This article was downloaded by: [National Metallurgical Laboratory] On: 17 June 2013, At: 00:09 Publisher: Taylor

& Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcop20

Performance Optimization of the FGX Dry Separator for Cleaning High-Sulfur Coal
B. Zhang , H. Akbari , F. Yang , M. K. Mohanty & J. Hirschi
a b a a a a

Department of Mining and Mineral Resources Engineering, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, IL, USA
b

Illinois Clean Coal Institute, Carterville, IL, USA Published online: 14 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: B. Zhang , H. Akbari , F. Yang , M. K. Mohanty & J. Hirschi (2011): Performance Optimization of the FGX Dry Separator for Cleaning High-Sulfur Coal, International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization, 31:3-4, 161-186 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19392699.2011.574943

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable

for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization, 31: 161186, 2011 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1939-2699 print=1939-2702 online DOI: 10.1080/19392699.2011.574943

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION OF THE FGX DRY SEPARATOR FOR CLEANING HIGH-SULFUR COAL

B. ZHANG1, H. AKBARI1, F. YANG1, M. K. MOHANTY1, AND J. HIRSCHI2 Department of Mining and Mineral Resources Engineering, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, IL, USA 2 Illinois Clean Coal Institute, Carterville, IL, USA
1

The main goal of the present study was not only to deshale (remove pure rock) raw coal extracted from Illinois mines but also to assess the maximum ash separation efficiency and sulfur rejection achievable using the FGX Dry Separator for cleaning raw coals of varying cleaning characteristics. A Model FGX-1 Dry Separator with feed throughput capacity of 10 tph was extensively tested at the Illinois Coal Development Park using multiple coal samples having distinctly different cleaning characteristics. Statistically designed experimental programs were conducted to indentify critical process variables and to optimize FGX Dry Separator performance by systematic adjustments of critical process variable parameters. The coal-cleaning performance of the FGX Dry Separator was evaluated for the particle size range of 4.7563.5 mm in most
Received 1 June 2010; accepted 9 August 2010. Research funding received for this project from the Illinois Clean Coal Institute (ICCI) through the Office of Coal Development and the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity is sincerely appreciated. The authors greatly appreciate the support and guidance received from FGX SepTech, LLC, during the course of this investigation. Special appreciation is extended to Mr. Chao Zhao of FGX SepTech, LLC for his constant guidance during the test program. Address correspondence to M. K. Mohanty, Department of Mining and Mineral Resources Engineering, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, IL, USA. E-mail: mmohanty@siu.edu

162

B. ZHANG ET AL.

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

cases, although FGX Dry Separator feed consisted of nominal 7minus;63.5 mm run-of-mine coals. Deck vibration frequency, longitudinal deck angle, feeder frequency, and baffle plate height were identified as critical process variables for the FGX Dry Separator. The best cleaning performance obtained from the FGX Dry Separator was described by specific gravity of separation (SG50) and probable error (Ep) values of 1.98 and 0.17, respectively. For a relatively easy-to-clean coal (having a Cleaning Index of 0.72), only about 0.42% of the clean coal (i.e., 1.6 float fraction) present in the feed was lost to the tailings stream. For a relatively difficult-to-clean coal (having a Cleaning Index of 0.53), about 0.98% of the clean coal present in the feed was lost to the tailings stream. The positive impact of having fine materials in the FGX feed stream was also noted in this study. A modified log-logistic partition model was developed using experimental data reported in literature and validated using new experimental data generated in this study. The results showed that this model could be effectively used to predict the FGX Dry Separator coal-cleaning performance. Keywords: Dry coal beneficiation; FGX dry separator; Partition model; Performance optimization

INTRODUCTION Dry coal beneficiation is typically less restrictive, simpler in process, and easier to operate in comparison to wet coal-cleaning processes. Several dry coal beneficiation technologies have been developed and investigated by researchers worldwide, including Accelerator [1], Rotary Breaker [2], Allair Jig [3, 4], FGX Compound Dry Separator [5], Air Dense Medium Fluidized Bed Separator [6], AKAFLOW Separator [7], TriboElectrostatic Separator [8], MagMill [9], and so on. Accelerator, like rotary breaker, utilizes selective breakage principle to remove large, unbroken pure rock pieces while providing better coal liberation for subsequent cleaning processes. The rotary breaker repeatedly lifts the feed material, whose size is larger than the screen aperture, and drops it against the strong perforated screen plates. Two products are generated: one being large unbroken high-ash tailings and the other being broken product having better liberation characteristics. Rotary breaker has proven to be a robust machine having very low operating costs, typically ranging from $ 0.01=ton to $0.04=ton, and a high capacity up to 2000 tph [2]. The Accelerator could achieve better product yield in

