DEVELOPMENT OF BRIQUETTING MACHINE FOR

LOCALLY AVAILABLEBIOMASS

A thesis submitted to the

Dr. BALASAHEB SAWANT KONKAN KRISHI VIDYAPEETH

DAPOLI
Maharashtra State (India)

In the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
(AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING)
in
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

By
MR. VISHAL RAJARAM BIRWATKAR
Under the guidance of
Dr. Y.P. KHANDETOD
Professor& Head

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND OTHER ENERGY SOURCES,

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,
Dr. BALASAHEB SAWANT KONKAN KRISHI VIDYAPEETH,
DAPOLI- 415 712, DIST. RATNAGIRI, M. S. (INDIA)
September-2014
DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF BIOMASS
CARBONIZATION KILN

A thesis submitted to the

Dr. BALASAHEB SAWANT KONKAN KRISHI VIDYAPEETH

DAPOLI
Maharashtra State (India)

In the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
(AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING)
in
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

By
MR. NITIN SHANTARAM SONAWANE
Under the guidance of
DR. A. G. MOHOD
Associate Professor

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND OTHER ENERGY SOURCES,

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,
Dr. BALASAHEB SAWANT KONKAN KRISHI VIDYAPEETH,
DAPOLI- 415 712, DIST. RATNAGIRI, M. S. (INDIA)
September-2014
DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF BIOMASS
CARBONIZATION KILN

A thesis submitted to the

Dr. BALASAHEB SAWANT KONKAN KRISHI VIDYAPEETH

DAPOLI
Maharashtra State (India)

In the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degreeof

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
(AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING)
in
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
Approved by the advisory committee

DR. A. G. MOHOD
(Chairman and Research Guide)

Dr. Y. P. Khandetod Er. R. M. Dharaskar Dr. K. G. Dhande

(Committee Member) (Committee Member) (Committee Member)

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND OTHER ENERGY SOURCES,

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,
Dr. BALASAHEB SAWANT KONKAN KRISHI VIDYAPEETH,
DAPOLI- 415 712, DIST. RATNAGIRI, M. S. (INDIA)
September-2014
 CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

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.

Place: CAET, Dapoli (Vishal

RajaramBirwatkar)
Date: / / 2014 (Reg. No. 059/2012)
Dr. Y.P. Khandetod
B.Tech.(Agril.Engg.),M.Tech.(P.F.E.),Ph.D.(AGFE)
Professor and Head,
Department of Electrical and Other Energy Sources,
College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology,
Dr. BalasahebSawantKonkanKrishiVidyapeeth,
Dapoli- 415 712, Dist. Ratnagiri,
Maharashtra, India.

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Development of Briquetting

Machine for Locally Available Biomass” submitted to the Faculty of Agricultural
Engineering, Dr. BalasahebSawantKonkanKrishiVidyapeeth, Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri,
Maharashtra State, in the partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY (AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING) in
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES embodies the results of bonafied research
work carried out by Mr. Vishal Rajaram Birwatkarunder my guidance and
supervision and no part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree, diploma
or publication in any other form. He has duly acknowledged all the assistance and
help received during the course of investigation.

Place: CAET, Dapoli (Y.P. Khandetod)

Date: / /2014 Chairman,
Advisory Committee and Research Guide
Dr. Y. P. Khandetod
B.Tech. (Agril. Engg.), M. Tech. (P.F.E.), Ph.D. (AGFE)
Professor and Head
Department of Electrical and Other Energy Sources,
College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology,
Dr. BalasahebSawantKonkanKrishiVidyapeeth,
Dapoli- 415 712, Dist. Ratnagiri,
Maharashtra, India.

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Development of Briquetting

Machine for Locally Available Biomass” submitted to the Faculty of Agricultural
Engineering and Technology, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri, Maharashtra State, in the partial fulfillment of the
requirements of the degree of MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY (AGRICULTURAL
ENGINEERING) in RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES embodies the result of
the piece of bonafied research work carried out by Mr. Vishal Rajaram Birwatkar
underguidance and supervision of Dr. Y. P. Khandetod, Professor and head,
Department of Electrical and Other Energy Sources, College of Agricultural
Engineering and Technology, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Dapoli and no part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree or diploma.
He has duly acknowledged all the assistance and help received during the course of
investigation.

Place: CAET, Dapoli (Y. P. Khandetod)

Date: / /2014 Professor and Head,
Department of Electrical and Other Energy
Sources
Dr. N. J. Thakor
M.Tech. (IIT), Ph. D. (Canada) FIE, FISAE
Associate Dean
College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology,
Dr. BalasahebSawantKonkanKrishiVidyapeeth,
Dapoli – 415 712, Dist. Ratnagiri,
Maharashtra, India.

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Development of Briquetting

Machine for Locally Available Biomass ” submitted to the faculty of Agricultural
Engineeringand Technology, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri, Maharashtra State, in the partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
(AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING) in RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
embodies the results of bonafied research work carried out by Mr. Vishal Rajarm
Birwatkar underguidance and supervision of Dr. Y. P. Khandethod, Professor and
Head, Department of Electrical and Other Energy Sources, College of Agricultural
Engineering and Technology, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Dapoli and no part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree, diploma or
publication in any other form.He has duly acknowledged all the assistance and help
received during the course of investigation.

Place: CAET, Dapoli (N. J. Thakor)

Date: / /2014 Associate Dean,
College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I avail this opportunity to express out deep sense of gratitude and

indebtedness to my research guide Dr. Y. P. Khandetod, Professsor and Head,
Department of Electrical and Other Energy Sources, College of Agricultural Engg.
And Technology, Dapoli, for his valuable guidance. It is well said that, “The
culmination of the research work is the corner stone in the life of any student with the
research guide being driving force behind.” The final shaping of this manuscript in
the present form and success of my project work would not have been possible without
immutable efforts of Dr. Y. P. Khandetod.

I mention my sincere gratitude to Dr. N. J. Thakor, Associate Dean and

principal, College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Dr. Balasaheb
Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, who gave me an opportunity for
undergoing this research work and providing necessary facility and guidance during
completion of this research work.

I express my heartiest thanks to Dr. A. G. Mohod, Associate Professor of

EOES College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant
Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, for his valuable suggestions and guidance from
very inception of this research work.

I wish to express my profound sense of gratitude to Dr. K. G. Dhande,

Associate professor, Department of Farm Machinery and Power, for his kindly help,
inspiration, and constant interest in this project work. Also I am thankful to Er. R. M.
Dharaskar, Assistant Professor Department of Electrical and Other Energy Sources,
and Er. H. Y. Shrirame, Senior Research Assistant, Department of electrical and
other energy sources, for their versatile advice, guidance and constant cooperation
throughout this project work.
 I expressed my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. S. B. Swami, Associate professor,
Department of Agricultural Procees Engineering. And Er. S. B. Kalse Senior
Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural Procees Engineering. For their
constant inspiration, relevant suggestion and facilities provided during the course of
this research work.

I wish to acknowledge my sincere thanks to Mr. Vaibhav Pimpalkar, Mr.

Shekhar Kokamkar, Mr. Santosh Bhuwad and Mr. Sachin More for their good co-
operation and always rendered me helping hands during the entire course.

I am also grateful to all workshop workers of college of Agricultural

Engineering and Technology Dapoli, for their co-operation and timely help during
fabrication work

I am very glad to express my thanks to my friends, Chetan Khobragade,

Vaibhav Chopde, Pravin, Nitin , Omkar, Pradip, Purshottam, Sachin, Suraj,
Shirish, Bhagyashree and Dipali for their constant encouragement and immense help
during this project work.

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 am very much thankful to Shri. Ramchandra Mahadik, Ex.-Assistant

Comptroller of Dr. B.S.K.K.V. Dapoli, for his kindly help and inspiration during
completion of this project work.

Furthermore I convey my thankfulness to all persons who directly or indirectly

lent a hand in the completion of the project work.

Place: CAET, Dapoli

Dated: / / 2014 (Vishal RajaramBirwatkar)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr.No. Title Page No.

CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION i
CERTIFICATES ii-iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v-vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii-x
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF PLATES xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiv-xv
LIST OF SYMBOLS xvi
ABSTRACT xvii-xviii

I INTRODUCTION 1-3

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4-11

III MATERIAL AND METHODS 12-27

3.1 Raw material characterization for briquetting 12

3.1.1 Proximate analysis of biomass 12

3.1.1.1 Moisture content 13
3.1.1.2 Volatile matter 13
3.1.1.3 Ash content 13
3.1.1.4 Fixed carbon 14
3.1.2 Calorific value 14
3.1.3 Physical properties of raw biomass 15
3.2 Development of screw press type briquetting machine 15
3.2.1 Screw press extruder type briquetting machine 15
3.2.2 Different parameter considering for development of
16
briquetting machine
3.2.2.1 Feeding hopper 16
3.2.2.2 Angle of repose 16
3.2.2.3 Screw press extruder 17
3.2.2.4 Briquette size 17
3.2.2.5 Frame 17
3.2.2.6 Length of belt 18
3.2.2.7 Calculation of helix angle 18
3.2.2.8 Selection of pulleys 19
3.3 Preparations of briquettes 21
3.4 Performance testing of briquetting machine 21
3.4.1 Output of briquettes, kg/h 21
3.4.2 Electricity Consumption 22
3.4.3 Machine efficiency 22
3.5 Analysis of briquetted fuel 22
3.5.1 Proximate Analysis 22
3.5.1.1 Moisture content 22
3.5.1.2 Volatile matter content 22
3.5.1.3 Ash content 23
3.3.1.4 Fixed carbon 23
3.5.2 Calorific Value of briquettes 23
3.5.3 Bulk density of briquettes 23
3.5.4 Shatter indices 23
3.5.5 Tumbling Test 23
3.5.6 Resistance to water penetration 24
3.5.7 Degree of densification 24
3.5.8 Energy density ratio 24
3.5.9 Biomass based water heater test 25
3.6 Instruments/Device used 26
3.6.1 Hot air oven 26
3.6.2 Muffle furnace 26
3.6.3 Bomb calorimeter 26
3.6.4 Weighing balance 27
3.6.5 Temperature recorder 27
3.6.6 Desiccators 27
 3.6.7Silica crucible 27
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 28-44
4.1 Characterization of locally available raw biomass for
28
briquetting
4.1.1 Proximate analysis of raw selected biomass 28
4.1.2 Proximate analysis of mixed raw biomass 29
4.1.3 Proximate analysis of briquetted samples 30
4.1.4 Bulk density of raw biomass 31
4.1.5 Bulk density of mixed raw biomass for different
32
treatment
4.1.6Calorific value of raw biomass 33
4.1.7Calorific value of raw material in different proportion 34
4.2 Performance evaluation of briquetting machine 35
4.2.1 Operational parameter of briquetting machine 35
4.3 Analysis of briquetted fuel 36
4.3.1 Moisture Content of wet briquettes 37
4.3.2 Calorific value of briquettes 37
4.3.3 Bulk density of briquettes 38
4.3.4 physical properties of briquettes 39
4.3.5 Energy density ratio 39
4.3.6 Tumbler Test 40
4.3.7 Shatter resistance of briquetted fuel 41
4.3.8 Resistance to water penetration 42
4.3.9 Degree of densification 43

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 45-46

5.1 Summary 45
5.2 Conclusion 45
5.3 Suggestion for future work 46
VI BIBLIOGRAPHY 47-50

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

Appendix- L Specifications of different instruments usedduring 82

the study
 LIST OF TABLES

Table
Title Page No.
No.

