Search Documents

By William E. Ford, Edward Salisbury Dana

A. Anhydrous Carbonates The Anhydrous Carbonates include two distinct isomorphous groups, the CALCITE GROUP and the ARAGONITE GROUP. The metallic elements

Jan 1, 1922

Carbonatites - igneous carbonate-silicate rocks - host the world's major resources for niobium, phosphorous and REE (rare earth elements).Carbonatites represent the least common products of mantle and igneous processes and their emplacement is principally controlled by lithospheric domes and rift structures. Intrusive carbonatites frequently comprise carbonate-amphibole-apatite-pyrocWore assemblages, occur as plugs, cores, dykes, sills sheets, veins, pipes and irregular bodies, are gecichemically anomalous (Ba, Ca, Cl, F, Hf, Mg, Nb, P, REE, S, Sc, SO4, Sri Tb, Ti, D, V, Zr), are associated with alkaline silica-undersaturated igneous rocks forming carbonatite complexes, and display large, intensive alteration haloes. Also carbonatites are similar to limestones, prone to weathering, and may form thick laterite profiles.Magmatic ores (pyrocWore, apatite, bastnaesite, monazite, magnetite, baddeleyite, phlogopite, fluorite, calcite) and weathering related residual and supergene ores (pyrochlore, apatite, magnetite, anatase, vermiculite) are currently being mined on all continents except Australia. Australia is underexplored for carbonatite associated primary magmatic and especially residual-supergene ore deposits. Chances are very high for the finding of new carbonatite, occurrences and associated ores.

Jan 1, 1994

By D. P. Gold

Major sources and reserves of Cb/Nb, Ta, REE, Y, Sc, Zr, Hf, Cu, apatite and vermiculite may be concentrated in primary and secondary minerals associated with different stages and depths of emplacement in carbonatite complexes and kindred alkalic intrusive rocks. Exploration targets include: apatite and pyrochlore (Nb) in the plutonic and hypabyssal core and ring-dikes: bastnaesite (REE), strontianite, barite and fluorite in hydrothermal veins and cone-sheets (subvolcanic setting): thortveitite (Sc,Y) and vermiculite in metasomatized aureoles (fenites): high grade eluvial deposits of apatite and pyrochlore, and secondary REE, Nb, Ti. and V-minerals in supergene and weathered zones.

Jan 1, 1991

By Charles C. Russell, Glenn C. South

A primary factor in the selection of coals for making coke at high temperatures is the amount of pressure the coal will exert upon the oven walls when carbonized in modem by-product ovens.l-3 This factor has become increasingly important in recent years because of demands for increased throughput and higher coke yields. As a result of the increasing necessity for assessing coals in regard to their carbonization pressures, more and more research work is being directed toward developing labora-tory-scale tests for predicting carbonization pressures and for showing how blends of coking coals may be modified to eliminate pressures liable to damage coke-oven walls. The specific reasons have never been defined as to why some blends of coking coals develop dangerous carbonization pressures and others do not, therefore specific procedures to eliminate dangerous pressures could not be prescribed. It is true that the major processes occurring during carbonization have been described by many writers,4 and there is a general agreement on the ideas of the changes that occur as coal is transformed into coke. However, there is little evidence relating the processes occurring during carbonization to the pressure developed and the available evidence is very incomplete and often contradictory. This deficiency arises in part from the fact that the fundamental causes of pressure development have not been defined, at least from experimental data, and in turn this is the result of the lack of satisfactory testing equipment for studying the problem. Operating experience has shown several ways of reducing or eliminating dangerous pressures,5 but probably none of these ways is applicable to all blends of coking coals, and such empirical methods often lead to production of inferior coke. They are trial-and-error methods, not designed to remedy specific causes of pressure development. The number of laboratory-scale testing devices designed to estimate the carbonization pressures that result when coals are carbonized in commercial ovens is probably well over a hundred.6 Few of these instruments have remained in use for any length of time, either because the predictions were not sufficiently accurate or, more often, because too many exceptions were found. Often testing devices are operated without any attempt at duplication of conditions in commercial ovens and erroneous and contradictory results are frequently obtained. Therefore, it has seemed desirable to study the properties of coal itself and to determine any relationships between the properties of the coal and the carbonization pressures developed. Relationship between Properties of Coal and Carbonization Pressure Attempts to determine relationships between various properties of coal and carbonization pressures, for the most parti have been indirect because no satisfactory and reliable laboratory testing device has