OPTIMIZATION OF THE FGX DRY SEPARATOR

163

comparison to the rotary breaker and also improved liberation performance [1]. Several studies have been reported for coarse coal cleaning using pneumatic jigs. Air jigs use pulsed air to achieve particle stratification and separation through the hindered settling and consolidated trickling mechanisms. Allminerals air jig technology, known as an Allair jig, has been commercialized in the United States with the first 50 tph unit installed in an Ohio surface coal mine in 2001. The system provides high-density cutpoints as required in rock-removal operation; however the top particle size that it can treat is about 50 mm [4]. Air-Dense Medium Fluidized Bed (ADMFB) technology has been an effective method to clean run-of-mine (ROM) coal [10]. Large coal (50 300 mm) was successfully cleaned by ADMFB with Ep values about 0.02. However, a much deeper bed was required to provide sufficient separation space [11]. The ROM coal of 650 mm size fraction was also effectively cleaned by ADMFB and the overall Ep value was 0.03. Detailed results showed that the finer the feed coal particles, the lower the clean coal recovery as well as the separation efficiency [12]. Vibrated ADMFB and Magnetically Stabilized ADMFB technologies were developed to provide dry separation of coal in 60 mm particle size range [12, 13]. Both technologies could provide low (0.065) Ep values. Magnetically Stabilized ADMFB could also provide low (1.52) specific gravity of separation due to better fluidization characteristics of the bed. Dual-density ADMFB technology was developed and tested to achieve three-product separation [14]. The results showed that an Ep value of 0.060.09 for the upper layer with an SG50 of 1.501.54 and an Ep value of 0.090.11 for the lower layer with an SG50 of 1.841.90 were achievable by this process. A pilot ADMFB plant having a feed capacity of 50 tph was established to clean the 506 mm size coal. Although good coal-cleaning performance, indicated by 0.050.07 Ep, was achieved, the long-term operation was difficult due to the difficulties of medium recovery and stability control. Full-scale units need to be developed and demonstrated for successful commercialization of the ADMFB technologies. The AKAFLOW Separator [7] has been developed in Germany using the principle of an air table for cleaning fine size (3 mm) particles. Preliminary testing on fine coal (3 mm) having an ash content of 29.5% produced a clean coal product having an ash content of 18.3% at 73.5% product yield. The densest reject was 57.7% in ash.

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

164

B. ZHANG ET AL.

Another air table separator, namely the Cimbria Heid Gravity Table, was evaluated recently by Patil (2008) and Parekh et al. [15] to clean 6 mm 1 mm size coal. Excellent separation efficiency values, described by ash rejection values of about 77%80% with a combustible recovery of about 95% were reported in this study. Pyritic sulfur content was reduced from 2.65% in feed to about 1.5% in product stream. Electrostatic separators utilize high electric field to achieve the separation of charged particles. Three major mechanismsthat is, conductive induction, contact or tribo-electrification, and ion or corona bombardmenthave been used to endow the charges. Separators using one or more of the above-mentioned mechanisms have been developed and evaluated to beneficiate coal [8, 1632]. Dry magnetic separation has also been used to achieve coal cleaning based on the fact that clean coal is a weakly diamagnetic material and some of the minerals associated with coal (particularly those containing iron) are paramagnetic. Various approaches, including irradiation, High-Gradient Magnetic Separation, and Open-Gradient Magnetic Separation, have been studied to achieve dry cleaning of ash and sulfur contents [3339]. MagmillTM, a commercialized dry coal magnetic separation technique, showed that additional an 25%, 30%, and 35% reduction of sulfur, mercury, and ash, respectively, could be achieved at 95% BTU recovery [9]. Other dry coal beneficiation techniques, including optical sorting, radioactivity sorting, scanning and so on, have been studied for their effectiveness for coal-cleaning applications [40, 41]. Test work showed potentials of using a sensor-based sorting system to preconcentrate ROM coal. However, a more accurate sensor and more compact design will be necessary for possible commercialization in the coal-cleaning industry [41]. The FGX Dry Separator is a special type of air table that consists of a perforated separating deck, three air chambers, a vibrating mechanism, and a hanging support mechanism. The separating deck, having riffles on its surface, is suspended inclined both in longitudinal and transverse directions, as shown in Figure 1. Airflow supplied from a blower fluidizes feed material on the deck and the vibration mechanism imparts a helical turning motion to particles as they slide in the longitudinal direction. In a relatively broad particle size range (top-to-bottom size ratio of $10:1), a density-based particle stratification takes place on the separating deck under the action of the vibration force, the upward fluidizing force of the air flow, and the downward gravity force of the solid particles. Past

