Professional Documents
Culture Documents
059 Development of Briquetting Machine For Locally Availablebiomass (2014) (Birwatkar.v.r) PDF
059 Development of Briquetting Machine For Locally Availablebiomass (2014) (Birwatkar.v.r) PDF
LOCALLY AVAILABLEBIOMASS
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
(AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING)
in
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
By
MR. VISHAL RAJARAM BIRWATKAR
Under the guidance of
Dr. Y.P. KHANDETOD
Professor& Head
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
(AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING)
in
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
By
MR. NITIN SHANTARAM SONAWANE
Under the guidance of
DR. A. G. MOHOD
Associate Professor
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
(AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING)
in
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
Approved by the advisory committee
DR. A. G. MOHOD
(Chairman and Research Guide)
I hereby declare that the experimental work and its interpretation of the thesis
entitled “Development of Briquetting Machine for Locally Available Biomass” or no
part thereof has been submitted for any other degree or diploma of any University, nor
the data have been derived from any thesis/publication of any University or scientific
organization. The sources of material used and all assistance received during the
course of investigation have been duly acknowledged.
CERTIFICATE
CERTIFICATE
CERTIFICATE
I wish to thank and express my deep respect to my beloved Mother and Father
and my elder sisters Yogita and Rachna for their constant inspiration and guidance.
No amount of words are enough to describe their efforts in building up my
educational career and my all round development.
I INTRODUCTION 1-3
VII APPENDICES
Appendix-A I Proximate analysis of selected raw biomass 51
Appendix-AII.Proximate analysis of mixed raw biomass 54
Appendix-A III. Moisture content of raw biomass 55
Appendix-A IV. Proximate analysis of biomass briquettes 56
Appendix-B I. Bulk density of raw biomass 58
Appendix- BII.Bulk density of mixed raw biomass 59
Appendix- B III.Bulk density of biomass briquettes 60
Appendix- CI. Calorific value of raw biomass 61
Appendix-C II.Calorific value of mixed biomass for different
63
treatments
Appendix –C III Calorific values of briquettes for different
65
treatments
Appendix –D Calculation for tumbling resistance of
66
briquetted fuel
Appendix –ECalculation for shatter indices of briquetted fuel 68
Appendix –F(Calculated)Resistance to water penetration for
70
briquettes
Appendix –G (Calculated) the degree of densification 72
Appendix –H(Calculated) Energy density ratio of briquettes 73
Appendix –I I(Calculated) Efficiency of briquetting machine 74
Appendix –I II(Calculated) power consumed during
75
briquetting process
Appendix –J Testing of biomass based water heater 76
Appendix –K Cost estimation of developed Screw extruder
type briquetting machine 78
Table
Title Page No.
No.
Abbreviations Description
Agril. Agricultural
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
Cm Centimeter
Cal Calorie
Cp Specific Heat
C.V. Calorific Value
Dr. B. S. K. K. V. Dr. BalasahebSawantKonkanKrishiVidyapeeth
Engg. Engineering
EOES Electrical and Other Energy Sources
etc. Etcetera
et al. Et. alia (and other)
Fig Figure
G Gram
GI Galvanized Iron
GW Gigawatt
Hr Hour
In Inch
IC Internal Combustion
J/yr Joule per year
Kcal Kilo calorie
Kg Kilogram
kJ Kilojoule
kcal/kg Kilocalorie per kilogram
kcal/m3 Kilocalorie per cubic meter
kg/hr Kilogram per hour
kg/m3 Kilogram per cubic meter
Ltr. Litre
L Length
M Meter
MS Mild steel
m2 Square meter
3
m Cubic meter
Mg Milligram
Min Minute
m/sec Meterper second
Mm Millimetre
m/sec Meter per second
MNRE Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
MT Metric tone
MS Mild Steel
MW Mega Watt
Qfuel Quantity of Fuel
SWG Standard Wire Gauge
Sr. No. Serial Number
Vol. Volume
Wb Wet basis
W Weight
LIST OF SYMBOL
Symbols Description
. Full stop
, Comma
+ Addition
- Substraction
× Multiplication
Delta
Lamda
% Per cent
& And
Efficiency
Π Pie
0
C Degree Celsius
0
K Degree Kelvin
0
Degree
ABSTRACT
स्थानिकनाऩातऱरलयलऩरधधजैललस्तूवाठीााांडराोऱवामांत्रवलावरत
श्ररवलळारयाजायाभबफयलटाय
ाृवऴअभबमाांबत्राीआणणतांत्रसानभशावलद्मारम,
डॉफाऱावाशे फवालांताोाणाृवऴवलद्माऩरठ, दाऩोरी.
जज.यत्नागगयी, भशायाष्ट्रयाज्म (बायत).
जुरै२०१४
____________________________________________________________
___
वांळोधनभागगदळगा: डॉ.लाम. ऩर .खन्दे तोद
वलबाग: इरेजररारआणणइतयऊजागस्त्रोत
_____________________________________________________________________
___
आजलाढतररोावांख्माआणणऩमागलयणाचरअलनतरलत्माचफयोफयददलवेंददलवजरलाश्भइांधनेवांऩ
ण्माच्माभागागलयआशे त. माव्मनिकतरयरत,
लाशतूाआणणऔद्मोगगावलाावऩुयेळालजेभळलामअळरमआशे . स्थानिकनालऩरधधजैललस्तूांवाठी
ााांडराोऱवामांत्रवलावरतायण्माचेवांळोधनाामगाेरेगेरे.अळाप्रााये आांधमाच्मालवुफाफुऱझाडाां
चाऩाराऩाचोऱालत्माचफयोफयरााडाांचाबस्
ु वा,
गामरचेवुाेळेणाच्चाभारम्शणूनजैलइांधनावाठीनिकनलडायण्मातआरी.
वलवलधलऩचायावाठीभभश्राच्चाफामोभावच्माव्मजरतगचत्रणआधरचारतेआणणप्रक्रिमाबिाेदटांगनां
वलवलधगुणधभगवोफतबिाेदटांगवलवलधाामगाायीघटाेअांदाजप्रनिकताायपोडराफाशे यचारवलरी.
