s 14. OS: CIR 3L19 C A Catdt S^ru3i^ STATE OF ILLINOIS WILLIAM G. STRATTON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION VERA M. BINKS, Director COKE FROM MEDIUM-VOLATILE AND ILLINOIS COALS H. W. Jackman R. L Eissler R. J. Helfinstine DIVISION OF THE ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY JOHN C. FRYE, Chief URBANA CIRCULAR 278 1959 ILLINOIS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY LIBRARY SEP 20 L SfSSfiTIftS! Sf, 0L0G| CAL SURVEY 3 3051 00003 825 COKE FROM MEDIUM -VOLATILE AND ILLINOIS COALS H. W. Jackman, R. L. Eissler, and R. J. Helfinstine ABSTRACT Successful commercial use of coal of about 22 percent vol- atile matter in coking blends containing coal from southern Illinois made it advisable for us to test other medium-volatile coals in sim- ilar blends. These eastern coals, which were very fluid in the plastic state, blended well with the less fluid Illinois coals. Blends containing medium-volatile coals from five seams were coked in our pilot oven. The cokes produced had excellent physical properties. We have concluded that medium-volatile coals of this type may be used advantageously in blends with Illinois coals to produce coke of good metallurgical quality. INTRODUCTION Illinois coals have been used continuously in blends for metallurgical coke since the days of World War II. Their use has presented certain problems in blend- ing procedure which have been studied both experimentally and on a commercial scale. Where proper procedures have been developed and followed, the use of Illi- nois coal has been found advantageous, involving no sacrifice in coke quality and reducing over-all costs. Illinois coal in the plastic state has relatively low fluidity, especially the No. 6 Coal used for coke production. The Pocahontas Coal normally used in the Chicago and St. Louis areas for blending is also low in fluidity, and when blended with Illinois No. 6, the blend may develop less fluidity than either of the component coals. If the fluidity of the blend falls below a critical value (Reed et al., 1952), the surface of the coke pieces will be rough and the percentage of breeze high. Ex- perience has indicated that such coke is not a good blast furnace fuel. Illinois No. 5 Coal develops greater fluidity than No. 6 Coal. When 20 percent or more of No. 5 Coal is added to a blend of No. 6 and Pocahontas Coals the fluidity of the blend is usually increased above the critical point, and the struc- ture and size composition of the resulting coke is greatly improved so that it may be used successfully for blast furnace fuel. This type of blend accounts for more than half of the Illinois coal currently used in metallurgical coke plants „ Eastern high-volatile coals may be used in place of Illinois No. 5 Coal to increase the fluidity of such a coal blend. Physical properties of the coke such as size and strength may partly be controlled, therefore, by the characteristics and amount of the third coal added. Another type of blend in which Illinois coal may be used as a major constit- uent is now under investigation. During World War II, while experimenting with various low-volatile coals for blending, we found one of the Pocahontas coals contained 22 percent volatile matter and had plastic characteristics very different [1] 2 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY from those of the more usual blending coals that contain from 16 to 18 percent vol- atile matter. The fluidity of this medium-volatile coal was as high as that of some of the high-volatile coals from the eastern field, yet in blends the coal had coking characteristics more nearly like those of a typical low-volatile coal. Blends of the medium-volatile Pocahontas Coal with Illinois No. 6 produced a satisfactory coke by accepted test procedures. However, as there was no inter- est at that time in trying such a blend commercially, probably because of a lower coke yield from the medium-volatile coal than from the regular Pocahontas, the mat- ter was dropped. In 19 55 interest was revived after modernization of a large medium- volatile Pocahontas mine in Tazewell County, Virginia. This coal had about 22 percent volatile matter and a Gieseler fluidity of 400 to 500 dial divisions per minute. A preliminary study, made in our laboratory, on blends of this coal and Illi- nois coals indicated that very satisfactory coke could be produced. Sometime later this medium-volatile coal was tested on a commercial scale in the Chicago area in a blend with Illinois No. 6 and a third coal. Results have not been reported officially, but a blend of this type has continued to be used. We felt, therefore, that further studies should be made with other medium-volatile coals which we believed should blend well with coals from Illinois. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to thank the coal producers and steel companies in both the Illinois and eastern areas that have furnished coals for these tests. We hope that the results obtained will be of value to all those who have helped make this study possible. PROCEDURE The movable-wall pilot coke oven in our laboratory has been used since 195 3 to evaluate coals in blends having possible commercial application. This oven, 17 inches wide, records wall pressure during carbonization and produces coke closely duplicating that made in commercial ovens. The pilot oven was used to evaluate all blends studied in the investigation. Samples of coal ranging in volatile matter from 21 to 27 percent were obtained from the Pocahontas, Jewell, Bradshaw, Sewell, and Tiller seams and were blended with No. 5 and No. 6 Coals from southern Illinois. In addition, eastern high-vola- tile coals were added as a third constituent to some blends in order more nearly to duplicate certain commercial coke practice. As medium-volatile coal loses a greater percentage of its weight during car- bonization than the lower-volatile Pocahontas, it seemed advisable to blend rela- tively high percentages of medium-volatile coal in order to maintain high yields of coke. We decided, therefore, to experiment primarily with blends containing 40 and 50 percent of the medium-volatile constituent. Other experimental blends con- taining 25 and 30 percent of certain of these coals in combination with coals from Illinois indicated that the higher percentages were not needed to produce strong cokes. The same procedure was not used for all tests with the medium-volatile coals. Some blends of medium-volatile and Illinois coals were coked over a wide range of coking time to evaluate the effect of coking rate on coke properties and expansion pressure (Jackman et al„, 1958). Other blends were evaluated at one or two normally COKE FROM MEDIUM-VOLATILE AND ILLINOIS COALS Table 1. - Analyses of Coals Used Gieseler Mo: Lsture-free i anal ysis Fluidity Dial Div. per min. Coal M. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur F.S.I. Illinois No. 6 8.9 38.5 54.4 7.1 0.94 5 37 Illinois No. 5 6.1 37.3 55.5 7.2 1.44 & 103 Eagle 2.4 36.1 60.0 3.9 0.69 8 6800 E. Kentucky (B and C) 6.0 36.4 56.8 6.8 0.64 7 460 No. 2 Gas 2.0 34.9 58.9 6.2 0.67 9 * Jewell 3.1 21.3 73.3 5.4 0.58 9 1100 Pocahontas (A) 3.7 22.5 71.2 6.3 0.60 9 * Pocahontas (b) 5.4 23.4 71.2 5.4 0.64 9 * Sewell 5.8 23.7 72.8 3.5 0.51 9 * Br ad sh aw 3.5 25.7 69.5 4.8 0.67 9 * Tiller 1.0 27.3 67.5 5.2 0.59 9 * *Coal swelled out of Gieseler cup. fast coking rates. Illinois No. 5 and No. 6 Coals were compared in blends with each of the medium-volatile coals tested. Because the medium-volatile coals were consistently high in fluidity, their blends with Illinois coals were also relatively fluid. This formed the basis of a re- lated investigation in which we showed that Illinois coal could be stockpiled through the summer months, with the usual loss in fluidity due to weathering but without detriment to the coke made from its blends with medium-volatile coal (Jackman et al., 1959). Average analyses and plastic properties of all coals used in this investiga- tion are shown in table 1. CARBONIZATION TESTS In discussing the results of the coking tests, the medium -volatile coals studied have been divided into three groups. Group 1 contains the coals of 2li to 22 1 percent volatile matter (analyses are given on the moisture-free basis through- out this report), group 2 the coals of about 23| percent volatile matter, and group 3 the coals with volatile matter content of about 25 ^ to 2l\ percent. The samples of the eastern coals were taken by the producers in the size range that would be fur- nished for metallurgical coke„ The Illinois coals used in blends were obtained from the mines by Survey staff members, and a few samples were taken from cars shipped to metallurgical coke plants. The coals were double-screened sizes between the limits of 3 inches and f inch, which has been the size range recommended for metallurgical coke use. All Illinois coals were wet-washed, some in jigs and some in heavy-media washers. Eastern high-volatile coals were obtained either directly from the mines or from coke plants in the Chicago area. They were all prepared for metallurgical coke use. 4 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Group 1 (21^ to 22| Percent