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

OPTIMIZATION OF THE FGX DRY SEPARATOR

165

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

Figure 1. A schematic diagram of the FGX Dry Separator showing the different product streams [5].

results obtained on Chinese coal [5], and a recent study conducted by Honaker et al. [42] on several U.S. coal samples, indicate the effective density-based separation achievable from the FGX Dry Separator. High separation efficiency along with low cleaning costs have resulted in the widespread application of the FGX Dry Separator in China. The first commercial installation of this technology in the United States took place in the year 2009. The main goal of the present study was not only to study the deshaling (removal of pure rock by producing a high-ash reject) performance but also to assess the maximum ash separation efficiency and sulfur rejection achievable using the FGX Dry Separator for cleaning raw coals of varying cleaning characteristics. A Model FGX-1 Dry Separator, having a maximum feed handling capacity of 10 tph, was extensively tested at the Illinois Coal Development Park using coal samples of different cleaning characteristics.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH A schematic diagram of the experimental layout is shown in Figure 2. Coal was introduced to the feed hopper using a conveyor belt and a front-end loader. Several series of exploratory experiments were conducted to get a better understanding of various process parameters and the

166

B. ZHANG ET AL.

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

Figure 2. A schematic diagram of the FGX-1 Dry Separator test circuit layout.

nature of their effects on important process responses, such as combustible recovery, ash rejection, and sulfur rejection. After obtaining a good estimate of parameter ranges, a Plackett and Burman experimental program was utilized to indentify the most critical process variables among the eight listed in Table 1. These eight process variables are (in the order listed in Table 1): feeder frequency (that controls the feed rate to the FGX deck); bed vibration frequency; clean coal splitter (that divides the clean coal from the middling product); refuse splitter (that divides middling from refuse product); clean coal air rate (the fluidizing air reporting to the air chamber underneath the clean coal side of the deck); baffle plate height (the height of the vertical plate at the clean coal discharge side of the deck); lateral and longitudinal angles of the deck. The positive values for the deck angle indicate downward inclination, whereas the negative value indicates an angle in the upward direction.

Table 1. List of operating parameters used for the Plackett and Burman experimental design conducted using Sample 1 Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Name Feeder Frequency Bed Vibration Frequency Clean Coal Splitter Refuse Splitter Clean Coal Air Rate Baffle Plate Height Lateral Deck Angle Longitudinal Deck Angle Units Hz Hz not applicable not applicable not applicable cm degree degree Type Numeric Numeric Categoric Categoric Categoric Numeric Numeric Numeric Low actual High actual 60 80 Low Low Half Open 0 5 1 90 100 High High Fully Open 1.9 8.5 1

OPTIMIZATION OF THE FGX DRY SEPARATOR

167

Table 2. List of operating parameters used for the Central Composite experimental design conducted using Sample 1 Factor 1 2 3 4 Name Feeder Frequency Longitudinal Deck Angle Bed Vibration Frequency Baffle Plate Height Units Hz degree Hz cm Type Numeric Numeric Numeric Numeric Low 60 1 80 0 Medium 70 0 90 1.6 High 80 1 100 3.2

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

As indicated the longitudinal deck angle was varied over a range of 1 to 1 degree. Based on the findings of the Plackett and Burman test program, a Central Composite Design consisting of 28 tests was pursued by varying the four most critical process variables (listed in Table 2) to optimize ash- and sulfur-cleaning performance achievable from the FGX Dry Separator.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Coal Sample Characterizations Two different bituminous coal samples were utilized in this study to evaluate the cleaning efficiency achievable using the FGX Dry Separator. Approximately 15 tons of Sample 1 was used to do an extensive study with the FGX Dry Separator. Upon completion of a thorough evaluation of the optimum ash- and sulfur-cleaning performance achievable from the FGX Dry Separator, more coal (in a smaller quantity) was collected from Sample 2 for additional testing and comparison. Representative bucket samples were collected for the size-by-size characterization of total mass, ash content, and sulfur content distributions for both coal samples. As is shown in Table 3, Sample 2 contained a very small proportion of fine coal (4 mesh or 4.76 mm size fraction), whereas Sample 1 contained as much as 42.71% fines. Overall ash content for both coal samples were 30.26% and 40.23%, respectively. The high total sulfur contents of 3.67% and 4.44%, for both coals are common characteristics of Midwestern U.S. coals. Coal samples were dry screened to prepare the recommended 63.5 3.0 mm particle size fractions to be fed to the FGX Dry Separator. This significantly reduced the amount of 4.76 mm size coal in the actual feed stream reporting to the FGX Dry Separator. Ash and sulfur rejection achievable

