A Simple Technique For Selecting Coals For Non-Recovery Coke Making Process

New coke making technologies Session 22 1
Dsseldorf, 27 June 1 July 2011

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the partial financial support
of the Australian Coal Association Research Program
for this work. We gratefully acknowledge the
agreement of Illawarra Coke Company and BHP
Billiton to present the thermocouple measurements
from the Corrimal non-recovery coke ovens.

References

[1] Buss W. E.; Toll H.; Worberg R. (2003)
Cokemaking in Europe trends and directions.
AISE Steel technology 80(7), 35-41.
[2] Cleary, P.; Isler, D.; Lungen, H. B.; Reinke, M.;
Rudack, W. (2005) Coke production and
demand today and tomorrow face up to the
reality? Proc. 5th European Coke and
Ironmaking Congress, Stockholm, June 12-15.
Mo 1:3.
[3] Valia, H. (2005) The phoenix of non recovery
cokemaking and its rapid flight. Proc. 5th
European Coke and Ironmaking Congress,
Stockholm, June 12-15. We 6:3.
[4] Arendt, P.; Lungen, H. B.; Reinke, M. (2006)
Conventional slot oven or heat recovery
oven? Stahl und Eisen 126(1), 17-26.
[5] Kim, R.; Reinke, M.; Worberg, W. (2009)
Process model for heat recovery coke ovens.
Proc 5th Intl Congress on the Science and
Technology of Ironmaking, Shanghai, China.
[6] Merrick, D. (1983) Mathematical models of the
thermal decomposition of coal 1. The evolution
of volatile matter. Fuel 62, 534-539.
thermal decomposition of coal 2. Specific heats
and heats of reaction. Fuel 62, 540-546.
thermal decomposition of coal 3. Density,
porosity and contraction behaviour. Fuel 62,
547-552.
thermal decomposition of coal 4. Heat transfer
and temperature profiles in a coke-oven
charge. Fuel 62, 553-561.
[10] DR Jenkins, D.R.; Mahoney, M.; Keating, J.;
Swann, A.; Penny, G. (2003) Factors affecting
coke size and fissuring during cokemaking.
ACARP Project C10052 Final Report, October
2003.
[11] Mahoney, M.; Jenkins, D.R.; Keating, J.; Le
Bas, A.; McGuire, S. (2004) Factors affecting
coke size and fissuring during cokemaking.
Proc. 2nd International Meeting on Ironmaking,
Vitoria, Brazil, Sept 12-15 2004, ABM
(Associacao Brasileira de Metalurgia e
Materiais), 871-880.
[12] Jenkins, D.R.; Shaw, D.; Mahoney, M.;
Keating, J.; Woodhouse, S.; McGuire, S.;
Lingard, G. (2006) Mechanism of fissuring
during coking and its impact on coke size
distribution. Proc. 4th Intl Congress on the
Science and Technology of Ironmaking, Osaka,
Japan, November 2006, 121-124.
[13] Jenkins, D.R.; Mahoney, M.R.; Keating, J.C.
(2010) Fissure formation in coke. 1. The
mechanism of fissuring. Fuel 89 (7), 1654
1662.
[14] Jenkins, D.R.; Mahoney, M.R. (2010) Fissure
formation in coke. 2. Effect of heating rate,
shrinkage and coke strength. Fuel 89 (7),
16631674.
[15] Jenkins, D.R.; Mahoney, M.R.; Shaw, D.E.
(2010) Fissure formation in coke. 3. Coke size
distribution and statistical analysis. Fuel 89 (7),
16751689.
[16] Peyret, R; Thomas, D. (1983) Computational
Methods for Fluid Flow, Springer-Verlag, New
York.
[17] Loison, R.; Foch, P.; Boyer, A. (1989) Coke:
Quality and Production. 2
nd
Ed. London:
Butterworths, 60-61.
A Simple Technique for Selecting Coals for Non-Recovery Coke Making Process
H P Tiwari
1
, S Suri
2
, P K Banerjee
1
, S K Haldar
1
, P Sarkar
1
, R Agarwal
1

1
Tata Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur, India
2
Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., Sambalpur, Orissa, India
Abstract
In general, Steel industries use many kinds of coking
coals from various sources for producing coke for blast
furnace usage. The selection process further varies
with the coke making technology adopted. The ratio of
inferior grade coking coal, which is relatively low in
price, has been increased in recent years in order to
reduce the coke cost to produce coke of desired
quality.