Volatile Matter) The two coals in group 1 are Jewell and Pocahontas. The Jewell Coal (if" xO) contained about 2l| percent volatile matter, and the Pocahontas (f " x 0) had a vol- atile matter content of 22| percent. This medium-volatile Pocahontas Coal should not be confused with the more commonly used low-volatile Pocahontas Coal. Both the Jewell and the medium-volatile Pocahontas Coals had a free swell- ing index (F.S.I.) of 9, and both developed high Gieseler fluidities. Maximum fluidity of the Pocahontas is not shown in table 1 as it swelled out of the Gieseler cup, giving an unrealistic value. Both coals were blended with 50 and 60 percent Illinois coals, and the blends were carbonized at 16| and 19^- hours coking time. Jewell Coal was blended also with 70 and 75 percent Illinois coals and coked at the faster rate. In addition to these blends, all of which contained only Illinois and medium- volatile coals, three additional blends were tested, one containing Jewell blended with Illinois No. 6 and Eagle Coals, and the others containing medium-volatile Pocahontas blended with Illinois coals and Eastern Kentucky "B" and "C" Coals. Results of the group 1 coking tests are shown in tables 2 and 3. Analyses of the blends and cokes produced are found in the Appendix, tables A and B. In these tables the medium-volatile Pocahontas Coal is shown as Pocahontas (A) to distin- guish it from the slightly higher-volatile Pocahontas (B) tested in group 2. Jewell Coal and Pocahontas Coal (A) showed very similar coking properties in blends with Illinois No. 5 and No. 6 Coals. The high fluidity of the medium-vola- tile coals complemented the relatively low fluidity of the Illinois coals. Blends containing 40 or 50 percent medium-volatile coals and Illinois coals produced cokes ranging in ASTM tumbler stability from 58.8 to 64. 3, and in ASTM tumbler hardness from 68.9 to 70.7. Blends of the same coals containing 25 or 30 percent medium- volatile gave cokes with stability ranging from 54.9 to-58.6 and hardness from 67.1 to 67.9. Coke size from all these blends was satisfactory, the 4 by 2 inch size averaging about 68 percent of the total coke at 16| hours coking time, and 71 percent at 19^- hours. Coke fines were consistently low. The peak expansion pres- sure ranged from 1.0 to 1.4 pounds per square inch. Pocahontas (A) was blended also with equal proportions of Eastern Kentucky and Illinois coals and carbonized in 16| hours. Jewell Coal was blended similarly, but with Eagle instead of the Kentucky coal. The cokes were similar to those that contained only the Illinois and medium-volatile coals, the only apparent difference being a minor reduction in the stability index when eastern high-volatile coals were used. Group 2 (23^ Percent Volatile Matter) Both coals in group 2 contained about 23^ percent volatile matter. One was a Pocahontas coal, called here Pocahontas (B), and the other was Sewell Coal. Both coals had free swelling indices of 9, and high fluidities which could not be meas- ured accurately in the Gieseler plastometer. Both were blended with 50 and 60 per- cent Illinois coals and coked in 16| hours. Sewell Coal was blended also with 70 and 75 percent Illinois coals. Additional blends containing equal portions of Illi- nois No. 6 and West Virginia No. 2 Gas Coals were coked for comparison with those blends in which all the high-volatile coal was from the Illinois field. Cokes produced from blends with coals of this group were very similar to those produced with the group 1 coals, and all appeared to be satisfactory for blast COKE FROM MEDIUM-VOLATILE AND ILLINOIS COALS 5 furnace fuel. Tumbler stabilities of coke containing the medium-volatile Pocahontas (B) ranged from 55.5 to 58.5, and of coke containing the Sewell Coal from 56.5 to 61.7. Hardness indices of all cokes ranged from 66.1 to 69.8. Regarding coke size, the 4 by 2 inch portion averaged 65 . 6 percent of the total weight with the medium- volatile Pocahontas blends, and 66.3 percent with the Sewell blends. Coke fines were consistently low, and the expansion pressure never exceeded 1.3 pounds per square inch. Addition of No. 2 Gas Coal to the blends of Illinois and medium-volatile coals consistently increased the stability index 1 to 2 points and tended to produce slightly heavier coke. Results of the coking tests are shown in tables 4 and 5, and analyses of blends and cokes in tables C and D of the Appendix. Group 3 (25 1 to 27 \ Percent Volatile Matter) Group 3 also consists of two coals, one from the Bradshaw seam containing about 25 \ percent volatile matter and one from the Tiller