168

B. ZHANG ET AL.

Table 3. Distribution of mass, ash, and total sulfur in coal samples utilized for FGX Dry Separator tests Coal samples Weight % 4.76 mm 4.76 mm Total 4.76 mm 4.76 mm Total 4.76 mm 4.76 mm Total Sample 1 57.29 42.71 100 25.39 36.80 30.26 3.80 3.50 3.67 Sample 2 91.42 8.58 100 39.14 51.84 40.23 4.49 3.89 4.44

Ash %

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

Sulfur %

from the FGX Dry Separator were evaluated only for the 63.5 4.76 mm size fraction. A simple analysis of float=sink data for Sample 1 and Sample 2, listed in Table 4, indicates that coal-cleaning indices (the ratio of 1.3 float and 1.6 float) for both coals are 0.53 and 0.72, respectively. The lower Cleaning Index for Sample 1 indicates a relatively more difficult cleaning characteristic, which was also evidenced from the cleaning performance obtained by the FGX Dry Separator for Sample 1. Sample 1 was utilized for the majority of the experimental program, including the exploratory and optimization tests, whereas Sample 2 was used for additional testing.
Table 4. Washability data obtained from float=sink analyses of the 63.5 mm size fraction of the two major coal samples utilized in this study Sample 1 Specific Gravity Float 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 Sink Total Weight % 42.57 16.94 17.27 3.71 2.86 2.70 2.25 11.70 100.0 Ash % 5.60 10.20 15.88 22.94 35.38 57.80 77.55 82.05 21.62 Sample 2 Weight % 53.86 10.57 8.51 2.25 2.33 1.62 1.14 19.74 100.0 Ash % 10.61 15.51 19.34 29.37 41.15 56.92 72.83 92.00 30.53

OPTIMIZATION OF THE FGX DRY SEPARATOR

169

FGX Dry Separator Testing Results Plackett and Burman Experimental Program. A Plackett and Burman experimental design was utilized to identify the most critical process parameters for the FGX Dry Separator. Experimental conditions for 12 tests varying eight process parameters and the resulting ash-cleaning performance are listed in Table 5. These data were statistically analyzed to develop corresponding half-normal probability plots (Figure 3) for four responses. As marked in Figures 3a and 3b, longitudinal deck angle (Factor H) and feeder frequency (Factor A) were the most critical process parameters for ash separation efficiency, which is a function of combustible recovery and ash rejection. Figure 3c indicates the importance of feeder frequency (Factor A) and baffle plate height (Factor F) for the product ash response. Figure 3d shows that longitudinal deck angle (Factor H) and deck vibration frequency (Factor B) are critical for the tailings ash response. Based on these findings, Factors A, B, F, and H were further evaluated in a more detailed study for optimizing FGX Dry Separator performance. Optimization Test Program. After identifying the four critical process parameters, a Central Composite Design (CCD) was utilized to optimize the ash- and sulfur-cleaning performance achieved from the FGX Dry Separator. Experimental conditions for 28 CCD tests and resulting ash- and sulfur-cleaning performances are listed in Table 6. Statistical perturbation plots of these tests, shown in Figure 4, revealed the relative importance of the four key process parameters on various ashand sulfur-cleaning process responses. Two parameters, feeder frequency and baffle plate height, had significant effects on product ash response, whereas longitudinal angle had the most significant effect on tailings ash content. Feeder frequency and bed vibration frequency played the most significant role in affecting ash separation efficiency, whereas longitudinal deck angle affected the sulfur rejection response the most. Low feeder frequency allowed a low rate of feed coal causing less crowding on the separating deck that resulted in improved selectivity and thus lower product ash content of the clean coal product. The effect of baffle plate height can be explained by the fact that due to the combined effect of fluidizing air and deck vibration, lightest particles form the topmost layer of the coal flowing

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

Table 5. Operating conditions and ash cleaning results obtained from the Plackett and Burman experimental program using Sample 1 Clean coal air valve Longitudinal deck angle ( ) Concentrate ash (%) Refuse ash (%) Baffle plate height (cm)

Test#

Feeder frequency (Hz)

Deck vibration frequency (Hz) Refuse splitter position

Clean coal splitter position

Lateral deck angle ( )

Combustible recovery (C M) (%)

Ash rejection (R) (%)

170

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

90 90 60 90 60 60 60 90 60 90 90 60

85 101 85 85 101 85 85 101 101 101 85 101

High High Low High High Low High Low High Low Low Low

High Low Low Low High High High High Low High Low Low

Half Full Half Half Half Full Full Half Full Full Full Half

1.90 1.90 0.00 0.00 1.90 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.90 1.90

5.0 5.0 5.0 8.5 8.5 5.0 8.5 5.0 5.0 8.5 8.5 8.5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16.49 16.75 14.71 15.98 10.81 14.54 16.38 19.41 12.29 17.44 15.46 12.12

30.09 57.91 49.81 61.32 28.90 59.04 58.19 50.66 23.74 23.45 33.05 52.72

87.94 97.94 75.56 98.83 54.74 97.36 95.25 98.15 69.20 85.50 93.50 96.03

22.75 11.70 63.43 8.83 73.36 16.69 25.97 7.49 49.36 20.97 16.11 19.47

Note. C, M, and R refer to concentrate, middlings, and refuse streams, respectively.