Jan 1, 1944

By Glenn C. South, Charles C. Russell

A primary factor in the selection of coals for making coke at high temperatures is the amount of pressure the coal will exert upon the oven walls when carbonized in modem by-product ovens.l-3 This factor has become increasingly important in recent years because of demands for increased throughput and higher coke yields. As a result of the increasing necessity for assessing coals in regard to their carbonization pressures, more and more research work is being directed toward developing labora-tory-scale tests for predicting carbonization pressures and for showing how blends of coking coals may be modified to eliminate pressures liable to damage coke-oven walls. The specific reasons have never been defined as to why some blends of coking coals develop dangerous carbonization pressures and others do not, therefore specific procedures to eliminate dangerous pressures could not be prescribed. It is true that the major processes occurring during carbonization have been described by many writers,4 and there is a general agreement on the ideas of the changes that occur as coal is transformed into coke. However, there is little evidence relating the processes occurring during carbonization to the pressure developed and the available evidence is very incomplete and often contradictory. This deficiency arises in part from the fact that the fundamental causes of pressure development have not been defined, at least from experimental data, and in turn this is the result of the lack of satisfactory testing equipment for studying the problem. Operating experience has shown several ways of reducing or eliminating dangerous pressures,5 but probably none of these ways is applicable to all blends of coking coals, and such empirical methods often lead to production of inferior coke. They are trial-and-error methods, not designed to remedy specific causes of pressure development. The number of laboratory-scale testing devices designed to estimate the carbonization pressures that result when coals are carbonized in commercial ovens is probably well over a hundred.6 Few of these instruments have remained in use for any length of time, either because the predictions were not sufficiently accurate or, more often, because too many exceptions were found. Often testing devices are operated without any attempt at duplication of conditions in commercial ovens and erroneous and contradictory results are frequently obtained. Therefore, it has seemed desirable to study the properties of coal itself and to determine any relationships between the properties of the coal and the carbonization pressures developed. Relationship between Properties of Coal and Carbonization Pressure Attempts to determine relationships between various properties of coal and carbonization pressures, for the most parti have been indirect because no satisfactory and reliable laboratory testing device has