3.1 Technical specifications of developed screw press briquetting 20

machine
Different Treatments for production of briquettes in different 21
3.2
proportions

4.1 Different operational parameter of briquetting machine 36

 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. Title Between

No. Pages

3.1 Schematic view of developed screw press briquetting machine 20-21

4.1 Proximate analysis of raw biomass 29

4.2 Proximate analysis of raw mixed biomass for briquetting 30
4.3 Proximate analysis of briquetted samples 31
4.4 Bulk density of raw biomass 32
4.5 Bulk density of mixed raw biomass for making briquettes 33
4.6 Calorific value of raw biomass for briquetting 34
4.7 Calorific value of different combinations of biomass for briquetting 35
4.8 Moisture content of fresh briquettes 37
4.9 Calorific value briquetted fuel 38
4.10 Average bulk density for six combinations of briquettes 39
4.11 Energy density ratio for briquetted fuel 40
4.12 Tumbler test for briquetted fuel 41
4.13 Shatter resistance of briquetted fuel 42
4.14 Resistance to water penetration 43
4.15 Degree of densification 44
 LIST OF PLATES

Plate Title Between

No. Pages

3.1 Pictorial view of collected raw biomassfor briquetting 12-13

3.2 Complete process view of briquetting 21-22

3.3 Pictorial view of instruments used during study 27-28

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

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

Development of Briquetting Machine for locally Available Biomass

By

Mr. Vishal Rajaram Birwatkar

College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology,

Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli.
Dist. Ratnagiri, Maharashtra State (India).
July- 2014

Research Guide: Dr. Y.P.Khandetod

Department: Electrical and Other Energy Sources
_____________________________________________________________________
Energy is one of the most essential need of man. A major problem that
confronts mankind today is the inadequate availability of energy as its conventional
sources are fast exhausting. Today energy problem is increasing day by day due to
population explosion, environmental degradation and fast depleting reserves of fossil
fuels. In addition to this, both energy production and utilization are the indicators of a
country’s economic progress. Domestic, agriculture, transportation and industrial
developments are not possible without adequate and reasonable supply of energy.
The research work was carried out for development of briquetting machine
for locally available biomass. Biomass material such as Mangifera indica)leaves
andmango (subabul (Acacia aiuriculiformis) leaves, saw dust and cow dung were
selected as a raw biomass material for briquetting. The characterization of mixed raw
biomass for different treatment were carried out before and after briquetting process
in terms of proximate analysis, higher calorific value, bulk density and physical
properties. The performance of the briquetting machine was carried out to estimate
the different operating parameters of briquetting along with different properties such
as tumbling resistance, shatter resistance, resistance to water penetration. The output
capacity of briquetting machine in the form briquettes per hour basis was measured.
The performance ofbriquetting machine was evaluated in terms of degree of
densification, energy density ratio and physical properties of biomass briquettes.
 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/m3
and 166 per cent, respectively. Also average energy density ratio was found to be
2.71.
Maximum shatter index, tumbling resistance, resistance to water penetration
and energy density ratio was observed in combination T-3 as 94.46 per cent, 95.83 per
cent, 94.13 per cent and 2.79,respectively.Maximum degree of densification and
calorific value was observed in combination T-3 as 171 per cent and 3,717 kcal/kg,
respectively. Whereas minimum degree of densification and calorific value was
observed inT-2 as 159 and 3405 kcal/kg, respectively. This was due to low density
and calorific value of raw biomass material. Maximum densification indicated that
increase the bulk density of raw biomass in term of briquettes, and hence it help to
eliminate the major storage problem of raw biomass and transportation cost.
Thecombination T-3 and combination T-6 briquettes showed that they had good
shock and impact resistance value, Calorific value was also found maximum for
combination T-3andT-6and observed to be 3646 and 3521 kcal/kg, respectively.
This was due to higher percentage of saw dust in raw biomass.The capacity of the
briquetting machine was observed to be varying from 39 to 40 kg/h. The efficiency of
the machine was varied from 94 per cent to 96 per cent for various combinations of
the briquettes. TheAverage energy consumption was found to be16.05 kcal per kg of
briquettes.
 गोऴलाया

स्थानिकनाऩातऱरलयलऩरधधजैललस्तूवाठीााांडराोऱवामांत्रवलावरत
श्ररवलळारयाजायाभबफयलटाय
ाृवऴअभबमाांबत्राीआणणतांत्रसानभशावलद्मारम,
डॉफाऱावाशे फवालांताोाणाृवऴवलद्माऩरठ, दाऩोरी.
जज.यत्नागगयी, भशायाष्ट्रयाज्म (बायत).
जुरै२०१४
____________________________________________________________
___
वांळोधनभागगदळगा: डॉ.लाम. ऩर .खन्दे तोद
वलबाग: इरेजररारआणणइतयऊजागस्त्रोत
_____________________________________________________________________
___

लजागशीभनष्ट्ु मावाठीवलागतअत्मालश्मागयजआशे .आजभानलजातरवभोयएाभोठीवभस्माअवन

ू

वध्माऩयां ऩयागतस्रोतशे वांऩण्माच्माभागागलयआशेत. म्शणूनऊजागअऩुयीलऩरधधताआशे .

आजलाढतररोावांख्माआणणऩमागलयणाचरअलनतरलत्माचफयोफयददलवेंददलवजरलाश्भइांधनेवांऩ

ण्माच्माभागागलयआशे त. माव्मनिकतरयरत,

ऊजागललत्ऩादनाांच्मालाऩयालयदे ळाच्माआगथगावलाावाचेनिकनदे ळाआशे त. घयगुतर, ाृवऴ,

लाशतूाआणणऔद्मोगगावलाावऩुयेळालजेभळलामअळरमआशे . स्थानिकनालऩरधधजैललस्तूांवाठी

ााांडराोऱवामांत्रवलावरतायण्माचेवांळोधनाामगाेरेगेरे.अळाप्रााये आांधमाच्मालवुफाफुऱझाडाां

चाऩाराऩाचोऱालत्माचफयोफयरााडाांचाबस्
ु वा,

गामरचेवुाेळेणाच्चाभारम्शणूनजैलइांधनावाठीनिकनलडायण्मातआरी.

वलवलधलऩचायावाठीभभश्राच्चाफामोभावच्माव्मजरतगचत्रणआधरचारतेआणणप्रक्रिमाबिाेदटांगनां

तयशोतेजलऱचरवलश्रेऴण, लच्चऊष्ट्भाांाभूल्म, घनतेच्मालबौनिकतागुणधभगदृष्ट्टीने.

बिाेदटांगभळरनच्माााभगगयीऩाणरआतप्रलेळायणे, प्रनिकतााय, अळाप्रनिकतााय tumbling

वलवलधगुणधभगवोफतबिाेदटांगवलवलधाामगाायीघटाेअांदाजप्रनिकताायपोडराफाशे यचारवलरी.
दतावटप्पप्पमानेस्लरूऩातवलटाभध्मेबिाेदटांगभळरनच्माआलटऩुटषभताभोजरीशोतर.

ााभगगयीofbriquettingभळरन densification ऩदलर,

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,

भभश्राच्च्माफामोभावओरालावाभग्रर 8,31 ऩावून 10.10 टराेफदरताशोते. अजस्थयफाफ 67

टराे 64 तेफदरताशोते, भभश्राच्च्माफामोभावयाखेचे

8,83टराेआणणवयावयीजस्थयााफगनचेटराे 16,90 ते 12,07 तेफदरताऩय 12.5 फदरताशोते.

भभश्राच्च्माफामोभाववयावयीघनता / m3 217 क्रारोअवेददवूनआरे.वलटाांचआ

े णण

densification ऩदलरवयावयीघनताबिाेदटांगाेल्मानांतयअनि
ु भे 579,5 m3 क्रारो / आणण 166

टराे, अवेददवूनआरे. तवेचवयावयीऊजागघनताप्रभाण 2,71अवल्माचेददवूनआरे.

ाभारपोडरानिकनदे ळाांा, tumbling प्रनिकतााय,

ऩाणरआतप्रलेळायणेआणणऊजागघनतागुणोत्तयवलयोधटी 3 टराे 94,46टराे 95,83, 94,13

आणण 2,79, densification

आणणऊष्ट्भाांाभल्
ू मrespectively.Maximumऩदलरम्शणूनवांमोजनभध्मेवाजयाझारावांमोजनभ

ध्मेवाजयाझाराटी 3 टराे 171 आणण 3,717 क्रारोाॅरयी / क्रारो, म्शणून. Densification

आणणऊष्ट्भाांाभल्
ू मक्राभानऩदलर INT-2 वाजयाशोतरतयअनि
ु भे 159 आणण 3405 क्रारोाॅरयी

/ क्रारो, म्शणून. शे ाभरघनताआणणाच्चाभारफामोभावऊष्ट्भाांाभूल्मभुऱेशोते. ाभार

densification ाीवलटाांचेटभगभध्मेाच्च्माफामोभावघनतेच्मालाढ,

आणणम्शणूनतोाच्च्माफामोभावललाशतूाखचगप्रभुखस्टोये जवभस्मादयू ायण्मावाठीभदतदळग

वलरा.Thecombinationटी-3 लवांमोजनटी 6

वलटाांचत
े ेचाांगरेळॉाआणणप्रबालप्रनिकताायभूल्मशोतेाीझारी, ऊष्ट्भाांाभूल्मभूल्मदे खररअनुिभे

3646 आणण 3521 क्रारोाॅरयी / क्रारोअवल्माचेवाजयावांमोजनटी 3andT-6and

जास्तरतजास्तददल्मा.

माभऱ
ु े बिाेदटांगभळरनाच्च्माbiomass.Theषभतेतऩादशरेधऱ
ू लच्चटराेलायी / श 39 ते 40

क्रारोऩावूनवलवलधायणेवाजयाझाराशोता.भळरनाामगषभतावलटाांचवे लवलधजोड्माटराे 96

टराे 94 तेफदरताशोते.TheAverageऊजेत be16.05 क्रारोाॅरयीप्रतरक्रारोवलटाांचेददवन

ू आरे.
 I. INTRODUCTION
Energy is one of the most essential need of man. A major problem that
confronts mankind today is the inadequate availability of energy as its conventional
sources are fast exhausting. Today energy problem is increasing day by day due to
population explosion, environmental degradation and fast depleting reserves of fossil
fuels. In addition to this, both energy production and utilization are the indicators of a
country’s economic progress. Domestic, agriculture, transportation and industrial
developments are not possible without adequate and reasonable supply of energy
(Sahay,2008). Energy is needed for heating, lighting and cooking in household and for
virtually every industrial, commercial and transport activity. As the world population
increases there is an increase in consumption and due to increase in standard of living,
energy demand also increases. The use of conventional energy like coal, oil and
electricity has increased enormously in last 25 years (Sheshadri, 2010).
The non-conventional energy sources include solar energy, wind energy, tidal
energy, biomass and geothermal energy. The solar energy has the greatest potential of
all the sources of renewable energy but, there are several limitations for the use of this
type non-conventional energy. Also utilization cost is very high. The solar energy is
converted into a biomass which can be made available for mankind. Therefore
utilizations of available biomass is a prominent option.
Since India is a country of which economic status is based on agricultural
activities. The current availability of biomass in India is estimated at about 1,249
million tons per year. About 32 per cent of the total primary energy used in the
country is still derived from biomass and more than 70 per cent of country’s
population depends upon it for their energy needs. A major disadvantage of
agricultural residue as a fuel is its low bulk density, which makes handling difficult
and transport and storage expensive. Therefore, briquetting is the prominent option in
today’s energy scenario.
Direct combustions of biomass is not preferable because of the negative
aspects coming from the intrinsic properties of biomass such as low density, low
calorific value and moisture. The biomass can be converted into solid, liquid and
gaseous forms through biological/thermo-chemical route for thermal, electrical and
mechanical form of energy. The biomass offers multiple soft transition from
conventional, exhaustible and polluting sources to non-conventional, renewable,
nexhausting, non-polluting and energy source to ensure sustained growth and
economic development. In recent past, biomass technology has emerged as the most
viable solution to recent energy crises among all alternate and renewable sources of
energy.
The technology of briquetting is defined as the densification process for
improving the biomass fuel characteristics. The important properties of briquettes
which affect the fuel quality are their physical and chemical attributes. Briquetting
process is one of the promising technologies, which has been investigated by several
researchers. Briquetting process is used to improve the bulk density of raw material
and solve the problem of storage of waste available on farm. Indirectly it is a way to
utilize the total energy available on farm to generate electricity/thermal heat through
the route of briquetting technology.
Mango (Mangifera indica) leaves are more abundantly and easily available in
Konkan region. The total area under mango cultivation in Konkan region is 1.43
Lakh ha of which Ratnagiri ranks first (0.39 Lakh ha) followed by Raigad (0.28 Lakh
ha) and Sindhudurg (0.23 Lakh ha) (Anon, 2004). Subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) is
a major source of firewood; its dense wood and high energy i.e. calorific value of
4500 to 4900 kcal/kg contributes to its popularity. It provides very good charcoal that
glows well with little smoke and does not spar (Anon, 1996).
Now a day’s briquetting technology plays an important role in the utilization
of agro-wastes for higher calorific value and high-energy utilization. In this study, a
briquetting process aimed to investigate production of an alternate eco-friendly fuel.
The process of densification increases the net calorific value per unit volume. Since
this process increases the density of product which makes it easy to transport and
store. The process helps to solve the problem of residue disposal. The fuel produced is
uniform in size and quality. Fire risk in loose storage of biomass gets minimized.
Densification produces high quality fuel with very low ash content. The densified
product is easy to burn, as it has lower ignition temperature and does not produce
toxic gas and sulphur emission, even no odour during combustion.