OPTIMIZATION OF THE FGX DRY SEPARATOR

171

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

Figure 3. Half-normal probability plots generated from the Plackett and Burman experimental program identifying critical process parameters for the FGX Dry Separator.

with a helical motion across the bed. As a result, the higher the baffle plate (that obstructs the lateral flow of material) height, the lighter the density and lower the ash content of the coal flowing over the baffle plate to the clean coal stream. The effect of the longitudinal angle can be explained by the fact that its high value (10) indicates an upward angle for the deck, whereas, the low value (10) indicates a downward angle for the deck along the longitudinal direction. The upward angle tends to hinder the flow of coal (mostly the high-density fraction that is left in the bottom-most layer on the deck) along the longitudinal direction and allows only the densest coal fraction to report to the tailings port at the farthest end of the deck. Consequently, the ash

172

B. ZHANG ET AL.

Table 6. Operating conditions and resulting ash- and sulfur-cleaning performance obtained from the optimization test program where A is feeder frequency (in Hz), B is longitudinal deck angle (in degrees), C is bed frequency (in Hz), D is baffle plate height (in cm)
Combustible recovery Ash Sulfur (C M) rejection rejection (%) (R) (%) (R) (%) 68.57 84.21 85.47 98.78 90.34 91.00 87.62 97.11 97.47 92.15 86.46 97.38 42.70 70.63 75.02 99.14 98.06 97.25 85.61 90.00 87.72 73.48 72.55 85.50 83.21 82.93 99.60 59.58 51.13 41.03 38.54 10.24 32.10 33.32 32.33 24.20 18.07 23.74 39.64 21.17 77.16 68.61 46.57 6.20 18.24 20.24 44.00 33.98 27.11 57.09 62.33 49.20 34.57 34.23 5.38 63.69 45.65 28.33 29.74 4.71 23.76 20.88 21.34 9.31 7.73 17.77 27.52 12.51 70.81 56.96 45.14 3.39 8.82 11.62 31.31 24.33 25.04 48.08 50.79 31.23 28.68 28.49 1.82 60.51

CCD design ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A 60 70 70 80 70 60 70 60 60 80 70 80 60 60 70 70 80 60 70 80 80 70 60 60 70 80 80 80

B 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1

C 80 90 90 100 80 100 90 80 100 80 90 100 100 100 100 90 80 80 90 90 80 90 90 80 90 100 80 100

D 3.2 1.6 1.6 0 1.6 3.2 0 0 0 0 1.6 3.2 3.2 0 1.6 1.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 1.6 3.2 1.6 1.6 0 1.6 0 0 3.2

Feed Concentrate Middling Refuse ash ash ash ash (% ) (%) (%) (%) 21.07 19.01 19.73 14.66 18.58 18.72 19.56 19.32 17.20 19.31 20.58 16.71 19.21 27.26 18.97 14.16 15.65 25.74 18.00 17.96 15.44 20.57 24.59 20.28 16.59 20.44 18.02 22.71 11.21 14.42 13.94 12.38 13.84 11.25 15.61 13.33 13.45 16.37 13.27 13.17 11.35 14.00 12.56 11.32 13.53 13.07 12.73 14.14 12.98 12.93 14.87 13.03 11.91 15.40 15.73 11.74 16.49 13.60 16.32 21.55 16.27 14.84 17.17 36.83 21.19 17.26 17.98 14.64 11.28 14.87 15.71 18.44 13.21 27.35 12.46 13.30 13.31 13.32 14.23 13.65 15.63 21.59 35.88 16.36 30.28 37.88 39.47 59.06 43.12 46.04 38.85 66.70 59.74 41.98 43.13 61.89 24.25 46.68 30.38 54.43 63.58 71.85 40.16 42.66 28.72 35.79 42.55 46.33 29.06 34.00 74.76 31.64

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

Note. C, M, and R refer to concentrate, middlings, and refuse streams, respectively.

content of the tailings material is the highest with the high longitudinal angle of the deck. However, due to the hindered flow in the longitudinal direction caused at high longitudinal deck angle, some of the heavy-middling type of particles are allowed to flow across the bed and to report to the clean coal product launder, thus lowering ash separation efficiency and sulfur rejection achieved by the FGX Separator.

