. Jackman and R. J. Helfinstine

ABSTRACT

The coa l preheater, designed and built by the Il l i- nois State Geological Survey, has been util ized to deter- mine the effects of drying and preheating coa l blends, which are, or might be, used for commercial production of b las t furnace coke in the Midwest area . Coal blends dried and preheated to a maximum of about 45 0" F are charged into the pilot coke oven and the resultant cokes are tes ted. Results of t e s t s on four blends are reported.

Tests indicate, a s previously found with individual c o a l s in Part I of th i s study, that preheating c a u s e s a con- s i s ten t increase i n coking ra te . Coke-oven capac i ty may be increased from 25 t o 5 0 percent. Coke strength, mea- sured by the ASTM tumbler t e s t , i s not affected signifi- cant ly by preheating coa l blends, provided a strong coke c a n be made without preheat. Other physical properties of coke are not greatly affected. However, the pressure e x - erted on coke-oven wal ls i s increased.

INTRODUCTION

Although there h a s been no commercial break-through i n the design of equip- ment for preheating and charging hot coa l t o coke ovens, i t h a s been suggested that af ter replacing cer ta in older coke-oven bat ter ies with t a l l ovens, the next expansion of coke production might logically be accomplished by coa l preheating.

No attempt will be made i n th i s publication to c i t e the l i terature pertaining to this subject , except to mention two reports given in 1956 and 1959. The f i rs t , (Smith e t a l . , 1956) was presented by the U. S. Bureau of Mines, and the second (Perch and Russell , 1959) by Koppers Company. Both reports descr ibe preheating

I L L I N O I S STATE G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y C I R C U L A R 4 3 4

t e s t s made with I l l inois c o a l s (among others) i n s m a l l - s c a l e coke ovens . The Koppers report a l s o d e s c r i b e s former t e s t s made i n o v e n s of commercial s i z e .

The f i rs t c o a l s t o be preheated and s tudied i n t h e I l l inois Sta te Geological Survey' s exper imenta l program were individual c o a l s dried and preheated over a wide temperature range before coking. Resul ts , publ ished i n Circular 423 (Jackman and Helf ins t ine , 1968) a s Part I of th i s mul t i -phase s tudy, indica ted t h a t preheat- ing cons i s t en t ly reduced the t ime required for coking, thereby inc reas ing the pro- duct ion c a p a c i t y of coke ovens .

Following th i s in i t i a l s tudy, o ther s e r i e s of coking t e s t s have been made o n c o a l b l e n d s normally u s e d for production of meta l lurgica l coke . These b lends were f i r s t dried and preheated i n the c o a l preheater bui l t i n t h e Geological Survey labora tor ies , charged hot in to the p i lo t coke oven, and coked a t normal f lue tem- perature. Complete coking r e s u l t s obta ined o n four s u c h c o a l b l ends are desc r ibed i n t h i s publ ica t ion.

Other a s p e c t s of preheat ing, such a s the poss ib i l i t y of reducing the per- cen tage of low-vola t i le c o a l i n a b lend without reducing coke strength o r other- w i s e af fec t ing coke phys ica l proper t ies adver se ly , a re being s tudied and wi l l be d i s c u s s e d i n a future publication.

I t i s sugges ted a l s o t h a t a milder preheating procedure might be developed t h a t would be des igned only t o reduce o r e l iminate c o a l moisture before charging t o coke ovens . Such a p r o c e s s might precede the development of t h e more diffi- cu l t , higher temperature preheat ing procedure. Removal of su r face moisture and a portion or a l l of the inherent mois ture should r e su l t i n higher and more uniform bulk dens i ty without addi t ion of o i l , a s we l l a s i n reduced under-fir ing and f a s t e r coking.

A recen t a r t i c l e by Yoshida (1 967) reviews the t e s t ing programs a t three Japanese coke p lan t s . Our t r ans la t ion of t h i s a r t i c l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t c o a l s were par t ia l ly h e a t dried from a n average of about 8 . 0 percent moisture t o from 3.6 t o 5.6 percent moisture before charging to commercial coke ovens . Coking t ime w a s shor tened 2 t o 10 percent , and coke productivity w a s inc reased 6 t o 16 percent. The coke became s t ronger , and there w a s a saving i n h e a t for under-fir ing. Similar coking t e s t s o n American c o a l b lends wi l l be s tudied i n our labora tor ies a s time permits .

Equipment and Procedures

The c o a l preheater , which w a s des igned and buil t by the I l l inois Sta te Geological Survey, h a s b e e n desc r ibed i n Part I of t h i s s tudy (Jackman and Helfin- s t ine , 1968) . Briefly, i t c o n s i s t s of a rotating s t e e l drum, 36 i n c h e s i n diameter, holding 700 pounds of c o a l when half f i l led , o r enough for one c o a l charge t o the p i lo t coke oven . This drum r e s t s o n ro l lers wi th in a n insu la t ed furnace and may be ro ta ted a t a ra te of one-hal f revolution per minute. Lifting f i n s c a u s e the coa l t o mix cont inuously a s t h e drum is rota ted . The furnace i s hea ted e l ec t r i ca l ly t o a temperature of 500" F. Time required for heat ing and equal iz ing c o a l tempera- tu res i n the drum va r i e s from 3$ t o 7 hours and depends o n the moisture content of the c o a l and t h e temperature t o which i t i s preheated .

After t h e c o a l is dried or preheated , the drum is l i f ted ou t of the heat ing fur- nace and upended over the pilot coke oven (Jackman, Helf ins t ine , Eiss ler , and Reed, 1955) . C o a l i s dropped through the charge hole in to the 17- inch width oven and coked

D R Y I N G A N D P R E H E A T I N G C O A L S BEFORE C O K I N G 3

normally a t a n oven flue temperature of 2300" F. Coking i s assumed t o be com- pleted when coke temperature a t the cen te r of the oven reaches 1775" F. Coke is then pushed from the oven, quenched, and t es ted by the u s u a l procedures.

