COAL CHARATERIZATION AND BLENDING CRITERIA –A

PERSPECTIVE AT RINL

S.K.Seet

ABSTRACT: Prime coking coal of superior coking quality has become a scarce
commodity and its price is increasing day by day. With conventional coke making
practices still relevant in the integrated steel industries, use of low cost carbonaceous
masses and judicious use of coking coal reserve with special emphasis on reducing cost
of coal blend to an optimized coke quality is a priority. A suitable blend design model
based on judicious coal blending consideration is a valuable tool in the hands of coke
maker to address his coke quality requirement effectively at a minimum cost.

INTRODUCTION of blend design criteria aims to

incorporate the required coking potential
Prime aim of coke making unit of an in the selected blend by putting certain
integrated steel plant is to produce and conditionality of coal quality parameters
supply metallurgical coke suitable to in its grid. The evaluation of various
blast furnace. The requirement of coke blend coal composition is done against
quality is spelt out by blast furnace the above design criteria by adoption of
operator based on his operating various optimization techniques. The
experience associated with productivity coal blend which satisfies the design
improvement consideration, criteria ensures that coke that will be
nature/extent of auxiliary fuel injection produced from it will possess the
and any other futuristic need. The coke required quality. Development of
quality requirement must be optimized suitable blending criteria necessitates
keeping in view the cost of coal blend extensive literature survey, analysis of
and should avoid as far as possible the plant data, trial run data of several
insistence on having higher quality. To carbonization study and finally the
do this a suitable blend design must be at ingenuity of the coke maker. The gamut
hand, which will ensure coke quality as of blend design consideration must
desired by blast furnace at a minimum include the following areas of
cost. Here basic aspects of the blend importance.
design consideration and evaluation
techniques are discussed with special 1. To satisfy chemical requirement
emphasis on how to reduce cost and still of coke such as; proximate,
meet the requirement of blast furnace. ultimate, ash chemistry and
basicity index etc.
THE BLENDING PHILOSOPHY
2. To satisfy the physical properties
Blending process essentially consists of requirement of coke such as;
two stages ie, formulation of blending CRI, CSR, Stability, Hardness,
design criteria and evaluation of size, porosity and textural
different blending options. Formulation distribution of coke shell.
3. To fulfill the requirement of
various yields of carbonization.

1
4. It must ensure that no adverse
effect being imparted on the The result of the coal blend
battery wall when carbonized. consideration will be a blending decision
grid with chosen coal quality variables
5. It must include the coal along with its value ranges to produce
weathering consideration to coke of desired quality. After the blend
avoid discrepancies between design criterion is finalized various
expected and coke quality blend proposals are evaluated against the
obtained. design criteria to arrive at an option
which is most cost economic. There are
6. Must include consideration for several techniques and one among them
incorporating low cost carbon is use of Linear Programming technique.
material to reduce cost of blend Based on the technical criteria a
mathematical formulation of the problem
7. Basic blend should be cost is developed and solved to arrive at a
competitive and must aims to blend composition which satisfies the
attain required coke quality at design criteria at minimum cost. Use of
minimum cost. This requires low cost carbon material as replacement
application of various cost of portion of the base blend is also
optimization techniques. widely adopted to reduce cost of blend.
In this case parent blend needs some
8. Finally the blend should be special attention so as to satisfy the coke
designed from such coal sources quality requirement. Fig-1 illustrates
whose logistics are comfortable schematically how the process of
with the plant operation. blending decision should proceed.

Physical : CRI, CSR, Stability, hardness

Fixing of coke quality
requirement Chemical : Ash sulfur, Phosphorus, ash basicity, alkali

Fixing of chemical
Requirement of
blend

Fixation of Evaluation of optimum range of

Design blend coal parameters
criteria And fixing of design criteria
through literature
Survey, pilot scale test data etc,.