दतावटप्पप्पमानेस्लरूऩातवलटाभध्मेबिाेदटांगभळरनच्माआलटऩुटषभताभोजरीशोतर.
ऊजागघनतागुणोत्तयआणणफामोभाववलटाांचब
े ौनिकतागुणधभगदृष्ट्टीनेभूल्मभाऩनशोते.
ाच्च्माफामोभावआांफाऩानेवलवलधप्रभाणातवशावांमोजन, Accasiaऩाने,
धऱ
ू आणणाोयड्माळेणटी 1 ऩादशरेरा (40: 25: 25: 10), टी 2 (25: 25: 25: 10), टी 3 (25: 25:
40: 10), टी 4 (30: 30: 25: 15), टी 5 (30: 25: 25: 20) आणणटी 6 (25: 20: 30: 25)
लाऩयरेशोतेअभ्मावदयम्मान. ाच्च्माफामोभावजलऱचरवलश्रेऴणदयम्मान,
densification ऩदलरवयावयीघनताबिाेदटांगाेल्मानांतयअनि
ु भे 579,5 m3 क्रारो / आणण 166
आणणऊष्ट्भाांाभल्
ू मrespectively.Maximumऩदलरम्शणूनवांमोजनभध्मेवाजयाझारावांमोजनभ
आणणऊष्ट्भाांाभल्
ू मक्राभानऩदलर INT-2 वाजयाशोतरतयअनि
ु भे 159 आणण 3405 क्रारोाॅरयी
densification ाीवलटाांचेटभगभध्मेाच्च्माफामोभावघनतेच्मालाढ,
वलटाांचत
े ेचाांगरेळॉाआणणप्रबालप्रनिकताायभूल्मशोतेाीझारी, ऊष्ट्भाांाभूल्मभूल्मदे खररअनुिभे
जास्तरतजास्तददल्मा.
माभऱ
ु े बिाेदटांगभळरनाच्च्माbiomass.Theषभतेतऩादशरेधऱ
ू लच्चटराेलायी / श 39 ते 40
क्रारोऩावूनवलवलधायणेवाजयाझाराशोता.भळरनाामगषभतावलटाांचवे लवलधजोड्माटराे 96
The increase in the cost of oil and uncertainty in the availability, realized all
over the world have necessitated the need to develop and use the non-conventional
sources of energy, especially, the solar energy and biomass energy. For effective
utilization of biomass briquetting technology is one of the convenient means. The
present chapter deals with review of literature covering various aspects of briquetting
technology such as biomass availability in India, raw material briquetting, binding
agents and briquetting technology.
2.1 Biomass availability and scope for its utilization
Shukla (1997) studied the biomass energy in India and reported that the
biomass contributed over a third of primary energy in India. An additional problem
with the traditional biomass used was the social costs associated with excessive
pollution. The incomplete combustion of biomass in traditional stoves released
pollutants and these pollutants caused considerable damage to health.
Tripathi et al. (1998) made an assessment of the availability and cost of some
agricultural residues used as feedstocks for biomass gasification and briquetting in
India with consideration to their seasonal and geographical availability dimensions.
They assessed the potential availability of eight selected agricultural residues viz.
arhar stalk, maize stalk, maize cobs, cotton stalk, jute and mesta sticks, rice husk and
groundnut shells. It was reported that more than eight million tonnes of these residues
would be produced in the year 2000-2001 with a primary energy potential of about
1200 Peta Joules. It was suggested that these agricultural residues would be profitably
used as feedstocks in gasification and briquetting plants.
Sanke and Reddy (2008) studied the biomass for power and energy generation.
The primary energy used in India was dominated by coal (40 % of total primary
energy) followed by fuel wood (34%) and petroleum fuels (15%). Biomass was a
scientific term of living matter, more especially any organic matter that had been
derived from plants as a result of the photosynthetic conversion process. Estimated
worldwide energy stored in biomass through photosynthesis was approximately 3 x
1021 J/year, out of which 90% energy was stored in trees.
Srivastava (2009) reported that annual availability of crop residues was about
477.46 million tonnes and about 27 million tonnes cotton stalk wastes were produced
in India. It was concluded that about 100 - 125 million tonnes, including about 11.8
million tonnes of cotton stalk were not used properly and available as surplus. By the
year 2015 about 700 million tonnes of crop and agro-processing residues/wastes
would be available annually. If the surplus biomass briquetted as such it could be used
as domestic and industrial fuel for energy.
Chauhan (2010) studied the biomass resources assessment for power
generation and reported that, the India generated over 370 million tonnes of biomass
every year. In addition to the direct harvesting from plants, biomass was also
produced as a by-product in many agro based industries such as rice husk from rice
mill, saw dust from saw mill, bagasse from sugar mills etc. It was estimated that 17
GW of power would be generated through cogeneration, combustion and gasification
routes from the available biomass.
Ansari (2012) studied the biomass energy and environmental concerns in
developing country. Biomass had been used for energy purposes ever since man
discovered fire. Today, biomass fuels utilized for task ranging from heating the house
to fuelling a car. The developing countries had been 75 per cent of the total world’s
population whereas they were consuming 25 per cent energy in the world.
Roy (2013) studied the role of biomass energy for sustainable development of
rural India. The biomass had a very high potential as a renewable energy resources
because of its reliability and availability everywhere around the globe. It was the
fourth highest primary energy resource in the world after oil, coal and gas,
contributing 10.6 % of the global primary energy supply.
Yahaya et al. (2012) studied the rice husk briquettes obtained from the mould
& after drying were found strong and well formed. It was due to low compressive
force applied and it could also be due to unequal distribution of pressure, which was
restricted at the top of the mould. This could be remedied by the use of the briquetting
machine.
