5 STATE OP ILLINOIS WILLIAM G. STRATTON. Governor DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION VERA M. BINKS. Director DIVISION OP THE STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY JOHN C. PRYE. Chief URBANA REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS 187 CHAR FOR METALLURGICAL COKE BY F. H. REED, H. W. JACKMAN, and P. W. HENLINE PRINTBD BY AUTHORITY OF THB STATE OF ILLINOIS URBANA, ILLINOIS 1955 ^^^ ^'^T r^:. Mn\/ 20 < X o 10 \ ^ , ^"^^o*^ • A • • • • ^^*"**» • 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 MEASURED TEMPERATURE {*'F) Fig. 4. — Char volatile matter vs. measured internal char temoeraturc. 1050 noo of the bottom plate. However, the best in- dication of actual char temperature was ob- tained by suspending a couple inside the re- tort near the discharge end just above floor level so that it would contact the thin tur- bulent bed of char. FACTORS AFFECTING VOLATILE MATTER Study of operating temperatures and char analyses indicates that the volatile matter of any char is directly dependent on the temperature attained by the char in the re- tort. As char does not have sufficient time to reach an equilibrium temperature with the floor plate, its attained temperature is influenced by any operating variable, i.e., feed rate, retention time, or even the ag- glutinating characteristics of the coal. Therefore, close regulation of all operating details is essential. Assuming proper pre- treatment of coal and a sturdily built uni- formly heated retort, the control of char volatile matter becomes a problem of regu- lating the coal feed rate and the retention time in the retort. There is some doubt as to the accuracy of temperature measurements inside the re- tort owing to the thin bed of turbulent char and the effect of radiation from the retort floor. However, char temperatures taken in the turbulent bed correlate more closely with volatile matter than do temperatures taken at any exterior point. A compilation of data obtained at various feed rates over the temperature range studied has resulted in the curve shown in figure 4, relating char volatile matter and char temperature as measured inside the retort. Coals for Char Any coal to be charred in the retort should pass through the heating cycle with a minimum of agglomeration. There are no noncoking coals in or near Illinois, so coals from the various seams mined in the State were used in this study. No. 6 coal from southern Illinois seemed to approximate most closely ideal conditions, as its uniform- ly low plastic properties could be reduced sufficiently by simple oxidation. However, METALLURGICAL COKE FROM COAL-CHAR BLENDS 15 the No. 2 and No. 5 coals have been charred successfully after the required amount of oxidation. Char also has been produced from a Colorado noncoking coal and from a Utah coal with plastic properties similar to Illi- nois No. 6. The usual pretreatment was given these coals, and both were charred without difficulty. After some preliminary investigation, all coals processed in the pilot retort have been pulverized to pass through a ^-inch screen. The following size analysis is representative of the prepared coal : Plus 8 m . 8 m X 28 m 28 m X 48 m 48 m X 65 m 65 m X 100 m Minus 100 m 3.5% 50.1% 20.9% 7.6% 5.8% 12.1% Char Yields from Illinois Coal The yield of char from any coal depends on moisture loss during drying and on the extent of devolatilization during carboniza- tion. Yields obtained in the pilot retort were computed on 40 experimental runs with Illinois No. 6 coal and are listed in table 1 over the range of char volatile mat- ter studied. Characteristics of Char Char produced in the pilot retort from Illinois coal is free flowing and consists of particles only slightly larger than the orig- inal pulverized coal. Fine dust has agglom- erated with larger particles so that there are few extreme fines, and the char does not ap- pear to be dusty. The char particles have a semifused appearance, many having ex- panded into cenospheres with an impervious obsidian-like inner surface. The particles are soft and easily pulverized ; they oifer little resistance to breakage into fine-sized material suitable for blending with coal for coke manufacture. Char is lighter in weight than the pul- verized coal from which it is made. That produced in our pilot plant has a bulk den- sity of about 26 pounds per cu. ft. as com- pared with 50 pounds for the coal. Determinations of total surface area (Brunauer et al., 1938) of the chars made in our laboratory show them to be rela- tively nonporous, with less surface than the coal from which they were made. Table 2 lists the results of total surface-area deter- minations on a number of coals, chars, and cokes. Reduction in surface area during the charring process indicates that fusing of coal material has sealed off or destroyed much of the capillary pore structure, and may ac- count for the fact that these chars have never heated spontaneously after their in- itial cooling. METALLURGICAL COKE FROM COAL-CHAR BLENDS The primary objective of this investiga- tion has been to learn how char might be used in place of low-volatile coal to produce metallurgical coke. Consequently many of the chars made in the pilot retort have been coked in blends with high-volatile coals and the cokes evaluated by standard chemical and physical tests. Early results indicated that chars made from various Illinois coals were not sufficiently different in their prop- erties to make the choice of coal a critical factor. Table 1. — Char Yields from Illinois No. 6 Coal Char volatile matter Char yields Percent % of pretreated coal as charged % of original coal as received 14 0-15 9 78.7 81.4 83.1 84.6 89.4 92.7 69 3 16.0-17 9 71 1 18 0-19 9 72 8 20 0-21 .9 73 5 22 0-23.9 77.8 24.0-24 5 . 