TY - JOUR
T1 - Prediction of Calorific Value of Coal by Multilinear Regression and Analysis of Variance
AU - Sozer, M.
AU - Haykiri-Acma, H.
AU - Yaman, S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by ASME
PY - 2022/1
Y1 - 2022/1
N2 - The higher heating value (HHV) of 84 coal samples including hard coals, lignites, and anthracites from Russia, Colombia, South Africa, Turkey, and Ukrania was predicted by multilinear regression (MLR) method based on proximate and ultimate analysis data. The prediction accuracy of the correlation equations was tested by Analysis of variance method. The significance of the predictive parameters was studied considering R2, adj. R2, standard error, F-values, and p-values. Although relationships between HHV and any of the single parameters were almost irregular, MLR provided a reasonable correlation. It was also found out that ultimate analysis parameters (C, H, and N) played a more significant role than the proximate analysis parameters (fixed carbon (FC), volatile matter (VM), and ash) in predicting the HHV. Particularly, FC content was seen inefficient parameter when elemental C content existed in the regression equation. The elimination of proximate analysis parameters from the equation made the elemental C content the most dominant parameter with by-far very low p-values. For hardcoals, adj. R2 of the equation with three parameters (HHV = 87.801(C) + 132.207(H) − 77.929(S)) was slightly higher than that of HHV = 11.421(Ash) + 22.135(VM) + 19.154(FC) + 70.764(C) + 7.552(H) − 53.782(S).
AB - The higher heating value (HHV) of 84 coal samples including hard coals, lignites, and anthracites from Russia, Colombia, South Africa, Turkey, and Ukrania was predicted by multilinear regression (MLR) method based on proximate and ultimate analysis data. The prediction accuracy of the correlation equations was tested by Analysis of variance method. The significance of the predictive parameters was studied considering R2, adj. R2, standard error, F-values, and p-values. Although relationships between HHV and any of the single parameters were almost irregular, MLR provided a reasonable correlation. It was also found out that ultimate analysis parameters (C, H, and N) played a more significant role than the proximate analysis parameters (fixed carbon (FC), volatile matter (VM), and ash) in predicting the HHV. Particularly, FC content was seen inefficient parameter when elemental C content existed in the regression equation. The elimination of proximate analysis parameters from the equation made the elemental C content the most dominant parameter with by-far very low p-values. For hardcoals, adj. R2 of the equation with three parameters (HHV = 87.801(C) + 132.207(H) − 77.929(S)) was slightly higher than that of HHV = 11.421(Ash) + 22.135(VM) + 19.154(FC) + 70.764(C) + 7.552(H) − 53.782(S).
KW - analysis of variance
KW - coal
KW - fuel combustion
KW - heating value prediction
KW - multilinear regression
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85118572183&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1115/1.4050880
DO - 10.1115/1.4050880
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85118572183
SN - 0195-0738
VL - 144
JO - Journal of Energy Resources Technology
JF - Journal of Energy Resources Technology
IS - 1
M1 - 12103
ER -