Acknowledgments

We wish t o acknowledge the a s s i s t a n c e and cooperation of the coke pro- ducers i n the Chicago and St. Louis a r e a s and the coa l producers of Il l inois, who by their continuing interes t and their contributions of c o a l s and equipment have a ided th i s investigation.

TESTING PROGRAM

Four coa l b lends were s tudied i n t h i s s e r i e s of t e s t s . Three of the blends contained Il l inois c o a l s i n amounts ranging from 30 to 80 percent. The fourth blend contained a l l eas te rn coa l s . Analyses of these blends are shown i n table 1.

A minimum of s i x coking t e s t s were made on e a c h blend studied. These t e s t s included one on the mois t c o a l s a s received, one on the air-dried c o a l s af ter evap-

Coal blend c Blend A

60% I l l i n o i s No. 6 20% I l l i n o i s No. 5 20% Pocahontas

Blend B

40% I l l i n o i s No. 6 40% Sewell 20% Pocahontas

Blend C

45% Eas tern Kentucky h igh v o l a t i l e

30% I l l i n o i s No. 6 25% Pocahontas

Blend D

75% Eas tern Kentucky h igh v o l a t i l e

25% Pocahontas

'~11 analyses made by t h e Ana ly t i ca l Sec t ion of t h e I l l i n o i s S t a t e Geological Survey.

Moisture (%I

V o l a t i l e ma t t e r

(%I

Fixed carbon (n)

Ash (%)

Su l fu r (%)

Free swell- ing index

Maximum Giese l e r f l u i d i t y ( d i a l d i v pe r min)

4 I L L I N O I S STATE G E O L O G I C A L SURVEY C I R C U L A R 4 3 4

oration of surface moisture, one on the c o a l s after hea t drying for approximately two hours a t 2 1 0" F, and the remaining o n the c o a l s preheated to temperatures ranging from 23 0 " t o 495 " F .

Detailed resu l t s of these coking t e s t s are shown i n the t ab les that form the Appendix of th i s publication. Reported resul ts include coking time, bulk den- s i ty of coa l i n the coke oven, coke physical properties and yields , coal moisture a s charged t o the coke oven, maximum wall pressure during carbonization, and increases in coke-oven capaci ty a s drying and preheating temperatures are ra ised.

Certain operating data have been plotted and curves drawn to better i l lus - trate the e f f e c t s of coa l drying and preheating, In these graphs, the " a s received" and "air-dried" da ta are plotted a t the left aga ins t moisture content of the c o a l s a s charged to the coke oven. Data from the "heat-dried" c o a l s are plotted aga ins t both moisture content and the drying temperature. When preheated to temperatures that are higher than normally obtained when drying, the sensible heat of the coa l i s the most important factor. Therefore, data obtained from the "preheat" t e s t s are plotted aga ins t preheat temperature.

Moisture contents of heat -dried and preheated c o a l s were obtained by sub- tracting the percentage weight l o s s i n the preheater from the moisture content de - termined o n each of the c o a l s before preheating. At the higher preheat temperatures th i s l o s s sometimes exceeded the original coa l moisture by a s much a s one percent, or slightly more. In these c a s e s , the coa l moisture given i n the t ab les i s shown a s a negative amount, and it is assumed that some small amount of volati le matter h a s been evolved,

As explained i n Circular 423, describing t e s t s on s ingle coa l s , cer ta in data points deviate from the expected values . Fortunately, only a few such re- s u l t s were obtained i n t h e s e t e s t s . Where these did occur, the data have been plotted a s determined, but the curves have been drawn t o show the most probable trends.

RESULTS OF TESTS

Blend A

Blend A, which h a s been coked i n the Midwest area for many years , con- s i s t s of 60 percent Il l inois No. 6, 20 percent Il l inois No. 5, and 20 percent low- volati le Pocahontas Coals . The high percentage of Il l inois c o a l s i n Blend A, along with the high moisture content of 7.5 percent, made it probable that preheating would c a u s e a major decrease i n coking time and a maximum increase i n potential coke capaci ty . Experimental resu l t s have proved these assumptions t o be true.

After pulverization t o approximately 85 percent minus 1/8-inch s ize , Blend A was f i r s t coked i n the " a s received" condition a t 2300 " F flue temperature under essen t ia l ly commercial operating conditions. Coking was completed i n 16 hours and 45 minutes.

Air drying th i s coal t o remove surface moisture caused the tota l moisture con- tent to drop from 7.5 to 6.9 percent and the dry-coal bulk densi ty to increase from 46.7 t o 47.5 pounds per cubic foot. Coking time was increased by 10 minutes. Phys i c a l properties of the cokes from both the " a s received" and "air-dried" c o a l s were similar, and there was no signigicant change i n pressure on oven wal ls .

D R Y I N G AND P R E H E A T I N G C O A L S BEFORE C O K I N G 5

Heat drying this coa l a t 21 0" F caused l e s s than one-half percent addition- a l reduction in coa l moisture, and the coking time remained unchanged a t 1 6 hours and 55 minutes. The bulk densi ty reported for the heat-dried coa l was very unreal- i s t i c and obviously in error. Coke physical properties and yields , and a l s o wall pressure, were similar t o those obtained i n the previous two t e s t s .