81.3 16 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table 2. — Total Surface Area of Representative Coals, Chars, AND Coke Surface area Square meters per gram Coal Low-volatile bituminous Pocahontas No. 3 2.7 High-volatile A bituminous Illinois No. 5 (Gallatin Co.) 1.75 Pittsburgh seam 1.6 High-volatile B bituminous Illinois No. 6 (1) 9.2 Illinois No. 6 (2) 8.3 High-volatile C bituminous Illinois No. 6 66.3 Illinois No. 5 78 7 Char Vibrating retort From Illinois No. 6 2.58 to 3.95 From Colorado noncoking coal 3.33 From Utah Hiawatha 3.61 Disco pilot retort From Illinois No. 6 1.97 Bureau of Mines fluidized-bed retort From Illinois No. 6 2.67 Coke High-temperature 3.8 Breeze (V.M. = 1.2%) 7.51 No special study was made on char pul- verization as It affected the coking proper- ties of blends of coal and char. In normal operating procedure, the char to be blended was first pulverized in the hammer mill generally used for preparing coals, but a Vg-Inch cradle screen was substituted for the usual %-Inch screen. Pulverized char was mixed with the coal and the mixture passed through the hammer mill, set to yield a coal 80 percent minus 1/8 Inch. Final blending of the coal-char mixture was ac- complished by hand shoveling on the lab- oratory floor. Char Volatile Matter range for optimum coking properties Previously published Investigations (Price and Woody, 1944; Thompson, 1946) of the use of char In metallurgical coke blends have been In agreement that char volatile matter must be kept within a narrow range for optimum coking results. The validity of this premise might well be the determin- ing factor in the commercial use of char, as the expense of maintaining volatile mat- ter In a narrow range might Increase the cost of char production. To determine the optimum volatile-mat- ter range of chars from Illinois coals, we produced series of chars with volatile mat- ter ranging from 15 to 24 percent. These were coked in blends with both strongly coking Eastern coals and lower-rank coking coals of Illinois. Results of representative series of these coking tests are shown In table 3 and Indicate that the actual volatile- matter content of Illinois char within this range Is not critical and tends to have little or no effect on the properties of the cokes produced. In Japan It was found that char of 12 percent volatile matter was unsatisfactory. There are without doubt both upper and lower limits for volatile matter In the Illi- nois char, but as the range appears to be very wide the commercial production and use of this char would be simplified. It was not considered advisable to devola- tlllze char to much under 15 percent In our retort, so the lower limit of volatile matter for best coke practice could not be deter- mined. However, to prove that such a limit does exist, a test was made using coke breeze of about 1 percent volatile matter In place of char. The results shown In table 4 Indl- CHAR VOLATILE MATTER 17 Table 3. — Char Volatile Matter vs. Coke Properties Run No. Cha V. M. % Blend Bulk density Maximum fluidity Cokf Tumbler Stability Hardness Shatter +2" +13^' Sizing +2" -^ Appar. gravity 545 521 522 547 544 539 541 526 524 546 514 513 511 516 520 505 504 459 463 460 461 462 464 468 14.8 18.9 19.2 23.8 14.8 16.6 18.5 18.7 20.3 23.8 16.1 17.0 17.5 18.1 19.2 22.0 22.9 17.3 17.8 17.9 18.4 18.4 18.5 20.6 80% Eagle- -20% char 47.4 swelled 50.6 70.3 61.5 82.7 69.1 3.2 .904 48.0 li 46.2 70.9 58.0 84.0 69.3 3.6 .961 47.7 a 46.1 71.5 60.1 83.0 73.7 3.2 .968 48.6 u 50.7 68.6 67.3 86.7 72.6 3.5 .972 583^% 111. No. 6—213^% Eagle— 20% char 46.4 7.2 44.9 62.6 64.1 85.9 70.7 5.0 .816 45.7 4.0 45.2 62.4 63.1 86.8 69.8 4.8 .790 47.2 5.9 43.4 62.1 66.1 86.2 69.3 4.7 .780 46.5 7.2 44.8 62.4 69.5 88.5 71.5 4.3 .784 47.6 4.8 45.2 62.1 65.9 86.7 69.5 4.8 .796 48.1 5.1 43.6 63.4 69.9 87.7 72.2 4.8 .826 581^% 111. No. 6-213^% 111. No. 5—20% char 46.2 5.1 43.5 58.4 70.4 87.6 74.7 6.5 .764 47.8 7.3 38.6 56.9 68.5 86.5 73.3 7.5 .775 47.9 3.6 40.1 57.1 69.9 86.7 74.9 7.2 .766 48.1 3.8 39.8 57.3 62.1 85.3 72.3 6.6 .795 48.1 6.1 38.1 58.7 67.2 87.3 74.4 6.0 .788 48.1 2.2 36.6 51.0 65.9 84.7 69.5 10.9 .792 48.3 3.8 39.8 57.3 61.5 85.5 70.7 8.0 .783 80% 111. No. 5- -20% char 42.4 4.7 50.7 63.8 57.8 87.7 73.5 4.2 .746 43.7 19.1 42.9 62.4 58.7 83.3 70.3 3.7 .800 42.3 7.3 48.9 63.1 63.6 88.6 72.3 4.3 .719 46.6 8.0 46.5 63.8 54.2 84.8 65.8 4.7 .795 43.4 7.1 48.6 63.0 58.9 86.6 71.9 4.0 .748 44.7 15.0 46.9 64.2 59.5 85.6 69.4 3.8 .762 43.6 9.7 42.5 58.8 67.8 88.7 77.2 4.2 .779 80% 111. No. 6- -20% char 453 .. . 15.5 41.7 1.2 43.8 60.0 68.7 87.7 71.9 6.4 .717 455 .. . 16.6 38.9 1.7 36.0 52.5 68.4 87.7 74.6 10.3 .680 465 .. . 18.4 43.1 1.7 44.4 55.6 65.7 86.9 73.5 8.1 .703 467 .. . 20.6 43.5 1.8 38.0 52.7 68.3 87.3 73.1 7.5 .715 451 . . . 22.0 42.3 1.3 35.8 51.6 66.7 87.2 72.4 8.4 .718 cate that breeze is very much inferior to any char tested. In this test the coke breeze was pulverized to approximately the same size consist as the char, and all other operating conditions remained unchanged. Also shown in table 4 are results of cok- ing tests in which Disco rotary-drum chars of relatively low volatile-matter content are used. These chars are made from the same Illinois coal as those produced in our retort. Indications are that the char containing only 12 percent volatile matter is of poor quality. UNIFORMITY AS A FACTOR AFFECTING COKING PROPERTIES Price and Woody (1944), Thompson (1946), and others have thought it neces- sary to have all char particles uniform in composition. To check this theory with the Illinois chars, several blends have been coked in which the char used was a half- and-half mixture of two chars having very different volatile-matter content (15 and 24 percent). Cokes were compared with those made from blends containing the in- dividual chars, and results are shown in ta- 18 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table 4. — Indication of Lower Limit of Char Volatile Matter (Blend-583^% 111. No. 6, 213^% Eagle, 20% char) Char Blend Coke Run No. V. M. Bulk Maximum Tumbler Shatter Sizing Appar. % density fluidity Stability Hardness +2" +13^" +2" -'A" gravity 546 .. . 