Based on the design Criteria

formulation of decision
Variable
( c1x1+c2x2+ ..cixn ) = P
Minimize P ; Ci=Cost of
Coal I, xi=% of coali

Formulation of constraint
Evaluation
Equations from blending criteria
Of blending
Incorporating important
options
Coal quality parameters

Solved for least cost blend

Composition satisfying
Design criteria ( x1,x2..xn)

Fig-1 : Process of evaluation of coal blend options.

2
DEVELOPING A BLEND DESIGN produced. Important coke chemical
CRITERA requirements are low ash content,
required level of carbon, hydrogen,
Development of a suitable design oxygen, nitrogen, low sulfur and low
criterion marks the most important stage phosphorus content. C/H ratio is used by
of the overall blending process. coke makers as an indicator of coking
Numerous research works done in pilot potential for coal. Coals having good
& plant scale, which have provided vital coking behaviour possesses C/H ratio
insight in to the carbonization between 0.67 +/- 0.03. Many authors
phenomenon and also regarding various have emphasized the role of ash
coal parameters that, have strong bearing chemistry on coke quality. It has been
on it. These works have developed mentioned in many research work that
various prediction models to predict presence of basic oxides and alkalis
coke quality from different coal quality adversely affect the CSR. Thus many
parameters through application of prefer to specify a basicity index or a
various empirical relations. Coke quality alkali index along with other coke
parameters such as; CRI, CSR, stability , chemical parameter. The basicity index
hardness, size etc., are predicted to a fair and alkali index in the blend should be
degree of accuracy by numerous <= 0.25 % and 0.161 % respectively.
relationship involving various coal
quality parameters i.e. volatile matter, Physical requirement of coke
ash, MMR, petrographic properties, ash
chemistry and fluid behavior. Based on Prediction of various coke strength
these understandings and available coke properties from coal quality parameters
quality prediction tool important coal forms the basis of this stage. Coal
parameters along with their value ranges properties such as; ash content, volatile
are grouped to form a blend design matter content, MMR, fluidity,
criteria. An important requirement of Composition Balance Index(CBI) and
this design criteria is that the coal quality petrographic composition are related to
parameters considered for evaluation in coke physical properties through
the blend must be additive in nature. In established empirical relations and
this regard plastic property is not diagrams, from which relevant coal
additive and hence cannot be used to properties are selected and specified
predict the blend property from with their value ranges to form a blend
individual coal properties. It has to be design grid. Few empirical relationships
tested for the specific blend. Below the which can be used to form a basis to
process of fixing the blend design design a coal blend criteria suitable for
criteria is depicted in a stepwise manner production of high strength metallurgical
to bring forth the basic concept on which coke is presented below in table no-1.
the blending decision must be made.
Diagrams which are often used by coke
Fixing of chemical requirement makers to derive coal properties with its
value ranges for production of coke
The blending criteria should at first meet suitable to blast furnace are shown in
the chemical requirements of coke to be from fig -2 to Fig-7.

3
Table-1 : Established empirical relationship between coal properties and coke physical
parameters.
Relationship Pioneer Coal properties Coke
included properties
predicted
CSR=56.9+0.0826TD- CANMET TD: %Total Dilation Coke Strength
6.86MBI+11.47RO MBI:Modified Basicity after Reaction
Index
Ro max: Random Max.
(CSR)
Reflectance
CSR=26.4 ARMI – 63.2 Diessel/ Ro max: Random Max. CRI
CRI = 101.6 – 16.3 ARMI WOLFF- Reflectance CSR
% Vitrinite
FISCHR Alkali Index
CSR = 28.91 + 0.63 PR -9.64 C.I Inland PR: Plastic Range CSR
-14.04 S Steel C.I: Catalytic Index
S : Sulfur
Company
CSR =19 + 50.8 Ro + 0.0017(% VOVAHOT Ro max: Random Max. CSR
Dilation)(%inerts) – 0.9 VM OSTRAVA Reflectance
% Dilation
% Inerts
% Volatile Matter
CSR = 116.48 + 5.5 M +4.51 Ash – Ruhrkob M: Moisture CSR
2.29 VMdb + 0.01 %Dilation – 1.08 AG Ash
Carbonization rate Volatile matter
% Dilation
Carbonization rate

