STATE OF ILLINOIS WILLIAM G. STRATTON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION VERA M. BINKS, Director tuucATION COMPARISON OF MINE SIZES OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS COALS FOR USE IN METALLURGICAL COKE by H.W. Jackman R.L. Eissler F. H. Reed DIVISION OF THE ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY JOHN C FRYE, Chief URBANA CIRCULAR 205 1955 :■ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://archive.org/details/comparisonofmine205jack sO.9- COMPARISON OF MINE SI7FS r^n- SOUTHERN ILLINOIS COAI i £L IN METALLURGICA A L L COK E R ^ by H. W. Jackman, R. L . Eissler, and F. H. Reed ABSTRACT Studies on prepared double -scrp^n^H ^ nois No. 5 and No.,6 coa ls indicate Zi^tZlLtl^T IUl " composition and coking properties. Mine sizes can h , ™ stituted for each other in metallurgical coke hi' T T °* SUb " ahle effect on the chemical or ^^^J^^*' ---included those prepared commercial in the ^^ there was no size from either seam «* a + j , sizes, and study, andl" G an te City SteTc "' ^ fUrnlShed ^ ^ U ~ d in — coal used in the prCSl^T^' ^ fUrnlShed *« «-.. w^r^rs^'^!?^. cokes " r d «*-*"**» -««— - Survey. We express our ^ ° f ^ UHn0iS State Geological °ur studies in™i vin g he ST^" "T """"^ '■"■ t « S - * *" iving the use of Illinois coals in metallurgical coke. PROCEDURE * p-Sd s :r:;rca^ ain rr tigation were taken by ^ *« «~ resentative samnl. 7„ uw t g ' ° r at ° ther Nations where a rep- were taken anTa^^ate: t" f ' ***"** ° f approximately 25 pounds ™*ed thoroughly aTweo to T ^ ^^ ° f Z '°°° P ° UndS Whlch we " ««„, and stored J bin s f om which "T^ '" ^^ ^ ^^ >«*- = oking tests. Onlv one , P ° rtl ° nS We " ™ ,M ' a ™ as needed for «-. .o -sr^sr^sr^-jsr - — — — 2 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Coking properties were evaluated in blends of No. 5 and No. 6 coals CoKing prop These blends were sampled for analysis with 2 5 P"cent Pocahonta coa L Th ... ^ ^^^ ^ & ^^ a "n d "Tt "nTe w'iie and'of 650-lb. capacity under operating conditions wall oven 17 inches wid pra ctice (Jackman, 1955). Expansion pres- simulaung co = c a! coke ov P measured> ^ ^^ ^^ and Weal tests were made on all cokes produced. Yields of coke were com- fjed basefon ^e weigbt of the air-dried coals charged to the oven. NO. 5 SEAM No. 5 coal of lowest available sulfur content is produced ^in the Saline o^Tthal ISfc^Ti. uniforL both in chemical composition and plasticity ^^^llTan^afdyaTblends of No. 5 with 2 5 percent Pocahontas Similar analyt expected, the blends are very uniform coal are shown m table 2 As w P to be coked suc - in composition and have a Gieseler nu y Analysis of were uniform, the furnace sizev+i ; r 1 2 to 1 4 lbs. per sq. in., total product. Expansion pressures ranged from 1.2 to 1.4 p all being sufficiently low to insure safe oven operation. Results of all tests made on No. 5 coal indicate no significant differ icant effect onthe coke produced or on the operation of coke ovens. NO. 6 SEAM No. 6 coal from a southern Illinois mine also ™*£$££ £%& dur es P-viously described. Samples of the --- ^h ^eTchemica Z^^eler P ^city tes J made - ^ese c - • -*£ in tabl 7 . Except for ^somewhat higher ah - oih b ^ inc ^ are very similar in composition and plast ^ produC ed from these MINE SIZES OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS COALS 3 about 93.5 percent of the