23.8 48.1 5.1 43.6 63.4 69.9 87.7 72.2 4.8 .826 526 .. . 18.7 46.5 7.2 44.8 62.4 69.5 88.4 71.5 4.3 .784 544 .. . 14.8 46.4 7.2 44.9 62.6 64.1 85.9 70.7 5.0 .816 586 .. . 1.2* 52.6 6.3 11.5 15.1 70.8 80.0 74.8 11.5 .781 568 .. . 15. 2t 50.1 5.8 40.9 65.3 60.1 84.6 65.7 3.9 .849 571 .. . 12. Ot 50.3 4.9 35.0 65.5 48.2 75.7 55.6 4.4 .854 '^High-tempeiature coke breeze. i"Char produced from Illinois No. 6 coal in Disco rotary-drum retort. ble 5. The data presented are not entirely conclusive. However, very little or no de- grading of coke properties resulted from mixing chars. This indicates that nonuni- formity of char within these limits has little effect on the structure of the coke produced. Importance of High-Volatile Coal The quality of high-volatile coal is very important in regular coking practice, in which high- and low-volatile coals are blended. It is even more important when the low-volatile coal is replaced by char. The coking results of a number of blends of char with various high-volatile coals are shown in table 6. Blends are arranged ac- cording to the decreasing value of their Gieseler fluidities. The coke properties shown for each blend are average values of from 2 to 13 individual coking tests. 12 \ • M A ' \ -^8 z M UJ UJ (T CD 4 • • \ • , • • • 2 —-/A 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 MAXIMUM GIESELER FLUIDITY (DIAL DIVISIONS PER MINUTE) Fig. 5. — Percent breeze vs. maximum fluidity of blends. VERY HIGH VARYING THE PERCENTAGE OF CHAR 19 Table 5. — Uniformity of Volatile Matter v.s. Coke Quality Run No. Chi V. M. % Blend Bulk density Maximum fluidity Coke Tumbler Stability Hardness Shatter +2" +1^' Sizing +2" -H" Appar. gravity 58 3^% 111. No. 6-21 3^% Eagle— 20% char 544 546 Av. 6 runs 562 585 Single chars 14.8 23.8 Range 14.8 to 23.8 Mixed chars 50%-14.7 50%-23.0 50%-16.6 50%-22.9 46.4 48.1 46.9 46.8 47.7 7.2 5.1 5.7 5.7 7.4 44.9 43.6 44.5 42.4 42.8 62.6 63.4 62.5 60.7 63.4 64.1 85.9 69.9 87.7 66.4 87.0 60.9 87.6 63.7 82.9 70.7 72.2 5.0 4.8 70.5 4.7 72.5 4.7 72.1 4.2 816 826 .799 .809 .802 80% Eagle— 20% char 545 547 Single chars 14.8 23.8 47.4 swelled 48.6 50.6 50.7 70.3 68.6 61.5 67.3 82.7 86.7 69.1 72.7 3.2 3.5 .904 .972 Av. 4 runs Range 14.8 to 23.8 Mixed 47.9 48.4 70.3 61.2 84.1 71.2 3.4 .951 548 chars 50%-14.8 50%-23.8 48.2 51.2 69.3 57.9 84.0 72.3 3.2 .914 563 50%-14.7 50%-23.0 48.2 " 44.7 68.6 53.5 82.3 72.4 3.0 .930 The maximum fluidity of a blend con- taining borderline coking coals may be cor- related with coke breeze production (Reed et al., 1952). The blends in table 6 follow this trend. Decrease in the maximum Gies- eler fluidity is accompanied by increase in coke fines and lowered resistance to abra- sion (indicated by the tumbler hardness fac- tor). Figure 5, in which coke breeze (-%" inch size) is plotted against Gieseler fluid- ity, shows the critical fluidity to be about 5 or 6 dial divisions per minute. Any blend of these coals with a lower fluidity produces excessive breeze. We concluded that Illinois No. 5 coal from Saline County blended with 20 per- cent char produces coke having satisfactory physical properties. Illinois No. 6 coal from Franklin County cannot be blended satis- factorily with this amount of char, how- ever, unless Eastern coal of high fluidity has been added to the blend to increase the Gieseler value above the critical point. Varying the Percentage of Char Although 20 percent char was used in all blends shown in table 6, it is not necessarily the optimum amount for any specific coal blend. However, it is in the proper range to show trends and is near the maximum that may be used advantageously in any blend with which we have had experience. Generally speaking, an increase in the per- centage of char causes the coke to be lighter 20 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY in weight and to have a structure with less resistance to abrasion (lower tumbler hard- ness factor). Gieseler fluidity is usually re- duced, and if it falls into the critical range (fig. 5), other changes in coke size and strength may be noted. Three series of tests in which the percent- age of char is varied are shown in table 7. Each blend responds differently. In the blend with Eagle coal, 25 percent char is probably near the optimum amount, and 30 percent is excessive. The blend with No. 6 and Eagle coals showed little change when char was increased from 15 to 20 percent, whereas the same increase in blends with No. 6 coal alone is definitely undesirable. We cannot, on the basis of these results, generalize too freely, but it is evident that to obtain the best coke each blend of coal and char will require individual study. Such study is even more critical for coal-char blends than for blends of high- and low- volatile coal. Variations in Char Retort Operation effect of faster heating Increasing the rate of coking in ovens of standard design improves the coke produced from borderline coals. Similarly, the fast heating rate in the vibrating char retort tends to produce a more agglomerated char than does the slower rate in retorts of the rotary-drum type. It has been thought that greater agglomeration may improve the char for use in metallurgical coke. All our char has been made at a rela- tively fast rate, but we decided to reduce the retention time to about one-half nor- mal (with a compensating increase in re- tort temperature) to determine whether the char could be improved. Table 8 shows coking tests on this char compared with char made at the normal rate. There is no ap- preciable difference in the effect of these chars on coke properties. It will be shown later, however, that charring this coal in a rotary drum with a retention time of about 2 hours produces a product with somewhat different characteristics. EFFECT OF COAL OXIDATION TEMPERATURE There is a theory that predrying and pre- oxidation of coal before it is charred is det- rimental to the properties of the char. Al- though a certain amount of oxidation is re- quired before Illinois coal can be charred in Table 6. — High-Volatile Coals vs. Coke Properties Coal Blend* Coke Bulk density Maximum fluidity Tumbler Stability Hardness Shatter +2" -f 13^" Sizing +2" -y," Appar. gravity 80% Eagle . . . 