CRI = 17.64 - 2.63 M + 2.93 Ash + CRI

1.67 VMdb - 0.01 BD + 0.37
Carbonization rate
CSR = 111.4 Ro – 1.65 Ash -52 SAIL, India Ro max: Random Max. CSR
Reflectance
Ash
CSR = - 18.8 MBI +84 CANMET MBI CSR
CSR = 76.5 + 3.41 MMR -1.56 Ash RINL, India MMR & Ash content CSR
MBI=Modified Basicity Index=100*ash%{(%Na2O+%K2O+%CaO+%MgO%Fe2O3)/(SiO2+Al2O3)(100-%VM)}

C.I = Catalytic Index =9.64*{(%CaO+%MgO+%Fe2O3+%Na2O+%K2O)/(Si2O+Al2O3)}+% S

ARMI ={ Ln ( Ro ×% Vitrinite)}/ Alkali Index

4
 Fig-2: MMR Vs. Maximum Fluidity

0.7 to 1.3. Below 0.7 coal is inert

Figure-2 provides basic idea regarding deficient having excessive plastic mass
the range of MMR of coal blend one to generate higher coking pressure and
should operate to attain higher plastic weak coke. Above 1.3 the coal being
property required for better coking. deficient in reactive, will not
Figure-3 & 4 gives the idea on what agglomerate properly to form a stronger
MMR and fluid range of coal is required coke. Reactive macerals such as vitrinite
to produce coke of superior strength. In in the blend should be between 65 to 80
addition to the plastic property and %. Beyond 80% the coking pressure will
MMR of coal, petrographic properties be higher to inflict damage to wall of
also play a significant role towards battery. Below 50% the coal will be
providing better strength to coke. Higher deficient with plastic mass to effect
percentage of reactive macerals such as; better coking. The higher carbon form of
vitrinite & exinite are important, but a vitrinite also plays major role in giving
minimum quantity of inerts along with it better physical properties to coke. Thus
is required to provide better strength to the distribution of various V-groups in
coke shell. Composition Balance Index the blend should conform to a minimum
(CBI) is the indicator of the extent of requirement. Figure-6 depicts effect of
balance existing between the reactive vitrinoid concentration on CSR of coke.
and inert towards the optimum range of Concentration of V9-V14 in the blend

5
coal should be 80 % Minimum.
Overlapping plastic ranges between
individual coal components is an
important requirement, to have better
coherency of the coke mass produced.
This overlap should be a minimum of 35
degree centigrade.

Fig-4: Plastic Range Vs CSR

Consideration on yields

Yield of coke , gas, tar and light oil are

related to coal rank and operating
condition that is prevailing in the
battery. Higher the rank of coal higher
will be the yield of coke with lower
Fig-3: MMR Vs CSR
gaseous and liquid recovery.
Relationships between volatile content
Finally the coal quality parameters of
of coal being charged and yield of
importance are MMR, Plastic range,
various product of carbonization have
petrographic composition ash chemistry
been established by different workers.
(described in terms of basicity index and
Accordingly a coal blend consideration
alkali index), ash content and Volatile
must estimate the probable yield of gross
matter content, which must form the part
coke that is going to be obtained from
of a coal blend design specification
the proposed blend for which a typical
along with corresponding value ranges.
empirical relation of following type can
Coal blend designs are plant specific and
be used.
have to be derived based on the
individual requirement of plant.
Dry Coke yield (%) = 97.46 – 0.74 %
However adoption of a basic approaches
VM Dry ash free basis
taking care of above discussed
consideration will go long way in
Consideration on battery life
providing suitable solution to coke
quality at a minimum cost.
No coal blend design be allowed to
operate without assessment of its
implication on battery life. There can be
many blend coals which during their
carbonization generate higher coking