Possibility of predicting coke quality from the properties
of the coals in the blend has been attempted by many
authors. In this study a new method based on a
coefficient, named as Composite Coking Index (CCI),
has been proposed for assessing the suitability of a
coal as well as a blend for making coke of acceptable
properties. The index takes into account the various
coking properties of the coals of a given blend and
converts them into a single value. This value is
particularly important since each of these parameters
represents different aspects of the coking phenomena
with varying importance. Inter dependence of some of
these parameters also exists. This makes the
prediction process extremely difficult and majority of
cases, decision is taken based on experience. The
current method proposes a simple method for
prediction of coke properties from the properties of the
coals used in non-recovery coke making processes.

The Composite Coking Index (CCI) model predicts the
least expensive coal blend that would still comply with
the minimum coke quality requirements of a blast
furnace. The study confirms the existence of a
relationship between the CCI and the hot & cold
strength of coke. Actual plant data of a non-recovery
coke oven have been used for developing the model.
This model was further validated with some
commercial coke oven data for different type of blends
and operating parameters. The technique was
successfully used in selecting cheaper coals for
producing coke with CSR >65%, CRI <25% and M10
<6%. Details of the technique with some of the
predictions have been discussed in the paper.

Key Words
Composite coking index (CCI), CSR & non-recovery
coke making
Introduction
In Integrated steel plants, the cost of coke represents
the cost of producing hot metal. Therefore, in an effort
to sustain its cost the designing of low cost coal blends
for producing desired quality of coke. The optimization
of coal blend is ongoing process for any integrated
steel plant not a new process. In this regards the
selection and evaluation of coking potential of coal is
very crucial before using in coal blend for desired coke
quality.
Designing of low cost coal blends for meeting the
requirements of blast furnace coke is very important in
coke making. The important coke properties that affect
the blast furnace performance are chemical
composition, size, strength, and reactivity. Keeping in
view reduces the % of HCC and maximum usages of
inferior grade coals in coke making. In order to reduce
the cost of production of coke further, the use of semi-
soft coals in the stamp charging blend and use of
optimum proportion of hard coal component from the
oven charge without impairing the strength
characteristics of resultant coke. Incorporation of such
blended semi-soft coals which are comparatively less
expensive than that of single source of semi-
soft/inferior coal can also reduce the overall cost of the
oven charge. With the above in view, it was felt
necessary to select requisite new source of coal for
decreasing cost of coke without affecting the coke
quality.
Blending is the process of mixing together coals of
different properties in the desired proportion. Since
most of the caking/coking properties are considered to
be additive in nature, a coal-blending model has been
developed and used for blend optimization. However,
the compatibility of individual coals in the blend plays
an important role in the quality of the final coke
product. The high-volatile coals normally have a lower
softening temperature when compared to the medium
and low volatile coals. The resolidification temperature
is also different for the different coals. However, quality
of coke depend upon the coal blend properties, thermal
cycle developed to maintain the optimize oven
temperature over the coking period by controlling the
primary air inlet, secondary air regulator and individual
oven draft.
The basic difference between heat recovery coke
making and by-product coke making is that in by-
product ovens the heat input into the coal charge is
provided by indirect heat transfer through the oven
walls from an independent heating system. As such,
coal is carbonized in the absence of air and a positive
internal pressure environment is created. In the heat
recovery process, heat input results from the complete
combustion of the volatile components of the coal
within and at the top of the oven chamber generated
during carbonization and a negative pressure is
created. The negative pressure results in significantly
reduced emission levels compared with by-product
ovens and the design requirements for the ovens are
simpler, cheaper and easier to maintain. The Non-
recovery coke making technology may accommodate a
wide variety of coals to produce superior quality coke
which should give the advantage of better coal
selection as compared to the by-products coke making
process.
The non-recovery stamp charging coke making
technology is eccentric compare with the recovery
stamp charging coke making technology. It contrasts