containing about 27^ per- cent volatile matter. These coals also had high fluidities. They were blended in the same proportions and coked at the same rate as the other groups, except that no less than 40 percent medium-volatile coal was used in any blend. Results are shown in tables 6 and 7, and analyses of blends and cokes are given in tables E and F of the Appendix. Blends with the Bradshaw Coal produced cokes with physical properties sim- ilar to those of the other cokes described. Stability averaged 58.7 and hardness 68.4. The 4 by 2 inch size averaged 69.3 percent of the total weight, and coke fines remained low. Expansion pressure was consistently below one pound per square inch. Coke from the blend of 40 percent Bradshaw - 60 percent Illinois No. 6 was rougher in appearance, however, than the other cokes described above. A duplicate test showed the same rough surfaces, and, although this condition was not reflected in the physical tests, we concluded that the upper limit in volatile matter had about been reached for a blend of these two coals. The similar blends of 40 percent Brad- shaw with Illinois No. 5 Coal and with Illinois No. 6 and West Virginia No. 2 Gas Coals did not show this rough coke structure. Tiller Coal was similar, to the Bradshaw in that the blend with 60 percent Illinois No. 6 produced rough-appearing coke. Here again the substitution of 30 percent of No. 2 Gas for an equal amount of Illinois coal eliminated the rough ap- pearance. Tiller coke tended to have lower stability and hardness indices than cokes made from the other coals. Stability ranged from 52.1 to 56.9 and hardness from 64.8 to 66.9, being lowest in the blend with 60 percent Illinois No. 6 Coal. By the usual standards, all of these indices are satisfactory, but the fact that they tend to be lower than those of the other cokes indicates that the upper limit of volatile mat- ter is being approached. It appears, however, that blends containing 50 percent Tiller, or blends of 40 percent Tiller with both Illinois and No. 2 Gas Coals, would produce coke having satisfactory properties. (Summary and conclusions are given on p. 18) ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table 2. - Coking Tests with Jewell Coal 50% 111. No. 6 50% Jewell 50% 111. No. 5 50% Jewell Run 271E Run 269E Run 274E Run 275E 60% 111. No. 6 40% Jewell Run 351E Date of test Coking time (hr.xmin.) 3-26-57 16:30 3-19-57 19:10 4-5-57 16:30 4-11-57 19:15 Coke Physical Properties Coke Yields (% of coal) (Coke at 3% M - coal- as received) Total coke Furnace (+1") Nut (1" x £") Breeze (-£") Lbs. per sq. in. Bulk density (Lbs. per cu. ft. Pulverization (-1/8**) Flue temp. (°F) Center coke temp. (°F] Operating Data 86.1 86.6 88.1 87.5 1900 1800 1900 1800 1752 1670 1745 1657 5-21-58 16:30 Tumbler test Stability 62.6 62.7 61.7 64.1 60.8 Hardness 70.3 69.2 70.2 70.1 68.9 Shatter test +2" 82.9 89.1 78.1 83.1 80.6 +i£" 93.5 95.9 93.5 95.0 92.5 Coke sizing +4" 3.3 8.1 3.9 8.7 4.3 4" x 3" 21.9 31.2 21.0 27.9 16.4 3" x 2" 47.0 39.2 51.5 43.9 50.9 2" x 1" 22.0 16.1 18.3 14.7 23.5 1 " x i" 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.0 4" 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.1 2.9 Average size (in.) 2.44 2.70 2.49 2.71 2.41 Apparent gravity 0.85 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.84 73.1 73.8 74.6 74.4 71.4 68.9 69.9 70.7 70.9 67.9 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.3 2.1 Expansion Pre ssure 1.06 1.12 1.0 1.02 1.0 52.3 52.3 52.9 52.9 53.7 82.5 1950 1790 COKE FROM MEDIUM-VOLATILE AND ILLINOIS COALS Table 2. - Continued 30% 111. No. 6 30% Eagle 40% Jewell 70% 111. No. 6 30% Jewell 45% 111. No. 25% 111. N . 30% Jewell Run 382E 6 5 50% 111. No. 6 25% 111. No. 5 25% Jewell Run 358E Run 41 IE Run 381 E 6-24-58 16:30 1-27-59 16:30 10-14-58 16:30 10-10-58 16:30 Coke Physical Properties 58.5 58.6 57.5 54.9 68.9 67.9 67.1 67.2 75.2 78.4 81.7 77.9 91.2 92.8 93.6 92.1 2.5 3.0 3.6 3.7 16.5 16.0 17.7 18.3 51.5 48.8 51.1 49.7 24.6 26.0 22.0 22.2 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.9 3.9 3.3 3.6 2.37 2.33 2.41 2.41 0.86 0.79 0.82 0.82 Coke Yields (% of coal) (Coke at 3% M - coal as received) 72.6 69.9 70.1 69.7 69.1 65.5 66.2 65.5 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.5 Expansion Pressure 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.0 53.1 53.5 53.6 54.1 Operating Data 84.2 81.5 80.4 77.4 1950 1950 1950 1950 1808 1788 1790 1798 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table 3. - Coking Tests with Pocahontas Coal (a) 50% 111. No. 6 50% 111. No. 5 30% 111. No. 6 50% Pocahontas (A) 50% Pocahontas (A) 