OPTIMIZATION OF THE FGX DRY SEPARATOR

173

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

Figure 4. Perturbation plots for various process responses: (a) product ash content, (b) tailings ash content, (c) separation efficiency, and (d) sulfur rejection.

Empirical models were developed for three key process responses using the step-wise regression technique. It may be noted that tailings ash content response is the most critical performance parameter when deshaling is the primary purpose of the FGX Dry Separator application. As exhibited by the empirical model of Equation 1, tailings ash content was found to be a function of longitudinal deck angle, bed vibration frequency, and baffle plate height. Interaction effects of Bed Vibration Frequency x Baffle Plate Height and Longitudinal Deck Angle x Bed Vibration Frequency were also significant for the tailings ash response. Separation efficiency response is the most useful performance parameter

174

B. ZHANG ET AL.

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

when using the FGX Dry Separator to produce a final clean coal product. As indicated in Equation 2, the separation efficiency response was a function of all four key process parameters investigated in the optimization study. Parameter interaction effects significantly affecting separation efficiency included Feeder Frequency x Baffle Plate Height and Longitudinal Angle x Baffle Plate Height. All four key process parameters also contributed significantly to the sulfur rejection response, as indicated in Equation 3. Longitudinal Deck Angle x Feeder Frequency and Longitudinal Deck Angle x Bed Vibration Frequency were factor interactions significantly affecting the extent of sulfur rejection achieved by the FGX Dry Separator. The three empirical models were developed with R2 values of .89, .90, and .97, respectively, and an overall F-ratio of <0.0001 in each case. Tailing Ash 38:73 13:24 B 4:09 C 3:87 D 2:46 B C 2:33 B D 10:04 B2 ; p Separation Efficiency 5:11 0:52 A 0:41 B 0:14 C 0:11 D 0:40 A D 0:40 B D 0:75 C 2 ; Sulfur Rejection 27:41 4:57 A 17:98 B 7:93 C 4:89 D 1:96 A B 6:41 B C ; 2 1

where, A, B, C, and D are coded representations of feeder frequency, longitudinal deck angle, bed vibration frequency, and baffle plate height, respectively. These model equations were utilized to simulate FGX Dry Separator performance for various operating conditions and to generate response surface contour plots shown in Figure 5. Figure 5a clearly shows that low feeder frequency (and thus, low feed rate), a low level for baffle plate height, a low longitudinal angle, and medium level deck vibration frequency were conducive to high separation efficiency. However, if raw coal deshaling is the primary goal, tailings ash response has to be maximized. As shown in Figure 5b, the highest tailings ash content can be obtained at a high longitudinal angle along with low levels of deck frequency, feeder frequency, and baffle plate height.

OPTIMIZATION OF THE FGX DRY SEPARATOR

175

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

Figure 5. Simulated response surface contours generated with empirical model equations for: (a) separation efficiency, (b) tailings ash, (c) sulfur rejection with high separation efficiency as a target, and (d) sulfur rejection with high tailings ash as a target.

Figures 5c and 5d indicate levels of sulfur rejection achievable for these two scenarios, that is, for a high separation efficiency target versus a high-tailings ash-content target. For the high separation efficiency target, high-sulfur rejection of nearly 56% is achievable as indicated in the upper left corner of the experimental region. A slightly lower level of sulfur rejection (about 47%) is achievable in the same experimental region that would result in the highest ash separation efficiency. When the objective is high-tailings ash content, a lower level of sulfur rejection (not low-tailings sulfur content) has to be tolerated.

176

B. ZHANG ET AL.

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

An additional coal sample (Sample 2) with a relatively easier cleaning characteristic was utilized to evaluate the cleaning potential achievable from the FGX Separator. Selected ash- and sulfur-cleaning performances achieved for both coal samples are listed in Table 7. Due to the presence of a large proportion of out-of-seam dilution materials in Sample 2, it was easy to produce a tailings stream having an extremely high-ash content (>80%). The best ash reduction for Samples 1 and 2 achieved were from 22.71% and 34.45% in the feed to 11.74% and 13.48% in the product streams, respectively. The best sulfur reductions achieved for both samples were from 4.17% and 5.13% in the feed to 3.05% and 4.08% in the product streams. It is generally believed that the presence of fines (-1 4-inch size fraction) in the feed aids the separation process by facilitating the formation of a fluidized bed on the deck that serves as an autogenous dense medium. It was desired to investigate this hypothesis by conducting four
Table 7. Selected results obtained from the FGX Dry Separator for cleaning Samples 1 and 2 Ash % Total sulfur % Yield %