20% Char 47.9 swelled 48.4 70.3 61.2 84.1 i\.i 3.4 .951 40% 111. No. 6 . . 40% Eagle 20% Char 47.7 54 43.8 62.4 67.4 87.3 76.1 3.7 .845 80% 111. No. 5 . . 20% Char 43.8 10.1 46.7 62.7 60.1 86.5 71.5 4.3 .764 58K% III- No. 6 . . 211^% Eagle 20% Char 46.9 5.7 44.5 62.5 66.4 87.0 70.5 4.7 .799 58M% 111- No. 6 . . 211^% 111. No. 5 20% Char 47.8 4.0 40.3 57.5 66.7 86.5 11.1 7.3 .781 80% 111. No. 6 . . 20% Char 41.9 1.5 39.6 54.3 66.5 87.1 73.0 8.5 .708 Data for each blend are the average of from 2 to 7 separate coke runs. CHAR COMPARED WITH POCAHONTAS COAL 21 Table 7. — Percentage of Char vs. Coke Properties Coal Blend Coke Bulk density Maximum fluidity Tumbler Stability Hardness Shatter +2" +11^" Sizing +2" -^" Appar. gravity 80% Eagle . . . 20% Char 47.9 swelled 48.4 70.3 61.2 84.1 71.2 3.4 .951 75% Eagle . . . 25% Char 45.1 2728 47.6 62.8 61.8 85.4 74.6 3.1 .865 70% Eagle . . . 30% Char 43.2 2778 42.7 57.4 69.6 88.4 71.4 3.5 .811 623^% 111. No. 6 . . 22H% Eagle 15% Char 47.0 5.9 46.8 63.5 66.0 86.3 71.8 4.6 .789 581^% 111. No. 6 . . 213^% Eade 20% Char 46.9 5.7 44.5 62.5 66.4 87.0 70.5 4.7 .799 85% III. No. 6 . . 15% Char 42.3 1.9 44.1 59.1 60.8 86.1 71.4 7.5 .705 80% 111. No. 6 . . 20% Char 41.9 1.5 39.6 54.3 66.5 87.1 73.0 8.5 .708 75% 111. No. 6 . . 25% Char 39.2 1.2 36.5 46.2 77.6 88.0 72.2 14.2 the vibrating retort, it was possible to vary the degree of pretreatment. Three batches of coal were oxidized in the usual manner but with retort floor temperatures held at 500° F., 600° F., and 700° F. At 700° F. there was some visible thermal decomposi- tion, which lowered the volatile matter about 2 percent. The oxidized coals were charred in the usual manner and the chars blended with high-volatile coals and coked. Results of the tests, shown in table 9, indicate that the different temperatures of pretreatment had no detectable effect on the quality of the coke produced. Char Compared with Pocahontas Coal In our experience, char in a coal blend never has been completely equivalent to Po- cahontas coal. Comparisons are shown in table 10. In general, blends with char do Table 8. — Effect of Reducing Time of Retention of Coal in the Retort (Blend— 583^% 111. No. 6, 213^% Eagle, 20% char) Char Blend Coke Run No. Retention V.M. Bulk Maximum Tumbler Shatter Siz ing Appar. time % density fluidity Stability Hardness +2" +13^" +2" -y2" gravity Normal operation 539 Approx. one-half normal 16.6 45.7 4.0 45.2 62.4 63.1 86.8 69.8 4.8 .790 552 15.6 46.8 6.3 44.7 61.7 66.0 87.0 70.7 5.0 .793 553 17.8 48.4 6.7 42.8 62.4 60.5 85.1 68.0 5.0 .801 22 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table 9. — Effect of Retort Temperature During Period of Coal Oxidation (Blend-583^% III. No. 6, 213^% Eagle, 20% char) Run Char Blend Coke No. Retort temp. (°F.) oxidiz- ing period V.M. % Bulk density Maximum fluidity Tumbler Stability Hardness Shatter +2" -{-VA" Sizing +2" -3^" Appar. gravity 539 549 550 551 700 600 500 500 16.6 16.2 15.7 17.1 45.7 4.0 47.0 4.0 47.7 5.3 47.5 8.5 45.2 62.4 44.7 62.1 42.4 62.4 45.6 62.4 63.1 86.8 64.7 86.5 62.7 83.3 63.1 84.5 69.8 4.8 72.1 4.6 71.3 5.0 70.5 4.5 .790 .795 .807 .801 not produce coke with as high tumbler sta- bility and hardness; an exception is the 80 percent Eagle-20 percent char blend, which consistently produced coke with an unusu- ally high hardness factor. The coke from this blend tends to be small, but this trend is not so apparent when only Illinois high- volatile coals are used. Char generally pro- duces more coke fines than does Pocahon- tas, especially when high-volatile coals of lower fluidity are used. Char tends to open the coke structure, producing a product with lower apparent gravity, the one exception again being the blend with 80 percent Eagle coal. COMPARISON WITH CHAR RETORTS OF DIFFERENT DESIGN Under the inherent carbonizing condi- tions of the vibrating retort, all chars pro- duced from Illinois coals have had similar properties even though the range of volatile matter was wide. Regardless of minor changes in operating procedures or tempera- tures, the product has had a sintered struc- ture which tended to expand and form ceno- spheres. Expansion of the particles has re- duced the bulk density to about 26 lbs. per cu. ft. Because this char is lighter than coal, its use in blends reduces the weight of fuel that can be carbonized in a standard coke oven. Although not as much time is re- quired to complete carbonization, the net result is a reduction in the daily capacity of a battery of ovens. A char retort of different design might be expected to produce char inherently dif- ferent in structure. For example, the Disco retort is essentially a rotary drum in which coal is heated slowly, allowing thermal de- composition to reach a state of equilibrium. The coalite plant in Japan is similar. Slow heating, which is less inducive to agglom- eration and formation of cenospheres, might be expected to yield heavier char. Distinctly different also is the method of heating in the fluidized-bed retort developed by the Bureau of Mines at Denver, Colo., for charring subbituminous coal and lig- nite. In this retort, retention of individual particles of coal in the fluidized bed may vary considerably, resulting in lack of uni- formity of devolatilization. These and other processes all produce char of similar volatile-matter content but different physical structure. To determine how the coking properties of these chars compare, Illinois No. 6 coal was carbonized in the Disco pilot plant at Verona, Pa., and in the fluidized-bed retort in Denver. Disco Retort Coal was charred in the Disco drum at 950° F. without pretreatment other than pulverization to minus l/8"i^ch size. Seven- teen to fifty percent