III. MATERIAL AND METHODS
The study area was located in costal belt of Maharashtra State and situated in Konkan
region. The region was characterized as humid zone. It lies at 15o6’N to 20o22’N
latitude and 72o39’E to 73o48’E longitudes with altitude of 250 m above mean sea
level. The present investigation entitled “Development of briquetting machine for
locally available biomass” was undertaken at the Department of Electrical and Other
Energy Sources, College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Dr. Balasaheb
Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri. The fabrication work was
carried out at workshop of College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Dr.
BSKKV, Dapoli (M.S.).
The chapter deals with steps carried out to evaluate the performance of developed
screw press briquetting machine and characterization of raw material and briquetted
fuel
1) Raw material characterization for briquetting.
2) Performance evaluation of developed screw extruder type briquetting
machine.
3) Analysis of briquetted fuel.
3.1 Raw material characterization for briquetting
The following important properties were considered for the selection of the raw
material for the briquetting.
1. High calorific value
2. Should not have major alternative use
3. Should have low nutritive value
4. It should be easily and abundantly available
Material including dry mango leaves, acasia leaves ,saw dust, and cow dung were
collected from university experimental plots, in Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi
Vidyapeeth, Dapoli and their proximate and ultimate analysis was carried out
(Pictorial view of selected raw biomass is shown in Plate 3.1).
Where,
W = Mass of water placed in the calorimeter (2000g),
w = Water equivalent of the apparatus (455g),
T1 = Initial temperature of water in the calorimeter (˚C),
T2 = Final temperature of water in the calorimeter (˚C),
X = Mass of fuel sample taken in the crucible (g)
θh ≥ θ1
....(3.7) Where,
θh = Angle of inclination of the feed hopper to the horizontal, degrees
θ1 = Angle of repose of biomass, degrees
V
L l h W w ....(3.11)
2
Where,
L = Top length, m
l = Bottom length, m
W = Top width, m
w = Bottom width, m
h = Height, m
(32 32) x (9.5 8) x 42
Volume of hopper
2
....(3.12)
= 47040 cm3
= 0.04704 m3
Total capacity of hopper = Volume × Bulk density of raw biomass (Average)
....(3.13)
= 0.04704 m3 × 202.3 Kg/m3
= 9.51Kg
3.2.2.5 Frame
The frame was important component on which all other components viz.
screw assembly; and briquetting barrel were fitted. The briquetting stand was made up
of 16 gauge M.S. sheet with 3 mm thickness. The total weight of the base stand was 5
kg. The total numbers of 12 bolts were used for fitting briquetting frame. The size of
the bolt was used 1cm dia. and 5 cm height which was used.
3.2.2.6 Length of Belt
The v belt B-section was selected. The thickness of the belt was 100 mm. The
length of the belt was determined by using following formula.
( D4 D5 ) 2
L1 ( D4 D5 ) 2C
2 4C
....(3.14)
Where,
L1 = length of the belt, m
C = Center to center distance between driven and driving pulley,m
D4 = diameter of driving pulley, m
D5 = diameter of driven pulley, m
(0.558 0.076) 2
L1 (0.558 0.076) 2 0.620
2 4 0.620
....(3.15)
L1 = 2.09 m
Thus, the total length of the belt was 2.09 m was used to run the briquetting machine.
v) Depth of flight 25
7. Other Specifications
Table 3.2 Different Treatments (mixture of raw materials and binder) for
production of briquettes in different proportions.
Dry Acacia
Dry Mango
Binder
Leaves Saw Dust
Leaves
Treatment Percent
Cow Dung
( powder form )
(powder form)
T1 40 25 25 10
T2 25 40 25 10
T3 25 25 40 10
T4 30 30 25 15
T5 30 25 25 20
T6 25 20 30 25
Where,
η = Machine efficiency, (%)
Wb = weight of briquette, kg
Wf = weight of feed material, kg
The results of biomass based water heater test are depicted in Appendix – J
M W C p T
% 100 ……. (3.31)
F CV
Where,
η = Thermal efficiency, %
Mw = Initial volume of water taken, kg
Cp = Specific heat of water, kcal/kg °C
30 Ash content
20 Fixed carbon
10
0
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6
Raw mixed biomass in differnt treatment
Fig. 4.2 Proximate analysis of raw mixed biomass for briquetting
Fig. 4.2 revealed that the moisture content of mixed raw biomass was found
to be in the range of 8.1 to 10.10 per cent. The volatile matter of mixed raw biomass
material were found to be in the range of 64.18 to 67.60 per cent and ash content
were found to be in the range of 8.89 to 12.3 per cent. The fixed carbon was found to
be in the range of 12.07 to 16.90 per cent.Maximum fixed carbon was found in T-3
(25:25:40:10) combinationas 16.90, which comprised of dry mango (Mangifera
indica) leaves (25%), subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves (25%), saw dust (40%)
and dry dung (10%). The lower amount of ash content and higher fixed carbon in
mixed raw material indicated that material was suitable for briquetting.
4.1.3 Proximate analysis of briquetted samples for different treatments
Observations and proximate analysis of briquetted samples were determined
and depicted in (Appendix-A (IV)).
Fig. 4.3 shows that the moisture content of mixed raw biomass was found to
be in the range of 4.43 to 5.60 per cent. The lower amount of moisture might be due
to removal of moisture from biomass due to compression during briquetting process
.The values for volatile matter; fixed carbon and ash content were almost same as that
of original raw biomass. The small change observed was due to non homogeneous
mixed of raw biomass.
80
70
60 Moisture Content
per cent
50 Volatile matter
40
Ash Content
30
Fixed Carbon
20
10
0
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6
The volatile matter of briquettes was found to be in the range of 68.90 to 70.77
per cent and ash content was found to be in the range of 9.01 to 11.43 per cent. The
fixed carbon was found to be in the range of 12.45 to 17.04 per cent. Maximum fixed
carbon was found 16.21 and 17.04 per cent in T-3 (25:25:40:10) combination and T-6
combination (25:20:30:25) ,respectively. Minimum fixed carbon was found 12.45 per
cent and 13.20 per cent in T-2 and T-1 combinations, respectively. The combination
T-2 & T-1 contained fewer amounts of saw dust and binder proportion rather than in
T-6 and T-3 combination.