hereto the big advantages of the method could not be
denied: (a) extension of the range of charge coals; (b)
utilization of cheaper charge coal & (c) saving the
prime coking coal and, (d) the major advantage of this
technology is eco-friendly behavior for operation. The
above all assumption is applicable if the coal blend is
properly chosen.
The properties of coal like volatile matter (VM) are the
most important parameter for deciding the proportion of
different coal in a coal blend for non-recovery coke
making. Low VM coals generate less gas and hence,
the total thermal energy on its combustion may be
insufficient for attaining the coking temperatures in the
oven. On the other hand, a high VM coal results in
coke with high porosity and hence, poor CRI and CSR
characteristics. This was confirmed in the case of coal
blends with high VM resulting in coke with lower CSR
and lower yield. Also, the crucible swelling number
(CSN) is the coking property of coal and is the most
crucial parameter in deciding the right blend. The
higher CSN of coal blend indicate higher wall pressure.
Also, the maximum fluidity of coals and reflectance of
coal (Ro avg.) are equally important for selection of
coal for carbonization. Normally the target specification
for the blend is to maintain a maximum fluidity
(Gieselers fluidity) in the ranges of 2001000 ddpm
and average reflectance of 1.2 to 1.3 %. The maximum
fluidity is used to predict the behavior of the plastic
phase during coking. The fluidity measurement is an
attempt to provide a practical test for comparing the
rheology of coals. The fluidity of coal blend determines
the bonding process during coke making. It has an
effect on the coke strength after reaction (1-5).
Possibility of predicting coke quality and optimization of
coal blend from the properties of the coals in the blend
has been attempted by many authors (6- 14). In this
study a new method based on a coefficient, named as
Composite Coking Index (CCI), has been proposed for
assessing the suitability of a coal as well as a blend for
making coke of acceptable properties. Thirty Five (35)
numbers of coking coals of wide varieties (prime hard
coking coals to weak coking coals) were chosen for
developing the CCI. The index takes into account the
various coking properties of the coals of a given blend
and converts them into a single number. This number
is particularly important since each of these parameters
represents different aspects of the coking phenomena
with varying importance. Inter dependence of some of
these parameters also exists. This makes the
prediction process extremely difficult and in majority of
cases, decision is taken based on experience. The
current method proposes a simple method for
prediction of coke properties from the properties of the
coals used in non-recovery coke making processes.
The process starts with prediction of unique value of
coal blend named Composite Coking Index (CCI)
based on properties of coals. Based on the unique CCI
of coal, a simple model has developed to find out the
composite coking index of the blend and thereby, to
predict the coke quality. The unique futures of this
approach are that the model captures the past
experience of the coke making and converts then into a
single number for categorization of various coking
coals and optimization of coal blend cost.
The composite coking Index (CCI) model predicts the
least expensive coal blend that would still comply with
the minimum coke quality requirements of a blast
furnace. The study confirms the existence of a
relationship between the CCI and the hot strength of
coke. Actual plant data of a non-recovery coke oven
have been used for developing the model. This model
was further validated with some commercial coke oven
data for different type of blends and operating
parameters. The technique was successfully used in
selecting cheaper coals for producing coke with CSR
>65% and optimum CRI.
Experimental
A total of 35 numbers of coking coals were used for
evaluating the CCI of coal. All coals are characterized
through its proximate analysis, chemical analysis,
rheological and petrographic analysis (Tables 1 - 4).
The CCI of individual coking coals are shown in Figure
3. Total 104 number of coal blends using above 35
coking coals and also some non-coking coal for
developing and validation of CCI value were used for
present investigation.
All coal blend trials were conducted in an Industrial
Coke Oven Battery (selected ovens). The wide
varieties of coking coals were chosen for this purpose
and the blends were then subjected to high
temperature carbonization tests under a given set of
conditions.
In this study different coals collected from yard were
fed with the help of conveyor belt in to the identified
blending bunkers. After collection of the coal, the
blended coal was passed through the coal crusher and
crushed to the extent that > 90 % coal is below 3.0
mm. The moisture content was fixed at 11% (1 %).
After crushing the coal was charged in stamping press
mold for formation of coal cake. Normally, the coal