Feed

Clean Clean Clean coal Middlings Tailings Feed coal Middlings Tailings Coal Middlings Coal 4.81 4.36 4.17 3.89 4.57 3.09 3.79 5.11 Coal 3.89 4.52 4.28 5.13 4.33 4.66 4.68 4.64 4.00 Sample 1 4.68 5.71 3.06 3.29 3.05 3.03 3.69 4.68 4.54 4.59 3.04 2.83 2.96 3.98 4.71 4.06 Sample 2 3.77 3.79 3.91 4.04 4.23 2.78 4.08 4.66 4.07 3.76 4.16 5.41 3.87 4.62 4.58 4.83 4.00 4.01

19.79 27.26 22.71 19.32 18.02 15.65 25.74 21.36 29.05 42.88 40.06 42.36 30.84 28.23 34.45 36.79 33.16

16.13 14.00 11.74 13.33 15.73 13.53 13.07 13.53 16.91 17.65 15.24 16.33 14.39 15.49 13.48 27.12 21.56

29.67 14.87 16.36 36.83 35.88 13.21 27.35 16.21 56.03 46.08 51.88 30.55 45.60 47.61 39.57 84.00 81.14

64.86 46.68 31.64 66.70 74.76 63.58 71.85 53.85 88.39 89.26 88.16 80.83 82.53 89.90 85.09 84.58 92.07

5.66 6.19 5.52 5.17 6.40 6.08 6.07 7.25 4.72 6.12 6.47 6.66 6.21 7.09 6.87 6.377 4.138

87.20 40.86 13.78 83.40 91.12 54.63 33.86 70.71 79.53 50.99 52.28 38.70 65.15 74.02 58.07 83.00 80.93

7.32 19.07 40.51 9.59 7.59 40.88 58.89 10.59 7.70 22.85 27.50 26.87 19.77 15.59 19.90 16.12 16.89

OPTIMIZATION OF THE FGX DRY SEPARATOR

177

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

Figure 6. FGX Dry Separator ash-cleaning performance with varying proportions of coal fines (4.76 mm) in the feed.

series of experiments adding varying proportions of fines (4.76 mm size fraction) to Sample 1. Ash rejection results are shown in Figure 6, first mention > They indicate that ash separation efficiency gradually increased as the proportion of fines increased from 0% to 29% at similar levels of ash rejection ($40%). However, examining combustible recovery versus sulfur rejection in Figure 7 suggests that at similar level of combustible recovery ($85%), the greatest sulfur rejection was achieved when the feed had only 18% fines. Therefore, further investigation is needed to establish an optimum proportion of fines in FGX feed.

Figure 7. FGX Dry Separator sulfur-cleaning performance with varying proportions of coal fines (4.76 mm) in the feed.

178

B. ZHANG ET AL.

FGX Dry Separator Partition Data The cleaning efficiency of any density-based separator is evaluated by doing float=sink analyses on collected clean coal product and tailings samples and using the resulting data to generate partition curves. Partition data were generated for measuring the cleaning efficiency of the FGX Dry Separator by processing coals of four different size fractions, that is, 63.5 50.8 mm, 50.8 25.4 mm, 25.4 12.7 mm, and 12.7 4.76 mm. The overall (4.76 mm) apparent partition curve for Sample 2 and those for individual size fractions are shown in Figure 8a. Effective specific gravity of separation (SG50) and probable error (Ep) values obtained from these apparent partition curves are listed in Table 8. Apparent partition curves were corrected for clean coal bypass to tailings and high-density reject bypass to product to generate corresponding corrected partition curves shown in Figure 8b. Corresponding SG50c and Epc values obtained from these corrected partition curves are also listed in Table 8 for comparison purposes. Moreinsight into the cleaning performance was obtained by examining clean coal (i.e., 1.6 SG float) lost to middlings and reject streams and recovery of reject material (i.e., 2.0 SG sink) to clean coal product and middlings streams of the FGX Separator. These performance details are listed in Table 9 for two coal samples having different cleaning characteristics. As indicated previously in Table 7, tailings ash content of 85% was shown to be achievable for Sample 2. This phenomenon is also evident in the small amount of clean coal lost (i.e., 2.54% of 1.6 float) in

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

Figure 8. (a) Apparent and (b) corrected partition data for the Sample 2 and for different size fractions of Sample 2.