4.1.4 Bulk density of raw biomass
The bulk density of raw biomass i.e. dry dung, saw dust, mango (Mangifera
indica) leaves, subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves was determined (Appendix B -
(I)). The results of the average bulk density are shown in Fig 4.4.
It was observed from the Fig. 4.4 that the bulk density of dry dung, saw dust,
mango (Mangifera indica) leaves and subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves were
found to be 180 kg/m3, 195 kg/m3, 125 kg/m3 and 136 kg/m3, respectively.
195
200 180
180
100
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6
Tretments for mixed raw biomass samples
Fig. 4.5 Bulk density of mixed raw biomass for making briquettes
In this combination maximum proportion of saw dust was used. The bulk
density was considerably increased because of saw dust has high density. The lowest
bulk density was found 202 kg/m3 in T-1 (40:25:25:10) combination which comprises
of dried mango (Mangifera indica) leaves (40 %), subabul (Acacia Auriculiformis)
leaves (25%), saw dust (25%) and dry cow dung (10%). In this combination, the bulk
density was considerably decreased because of the low density of mango leaves .The
bulk densities of other combinations varied as per the bulk densities of the raw
material used and their proportion.
4.1.6 Calorific value of raw biomass
The calorific value of raw material was determined by standard procedure
with the help of using bomb calorimeter (Appendix –C (I)). The calorific values of
raw biomass are depicted in Fig 4.6.
5000
3899.66
Calorific value, kcal/kg
4000
3248.19 3185.12
3066.67 Cow dung
3000
Saw dust
2000
Mango leaves
1000 Subabul leaves
0
Cow dung Saw dust Mango Subabul
leaves leaves
Raw biomass samples
4000
3600 3574
Calorific Value kcal/kg
3000 T-1(40:25:25:10)
T-2(25:40:25:10)
2500
T-3(25:25:40:10)
2000 T-4(30:30:25:15)
1500 T-5(30:25:25:20)
T-6(25:20:30:25)
1000
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6
Treatments for mixed raw biomass
Fig. 4.7 showed that the maximum calorific value was found 3600 kcal/kg in
T-3 (25:25:40:10) combination which comprises of dry mango leaves (25%) and
subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves (25%) in powder form saw dust (40%) and dry
dung (10%). The minimum calorific value was found 3350 kcal/kg in T-2
(25:40:25:10) combination which comprised of mango (Mangifera indica) leaves
(25%), subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves (40%), saw dust (25%) and cow dung
(10%). The calorific value was considerably increased and decreased among from all
combinations because of saw dust which possessed more calorific value than the other
biomass i.e. dry mango (Mangifera indica) leaves, dry subabul (Acacia
auriculiformis) leaves and dry dung. The calorific value of other combination of raw
biomass sample also followed the same pattern.
4.2 Performance evaluation of briquetting machine
The performance of briquetting machine was carried out using six
combinations of raw material. Performance evaluation of briquetting machine
included operational parameters of raw material and operational parameters of
machine. The details are depicted in table 4.1
4.2.1 Operational parameter of briquetting machine
The operational parameters of briquetting machine were recorded during the
productions of briquettes from each combination of raw material.It was observed that
there was a smooth operation of briquetting machine and no operational difficulties
were observed during the operation. The average capacity of briquetting machine was
about 39-40 kg/hr with average energy consumption of about 16.05 kcal/kg of
briquetted fuel.
Table 4.1 Different operational parameter of briquetting machine
The machine was continuously run for three replications for one combination.
The mixed raw material was taken (5 kg) and mixed with 3.5 litres of water during the
performance of briquetting machine. The quantity of water was decided, by hand
messing the mixed raw biomass. The current was observed between 3.0 to 3.4
Ampere for operating the briquetting machine during the load condition. The time
was required for making the briquettes varied from 11 to 14 min for different
combination of raw materials.
The material use efficiency of the machine varied from 94 per cent to 95 per
cent for various combinations of the briquettes and the result obtained during test are
depicted in Appendix -I
4.3 Analysis of briquetted fuel
The various properties of briquetted fuel were tested to analyze the briquetted
fuel as follows.
35 32.08
29.81 30.12
30
Moisture Content (%)
26.61
25 22.79
T-1(40:25:25:10)
20.05
20 T-2(25:40:25:10)
15 T-3(25:25:40:10)
T-4(30:30:25:15)
10
T-5(30:25:25:20)
5
T-6(25:20:30:25)
0
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6
Treatments for briquetted samples
The Fig. 4.8 shows that the maximum moisture content in T-1 (40:25:25:10)
combination as 32.08, which comprised of dry mango (Mangifera indica) leaves
(40%) and subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves (25%) in powder form. Saw dust
(25%) and dry dung (10%). The minimum moisture content 20.05 per cent in T-3
(25:25:40:10) combination which comprised of mango (Mangifera indica) leaves
(25%), subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves (25%), saw dust (40%) and cow dung
(10%). Moisture content of all combination was found in desirable range as 20.05 to
32.08 per cent. This indicates that moisture holding capacity of the saw dust was less
as compared to mango (Mangifera indica) leaves and subabul (Acacia auriculiformis)
leaves.
4.3.2 Calorific value of briquettes
The calorific values of briquetted fuel for six combinations of briquettes
(Appendix C -III) are shown in Fig 4.9
4000 3717 3646
3480 3521 T-1(40:25:25:10)
Calorific value (kcal/kg)
3426 3405
3500
T-2(25:40:25:10)
3000 T-3(25:25:40:10)
T-4(30:30:25:15)
2500
T-5(30:25:25:20)
2000 T-6(25:20:30:25)
1500
1000
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6
Treatments for dried briquetted samples
The Fig. 4.9 shows that the maximum calorific value was found 3717 kcal/kg
in T-3 (25:25:40:10) combination which comprised of dry mango (Mangifera indica)
leaves (25%), subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves (25%), saw dust (40%) and dry
dung (10%). The lowest calorific value was found 3405 kcal/kg in T-2 (25:40:25:10)
combination which comprised of mango (Mangifera indica) leaves (25%), subabul
(Acacia auriculiformis) leaves (40%), saw dust (25%) and dry dung (10%). This
indicated that when the percentage of higher calorific value material is more (saw
dust) then the briquettes are also of the same trend was observed in all other
combinations of high calorific value.