Following these ini t ia l d r y i ~ g s tudies , coa l Blend A was preheated to tem- peratures of 260°, 350°, and 430" F. In each c a s e , the preheated coa l was coked under the same oven temperature conditions. Coking time was reduced to a mini- mum of 11 hours and 40 minutes, which represents a reduction of 5 hours and 5 minutes, a s compared with the time required t o coke the " a s received" coal .

Coke and ta r y ie lds , computed on the dry-coal b a s i s , remained very uniform throughout the ent i re se r ies of t e s t s , indicating tha t very l i t t le , if any, weathering had taken place during preheating. Dry-coal bulk densi ty of the preheated c o a l s remained practically constant , only slightly above tha t of the "air-dried" coal . From these data i t h a s been computed that a n oven battery operated on this blend of coa l s preheated to 430" F could produce 48 percent more furnace-s ize coke than when operated on " a s received" coal .

Pressure exerted on coke oven wal ls was found t o increase consis tent ly a t higher preheat temperatures and to reach a maximum of 2.2 pounds per square inch when the coa l was preheated t o 43 0" F. Complete coking resul ts of t h i s ser ies of t e s t s are shown in figures 1 and 2 and i n table A of the Appendix.

Blend B

Blend B, with cer ta in variations, h a s been used over a n extended period to produce a satisfactory blast-furnace coke. This blend contains 40 percent Il l inois No. 6, 40 percent Sewell, and 20 percent Pocahontas Coa ls , Although containing only half a s much high-moisture coa l a s Blend A, it never theless responds well to preheating and showed a possible increased coke production of nearly 33 percent when preheated t o 495 " F. Interpolated back t o 450" preheat, t h i s increase would amount to approximately 30 percent,

Blend B " a s received" and prepared for carbonization contained 6.1 percent moisture. Air drying reduced th i s moisture to 4.8 percent and heat drying a t 2 1 2 " F reduced moisture s t i l l farther to 4 . 1 percent. The dry-coal bulk densi ty of th i s blend was increased by ai r drying from 46.2 to 48.5 pounds per cubic foot and by heat drying to 4 7.8 pounds. Bulk densi ty remained fairly constant a t about th i s l eve l a s the coa l was preheated t o a s high a s 495 " F.

The time required to coke th i s blend " a s received" was 16 hours and 20 minutes. It required 1 7 hours and 40 minutes t o coke the air-dried co'al, presumably because of the increase of 2.3 pounds i n bulk density. The heat-dried coa l required exact ly 16 hours a t a bulk densi ty midway between the other two tes t s , but with the moisture reduced t o 4.1 percent.

Following these drying t e s t s , th i s blend of c o a l s was preheated to 290°, 4 18 " , and 495 " F. All c o a l s were coked a t the standard flue temperature, and coking time was reduced to 12 hours and 30 minutes a t the highest preheat. Detai ls of the resu l t s of a l l coking t e s t s are shown in figures 3 and 4 , and in table B of the Appendix. Coke strength remains quite constant , with the tumbler s tabi l i ty ranging from 58.6 to 62.3. Other physical properties such a s coke s iz ing and apparent gravity do not vary greatly, Coke and tar yie lds a l s o remain very constant .

6 I L L I N O I S S T A T E G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y C I R C U L A R 4 3 4

( t Obv~ously on error.

8 7 6 5 O h Moisture

Preheat (OF) 200 250 300 350 400 1

450

Figure 1 - Resul ts of coking tes t s on Blend A.

D R Y I N G A N D P R E H E A T I N G C O A L S B E F O R E C O K I N G 7

1 1 I

8 7 6 5 O/. Moisture 1

Preheat ( O F ) 200 250 300 350 400 450

Figure 2 - Results of coking t e s t s on Blend A.

I L L I N O I S S T A T E G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y C I R C U L A R 4 3 4

I I 1 I 1

6 5 4 3 Ol0 Mo~sture 1

Preheat (OF) 200 I a

250 300 350 400 450 500

Figure 3 - Resu l t s of coking t e s t s on Blend B.

O/O

in

crea

se i

n fu

rnac

e co

ke

Co

al c

har

ges

per

Y

ield

- ta

r Y

ield

(m

inu

s Y

ield

co

mp

ared

w

ith

coal

as

re

c'd

ov

en

per

24

hr

(ga

l pe

r to

n co

al

I" s

cree

ning

s)

(% fu

rnac

e co

ke 1

R

, 0

- -

-

o

o

o

bb

bb

c

n*

mw

o

a*

-

OD

ON

10 I L L I N O I S STATE G E O L O G I C A L SURVEY C I R C U L A R 4 3 4

In contras t to Blend A9 the wall pressure obtained when coking this blend of preheated coa l s rose from 0.5 to about 1.5 pounds per square inch and remained fair- l y constant a s preheat was increased, never exceeding 1.6 pounds per square inch.

Blend C

Blend C contained 45 percent eas te rn Kentucky high-volati le, 30 percent Il l inois No, 6, and 25 percent Pocahontas Coals . Moisture content of the blend a s prepared from the " a s received" c o a l s was 5.0 percent. This moisture was re- duced to 4.5 percent by air drying and to 3.15 percent when heat dried a t 21 0" F. Further preheating removed a l l moisture, a s with the other blends t es ted , and the coking time was reduced from 16 hours and 40 minutes t o 13 hours and 25 minutes when preheating to 450" F. The computed increase i n coke production was 25.2 percent.

The bulk densi ty of th i s coa l was 47.2 pounds per cubic foot a s received. This increased t o 49.3 pounds when air dried and maintained a fairly constant value between 48 and 49 pounds a s the c o a l was preheated. Coke strength, a s indicated by the tumbler stabili ty, remained constant a t about 55 throughout the entire se r ies of t e s t s . Coke s iz ing and apparent gravity, and the yie lds of t a r and furnace-size coke, l ikewise remained constant throughout. Pressure exerted o n coke-oven wal ls registered 1.5 pounds per square inch when the coal was heat dried and did not exceed 1.3 pounds per square inch a t any of the subsequent pre- heat temperatures. De ta i l s of a l l t e s t s are shown in figures 5 and 6 and i n table C of the Appendix.