Jan 1, 1944

By G. V. Woody, J. D. Price

Many producers of by-product coke have spent considerable time and given considerable thought to the use of a substitute for low-volatile coal as an admixture with high-volatile coking coal for charging high-temperature by-product coke ovens. Generally speaking, there are two principal reasons for this, one being occasioned by the lack, in certain localities, of low-volatile coal delivered at a cost sufficiently low to permit its use, and another being the desirability of finding a substitute product with a delivered cost lower than the cost of the low-volatile coal. It was for the first of these reasons that the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation was particularly interested in this subject. This paper deals with the experimental work and the results obtained by that company in producing and using low-temperature char. Overcoming Defects in Coke from Colorado Coals Colorado coking coals are all of the high-volatile type and were all laid down during the Cretaceous period, which makes them something like 80 million or so years younger, geologically, than eastern coals. They behave, when coked alone, something like the Pittsburgh-seam coals. They make a very brittle, highly cross-fractured, fingery coke of fair shatter value but quite low in resistance to abrasion. Mixed with a low-volatile coking coal such as Poca- hontas or certain Oklahoma coals, they make a coke that is equal to virtually any of the eastern cokes. The inferior quality of Colorado coke has long been recognized, and a considerable amount of time, effort and money has been spent upon investigations of means for improving its physical properties. While it has been found that some improvement in quality of coke can be secured by the adjustment and control of such variables as pulverization, moisture content, oven temperature and bulk density of charge, and through the addition of certain inert materials such as pulverized coke breeze, pitch, high-volatile noncoking or semicoking coal, the benefits so gained have been comparatively small. There are no low or medium-volatile coking coals available within a reasonable freight-cost distance. Therefore a substitute for low-vol-atile coal was developed through low-tem-perature carbonization—or, more correctly speaking, through the partial devolatiliza-tion—of high-volatile coals. The blending of this lower volatile char with the high-volatile coking coal distinctly improves the quality of coke made from Colorado coal. There is nothing especially new about this idea. In 1908 a Japanese patent was taken out by Kotaro Shimomura, whose claim was: The method of making a nonfingery coke out of bituminous coals, without using natural coals of low-volatile matter; according to which a certain coal is heated at a temperature between about 300°C. and about 600°C. so as to leave about 15 to 25 per cent volatile matter in the coal; this coal is mixed with the

Jan 1, 1944

By J. D. Price, G. V. Woody

Many producers of by-product coke have spent considerable time and given considerable thought to the use of a substitute for low-volatile coal as an admixture with high-volatile coking coal for charging high-temperature by-product coke ovens. Generally speaking, there are two principal reasons for this, one being occasioned by the lack, in certain localities, of low-volatile coal delivered at a cost sufficiently low to permit its use, and another being the desirability of finding a substitute product with a delivered cost lower than the cost of the low-volatile coal. It was for the first of these reasons that the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation was particularly interested in this subject. This paper deals with the experimental work and the results obtained by that company in producing and using low-temperature char. Overcoming Defects in Coke from Colorado Coals Colorado coking coals are all of the high-volatile type and were all laid down during the Cretaceous period, which makes them something like 80 million or so years younger, geologically, than eastern coals. They behave, when coked alone, something like the Pittsburgh-seam coals. They make a very brittle, highly cross-fractured, fingery coke of fair shatter value but quite low in resistance to abrasion. Mixed with a low-volatile coking coal such as Poca- hontas or certain Oklahoma coals, they make a coke that is equal to virtually any of the eastern cokes. The inferior quality of Colorado coke has long been recognized, and a considerable amount of time, effort and money has been spent upon investigations of means for improving its physical properties. While it has been found that some improvement in quality of coke can be secured by the adjustment and control of such variables as pulverization, moisture content, oven temperature and bulk density of charge, and through the addition of certain inert materials such as pulverized coke breeze, pitch, high-volatile noncoking or semicoking coal, the benefits so gained have been comparatively small. There are no low or medium-volatile coking coals available within a reasonable freight-cost distance. Therefore a substitute for low-vol-atile coal was developed through low-tem-perature carbonization—or, more correctly speaking, through the partial devolatiliza-tion—of high-volatile coals. The blending of this lower volatile char with the high-volatile coking coal distinctly improves the quality of coke made from Colorado coal. There is nothing especially new about this idea. In 1908 a Japanese patent was taken out by Kotaro Shimomura, whose claim was: The method of making a nonfingery coke out of bituminous coals, without using natural coals of low-volatile matter; according to which a certain coal is heated at a temperature between about 300°C. and about 600°C. so as to leave about 15 to 25 per cent volatile matter in the coal; this coal is mixed with the