6
pressure with less charge contraction, parameters which are responsible for
inflicting permanent damage to oven generation of higher coking pressure and
wall and form sticker. Such blend less charge shrinkage must be identified.
formulation must be avoided. Factors or

Fig-5: Catalytic Index Vs Plastic Range For Different CSR

Fig-6 Higher Vitronoid Conc. Vs CSR Fig-7: MBI Vs CSR

7
An effective blend design must
incorporate those coal parameters in the
criteria grid which ensure a smooth
pushing having less coking pressure and
higher charge shrinkage, without
compromising with the required coke
quality. Figure-8, 9& 10 show important
coal parameters which has a strong
bearing on coking pressure and charge
shrinkage.

Fig-9: Effect of rank and fluidity

on wall pressure

Fig-8: Effect of inerts on coking pressure

These diagram being established after

extensive plant and pilot scale trial to
study the effect of coal parameter on
coking pressure, form the basis for
deciding the optimum range in blends.
Based on the above findings, the blend
coal properties for smooth pushing and
safe coking pressure have been indicated
which is shown below in table -2.

Fig-10: Effect of rank on gas

pressure

8
Table-2: Blend Coal quality for safe coking pressure
Sl Coal Parameter Optimum
no Range
1 MMR (%) 1.10-1.20
2 Volatile Matter content (%) 24-27
3 Inert content (%) 15-35
4 Maximum wall pressure allowed (KPA) 14
5 SHO % Contraction 7 to 10

Consideration for coal weathering Various methods have been established

to assess the weathering effect of coal.
Blending consideration must include the Important among them are; a) IRFT
aspect of oxidation of coal during Spectroscopy b) Alkali wash followed
prolong exposure to atmosphere in its by spectroscopy and c) Ph of water-
design criteria. Oxidation of coal methanol wash. The first two method are
severely deteriorates the inherent coking quantitative type and the last one is
property present in the blend and is the qualitative which only indicates the ph
prime cause of discrepancy between the of the extract. All these methods can be
expected coke quality and the actual. suitably incorporated in the blending
Worse effected coal properties are its criteria to ensure that coal being
fluidity, plastic range and FSI. When considered is not weathered to a
carbonized an oxidized coal will produce significant extent. ASTM D 5263-93
coke of much lower CSR. adopts the method of alkali wash where
the humic acid formed during oxidation
of coal is being extracted in to a 1N
NaOH solution and is being quantified
for oxidation with respect to absorbance
in a spectrophotometer. Thus in many
coal blend specification coal oxidation is
included by a parameter of spectroscopic
transmittance. A typical coal blend
specification specifies the degree of
oxidation as shown in table -3.

Table no-3: Test on oxidation of coal

Sl Coal Type Oxidation test

no

1 High Volatile coal 93 % Minimum Transmittance

2 Medium Volatile coal 94 % Minimum Transmittance

3 Low Volatile coal 95 % Minimum Transmittance

9
Formulation of blending criteria
Table-5: blend design for ACME
After the consideration on chemical STEEL
properties, physical properties, battery
life and coal oxidation are finalized, a
blend coal design criteria is formed. This
format or the criteria then becomes the
basis for evaluating various blending
option. Various plant adopts different
blending criteria specific to their
requirement. Some of these blend design
criteria adopted by other coking plants is
presented below in table-4,5 & 6.