Blend D

Blend D contained a l l eas te rn c o a l s including 75 percent eas te rn Kentucky high-volatile and 25 percent Pocahontas. Moisture content of t h i s blend " a s received" was 3.7 percent, which was reduced by ai r drying and heat drying to 2 .9 and 2.2 percent, respectively. Coking time of the " a s received" blend was 15 hours and 50 minutes, which was reduced t o 12 hours and 25 minutes when the blend was preheated t o 450" F . The " a s received" bulk densi ty of 45-5 pounds was increased to 48.8 pounds by a i r drying, and to 46,O pounds by heat drying a t 215" F. Bulk densi ty remained a t 46.0 pounds, except a t 450" preheat where i t increased again to 48.3 pounds.

Tumbler stabili ty of the coke made from Blend D ranged from 50 to 53.7 throughout the entire se r ies of t e s t s , except for a decrease to 46 when the blend was preheated t o 45 0 " F. Coke s iz ing became slightly smaller a t the higher pre- heat temperatures, but the percentage of coke screenings (minus +-inch) remained practically constant throughout. Furnace- s ize coke yields did not vary appreciably.

These t e s t s indicate that by preheating th i s blend of eas te rn c o a l s to 350" F, approximately 16 percent additional furnace coke could be produced, and by in - creasing the preheat temperature t o 450" F approximately 32 percent additional coke could be made. Detai ls of a l l t e s t s are shown in figures 7 and 8 and i n table D of the Appendix.

D R Y I N G A N D P R E H E A T I N G C O A L S B E F O R E C O K I N G 11

1 1 I I

5 4 3 2 Ol0 Mo~sture I 1 I I I 1

Preheat ( O F ) 200 239 300 350 400 4 50

Figure 5 - Results of cok ing tests o n Blend C .

1 2 I L L I N O I S S T A T E G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y C I R C U L A R 4 3 4

Preheat (OF) 200 250 300 350 4 00 450

Figure 6 - Resu l t s of coking t e s t s on Blend C.

D R Y I N G A N D P R E H E A T I N G C O A L S B E F O R E C O K I N G 13

1 I I 1 I 4 3 2 1 O/O Moisture

I I 1 1 1 I

Preheat ( O F ) 200 250 300 350 400 450

Figure 7 - Results of cok ing tests o n Blend D.

1 4 I L L I N O I S STATE G E O L O G I C A L SURVEY C I R C U L A R 4 3 4

I I I 1

4 3 2 1 O/,, Moisture I 1 1 I 1

Preheat ( O F ) 200 250 300 3 50 400 450

Figure 8 - Resu l t s of coking tests o n Blend D.

D R Y I N G AND P R E H E A T I N G C O A L S BEFORE C O K I N G

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Following coking t e s t s on preheated individual coa l s , described i n our Circular 423, similar s tudies have been made on four c o a l blends, a l l of which were dried and preheated over a range of 230" to 450 " F before coking.

It h a s been shown tha t preheating consis tent ly reduces the coking time, thereby increasing the potential coking capac i ty of a coke-oven battery. This increase i n capaci ty for the blends studied ranged from approximately 25 to 50 percent a t the highest preheat temperatures tried.

It a l s o has been shown that coke strength i s not affected appreciably by preheating blends that are capable of producing strong coke without preheat. Coke s iz ing i s not greatly affected, nor are coke or t a r yie lds .

Expansion pressure on coke oven wal ls i s increased by preheating. Wall pressure remained within the commonly accepted safe limit of 1 .5 pounds per square inch with one of the blends s tudied, Two blends produced a maximum wall pressure of 1.6 pounds per square inch, and the other attained a maximum of 2 . 2 pounds with 430" F coal preheat temperature. It appears from these and other t e s t s that rapid coking of preheated c o a l s may cause the p las t i c coa l envelope that i s formed inside the coke oven to be nonuniform in structure. This may rupture a t some weak point, with low indicated wal l pressure, or may remain intact until a higher pressure i s reached and recorded.

The tendency for these preheated blends to inc rease wall pressure, and a l s o to give variable t e s t r esu l t s , makes i t desi rable t o study pressure character- i s t i c s carefully before preheating any blend of coa l for coking i n commercial ovens.

REFERENCES

Jackman, H. W., R. J. Helfinstine, R , L. Eiss ler , and F. H. Reed, 1955, Coke oven t o measure expansion pressure-Modified Il l inois oven: Blast Fur- nace, Coke Oven, and Raw Mater ia ls Proc., AIME, v. 15, p. 204 -219; Reprinted a s Il l inois Geol. Survey Reprint Ser. 1955-E, 16 p.

Jackman, H e W., and R. J . Helfinstine, 1968, Drying and preheating c o a l s before coking. Part I. Individual coals : I l l inois Geol. Survey Circ . 423, 26 p.

Perch, Michael, and C. C. Russell , 1959, Preheating coa l for carbonization: presented a t Eastern States Blast Furnace and Coke Oven Assoc. a t Pittsburgh, Pa., Feb. 20, 1959.

Smith, F. W., G. W. Birge, D. E . Wolfson, and D. A. Reynolds, 1956, Better coke by the thermal pretreatment of coal: U. S. Dept . of Interior, Bur. Mines; presented a t Annual Meeting of AIME, New York, 195 6 , 52 p.