cake is stamped with three layers at hydraulic stamping
station. The stamped coal cake density was around
1.06 1.08 t/m
3
(on wet basis) and the weight of one
coal cake [13000 mm long X 3400 mm wide X 1000
1025 mm high] was approximately 46.50 - 48.50 MT.
After making coal cake, the charging plate is retracted
back along with the coal cake on the charging car. The
pusher cum charging car along with the coal cake
travels to the specified oven as per the oven schedule.
At the same time, quenching car also moves to the
specified oven for receiving ready hot coke. Both side
(charging and pushing) doors are opened after both the
cars are aligned. The ready hot coke is pushed to the
quenching tray by using pusher ram and the fresh cake
is charged in the empty oven. During trial the following
precautions were taken to maintain standard test
conditions:
The blending ratio was continuously monitored
through PLC to ensure the accurate percentage of
each coal.
The coal tower (which receives blended coal) was
emptied and cleaned before each experiment.
The ovens, in which the experiments were done,
were carefully selected to ensure set test
conditions.
Results & Discussion
The present investigation used a wide range of coking
coals (prime hard coking coal to inferior grade coking
coal) for the development of an index named CCI. The
selection criteria of individual coal was based on the
unique number of individual coal and predicting the
coal blend CCI for achieving targeted CSR through
maximum usages of semi-soft/inferior coking coal in
coal blend. The characteristic of all the coals is
presented in Tables 1 - 4.
The CCI model has been developed for individual coal
used specifically by coking properties of coals.
Because of differences in coal selection (type,
proportion), coal preparation, coking conditions and the
required CSR based on the blast furnace and
availability of coal for a particular plant. This CCI
concept is especially validated and successful only for
non-recovery coke making using a wide variety of
coking coal blends from different origins. The
coefficient of coal named CCI may be increased or
decreased based on the coking potential of individual
coal. The resultant Coke qualities (mainly CSR) may
vary with coke making technologies like top charged,
recovery and non-recovery stamp charging etc. The
model is based on the following coal properties: coal
ash, volatile matter (VM), crucible swelling number
(CSN), low temperature gray king test (LTGK),
maximum fluidity of coal (ddpm), alkalinity index, silica :
alumina ratio, reactive : inert ratio, reflectance (Ro
avg.) and V type distribution of coal, etc.
The model was used to calculated CCI number of
individual coals. The relationship between CCI and the
properties of the coals was also investigated, and a
blending design system using CCI, which was different
from the conventional methods, was developed. The
model also predicts the least expensive coal blend that
would still comply with the minimum coke-quality
requirements of the blast furnace. The study also
confirms the existence of a relationship between the
coking properties of coal and the hot strength of coke if
the operating parameters are constant. This CCI
prediction methodology is successfully used for
selection of coal blend only for non-recovery coke
making process.
Figure 1 and 2 shows that the model used in this
investigation of find out the coking potential of coal as
well as coal blend in terms of CCI. The proportions of
the individual coals are the inputs for calculating the
CCI of individual coal as well as coal blends.
Results showed that the decreasing CCI value of
individual coking coal will decrease the coking potential
of individual coal. Figure 3 clearly showed that the
composite coking index (CCI) of individual coking coal
varies from 2.12-7.89 which represents the wide range
of coking coals (prime hard coking coal to inferior
grade coking coal) used. From this investigation, it was
found that Coal AK is having minimum CCI i.e. 2.12,
while, Coal A has the maximum CCI i.e. 7.89.
Figure 4 and 5 showed that the effect of CCI of coal
blend on coke CSR. It may be seen from Figure 4 that
CSR increases with increasing CCI value of coal blend
(correlation coefficient is 0.7552). The coal blend
having CCI 4.08 is producing the minimum CSR i.e.
63.09, whereas, the CCI of 6.32 is producing higher
CSR i.e. 69.51 (based on the plant trials of 18 numbers
of coal blends). Also, Figure 5 showed that a similar
increasing trend of CSR value with CCI during the
validation trials conducted (correlation coefficient is
0.6692). The coal blend having CCI 3.77 is producing
the minimum CSR i.e. 61.82 and the CCI of 6.67
producing the higher CSR i.e. 71.50. This CCI module
is first developed based on 18 numbers of trial coal
blends at selected ovens of a commercial coke oven
battery and after that it has been validated with 84
numbers of commercial plant data (Non-Recovery
Coke Making Process). The CCI model is now
successfully used in the non-recovery coke making
technologies.