4.3.3 Bulk density of briquettes
The bulk density for six combinations are given in Appendix and depicted in
Fig. 4.10.
700
631 627
600 570 576
538 535
400 T-3(25:25:40:25)
300 T-4(30:30:25:15)
200 T-5(30:25:25:20)
100 T-6(25:20:30:25)
0
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6
1 T-5(30:25:25:20)
T-6(25:20:30:25)
0.5
0
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6
It was observed from the Fig.4.11 that the energy density ratio of six
combination briquettes varied from 2.63 to 2.79. The maximum energy density ratios
was found to be 2.79 in T-3 (25:25:40:10) and 2.75 inT-6 (25:20:30:25) because the
density of the briquettes is higher i.e. 631-627 kg/m3. The minimum energy density
ratio was found to be 2.63 in T-2 (25:40:25:10). This was due to lower calorific value
of the raw material used. From this analysis maximum energy density ratio indicated
that raw biomass was properly densified and also given good calorific value.
The Fig.4.12 Shows that the average maximum tumbler resistance was found
to be 96.19 per cent in T-6 (25:20:30:25) combination which comprises of mango
(Mangifera indica) leaves (25%), subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves (20%), saw
dust (30%) and dry dung (25%). The lowest tumbler resistance was found to be 91.36
per cent in T-2 (25:40:25:10) combination. which comprises of mango( mangifera
indica) leaves (25%), subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves (40%), saw dust (25%)
and dry dung (10%). It was observed because of higher percent of dry dung and saw
dust which has more tumbling resistance .the briquettes with higher percentage
powdered leaves showed lowest tumbler resistance.T-3 and T-6 were showing almost
similar tumbler resistance i.e (95.83%) ,(96.19%).
60 T-4(30:30:25:10)
T-5(30:25:25:20)
50
T-6(25:20:30:25)
40
30
20
10
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6
Treatments for briquetted samples
The Fig. 4.13 shows that the maximum average shatter index was found to be
94.46 per cent in T-3 (25:25:40:10). The index was higher because it contained more
percentage of saw dust amount all combinations and the saw dust worked as binder.
Similarly, the minimum shatter index was found to be 88.60 per cent in T-4
(30:30:25:15) combination which comprised of mango (Mangifera indica) leaves
(30%), Subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves (30%) saw dust (25%), and dry dung
(10%). It was due to higher percentage of leaves (30 % & 30 %) High shatter index
showed the briquette had high shock and impact resistance. Hence combination T-3
was found more suitable for handling and transportation rather than other
combination.
4.3.8. Resistance to water penetration
Resistance to water penetration indicated resistance to water absorbed by a
briquette when immersed in water. The result obtained from test are presented in
Table (Appendix -F) and depicted in Fig 4.14.
110
70 T-2(25:40:25:10)
T-3(25:25:40:10)
50 T-4(30:30:25:15)
T-5(30:25:25:20)
30
T-6(25:20:30:25)
10
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6
Treatments for briquetted samples
form of leaves could not be compressed as compared to biomass containing more saw
dust.
180
After analysis the various properties of briquetted fuel from each combination,
it was observed that the briquetted fuel from combination T-3 and T-6 was found
good in tumbling test, shatter index, and resistance to water penetration. Shatter and
tumbling test showed that they had good shock and impact resistance and were good
for handling and transportation. They also had good energy density ratio. Out of six
combinations, combination T-3 briquettes achieved highest calorific value, hence
selected as best combination fuel.
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary
Briquetting of locally available biomass material such as, Mango leaves,
Acacia leaves, saw dust and dry cow dung biomass was carried out at Energy Park,
Department of Electrical and Other Energy Sources, College of Agricultural
Engineering and Technology, Dr. BSKKV, Dapoli. The objectives of this research
was to study characterization of locally available raw biomass i.e.; Mango leaves,
Acacia leaves, saw dust and cow dung. To develop the screw press briquetting
machine and evaluate the performance of briquetting machine.
Mango (Mangifera indica) is an important evergreen tropical crop in Konkan
region. Dried Mango and Subabul (Accacia auriculiformis) leaves are easily and
abundantly available in Konkan region, also saw dust is normally available in saw
mills, no additional efforts and a nominal cost is involved in the collection of this
biomass for briquetting. The raw material for the study was collected locally. Before
selection it was assured that, the selected biomass is not having major alternative use,
and it has high calorific value, easy availability and low nutritive value. Among the
selected raw biomass saw dust had maximum bulk density, fixed carbon and calorific
value i.e. 192 kg/m3, 18.10 and 3899 kcal/kg respectively.
The six combination with different proportion of raw biomass Mango leaves,
Accasia leaves, Saw dust and dry cow dung T-1(40:25:25:10), T-2(25:25:25:10), T-
3(25:25:40:10), T-4 (30:30:25:15), T-5(30:25:25:20) and T-6(25:20:30:25) were used
during the study. During proximate analysis of raw biomass, moisture content of
mixed raw biomass was varied from 8.31 to 10.10 percent. Volatile matter was varied
from 64 to 67 per cent, Ash content of mixed raw biomass was varied from 8.83 to
12.5 per cent and average fixed carbon was varied from 12.07 to 16.90 per cent. The
average density of mixed raw biomass was found to be 217 kg/m3. After briquetting
average density of briquettes and degree of densification was found to be 579.5 kg/m 3
and 166 per cent respectively. Also average energy density ratio was found to be 2.71.
5.2 Conclusions
4. The combination T-3 and combination T-6 briquettes showed that they
have good shock and impact resistance values; so it will be good for handling and
transportation.