Jan 1, 1944

By B. P. Mulcahy

When the phrase "selection of coal for carbonization" is used, there is always the implied continuance of thought "to make good coke.'' The reason for this, of course, lies in the fact that, in almost all instances, when coal is carbonized coke is the principal product. Under certain conditions the yield of gas may also be a factor, but even here it must be secondary to the coke yield, for in every instance coke represents the largest single product of the process. The importance of coke to the byproduct industry has been considerably enhanced during the past 20 years because of the continuously decreasing financial returns of all the by-products. This fact will account, in part, for the rebirth of interest and investigation in the carbonization process during the past 10 years. Many papers have been written on this subject, with naturally divergent thoughts because of the diversity of interests, but in each instance the common aim was the same—the making of better coke. Scope of Investigation In perusing this literature, the writer was struck with the constantly recurring imposed condition of asking for better coke, but with the distinct unwillingness to make any concession to temperature of carbonization. When there is a high demand for coke, the only means by which the industry can increase the quantity is to shorten the coking time by an increase in temperature, or to increase the quantity of low-volatile coal, or both; and since in many instances the percentage of low-volatile coal can be increased only in small quantities, because of factors to be discussed later, the big increase must come from shortening the coking time. When this is done most of the improvement accomplished by the selection of the coals in the mixture is lost. It is not felt necessary in this paper to discuss the advantages of minimum ash and sulphur and other materials in coal. The value of minimum contents of these materials in coke is well established. When the use of coals high in these contents is dictated, the selection of coals, as we will consider it here, cannot apply to full advantage. The scope of this paper, then, will be to discuss the factors of inherent coal characteristics and operating procedures that influence coke quality, for they are fundamentally related and both must be considered if we are to attain our objective of better coke. A study of either must embrace a study of both simultaneously. To properly evaluate the influence of the coal and to help in the selection, we must first be able to appraise the coke, and interpret fairly the influence of the process in all of its aspects. Appraisal of Coke To refer simply to the quality of coke gives no indication of what is meant, for the term is too general in its implication. An analysis of a coke is divided usually

Jan 1, 1944

By B. P. Mulcahy

When the phrase "selection of coal for carbonization" is used, there is always the implied continuance of thought "to make good coke.'' The reason for this, of course, lies in the fact that, in almost all instances, when coal is carbonized coke is the principal product. Under certain conditions the yield of gas may also be a factor, but even here it must be secondary to the coke yield, for in every instance coke represents the largest single product of the process. The importance of coke to the byproduct industry has been considerably enhanced during the past 20 years because of the continuously decreasing financial returns of all the by-products. This fact will account, in part, for the rebirth of interest and investigation in the carbonization process during the past 10 years. Many papers have been written on this subject, with naturally divergent thoughts because of the diversity of interests, but in each instance the common aim was the same—the making of better coke. Scope of Investigation In perusing this literature, the writer was struck with the constantly recurring imposed condition of asking for better coke, but with the distinct unwillingness to make any concession to temperature of carbonization. When there is a high demand for coke, the only means by which the industry can increase the quantity is to shorten the coking time by an increase in temperature, or to increase the quantity of low-volatile coal, or both; and since in many instances the percentage of low-volatile coal can be increased only in small quantities, because of factors to be discussed later, the big increase must come from shortening the coking time. When this is done most of the improvement accomplished by the selection of the coals in the mixture is lost. It is not felt necessary in this paper to discuss the advantages of minimum ash and sulphur and other materials in coal. The value of minimum contents of these materials in coke is well established. When the use of coals high in these contents is dictated, the selection of coals, as we will consider it here, cannot apply to full advantage. The scope of this paper, then, will be to discuss the factors of inherent coal characteristics and operating procedures that influence coke quality, for they are fundamentally related and both must be considered if we are to attain our objective of better coke. A study of either must embrace a study of both simultaneously. To properly evaluate the influence of the coal and to help in the selection, we must first be able to appraise the coke, and interpret fairly the influence of the process in all of its aspects. Appraisal of Coke To refer simply to the quality of coke gives no indication of what is meant, for the term is too general in its implication. An analysis of a coke is divided usually