of recycle char was added to raw coal in some batches, and raw coal alone was processed in others. The Illinois coal agglomerated fairly well with or without recycle char. The product was predominantly minus l/^-inch size ; the plus 1/4-inch portion, varying from 4 to 35 per- cent of the total weight, was greatest when only raw coal was processed. The larger char was in flat scaly pieces, probably formed from coal that had stuck to the ro- tating drum and broken loose later as car- bonization progressed. DISCO RETORT 23 Table 10. — Char Compared with Pocahontas Coal Run Blend Coke No. Bulk density Maximum fluidity Tumbler Stability Hardness Shatter +2" +1H" Sizing +2" -H" Appar. gravity 556 75% Eagle 25% Char 45.1 swelled 47.6 62.8 61.8 85.4 74.6 3.1 .865 523 75% Eagle 25% Pocahontas 51.9 (( 53.5 66.4 75.3 91.5 83.6 2.7 .922 Av. 80% Eagle 20% Char 47.9 u 48.4 70.3 61.2 84.1 71.2 3.4 .951 555 567 80% Eagle 20% Pocahontas 51.4 u 53.7 65.2 77.9 92.2 84.8 2.6 .907 471 70% Hernshaw 30% Char 44.8 1667 35.7 58.6 61.4 84.3 72.3 3.9 .859 472 70% Hernshaw 30% Pocahontas 51.2 6000 39.4 63.9 66.8 87.7 77.3 3.1 .988 Av. 581^% 111. No. 6 46.9 5.7 44.5 62.5 66.4 87.0 70.5 4.7 .799 554 566 58K% 111. No. 6 211^% Eagle 20% Pocahontas 51.4 13.7 49.2 65.7 70.6 89.5 80.9 3.2 .845 Av. 80% 111. No. 5 20% Char 43.8 10.1 46.7 62.7 60.1 86.5 71.5 4.3 .764 376 80% 111. No. 5 20% Pocahontas 50.5 7.5 49.9 66.4 66.0 87.1 71.1 3.0 .828 Av. 80% 111. No. 6 20% Char 41.9 1.5 39.6 54.3 66.5 87.1 73.0 8.5 .708 388 438 80% 111. No. 6 20% Pocahontas 50.6 2.1 47.4 66.4 65.7 86.5 76.9 4.0 .798 The Disco char was different in appear- ance from that made in the vibrating retort. The coal appeared to have fused, and total surface area was low, but the particles had not expanded appreciably and there was no indication of a cenosphere structure. The Disco char weighed 36 to 37 pounds per cu. ft. as compared with 26 to 27 pounds for the vibrating-retort char. When char was used as 20 percent of a coal blend, the bulk density of the oven charge was only about one pound per cu. ft. less than that of a similar blend of high- and low-volatile coals. Oven battery capacity would not be decreased appreciably by its use. Results of coking tests on the Disco char are shown in table 11. The coke is rela- tively heavy, presumably owing to the bulk density of the oven charge. Coke strength appears to be slightly lower than when our regular char was used, but the resistance to abrasion, shown by the hardness factor, is consistently high, equal to that of similar blends with Pocahontas coal. The coke has a tendency to be small, but the percentage of fines is relatively low. There appears to be no difference in chars made from 100 percent raw coal and those from coal and recycle char. In this series of tests, we have our first good indication of the lower limit of char volatile matter for satisfactory use in blends. The char in run 571 (table 11) was pro- duced at 1050° F. and contained only 12 24 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table 11. — Blends with Disco (Rotary-Drum) Char Char from Illinois No. 6 Coal (Blend— 581^% 111. No. 6, 21^% Eagle, 20% char) Run Char Blend Coke No. Identifying batch V.M. % Bulk den- sity Bulk den- sity Maximum fluidity Tumbler Sta- Hard- bility ness Shatter +2" +1K" Sizing +2" -^" Appar. gravity 568 7 and 8 no recycle 15.2 37.0 49.9 5.8 40.9 65.3 60.1 84.6 65.7 3.9 .849 569 2 and 3 50% and 23% recycle 14.9 36.0 49.4 5.0 42.3 65.3 56.6 82.6 64.7 3.8 .827 587 4 and 5 23% recycle 15.2 49.9 6.1 38.7 65.4 60.3 82.5 72.4 4.3 .837 571 9 and 10 no recycle 12.0 37.5 50.3 4.9 35.0 65.5 48.2 75.7 55.6 4.4 .854 percent volatile matter. Coking results are poor compared with those of other blends where the chars contained about 15 per- cent volatile matter. While not conclu- sive, results indicate that the lower volatile- matter limit falls between 12 and 15 per- cent. Fluidized-Bed Retort (Denver) Illinois coal sent to the Bureau of Mines Experiment Station at Denver, Colo., was pulverized to minus 1/16-inch size. It was then flash-dried and preoxidized at about 300° F. where the free-swelling index was reduced from a No. 31/2 to a No. 2 button. The hot, dry coal was carried directly into the fluidized-bed retort, which was held at a temperature of 940° F. A superficial ve- locity of 6 to 8 feet per second was main- tained in the retort by using air as the fluid- izing agent. Char of 16.5 percent volatile matter was obtained. Other batches with a volatile matter range from 18.5 to 22 per- cent were made by reducing the retort tem- perature to 875° F. and carbonizing at a somewhat lower superficial velocity, using process gas and a small quantity of air for fluidizing. The initial char produced at 940° F. expanded into an exceedingly light-weight material with a bulk density of only 18.5 pounds per cu. ft. Total surface area of Table 12. — Blends with Denver (Fluidized-Bed) Char Char from Illinois No. 6 (Blend— 58H% 111. No. 6, 213^% Eagle, 20% char) Run Char Blend Coke No. Identifying batch V.M. % Bulk den- sity Bulk den- sity Maximum fluidity Tumbler Sta- Hard- bility ness Shatter Sizing + 2" +13^" +2" -1^" Appar. gravity 572 573 588 land 2 16.5 18.5 Retort temp. 940° F. 3 18.6 27.0 Retort temp. 875° F. 4 18.5 27.0 Retort temp. 875° F. 39.4 5.9 46.5 5.3 48.5 5.9 41.0 54.7 44.0 62.6 42.1 63.1 74.6 90.8 69.1 87.5 70.9 86.5 75.2 6.5 71.2 4.3 70.4 5.1 .662 .779 .876 COMPARISON OF CHARS FROM THREE RETORTS 25 Table 13. — Comparison of Chars from Different Retorts Char Origin V. M. % Bulk den- sity Blend Bulk den- sity Maximum fluidity Coke Tumbler Sta- I Hard- bility I ness Shatter +2" +\y2' Sizing +2" -y Appar. gravity Blend 1*— 583^% 111. No. 6, 21^% Eagle, 20% char Vibrating retort 18.8 27 Fluidized-bed retort 18.6 27 Rotary-drum retort 15.0 36.5 46.9 47.5 49.8 5.7 5.6 5.6 44.5 43.1 40.6 62.5 62.9 65.3 66.4 70.0 59.0 87.0 87.0 83.2 70.5 4.7 70.8 4.7 67.6 4.0 .799 .828 .838 Blend 2—80% Eagle, 20% char Vibrating