5. When there is increase the percentage of saw dust in raw biomass, then it
shows that the calorific value of the briquettes was considerably increased from 3600
to 3717 kcal/kg.
Aivaras, K., Imants, N., Dainis, A., 2011. Mechanical properties of composite
biomass briquettes. Latvia University of Agriculture, Institute of Mechanics,
Faculty of Engineering J. Čakstes bulv. 5, Jelgava, LV 3001. :175-183
Chauhan Suresh. 2010. Biomass Resources for Power Generation: A Case Study from
Haryana State, India. Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 34(9): 1300-1308.
Jahan M. S., R. Sabina and A. Rubaiyat. 2007. Alkaline Pulping and Bleaching of
Acacia Auriculiformis growth in Bangladesh, Department of Applied
Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh: 339-347.
Jamradloedluk J. and S. Wiriyaumpaiwong. 2007. Production And Characterization of
Rice Husk Based Charcoal Briquettes. KKU Engineering Journal, Vol.34 (4):
391-398.
John K Francis. 1980. Accacia Auriculiformis A. cunn.ex Benth part II, International
Institute of Tropical Forest USDA Forest Service.244-255.
Matus M. and P. Krizan. 2012. Modularity of Pressing Tools for Screw Press
Producing Solid Biofuels.Acta polytechnica Vol-52(3):71-76
Roy P. C. 2013. Role of Biomass Energy for Sustainable Development of Rural India: Case
Study. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, Vol.
3 (3): 577 – 582.
Srivastava P.K., R.C. Maheshwari and T.P. Ojha. 1986. Comparative Performance of
small scale Briquetting Unit, Proceeding of National Workshop on Briquetting
of Organic Residue, National Productivity Council, New Delhi.
Srivastava P. K., R .C. Maheshwari and T. P. Ojha. 1995. Biomass Briquetting and
Utilization. Jain Brothers Publisher, New Delhi.
2 Sengar S.H., A.G. Mohod, Y.P. Khandetod, S.S. Patil and A.D. Chendake.
2012. Performance of Briquetting Machine For Briquette Fuel. International
Journal of Energy Engineering. Vol. 2(1):28-34.
Tayade Sujata, J. Pohare and D.M. Mahalle. 2010. Physical and thermal properties of
briquettes by piston press and screw press. International Journal of
Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 3(2):223-227.
Yahaya, D. B. and T. G. Ibrahim. 2012. Development of Rice Husk Briquette for Use
as Fuel. Research Journal In Engineering And Applied Science, Vol. 1 (2):
130-133.
7.8 70 8 9.2
Acacia
7.5 73 7.5 12.5
leaves
7.9 69 9.5 13.9
Average 7.76 70.66 8.20 13.04
B) Proximate analysis of mixed raw biomass
Sr.
Samples Treatments
no
1 T1 (40:25:25:10)
2 T2 (25:40:25:10)
3 T3 (25:25:40:10)
4 T4 (30:30:25:15)
5 T5 (30:25:25:20)
6 T6 (25:20:30:25)
I. Observations
Samples w1 w2 w3 w4 w5
31.192 32.194 32.109 31.439 31.319
32.102 33.105 33.020 32.345 32.230
32.107 33.109 33.025 32.354 32.235
Sr. Moisture
Sample W1, (g) W2, (g) W3, (g) Avg. (%)
No. content, (%)
69.225 56.906 33.77
32.749
1. T–1 32.08
66.650 56.991 27.95
32.095
68.123 55.792 34.53
32.043
83.116 74.752 23.08
46.890
2. T–2 74.115 64.775 22.42 22.79
32.462
66.695 58.764 22.89
32.043
79.790 68.986 22.82
32.456
3. T–3 69.927 63.180 18.03 20.05
32.518
73.790 65.887 19.30
32.849
76.600 68.127 28.56
46.934
4. T–4 68.420 56.775 32.01 29.81
32.045
76.635 63.773 28.88
32.097
72.615 60.775 29.53
32.521
32.400
5. T–5 76.149 63.116 29.79 30.12
32.043
66.676 55.925 31.04
32.849
71.295 60.725 27.49
32.521
6. T–6 72.750 61.101 27.20 26.61
32.097
69.615 60.175 25.16
III) Moisture content of wet briquette (Calculated)
I. Observations
Samples W1 W2 W3 W4 W5
Bio Bu Aver
Weight of Volume
mass lk age
raw of
mate De Bulk
biomass cylinde
rial nsi Densi
(kg) r(m3)
ty ty
18
0.182 0.001
2
Cow 18
0.181 0.001
dung 1 180
17
0.177 0.001
7
20
0.202 0.001
2
Saw 19 195
0.193 0.001
dust 3
19
0.191 0.001
1
12
0.127 0.001
7
Man 12 125
0.125 0.001
go 5
leave
12
s 0.123 0.001
3
14
0.142 0.001
Acac 2
ia 13 136
0.137 0.001
leave 7
s 13
0.130 0.001
0
Volume
Weight of Average
of Bulk
Combinations mixed raw bulk
cylinder density
biomass(Kg) density
(m3)
0.201 0.001 201
I Calorific value of raw biomass, mixed raw biomass and dried briquettes
(W w) (T2 T1 )
Calorific value (Kcal/kg) =
X
Where,
Calorific Average
Sr. W w T1 T2 X
Sample value Calorific value
No. (gm) (gm) (ºC) (ºC) (gm)
(kcal/kg) (kcal/kg)
Average
Calorific
Sr. W W T1 T2 X Calorific
Sample value
No. (gm) (gm) (ºC) (ºC) (gm) value
(kcal/kg)
(kcal/kg
1 1 2000 455 29 30.5 1.059 3477.34
3185.12
2 2 2000 455 29.2 30.5 1.029 3100.12
Calorifi
Sr. W w T1 T2 X
value
No (gm) (gm) (ºC) (ºC) (gm)
(kcal/kg
Cal
S
T orif
r T X Average
w 1 ic
. W 2 ( Calorifi
( ( val
(g (º g c value
g º ue
N m) C m (kcal/kg
m C (kc
o ) ) )
) ) al/k
.
g)
1
4 3 .