Keeping in a view study is undertaken entitled “development of briquetting

machine for locally available biomass.” with following objectives:
Objectives 2) To develop the screw type briquetting machine.
3) To test the performance of briquetting machine.
 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

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.

2.2 Overview on Briquetting Machines

Srivastava et al. (1986) developed two prototypes of machines working on 2.2
kW and 3.70 kW power electrical motors keeping in view the requirement of a small
scale briquetting unit for utilization in a village eco-system, where biomass of
agricultural origin was available in scattered manner with small to large farmers and agro-
based industries. The small machine was used for agro- wastes with binding material such
as clay and had a capacity of 50-60 kg/h.
Mathur et al. (1996) designed and fabricated hand operated and pedal operated
pellet making machines of capacity 12 kg/h and 30 kg/h, respectively. Both the
machines could be operated by one man and were suitable for carbonized biomass,
saw dust, rice husk and straw. The machines used cow dung slurry as a binder
material.
Yousif and Ahmed (2006) used new conical briquetting machine for
carbonized cotton stalks. The low pressure screw briquetting machine was found to
have better production rate (198 kg/hr) and low production cost. The initial moisture
content of slurry required for new system was reduced to 35 per cent from 50 per
cent, with lower drying time required for drying of briquettes.
Jamradloedluk and Wiriyaumpaiwong (2007) reported production of rice husk
based charcoal briquettes, Where in three different type of biomass such as a bagasse,
rices traw, and water hyacinth were carbonized, crushed and sieved through screen to
obtain the particle size of 150-750 micron. The mixing ratios had significant effect on
the physical and mechanical properties of the briquettes. The density, ultimate stress
and toughness increased with increasing mixing ratio (80:20,60:40,40:60) (rice husk
charcoal quantity) the mixture were densified, using cassava starch as binding agent,
were the rise husk bagasse charcoal briquette was found to posses the maximum
density, ultimate stress briquette.
Martin et al. (2008) designed and develop charcoal briquetting machine which
used the carbonized material from rice hull and sawdust. It was found that 25 per cent
of binding material i.e. cassava starch was excellent for briquetting of carbonized saw
dust briquettes and 20 per cent binding material for carbonized rice husk briquettes.
Teerapot et al (2010) designed and develop a compact screw- press briquetting
machine which combines three function including crushing, mixing and briquetting in
a single unit. By eliminating individuals machines, the great saving in space, material
handling and workers, helped to reduce cost and production time, and improve the
productivity,
Matus and Krizan (2012) developed the newly patented structure of a
briquetting machine for compacting biomass into a solid biofuel. The design of the
machine was based on the biomass compaction. The patented structure of screw
eliminated the axial load of the bearing, and thus increased lifetime of the bearings,
The results of an experimental study of the compacting process led to the engineering
design of production machine.

2.3 Raw material for briquetting

 John and Francis (1980) reported that subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) is a fast
growing, mediam sized tree with parallel–veined leaves. Subabul (Acacia
auriculiformis) was cultivated widely for fuel wood and charcoal. It had a relatively
high specific gravity (0.60 to 0.75) and calorific value (4800 to 4900 Kcal per kg),
subabul (Acacia Auriculiformis) grown between sea level and 400 m where mean
annual rainfall varied from 900 to 2000 mm in monsoonal pattern and mean annual
temperatures ranged from 26o C to more than 30oC.
Grover and Mishra (1994) reported that many of the developing countries
produced huge quantities of agro residues but they were used inefficiently causing
extensive pollution to the environment. Biomass densification, which was also known
as briquetting of saw dust and other crop residues, had been practiced for many years
in several countries. Two main high pressure technologies i.e. ram or piston press and
screw extrusion machines used for briquetting. Briquettes could be produced with a
density of 1.2 g/cm3 from loose biomass of bulk density 0.1 to 0.2 g/cm3.
Yadong and Henry (2000) studied the high pressure binder less compaction of
wood processing residues and other biomass waste material, including hard wood,
softwood, and bark in the form of sawdust, mulches, and chips, A piston and mould
process was used to produce densified logs (slug) under room temperature and at
pressure ranging from 34 to 138 Mpa. The effect of moisture content on compaction
pressure, pressure holding time, partical size and partical shape were studied. It was
found that necessary moisture for producing good quality logs ranged from 5 to 12 per
cent. It was also found that compaction pressure of 70 Mpa could produce high
quality logs,For sawdust minimum pressure of 100 Mpa was needed to form good
logs and for chips, no good logs could be made even at pressure as high as 138 Mpa.
Anon (2006) reported that the sawdust has bulk density 165 kg/m3. Ash
content of sawdust was 22.2 per cent. Ultimate analysis of saw dust showed that, its
contents were 36.42 per cent carbon, 4.9 per cent hydrogen, 0.59 per cent nitrogen,
and 35.88 per cent oxygen. Saw dust has a calorific value 3200 kcal/kg.
Jahan et al. (2007) studied the physical, chemical and morphological
characteristics of subabul (Acacia auriculiformis). The lignin content in a subabul
(Acacia auriculiformis) was 19.4 per cent and cellulose 44.1 per cent, which was
found within the range.and ash contend found to be 0.60  0.07%. Leaves were 10-
16 cm long and 1.5-2.5 cm wide with 3-8 parallel nerves, thick, leathery and curved.
 Anon (2009), reported that mango (Mangifera indica) was a large evergreen
tree to 20 m tall with a dark green, umbrella shaped crown. Mango Sticks had a
calorific value of 4200 kcal/kg, The leaves were 1-12 cm long & mature leaves were
dark green according to variety leaves were variable in shape and size.

2.4 Binding agents

Wanuknony and Jenkins (1995) stated that wheat straw briquettes were the
least durable and expanded most. However, blending straw with sawdust improved
this durability considerably. All the briquettes had relatively low moisture content and
can be manufactured without binder but with poor durability. In case of straw sawdust
briquettes were the most durable and exhibited the least degree of length expansion.
Shakya et al. (2004) developed heated die screw press briquetting machine.
The electric motor drave the briquetting screw, which housed inside the die, through a
V belt and pulley arrangement. The electric die holder softens the lignin in the raw
material as it passed through the die, which acted as a binding material. A smoke trap
system traps and removed the smoke from the vicinity during briquetting process.
Singh et al. (2007) studied the storage, combustion and gasification behaviour
of biomass briquettes made from groundnut shell powder (1180-150 m) and
briquettes made of saw dust and castor de-oiled cake. It was found that storage of
briquettes through the high humidity period did not create any problem. Combustion
and gasification studies revealed that 25 and 35 mm diameter briquettes could be
satisfactorily gasified in open core and throat type down draft gasifier reactors.
Wakchure and Sharma (2007) studied the effect of material and concentration
of binders on the physical quality of biomass briquettes. The briquette were prepared
using tree leaves, saw dust and wheat straw. Two binding materials namely, molasses
and sodium silicate at varying concentration were used in preparation of briquette.
The saw dust and wheat straw briquettes could not be formed when concentration of
binder was below 10% whereas formation of tree leaves briquettes was possible even
without use of any binding material. The sodium silicate was found a better binding
agent than molasses for briquette preparation. Among all type of briquettes, saw dust
briquettes with sodium silicate at 25 per cent concentration were better in term of
compressive strength, bulk density and calorific value.
Haykiri and Yaman (2010) used woody shells of hazelnut which was a high
potential biomass, carbonized it and briquetted it under high pressure of 50-100
kg/cm2. Some parameters such as shatter index, compressibility, strength, and water
resistance were considered to evaluate the strength of the briquettes. They used
molasses and pyrolytic acid as binding agent. By-products of the carbonization of oil
could be used as binding material to improve mechanical strength of the briquettes.

2.5 Properties of biomass briquettes

Yaman et-al (2000) recommended that briquetting pressure should be selected
at an optimum value and suggested that with the increase in the briquetting pressure
mechanical strength of briquette increased. However above an optimum briquetting
pressure fracture may occur in briquette due to sudden dilation for a given die size
and storage condition. At maximum die pressure and beyond which no significant
gain in cohesion (bonding) of briquette could be achieved with respect to pressure
application rate.
Oladegi (2010) studied fuel characterization of briquettes contents produced
from corncob and rice husk residues and found moisture content of rice husk
briquettes as 12.67 percent, other results of ultimate analysis for rice husk gave 42.10
percent, 5.8 percent, 51.67 percent and 0.38 percent of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and
nitrogen. The study also concluded that briquettes would not crumble during storage
and transportation because the values of its relaxed density (5.40 kg/m 3) was closely
to its maximum density (5.24 kg/m3).
Aivars et.al. (2011) reported that Crushing force was depended on particle
size for arranging structure of briquettes. Unarranged reed particle (length 30 mm)
briquettes showed specific splitting force of approximately 6 N/mm. Splitting force of
no flattened reed particles varied from 70 to 80 N/mm. Splitting force stated for pure
reed stalk briquettes with particle length100 mm (diameter 62 mm) was only 35
N/mm. Increasing particle length from 30 to 100 mm was not affected density of
briquettes for briquette diameter of 62mm. Density of arranged straw briquettes
varied between 939 kg/m3 (100 mm) and 928 kg/m3 (30 mm). Density of arranged
reed briquettes varied between 927 kg/m3 (30mm) and 947 kg/m3 (60mm). The
density of flattened reed stalks briquettes was >1000 kg/m3.The addition of 15% peat
increased durability of briquettes from 1.2 to 1.3 times for all lengths of particles.
Panvar et al (2011) studied the briquetting of various biomasses i.e. mango
leaves, sawdust, and wheat straw.The average volatile matter content of the biomass
materials were in the range of 71.3-86.51 per cent with wheat straw having the
minimum value and sawdust having the maximum value. The ash content of the
biomass materials was found to be 13.36 per cent for mango leaves, 8.9 per cent for
wheat straw, 7.29 per cent for eucalyptus leaves, and 2.84 per cent for mango
sawdust. The nitrogenous compounds in the biomass materials varied from 0.28 -
1.069 per cent, which were found in very low concentrations. Sawdust was found to
be the best material for compaction. At 70 MPa, it had better density and better
performance than wheat straw and mango leaves.
Madhava et al. (2012) showed that bulk density of the biomass after
briquetting increased by 2.3, 2.6, 2.6 and 1.5 times for rice husk, dried leaves,
groundnut shells and saw dust, respectively by using hand operated compression type
briquetting machine. Groundnut shell briquettes showed high resistance to shattering,
followed by saw dust briquettes. Dry leaves briquettes had high resistance to water
penetration.
Sengar et al. (2012) reported that maximum percentage of fixed carbon (19.53
per cent) was obtained from raw cashew shell where as in grass and rice husk was
19.24 % and 16.76 per cent, respectively. Carbonized biomass was found suitable as
compared to raw hydrolyzed biomass for briquetted fuel. Cashew shell briquette
gave better result for shattering indices test, tumbling test, water boiling test compared
to grass

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).