total coke being of furnace size ( + 1 inch). Expan- sion pressure exerted by the No. 6 blends is low, varying from 0.6 to 0.9 lb. per sq. in. This series of tests on No. 6 coal indicates that all prepared coals from this mine in the size range tested are consistent in chemical and coking prop- erties and may be mixed or interchanged without appreciable effect on coke properties or oven operation. One possible exception is the 6 x 3 inch size in which the ash in the sample taken is about 1 percent higher than that in the other sizes. NO. 5 AND 6 SEAMS COMPARED No. 5 and No. 6 coals are both of bituminous B rank. No. 5 is the strongest coking coal mined commercially in Illinois. That from Saline County averages about 14,730 Btu on a moisture- and ash-free basis, compared with 14,470 Btu for the No. 6 coal used in this study. No. 5 coal prepared for the coke industry has a higher sulfur content than No. 6, normally ranging from 1.4 to 2 percent, depending on the location of the mine and the method of preparation. No. 6 coal currently available contains 1.1 to 1.3 percent sulfur. The Gieseler fluidity of No. 5 coal usually falls in the range of 50 to 150 dial divisions per minute; fluidity of No 6 coal normally ranges from 5 to 35 dial divisions per minute, although some may go higher. Because of its relatively low fluidity, No. 6 coal usually is not coked in a two-way blend with Pocahontas. No. 5 coal, owing to its higher sulfur con- tent, normally is not used as a large percentage of a coal blend for metallur- gical coke. However, mixtures of No. 5 and No. 6 coals blended with Poca- hontas are coked commercially to produce a product of very good quality Either coal may be blended with both high- and low-volatile Eastern coals to reduce expansion pressure or to improve coke properties. Coking results for both series of tests are summarized and compared in table 10. Values are the average of those obtained from the four mine sizes of each coal. In blends with 25 percent Pocahontas, both coals are shown to produce cokes of approximately the same strength, as indicated by the tumbler and shatter indices. Coke from No. 6 coal is slightly larger, and the No. 6 blends exert less pressure on oven walls during the carbonizing period. & No. 5 coal produces a higher yield of coke owing to its lower moisture content and to other inherent properties. This advantage is offset by its high- er sulfur content, but is worth consideration where sulfur requirements allow it to be used. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This investigation of the mine sizes of Illinois coals used in the coke ndustry may be summarized as follows: 1. The prepared sizes of No. 5 seam coal from Saline County show only unor variations in chemical composition over the range studied. Blends of 4 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY I ,„4tV, Pocahontas coal when coked in the pilot oven indicate £ " ^T^r.'S difference in the P h y sical properties or y ield S of the cokes P-duced southern ^^ ^ ., also unif rjp^- -~7rr: d „>; "r;^r,rr,r- "°°' 4 Both No 5 ,„d NO. 6 oo,l. blondod -1th Pooohoof. prodoo. .tro„ E cok estit^aft^ad ^-^iS^r^ S St Th r e n c a o C k e e C y t e io fro^No. 5 sea. is greater, hut the higher sulfur con- tent limits its use in blends for metallurgical coke. REFERENCES t v i„ H W etal 1955, Coke oven to measure expansion pressure - ■ ^^led UUnotovL' Preprint, Am. Inst. Min Met. Eng., 1955 ; avatl, able as Illinois Geol. Survey Reprint Series 1955-E. R eed, E. H., at al., I,5Z. Some ^-^^^J^O^ lurgical coke: Blast Furnace and Steel plant 'J' * U ' 344; reprinted as Illinois Geol. Survey Circ. 178. MINE SIZES OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS COALS Table 1. No. 5 Coal Analyses and Plastic Properties Dry basis Mine size M v \A tr r * — '■> — " — v.