Yoshida, Susumu, 1967, Coking t e s t s of the dried charging coa l in coke ovens (in Japanese): Fuel Soc. Japan Jour., v. 46, n o . 484, p. 619-628.

APPENDIX

Tables A through D of th i s sect ion present the complete pilot plant coking resul ts for each of the coa l blends studied and descr ibed i n this publication. Data include preheat temperatures, coking time, dry coal bulk dens i t i e s , coke physical properties, y ie lds of coke and tar, coa l pulverization, moisture i n dried and preheated coa l s , and effect of preheating on the capaci ty of coke ovens t o produce coke.

Table E shows the laboratory ana lyses of the cokes produced i n each se r ies of drying and preheating t e s t s . All ana lyses are made by the Analytical Section of the Il l inois State Geological Survey.

D R Y I N G A N D PREHEATING C O A L S B E F O R E C O K I N G

TABLE A - RESULTS OF COKING TESTS ON BLEND A

Coking time ( h r m i n )

Blend A

60% I l l i n o i s No. 6 20% I l l i n o i s NO. 5 20% Pocahontas

Bulk dens i ty (dry coa l ; I b per cu f t )

Coke physical p rope r t i e s Tumbler t e s t

S t a b i l i t y Hardness

Condition of coa l

Sha t t e r t e s t (%) +2" +lyl +I"

Sizing (%) +4" 4" x 3" 3" x 2" 2" x 1" 1 1 1 3-11

2

+ I 1

Average s i z e ( in . )

Preheat a t 350° F As r ec ' d .

Apparent g r a v i t y

Preheat a t 430' F

Heat d r i e d a t 210' F Ai r d r i ed

Run number

Coke y i e l d s (% of dry coal) To ta l coke (dry) Furnace (+11') (dry) Nut (1" x %") (dry) Breeze (4") (dry)

Preheat a t 260' -F

Tar y i e l d (gal d r y t a r ; per ton dry coal)

Oven wal l p re s su re ( l b pe r sq in.)

1059 E 1058 E

Pu lve r i za t ion (-1/8")

1042 E 1160 E 1159 E

Coke temperature (' F)

1056 E

% moisture i n coa l a s charged*

Coke oven capac i ty Coal charges/oven/24 h r Lb furnace coke/cu f t / 2 4 h r % i nc rease i n furnace coke

(compared wi th coa l "as received")

*Minus values i n d i c a t e weight l o s s on preheat ing g r e a t e r t han ASTM mois ture values . tObviously an e r r o r .

I L L I N O I S S T A T E G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y C I R C U L A R 4 3 2

TABLE B - RESULTS OF COKING TESTS ON BLEND B

Coking t irne (hr :min) 16 :20 17 :40 16 :00 14:15 12 :45 12 :30

Blend B

40% I l l i n o i s No. 6 40% Sewell 20% Pocahontas

Bulk dens i ty (dry coa l ; l b pe r cu f t ) 46.2 48.5 47.8 47.2 46.4 47.2

Coke physical p rope r t i e s Tumbler t e s t

S t a b i l i t y 58.7 62.3 60.3 58.7 58.6 59.3 Hardness 66.4 70.9 68 .O 65.3 65.9 69.8

Condition of c o a l

S h a t t e r t e s t (%) +2" +1%" +I"

As rec 'd .

S i z ing (%) +4" 4" x 3" 3" x 2" 2" x 1" 1 1 1 X

Ji"

Average s i z e ( in . ) 2.65 2.70 2.58 2.66 2.71 2.60

Ai r d r i e d

Apparent g r a v i t y 0.835 0.87 0.86 0.83 0.84 0.85

Run number

Coke y i e l d s (% of dry coal) To ta l coke (dry) 75.0 74.6 74.3 75.4 74.2 74.5 Furnace (+It') (dry) 71.9 71.2 71.4 72.2 71.3 71.5 Nut (1" x %I1) (dry) 1 .O 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.1 Breeze ( 4 " ) (dry) 2.1 2.3 1.9 2.1 2 .0 1.9

Heat d r i e d a t 212' F

1106 E

Tar y i e l d (gal dry t a r ; per ton dry coal) 8.2 7.9 7 .O 7.6 8.8 7.9

Oven wal l pressure ( l b per sq in . )

Preheat a t 290' F

1135 E

Pu lve r i za t ion (-118")

Coke temperature ( O F) 1775 1775 1775 1775 1775 1775

Preheat a t 418' F

1108 E

% moisture i n coal a s charged*

Preheat a t 495' F

Coke oven capac i ty Coal charges/oven/24 h r 1.47 1.36 1.50 1.68 1.88 1.92 Lb furnace coke/cu f t / 2 4 h r 48.8 47 .O 51.2 57.2 62.2 64.8 % i nc rease i n furnace coke

(compared wi th coa l "as received") - -3.7 4.9 17.2 27.5 32.8

1109 E

*Minus values i n d i c a t e weight l o s s on preheat ing g r e a t e r than ASTM mois ture values .

1110 E 1139 E

D R Y I N G A N D P R E H E A T I N G C O A L S B E F O R E C O K I N G

TABLE C - RESULTS OF COKING TESTS ON BLEND C

I Condition of coa l I I I I I I

Coking time (hr :min)

Blend C

45% Eastern Kentucky high v o l a t i l e

30% I l l i n o i s No. 6 25% Pocahontas

Bulk dens i t y (dry coa l ; l b per cu f t )

Coke physical p rope r t i e s

As rec 'd .