Jan 1, 1944

By Manjie Li, Mingrui Yang, Haijun Peng, Shuxing Qiu, Wei Liu, Shengfu Zhang

It is important to produce and utilize highly reactive coke in order to reduce the energy consumption and CO2 emissions through improving shaft efficiency in blast furnace. The present study aimed to investigate the transformation of iron minerals and properties of iron coke (the coke mixed iron ore fines). Along with the increase of iron ore fines, cold strength displayed a slight downtrend and the pore structure wasn’t inferred to be a major factor affected the properties of iron coke. During carbonization, the majority of mixed iron oxides were reduced to metallic iron by CO and H2 and the degree of metallization achieved to approximately 75%. Nevertheless, produced metallic iron was oxidized by pure CO2 during gasification. Iron coke reactivity index (ICRI) was obviously enhanced and the iron coke strength after reaction (ICSR) drastically decreases, which were also significantly influenced by crystal structure of carbon.

Jan 1, 2015

By Rosiane Mary Rezende Faleiro

O carvão vegetal, CV, é o componente individual com maior impacto no custo final de uma usina integrada. Diante desta realidade, foi desenvolvido um processo de carbonização contínua, uma tecnologia moderna que a diferencia das carbonizações tradicionais, permitindo que o CV produzido tenha melhores características físicoquímicas. Sendo assim, o desafio agora é encontrar condições operacionais adequadas para produzir em larga escala a um custo competitivo. Com base nisso, desenvolveu-se este trabalho com o objetivo de avaliar o desempenho de um altoforno, em condições reais de operação e em escala industrial, utilizando dois tipos de carvões (CVs): CV Referência e CV produzido por carbonização contínua (Carboval). Os principais parâmetros operacionais foram monitorados. O CV Carboval apresentou melhores resultados para as análises químicas e granulométrica, melhor permeabilidade no alto-forno e menor consumo bruto, demonstrando sua viabilidade técnica.

Aug 17, 2017

By Rosiane Mary Rezende Faleiro

A Vallourec tem investido na tecnologia de carbonização contínua com objetivo de produzir carvão vegetal, CV, de boa qualidade siderúrgica e maior rendimento na conversão madeira / CV siderúrgico, tornando o processo viável em termos técnicos e econômicos para o cenário brasileiro. O objetivo desse trabalho foi comparar, por simulação termoquímica, o impacto relativo nos consumos de CV granulado enfornado pelo topo, utilizando CV produzido por fornos retangulares de alvenaria e CV obtido no reator de carbonização contínua da Vallourec, o Carboval. A qualidade siderúrgica superior do CV Carboval permitiu reduzir o consumo específico de CV granulado em 18,2kg/t que, somando ao melhor rendimento gravimétrico e menor geração de frações finas, torna atrativa e viável esta tecnologia. Estas vantagens impulsionam o setor a sair do artesanal para o industrial na produção de CV.

Aug 17, 2017

By J. D. Davis

THIS report gives results of an investigation of the carbonizing properties of the following eastern Kentucky coals: Elkhorn No. I bed, No. 28 mine, Wayland, Floyd County; Elkhorn No. 2 bed, Turner No. 5 mine, Drift, Flood County; Leatherwood (Haddix No. 5) bed, Leatherwood mine, Leatherwood. Perry County; and Harlan bed, Path Fork mine, Path Fork, Harlan County. The carbonizing properties were determined by Bureau of Mines-American Gas Association (BM-AGA) tests at 800° and 900° C. and by expansion tests in the sole-heated oven. Plastic properties were determined by tests in the Gieseler and Davis plastometers. The coals were tested singly and as blends with 20- and 30-percent low-volatile Pocahontas No. 3 coal. The dry, mineral-matter-free, fixed-carbon content of the carbonizing samples ranged from 56.7 percent for Elkhorn No. 2 to 59.7 percent for Leatherwood, and the heating values on the moist, mineral-matter-free basis ranged from 14,420 B. t. u. per pound for Elkhorn No. 2 to 14,720 for Harlan. The percentage of ash ranged from 2.9 to 6.1. The fluidity of three coals, measurer. In the Gieseler plastometer, ranged from 230 to 670 dial divisions; the fluidity of Elkhorn No. 2 could not be determined by this method. Blending lowered the fluidity of each coal; the fluidity of the blends containing 20 and 30 percent Pocahontas No. 3 ranged from 16 to 53 and from 8 to 17 dial divisions, respectively. Agglutinating values determined on silicon carbide-coal mixtures in the ratio 15:1 ranged from 3.8 to 6.3.