Figure 1: Model for calculating the CCI of coals

Figure 2: Model for calculating the CCI of coal blends

Figure 3: CCI value of individual coking coal

Figure 4: Effect of CCI of coal blend on coke CSR

Figure 5: Effect of CCI of coal blend on coke CSR

S. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Properties
Coal
A
Coal
B
Coal
C
Coal
D
Coal
E
Coal
F
Coal
G
Coal
H
Coal
I
Proximate Analysis, (adb) %
Ash 8.70 8.45 8.10 8.00 9.50 9.76 9.50 10.20 8.6
VM 23.90 25.98 22.10 21.68 22.00 21.90 25.00 23.50 25.12
S 0.53 0.58 0.47 0.52 0.54 0.54 0.63 1.10 0.58
P 0.020 0.028 0.023 0.002 0.018 0.018 0.038 0.095 0.060
Na2O 0.50 0.04 0.40 0.60 0.57 0.57 0.39 0.10 0.46
K2O 0.90 0.02 0.80 3.01 0.08 0.08 0.15 1.57 1.00
Rheological Properties
CSN 8.5 7.5 8.0 8.5 7.5 7.5 9.0 9.0 8.0
GK G5 G6 G4 G6 G5 G4 G10 G7 G4
Max.
Fluidity,
ddpm
999 1100 1100 5272 500 500 4500 4915 886
Ash Constituents, %
SiO2 61.50 66.50 58.00 57.29 62.62 62.62 55.89 61.38 52.46
Al2O3 29.70 26.50 32.50 27.86 29.56 29.56 32.88 26.56 35.94
Fe2O3 2.70 2.40 3.10 7.82 4.16 4.16 4.70 3.43 9.17
CaO 0.80 0.20 0.90 3.41 2.00 2.00 3.17 2.42 0.96
MgO 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.17 0.30 0.01
Reflectance of Coal , %
Ro, % 1.24 1.19 1.17 1.18 1.16 1.16 1.18 1.11 1.15
Maceral Analysis, %
Vitrinite 64.70 75.30 58.00 70.80 68.40 68.40 64.60 69.10 56.40
Exinite 1.00 1.30 1.00 0.40 5.40 5.40 0.80 0.00 2.90
Inertinite 30.30 19.30 37.00 24.10 21.40 21.40 29.10 25.10 35.70
MM 4.00 4.10 4.00 4.70 4.80 4.80 5.50 5.80 5.00
Vitrinite distribution, %
V6
V7 14
V8 23 1 3
V9 9 2 3 1 1 10 3 3
V10 5 1 7 10 8 8 15 23 18
V11 47 1 66 41 54 54 21 52 35
V12 18 0 25 39 35 35 31 21 37
V13 14 6 0 5 2 2 16 4
V14 12 21 2
V15 4 24
V16
Table 1: Details Properties of Characterized Coal

S. No 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Properties
Coal
J
Coal
K
Coal
L
Coal
M
Coal
N
Coal
O
Coal
P
Coal
Q
Coal
R
Ash 6.62 9.34 9.00 8.31 13.10 8.95 7.52 17.23 9.20
VM 24.90 22.51 20.10 25.85 26.10 20.95 20.52 20.30 25.00
S 0.73 0.64 0.50 0.60 0.57 0.44 0.60 0.60 0.60
P 0.010 0.049 0.006 0.102 0.010 0.060 0.053 0.080 0.030
Na2O 0.76 0.31 1.04 0.32 0.35 0.22 0.78 0.12 0.51
K2O 3.15 1.35 0.40 0.51 2.46 0.66 1.66 1.17 0.69
CSN 8.0 9.0 7.5 7.5 9.0 7.5 7.5 5.5 8.0
GK G4 G7 G5 G5 G6 G2 G4 G G4
Max.
Fluidity,
ddpm
2248 2679 446 3794 518 262 65 1480 250
Ash Constituents, %
SiO2 57.97 66.88 62.58 28.40 64.69 51.42 52.26 63.34 50.14
Al2O3 24.26 26.40 28.06 19.65 27.46 34.46 20.59 30.07 32.78
Fe2O3 10.40 3.41 4.17 2.16 2.36 5.69 15.68 2.91 9.35
CaO 2.05 1.32 1.04 0.81 1.37 2.08 6.81 1.81 2.30
MgO 1.42 0.33 1.04 0.53 1.30 5.47 2.22 0.58 1.12
Ro, % 1.17 1.09 1.11 1.19 1.04 1.15 1.17 1.24 1.17
Maceral Analysis, %
Vitrinite 72.30 49.20 61.10 76.25 87.50 66.00 58.70 51.20 68.60
Exinite 3.80 0.80 1.40 1.80 1.80 0.80 1.10 1.20 2.00
Inertinite 20.10 44.50 31.90 17.60 2.60 27.00 35.60 37.40 16.00
MM 3.80 5.50 5.60 4.35 7.80 6.00 4.60 10.20 2.70
V6
V7 2 13
V8 7 5 18 4 2
V9 27 8 6 20 5 8
V10 18 24 3 36 4 12 12 25
V11 3 39 30 11 38 15 15 14 48
V12 4 22 50 31 2 35 30 29 15
V13 5 2 20 14 40 18 33 2
V14 21 0 4 8 10 11
V15 11 1 7 1
V16 2 3

S. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Properties
Coal
A
Coal
B
Coal
C
Coal
D
Coal
E
Coal
F
Coal
G
Coal
H
Coal
I
Ash 8.70 8.45 8.10 8.00 9.50 9.76 9.50 10.20 8.6
VM 23.90 25.98 22.10 21.68 22.00 21.90 25.00 23.50 25.12
S 0.53 0.58 0.47 0.52 0.54 0.54 0.63 1.10 0.58
P 0.020 0.028 0.023 0.002 0.018 0.018 0.038 0.095 0.060
Na2O 0.50 0.04 0.40 0.60 0.57 0.57 0.39 0.10 0.46
K2O 0.90 0.02 0.80 3.01 0.08 0.08 0.15 1.57 1.00
CSN 8.5 7.5 8.0 8.5 7.5 7.5 9.0 9.0 8.0
GK G5 G6 G4 G6 G5 G4 G10 G7 G4
Max.
Fluidity,
ddpm
999 1100 1100 5272 500 500 4500 4915 886
Ash Constituents, %
SiO2 61.50 66.50 58.00 57.29 62.62 62.62 55.89 61.38 52.46
Al2O3 29.70 26.50 32.50 27.86 29.56 29.56 32.88 26.56 35.94
Fe2O3 2.70 2.40 3.10 7.82 4.16 4.16 4.70 3.43 9.17
CaO 0.80 0.20 0.90 3.41 2.00 2.00 3.17 2.42 0.96
MgO 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.17 0.30 0.01
Ro, % 1.24 1.19 1.17 1.18 1.16 1.16 1.18 1.11 1.15
Maceral Analysis, %
Vitrinite 64.70 75.30 58.00 70.80 68.40 68.40 64.60 69.10 56.40
Exinite 1.00 1.30 1.00 0.40 5.40 5.40 0.80 0.00 2.90
Inertinite 30.30 19.30 37.00 24.10 21.40 21.40 29.10 25.10 35.70
MM 4.00 4.10 4.00 4.70 4.80 4.80 5.50 5.80 5.00
V6
V7 14
V8 23 1 3
V9 9 2 3 1 1 10 3 3
V10 5 1 7 10 8 8 15 23 18
V11 47 1 66 41 54 54 21 52 35
V12 18 0 25 39 35 35 31 21 37
V13 14 6 0 5 2 2 16 4
V14 12 21 2
V15 4 24
V16

S. No 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Properties
Coal
J
Coal
K
Coal
L
Coal
M
Coal
N
Coal
O
Coal
P
Coal
Q
Coal
R
Ash 6.62 9.34 9.00 8.31 13.10 8.95 7.52 17.23 9.20
VM 24.90 22.51 20.10 25.85 26.10 20.95 20.52 20.30 25.00
S 0.73 0.64 0.50 0.60 0.57 0.44 0.60 0.60 0.60
P 0.010 0.049 0.006 0.102 0.010 0.060 0.053 0.080 0.030
Na2O 0.76 0.31 1.04 0.32 0.35 0.22 0.78 0.12 0.51
K2O 3.15 1.35 0.40 0.51 2.46 0.66 1.66 1.17 0.69
CSN 8.0 9.0 7.5 7.5 9.0 7.5 7.5 5.5 8.0
GK G4 G7 G5 G5 G6 G2 G4 G G4
Max.
Fluidity,
ddpm
2248 2679 446 3794 518 262 65 1480 250
Ash Constituents, %
SiO2 57.97 66.88 62.58 28.40 64.69 51.42 52.26 63.34 50.14
Al2O3 24.26 26.40 28.06 19.65 27.46 34.46 20.59 30.07 32.78
Fe2O3 10.40 3.41 4.17 2.16 2.36 5.69 15.68 2.91 9.35
CaO 2.05 1.32 1.04 0.81 1.37 2.08 6.81 1.81 2.30
MgO 1.42 0.33 1.04 0.53 1.30 5.47 2.22 0.58 1.12
Ro, % 1.17 1.09 1.11 1.19 1.04 1.15 1.17 1.24 1.17
Maceral Analysis, %
Vitrinite 72.30 49.20 61.10 76.25 87.50 66.00 58.70 51.20 68.60
Exinite 3.80 0.80 1.40 1.80 1.80 0.80 1.10 1.20 2.00
Inertinite 20.10 44.50 31.90 17.60 2.60 27.00 35.60 37.40 16.00
MM 3.80 5.50 5.60 4.35 7.80 6.00 4.60 10.20 2.70
V6
V7 2 13
V8 7 5 18 4 2
V9 27 8 6 20 5 8
V10 18 24 3 36 4 12 12 25
V11 3 39 30 11 38 15 15 14 48
V12 4 22 50 31 2 35 30 29 15
V13 5 2 20 14 40 18 33 2
V14 21 0 4 8 10 11
V15 11 1 7 1
V16 2 3