Tumbler t e s t S t a b i l i t y Hardness

Sha t t e r t e s t (%) +2" +I%" +I"

Air d r i ed

Sizing (%) +4" 4" x 3" 3" x 2" 2" x 1" 1" x 5'' 4"

Run number

Average s i z e ( i n . )

Heat d r i ed a t 210" F

Apparent g r av i ty

1065 E

Coke y i e ld s (% of dry coal)

Preheat a t 223' F

1066 E

To ta l coke (dry) Furnace (+1")

(dry) Nut (1'' x %'I)

(dry) Breeze (A")

(dry)

Tar y i e ld (ga l dry t a r ; per ton dry coal)

Preheat a t 23S0 F

1067 E 1179 E 1068 E

Oven wal l pressure ( l b per sq i n . )

1181 E 1180 E

Pulver izat ion (-1/8")

Preheat a t 320' F

Coke Temperature (" F)

Preheat a t 450° F

% moisture i n coal a s charged*

Coke oven capaci ty

Coal charges/ oven/24 h r 1.44 1.46 1.52 1.55 1.53 1.68 1.79

Lb furnace coke/ cu f t / 2 4 h r 47.1 49.9 48.6 51.5 49.0 55.8 59.0

% increase i n fur- nace coke (com- pared with coal "as received") - 5.9 3.2 9.3 4.0 18.5 25.2

*Minus values i nd i ca t e weight l o s s on preheat ing g rea t e r than ASTM moisture values.

2 0 I L L I N O I S STATE G E O L O G I C A L SURVEY C I R C U L A R 4 3 2

TABLE D - RESULTS OF COKING TESTS ON BLEND D

1 75% Eastern Kentucky I Run number I Blend D

Coking time (hr :min)

Condition of coa l

high v o l a t i l e 1 25% Pocahontas

Bulk dens i ty (dry coal ; l b per cu f t )

Coke physical p rope r t i e s Tumbler t e s t

S t a b i l i t y Hardness

As rec 'd .

1193 E

Sha t t e r t e s t (%) +2" + l y l +Irr

Heat d r i ed a t 215' F Air d r i ed

Sizing (%) +4" 4" x 3" 3" x 2" 2" x 1" lrl X 4" + I 1

1187 E

Average s i z e ( in . )

Preheat a t 250' F

Apparent g rav i ty

1192 E

Coke y i e l d s (% of dry coal) To ta l coke (dry) Furnace (+I") (dry) Nut (1" x 4") (dry) Breeze (-4") (dry)

Preheat a t 350° F

Tar y i e ld (ga l dry t a r ; per ton dry coal)

Preheat a t 450' F

1191 E

Oven wall pressure ( l b per sq in . )

Pulver izat ion (-1/8It)

1189 E

Coke temperature ( O F)

1194 E

% moisture i n coa l a s charged

Coke oven capaci ty Coal charges/oven/24 h r Lb furnace coke/cu f t / 2 4 h r % increase i n furnace coke

(compared with coa l "as received")

D R Y I N G A N D P R E H E A T I N G C O A L S B E F O R E C O K I N G 2 1

TABLE E - ANALYSES OF COKES PRODUCED ( i n percent)

Blend A 60% I l l i n o i s No. 6 20% I l l i n o i s No. 5 20% Pocahontas

V o l a t i l e mat ter

As received A i r d r ied Heat d r i ed a t 210' F Preheated t o 260' F Preheated t o 350' F Preheated t o 430' F

Fixed 1 Ash 1 Sulfur 1 carbon

Blend B 40% I l l i n o i s No. 6 40% Sewell 20% Pocahontas

A s received 1.1 A i r d r ied 0.9 Heat dr ied a t 212' F 1.0 Preheat t o 290' F 1.1 Preheat t o 418' F 1.1 Preheat t o 495' F 1.3

Blend C 45% Eastern Kentucky

high v o l a t i l e 30% I l l i n o i s No. 6 25% Pocahontas

A s received A i r d r i ed Heat d r i ed a t 210' F Preheat t o 223' F Preheat t o 235' F Preheat t o 320' F Preheat t o 450' F

Blend D 75% Eastern Kentucky

high v o l a t i l e 25% Pocahontas

A s received 1.1 89.8 9.1 1.02 Air d r i ed 1.1 89.4 9.5 0.99 Heat d r i ed a t 215' F 0.7 90 .O 9.3 1.05 Preheat t o 250' F 1.0 89.8 9.2 1.06 Preheat t o 350' F 0.7 90.3 9.0 1.03 Preheat t o 450' F 1.2 89.6 9.2 1.12

Urbana, I l l i no i s F U L L T I M E S T A F F Oc tobe r 1, 1968

JOHN C. FRYE, Ph.D., D.Sc., Chief Hubert E. Risser , Ph.D., Ass i s t an t Chief

R. J. Helf inst ine, M. S. , Adminis t ra t ive Engineer Velda A. Mil lard, F i s c a l Ass i s t an t t o the Chief G. R. Eadie, M.S., E.M., Asst . Adminis t ra t ive Engineer He len E. McMorris , Sec re t a ry t o t h e Chief

G E O L O G I C A L G R O U P Jack A. Simon, M.S., Pr incipal Geo log i s t

M. L. Thompson, Ph.D., Pr incipal Research Geo log i s t F rances H. Alster lund, A. B., Research Ass i s t an t

COAL M. E. Hopkins, Ph.D., Geo log i s t and Acting Head Wil l iam H. Smith, M.S., Geo log i s t Kenneth E . Clegg, M. S., Assoc ia t e Geo log i s t Heinz H. Damberger , D. Sc., Assoc ia t e Geo log i s t Harold J. Gluskoter , Ph. D., Assoc ia t e Geo log i s t Russe l A. Peppers , Ph.D . , Assoc ia t e Geo log i s t John A. Bell, Ph. D., Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t