20 2 327
1 5 0. 1
00 9 6
5 6 9
9
1
2
4 3 .
20 9 351
2 5 0. 1 3350
00 . 0
5 8 8
1
9
1
2
4 3 .
20 9 326
3 5 0. 2
00 . 5
5 9 7
2
8
Calorif
Sr. W w T1 T2 X
value
No. (gm) (gm) (ºC) (ºC) (gm)
(kcal/kg
1 2000 455 29.1 30.7 1.097 3580
2 2000 455 28.9 30.4 1.029 3578
3 2000 455 29.2 30.8 1.078 3643
Calorif
Sr. W W T1 T2 X
value
No. (gm) (gm) (ºC) (ºC) (gm)
(kcal/kg
1 2000 455 30 31.7 1.201 3475
2 2000 455 30.3 31.8 1.101 3344
3 2000 455 30.4 32 1.155 3400
5. Calculation for calorific value of raw biomass sample (combination T5)
Calorif
Sr. W W T1 T2 X
value
No. (gm) (gm) (ºC) (ºC) (gm)
(kcal/kg
Calorif
Sr. W W T1 T2 X
value
No. (gm) (gm) (ºC) (ºC) (gm)
(kcal/kg
1 2000 455 30.1 31.9 1.24 3563
2 2000 455 30.2 31.8 1.12 3507
3 2000 455 30.4 32.1 1.143 3651
III. calorific value of briquetted samples (Calculated)
T T
S X Calorif
W 1 2 Average
r W ( ic
( ( ( Calorific
. (g g value
g º º value
N m) m (kcal/k
m C C (kcal/kg)
o ) g)
) ) )
1
4 2 3 . 3426.63
20
1 5 9 0 1
00
5 . . 4 3418.6
3 9 9 2
2 3 1
4
20 9 0 .
2 5
00 . . 1 3415.6
5
2 8 5 5
2 3 1
4
20 9 0 .
3 5
00 . . 1 3445.6
5
3 9 4 1
T T
S X Calorif
W 1 2 Average
r W ( ic
( ( ( Calorific
. (g g value
g º º value
N m) m (kcal/k
m C C (kcal/kg)
o ) g)
) ) )
1
4 2 3 . 3405.78
20
1 5 8 0 1
00
5 . . 5 3400.8
6 2 5 7
1
4 2 .
20
2 5 9 1
00
5 . 3 5 3406.7
4 1 3 6
20 4 2 3 1 3409.7
3
00 5 9 0 . 2
5 . . 1
3 9 5
2
T T
S X Calorif
W 1 2 Average
r W ( ic
( ( ( Calorific
. (g g value
g º º value
N m) m (kcal/k
m C C (kcal/kg)
o ) g)
) ) )
1
4 2 3 . 3717.61
20
1 5 9 0 1
00
5 . . 8 3722.8
1 9 7 3
1
4 2 3 .
20
2 5 9 1 1
00
5 . . 8 3716.5
4 2 9 7
2 3 1
4
20 9 1 .
3 5
00 . . 1 3713.4
5
3 1 9 5
T T
S W X Calorif
1 2 Average
r W ( ( ic
( ( Calorific
. (g g g value
º º value
N m) m m (kcal/k
C C (kcal/kg)
o ) ) g)
) )
2 3 1
4
20 9 1 . 3480.54
1 5
00 . . 1 3476.1
5
8 4 3 1
1
4 3 .
20
2 5 1 1
00
5 3 . 3 3473.0
0 6 1 3
1
4 3 3 .
20
3 5 0 2 1
00
5 . . 9 3492.4
4 1 5 7
S W W T T X Calorif Average
r (g ( 1 2 ( ic Calorific
. m) g ( ( g value value
N m º º m (kcal/k (kcal/kg)
o ) C C ) g)
) )
2 3 1
4
20 8 0 . 3521.98
1 5
00 . . 1 3507.1
5
9 6 9 4
2 3 1
4
20 9 1 .
2 5
00 . . 1 3536.8
5
4 1 8 6
1
4 3 3 .
20
3 5 0 1 1
00
5 . . 8 3521.9
2 9 5 4
T T
S W X Calorif
1 2 Average
r W ( ( ic
( ( Calorific
. (g g g value
º º value
N m) m m (kcal/k
C C (kcal/kg)
o ) ) g)
) )
2 1
4
20 9 . 3646
1 5
00 . 3 2
5
2 1 0 3670
2 3 1
4
9 1 .
2 20 5
. . 1
00 5
5 2 5 3624
3 1
4
20 1 .
3 5
00 3 . 0
5
0 5 1 3645
APPENDIX – D
Calculation for determination of tumbling test of briquetted fuel
w1 w2
Percent weight loss = 100
w1
39.1
43.44 9.8 90.2
6
T2
40.1
44.12 8.9 91.1
8
39.1
42.19 7.2 92.8
3
Ave
39.4 8.6
rag 43.25 91.36
9 3
e
54.0 3.5
55.94 96.44
2 6
T3
54.3 5.3
57.43 94.67
7 3
53.9 3.6
56.05 96.38
5 2
Ave
54.1 4.1
rag 56.47 95.83
1 7
e
45.3
49.10 7.6 92.4
6
T4
43.9
47.80 8.1 91.9
2
45.5
48.95 7.7 92.3
2
Ave
49.9
rag 48.61 7.8 92.2
3
e
42.3 3.1
45.42 96.88
0 2
T6
43.1 3.6
46.71 96.39
0 1
41.1 4.7
45.80 95.30
0 0
Ave
42.1 3.8
rag 45.97 96.19
6 1
e
APPENDIX – E
Where,
w1 = weight of briquette before shattering, g
w2 = weight of briquette after shattering, g
Where,
w1 = Initial weight of briquette
w2 = final weight of briquette
11.85 11.13 6 94
T2 10.6 9.53 10 90 91.93
11.21 10.39 8.2 91.8
T3 13.14 12.22 7 93
12.14 11.41 6 94 94.16
Fresh
Biomass Total Losses
Sr Water briquette
material weight in
no added weight
(Kg) (Kg) (Kg)
(Kg)
5 3.5 8.5 8.109 0.391
M
V
ac
o P
hi
l o
Out n
S t Po w
put e Cu
a Ti a wer e
of ca rre
m me g Co r
fres p nt
p Re e nsu (
h ac (A
l qu ( me K
Briq it m
e ire v d w
uett y pe
s d o (K -
e ( re)
l w) h
(Kg) K
t r
g/
) )
h
r)
8.10 12. 4 2 3.2 0.7 0
T 9 1 0. 3 36 .