3.1.1 Proximate analysis of biomass

While using any biomass as a fuel, proximate analysis of fuel was important
parameter for knowing the suitability and quality of fuel. It included determination of
moisture content, volatile matter, ash content and fixed carbon on percentage weight
basis. The proximate analysis was carried out by using standard procedure as follow:
3.1.1.1 Moisture Content
The moisture content of biomass was measured by oven dry method. Initially the
sample with the known weight was kept in oven at 105 ºC for one hour. Then the
oven dry sample weighed (ASTM D-3173). The moisture content of sample was
calculated by following formula.
W2  W3
M .C.% wb  100 ....
W2  W1
(3.1)
Where,
W1 = weight of crucible, g
W2 = weight of crucible + sample, g
W3 = weight of crucible + sample, after heating, g

3.1.1.2 Volatile Matter

The dried sample left in the crucible was covered with a lid and placed in muffle
furnace, maintained at 950 ± 20 ºC for 7 minutes (ASTM D-3175). The crucible was
cooled first in air, then inside a desiccator and weighed again. Loss in weight was
reported as volatile matter on percentage basis.
W3  W4
V .M .%  100
W2  W1
....(3.2)
Where,
W1 = weight of empty crucible, g
W2 = weight of crucible + sample taken, g
W3 = weight of crucible + sample before heating, g
W4 = weight of crucible + sample after heating, g

3.1.1.3 Ash Content

The residual sample in the crucible was heated without lid in a muffle furnace at
750ºC for one half hour (ASTM D- 3174). The crucible was then taken out, cooled
first in air, then in desiccators and weighed. Heating, cooling and weighing was
repeated, till a constant weight obtained. The residue was reported as ash on
percentage basis.
 W5  W1
A.C.%  100 ....(3.3)
W2  W1
Where,
W1 = weight of empty crucible, g
W2 = weight of crucible + sample taken, g
W5 = weight of crucible + ash, g

3.1.1.4 Fixed Carbon

The fixed carbon content calculated by applying the mass balance for the biomass
sample.
FC, %  100  % of MC VM  AC ....(3.4)
Where,
FC = Fixed carbon, (%)
MC = Moisture content, (%)
VM = Volatile matter, (%)
AC = Ash content, (%)

3.1.2 Calorific Value, kcal/kg

The higher heating value of material was determined by using of bomb calorimeter
(ASTME-711), where the combustion was carried out in environment with 25
atmospheric pressure of oxygen to ensure complete combustion. Water equivalent of
the apparatus was determined by burning a known weight preferably about (1.2gm) of
pure and dry benzoic acid in powdered form in the bomb under identical condition
The rise in temperature was noted for 5 minute .The standard calorific value of
benzoic acid was taken as 6324 calories per gram, since all other values in the formula
were known. So water equivalent was calculated to be 455 gm. The higher calorific
value of solid fuel using the bomb calorimeter experiment was determined as
(w  w)  (T2  T1 )
Calorific value (kcal/kg) =
X
....(3.5)

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)

3.1.3 Physical properties of raw biomass

3.1.3.1 Bulk density

The bulk density of material was determined as per the standard procedure. A
cylindrically shaped container of 1000 ml (1000 cm3) volume was used for
determination. The container was weighed empty to determine its mass, then it was
filled with the sample and weighed once again. The bulk density was determined by
dividing the mass of the material by the volume of the container (Karaosmanoglu et
al., 1999). The bulk density was calculated by using the formula.

Mass of biomass sample, (kg)

Bulk density (kg / m3 )  ....(3.6)
Volumeof vessel, (m3 )

3.2 Development of screw press type briquetting machine

3.2.1 Screw press extruder type briquetting machine
The developed screw press extruder type briquetting machine was fabricated at
work shop of farm machinery department of Dr.BSKKV, Dapoli and used in the
present study. It consisted of driving motor, screw, die, and hopper and power
transmission system. Pulley and belts were used to transmit power from motor to the
screw. The raw material was fed to the hoppers, which conveyed it to screw by
gravity. The material was pushed forward due to geometry of screw. As the material
was pushed, it got compressed and binded material came out from die in the form of
briquettes (Schematic view of briquetting of machine is shown in Figure 3.1).

3.2.2 Different parameter considering for development of briquetting machine

3.2.2.1 Feeding hopper

The feeding hopper was provided to feed the raw mixed biomass to the screw.
According to guideline of the Bureau of Indian standards for feed hopper design (IS:
1979) procedure had been followed (Naravani, 1991). For ensuring smooth and
continuous flow following condition must be satisfied:

θh ≥ θ1
....(3.7) Where,
θh = Angle of inclination of the feed hopper to the horizontal, degrees
θ1 = Angle of repose of biomass, degrees

3.2.2.2 Angle of repose

The angle of repose was the angle between the base and the slope of the cone formed
on a free vertical fall of the granular material to a horizontal plane. In other words this
was the specific angle to the horizontal surface beneath the pile of biomass. This
property of mixed raw biomass was useful in the design of hopper.
2h
1  tan 1 ....(3.8)
d
Where,
1 = Angle of repose, degree
h = Height of hip of biomass, cm
d = Diameter of hip of biomass, cm
2  12
1  tan 1
35 ....(3.9)
1  34.430 ....(3.10)
The size of hopper was selected by considering 25 to 30 per cent of the raw biomass
material could be fed at the time of the total capacity of the machine. The hopper area
was 320 X 320 at top and 95 X 80 at bottom and its slope 40° which allowed free
flow of biomass to the barrel. It was made of 2 mm MS sheet.
Volume of hopper: For trapezoidal section:

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

3.2.2.3 Screw Press Extruder

Screw press got drive from electric motor through a pulley of 562 mm
diameter and rotated the screw at 180 rpm. The shaft on which screw was mounted
was of 30 mm diameter and was made from chromium steel. The helix angle was 14 o
and pitch was 60 mm with shape of screw was conical.

3.2.2.4 Briquette Size

It was assumed that for easy in handling and feeding and for sufficient strength
during transport, cylindrical briquettes of 25 mm diameter and 50 to 70 mm long
would be most suitable. Cylindrical briquette indicated the requirement of a
cylindrical nozzle made from M.S pipe. Selecting 25 mm as tentative briquette
diameter, for this outside diameter kept 31.3 mm with wall thickness 3 mm and
inside diameter was 25.3 mm. It would have sufficient strength to withstand frictional
force and heat generated.

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 )   2C
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.

3.2.2.7 Calculation of helix angle:

The helix angle for the screw design mainly depends on the diameter of the screw and
the pitch of screw press. It is calculated by the given formula below:
S
  tan 1
D
....(3.16)
Where,
S = pitch of the screw, mm
D = diameter of screw, mm
Pitch of screw (d) = 60 mm
Screw diameter (D2) = 80 mm

Calculated the helix angle is

0.06
  tan 1
3.14  0.08
..(3.17)
= 14
 3.2.2.8 Selection of Pulleys
Selection of B section single groove driven pulley is calculated by assuming the
required rpm of screw with considering 10 percent slippage losses. Driving pulley
was also decided to achieve the required size of driven pulley.
D1  N1
Diameter of driven pulley D2 = .
N2
...(3.18)
Where,
D1 = Diameter of driving pulley, 7.62 cm
D2 = Diameter of driven pulley, m
N1 = Rpm of driving pulley, 1440 rpm
N2 = Screw revolution considered with slippage, 195 rpm
7.62x1440
Diameter of driven pulley D2 
195
....(3.19)
D2 = 562 cm
Diameter of driven pulley D2 = 0.562 m
Thus, diameter of driven pulley were selected as suitable size of 22 inch, B
Section singe groove for further work

Table 3.1 Technical specifications of developed screw press extruder type

briquetting machine depicted in table below
Sr. Specification
Particular Material
No. (mm )
1. Size of Feeding hopper 32 x 32 x 42 M.S. sheet
2. Screw Dimensions
 i) Screw pitch 60

ii) Diameter of screw shaft 30

Chromium
iii) Maximum diameter of screw 100
steel
iv) Minimum diameter of screw 80

v) Depth of flight 25

vi) Thickness of flight 3

vii) Helix angle 14o

3. Die Dimension
i) No. of nozzle tube 4
ii) Die of nozzle tube 25 M.S. pipe
iii) Length of nozzle tube 60
4. Diameter of barrel 120 Mild steel
5. Pulley and belt

i) Diameter of driven pulley 590 Cast iron

ii) Diameter of driving pulley 90 Cast iron

iii) B section v belt single groove belt 2280
6. Motor
i) 3 Phase induction motor 2 HP
ii) RPM of motor 1440 Cast iron

7. Other Specifications

i) Overall length of machine 950

ii) Overall width of machine 500
iii) Overall height of machine 1000

3.3 Preparations of briquettes

Selected biomass such as mango leaves and acacia leaves convert it in to powder form
by using (Benson agro company) shredder having of capacity of 5 kg. And sieved
through 2 mm size sieve to achieve the desired size of raw material. Suitable raw
material combinations were made for briquetting process by manually. Then it is used
as a input for briquetting machine to produce briquetted sample. Briquettes were
prepared by adding water and cow dung as binder in each selected biomass sample.
Wooden trays were kept in the front of the die portion to collect briquette suitably.
The different combination of briquettes were prepared as shown in Table 4 and
evaluated in following way.

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

3.4 Performance testing of briquetting machine

Performance of the briquetting machine evaluated on the basis of quality of
the briquettes. Power consumption calculated for production briquettes and efficiency
of briquetting machine. (Complete process view of briquetting is shown in Plate 3.2).
3.4.1 Output of briquettes (kg/h)
The capacity of the briquetting machine was determined by total output of
briquetting machine in terms of briquettes produced in one hour. The capacity of the
briquetting machine was calculated in kg/hr.

3.4.2 Electricity Consumption

The electricity consumption was calculated by the amount of power consumed
in one hour. (1kw energy use in one hour i.e. 1kw = 1unit).
Power was calculated by:
P  V  I  cos
....(3.20)
Where,
P = Electric power, kW-h
 V = Voltage, volt
I = Current, Amp
Cos Φ = Power factor taken as unity for singe phase

3.4.3 Machine efficiency

Machine efficiency is the ratio of material input to machine to its output in
form of briquettes. It is an indication of the useful work performed by the machine.
For an ideal material-machine system, the briquetting efficiency will be 100%.
However, for any practical machine, this efficiency will always be less than 100% as
there may be some materials, which gets stuck up to the hopper and does not pass
through the die/screws (Mathur, 1996).
Wb
  100 ....(3.21)
Wf

Where,
η = Machine efficiency, (%)
Wb = weight of briquette, kg
Wf = weight of feed material, kg

3.5 Analysis of briquetted fuel

The briquettes made by screw press briquetting machine were tested. The
proximate analysis, thermal properties, physical properties of briquettes, shatter
resistance, resistance to water penetration, tumbling resistance, and compression
strength were determined.
3.5.1 Proximate Analysis (see the section 3.1.1)
i) Moisture content %
ii) Volatile matter content %
iii) Ash content %
iv) Fixed carbon %

3.5.2 Calorific value of briquettes

Calorific value of prepared briquettes was determined by the standard
procedure already mentioned in 3.1.2.

3.5.3 Bulk density of briquettes

For briquette density measurement, the briquette length and diameter were
measured and thus the volume was calculated. The briquettes were weighed by using
a digital weight balance. The bulk density briquette was determined by dividing the
mass of the briquette per unit its volume (Madhava, 2012). .
Weight of briquette, (kg)
Bulk density (kg / m3 ) 
Volumeof briquette, (m3 )
....(3.22)

3.5.4 Shatter indices

These tests were used for determining the hardness of the briquettes. The
briquette of known weight and length was dropped from the height of one meter on
RCC and concrete floor for ten times as shown in Plate 6. The weight of disintegrated
briquette and its size was noted. The percent loss of material was calculated. The
shatter indices of the briquette were calculated by using equation no 3.28 as below,
(Madhava, 2012)
w1  w2
Percent weight loss = 100 ....(3.23)
w1
% shatter resistance = 100- % weight loss
....(3.24)
Where,
w1 = weight of briquette before shattering, g
w2 = weight of briquette after shattering, g

3.5.5. Tumbling test

This test was used for testing the durability of briquetted fuel. A metallic box
was used for the test. Briquetted sample of known weight was taken in the box and
covered with lid. The box was thoroughly shaken for 15 minutes. Then weight loss in
the briquettes was noted and the tumbling resistance was calculated by using equation
no 3.17 as below, (Tayde, 2010)
w1  w2
Percent weight loss = 100 ..... (3.25)
w1
Tumbling resistance = 100 - % weight loss ...... (3.26)
Where,
w1 = weight of briquette before tumbling
w2 = weight of briquette after tumbling

3.5.6. Resistance to Water Penetration

 It is measure of percentage water absorbed by a briquette when immersed in
water each briquette was immersed in 25 mm of water at room temperature for 30
seconds. The percent water gained was calculated by using equation no 3.27 and
resistance to water penetration was calculted by equation 3.28 as below, (Madhava,
2012)
w1  w2
Water gained by briquette = 100
w1
....(3.27)
% resistance to water penetration = 100 – water gain ....(3.28)
Where,
w1 = Initial weight of briquette
w2 = final weight of briquette.