30% E. Kentucky 40% Pocahontas (A; Run 287E Run 286E Run 279E Run 278E Run 291E Date of test 6-6-57 6-4-57 5-2-57 4-30-57 6-27-57 Coking time (hr.:min.) 16:30 19:15 16:30 19:15 16:30 Coke Physical Properties Tumbler test Stability 61.1 64.3 61.2 64.0 55.7 Hardness 70.6 69.6 70.6 70.7 68.5 Shatter test +2" 74.6 83.5 78.7 80.1 76.4 +li" 92.8 96.2 93.9 94.1 91.8 Coke sizing +4" 4.6 4.6 3.5 8.0 4.4 4" x 3" 17.8 24.3 19.5 29.7 22.7 3" x 2" 49.5 46.6 51.0 41.0 45.4 2" x 1" 22.6 18.1 21.3 16.1 21.9 1" x i" 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.8 -§-" 3.8 4.9 3.3 3.9 3.8 Average size (in.) 2.43 2.52 2.45 2.69 2.48 Apparent gravity 0.85 0.82 0.87 0.87 0.86 Coke Yields (% of coal) (Coke at 3% M - coal as received) Total coke Furnace (+1") Nut (1" x i") Breeze (--§-") Lbs. per sq. in. Bulk density (Lbs. per cu. ft. ) Operating Data Pulverization (-1/8") 85.4 86.4 88.3 89.5 Flue temp. (°F) Center coke temp. (°F) 72.1 72.5 73.0 73.6 71.3 68.2 67.9 69.6 69.9 67.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.3 2.7 3.5 2.4 2.8 2.7 Expansion Pre ssure 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 - 53.5 53.5 53.5 53.6 51.1 1900 1800 1900 1800 1900 1685 1660 1738 1615 1742 COKE FROM MEDIUM-VOLATILE AND ILLINOIS COALS Table 3. - Continued 60% 111. No. 6 40% Pocahontas (A) 60% 111. No. 5 30% 111. No. 5 40% Pocahontas(A) 30% E. Kentucky 40% Pocahontas (A) Run 288E Run 289E Run 281E Run 280E Coke Physical Properties Tumbler test Stability Hardness Shatter test +2" +i£" Coke sizing +4" 4" x 3" 3" x 2" 2" x 1" i" x i" ill 2 Average size (in.) Apparent gravity 58.8 61.5 59.5 62.1 69.5 69.5 69.8 69.8 77.0 83.8 79.4 81.9 93.0 94.7 92.7 94.5 2.5 5.7 4.9 9.4 18.4 24.2 19.3 26.6 46.7 47.4 47.9 41.4 27.1 16.9 22.8 17.0 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.6 3.8 4.2 3.3 4.0 2.35 2.56 2.46 2.67 0.84 0.82 0.87 0.85 Coke Yields (% of coal) (Coke at 3% M - coal as received] Total coke Furnace (+1") Nut (1" x i") Breeze (-i") Lbs. per sq. in. Bulk density (Lbs. per cu. ft. Pulverization (-1/8") Flue temp. (°F) Center coke temp. (°F> Operating Data 83.8 86.0 86.0 Run 282E Date of test 6-11-57 6-13-57 5-9-57 5-7-57 5-15-57 Coking time (hr.:min.) 16:30 19:15 16:30 19:15 16:30 56.6 69.5 71.0 90.2 5.4 23.4 39.0 27.2 1.2 3.8 2.46 0.89 70.6 71.1 72.1 72.5 72.1 67.0 67.0 68.5 68.4 68.5 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 2.6 2.9 2.4 2.9 2.7 Expansion Pr essure 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.05 53.2 53.0 52.7 52.4 53.6 85.1 900 1800 1900 1800 1900 685 1662 1724 1650 1750 10 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table 4. - Coking Tests with Pocahontas Coal (B) 50% 111. No. 6 50% 111. No. 5 2b% 111. No. 5 50# Pocahontas (B) 50% Pocahontas (B) 25% No. 2 Gas 50* Pocahontas (B) Run 333E Run 337E Run 335E Date of test 3-11-58 3-25-58 3-18-58 Coking time (hr.:min.) 16:30 16:30 16:30 Coke Physical Properties Tumbler test Stability 57.4 57.0 58.5 Hardness 67.9 67.9 69.0 Shatter test +2" 68.9 80.5 73.0 +l£" 90.8 92.5 90.6 Coke sizing +4" 1.7 1.5 2.5 4" x 3" 17.2 14.9 18.3 3" x 2" 48.5 49.4 48.4 2" x 1" 27.6 29.3 25.9 1" x £" 2.0 2.1 2.1 -*" 3.0 2.8 2.8 Average size (in.) 2.33 2.28 2.37 Apparent gravity 0.87 0.895 0.88 Coke Yields (% of coal) (Coke at 3* M - coal as received) Total coke Furnace (+1") Nut (1" x £") Breeze (-£") Lbs. per sq. in. Bulk density (Lbs. per cu. ft. ) Pulverization (-1/8") Flue temp. (°F) Center coke temp. (°F) 70.7 72.5 73.2 67.1 69.0 69.5 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.2 2.0 2.1 Expansion Pressure 0.97 0.99 1.17 54.3 53.7 54.5 Operating Data 86.2 89.7 85.8 1950 1950 1950 1790 1789 1808 COKE FROM MEDIUM-VOLATILE AND ILLINOIS COALS 11 Table 4. - Continued 60% 111. No. 6 30% 111. No. 6 40% Pocahont as(B) 30% No. 2 Gas 40% Pocahontas (B) Run 334E Run 336E Date of test 3-13-58 3-20-58 Coking time (hr.:min.) 16:30 16:30 Coke Physical Propert ies Tumbler test Stability 55.5 56.9 Hardness 66.9 68.5 Shatter test +2" 71.0 74.5 +ii" 91.0 90.6 Coke sizing +4" 2.4 1.6 4" x 3" 14.8 18.5 3" x 2" 49.0 49.2 2" x 1" 28.6 25.2 1" x i" 2.0 2.4 4" 3.2 3.1 Average size (in. Apparent gravity 2.30 0.85 Coke Yields (% of coal) (Coke at 3% M - coal as received) Total coke 69.7 Furnace (+1") 66.1 Nut (1" x i") 1.4 Breeze (-4") 2.2 Expansion Pressure Lbs. per sq. in. Bulk density (Lbs. per cu. ft. ) Pulverization (-1/8") Flue temp. (°F) Center coke temp. (°F) 0.86 53.9 Operating Data 85.7 1950 1790 2.35 0.88 72.4 68.5 1.7 2.2 1.08 53.8 84.8 1950 1802 12 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table 5. - Coking Tests with Sewell Coal 50% 111. No. 6 60% 111. No. 6 60% 