S. No 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Properties
Coal
S
Coal
T
Coal
U
Coal
V
Coal
W
Coal
X
Coal
Y
Coal
Z
Coal
AA
Ash 7.30 8.98 10.49 9.22 9.22 10.50 8.00 9.50 14.95
VM 22.80 22.15 26.20 26.15 26.15 23.50 31.50 24.50 24.50
S 0.36 0.40 1.10 0.43 0.48 0.69 0.61 0.41 0.64
P 0.046 0.045 0.012 0.017 0.038 0.020 0.033 0.044 0.010
Na2O 0.30 0.11 0.37 0.48 0.48 0.20 0.60 0.30 0.23
K2O 0.80 0.78 1.98 0.65 0.65 0.98 0.90 0.80 0.75
CSN 6.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 9.0 5.5 5.0
GK G1 G4 G1 G2 G1 G G10 G G
Max.
Fluidity,
ddpm
400 25 588 506 600 548 7000 200 2700
Ash Constituents, %
SiO2 50.90 49.83 61.99 61.56 61.56 47.43 50.50 50.90 63.86
Al2O3 27.90 39.45 31.42 22.84 22.84 37.27 37.00 27.90 30.05
Fe2O3 10.90 5.40 3.21 7.27 7.27 11.29 4.10 10.90 2.93
CaO 3.60 3.05 0.75 1.25 1.25 0.68 1.50 3.60 1.65
MgO 1.20 1.38 0.28 1.45 1.45 0.23 0.40 1.20 0.53
Ro, % 1.12 1.12 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.10 0.92 1.04 1.03
Maceral Analysis, %
Vitrinite 54.00 48.50 53.80 72.20 72.20 55.00 76.00 61.20 49.00
Exinite 1.00 0.00 0.80 5.60 5.60 2.00 3.00 5.40 2.40
Inertinite 42.00 47.30 39.20 19.80 19.80 38.00 18.00 28.60 39.80
MM 3.00 4.20 6.20 2.40 2.40 5.00 3.00 4.80 8.80
V5
V6
V7 4 2 2 2 3
V8 13 13 13 4 35 4
V9 2 5 24 30 30 10 56 25
V10 30 20 36 44 44 27 6 36
V11 62 56 16 9 9 30 30
V12 6 17 5 1 1 8 4
V13 2 2 8 1
V14 1
V15
V16

S. No 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Properties
Coal
AB
Coal
AC
Coal
AD
Coal
AE
Coal
AF
Coal
AG
Coal
AH
Coal
AI
Coal
AJ
Coal
AK
Ash 8.50 10.50 9.50 13.00 7.66 7.39 9.55 9.50 8.39 10.30
VM 27.50 17.50 27.50 33.00 34.57 31.78 18.65 33.50 17.60 31.33
S 0.55 0.59 0.50 0.70 0.69 0.97 0.63 0.55 0.33
P 0.050 0.055 0.050 0.020 0.014 0.016 0.026 0.015 0.051
Na2O 0.26 0.50 0.59 0.55 2.69 0.56 0.17 0.57 0.20 0.27
K2O 1.53 0.90 1.17 0.90 4.68 1.82 0.94 1.04 1.46 1.09
CSN 5.0 7.5 6.0 5.5 7.5 8.0 5.0 5.5 3.0 0.0
GK G1 G6 G3 G G4 G3 G G F A
Max.
Fluidity,
ddpm
400 20 3500 1500 8174
2630
8
36 150 0 0
Ash Constituents, %
SiO2 60.02 54.50 47.86 52.40 54.75 71.54 63.59 62.92 53.50 62.63
Al2O3 31.44 28.50 28.56 35.80 33.15 17.98 28.62 20.30 35.94 29.16
Fe2O3 3.43 6.40 13.33 5.55 2.96 5.36 2.54 9.14 4.27 5.88
CaO 2.29 2.40 3.61 1.25 0.89 1.91 3.82 1.96 2.97 0.52
MgO 1.03 0.70 1.61 0.40 0.89 0.83 0.32 1.11 1.66 0.46
Ro, % 0.98 1.60 1.03 0.80 0.79 0.93 0.93 0.72 1.27 0.78
Maceral Analysis, %
Vitrinite 52.00 71.00 54.00 70.00 61.30 76.50 55.00 70.00 54.00 50.10
Exinite 1.20 0.00 2.90 2.00 1.20 5.50 1.20 2.00 0.60 1.20
Inertinite 41.00 23.00 38.25 24.00 33.10 13.40 38.20 25.00 41.50 42.60
MM 5.80 6.00 4.85 4.00 4.50 4.60 5.60 3.00 3.90 6.10
V5 13
V6 8 28 17
V7 7 37 2 3 30 28
V8 23 50 42 22 33 16 19
V9 37 0 13 68 46 14 2 13
V10 22 40 8 15 9 20 8
V11 7 10 3 2 41 2
V12 2 22
V13 12
V14 66 3
V15 18
V16