Jan 1, 1952

By J. D. Davis

The carbonizing properties of No. 2-bed coal from the Bartoy mine and No. 5- or Miller-bed coal from the Wilkeson-Miller mine, both at Wilkeson, Pierce County, Wash., were determined by the Bureau of Mines-American Gas Association (BM-AGA) method. Tests were made in the 13-inch retort at 500°, 600°, and 700° C. and in the 18¬inch retort at 800°, 900°, and 1,000° C. Fischer low-temperature and United States Steel Corporation high-temperature assays were made and the results compared with those of the BM-AGA tests at corresponding temperatures. Agglutinating and plastic properties were determined, and chemical and petrographic analyses were made. The No. 2 bed is 58.5 to 88.0 inches thick at three points sampled in the Bartoy mine. The coal is 98 percent bright and contains only a trace of fusain. A composite of three mine samples contained 13.8 percent ash. The washed sample, which was used in the tests described herein, contained 11.4 percent ash, 2.2 percent moisture, and 0.6 percent sulfur upon the as-carbonized basis and 68.4 percent fixed carbon upon the dry, mineral-matter-free basis. The heating value was 15,183 B. t.u. per pound upon the moist, mineral-matter-free basis. No. 2 therefore ranks as a high-volatile A coal and is very high in that, rank. The ash softens at 2,910° F. Except for its ash content, which is higher than the limit of 9.0 percent specified by the American Society for Testing Materials, No. 2 coal fulfills the requirements of a coking coal. It also is classed as extremely friable, the friability being 88.0 percent. The agglutinating index (7.6 for the 15 : 1 ratio of silicon carbide to coal) is high, and the plasticity as indicated by the Gieseler test (60 divisions per minute) is low for a high-volatile A coal.

Jan 1, 1942

By A. C. Fieldner

In 1927 the Carbonization Committee of the American Gas Association proposed cooperation with the Bureau of Mines in the development of suitable methods for determining the carbonizing properties of American coals. It was further proposed to apply these methods in the testing of representative coals and to make the information obtained available to the public through Government publications. A cooperative agreement was signed whereby the Gas Association contributed part of the funds necessary for beginning the project and appointed a committee to consult and advise the Bureau in the work. The Advisory Committee has been reappointed each year, and the Bureau has had the benefit of its advice. The composition and carbonizing properties of 33 coals previously tested have been given in technical papers of the Bureau of Mines and in short reports published for the most part in the Proceedings of the American Gas Association. A complete list of publications on the work previous to 1937 is appended to this report. The present report gives the composition and carbonizing properties of seven additional coals from West Virginia. The data include results of blending tests in which Beckley led low-volatile coal was used with all the high-volatile coals except the Alma coal, with which Pocahontas No. 4 coal was used.