1 2 0 1
0 4
8
8.10 12. 3 2 3.1 0.7 0
3 3 9. 2 09 .
5 9 1
4
5
8.10 12. 3 2 3 0.6 0
7 2 9. 2 87 .
8 9 1
7 3
9
A 8.10 12. 3 2 3.1 0.7 0
v 6 2 9. 2 10 .
e 8 9 1
r 5 4
a 4
g
e
0.
2
T 8.17 37. 3. 0.7 1
13 2
2 0 70 2 32 5
9
8
0.
2
8.11 40. 3. 0.7 1
12 3
4 57 3 59 5
0
1
0.
2
8.10 40. 3. 0.7 1
12 2
1 50 2 29 4
8
5
A
v
0.
e 2 3.
8.12 12. 39. 0.7 1
r 2 2
8 33 59 40 5
a 9 3
1
g
e
3
0.
T 9 2
8.05 3. 0.7 2
3 12.10 . 3
0 4 82 1
9 0
4
1
3
0.
9 2
7.99 3. 0.7 1
12.20 . 3
0 2 36 4
2 0
9
9
3
0.
9 2
8.10 3. 0.7 1
12.22 . 2
2 2 32 4
7 9
9
8
A
v 3
0.
e 9 2 3.
8.04 0.7 1
r 12.17 . 3 2
7 50 7
a 6 0 6
0
g 6
e
4
0.
T4 2 2
7.99 11.4 3. 0.7 1
. 2
0 0 4 78 4
0 9
7
5
7.89 12.2 3 2 3. 0.7 0.
0 0 8 2 1 09 1
. 9 4
8 4
6
4
0.
0 2
8.10 11.9 3. 0.7 1
. 3
1 0 2 36 4
8 0
5
4
4 2
0.
Av 0 2 3.
7.99 11.8 0.7 1
era . 9 2
3 3 41 4
ge 5 . 3
5
8 3
3
0.
T5 9 2
7.88 12.1 3. 0.7 1
. 3
0 0 1 13 4
0 0
3
7
4
0.
0 2
8.10 12.1 3. 0.7 1
. 2
3 5 3 55 5
0 9
6
1
3
0.
9 2
7.99 12.1 3. 0.7 1
. 3
5 4 3 59 5
4 0
3
8
Av 2
3
era 2 0.
9 3.
ge 7.99 12.1 9 0.7 1
. 2
2 3 . 42 5
5 3
6 0
2
6
3
0.
T6 8 2
7.99 3. 0.7 1
13 . 3
8 4 82 6
9 0
9
1
3
0.
9 2
8.10 3. 0.7 1
14 . 3
9 4 82 8
1 0
2
0
8.11 3 2 3. 0.7 0.
13
5 7 3 2 36 1
. 0 5
4 9
5
Av 3
0.
era 8 2 3.
8.07 14.3 0.7 1
ge . 3 3
4 3 66 7
4 0 3
0
9
Calculations:
M W C p T
Thermal efficiency, % 100
F CV
M W C p T
% 100
F CV
27 1 58 27
% 100
0.775 x 3717
= 29.00 %.
Appendix -K
Cost estimation of developed Screw extruder type briquetting machine
2. Interest (Rs/hr)
(C S ) I
2 (100 1000)
(16840 1684) 12
=
2 (100 1000)
= 1.11 Rs/hr.
3. Insurance and taxes (Rs. /hr.) = 2 % of initial cost
(0.02 16840)
=
1000
= 0.336 Rs/hr.
Total fixed cost = 1 + 2 + 3
= 2.16 + 1.11 + 0.336
= 3.60 Rs/hr.
b) Variable cost
1. Operators cost
= Wage of operator / Working Hours
= (165/8)
= 20 Rs/hr.
2. Repair and maintenance (Rs /hr) = 6 % of initial cost
0.06 x16840
1000
= 1.01 Rs/hr.
3. Electricity charges (Rs /hr) = Rs. 8 per k-wh
= 1.5 × 8
= 12 Rs/hr.
4. Biomass collection + transport + shredding + storage = 26 Rs/hr
5. Cost of biomass = 2 Rs/kg
Total variable cost = 80 + 26 + 12 + 20 + 1
= 139 Rs/hr.
c) Operating Cost
Cost of operation = Fixed Cost + Variable Cost
= 3.66 + 139
= 142.6 Rs/hr.
Cost of operation = 142.6 @ 8 hrs/day
= 1140.8 Rs/day
Cost of operation per year = 1140.8 x 4 x 30 = 1,36,896 Rs/hr
Input per year = Rs 136896 /-
Output per day = 40 × 6 × 8 = Rs. 1920/-
Output per year = 1920 x 4 x 30 = Rs. 2,30,400/-
Net profit per year = output – input
= 2,30,400 – 1,36,896
Total investment per year = Cost of operation per year + Machine cost
= 1,36,896 + 16,840s
= 1,53,736/-
1,53,736
=
93,504
APPENDIX
APPENDIX H
w1 w2
Percent weight loss = 100
w1
Durability index = 100 - % weight loss
Where,
1) 11.85 11.13 6 94
w2 w1
% water gained by briquette = 100
w1
Where,
w1 = Initial weight of briquette
w2 = final weight of briquette
Resistance to water penetration of briquettes.
11.85 11.13 6 94
13.14 12.22 7 93