Conclusion
Selection of coking coals for coke making is a very
complex process. This is due to the fact that large
numbers of coking properties are used for assessing
the coals for their commercial exploitation. In this
study, a simple index named Composite Coking Index
(CCI) has been proposed which incorporates the
effects of these properties. Accordingly, a simple model
has been developed for selecting individual coals and
designing coal blend for coke making process. The
model has been validated with actual plant data from a
non-recovery coke making technology. The key futures
of the model are:
Identifying the coking potential and categorization of
different coking coal grades (like prime hard, hard
semi-hard, soft, semi-soft and weak coking coal)
Selection of coal and blend design for achieving coke
of desired properties (this may not be meet desired
level, if coking is not completed in optimum
conditions).
Selection of cheaper coals for reducing coke cost
Prediction of coke properties from individual
properties of blend constituents (for non-recovery
coke making technology)
The above correlation to be developed for others
coke making technologies (like top & stamp charged
recovery coke making).
It is also concluded that this model is not applicable
for calculating the CCI of non-coking coal.

Acknowledgement
We are thankful to the Chairman, METEC
INSTEELCON
2011, for permitting to present this

paper in the conference. We are also thankful to Mr.
Swapnil Gupta (Sr. Software Engineer, Wipro
Technology, Hyderabad) for making this easier model
and also the CRDSS, Tata Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur for
their cooperation and support.

References
[1] Grigore M., Sakurovs R., French D., Sahajwalla V.:
Mineral matter in coals and their reactions during
coking, International Journal of Coal Geology, 2008,
76, P. 301308
[2] Kumar P. P.; Barman S. C.; Singh S; Ranjan M,:
Influence of coal fluidity on coal blend and coke quality,
Ironmaking and Steelmaking, 2008, Vol 35, No 6, P.
416-420
[3] MacPhee J. A.; Giroux L.; Gransden J.F.; Price J.T.:
The synergistic effect between macerals of different
coals during coking, 2005, Fuel 84, 1998-1999
[4] Banerjee P. K.; Tiwari H. P.: Impact of beneficiation
on coking properties of a typical Indian Medium Coking
Coal, IMPC, 2008
[5] Arslan V.; Kemal M.: The effects of inert matters
and low volatile coal addition on the plasticity of high
volatile Zonguldak coals, The Journal of The South
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2006, vol.
106, P. 191-204
[6] Gupta; A. K. Das; G. I. S. Chauhan,: A Coal-
Blending Model: A Tool for Better Coal Blend
Preparation a Coal Carbonisation Technology Group,
Research & Development Centre for Iron & Steel, Steel
Authority of India Limited, Ranchi, Coal Preparation,
2007, P. 28-38
[7] Lindert, M. te; Velden B. vd; Vander T; and Vos; R.
A.: Coal blend selection for coke making, 3
rd

cokemaking Congress, Gent1996
[8] Nomura, Seiji; Arima, Takashi; Kato, Kenji: Coal
blending theory for dry coal charging process, Fuel 83
(2004), P.1771-1776
[9] Tiwari, H. P.; Suri, S.; Banerjee, P. K.: Optimization
of Coal Blend for Non-Recovery Coke Oven, TATA
SEARCH, 2010, P. 135-139
[10] Hutson, Louise; Wilson, Chris: Cost Effective Coal
Blending at Scunthorpe, the Coke Oven Managers
Association, 2004, P. 171- 191
[11] Sakurovs, Richard: Interactions between coking
coals in blends, Fuel 82, 2003, P. 439450
[12] Tiwari, H. P.; Suri, S.; Singh, J.: Optimization of
Coal Blend for Coke Making using Inferior grade coking
Coal at BPSL, International conference on Coking coal
& Coke Making: Challenges and Opportunities at
RDCIS, SAIL, Ranchi, 2009
[13] Kumar, P. P.; Barman, S.; Ranjan, M.; Ghosh, S.;
Raju, V. V. S.: Maximisation of non-coking coals in
coke production from non-recovery coke ovens,
Ironmaking and Steelmaking, 2008, Vol 35, No 1, P.
33-37
[14] Rubchevskii, V. N.; Chernyshov, Yu. A.;
Ovchinnikova, S. A.; Kompaniets, et al.: Predicting the
Yield of Coke and Coking Byproducts, Coke and
Chemistry, 2009, Vol. 52, No. 4

A Simple Technique For Selecting Coals For Non-Recovery Coke Making Process

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Simple Technique For Selecting Coals For Non-Recovery Coke Making Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New coke making technologies Session 22 1

Dsseldorf, 27 June 1 July 2011

2011, for permitting to present this

You might also like