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur F.S.I, 6 " X3 " 5 ' 6 37 ' 7 55.4 6.9 160 6 r*:. 17 ?:: 5 - 8 ^ ^ 1 1/2" x 1" 5.4 37.1 36 - 7 55.5 7.8 1.49 •"•- 55.9 7.0 1.43 l"x5/8" 4.5 36.7 «. K . o ; 1/2 6 1/2 6" x 3" 3" x 1 1/2' 1 1/2" x 1" 1" x 5/8" Gieseler fluidity Plastic range ("C ) Dial div. per min. at «C. Softening Solidification 122 428 384 459 110 429 384 458 96 433 387 463 81 428 387 462 Table 2. Blends of No. 5 Coal with Pocahontas Analyses and Plastic Properties Dry basis Blend M. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur F.S.I. 97-102-103 75% No. 5 (6" x 3") 4.5 32.0 61.0 7.0 1 29 6 1/2 25% Pocahontas /2 93-94 75% No. 5(3"xl 1/2") 4.5 31.7 61.5 6.8 1.21 6 25% Pocahontas H9-120 75% No. 5(1 1/2" x 1") 4.1 31.9 61.1 7.0 1.31 6 25% Pocahontas 104-105 75% No. 5(l"x5/8") 3.9 32.0 60.5 7 5 132 6 1/2 25% Pocahontas 97-102-103 93-94 119-120 104-105 Gieseler fluidity Plastic range (°C.) Dial div. per min. at °C. Softening Solidification 21 431 393 464 30 429 388 462 15 435 395 468 18 436 396 464 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table 3. Pocahontas Coal Used in All Blends Analysis and Plastic Properties Dry basis M. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur F.S.L 4.3 16.3 77.7 6.0 0.77 7 1/2 Gieseler fluidity Plastic range Dial div. per min. at °C. Softening Plasticity 6 474 444 506 Table 4. Cokes Produced from Blends Containing No. 5 Coal Dry basis Run Blend V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur 97-102-103 75% No. 5 (6" x 3") 1.0 89.2 9.8 1.00 25% Pocahontas 93-94 75% No. 5 (3" x 1 1/2") 0.9 89.6 9.5 0.94 25% Pocahontas 119-120 75% No. 5 (1 1/2" x 1") 1.3 88.9 9.8 0.82 25% Pocahontas 104-105 75%No. 5 (1" x 5/8") 1.0 88.5 10.5 1.03 25% Pocahontas Table 5. Cokes Produced from Blends Containing No. 6 Coal Dry basis Run Blend V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur 89-90 75% No. 6 (6" x 3") 1.3 87.9 10.8 0.86 25% Pocahontas 84-85 75% No. 6 (3" x 1 1/2") 0.9 88.4 10.7 0.83 25% Pocahontas 86-87-88 75% No. 6 (1 1/2" x 3/4") 1.1 88.4 10.5 0.84 25% Pocahontas 91-92 75% No. 6 (3/4" x 7/16") 1.1 88.8 10.1 0.83 25% Pocahontas MINE S Coke physical pro- perties Tumbler test Stability- Hardness Shatter test +2" +1 1/2" + 1" Coke sizing +4" 4" x 3" 3" x 2" 2" x 1" 1" x 1/2" -1/2" Av. size (in.) Apparent gravity Coke yields (% of coal charged) Total Furnace ( + 1") Nut and pea (1" x 1/2") Breeze (-1/2") -xpansion pressure Lbs. per sq. in. Bulk density (lbs. per cu. ft.) pe rating data Pulverization (-1/8") F lue temp. (°F.) Poking time (hr.) IZES OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS COALS Table 6. Coking Results from Pilot Oven Coal Blend - 75% No. 5 25% Pocahontas N °- 5 No - 5 No 5 (6" x V'\ /?,, , , i No - 5 54.8 65.7 76.2 91.9 97.1 4.5 21.1 47.3 21.1 2.3 3.7 2.47 0.82 70.3 66.1 1.6 2.6 1.30 50.0 55.4 66.5 80.9 92.7 97.7 5.4 18.5 48.4 21.7 2.3 3.7 2.45 0.82 70.5 66.2 1.6 2.7 1.40 49.9 56, 