32.8 21.2 18.6 12.1 The equation with R2 value close to one is selected to be the best. A
29 6.3 26.2 24.6 42.9 18.1 21.7 19.4
generalized correlation (10) in the given form having R2 value 0.98
30 8.0 32.4 24.4 35.2 16.8 18.5 10.0
31 7.6 38.1 24.5 29.8 21.6 16.5 23.6 was then produced after checking the suitability of the equation for
32 9.0 21.4 26.3 43.3 16.3 22.2 36.2 all the parameters
33 8.1 35.5 24.5 31.9 8.8 17.3 95.6
34 4.9 60.8 17.4 16.9 18.1 9.3 48.8 Y ax1 bx2 cx3 cx4 10
35 8.8 31.8 24.6 34.8 22.6 18.4 18.7
36 7.4 22.1 29.2 41.3 18.4 22.6 23.0
Here x1, x2, x3 and x4 are ash, moisture, volatile matter and xed car-
37 8.3 32.2 25.0 34.5 17.6 18.4 4.7 bon respectively and Y is HHV of coal. Out of four constants men-
38 7.3 33.4 25.1 34.2 21.9 18.4 15.6 tioned in the above equation a and b have negative values
39 8.5 18.9 29.7 42.9 18.7 23.3 24.7 showing the negative effects of these factors on the HHV and c
40 7.5 30.6 25.4 36.5 17.6 19.4 10.1
and d have positive values showing the positive impacts of these
41 6.9 34.3 24.0 34.8 15.2 18.3 20.2
42 5.3 43.2 22.5 29.0 17.9 15.7 12.5 variables. Incorporating the respective values of the coefcients in
43 7.3 33.1 25.8 33.8 16.0 18.5 15.9 Eq. (10) the nal correlation becomes
44 6.3 37.9 24.1 31.7 19.4 17.2 11.2
45 8.4 26.8 26.4 38.4 18.2 20.4 12.2
HHV 0:03A  0:11M 0:33V M 0:35F C 11
46 6.5 33.4 26.2 33.9 22.8 18.8 17.4
where HHV is expressed in MJ/kg and A, M, VM and FC are the ash,
47 4.3 25.5 28.4 41.8 23.7 22.8 3.8
48 3.6 23.5 29.8 43.1 21.0 23.8 13.5 moisture, volatile matter and xed carbon respectively. All the
49 5.1 29.3 27.3 38.3 19.7 21.0 6.4 independent variables are in weight percent on as- received basis.
50 4.3 33.3 26.7 35.7 13.8 19.8 43.9 Fig. 3 shows comparative plots of the HHVs determined exper-
51 5.7 46.3 22.0 26.0 15.7 14.3 8.3 imentally and those estimated by the given model with a R2 value
52 5.4 40.7 23.9 30.0 16.7 16.6 0.6
53 6.0 38.8 23.9 31.3 16.8 17.0 1.1
of 0.98.
54 6.0 42.8 24.0 27.2 17.2 15.5 10.0
55 0.8 45.7 15.7 37.8 20.1 17.0 15.6 5. Results and discussion
56 5.0 31.3 28.9 34.8 22.3 20.2 9.1
57 4.6 29.0 23.3 43.1 25.5 21.4 16.0
58 5.5 18.7 25.5 50.3 18.6 24.9 33.4 The equation proposed has a genuine basis to accept it for the
59 8.4 31.1 21.9 38.6 19.1 18.9 1.0 estimation of HHV of coal as it deals with all the major variables
60 8.2 30.8 22.0 39.0 21.7 19.1 11.9 affecting HHV. To conrm the validity of the proposed equation
61 5.6 26.9 24.3 43.2 22.1 21.7 1.9 the experimentally determined values of HHV of 86 coal samples
62 6.6 25.3 26.6 41.5 26.3 21.8 17.0
63 6.0 15.0 26.9 52.1 20.9 26.0 24.4
kept separately are compared (Fig. 4) with the predicted values
64 7.2 28.9 26.0 37.9 23.3 20.2 13.4 using Eq. (11). The average absolute error between the experimen-
65 9.1 18.2 25.6 47.1 20.4 23.4 14.6 tal and the predicted data is found to be 1.49%. The error is quiet
66 5.4 32.6 25.9 36.1 23.5 19.6 16.4 low and therefore, establishes the validity of the proposed
67 7.1 21.5 24.7 46.7 26.7 23.1 13.4
equation.
68 3.8 18.4 25.0 52.8 25.1 25.8 2.8
69 7.2 16.7 27.8 48.3 25.5 24.8 2.8 To further demonstrate the validity of the present correlation
70 6.7 17.1 26.2 50.0 17.6 24.9 41.5 the experimental data of HHVs for coals, covering the major coal-
71 6.1 36.4 24.9 32.6 14.9 17.9 19.7 elds in India, presented in a published article [1] is also compared
72 6.8 43.2 22.2 27.8 23.9 15.0 37.1 with the predicted values using Eq. (11). The comparative data is
73 7.8 17.1 24.9 50.2 21.4 24.4 14.1
presented in Table 2. The overall average error between the actual
 A.K. Majumder et al. / Fuel 87 (2008) 30773081
and the predicted data is calculated to be 13.13%, which is slightly
in the higher side. This has happened due to the high errors in-
volved while predicting HHV of a few coal samples. For example,
from the data presented in Table 2 it may be observed that the
proximate analysis of sample numbers 25, 33 and 71 are almost
similar but the HHV of sample number 71 is almost half the value
of HHV of sample numbers 25 and 33. Again, although the sample
number 34 is much inferior in quality to that of sample number 71
but the HHV value of sample number 34 is more than double the
value of HHV of sample number 71. Similar observations can also
be made if one compares the data of sample numbers 69 and 70
as well as the data of sample numbers 6 and 72. Therefore, the reli-
ability of some of the experimental data is questionable. However,
from Table 2 it can further be observed that the absolute relative
error in most of the cases is below 10% which is generally accept-
able for any empirical model thus developed.
6. Conclusion
A simple but reliable correlation has been developed to predict
the HHV of coals from the proximate analysis (as-received basis).
The developed correlation involves the effects of all the major vari-
3081
ables affecting the HHV of coals. Validation with a set of published
data at reasonable accuracy establishes the general acceptability of
the developed correlation.
References
[1] Patel SU, Jeevan Kumar B, Yogesh PB, Sharma BK, Saha S, Biswas S, et al.
Estimation of gross caloric value of coals using articial neural networks. Fuel
2007;86:33444.
[2] Parikh J, Channiwala SA, Ghosal GK. A correlation for calculating HHV from
proximate analysis of solid fuels. Fuel 2005;84:48494.
[3] Goutal M. CR Acad Sci Paris 1902;135:4779.
[4] Schuster VF. Uber die Berechnung des Heizwertes von Kohlen aus der
Immediatezusammensetzung. Brennst Chem 1951;32:1920.
[5] Kucukbayrak S, Durus B, Mericboyu AE, Kadioglu E. Estimation of caloric
values of Turkish lignites. Fuel 1991;70:97981.
[6] Cordero T, Marquez F, Rodriquez-Mirasol J, Rodriguez JJ. Predicting heating
values of lignocellulosics and carbonaceous materials from proximate analysis.
Fuel 2001;80:156771.
[7] Demirbas A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels. Fuel
1997;76(5):434.
[8] 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.
[9] Mazumder BK. Coal systematics: deductions from proximate analysis of coal
Part I. J Sci Ind Res 1954;13B(12):85763.
[10] Mazumder BK. Theoretical oxygen requirement for coal combustion
relationship: with its caloric value. Fuel 2000;79:14139.