HHV Predicting Correlations for Torrefied Biomass Using Proximate and Ultimate Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many correlations are available in the literature to predict the higher heating value (HHV) of raw biomass using the proximate and ultimate analyses. Studies on biomass torrefaction are growing tremendously, which suggest that the fuel characteristics, such as HHV, proximate analysis and ultimate analysis, have changed significantly after torrefaction. Such changes may cause high estimation errors if the existing HHV correlations were to be used in predicting the HHV of torrefied biomass. No study has been carried out so far to verify this. Therefore, this study seeks answers to the question: "Can the existing correlations be used to determine the HHV of the torrefied biomass"? To answer this, the existing HHV predicting correlations were tested using torrefied biomass data points. Estimation errors were found to be significantly high for the existing HHV correlations, and thus, they are not suitable for predicting the HHV of the torrefied biomass. New correlations were then developed using data points of torrefied biomass. The ranges of reported data for HHV, volatile matter (VM), fixed carbon (FC), ash (ASH), carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) contents were 14.90 MJ/kg-33.30 MJ/kg, 13.30%-88.57%, 11.25%-82.74%, 0.08%-47.62%, 35.08%-86.28%, 0.53%-7.46% and 4.31%-44.70%, respectively. Correlations with the minimum mean absolute errors and having all components of proximate and ultimate analyses were selected for future use. The selected new correlations have a good accuracy of prediction when they are validated using another set of data (26 samples). Thus, these new and more accurate correlations can be useful in modeling different thermochemical processes, including combustion, pyrolysis and gasification processes of torrefied biomass.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".