3.5.7. Degree of Densification

Degree of densification is defined as percent increase in density of biomass
due to briquetting. (Madhava, 2012) Degree of densification represents ability of
material to get bounded. It was calculated and recorded by using equation no 3.29 as
below,

Density of briquette  Density of raw material

Degree of densification 
Density of raw material
.
....(3.29)

3.5.8 Energy Density Ratio

The energy density ratio is the ratio of energy content per unit volume of raw
material and the energy content per unit volume of briquetted fuel. The energy density
ratio of briquetted fuel was calculated by using equation no 3.30 as below, (Sengar,
2006).

Energy content of briquetted fuel (kcal / m 3 )

Energy density ratio 
Energy content of raw biomass (kcal / m 3 ) .
...(3.30)

3.5.9 Biomass based water heater test

 The water heating test was conducted for thermal efficiency of biomass based
water heater with briquettes. The material used for water test was distilled water and
briquetted fuel.

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

3.6 Instruments/Device Used

Different properties of the briquetted fuel were determined by using different
instruments. These instruments are described as follows:

3.6.1. Hot Air Oven

Hot air oven was used for the determination of dry basis moisture content of
briquettes with temperature range of ambient to 250º±1ºC with digital temperature
indicator cum controller with timer (0-24) hr and inner chamber 600 (W) X 600 (D) X
900 (H) mm. The moisture content on percent basis was determined. For this purpose,
samples were kept in oven at 110 0C for one hour. The specification is given in the
Appendix-L and also shown in Plate 3.3.

3.6.2. Muffle Furnace

Muffle furnace is the instrument which was used for determination of volatile
matter and ash content of briquetted fuel. The oven-dried sample left in the crucible
was covered with a lid and placed in an electric furnace, maintained at 925 ± 20ºc for
7 minutes and weighed again. Loss in weight was reported as volatile matter on
percentage basis. For determination of ash content sample was placed in a muffle
furnace at 700 ± 50ºc for one half hour without lid. The specification is given in the
Appendix-L and also shown in Plate 3.3.

3.6.3. Bomb Calorimeter

Bomb calorimeter was used to find the calorific value of briquetted fuel. It consisted
of a strong cylindrical stainless steel bomb in which the combustion of fuel was made
to takes place. The bomb had lid, which could be screwed to the body of bomb so as
to make the perfect gas-tight seal. The lid was provided with two stainless steel
electrodes and an oxygen inlet valve. The bomb lid was tightly screwed and bomb
was filled with oxygen to 25 atmospheric pressure. To one of the electrodes, a small
ring was attached. In this ring, a nickel or stainless steel crucible could be supported.
The bomb was placed in copper calorimeter that was surrounded by an air jacket and
water jacket. The calorimeter was provided with an electrically operated stirrer and
digital thermometer, which was measure accurately temperature. The specification is
given in the Appendix-k and also shown in Plate 3.3.

3.6.4. Weighing balance

Electric weighing balance was mainly used for accurate measurement of weight with
least count 0.01gm for the experiment work. Following specification was used for
weighing the briquetted fuel samples. The specification is given in the Appendix-L
and also shown in Plate 3.3.

3.6.5. Temperature recorder

It is used to read temperature of any substance. Calibrated Electronic
thermometer of temperature range from 0 to 100 degree centigrade was used for
measurement of temperature during calorific value determination.
3.6.6. Desiccators
It is the instrument which is used for cooling the samples after it has been
removed from oven. In the present experiment the samples after placing in muffle
furnace were cooled in 250 mm, desiccators and then weighed.

3.6.7. Silica crucible

It is a white coloured crucible, having silica as a base material is used in
determination of moisture content, volatile matter, ash content etc. During the present
study, samples were placed in silica crucible having external diameter 25 mm, internal
diameter 22 mm, height 38 mm as well as internal overall lid diameter 27 mm,
diameter of the well 21mm and depth of well 4 mm.The specification is given in the
Appendix-L.
 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter deals with the results obtained from the study undertaken with the
objectives for development of screw extruder type briquetting machine for locally
available biomass. The results obtained in this study are presented and evaluated
under the following headings.
1. Characterization of locally available raw biomass for briquetting
2. Performance evaluation of the developed screw extruder type briquetting
machine
3. Analysis of briquetted fuel

4.1 Characterization of locally available raw biomass for briquetting

The raw biomass such as mango (Mangifera indica) leaves, subabul (Acacia
auriculiformis) leaves, and dry dung were selected for research work. Biomass
samples were indentified and collected from university farm. Only saw dust was
collected from saw mill, which was located just outside near the university campus.
4.1.1 Proximate analysis of selected biomass
The raw biomass used for briquetting was dry mango (Mangifera indica)
leaves, dry subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves, saw dust and dry dung. In
proximate analysis moisture content, volatile matter, ash content of these selected
biomass material were determined and depicted in (Appendix – A).
The moisture content of cow dung saw dust, mango (Mangifera indica) leaves
and subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves were found to be 7.47 per cent, 9.56 per
cent, 8.3 per cent and 7.76 per cent, respectively. The volatile matter of cow dung,
saw dust, mango (Mangifera indica) leaves and subabul (Acacia auriculiformis)
leaves were found to be 60.77 per cent, 64.33 per cent, 70 per cent and 70.66 per cent,
respectively. The ash content of cow dung was more (15.35 per cent). The ash content
in saw dust, mango (Mangifera indica) leaves and subabul (Acacia auriculiformis)
leaves were found to be 8 per cent, 8.1 per cent and 8.20 per cent, respectively. The
fixed carbon was found to be 16.44 per cent in dry cow dung, 18.10 per cent in saw
dust, and 13.53 per cent, 13.04 per cent for mango (Mangifera indica) leaves and
subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves.
 80
70 70.66
70 64.33
60.77
60 Moisture content
Per cent 50
Volatile matter
40
30 Ash content
18.1
20 15.35 16.44 13.53 13.04 Fixed carbon
7.47 9.56 8 8.3 8.1 7.76 8.2
10
0
Cow dung Saw dust Mango Subabul
leaves leaves
Raw Biomass Samples

Fig. 4.1 Proximate analysis of raw biomass

It was observed that fixed carbon was found highest in saw dust as compared
to dry dung, dry mango (Mangifera indica) leaves and dry subabul (Acacia
auriculiformis) leaves. The higher carbon content can be help for increasing energy in
terms of calorific value for making briquettes. The ash content was found lowest in
saw dust (8%). While mango (Mangifera indica) leaves, subabul (Acacia
auriculiformis) leaves is approximately 8.1per cent, this indicated that the material is
suitable for briquetting. The moisture content of all raw biomass for making
briquettes was found in the range of 7.33 to 9.56 per cent. It was found within
acceptable limit (below 15%) for making briquettes and for thermal application of
briquettes.
4.1.2 Proximate analysis of mixed raw biomass in different proportion for
briquetting
Observations and result of proximate analysis of mixed raw biomass were
determined and depicted in (Appendix A-(B-II)).
 80
70
60
Moisture content
50
per cent 40
Volatile matter

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

Treatments for briquetted sample

Fig. 4.3 Proximate analysis of briquetted samples

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

Bulk density , kg/m³

160
136
140 125 Cow dung
120
100 Saw dust
80 Mango leaves
60
40 Subabul leaves
20
0
Cow dung Saw dust Mango Subabul
leaves leaves
Biomass samples

Fig. 4.4 Bulk density of raw biomass

It was also observed that the highest bulk density was found in saw dust. The
lowest bulk density was found in powdered and sieved mango (Mangifera indica)and
subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves. The result suggested the necessity of
briquetting these biomass to reduce storage and transportation cost.
4.1.5 Bulk density of mixed raw biomass for different treatments
The mango (Mangifera indica) leaves, subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves,
saw dust and cow dung was mixed as per their proportions. The results of the average
bulk density of different combinations for making briquettes (Appendix B-II) and are
shown in Fig 4.5.
It was observed from the Fig. 4.5 that the maximum bulk density was
found 233 kg/m3 in T-3 (25:25:40:10) combination which comprised of dry mango
(Mangifera indica) leaves (25%), dry subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves (25%),
saw dust (40%) and dry dung (10%).
 240 233 232
213 217 T-1(40:25:25;10)
220

Bulk density kg/m3

202 206
T-1(25:40:25:10)
200
T-3(25:25:40:10)
180
T-4 (30:30:25:15)
160 T-5(30:25:25:20)
140 T-6(25:20:30:25)
120

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

Fig. 4.6 Calorific value of raw biomass for briquetting

 It was observed from the Fig. 4.6 that the calorific value of dry dung saw dust
mango (Mangifera indica) leaves and subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves were
found to be 3066.67 kcal/kg, 3899.66 kcal/kg, 3248.19 kcal/kg and 3,185.12 kcal/kg,
respectively. The calorific value of saw dust was found maximum among all the
selected biomass i.e. dry mango (Mangifera indica) leaves, dry subabul (Acacia
auriculiformis) leaves and dry dung. The higher calorific value of the selected
biomass indicates the suitability of material for briquetting.

4.1.7 Calorific value of raw material in different proportions (Calculated)

The calorific value of raw material in different proportions for making
briquettes in six combinations are presented in (Appendix C-II) and also shown in Fig
4.7.

4000
3600 3574
Calorific Value kcal/kg

3379 3350 3406 3398

3500

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 Calorific value of different combinations of biomass for briquetting

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

Different Combination of Sample

Parameters Average
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Voltage (V) 229 229 229 229 230 230 229
Current (A) 3.1 3.23 3.26 3.23 3.23 3.33 3.23
Power Consumed
0.710 0.740 0.750 0.741 0.742 0.766 0.741
(KW)
Capacity of Machine
39.85 39.59 39.66 39.42 39.52 38.48 39.32
(Kg/hr)
Energy Consumption
15.32 16.08 16.27 17.71 16.15 14.78 16.05
(Kcal/kg)
Energy Consumption
(Kw-h/Kg) 0.0178 0.0187 0.0189 0.0182 0.0187 0.0171 0.0182

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.

4.3.1 Moisture content of wet briquettes

The average moisture content of fresh briquettes are given in (Appendix – A -
III) and also shown in Fig 4.8

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

Fig 4.8 Moisture content of fresh briquettes

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

Fig 4.9 Calorific value of briquetted fuel

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

Bulk density, kg/m³

500 T-1 (40:25:25:10)

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

Treatments for dried briquitted samples

Fig. 4.10 Average bulk density for six combinations of briquettes

It was observed from the Fig. 4.10 that the maximum bulk density was found
631 kg/m3 in T-3 (25:25:40:10) combination which comprises of dry mango
(Mangifera indica) leaves (25%), dry subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves (25%),
saw dust (40%) and cow dung (10%). The lowest bulk density was found 535 kg/m3
in T-2 (25:40:25:10) combination which comprises of dry mango (Mangifera indica)
leaves (25%), dry subabul (Acacia auriculiformis) leaves (40%), saw dust (25%) and
dry dung (10%) after making briquettes by screw press bulk density was considerably
increased as 535-631 kg/m3 compared to mixed raw biomass (202-233 kg/m3),raw
biomass (125-195 kg/m3) Similarly when higher density material i.e. saw dust was
used in more proportion i.e. 40% the bulk density of briquette was increased.
4.3.4 Physical properties of briquettes
The physical properties of briquetted fuel after sun drying (3 days) were
recorded. The average length of the briquettes varied from 4.80 cm to 8.47 cm. The
average diameter of briquettes varied from 2.15 to 2.25 cm. The average weight of
individual briquettes varied from 11.80 g to 16.46 g. The results are given in
(Appendix B-III)
4.3.5 Energy density ratio
The energy density ratio for six combinations are presented in (Appendix–H)
and also depicted in Fig 4.11.Energy density ratio is the ratio of energy density of
briquetted fuel to the energy density of raw material.
 3.5

3 2.7 2.79 2.73 2.71 2.75

2.63
Energy Density ratio
T-1(40:25:25:10)
2.5
T-2(25:40:25:10)
2
T-3(25:25:40:10)
1.5 T-4(30:30:25:25)

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

Treatments for briquetted samples

Fig4.11 Energy density ratio of briquetted fuel

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.

4.3.6 Tumbler Test

Tumbler test was carried out for checking the durability index of the
briquettes. The results of tumbling test are presented in (Appendix – D) and depicted
in table 4.12.
 110
100 93.16 95.83 94.5 96.19
91.36 92.2
90

Tumbler resistance (%) 80

T-1(40:25:25;10)
70
T-2(25:40:25:10)
60
50 T-3(25:25:40:10)
40 T-4 (30:30:25:15)
30 T-5(30:25:25:20)
20
T-6(25:20:30:25)
10
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6
Treatments for briquetted samples

Fig 4.12Tumbler test for briquetted fuel

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%).