66, 80.4 1950 17 80.6 1950 17 75.8 92.4 97.5 3.7 28.2 41.0 21.7 1.7 3.7 2.53 0.81 70.2 66.4 1.2 2.6 1.26 49.9 82.6 1950 17 55.0 65.6 76.9 92.4 97.1 5.2 25.4 45.3 18.0 2.3 3.8 2.55 0.82 70.4 66.1 1.7 2.6 1.25 49.9 81.1 1950 17 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table 7. No. 6 Coal Analyses and Plastic Properties ine size M. Dry basis M V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur F.S.I. 6' 1 x 3" 8.3 37.7 53.7 8.6 1.20 5 3' 1 x 1 1/2" 8.3 38.0 54.2 7.8 1.16 4 1 1/2" x 3/4" 7.4 38.1 54.4 7.5 1.18 4 1/2 3/4" x 7/16" 7.8 38.7 53.8 7.5 1.21 5 1/2 Gie seler fluidity Plastic range (°C .) Dial div. per min. at °C. Softening Solidification 6' 1 x 3' i 23 426 382 454 3' ' x 1 1/2" 38 425 377 454 1 1/2" f4" x x 3/4" : 7/16" 65 27 425 425 381 382 457 453 Table 8. Blends of No. 6 Coal with Pocahontas Analyses and Plastic Properties Run 89-90 Dry basis Blend M. V.M. F.C. Ash Sulfur F.S.I. , 75% No. 6 (6" x 3") 6.5 32.4 59.9 7.7 1.15 4 1/9 25% Pocahontas 84-85 75% No. 6 (3" x 1 1/2") 6.5 32.7 60.0 7.3 1.12 5 25% Pocahontas 86-87-88 75% No. 6 (1 1/2" x f 3/4..) 6.0 33.0 59.7 7.3 1.12 5 1/2; 25% Pocahontas 91-92 75% No. 6 (3/4" x 7/I6") 6.0 32.8 60.1 7.1 1.14 5 25% Pocahontas Gieseler fluidity Plastic range (°C.) Dial div. per min. at °C. Softening Solidification 89-90 84-85 86-87-88 91-92 9 425 385 459 12 426 386 460 8 419 386 456 7 421 386 457 MINE SIZES OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS COALS Table 9. Coking Results from Pilot Oven Coal Blend - 75% No. 6 25% Pocahontas Coke physical pro- perties Tumbler test Stability 54.4 Hardness 64.8 Shatter test +2" 82.8 +1 1/2" 93.9 + 1" 97.1 Coke sizing +4" 7.7 4" x 3" 26.1 3" x 2" 44.8 2" x 1" 14.9 1" x 1/2" 2.2 -1/2" 4.3 Av. size (in.) 2.63 Apparent gravity 0.81 No. 6 No. 6 (6" x 3") (3" x 1 1/2" Runs 89-90 Runs 84-85 54.5 64.4 Coke yields (% of coal charged) Total 67.5 Furnace (+1") 63.1 Nut and pea 1.5 (1" x 1/2") Breeze (-1/2") 2.9 Expansion pressure Lbs. per sq. in. 0.77 Bulk density 49.9 (lbs. per cu. ft.) 81.8 93.0 97.3 8.4 26.8 42.3 15.9 1.7 4.9 2.63 0.79 67.3 62.9 1.2 3.2 0.64 50.2 No. 6 No. 6 (1 1/2" x 3/4") (3/4" x 7/16") Runs 86-87-88 Runs 91-92 54.5 65.5 81.5 92.9 97.1 7.3 21.5 45.4 18.7 2.4 4.7 2.53 0.80 67.5 62.8 1.6 3.1 0.72 50.1 53.8 65.1 77.1 91.8 96.6 5.2 24.5 44.6 18.9 2.6 4.2 2.52 0.81 68.0 63.4 1.8 2.8 0.90 49.9 Operating data Pulverization 80.8 (-1/8") Flue temp. (°F.) 1950 Coking time (hr.) 17 79.5 1950 17 78.5 1950 17 77.6 1950 17 10 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Table 10. Comparative Coking Results No. 5 and No. 6 Coals 75% No. 5 75% No. 6 25% Pocahontas 25% Pocahontas (Av. 4 mine sizes) (Av. 4 mine sizes) 55.4 54.3 66.1 65.0 77.5 80.8 92.4 92.9 97.4 97.0 4.7 7.2 23.3 24.7 45.5 44.3 20.6 17.1 2.2 2.2 3.7 4.5 2.50 2.58 0.82 0.80 Coke physical properties Tumbler test Stability- Hardness Shatter test +2" +1 1/2" + 1" Coke sizing +4" 4" x 3" 3" x 2" 2" x 1"* 1" x 1/2" -1/2" Av. size (in.) Apparent gravity Coke yields (% of coal charged) Total 70.3 67.6 Furnace (+1") 66.2 63.1 Nut and pea (1" x 1/2") 1.5 1.5 Breeze (-1/2") 2.6 3.0 Expansion pressure Lbs. per sq. in. 1.30 0.76 Bulk density (lbs. per cu. ft.) 49.9 50.0 Operating data Pulverization (-1/8") 81.2 79.1 Flue temp. (°F.) 1950 1950 Coking time (hr.) 17 17 nnEEPni CIRCULAR 205 ILLINOIS STATE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY URBANA 114