Table -4: Blend design adopted by

POSCO, POHANG .
Sl no Prameters Value
1 MMR 0.98-1.02
2 Log MF 2.7-2.78
3 Stess- 4.15-4.25 Table-6: Blend design as per
strain CANMET
index
4 Volatile 26-27 Sl no Prameters Value
Matter 1 %Ash 6-8
(%) 2 MMR 1.15-1.23
5 Coke Ash 11.0% Max 3 Sulfur 0.75 max
6 Coke 0.60 4 %Inerts 15-30
Sulphur 5 %Vitrinite 65-80
(%) 6 CBI 0.7-1.3
7 CSR of 65-68 7 Max Fluidity 1000-4000
coke ddpm
EVALUATION OF BLENDING 8 SHO 6-10
% Contraction
OPTION 9 % Total 50-150
dialation
Evaluation of different blending options 10 Basicity Index 0.25 max
has to be done with respect to the 11 Coke Stability 61 min
technical and economical requirement. Sl 12
no CSR
Prameters 60 min
Value
The aim at this stage is to reduce the cost 1 % VM 28 Max
of the blend without compromising the 2 %Ash 6 Max
quality of coke produced. There are 3 MMR 1.15-1.20
4 Sulfur 0.8 Max
several ways by which cost of blend can
5 Max. Fluidity 1200-2000 low
be optimized. Two methods ie, use of ddpm
6 SHO -7 to -10
cost
% Contraction carbon
7 Coking Pressure 15 material
IN KPA
8 % Transmittance 94
9 Ash fusion(Softn) 1349 min
1010 % Alkali 0.19 max
11 % Oxygen 4.5 max
12 Coke Stability 61 min
13 CSR 62 min
and application of cost optimization for blast furnace use. Different carbon
technique among several other are material for partial replacement of
discussed below. charge blend in metallurgical coke
making is presented in table-7.

Blending consideration for use of low

cost carbon material Table -7: Different carbonaceous
material selected for
Shortage of high cost coking coal and incorporation in coal
need to economize the cost of coal blend blend.
has called for urgent initiation to A Petroleum Refining source material
incorporate low value carbon material in Petroleum coke
to the coking charge. Various trials have Asphaltene
been conducted on different kind of B Coke plant Waste
Coke fines
carbon materials. These trials have Coke Braize
suggested the extent of incorporation for Coal tar
different low cost carbon materials in the Coal tar pitch
coking charge to produce coke suitable Coal sludge
The requirement which arises in case of C Non – Coking coal
Steam coal
incorporation of low value carbon
Sub-bituminous coal
material in coking blend is availability of Anthracite coal
a coke quality prediction method, prior coherent and strong coke mass. Parent
to the commencement of actual trial. coal blend must have more plasticity
This will facilitate the decision on what with higher, wider plastic range and
approximate percentage of addition can higher amount of fusible mass to ensure
be tolerated in the coking charge without that the added inerts became solely the
affecting the quality of coke. Once this part of a well crystallized coherent coke.
broad idea is obtained a pilot scale test Special focus is given also to the extent
or a trial on a commercial scale can of weathering happened to the parent
proceed. The coke quality prediction coal as any amount of oxidation will
method should necessarily include inert further increase the inert load. Thus the
% of the coal blend as a variable (in requirement specification on weathering
addition to other coal quality parameter) in case of low value carbon addition
on a wider scale. Thus the added carbon blends necessarily became very stringent
material which additionally contributes with minimum oxidized coal
to the available inert present in the components. A typical coal blend
parent coking blend is also taken care specification using petrocoke up to 9 %
while predicting the coke quality. in the blend is presented below in table
no-4.
The base blend must posses some
special quality, which otherwise may not
be as important in case of no addition.
These qualities in essence ensure that all
the added inerts are fully assimilated to a