Jan 1, 1938

By J. D. Davis

THIS-report gives results of in investigation of the carbonizing properties of 18 coals, including 2 from Alaska, 12 from British Columbia, 3 from Washington, and 1 from Utah. Each coal was carbonized in the standard 13-inch Bureau of Mines-American Gas Association (BM-AGA) retort at 900° C. Plastic properties were determined by the Gieseler and Davis methods, and agglutinating and free-swelling properties were determined by standard methods. Expanding properties were measured in the Bureau of Mines sole-heated oven. From the results of the tests on these single coals, three coals from the Crowsnest area in British Columbia, representing Elk River Nos. 4, 9, and 10, were selected for blending with the Utah coal, which was from the Lower Sunnyside bed, Horse Canyon mine, Emery County. Lower Sunnyside also was blended with Wilkeson -Nos. 2 and 3 (Washington) coals, Pocahontas No. 3 from McDowell County, W. Va., and the Oklahoma low-volatile coal used in the blend carbonized at, the Provo, (Utah) coke plant at the time this investigation was started. Most of the blends contained 3 percent hard pitch, which is the proportion used at the Provo plant. The blends were also carbonized in 13-inch BM AGA retorts at 900° C. High-volatile B coal from the No. 3 bed, Evan-Jones mine, Lower Matanuska, Valley, Alaska, yielded poorly fused coke or char. M-bed coal from the Chickaloon mine, Upper Matanuska. Valley, Alaska, ranked as medium-volatile bituminous and coked strongly. It expanded 39.6 percent in the sole-heated oven at a. charge density of 55.5 pounds per cubic foot..

Jan 1, 1952

By J. D. Davis

THE CARBONIZING properties of Chilton-bed coal from Lorado No. 5 mine, HE Logan County, W. Va., were determined by Bureau of Mines-American Gas Association tests at 600°, 700°, 800°, 900°, and 1,000° C. and by expansion tests. Chemical analyses, agglutinating and plasticity tests, and low- and high-temperature assays also were included in the investigation. Blends with low-volatile Pocahontas No. 3 coal were carbonized at. 900° C. The Chilton coal bed lies in the Kanawha, or Upper Pottsville formation of the Pennsylvanian system; the estimated original reserves are nearly 3.2 billion tons. The bed was 39/1 to 57 inches thick in the Lorado No. 5 mine, and the coal was 38 to 57 inches thick. The carbonization sample contained 62.6 percent fixed carbon on the dry, mineral-matter-free, basis, and the heating value on the moist, mineral-matter-free basis was 15,190 B. t. u. per pound; it therefore ranks as high-volatile A bituminous. It contained 1.8 percent moisture, 35.2 percent volatile matter, 57.9 percent fixed carbon, 5.1 percent ash, and 0.7 percent sulfur, as carbonized. The sulfur was largely organic, and the ash softened at 2,630° F. The agglutinating value determined on a silicon carbide-coal mixture of 15:1 was 6.8. In the Gieseler test the coal softened at 327° C., fused at 407° C., attained a maximum fluidity of 5,730 dial divisions per minute at 435° C., and solidified at 487° C. Maximum resistance in the Davis plastometer was 45.5 pound-inches.

Jan 1, 1951

By J. D. Davis

THE carbonizing properties of one medium- and and five low-volatile coals from West Virginia and one high-volatile A and two medium-volatile coals from Pennsylvania were determined by 800° and 900° C. BM-AGA carbonization tests and expansion tests in the sole-heated oven. Plastic properties of the coals and the yields and quality of their cokes and other carbonization products were determined. The low-volatile coals comprised a mine and a coke-plant sample of Pocahontas No. 6-bed coal from the. Black Eagle No. 1 mine, Wyoming County, W. Va.; a mine sample of Pocahontas No. 6 bed from the Louisville mine, Mercer County, W. Va. ; Davy Sewell bed was sampled at the Twin Branch mine, McDowell County, W. Va.; and Fire Creek bed was sampled at the Dunedin No. 1 mine, Raleigh County, W. Va. The medium-volatile coals were from the Fire Creek bed, Laurel Creek mine, Greenbrier County, W. Va.; Lower Kittanning bed, Springfield No. 4 mine, Cambria County, Pa.; and Upper Kittanning bed, Springfield No. 6 mine, Clearfield County, Pa. The high-volatile A coal represented the Upper and Lower Freeport beds, Kent Nos. 1 and 2 mines, Indiana County, Pa. In addition to the coals listed, high-volatile A coal from the Pittsburgh bed, Warden mine, Allegheny County, Pa., a standard blending coal, was used in blends in this investigation.