retort 14.8 27 47.4 swelled 50.6 70.3 61.5 82.7 69.1 3.2 .904 Fluidized-bed retort 16.5 18.5 39.3 3845 48.4 62.2 71.2 89.8 72.7 3.3 .768 (batch 1 and 2) Rotary-drum retort 15.0 36.5 49.7 3750 44.9 70.5 55.6 82.4 63.8 2.8 .938 (batch 6-17% recycle) * All values are averages of two or more runs. 12.76 square meters per gram was greater than that of the original coal. When pul- verized as usual and carbonized in metallur- gical coke blends, the mixtures of coal and char weighed less than 40 pounds per cu. ft., and the cokes produced were light in weight. A low hardness factor indicated an abraidable coke structure (table 12, run 572). Char produced at 875° F. was similar in structure and appearance to that made in the vibrating retort. It weighed about 27 pounds per cu. ft. and had a total surface area of 2.67 square meters per gram. Cok- ing tests with Illinois No. 6 and Eagle coals indicated that the properties of the coke pro- duced also are similar to those obtained with char from the vibrating retort (table 12, runs 573 and 588). Comparison of Chars from the Three Retorts Chars made from Illinois No. 6 coal in the Illinois vibrating retort, the Disco ro- tary retort, and the Bureau of Mines fluid- ized-bed retort are compared in table 13. Each char has been blended with the same coals and coked under identical conditions. The most notable difference among the three chars is the greater weight of the Disco. Chars made in the other two retorts are similar in bulk density, both being pro- duced under conditions of fast heating, whereas the Disco char was devolatilized at a much slower rate. Bulk density of the coal bed with Disco char is increased pro- portionally and a heavier coke is produced. In this comparison, as well as in others not shown in the table, the coke containing Disco char has the highest hardness index and contains the least amount of fines. The size stability, however, appears to be slightly lower than that of the other cokes. Chars from the vibrating-bed and fluidized-bed retorts are shown to produce cokes having similar properties throughout. As the Disco char was all relatively low in volatile matter (15 percent), it did not compare exactly with the other two chars. In our experience, however, the volatile matter of this char is in the range which gives coking results comparable to that of chars of 18 percent or more volatile matter. 26 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY REFERENCES Brunauer, Stephen, et al., 1938, Adsorption of gases in multimolecular layers: Jour, Am. Chem. Soc, v. 60, p. 309-319. Carter, G. W., 1947, Coal Logs process for coal carbonization: Chem. Eng. Progress, Trans. Section, v. 43, no. 4, p. 180-182. Cheradame, R., 1954, Studies in coke formation: Coke and Gas, v. 16, no. 179, p. 143-149. Fieldner, a. C, 1950, Coal for coke production: U. S. Bur. Mines Inf. Circ. 7559. HiSADA, K., 1951, Coke making from Hokkaido coal for blast furnaces: Japan Sci. Rev., v. 2, no. 1. Lesher, C. E., 1941, Disco, a smokeless fuel: Ind. Eng. Chem., v. 33, p. 858. MiNCHiN, L. T., 1953, Coke from weakly-coking coals: Coke and Gas, v. 15, no. 168, p. 167-171. Price, J. D., and Woody, G. V., 1944, Production and use of low-temperature char as a substitute for low-volatile coal in the production of high- temperature coke: A.I.M.E. Tech. Pub. 1745 (Class F, Coal Division, No. 155). Reed, F. H., 1948, Some observations on coking practice in Germany: U. S. Bur. Mines Inf. Circ. 7462. Reed, F. H., et al., 1947, Use of Illinois coal for production of metallurgical coke: Illinois Geol. Survey Bull. 71. Reed, F. H., et al., 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. Reid, W. T., 1948, Low-temperature carbonization of coal in Japan: U. S. Bur. Mines Inf. Circ. 7430. Singh, A. D., 1946, Partial devolatilization of coal by the fluidization process: Am. Gas Assoc. Proc, V. 28, p. 400-409. Thompson, J. H., 1946, Beneficiation of blast fur- nace coke at the Kaiser Steel Co., Fontana, California: Blast Furnace and Steel Plant, v. 34, nos. 2-5. Utah Conservation and Research Foundation, 1939, Low-temperature carbonization of Utah coals (a report to the Governor). Woody, G. V., 1941, Production of coke as a do- mestic fuel: Ind. Eng. Chem., v. 33, p. 841. APPENDIX 27 APPENDIX CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF COALS AND CARBONIZATION PRODUCTS Table A. — Representative Analyses of Coals Used in Production of Chars and for Blending Moisture- free basis Coal M. F.S.I. Gieseler fluidity V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur Illinois No. 6 . . . 8.5 37.8 54.4 7.8 0.90 4 8 Illinois No. 5 . . . 7.0 37.5 55.0 7.5 1.75 sy2 50 Illinois No. 2 . . . 17.4 39.5 54.8 5.7 2.35 2 4 Hernshaw . . . . 2.0 37.3 56.0 6.7 0.75 — 30,000 Eagle 3.5 30.0 63.0 7.0 0.75 m 9,000 Pocahontas No. 3 . 3.5 17.0 76.2 6.8 0.65 9 10 Table B. — Effect of Oxidation and Charring on Ultimate Analysis OF No. 6 Coal Moisture and ash-free basis H C N S Air dried coal 5.28 81.51 81.85 83.29 86.96 2.05 1.90 1.99 2.17 10.13 10.16 9.38 6.59 1.03 Oxidized at 700° F. 5 08 1 01 Charred at 860° F (V.M. = 25.5%) Charred at 1100° F 4.46 3.38 0.88 0.90 (V.M. = 14.6%) 28 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table C. — Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 3 Run M. Moisture-free basis No. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur 80% Eagle 20% char 545 Char Blend Coke 1.7 1.6 14.8 27.3 0.7 75.9 65.0 89.4 9.3 7.7 9.9 0.76 0.80 0.64 521 Char Blend Coke 0.7 1.4 18.9 27.8 0.7 71.4 64.4 89.5 9.7 7.8 9.8 0.95 0.81 0.66 522 Char Blend Coke 0.8 1.1 19.2 28.2 0.7 71.2 64.3 89.4 9.6 7.5 9.9 0.95 0.80 0.64 547 Char Blend Coke 583^% III. No. 6 213^% Eagle 20% char 1.3 1.8 23.8 29.1 0.4 67.9 63.5 89.7 8.3 7.4 9.9 0.81 0.83 0.70 544 Char Blend Coke 1.7 5.4 14.8 30.5 1.0 75.9 61.7 88.3 9.3 7.8 10.7 0.76 0.81 0.57 539 Char Blend Coke 1.1 5.9 16.6 30.9 0.7 73.3 60.7 87.5 10.1 8.4 11.8 0.84 0.83 0.81 541 Char Blend Coke 1.1 5.4 18.5 31.5 0.8 72.2 60.1 87.7 9.3 8.4 11.5 0.84 0.91 0.71 526 Char Blend Coke 1.0 5.1 18.7 31.8 10 73.1 60.5 88.4 8.2 7.7 10.6 0.88 0.86 0.68 524 Char Blend Coke 0.5 5.1 20 3 32.1 0.9 70.9 60.6 89 8.8 7.3 10.1 0.94 0.77 546 Char Blend Coke 583^ III. No. 6 21i^%Ill. No. 5 20% char 1.3 5.2 23.8 32.3 0.8 67.9 60.2 88.7 8.3 7.5 10.5 0.81 0.79 0.74 514 Char Blend Coke 1.1 6.4 16.1 32.9 1.0 74.2 58.6 87.1 9.7 8.5 11.9 0.78 1.20 0.96 513 Char Blend Coke 1.3 5.9 17.0 32.7 1.0 74.0 58.7 87.2 9.0 8 6 11.8 76 1.12 0.93 511 Char Blend Coke 1.4 6.8 17.5 33.1 1.2 72.6 57.9 86.1 9.9 9.0 12.7 0.77 1.14 0.96 APPENDIX Table C, — (concluded) 29 Run No. M. Moisture-free basis V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur 516 Char . Blend . Coke 520 Char . Blend . Coke 505 Char . Blend . Coke 504 Char . Blend . Coke 80% 111. No. 5 20% Char 459 Char . Blend . Coke 463 Char . Blend . Coke 460 Char . Blend . Coke 461 Char . Blend . Coke 462 Char . Blend . Coke 464 Char . Blend . Coke 468 Char . Blend . Coke 80% 111. No. 6 20% char 455 Char . Blend . Coke 465 Char . Blend . Coke 467 Char . Blend . Coke 451 Char . Blend . Coke 0.7 6.2 0.6 5.5 1.3 6.6 1.2 7.1 0.4 5.1 0.8 5.3 0.6 4.5 0.6 4.9 0.6 4.0 0.6 4.8 0.8 4.8 0.6 6.7 0.6 6.1 0.8 6.4 1.5 6.8 18.1 33.0 1.0 20.5 34.2 1.0 22.0 34.4 1.1 22.9 34.3 1.0 17.3 32.8 1.0 17.8 33.4 1.3 17.9 33.3 0.9 18.4 33.4 1.8 18.4 33.3 1.3 18.5 32.9 1.1 20.6 33.2 1.4 16.7 33.4 1.3 18.4 33.3 1.1 20.6 33.8 1.5 24.8 34.7 1.3 72.7 58.9 87.4 70.3 57.0 86.3 68.6 56.9 86.5 68.5 57.4 87.0 57.8 86.8 58.1 87.4 57.8 86.3 57.3 86.0 57.6 70.1 58.3 87.3 77.3 60.1 89.5 57.5 86.7 70.1 58.1 87.9 67.8 57.9 88.0 9.2 8.1 11.6 9.2 8.8 12.7 9.4 8.7 12.4 8.6 8.3 12.0 9.4 12.2 8.5 11.3 11.9 9.4 12.7 9.5 9.3 8.5 11.3 6.0 6.5 9.2 9.2 12.2 9.3 8.1 10.6 7.4 7.4 10.7 0.76 1.17 0.91 0.81 1.16 0.92 0.73 1.29 0.99 0.72 1.16 0.94 1.99 1.57 1.93 1.50 1.64 2.30 1.88 1.97 0.85 1.63 1.30 1.82 1.04 0.94 1.27 1.04 0.85 0.81 0.70 2.58 1.13 0.93 30 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table D. — Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Sho^ Table 4 Run M. Moisture- free basis No. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur 583^% 111. No. 6 21^% Eagle 20% char 546 Char Blend Coke 1.3 5.2 23.8 32.3 0.8 67.9 60.2 88.7 8.3 7.5 10.5 0.81 0.79 0.74 526 Char Blend Coke 1.0 5.1 18.7 31.8 1.0 73.1 60.5 88.4 8.2 7.7 10.6 0.88 0.86 0.68 544 Char Blend Coke 1.7 5.4 14.8 30.5 1.0 75.9 61.7 88.3 9.3 7.8 10.7 0.76 0.81 0.57 586 Breeze Blend Coke 1.0 5.2 1.2 26.3 0.7 88.0 65.2 88.2 10.8 8.5 11.1 0.70 0,90 0.72 568 Disco char Blend Coke 1.2 5.2 14.9 30.6 0.7 76.3 61.7 89.0 8.8 7.7 10.3 0.67 0.86 0.66 571 Disco char Blend Coke 1.4 5.3 12.0 30.7 0.7 78.3 61.9 89.5 9.7 7.4 9.8 0.62 0.80 0.67 APPENDIX 31 Table E. — Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 5 Run No. 581^% 111. No. 6 21K% Eagle 20% char 544 Char . . Blend . . Coke 546 Char . . Blend . . Coke Av. 6 Char . . runs Blend . Coke 562 50% of char 50% of char Blend . . Coke 585 50% of char 50% of char Blend . . Coke 80% Eagle 20% char 545 Char . . Blend . . Coke 547 Char . . Blend . . Coke Av. 4 Char . . runs Blend Coke 548 50% of char 50% of char Blend . . Coke 563 50% of char 50% of char Blend . . Coke M. 1.7 5.4 1.3 5.2 5.4 0.8 0.6 5.6 5.6 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.4 0.8 0.6 1.4 Moisture-free basis V.M. 14. 14.8 30.5 1.0 23.8 32.3 0.8 8-23. 31.5 0.9 14.7 23.0 31.3 1.4 16.6 22.9 31.5 0.7 14.8 27.3 0.7 23.8 29.1 0.4 14.8-23. 28.1 0.6 14.8 23.8 28.0 0.6 14.7 23.0 28.0 0.4 F.C. 75.9 61.7 88.3 67.9 60.2 88.7 60, 75.8 68.3 61.0 87.5 60.2 87.9 75.9 65.0 89.4 67.9 63.5 89.7 75.9 67.9 64.4 89.4 75.8 68.3 63.9 89.3 Ash 9.3 7.8 10.7 8.3 7.5 10.5 9.5 8.7 7.7 11.1 8.3 11.4 7.6 9.9 9.3 8.3 7.6 10.0 9.5 8.7 8.1 10.3 Sulfur 0.76 0.81 0.57 0.81 0.79 0.74 0.86 0.71 0.75 0.72 0.79 0.62 0.91 0.73 0.76 0.80 0.64 0.81 0.83 0.70 0.82 0.66 0.76 0.81 0.85 0.69 0.75 0.72 0.73 0.60 32 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table F. — Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 6 Run M. Moisture-free basis No. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur 80% Eagle 20% char Av. 4 Char 1.1 19.2 71.6 9.2 0.87 runs Blend 1.5 28.1 64.3 7.6 0.82 Coke 0.6 89.5 9.9 0.66 40% 111. No. 6 40% Eagle 20% char Av. 2 Char 0.4 19.1 72.3 8.6 runs Blend 3.9 31.2 61.3 7.5 0.85 Coke 0.7 89.1 10.2 0.72 80% 111. No. 5 20% char Av. 7 Char 0.6 18.4 runs Blend 4.8 33.2 57.8 9.0 1.96 Coke 1.3 86.8 11.9 1.58 583^% III. No. 6 213^% Eagle 20% char Av. 6 Char 1.1 18.8 72.2 9.0 0.83 runs Blend 5.4 31.5 60.6 7.9 0.86 Coke 0.9 88.2 10.9 0.71 583^% 111. No. 6 213^% 111. No. 5 20% char Av. 7 Char 1.1 19.2 71.5 9.3 0.76 runs Blend 6.4 33.5 57.9 8.6 1.18 Coke 1.0 86.8 12.2 0.94 80% 111. No. 6 20% char Av. 4 Char 0.9 20.1 72.2 7.7 1.75 runs Blend 6.5 33.8 58.4 7.8 1.06 Coke 1.3 88.0 10.7 0.90 APPENDIX 33 Table G. — Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 7 Run No. M. Moisture- free basis V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur 80% Eagle 20% char Av. 4 Char .... runs Blend .... Coke .... 75% Eagle 25% char 556 Char .... Blend .... Coke .... 70% Eagle 30% char 557 Char .... Blend .... Coke .... 623^% 111. No. 6 223^% Eagle 15%, char 558 Char .... Blend .... Coke .... 58H% 111- No. 6 21^% Eagle 20% char Av. 6 Char .... runs Blend .... Coke .... 85% 111. No. 6 15% char 456 Char .... Blend .... Coke .... 80% 111. No. 6 20% char Av. 4 Char .... runs Blend .... Coke .... 75% 111. No. 6 25% char 457 Char Blend Coke (Not analyzed) 1.1 1.5 0.9 1.8 0.9 1.9 0.9 5.6 1.1 5.4 1.3 6.5 0.9 6.5 1.3 5.9 19.2 28.1 0.6 17.4 27.1 0.5 17.4 27.0 0.5 17.4 31.5 0.7 18.8 31.5 0.9 19.7 34.6 1.2 20.1 33.8 1.3 19.7 33.0 71.6 64.3 89.5 73.8 65.7 89.9 73.8 65.8 90.2 73, 60. 72.2 60.6 88.2 74.7 58.3 89.1 72.2 58.4 88.0 74.7 60.0 9.2 7.6 9.9 7.2 9.6 7.2 9.3 7.7 10.5 9.0 7.9 10.9 5.6 7.1 9.7 7.7 7.8 10.7 5.6 7.0 0.87 0.82 0.66 0.66 0.77 0.65 0.66 0.71 0.61 0.66 0.81 0.66 0.83 0.86 0.71 1.82 0.94 0.87 1.75 1.06 0.90 1.82 1.03 34 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table H. — Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 8 Run M. Moisture- free basis No. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur 539 552 553 58H% 111. No. 6 213^% Eagle 20% char Char Blend Coke Char Blend Coke Char Blend Coke 1.1 5.9 1.2 5.4 1.1 5.2 16.6 30.9 0.7 15.6 31.5 1.3 17.8 32.1 0.7 73.3 60.7 87.5 75.4 61.2 88.6 72.8 60.7 89.0 10.1 8.4 11.8 9.0 7.3 10.1 9.4 7.2 10.3 0.84 0.83 0.81 0.79 0.90 0.66 0.74 0.87 0.70 Table I. — Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 9 Run M. Moisture-free basis No. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur 581^% 111. No. 6 21 H% Eagle 20% char 539 Char Blend Coke 1.1 5.9 16.6 30.9 0.7 73.3 60.7 87.5 10.1 8.4 11.8 0.84 0.83 0.81 549 Char Blend Coke 1.7 5.4 16.2 31.6 0.8 74.6 61.2 88.8 9.2 7.2 10.4 0.79 0.82 0.75 550 Char Blend Coke 1.5 5.1 15.7 31.0 1.0 74.7 61.3 88.4 9.6 7.7 10.6 0.83 0.90 0.72 551 Char Blend Coke 1.5 5.5 17.1 31.6 0.8 73.8 60.5 88.1 9.1 7.9 11.1 0.80 0.91 0.70 APPENDIX 35 Table J. — Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 10 Run No. 556 523 Av. 4 runs 5551 567/ 471 472 Av. 6 runs 554\ 566/ Av. 7 runs 376 Av. 4 runs 3881 438/ 75% Eagle 25% char Blend . . Coke 75% Eagle 25% Pocahontas Blend . . Coke 80% Eagle 20% char Blend . . Coke 80% Eagle 20% Pocahontas Blend . . Coke 70% Hernshaw 30% char Blend . . Coke 70% Hernshaw 30% Pocahontas Blend . . Coke 581^% 111. No. 6 21M% Eagle 20% char Blend . . Coke 583^% 111. No. 6 213^% Eagle 20% Pocahontas Blend . . Coke 80% 111. No. 5 20% char Blend . . Coke 80% III. No. 5 20% Pocahontas Blend . . Coke 80% 111. No. 6 20% char Blend . . Coke 80% 111. No. 6 20% Pocahontas Blend . . Coke M. 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.1 5.4 5.3 4.8 5.0 6.5 6.9 Moisture- free b^ V.M. 27.1 0.5 27.5 0.6 28.1 0.6 27.5 0.5 30.9 0.6 31.6 0.7 31.5 0.9 31.5 0.7 33.2 1.3 34.4 1.4 33.8 1.3 34.1 1.3 F.C. 65.7 89.9 65.4 90.3 64.3 89.5 65.5 90.2 61.5 90.0 61.9 92.0 60.6 88.2 61.4 89.5 57.8 86.8 58.2 88.1 58.4 88.0 58.7 88.6 Ash 7.2 9.6 7.1 9.1 7.6 9.9 7.0 9.3 7.6 9.4 6.5 7.3 7.9 10.9 7.1 9.8 9.0 11.9 7.4 10.5 7.8 10.7 7.2 10.1 Sulfur 0.77 0.65 0.70 0.63 0.82 0.66 0.74 0.63 1.20 1.04 0.70 0.62 0.86 0.71 0.80 0.62 1.96 1.58 1.86 1.41 1.06 0.90 0.80 0.63 36 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table K. -Disco Pilot Plant Chars* (111. No. 6 Coal) Batch Composition Retort temp. (°F.) Product Analyses No. %-K" %+M" V.M. F.C. Ash 1 100% oxidized coal (for recycling) 950 100 14.9 77.0 8.1 2 50% raw coal\ 50% recycle / 950 92.0 8.0 15.1 14.7 75.4 79.3 9.5 6.0 3 77% raw coall 23% recycle J 950 91.3 8.7 14.8 13.3 76.2 80.2 9.0 6.5 4 77% raw coall 23%, recycle / 950 95.7 4.3 15.4 13.8 74.9 80.0 9.7 6.2 5 77% raw coal\ 23% recycle / 950 87.4 12.6 15.1 14.2 75.5 79.1 9.4 6.7 6 83% raw coal\ 17% recycle / 950 79.5 20.5 15.1 14.7 75.8 78.2 9.1 7.1 7 100% raw coal 950 67.6 32.4 14.9 14.7 75.0 77.8 10.1 7.5 8 100% raw coal 950 64.5 35.5 14.5 15.7 75.2 76.8 10.3 7.5 9 100% raw coal 1050 79.2 20.8 11.6 11.8 78.5 80.5 9.9 7.7 10 100% raw coal 1050 73.5 26.5 10.8 11.4 78.2 80.7 11.0 7.9 As originally sampled upon receipt of char. Table L. — Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table Run M. Moisture- free basis No. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur 5Sy2% 111. No. 6 211^% Eagle 20% Disco char 568 Disco char (batch 7-8)* . . . . Blend Coke 1.2 5.2 14.9 30.6 0.7 76.3 61.7 89.0 8.8 7.7 10.3 0.67 0.86 0.66 569 Disco char (batch 2-3)* . . . . Blend Coke 1.2 5.6 15.8 31.4 0.8 75.0 61.2 88.8 9.2 7.4 10.4 0.70 0.78 0.65 587 Disco char (batch 4-5)* . . . . Blend Coke 1.8 5.4 (15.2)t 29.3 1.0 (75. 4) t 62.4 88.1 9.4 8.3 10.9 0.67 0.90 0.75 571 Disco char (batch 9-10)*. . . . Blend Coke 1.4 5.3 12.0 30.7 0.7 78.3 61.9 89.5 9.7 7.4 9.8 0.62 0.80 0.67 * As sampled for individual coking tests t Computed from original samples. APPENDIX 37 Table M. — Chars from Denver Fluidized-Bed Retort* (111. No. 6 Coal) Identifying Temp, of carbonization M. Moisture-free basis batch no. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur 1 — Total char 2— Total char Minus 48 mesh 3 — Total char Minus 48 mesh 4 — Total char Minus 48 mesh 5 — Total char Minus 48 mesh 940° F. 940° F. 875° F. 875° F. 875° F. 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 16.7 16.2 18.5 18.7 21.3 18.5 21.2 22.2 23.7 71.4 9.9 0.73 As originally sampled upon receipt of char. Table N. — Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 12 Run M. Moisture- free basis No. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur 581^% 111. No. 6 211^% Eagle 20% Denver char 572 Denver char (batch 1-2)* . . . Blend Coke 1.0 5.1 16.5 31.0 1.3 74.0 60.1 86.3 9.5 8.9 12.4 0.82 1.03 0.86 573 Denver char (batch 3)* . . . . Blend Coke 0.5 4.9 18.7 31.6 0.8 71.4 59.8 87.2 9.9 8.6 12.0 0.73 1.01 0.80 588 Denver char (batch 4)* . Blend Coke 1.4 5.1 19.2 30.5 0.8 73.2 61.3 88.7 7.6 8.2 10.5 0.71 0.92 0.74 As lampled for individual coking tests. 38 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table O. — Analytical Data for Experimental Coke Runs Shown in Table 13 Run M. Moisture- free basis No. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur Av. 6 runs 5731 588/ 5681 569 587j 545 576 577 583^% 111. No. 6 213^% Eagle 20% char Char (vibrating retort) .... Blend Coke Char (fluidized bed) Blend Coke Char (rotary drum) Blend Coke 80% Eagle 20% char Char (vibrating retort) .... Blend Coke Char (fluidized bed) Blend Coke Char (rotary drum) Blend Coke 1.1 5.4 1.0 5.0 1.4 5.4 1.7 1.6 1.0 1.8 0.9 1.8 18.8 31.5 0.9 19.0 31.1 0.8 15.3 30.4 0.8 14.8 27.3 0.7 16.5 28.1 0.7 15.0 26.1 0.6 72.2 60.6 88.2 72.3 60.5 88.0 75.6 61.8 88.6 75.9 65.0 89.4 74.0 64.7 89.7 76.3 66.5 90.1 9.0 7.9 10.9 8.7 8.4 11.2 9.1 7.8 10.5 9.3 7.7 9.9 9.5 7.2 9.6 8.7 7.4 9.3 0.83 0.86 0.71 0.72 0.97 0.77 0.68 0.85 0.69 0.76 0.80 0.64 0.82 0.71 0.62 0.70 0.60 Illinois State Geological Survey, Report of Investigations 187 38 p., 5 figs., 13 tables, 1955