STRATIGRAPHY AND AREAL GEOLOGY H. B. Willman, Ph.D., Geo log i s t and Head Elwood Atherton, Ph. D., Geo log i s t T. C. Buschbach, Ph.D., Geo log i s t Cha r l e s Col l inson, Ph.D., Geo log i s t Herbert D . G l a s s , Ph.D., Geo log i s t Lois S. Kent, Ph.D. , Assoc ia t e Geo log i s t Jerry A. Lineback, Ph.D., Assoc ia t e Geo log i s t Alan M. Jacobs , Ph. D., Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t Susan R. Avcin, B.A., Resea rch A s s i s t a n t

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING W. Calhoun Smith, Ph.D. , Geo log i s t i n cha rge Paul B. DuMontel le , M. S., Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t Patr ic ia M. Moran, B.A., Research Ass i s t an t

GEOLOGICAL RECORDS Vivian Gordon, Head Hannah Kistler, Supervisory Technical Ass i s t an t C o n s t a n c e Armstrong, Techn ica l Ass i s t an t Conn ie L. Maske , B.A., Techn ica l Ass i s t an t El izabeth Speer , Technical Ass i s t an t Bonnie B. Sul l ivan, Technical Ass i s t an t Rebecca J. Veenstra , Technical Ass i s t an t Margaret J. Weatherhead, Technical Ass i s t an t

GEOLOGICAL SAMPLES LIBRARY Robert W. Frame, Superintendent J. Stanton Bonwell. Technical Ass i s t an t Eugene W. Meie r , Techn ica l Ass i s t an t Linda D. Rentfrow. Clerk-Typist I1

GROUND-WATER GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICAL EXPLORATION Robert E. Bergstrom, Ph.D., Geo log i s t and Head Merlyn B. Buhle, M.S., Geo log i s t George M . Hughes, Ph.D., Assoc ia t e Geo log i s t John P. Kempton, Ph.D., Assoc ia t e Geo log i s t Keros Cartwright , M. S., Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t Manou tchehr Heidar i , M. S . , Ass i s t an t Engineer Paul C. Heigold, M. S . , Ass i s t an t Geophys ic i s t Jean I . Larsen, M.A., Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t Murray R. McComas , M.S., Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t Kemal Piskin, M.S., Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t Frank B. Sherman, Jr., M. S., Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t Sh i r l ey A. M a s t e r s , B.S., Research Ass i s t an t Verena M. Colvin, Technical Ass i s t an t Dan ie l E. McMeen , B.A., Technical A s s i s t a n t

OIL AND GAS Donald C. Bond, Ph.D., Head Lindel l H. Van Dyke, M.S. , Geo log i s t Thomas F. Lawry, B. S. , Assoc ia t e Petrol. Engineer R. F. M a s t , M.S., Assoc ia t e Petrol . Engineer Wayne F. M e e n t s , Assoc ia t e Geo log ica l Engineer Hubert M. Bristol, M. S., Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t Richard H. Howard, M.S., Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t David L. S t evenson , M.S . , Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t J a c o b Van Den Berg, M.S., Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t Albert L. Meyer s , B.S., Research Ass i s t an t

INDUSTRIAL MINERALS James C. Bradbury, Ph.D., Geo log i s t and Head James W. Baxter. Ph. D., Assoc ia t e Geo log i s t Richard D. Harvey, Ph .D., Assoc ia t e Geo log i s t Norman C. Hes te r , Ph.D., Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t

CLAY RESOURCES AND CLAY MINERAL TECHNOLOGY W. Arthur White , Ph. D.. Geo log i s t and Head Bruce F. Bohor, Ph.D:, Assoc ia t e Geo log i s t

C H E M I C A L G R O U P Glenn C . Finger, Ph. D., Pr incipal Chemis t

Ruth C. Lynge, Techn ica l Ass i s t an t Thelma J. Chapman, B.A., Techn ica l Ass i s t an t

COAL CHEMISTRY CHEMICAL ENGINEERING G. Robert Yohe, Ph.D., Chemist and Head H. W. Jackman, M. S.E., Chemica l Engineer and Head

R. J. He l f in s t ine , M. S. , M e c h a n i c a l Engineer PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY Henry P. Ehrl inger 111, M. S., Assoc. Mine ra l s Engineer

Josephus Thomas, Jr., Ph. D., Chemis t and Head Lee D. Arnold, B. S., Ass i s t an t Engineer Robert N. Leamnson, M. S., Ass i s t an t Chemis t W. G. t e n Kate, M.S., Geo l . D . , Ass i s t an t Mine ra log i s t

Wal t e r E. Cooper , Technical Ass i s t an t ORGANIC GEOCHEMISTRY Robert M . Fairf ie ld , Techn ica l Ass i s t an t

G . C. Finger, Ph.D., Acting Head John P. McCle l l an , Techn ica l Ass i s t an t Donald R. D icke r son , Ph.D., Assoc ia t e Chemis t Edward A. Schaede , Techn ica l A s s i s t a n t (on l e a v e ) Richard H. Shi ley, M.S. , Ass i s t an t Chemis t G i lbe r t L. Tinberg, Techn ica l Ass i s t an t (Chemical Group con t inued on n e x t page)

C H E M I C A L G R O U P (Continued)

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY

Neil F. Shimp, Ph. D. , Chemist and Head William J. Armon, M.S., Associate Chemist Charles W. Beeler, M .A., Associate Chemist Rodney R. Ruch, Ph.D., Associate Chemist John A. Schleicher , B.S., Associate Chemist Larry R. Camp, B.S., Ass i s t an t Chemist David B. Heck, B.S., Ass i s t an t Chemist