4.3.7 Shatter resistance of briquetted fuel

The results obtained from shatter index test is presented in (Appendix–E) and
also depicted in Fig 4.13.
 100 94.46 93.36
92.1 90 92.16
88.6
90 T-1(40:25:25:10)

Shatter Resistance (%)

80 T-2(25:40:25:10)
70 T-3(25:25:40:10)

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

Fig 4.13 Shatter resistance of briquetted fuel

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

Resistance to water penetration(%)

92.15 91.93 94.16 92.86 92.56 93.5
90
T-1(40:25:25:10)

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

Fig 4.14 Resistance to water penetration of briquettes

Fig.4.14 showed that resistance to water penetration was maximum for

combination T-3 briquettes (94.16 %) followed by combination T-6, T-4, T-5, T-1
and combination T-2 briquettes having resistance of 93.5, 92.86, 92.56, 92.15, and
91.93 per cent respectively. Least resistance to water penetration was observed for
combination T-2 briquettes having resistance of 91.93. Resistance to water
penetration was maximum for combination T-3, because of its less porosity and high
density. It was due to higher percentage of saw dust. The briquette formed using
higher percentage of leaves was porous and non homogeneous, which allowed water
penetration. It indicated that T-3 was found suitable for storage.
4.3.9 Degree of densification
The result obtained from calculations of degree of densifications are presented
in (Appendix–G) and depicted in Fig 4.15. Degree of densification represents per cent
increase in density of biomass due to briquetting.
Fig. 4.15 showed that the maximum degree of densification was found to be
171 in T-3 (25:25:40:10). The lowest degree of densification was found to be 159 in
T-2. It
indicated that during briquetting the material with higher amount biomass in

form of leaves could not be compressed as compared to biomass containing more saw

dust.
 180

Degree of Densification (%)

170 170
170 166 167 165
159
160
T-1(40:25:25:10)
150
T-2(25:40:25:10)
140
T-3(25:25:40:10)
130
T-4(30:30:25:15)
120
T-5(30:25:25:20)
110
T-6(25:20:30:25)
100
T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6
Treatments for briquetted samples

Fig 4.15 Degree of densification for briquetted fuel

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

1. Maximum shatter resistance, resistance to water penetration and energy

density ratio was observed in combination T-3 as 94.46 per cent, 95.83 per cent, 94.13
per cent and 2.79 respectively. Also T-3 and T-6 are showing almost similar tumbler
resistance.i.e (95.83), (96.19).because it has high percentage of binder and saw dust in
both combination.

2. Maximum degree of densification and calorific value was observed in

combination T-3 as 171 per cent and 3,717 kcal/kg respectively. Whereas minimum
degree of densification and calorific value was observed in T-2 as 159 and 3405
kcal/kg respectively .This was due to low density and calorific value of raw biomass
material.

3. Maximum densification indicate that increase the bulk density of raw

biomass in term of briquettes, and hence it help to eliminate the major storage
problem of raw biomass and transportation cost.

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.

6. The capacity of the briquetting machine was observed to be varying from 39

to 40 kg/h. The efficiency of the machine was varied from 94 per cent to 96 per cent
for various combinations of the briquettes. Which is depicted in appendix - (I). The
Average energy consumption of about 16.05 kcal per kg of briquettes.

5.3 Suggestions for future work

1. Collection method of briquettes can improved by adding platform

arrangement in front of the die, so we can collect briquette suitably and
longer service briquettes can be obtained.

2. It is suggested that there need to lubrication periodically so as to minimize

the frictional loss of screw and help to reduce wear and sound of machine
during operation.
3. Raw material must be fine in nature and uniform with suitable proportion
of binder was needed for screw press briquetting machine. So we can
achieve better densification.
 VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anonymous, 2006.Waste to energy. ENVIS Pondicherry pollution control comity.
Vol.2 (1) 1-3.

Anonymous 2009. Mango (Mangifera Indica), www.worldagroforestry.org Database.

4.0: 1- 8

ASTM D3173-03. (2003) In Annual Book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken,

PA.: American Society for Testing and Materials.Vol. 05.06, 311-313

ASTM D4442-92(2003) Standard Test Methods for Direct Moisture Content

Measurement of Wood and Wood-Base Materials. In Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials .Vol. 04.10, 509-514.

Abakr Y. A. and A. E. Abasaeed. 2006. Experimental Evaluation of a conical screw

Briquetting machine for the Briquetting of carbonized cotton stalk in Sudan.
Journal Engineering Science and Tech. Vol. 1(2):212-220.

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

Ansari A. 2012. Biomass: Energy and Environmental concern in Developing Country.

Indian journal of Environmental sciences, Vol. 1(1): 54-57.

Chauhan Suresh. 2010. Biomass Resources for Power Generation: A Case Study from
Haryana State, India. Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 34(9): 1300-1308.

Grover P. D. and S. K. Mishra. 1994. Development of an appropriate biomass

briquetting technology suitable for production and use in developing countries.
Energy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 1(1): 45-48.

Haykiri H. and S. Yaman. 2010. Production of smokeless bio-briquettes from

hazelnut shell. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and
Computer Science. 2: 1-13.

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.

Martin J. F., R. M. Pineda, J. A. Manaya, S. R. Handa and A. B. Ocreto. 2008. Design

and Development of Charcoal Briquetting Machine. USM R & D, Vol.
16(2):85-90.

Mathur A.N. 1996. A Study on Densification of Biomass.Unpublished Ph. D. (Agril.

Engg.) thesis. College of Technology and Engineering, Maharana Pratap
University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur.

Matus M. and P. Krizan. 2012. Modularity of Pressing Tools for Screw Press
Producing Solid Biofuels.Acta polytechnica Vol-52(3):71-76

Madhava M., B. V. Prasad, Y. Koushik, K. R. Rameshbabu and R. Srihari. 2012.

Performance evaluation of a hand operated compression type briquetting
machine. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 49(2): 46-49.

Oladegi J. T. 2010. Fuel characterization of briquettes produced from corncob and

rice husk residues. Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 11. 101-106.

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.

Shukla P. R. 1997. Biomass Energy in India: Transition from Traditional to Modern.

Published In The Social Engineer, Vol. 6 (2): 1-19.

Sahay J. (2008), Text book of elements of agricultural engg. Standard publication,

fourth edition, page no. 17-18.
Sanke N.and D. N. Reddy. 2008. Biomass for Power and Energy Generation,
www.icrepq.com. 309-314

Srivastava N.S. 2009. Briquetting of Agro Residues Suitable for Gasification,

Technical report, Winter School on Advances In Biomass Utilization For
Electricity Generation, CIAE, Bhopal – 462 038, India.

Sheshadri S. and P. Sugumaran. 2010. Biomass Charcoal Briquetting. Booklet on

Biomass Charcoal Briquetting: Technology For Alternative Energy Based
Income Generation In Rural Areas. 10-13.

Singh R.N.,A. M. Sharma and P. R. Bhoi. 2007. Modification of Commercial

Briquetting Machine to Produce 35 mm Diameter Briquettes Suitable For
Gasification and Combustion. Renewable Energy. Vol. (32):61-65.

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.

Shakya, G. R., I. Shakya and M. A. Leon. 2004. Biomass Briquetting of Agricultural

and Forest Residue and Hertz Wastes In Nepal Online at rests @ ail. ac.th.

Karaosmanoglu F., E. Tetik, B. Gurboy and I. Sanli. 1999. Characterization of the

straw stalk of the rapeseed plant as a biomass energy source. Published by
Taylor & Francis Group. online@tandf.co.uk. Energy Sources. 21: 801-810.

Naravani N.B. 1991. Studies on design and operation parameters of sunflower

threshing. Unpublished Ph. D. (Agril. Engg.) thesis. Indian Agricultural
Research Institute, New Delhi.

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.

Teerapot W, Nisakorn.S and Theerapong.B.2010. Design and Development of a

Compact Screw-Press Biomass Briquetting Machine for Productivity
Improvement and Cost Reduction. The First TSME International Conference
on Mechanical Engineering: 1-6.
Tripathi A. K., P. V. Iyer, T. C. Kandpal and K. K. Singh. 1998. Assessment of
Availability and Costs of Some Agricultural Residues Used as Feedstocks for
Biomass Gasification and Briquetting In India. Energy Convers Mgnt. Vol.
39(15):1611-1618.

Panwar V., Prasad and K. L.wasewar.2011.Biomass residue briquetting and

characterization. Journal of Energy Engineering, Vol.137 (2):109-113.

Wakchaure, G. C. and P. K. Sharma. 2007. Physical Quality of Some Biomass

Briquette. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, Vol.44 (1): 48-52.

Wamukonya, L. and B. Jenkins. 1995. Durability and Relaxation of Sawdust and

Wheat Straw Briquettes as Possible Fuels for Kenya. Biomass and Bioenergy,
Vol. 8 (3): 175-179.

Yadong, L. and L Henry. 2000. High Pressure Densification of Wood Residues to

Form an Upgraded Fuel. Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol.19: 177-186.

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.

Yaman, S.M., Sahan H. Haykiriacma, K. Sesen and S. Kucukbayrak 2000. Production

of fuel briquettes from live refuse and paper mill waste. Fuel processing
Technology Vol. 68: 23-31.
 APPENDICES
APPENDIX – A
A. Proximate analysis of selected samples
1.Calculation for determination of moisture content
W2  W3
M .C.% wb  100
W2  W1
Where,
W1 = weight of crucible, g
W 2 = weight of crucible + sample, g
W 3 = weight of crucible + sample, after heating, g
2. Calculation for determination of volatile matter
W3  W4
V .M .%  100
W2  W1
Where,
W 1 = weight of crucible, g
W 2 = weight of crucible + sample, g
W3= weight of crucible +weight of sample before keeping in muffle furnace, g
W4 = weight of crucible + weight of sample after keeping in muffle furnace,g
3. Calculation for determination of Ash content
W5  W1
A.C.%  100
W2  W1
Where,
W1 = weight of crucible, g
W2 = weight of crucible + sample, g
W5 = weight of crucible + weight of sample after keeping in muffle furnace, g
4. Calculation for determination of fixed carbon
Percentage of fixed carbon = 100 - % of (moisture content + volatile matter +
ash content)

A) Proximate analysis of raw biomass

I) Observations
 Biomass
W1 W2 W3 W4 W5
sample
31.120 32.125 32.047 31.444 31.288
Cow
31.132 32.136 31.379 31.590 30.975
dung
31.124 32.130 32.057 31.443 31.277

32.806 33.926 33.822 33.091 32.990

Saw 31.690 32.826 32.721 31.986 31.860
dust
31.540 32.740 32.620 31.705 31.537

32.816 33.925 33.827 32.928 32.828

Mango
leaves 32.800 33.920 33.824 33.019 32.929
31.710 32.880 32.781 31.985 31.892

32.000 33.125 33.037 32.958 32.868

Acacia
32.001 33.120 33.036 32.219 32.127
Leaves
31.780 32.960 32.866 32.051 31.951

II calculated proximate analysis of selected biomass

Moisture Volatile Ash Fixed
Sr. No
Content Matter Content Carbon
7.7 60 15.5 16.80
Cow 7.53 61.20 15.25 16.02
dung 7.2 61 15.3 16.50
Average 7.47 60.77 15.35 16.44

9.28 61 7.01 22.72

Saw 9.40 64 9 17.6
dust 10 68 8.02 14
Average 9.56 64.33 8.00 18.10

8.8 70 8.6 12.6

Mango 7.7 71 8 13.3
leaves 8.4 69 7.9 14.7
Average 8.3 70 8.1 13.53

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

32.103 33.105 32.021 32.340 32.219

T2
31.106 32.108 33.024 31.346 31.226
32.126 33.127 33.043 32.364 32.240

30.126 31.127 31.044 30.382 30.293

T3
31.128 32.129 32.046 31.385 31.296
32.103 33.105 33.022 32.955 32.865

32.105 33.109 33.008 32.354 32.234

T4
32.101 33.107 32.004 32.901 32.247
31.109 32.112 32.010 31.365 31.246

31.112 32.122 32.037 31.373 31.252

T5 32.123 33.124 33.044 32.375 32.252
32.101 33.126 33.044 32.801 32.678

32.106 33.108 33.024 32.666 32.264

T6
32.109 33.117 33.032 32.370 32.268
31.105 32.107 32.023 31.365 31.264
II Proximate analysis of selected mixed raw biomass samples (Calculated)
Moisture Volatile Ash Fixed
Treatments
content matter Content content
8.40 86.84 11.9 12.86
T1
8.42 67.24 11.4 12.94
 8.38 66.92 11.81 12.90
Average 8.40 67.00 11.7 12.90