111. No. 5 50% Sewell 40% Sewell 40% Sewell Run 353E Run 354E Run 41 6E Date of test 6-3-58 6-5-58 2-13-59 Coking time (hr. :min. ) 16:30 16:30 16:30 Coke Physical Properties Tumbler test Stability 60.3 59.0 61.3 Hardness 69.2 66.1 69.8 Shatter test +2" 79.9 76.2 82.9 +ii" 92.5 90.1 93.5 Coke sizing +4" 2.7 3.3 1.8 4" x 3" 19.5 21.2 13.7 3" x 2" 49.4 46.9 51.3 2" x 1" 23.3 22.8 28.4 1" x i" 2.0 1.6 1.8 4" 3.1 4.2 3.0 Average size Apparent gravity in. 2.41 0.82 2.43 0.80 Coke Yields (% of coal) (Coke at 3% M - coal as received) Total coke Furnace (+1") Nut (1" x i") Breeze (-£") 70.4 66.8 1.4 2.2 Expansion Pressure 69.8 65.8 1.1 2.9 Lbs. per sq. in. Bulk density (lbs. per cu. ft.) 1.11 53.4 Operating Data 0.98 50.6 Pulverization (-1/6 !») 85.7 82.6 Flue temp. (°F) Center coke temp. ( op) 1950 1830 1950 1830 2.29 0.84 71.5 68.0 1.3 2.2 1.24 53.1 82.6 1970 1827 COKE FROM MEDIUM-VOLATILE AND ILLINOIS COALS 13 Table 5. - Continued 25% 111. No. 6 25% No. 2 Gas 50% Sewell 30% 111. No. 6 30% No. 2 Gas 40% Sewell Run 362E 45% ill. No. 25% 111. No. 30% Sewell 6 5 50% 111. No. 6 25% 111. No. 5 25% Sewell Run 361E Run 386E Run 385E 7-3-58 16:30 7-8-58 16:30 10-27-58 16:30 10-23-58 16:30 Coke Physical Properties 60.3 59.4 56.5 68.1 68.9 68.1 77.8 71.1 77.9 94.3 90.8 91.5 2.8 3.9 2.7 14.9 14.5 13.8 52.9 45.7 49.4 24.0 29.7 27.3 2.3 2.4 2.8 3.1 3.8 4.0 2.36 2.30 2.28 0.84 0.80 0.81 Coke Yields (% of coal) (Coke at 3% M - coal as received) 73.4 71.6 70.6 70.0 69.6 67.8 66.2 65.2 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.2 2.7 2.8 1.23 1.30 1.12 1.00 53.0 53.9 53.7 53.2 61, ,7 69. ,5 81. ,1 92, ,4 3. ,2 19, ,3 51, ,8 20, ,5 2, ,1 3. .1 2, ,45 0, ,84 71.6 70.6 67.8 66.2 1.6 1.7 2.2 2.7 E xpansion Pressure 1.30 1.12 53.9 53.7 Operating Data 81.7 81.1 1950 1950 1808 1789 89.2 81.7 81.1 79.1 1950 1950 1950 1950 1805 1808 1789 1795 14 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table 6. - Coking Tests with Bradshaw Coal 50% 111. No. 6 50% Bradshaw 50% 111. No. 5 50% Bradshaw Average size (in.) Apparent gravity Total coke Furnace (+1") Nut (1" x i") Breeze (-£") Lbs. per sq. in. Bulk density (Lbs. per cu. ft.) Pulverization (-1/8") Flue temp. (°F) Center coke temp. (°F) 2.42 0.86 2.39 0.87 Coke Yields (% of coal) (Coke at 3% M - coal as received) 70.0 72.4 67.4 69.1 0.8 1.2 1.8 2.1 xpansion Pressure 0.90 0.79 54.5 55.2 Operating Data 89.1 83.5 1950 1950 1828 1781 25% 111. No. 6 25% No. 2 Gas 50% Bradshaw Run 305E Run 326E Run 307E Date of test 10-29-57 2-6-58 11-5-57 Coking time (hr.:min.) 16:30 16:30 16:30 Coke Physical Properties Tumbler test Stability 61.2 59.7 57.7 Hardness 69.2 68.5 68.5 Shatter test +2" 81.0 78.3 79.0 +l£ M 93.4 94.3 93.8 Coke sizing +4" 3.7 2.7 3.9 4" x 3" 15.8 16.4 19.3 3" x 2" 53.7 52.6 53.0 2" x 1" 23.0 23.8 18.7 i" x £•• 1.2 1.7 1.6 4" 2.6 2.8 3.5 2.48 0.87 72.6 69.0 1.1 2.5 0.98 53.6 81.4 1950 1830 COKE FROM MEDIUM-VOLATILE AND ILLINOIS COALS 15 Table 6. - Continued 60* 111. No. 6 40* Br ad sh aw 60* 111. No. 5 40* Br ad shaw Average size (in.) Apparent gravity Total coke Furnace (+1") Nut (1" x i") Breeze (-£") Lbs. per sq. in. Bulk density (Lbs. per cu. ft.) Pulverization (-1/8") Flue temp. (°F) Center coke temp. (°F) 2.45 0.86 2.36 0.88 Coke Yields (* of coal) (Coke at 3* M - coal as received) 69.2 71.1 66.4 67.5 0.8 1.5 2.0 2.1 Expansion Pressure 0.84 0.95 54.1 54.9 Operating data 87.6 83.0 1950 1950 1830 1799 30* 111. No. 6 30* No. 2 Gas 40* Br ad shaw Run 306E Run 328E Run 308E Date of test 10-31-57 2-14-58 11-7-57 Coking time (hr.imin.) 16:30 16:30 16:30 Coke Physical Properties Tumbler test Stability 57.7 58.0 58.0 Hardness 67.6 68.6 68.2 Shatter test +2" 79.5 79.0 75.0 +i£" 92.0 91.9 92.0 Coke sizing +4" 3.0 1.6 5.0 4" x 3" 23.1 16.0 22.7 3" x 2" 44.0 54.3 45.2 2" x 1" 25.9 23.0 22.2 i" x i" 1.2 2.1 1.4 "*2 2.8 3.0 3.5 2.50 0.86 71.9 68.3 1.0 2.6 0.90 54.0 86.5 1950 1824 16 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table 7. - Coking Tests with Tiller Coal 50% 111. No. 6 50% 111. No. 5 25% 111. No. 6 50% Tiller 50% Tiller 25% No. 2 Gas 50% Tiller Run 340E Run 338E Run 342E Date of test 4-3-58 3-27-58 4-10-58 Coking time (hr.:min.) 16:30 16:30 16:30 Coke Physical Properties Tumbler test Stability 56.9 56.1 54.7 Hardness 66.6 66.6 66.8 Shatter test +2" 73.1 77.4 75.3 +ii" 92.3 91.6 92.9 Coke sizing +4" 2.2 3.9 2.6 4" x 3" 17.3 15.9 15.9 3" x 2" 52.7 48.1 52.4 2" x 1" 22.5 27.1 23.8 1" x £" 1.9 1.9 2.2 i it ~2 3.4 3.1 3.1 Average size (in.) 2.38 2.36 2.36 Apparent gravity 0.85 0.89 0.89 Coke Yields (% of coal) (Coke at 3% M - coal as received) 73.5 69.6 1.6 2.3 0.98 53.3 Total coke Furnace ( + 1") Nut (1" x i") Breeze (-§-") 71.7 67.9 1.4 2.4 73.7 70.2 1.3 2.2 Expansion Pressure Lbs. per sq. in, Bulk density (Lbs. per < ;u. ft.) 0.91 53.1 0.85 54.6 Operating Data Pulverization (■ -i/e 1") 89.7 87.9 Flue temp. (°F) Center coke term 3. ( op) 1950 1749 1950 1788 89.8 1950 1819 COKE FROM MEDIUM-VOLATILE AND ILLINOIS COALS 17 Table 7. - Continued 60% 111. No. 6 40% Tiller Run 341E 60% 111. No. 5 Tiller Run 339E 30% 111. No. ( 30% No. 2 Gas 40% Tiller Run 345E Date of test Coking time (hr.:min.) Tumbler test Stability Hardness Shatter test +2" Coke sizing +4" 4" x 3" 3" x 2" 2" x 1" 1 " x i" JLti 2 Average size (in.) Apparent gravity 4-8-58 4-1-58 16:30 16:30 Coke Physical Properties 54.5 52.1 64.8 65.3 75.3 76.7 91.5 91.4 3.9 2.0 11.8 14.3 52.5 50.4 26.3 27.8 2.1 2.2 3.4 3.3 2.32 2.29 0.84 0.86 Coke Yields (% of coal) 'Coke at 3% M - coal as received) Total coke Furnace (+1") Nut (1" x £") Breeze (-■§-") Lbs. per sq. in. Bulk density (Lbs. per cu. ft. ) Pulverization (-1/8") Flue temp. (°F) Center coke temp. (°F) 69.7 71.7 65.9 67.8 1.4 1.5 2.4 2.4 ansion Pr< assure 0.99 0.97 52.9 52.2 Operat: Lng Data 88.5 85.6 1950 1950 1819 1780 4-22-58 16:30 56.2 66.9 74.1 90.7 3.0 15.8 51.3 24.5 2.3 3.1 2.36 0.87 72.6 68.7 1.6 2.3 1.07 52.8 85.4 1950 1835 18 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The successful commercial use of coals of about 22 percent volatile matter in blends containing an appreciable quantity of Illinois coal made it desirable to evaluate medium-volatile coals from several sources in blends of this type. These medium-volatile coals are more highly fluid in the plastic state than are low-volatile Pocahontas Coals, and they blend well with the less fluid coals from Illinois. Six medium-volatile coals from five seams were studied in blends with the Illinois No. 5 and No. 6 Coals. In addition, other blends containing medium-volatile, Illinois, and eastern high-volatile coking coals were carbonized and the cokes were evaluated. Cokes made from these blends appeared to have good metallurgical properties. Strength indices were consistently high, and the major portion of the coke was in the 4 by 1 inch size range. The percentage of furnace size coke tended to be high and the yield of coke fines was consistently low. Expansion pressure during car- bonization never exceeded a safe limit, even with 50 percent of medium-volatile coal in the blend. Excellent coke was made with as much as 70 to 75 percent of Illinois coal in the blend with the medium-volatile coals of 2l| to 23-| percent volatile matter. The tests made indicate that less Illinois coal should be used as the volatile matter in the eastern coal approaches 27 j percent, which was the high- est volatile content of any medium-volatile coal studied in this series of tests. We have concluded that, due to their high fluidity and strongly coking propr- erties, medium-volatile coals of the type studied may be used advantageously in blends with the coals of Illinois to produce coke of good metallurgical quality. REFERENCES Jackman, H. W. , Eissler, R. L. , and Helfinstine, R. J., 1959, Stockpiling Illinois coal for coke: Illinois Geol. Survey Circ. 274. Jackman, H. W. , Eissler, R. L. , and Helfinstine, R. J., 1958, Influence of coking time on expansion pressure and coke quality: Illinois Geol. Survey Circ. 246. Reed, F. H., Jackman, H. W. , Rees, O. W., and Henline, P. W. , 1952, Some observations on the blending of coals for metallurgical coke: Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, v. 40, no. 3, p. 305-311, 344. Reprinted as Illinois Geol. Survey Circ 178. COKE FROM MEDIUM-VOLATILE AND ILLINOIS COALS 19 APPEND IX Analytical and Coking Results Table A. - Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 2 Moisture-free analysis Run No. M. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur F.S.I. 50% Illinois No. 6 50% Jewell 271E Blend 3.8 30.2 63.3 6.5 0.84 7§- Coke 26 9E Blend Coke 274E Blend 3.0 Coke 275E Blend 3.1 29.5 63.8 6.7 1.56 8£ Coke 1 30.2 1.0 63.3 90.4 6.5 8.6 0.84 0.64 ! 29.6 1.5 63.9 89.9 6.5 8.6 0.85 0.66 50% Illinois 50% Jewell No. 5 l 28.8 1.1 64.7 90.0 6.5 8.9 1.30 1.07 29.5 1.5 63.8 89.7 6.7 8.8 1.56 1.14 60% Illinois 40% Jewell No. 6 1 31.4 1.2 62.1 89.9 6.5 8.9 0.77 0.62 30% Illinois 30% Eagle 40% Jewell No. 6 i 31.1 1.2 63.1 90.9 5.8 7.9 0.71 0.61 351E 31end 5.8 31.4 62.1 6.5 0.77 % Coke 358E Blend 4.0 Coke 70% Illinois No. 6 Jewell 411E Blend 5.7 32.6 60.8 6.6 0.77 7 Coke 1.3 89.8 8.9 0.59 45% Illinois No. 6 25% Illinois No. 5 30% Jewell 382E Blend 4.7 33.7 59.3 7.0 1.16 6£ Coke 1.2 89.0 9.8 0.94 50% Illinois No. 6 25% Illinois No. 5 25% Jewell 381E Blend 5.7 33.8 58.7 7.5 1.15 7 Coke 1.5 88.1 10.4 0.92 20 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table B. - Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 3 Moisture-free analysis Run No. M. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur F.S.I. 50% Illinois No. 6 50% Pocahontas (A) 5.5 30.3 62.9 6.8 0.75 8£ 2.5 88.5 9.0 0.68 5.1 30.5 62.7 6.8 0.81 85- 287E Blend Coke 286E Blend Coke Blend Coke Blend Coke Illinois No. 5 50% Pocahontas (A) 279E Blend 3.8 Coke 278E Blend 4.0 Coke 30% Illinois No. 6 30% E. Kentucky 40% Pocahontas (A) 291E Blend 4.6 32.0 61.1 6.9 0.69 % Coke 2.5 87.9 9.6 0.65 29.4 63.7 6.9 1.01 9 1.4 89.3 9.3 0.89 29.7 63.6 6.7 1.01 8^ 1.8 88.8 9.4 0.88 60% Illinois No. 6 40% Pocahontas (A) 5.6 5.6 32.1 61.2 6.7 0.76 2.2 88.3 9.5 0.67 32.2 61.1 6.7 0.79 1.8 88.4 9.8 0.66 Illinois No. 5 40% Pocahontas (A) 281E Blend 4.1 Coke 280E Blend 4.2 Coke 30% Illinois No. 5 30% E. Kentucky 40% Pocahontas (A) 282E Blend 3.3 31.4 62.1 6.5 0.82 Coke 1.3 89.7 9.0 0.77 31.1 62.2 6.7 1.06 1.5 88.9 9.6 0.91 31.1 62.0 6.9 1.14 1.8 88.8 9.4 0.95 COKE FROM MEDIUM-VOLATILE AND ILLINOIS COALS 21 Table C. - Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 4 Moisture-free analysis Run No. M. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur F.S.I. 50% Illinois No. 6 50% Pocahontas (B) 333E Blend 5.1 30.5 63.4 6.1 0.75 8i Coke 337E Blend 3.8 Coke 335E Blend 3.0 Coke 334E Blend 5.2 31.7 62.3 6.0 0.78 Coke 336E Blend 3.0 Coke 30.5 63.4 6.1 0.75 1.3 90.4 8.3 0.64 50% Illinois No. 5 50% Pocahontas (B) 1 30.1 64.0 5.9 1.01 1.2 90.8 8.0 0.86 25% Illinois No. 5 25% No. 2 Gas 50% Pocahontas(B) l 29.9 64.2 5.9 0.73 1.2 91.0 7.8 0.62 60% Illinois No. 6 40% Pocahontas (B) ! 31.7 62.3 6.0 0.78 1.2 90.4 8.4 0.62 30% Illinois No. 6 30% No. 2 Gas 40% Pocahontas (B) 1 30.6 63.6 5.8 0.73 1.1 91.0 7.9 0.65 22 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table D. - Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 5 Moisture-free analysis Run No. M. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur F.S.I. 50% Illinois No. 6 50% Sewell 353E Blend 5.6 31.4 63.6 5.0 0.69 8£ Coke 354E Blend 7.2 32.8 61.6 5.6 0.72 7^ Coke 416E Blend 4.2 Coke 361E Blend 4.2 30.4 64.6 5.0 0.61 8£ Coke 31.4 1.4 63.6 91.5 5.0 7.1 0.69 0.51 60% Illinois 40% Sewell No. 6 ! 32.8 1.4 61.6 90.8 5.6 7.8 0.72 0.53 60% Illinois 40% Sewell No. 5 ! 31.4 1.3 63.2 91.2 5.4 7.5 1.13 0.95 25% Illinois 25% No. 2 Ga; 50% Sewell No. 6 ! 30.4 1.4 64.6 91.8 5.0 6.8 0.61 0.47 30% Illinois 30% No. 2 Ga; 40% Sewell No. 6 1 31.3 0.9 63.6 92.0 5.1 7.1 0.61 0.50 45% Illinois 25% Illinois 30% Sewell No. 6 No. 5 1 32.7 1.2 60.9 89.7 6.4 9.1 1.08 0.96 50% Illinois 25% Illinois 25% Sewell No. 6 No. 5 1 33.3 1.1 60.2 89.6 6.5 9.3 1.13 0.98 362E Blend 3.8 31.3 63.6 5.1 0.61 Coke 386E Blend 4.8 Coke 385E Blend 5.3 33.3 60.2 6.5 1.13 6£ Coke COKE FROM MEDIUM-VOLATILE AND ILLINOIS COALS 23 Table E. - Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 6 Moisture-free analysis Run No. M. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur F.S.I. 50% Illinois No. 6 50% Bradshaw 305E Blend 3.8 Coke 326E Blend 4.0 Coke 307E Blend 3.9 31.2 62.7 6.1 0.78 8£ Coke 308E Blend 4.0 Coke ! 31.3 1.1 62.9 90.4 5.8 8.5 0.82 0.69 50% Illinois 50% Bradshaw No. 5 1 31.3 1.2 62.9 91.0 5.8 7.8 1.21 0.95 25% Illinois 25% No. 2 Gas 50% Bradshaw No. 6 » 31.2 1.7 62.7 90.1 6.1 8.2 0.78 0.61 60% Illinois 40% Bradshaw No. 6 '. 33.1 1.5 60.9 89.6 6.0 8.9 0.89 0.74 60% Illinois 40% Bradshaw No. 5 ) 32.6 1.2 61.2 90.6 6.2 8.2 1.30 1.04 30% Illinois 30% No. 2 Gas 40% Bradshaw No. 6 ) 33.1 1.3 61.4 90.6 5.5 8.1 0.76 0.67 306E Blend 5.2 33.1 60.9 6.0 0.89 l\ Coke 328E Blend 4.0 Coke 24 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table F. - Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 7 Moisture-free analysis Run No. M. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur F.S.I. 50% Illinois No. 6 50% Tiller 340E Blend 4.6 32.6 61.4 6.0 0.75 9 Coke 1.0 90.6 8.4 0.60 Illinois No. 5 50% Tiller 338E Blend 3.4 31.7 62.4 5.9 0.92 9 Coke 1.4 90.5 8.1 0.76 25% Illinois No. 6 25% No. 2 Gas 50% Tiller 342E Blend 3.1 31.7 62.3 6.0 0.70 8£ Coke 1.0 90.9 8.1 0.58 60% Illinois No. 6 40% Tiller 341E Blend 5.6 33.7 60.1 6.2 0.77 9 Coke 0.9 90.5 8.6 0.63 60% Illinois No. 5 Tiller 339E Blend 4.0 32.9 61.0 6.1 1.04 Coke 1.0 90.5 8.5 0.81 30% Illinois No. 6 30% No. 2 Gas Tiller 345E Blend 3.0 32.2 61.8 6.0 0.70 Coke 0.9 90.8 8.3 0.59 Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 278 24 p., 7 tables, app., 1959 CIRCULAR 278 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY URBANA