L. R. Henderson, B.S., Ass i s t an t Chemist Stephen M. Kim, B.A., Ass i s t an t Chemist John K . Kuhn, B.S., Ass i s t an t Chemist Ru-tao Kyi, Ph. D., Ass i s t an t Chemist Sharon L. Olson, B. S., Spec ia l Research Ass i s t an t Paul E. Gardner , Technical Ass i s t an t George R. James, Technical Ass i s t an t

M I N E R A L E C O N O M I C S G R O U P

Hubert E. Risser , Ph.D., Principal Mineral Economist W. L. Busch, A.B., Associate Minera l Economist Robert L. Major , M.S., Ass i s t an t Minera l Economist

A D M I N I S T R A T I V E G R O U P

George R. Eadie, M.S. , E.M., Administrator

EDUCATIONAL EXTENSION David L. Reinertsen, A.M., Assoc ia te Geo log i s t in cha rge George M. Wilson, M . S. , Geo log i s t William E. Cote, M.S., Ass i s t an t Geo log i s t Helen S. Johnston, B.S., Technical Ass i s t an t Myrna M. Killey, B.A., Technical Ass i s t an t

PUBLICATIONS Betty M. Lynch, B .Ed., Technical Editor Carol A. Brandt, B.A., Technical Editor Jane E. Busey, B.S., Ass i s t an t Technical Editor Marie L. Mart in, Geologic Draftsman James R. Gilmer, Asst. Geologic Draftsman Sandra L. Oncken. B.F.A., Asst. Geologic Draftsman William Dale Farr is , Research Assoc ia te Kathy Sue Billingsley, Technical Ass i s t an t Dorothy H. Scoggin, Technical Ass i s t an t Beulah M. Unfer, Technical Ass i s t an t

GENERAL SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION Peggy H. Schroeder, B.A., Research Ass i s t an t Florence J . Partenheimer, Technical Ass i s t an t

SPECIAL TECHNICAL SERVICES Glenn G. Poor, Research Associate (on l eave ) Merle Ridgley, Research ASsociate Wayne W. Nofftz, Supervisory Technical Ass i s t an t Donovon M . Watkins, Technical Ass i s t an t Mary M. Sul l ivan, Supervisory Technical Ass i s t an t David B. Cooley, Technical Ass i s t an t

FINANCIAL OFFICE Velda A. Mil lard, i n cha rge Marjorie J. Hatch, Clerk IV Virginia C. Smith, B. S., Account Clerk Pauline Mitchel l , Account Clerk

CLERICAL SERVICES Nancy J. Hansen, Clerk-Stenographer I1 Haze l V. Orr. Clerk-Stenographer I1 Mary K. Rosal ius , Clerk-Stenographer I1 Dorothy M. Spence , Clerk-Stenographer I1 Jane C. Washburn, Clerk-Stenographer I1 Becky L. Dowds, Clerk-Stenographer I Magdeline E. Hutchison, Clerk-Stenographer I Edna M. Yeargin. Clerk-Stenographer I Sharon K. Zindars , Clerk-Stenographer I Shir ley L. Weatherford, Key Punch Operator I1 Paul ine F. Tate, Clerk-Typist I1 JoAnn L. Hayn, C l e r k - w p i s t I

TECHNICAL RECORDS Berenice Reed, Supervisory Technical Ass i s t an t Miriam Hatch, Technical Ass i s t an t Hes te r L. Nesmith, B.S., Technical Ass i s t an t

LIBRARY Liese lo t t e F. Haak , Geo log ica l Librarian (on l e a v e ) Ann M. Sokan, M.A., Acting Geol . Librarian Jo Ann Boeke, Technical Ass i s t an t

EMERITI M. M. Leighton, Ph.D., D.Sc., Chief , Emeritus J. S. Machin, Ph. D., Principal Chemist , Emeritus 0. W. Rees, Ph.D., Prin. Research Chemist , Emeritus W. H. Voskuil, Ph.D., Prin. Minera l Economist, Emeriti G . H. Cady, Ph. D . , Senior Geo log i s t , Emeritus A. H. Bell, Ph.D., Geologist , Emeritus George E. Ekblaw, Ph. D., Geo log i s t , Emeritus J . E. Lamar, B.S., Geologist , Emeritus R. J. Piersol, Ph. D . , Physicis t , Emeritus L. D. McVicker, B.S., Chemist , Emeritus Enid Townley, M. S., Geologist , Emerita Lester L. Whit ing, M. S. , Geo log i s t , Emeritus Juanita Wit ters , M . S . , Phys ic i s t , Emerita B. J. Greenwood, B. S. , Mechan ica l Engineer, Emeritus

RESEARCH AFFILIATES AND CONSULTANTS Richard C .- Anderson, Ph. D., Augustana Co l l ege W. F. Bradley, Ph.D.. Universi ty of Texas Donald L. Graf , Ph .D., Universi ty of Minneso ta

us Ralph E. Grim, Ph. D., Universi ty of I l l i no i s S. E. Harris, Jr . , Ph. D.. Southern I l l ino i s Universi ty Lyle D. McGinnis , Ph.D., Northern I l l ino i s Unive r s i ty I. Edgar Odom, Ph.D., Northern I l l ino i s Universi ty T. K. Searight , Ph. D., I l l i no i s S ta t e Unive r s i ty Harold R. W a n l e s s , Ph.D., Universi ty of I l l i no i s George W. White. Ph. D., Universi ty of I l l i no i s

Topographic mapping i n cooperat ion with t h e United S t a t e s Geo log ica l Survey.

Il l inois State Geological Survey Circular 434 23 p , , 8 figs. , 1 table , app. , 2000 cop. , 1968

Urbana, Il l inois 6 180 1

Printed by Authority of State of Il l inois, Ch . 127, IRS, Par. 58.25 .

CIRCULAR 434