8.83 67.95 11.99 12.08

T2 8.35 67.64 11.97 12.04
8.33 67.80 11.98 12.09
Average 8.35 67.60 11.98 12.07

8.24 66.04 8.83 16.89

T3 8.20 63.99 8.88 16.93
8.19 65.97 8.96 16.88
Average 8.21 66.00 8.89 16.90

9.98 65.13 11.93 13.91

T4 10.21 64.97 11.79 13.88
10.11 64.23 11.78 13.88
Average 10.10 64.18 11.83 13.89

8.4 65.77 12.7 13.13

T5 7.9 66.8 12.2 13.10
8.0 66.3 12.0 13.7
Average 8.1 66.5 12.3 13.10

8.36 65.59 10.11 15.94

T6 8.34 65.58 10.09 15.99
8.30 65.62 10.07 16.01
Average 8.33 65.60 10.09 15.98

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)

IV) Proximate analysis of dry briquetted sample

I. Observations

Samples W1 W2 W3 W4 W5

T1 31.119 32.121 32.068 31.356 31.226

 31.128 32.101 32.045 31.368 31.227
31.131 32.132 32.071 31.369 31.278

31.195 32.196 32.136 32.034 31.932

T2 31.128 32.276 32.209 31.402 31.287
31.126 32.128 31.516 31.454 30.749

32.010 33.101 33.047 32.299 32.203

T3 32.101 33.106 33.062 32.372 32.284
31.195 32.198 32.156 31.399 31.303

32.101 33.109 33.058 32.341 32.249

T4 32.107 33.112 33.060 32.347 32.256
31.188 32.192 32.138 31.431 31.339

32.107 33.109 33.053 32.345 32.255

T5 32.101 32.105 32.104 32.101 32.100
32.101 33.112 33.059 32.344 32.253

31.195 31.197 31.196 31.194 31.193

T6 32.109 32.110 32.065 32.020 31.931
32.107 33.108 33.053 31.346 31.256

II Proximate analysis of dry briquetted samples (Calculated)

Moisture Volatile Ash Fixed

Treatments
content matter Content content
5.2 71 10.70 13.10

T1 5.6 70.45 10.45 13.50

6 70.12 10.88 13.00
Average 5.60 70.52 10.67 13.20

5.9 70.11 11.54 12.45

5.8 70.29 11.49 12.42
 T2 6.1 70.15 11.27 12.48
Average 5.93 70.18 11.43 12.45

4.9 68.48 9.42 17.20

4.3 68.62 10.1 16.98
T3
4.1 69 9.45 16.95
17.04
Average 4.43 68.7 9.66

5.02 71.05 9.03 14.1

T4 5.1 70.89 9.01 13.95

5.3 70.38 9.12 13.98
Average 5.14 70.77 9.01 14.01

5.5 70.6 10.28 13.62

T5 5.7 70.54 10.16 13.60

5.2 70.94 10.28 13.58
Average 5.46 70.69 10.24 13.60

4.28 69.04 10.49 16.19

T6 4.4 68.86 10.49 16.25
4.8 68.81 10.18 16.21
Average 4.49 68.90 10.38 16.21
 APPENDIX - B
I) Calculation for determination of bulk density of raw biomass material
w

v
Where,
 = Bulk density, (kg/m )
3

w = Weight of raw biomass material in measuring cylinder, kg

v = Volume of measuring cylinder, m3

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

II. Bulk density of mixed raw biomass before briquetting

 T1 0.203 0.001 203
202
0.202 0.001 202

0.208 0.001 208

T2 0.204 0.001 204 206
0.203 0.001 203

0.235 0.001 235

T3 0.230 0.001 230 233
0.234 0.001 234

0.212 0.001 212

T4 0.214 0.001 214
213
0.213 0.001 213

0.218 0.001 218

T5 0.215 0.001 215
217
0.218 0.001 198

0.233 0.001 233

T6 0.231 0.001 231 232
0.232 0.001 232

III) Physical properties of briquettes after sun drying

Volume
Weight of d
Sample Length Diameter
(gm) briquette,
cm3
5.308 2.181 10.663 19.820
T1 6.304 2.181 12.640 23.539
7.504 2.180 15.080 27.994
Average 6.372 2.180 12.796 23.784
 6.510 2.178 12.993 24.241
T2 6.710 2.178 13.342 24.986
7.210 2.178 14.363 26.848
Average 6.810 2.178 13.56 25.358

5.802 2.168 13.567 21.40

T3 6.412 2.168 14.828 23.65
7.102 2.159 16.419 25.98
Average 6.430 2.160 14.938 23.67

6.705 2.250 15.082 26.646

T4 6.810 2.250 15.398 27.063
5.980 2.251 13.676 23.786
Average 6.498 2.250 14.719 25.831

6.075 2.210 13.415 23.291

T5 7.125 2.210 15.761 27.317
8.101 2.200 17.697 30.778
Average 7.100 2.206 15.625 27.128

5.802 2.157 12.387 19.820

T6 6.982 2.160 16.186 25.571

7.012 2.158 11.120 17.863

Average 6.598 2.158 13.231 21.084

 APPENDIX – C

I Calorific value of raw biomass, mixed raw biomass and dried briquettes
(W  w)  (T2  T1 )
Calorific value (Kcal/kg) =
X

Where,

W = Weight Of water in calorimeter 2000 (gm)

w = Water equivalent of apparatus (455)

T 1 =Initial temperature of water (ºC)

T 2 = Final temperature of water (ºC)

X = Weight of fuel sample taken (gm)

I. Calculation for determination of calorific value of raw cow dung

Calorific Average
Sr. W w T1 T2 X
Sample value Calorific value
No. (gm) (gm) (ºC) (ºC) (gm)
(kcal/kg) (kcal/kg)

1 1 2000 455 29.1 30.4 1.076 2966.08

2 2 2000 455 29.1 30.5 1.096 3133.56 3066.06

3 3 2000 455 29 30.3 1.03 3098.54

II. Calculation for determination of calorific value of raw saw dust

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

2 2 2000 455 29.1 30.9 1.061 4164.94 3899.66

3 3 2000 455 29.6 30.8 1.053 4056.70

III) Calculation of determination of calorific value of dry mango leaves

Average
W Calorific
Sr. W T1 T2 X Calorific
Sample (gm) value
No. (gm) (ºC) (ºC) (gm) value
(kcal/kg)
(kcal/kg)

1 1 2000 455 29.1 30.6 1.063 3364.25

2 2 2000 455 29.2 30.5 1.023 3119.39

3248.19

3 3 2000 455 29.3 30.7 1.054 3260.91

IV) Calculation for determination of calorific value of acacia leaves

Sr. Sample W W T1 T2 X Calorific Average
No. (gm) (gm) (ºC) (ºC) (gm) value Calorific
(kcal/kg) value
(kcal/kg)

1 1 2000 455 29.2 30.6 1.070 3210.20

3185.12
2 2 2000 455 29.2 30.5 1.029 3100.12

3 3 2000 455 29.3 30.7 1.085 3165.14

II) Calorific value of combination of raw material in different proportions for
making briquettes (calculated)
1. Observations for calorific value of raw biomass sample (combination T1)

Calorifi
Sr. W w T1 T2 X
value
No (gm) (gm) (ºC) (ºC) (gm)
(kcal/kg

1 2000 455 29 30.4 1.012 3396

2 2000 455 29.2 30.6 1.021 3366
3 2000 455 29.1 30.5 1.018 3376

2. Observations for calorific value of raw biomass sample (combination T2)

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

3. Calculations for calorific value of raw biomass sample (combination T3)

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

4. Calculations for calorific value of raw biomass sample (combination T4)

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

1 2000 455 30 31.8 1.265 3493

2 2000 455 30.2 31.8 1.159 3389
3 2000 455 30.4 32 1.142 3439

6. Calculation for Calorific value of raw biomass sample (combination T6)

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

Durability index = 100 - % weight loss

Where,
w1 = weight of briquette before tumbling
w2 = weight of briquette after tumbling
Calculation for tumbling resistance of briquetted fuel
Weigh Weig
t of ht of
Sa We
brique briqu Tum
igh
mpl tte ette bling
t
before after Resis
e los
tumbli tum tance
s
ng,w1 blin
(g) g
 ,w2
(g)
38.1 6.4
40.78 93.16
5 5
T1 38.7 8.4
42.31 91.56
4 4
38.2 4.8
40.55 95.12
7 8
Ave
38.3 6.8
rag 41.21 93.16
9 4
e

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

44.5 39.1 5.4 94.6

T5 45.8 40.1 5.7 94.3
46.2 40.8 5.4 94.6
 Ave
rag 45.5 40 5.5 94.50
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

Calculation for determination of shatter indices of briquetted fuel

w1  w2
Percent weight loss = 100
w1
% shatter resistance = 100- % weight loss

Where,
w1 = weight of briquette before shattering, g
w2 = weight of briquette after shattering, g

Calculation of shatter indices of briquetted fuel

Average weight of Average Weight of Shatter

Wt. loss, Average
briquette before briquette after Index,
Sample shatter
shattering,w1 Shattering,w2
% index
(g) (g) %
12.50 11.40 8.8 91.2
T1
11.21 10.34 7.7 92.3 92.10
12.21 11.33 7.2 92.8

11.85 10.60 10.5 89

T2 90.00
10.60 9.40 11.32 88.7
11.21 10.39 8.2 91.8
 16.12 15.33 4.84 95.16
T3 94.46
16.14 15.19 5.88 94.12
16.10 15.15 5.90 94.10

13.14 11.68 11.1 88.9

T4 88.6
14.12 12.46 11.7 88.3
13.21 11.70 11.4 88.6

14.38 13.43 7.1 92.9

T5
13.95 12.85 9.2 90.8 92.16
14.10 13.15 7.2 92.8

15.43 14.53 6.2 93.8

T6 15.30 14.60 6.1 93.9
93.36
15.30 14.40 7.6 92.4
 APPENDIX – F

Resistance to water penetration for briquettes (Calculated)

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

Average
Sample Initial Final Water gain Resistance to Reading of
weight, w1 weight, w2 (w.b.) water resistance to
(g) (g) % penetration water
% penetration
12.5 11.4 8.8 91.2
T1 11.21 10.34 7.7 92.3 92.15
12.21 11.33 7.2 92.8

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

13.21 12.61 4.5 95.5

20.13 18.65 7.1 92.9

T4 17.14 16.02 7.15 92.85 92.86
15.1 13.99 7.17 92.83

12.56 11.43 8.9 91.1

T5 13.43 12.6 6.1 93.9 92.56
12.3 11.4 7.3 92.7

15.21 14.43 5.1 94.9

T6 15.1 13.9 7.9 92.1 93.5

13.7 12.8 6.5 93.5

 APPENDIX – G

(Calculated) the degree of densification

Density of briquette  Density of raw material

Degree of densification 
Density of raw material

Sr. Density of raw Density of Degree of

Sample
No. material, (kg/m3) briquette, (kg/m3) densification (%)

1. T–1 202 538 166

2. T–2 206 535 159

3. T–3 233 631 171

4. T–4 213 570 158

5. T–5 217 576 166

6. T–6 232 627 170

 APPENDIX – H

(Calculated) Energy density ratio of briquettes

Energy Calorific Energy

Calorific Bulk Bulk density
content of value of content of Energy
Sr. value of density of of raw
Sample briquetted raw raw density
No. briquette, briquette, biomass,
fuel, biomass, material, ratio
(kcal/kg) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
(kcal/m3) (kcal/kg) (kcal/m3)

1. T–1 3426 538 1843188 3379 202 682558 2.70

2. T–2 3405 535 1821675 3350 206 690100 2.63

3. T–3 3717 631 2345427 3600 233 838800 2.79

4. T–4 3480 570 1983600 3406 213 725478 2.73

5. T–5 3521 576 2028096 3440 217 746480 2.71

6. T–6 3646 627 2286042 3574 232 829168 2.75

 APPENDIX – I

I. Efficiency of briquetting machine (Calculated)

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

T1 5 3.5 8.5 8.103 0.397

5 3.5 8.5 8.107 0.393

5 3.5 8.5 8.050 0.450

T2 5 3.5 8.5 8.990 0.510

5 3.5 8.5 8.102 0.398

5 3.5 8.5 8.170 0.330

T3 5 3.5 8.5 7.110 0.390

5 3.5 8.5 8.101 0.399

5 3.5 8.5 7.990 0.510

T4 5 3.5 8.5 7.890 0.610

5 3.5 8.5 8.101 0.399

5 3.5 8.5 7.880 0.620

5 3.5 8.5 8.103 0.497
 T5 5 3.5 8.5 7.995 0.505

5 3.5 8.5 7.998 0.502

T6 5 3.5 8.5 8.109 0.391
5 3.5 8.5 8.115 0.385

II. (Calculated) power consumed during briquetting process

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

Formula for Power (kW) = (V × I × PF) ÷ 1,000.