Jan 1, 1950

By D. A. Reynolds

THIS REPORT gives results of an investigation of the carbonizing properties of two Tennessee coals, one from the Jellico bed in Campbell County and the other from the Sewanee bed in Marion County. Jellico coal and blends with 20 and 30 percent Pocahontas No. 3 coal were carbonized at 800° and 900° C. by the BM-AGA method. Sewanee coal was carbonized by the same method at 800°, 900°, and 1,000° C.; blends with coals of similar and different ranks were carbonized at 800° and 900° C. The coals were subjected to various physical and chemical tests, including complete chemical analyses, low-temperature assays, and agglutinating, free-swelling, friability, plasticity, and expansion tests. The Tennessee coal field is a part of the Appalachian field, which extends from northern Pennsylvania to central Alabama. The Jelico bed, one of the most important in the State, is part of the Jellico formation, which is above the Lee formation of the Lower Pottsville. Sewanee coal bed belongs to the Sewanee conglomerate and is stratigraphically lower than the Jellico bed.

Jan 1, 1953

By D. A. Reynolds

THIS PAPER gives results of an investigation of the composition and carbonizing properties of coals from the Beckley bed, Caretta No. 5 mine, Susanna, McDowell County, and Glen Rogers No. 2 mine, Glen Rogers, Wyoming County, W. Va. The investigation included BM-AGA carbonization tests at. 800° and 900° C. and various chemical and physical tests designed to evaluate agglutinating, plastic, and expanding properties of coal. Both coals were of low-volatile bituminous rank, and each was blended with 70 and 80 percent high-volatile A coal from the Pittsburgh bed, Warden mine, Allegheny County, Pa. The Beckley bed was 39 to 58 inches thick at three points in the Caretta No. 5 mine, and the coal was 39 to 49 inches thick. The carbonizing sample contained 83.0 percent fixed carbon on the dry, mineral-matter-free basis. It contained 3.1 percent moisture, 15.8 percent volatile matter, 72.4 percent fixed carbon, 0.7 percent sulfur, and 8.7 percent ash, as carbonized. The ash softened at 2,680° F. The free-swelling index was 7;i, and the agglutinating value was 7.7. This sample fused weakly in the Gieseler plastometer; its blends with 70 and 80 percent Pittsburgh coal attained maximum fluidities of 830 and 600 dial divisions per minute, respectively. The single coal yielded 83.0 percent coke at 900° C. Yields of other carbonization products per ton of coal at 900° C. were: Gas, 9,950 cubic feet; tar, 3.5 gallons; light oil, 1.36 gallons; and ammonium sulfate, 16.3 pounds. Blending with Pittsburgh coal lowered the yield of coke and raised the yields of other products significantly. Caretta coal yielded strong, blocky coke at 900° C., 89 percent of which was plus-2-inch size. Strength indexes of 900° C. coke from 30:70 blends of Caretta No. 5 and Pittsburgh and of Pocahontas No. 3 and Pittsburgh coals were, respectively: 2-inch shatter, 68 and 53; 1%-inch shatter, 90 and 85; 1-inch tumbler, 50 and 53; and %-inch tumbler, 62 and 65. The specific gravity of the 900° C. gas from Caretta No. 5 coal was 0.272, and the heating values were 491 B. t. u. per cubic foot and 2,440 B. t. u. per pound of coal. The blends yielded much richer gas. Yields of tar acids and bases (0.09 and 0.04 gallon per ton, respectively) were within the normal ranges for low-volatile coals. Caretta No. 5 coal expanded 7.5 percent in the sole-heated oven at a charge density of 55.5 pounds per cubic foot. The blends containing 70 and 80 percent Pittsburgh coal contracted 4.8 and 7.5 percent, respectively.

Jan 1, 1953