11
 Table-4: Base blend specification for The optimum solution of the above
9% petrocoke addition equation is obtained from a group of
Slno. Parameter Specification mathematical equation called
1 Fluidity(ddpm) 1200 – 2500 with “constrained equation”. These equations
overlapping range are solved in an iterative process to
2 SHO -7 % to – 10 % arrive at specific blend composition
Contraction having minimum of Z.
3 MMR 1.15 to 1.20
4 Oxidation test Should be between
CONCLUSION
for 93 to 95 %
All individual transmittance The utility of a blending model to a great
Blend extent depends upon the development of
components suitable design criteria, where maximum
emphasis and care is needed. The
Note : The specification above is only for the parameters in the design criterion must
91 % of the base blend. lend themselves to be used with
Source : ACME Steel Company, additivity rule so that the linear
Revised on 6-21-96. programming technique can be
effectively utilized and give solution
Cost optimization of blending option having wider applicability. Fortunately
many important coal quality parameters
With an aim to minimize the cost of such as; ash content, volatile matter
the blend and to arrive at a blending content, MMR, maceral composition, %
option which satisfies the technical V9-V14 etc. lend themselves to be get
criteria as laid down, cost optimization calculated for the blend from the
techniques such as Linear Programming individual coals and subsequently
can be applied. Different blending utilized in the linear programming
options comprising of varied coal quality methods. A difficulty arises in case of
and cost can be evaluated suitably to rheological properties of coal where
arrive at a most cost competitive blend additivity rule cannot be applied due to
composition satisfying the design interaction between individual coal
criteria. A technique widely used in this component present in the blend. As per
context is the Linear Programming by the work done by Richard Sakurovos of
Simplex method, where an objective CSIRO, Proton Magnetic Resonance
function (here in this case it is cost of Thermal Analysis (PMRTA) F-value can
the coal blend) is defined as follow. be used to estimate the rheological
characteristics for the blend. Thus
Z =C1X1 + C2X2 + C2X2… ..CiXi further studies is left in the areas of
------------(1) identifying suitable rheological
parameter which can be used in linear
Where, Z is the cost of the coal blend programming calculation.
per unit mass.
Ci is the cost of the ith coal
component in the blend
Xi is the % fraction of i th coal
component REFERENCE

12
 making” Kawasaki Steel
1. H.S.Valia, D.D.Kaegi, Technical report no-38, April’
V.I.Addes, D.A.Zeeke , 1998.
“Production and use of high CSR 11. Van Drew, S.L (1987) “ Coal
coke at Inland Steel” ISS 1990, preparation and blending
pp. 59-72. techniques based on Linear
2. Y.Ishikawa, M.Kase, Y.Abe, Programming” Mineral Research
K.One,M.Sugota & T.Nasi, “ Management By personal
Influence of post reaction Computer, Soceity of Mining
strength of coke on blast Engg. Of AIME, Letteleton , CO,
furnace” ISS 1990, pp. 37-48 pp. 89-94.
3. H.S.Valia “Prediction of CSR 12. J.H.Shih, H.C.Frey “Coal
with CO2 from coal analysis at blending optimization under
Inland Steel Company” ISS uncertainity” Proceeding of the
1990, pp.109.119 tenth Annual International
4. Pearson, David E, “Influence of Pitttsburgh Coal Conference,
geology on CSR” Coal University of Pittsburgh,
pertrography Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ,
5. Richard Sakurovs, “ Interaction Sept’1993, pp.1110-1115.
between coking coal in blend”
CSIRO Division of Energy
Technology, PO Box 136 North
Ryde NSWI670 Australia.
6. G.M.Latshaw,H.R.Mccollum,R.
W.Stanley “Wall pressure
determination by measurement
and interpretation of internal gas
pressure in a six meter battery”
United States Steel Corporation.
ISS 1992 pp. 51-58.
7. H.S.Valia “ Effect of coal
oxidation on coke making” Iron
Making Conference Proceedings
-1990, pp. 199-207.
8. John, price T , “ Coal
petrography and
characterization” Mac Master
-2003 Volume-1.
9. H.S.Valia “ Coal Blend Design”
Mac Master -2003 Volume-1.
10. Matsui,T, Igawa,K, Sorimachi, K
“ Prediction of blended coal
fluidity and lateral contraction of
coal in coke ovens – Technology
for increasing the charging ratio
of low quality coal in coke

13