Power factor taken as unity

 APPENDIX –J

Testing of biomass based water heater

Water heating test

1. Quantity of water heated : 27 lit.
2. Duration of test : 35 min
3. Fuel used : T-3 (25:25:40:10) briquettes
4. Quantity of fuel used : 0.775 kg
5. Calorific value of fuel : 3717kcal/kg
6. Initial volume of water taken, (Mw) : 27.0 kg
7. Initial temperature of water,(T1) : 27 C
8. Final temperature of water, (T2): 58C
9. Specific heat of water, (Cp) : 1 kcal/kg °C
10. Mass of ash remained : 0.078 kg

Observations recorded during the test

Starting time Temperature (°C)
(PM) Water Average surface Flue gas
4.10 27 31.1 102
4.15 30 33.2 112
4.20 34 35.3 123
4.25 39 38.2 128
4.30 24 40.3 133
4.35 27 44.5 140
4.40 52 48.7 147
4.45 58 53.1 169
Dimensions of Boiler

S. No. Particulars Dimensions (cm)

1. Height of boiler, 61.0
2. Height of burning chamber, 16.0
3. Height of ash chamber, 12.0
4. Total height, 100.0
5. Diameter of boiler, 25.0
6. Diameter of boiler at the top side, 9.0
7. Diameter of the burning chamber, 15.0
8. Diameter of the inlet pipe, 2.5
9. Diameter of the outlet pipe, 2.0
10. Material thickness, 0.4
11. Material Mild steel

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

I. Cost of material required for fabrication

Material and Weight( Rate Amount

Sr. No. Particular
Specification Kg) / Kg

1 Foundation frame MS angle 8 55 440

30×30×3 mm
MS angle
2 Motor base 3 55 165
30×30×3 mm
16 SWG
3 Feeding hopper 3 70 210
MS sheet
Screw Extruder with MS hardened
4 8 - 3000
Barrel Assembly steel
5 Welding rod 1 packet - - 280

6 V Belt B- Section Rubber - - 425

Driven pulley
7 Cast Iron - - 1540
( B-section)
Driving pulley
8 Cast Iron - - 280
(B-Section)
9 Motor 2 hp - - 8500

Total material cost, 14,840

Total cost = Material cost + Fabrication cost

= 14840 + 2000
= 16,840 /-
 1. Determination of cost of operation per hour of power operated
briquetting machine
2. It is assumed that machine is operated for 4 months per year, due to the
heavy rain, lack of dry leaves availability in konkan region.
Unit cost of Machine
Cost of machine, Rs - 16840
Working life of machine, year -7
Annual use h/year - 1000
Salvage value, % - 10
Annual interest on investment, % - 12
Insurance cost and Taxes, Rs - 2% of initial cost
Repair and maintenance, Rs - 6% of initial cost
Labour cost, Rs - 165 per person
Cost of briquette - 6 Rs/kg

a) Fixed cost per hour

1. Depreciation ( Rs/hr)
(C  S )
=
(L  H )
(16840 1684)
=
(7 1000)
= 2.16 Rs/hr.

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

= Rs. 93, 504 /-

Total investment per year = Cost of operation per year + Machine cost

= 1,36,896 + 16,840s

= 1,53,736/-

Total investment per year

Payback period 
Net profit per year

1,53,736
=
93,504

Payback period = 1.6 year

 APPENDIX – L
Specifications of different instruments used during the study
S. No. Instruments used Specifications Measurement
1. a) Hot air oven  Make: Quality QE-102
 Temperature range: 50 – 350 C
Proximate
 Make: Quality NSW-101, MF-1
analysis
b) Muffle furnace  Temperature range: 0 – 1200 C
 Rating: 1.6 kw
2. a) Silica crucible  Height- 38 mm
with lid  External diameter- 25 mm
 Internal diameter- 22 mm Proximate
 Internal overall diameter – 27 mm analysis
b) Lid  Diameter of well- 21 mm
 Depth of well- 4 mm
3. Bomb calorimeter  Make: Parr, Oxygen bomb Calorific value
Calorimeter (1341) as per ASTM-
D271-70
 Water Equivalent: 455 gm
 Range: 3000-10000 cal g-1
4. Digital weighing  Make: PHONIX Measurement
balance  Capacity : 30 kg of weight
 Accuracy: 2 g
5. Digital  Make: MECO-990 Temperature
thermometer  K Thermometer (Chromel-
Alumel)
 Range: 200 to 1370 C,
6. Thermometer  Range: 15 to 100 C Temperature
measurement
7. Vernier calliper  Make: Mitutoyo For
 Made in Japan measurement
 Series No.: 522 of dimensions
 Least count: 0.02 mm of briquettes
8. Ammeter  Make: For
 Made in India measurement
 Range : 0 to 10 Amp. of current
S. No. Instruments used Specifications Measurement
9. Voltmeter  Make: Nippen Electrical For
Instruments Co. measurement
 Made in India of voltage
 Range: 0 to 600 volt
10. Energy meter  Make: Indotech Switchgear & For
Contols, Ghaziabad measurement
 Made in India of power
Biomass m1(kg) m2 (Kg) m2-m1 Volume of Bulk Average
material cylinder(m3) Density Bulk
Density
 0.228 0.410 0.182 0.001 182

Cow dung 0.228 0.413 0.182 0.001 185 180

0.228 0.401 0.173 0.001 173

0.228 0.430 0.202 0.001 202

Saw dust 0.228 0.421 0.193 0.001 193 195

0.228 0.419 0.191 0.001 173

0.228 0.340 0.112 0.001 112

Mango 0.228 0.340 0.120 0.001 120 118

leaves
0.228 0.350 0.122 0.001 122

0.228 0.370 0.142 0.001 142

Acacia
leaves 0.228 0.365 0.137 0.001 137 136

0.228 0.358 0.130 0.001 130

APPENDIX

Calculation for determination of bulk density of raw biomass

material
Where, m1= mass of measuring cylinder, (kg)

m2=mass of measuring cylinder + sample, (kg)

Physical properties of briquette after sun drying

Sample Length Diameter Weight Volume of Bulk density Bulk
briquette gm/ cm3 Density
cm3 Kg/m3
5.308 2.181 11.33 19.820 0.572 572
T3 6.304 2.181 13.393 23.539 0.569 569
7.504 2.180 15.56 27.994 0.566 566
Average 6.372 2.180 13.427 23.784 0.569 569

6.510 2.178 13.187 24.241 0.544 544

T6 6.710 2.178 13.417 24.986 0.537 537
7.210 2.178 14.497 26.848 0.54 541
Average 6.810 2.178 13.7 25.358 0.54 540

5.802 2.168 12.117 21.40 0.566 566

T1 6.412 2.168 14.338 23.65 0.606 606
7.102 2.159 18.968 25.98 0.723 723
Average 6.430 2.160 11.807 23.67 0.631 631

6.705 2.250 15.103 26.646 0.566 566

T4 6.810 2.250 15.010 27.063 0.554 554
5.980 2.251 14.102 23.786 0.592 592
Average 6.498 2.250 14.738 25.831 0.570 570

6.075 2.210 12.53 23.291 0.538 538

T5 7.125 2.210 14.532 27.317 0.532 532
8.101 2.200 16.466 30.778 0.535 535
Average 7.100 2.206 14.509 27.128 0.535 535

5.802 2.157 12.102 19.820 0.610 610

T2 6.982 2.160 14.982 25.571 0.585 585
7.012 2.158 17.863 17.863 0.696 696
Average 6.598 2.158 14.982 21.084 0.630 627

APPENDIX H
 w1  w2
Percent weight loss = 100
w1
Durability index = 100 - % weight loss

Where, w1 = weight of briquette before tumbling

w2 = weight of briquette after tumbling

Calculation of durability indices of briquetted fuel

Sample Weight of Weight of Weight loss Durability
briquette after
briquette before Index
tumbling ,w2
tumbling,w1 (g)
(g)
41.85 38.05 9.08 90.92
T1 40.76 37.88 7.07 92.93
41.63 38.51 7.49 92.51
Average 41.41 38.14 7.88 92.12

55.94 54.02 3.56 96.44

T2 57.43 54.37 5.33 94.67
56.05 53.95 3.62 96.38
Average 56.47 54.11 4.17 95.83

40.78 38.15 6.45 93.16

T3 42.31 38.74 8.44 91.56
40.55 38.27 4.88 95.12
Average 41.21 38.39 6.84 93.16
45.42 42.30 3.12 96.88
T4 46.71 43.10 3.61 96.39
45.80 41.10 4.70 95.30
Average 45.97 42.16 3.81 96.19

48.90 46.23 2.67 97.33

T5 47.10 40.12 6.98 93.02
45.40 41.15 4.25 95.75
Average 47.13 43.16 4.63 95.36

44.5 39.1 5.4 94.6

T6 45.8 40.1 5.7 94.3
46.2 40.8 5.4 94.6
Average 45.5 40 5.5 94.5
 APPENDIX
w1  w2
Percent weight loss = 100
w1

% shatter resistance = 100- % weight loss

Where,

w1 = weight of briquette before shattering, g

w2 = weight of briquette after shattering, g

Calculation of shatter indices of briquetted fuel

Sample Average weight of Average Weight Wt. loss, Shatter Average
briquette before of briquette Index, shatter
shattering,w1 after % index
(g) Shattering,w2 %
(g)
1) 12.50 11.40 8.8 91.2

T1 2) 11.21 10.34 7.7 92.3 92.10

3) 12.21 11.33 7.2 92.8

1) 11.85 11.13 6 94

T2 2) 10.60 9.53 10 90 91.93

3) 11.21 10.39 8.2 91.8

1) 20.12 18.23 9.3 90.7

T3 2) 17.14 16.10 6 94 92.5

3) 15.10 14.00 7.2 92.8

 1) 13.14 12.20 7.1 92.9

T4 2) 14.12 13.10 7.2 92.8 94.46

3) 13.21 12.90 2.3 97.7

1) 15.21 14.43 5.1 94.9

T5 2) 15.10 13.90 7.9 92.1 93.50

3) 13.70 12.80 6.5 93.5

1) 12.56 11.43 8.9 91.1

T6 2) 13.43 12.60 6.1 93.9 92.56

3) 12.30 11.40 7.3 92.7

 APPENDIX

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.

Sample Initial weight, Final Water gain Resistance to Average

w1 (g) weight, w2 (w.b.) water Reading of
(g) % penetration resistance to
% water
penetration
12.5 11.4 8.8 91.2

T1 11.21 10.34 7.7 92.3 92.1

12.21 11.33 7.2 92.8

11.85 11.13 6 94

T2 10.6 9.53 10 90 91.93

11.21 10.39 8.2 91.8

13.14 12.22 7 93

T3 12.14 11.41 6 94 94.16

13.21 12.61 4.5 95.5

20.13 18.65 7.1 92.9

T4
17.14 92.86
16.02 7 93
 15.1 13.99 7.3 92.7

12.56 11.43 8.9 91.1

T5 13.43 12.6 6.1 93.9 92.56

12.3 11.4 7.3 92.7

15.21 14.43 5.1 94.9

T6 15.1 13.9 7.9 92.1 93.5

13.7 12.8 6.5 93.5

Oven Muffle furnace

Weighing balance Digital thermometer
Stopwatch Digital anemometer

Plate 3.12 Instruments used during study