OPTIMIZATION OF THE FGX DRY SEPARATOR

179

Table 8. Size-by-size specific gravity of separation and probable error values for the Sample 2 Size fraction (mm) SG50 50.8 50.8 25.4 25.4 12.7 12.7 4.76 4.76 1.90 1.95 2.01 2.03 1.98 Clean coal bypass Reject bypass to to tailings (%) clean coal (%) 5.25 2.47 2.57 2.54 2.59 4.23 8.19 19.1 24.49 14.73

Test Sample 2

Ep 0.12 0.18 0.19 0.23 0.17

SG50c 1.90 1.94 1.98 1.99 1.94

Epc 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.08 0.14

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

the tailings stream for the overall 4.76 mm size coal, as shown in Table 9. The amount of high-density reject material in the clean coal product was maintained at a reasonably low level of 3.73%. A simple analysis for Sample 2 would indicate that only about 0.42% of the entire clean coal present in the feed was lost to the tailings stream. Nearly 95.54% of the clean coal reported to the product stream and the remaining 4.04% reported to the middlings stream. Mixing the middlings stream with either the clean coal stream or the refuse stream may be possible in some cases, based on target product specifications. However, analysis of the easier-to-clean Sample 2 indicates the middlings stream contained 40.41% clean coal and 53.42% high-density reject materials. Hence, a more profitable solution may be to clean the middlings stream a second time. However, it should be noted that direct recirculation of the middlings stream to the feed may not be the right option. Cleaning characteristics of the middlings coal will be significantly more difficult in comparison to the original feed. A simple analysis of data provided in Table 10 would indicate that the Cleaning Index (CI) for the Sample 2 middlings stream was 0.43 in comparison to 0.72 for the original feed. Therefore, middlings coal should undergo a size reduction (i.e., crushing) step prior to being recirculated to the FGX Dry Separator feed stream. This should improve liberation characteristics of the middlings coal giving it a Cleaning Index similar to that of the original feed. FGX Dry Separator performance data for the more difficult-toclean Sample 1, listed in Table 9, indicate greater amounts of high-density reject material bypassing to the product (6.85%) and a significantly higher clean coal loss to the tailings stream (14.77%). For the two coarsest size fractions, clean coal losses to the tailings stream were

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

Table 9. Size-by-size separation efficiency data obtained from the FGX Dry Separator

Size fraction (mm)

FGX feed (Weight %)

1.6 Float in tailings (Weight %)

1.6 Float in middlings (Weight %)

2.0 Sink in clean coal (Weight %)

2.0 Sink in middlings (Weight %)

180

50.8 50.8 25.4 25.4 12.7 12.7 4.76 4.76 3.23 2.03 4.16 6.14 3.73 0.00 1.16 5.67 12.99 6.85

5.61 40.58 30.91 22.90 100.00

56.23 46.76 54.16 62.54 53.42 18.26 13.26 22.24 32.90 19.76

50.8 50.8 25.4 25.4 12.7 12.7 4.76 4.76

5.71 31.95 26.69 35.65 100.00

Sample 2 with 0.72 Cleaning Index 5.31 39.55 2.78 44.29 1.17 40.34 1.02 34.58 2.54 40.41 Sample 1 with 0.53 Cleaning Index 30.64 58.78 17.06 69.84 5.27 68.87 4.81 60.10 14.77 67.13

OPTIMIZATION OF THE FGX DRY SEPARATOR Table 10. Float=sink data for feed and middlings coal of the Sample 2 Sample 2 SG Float 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 Sink Total FGX feed Weight % 53.86 10.57 8.51 2.25 2.33 1.62 1.14 19.74 100.0 FGX middlings Weight % 28.09 13.76 18.50 6.09 0.45 7.33 5.02 20.76 100.0

181

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

30.64% and 17.06%, which may be considered unacceptably high. More detailed analysis indicates that about 0.98% of the entire clean coal present in the feed was lost to the tailings stream. Approximately, 93.1% of the clean coal reported to the product and the remaining 5.92% to the middlings stream. For this type of coal, instead of losing a considerably high amount of clean coal to tailings, an option worth considering is to mix the tailings stream with the middlings stream and to crush the resulting mixture to improve its liberation characteristics prior to cleaning it again using a second stage FGX Dry Separator. In other words, a rougher-scavenger type FGX Dry Separator circuit along with the above-mentioned crushing operation would be recommended for relatively difficult-to-clean coal. FGX Dry Separator Partition Model Development and Validation Partition models, that is, distribution functions, are commonly used to approximate partition coefficients for density-based separators. Based on the FGX Dry Separator data available in literature [42] a modified log-logistic model, as expressed in Equations 4 and 5, was found to be the most suitable one. PN 100 1 1 expaln b X Dm =D50
X

4 5

182

B. ZHANG ET AL.

Table 11. Development and validation of the partition model for the FGX Dry Separator R2 Literature Data a 0.997 b New Data a 0.973 b Parameter 95% Confidence interval

8.965 1.0053 9.278 0.9995

9.498 0.9989

8.431 1.0117

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

where a and b are fitting constants; Dm is the mean density and D50 is the separation density. The results showed in Table 11 indicate that a high coefficient of determination (R2) value of .997 and a narrow 95% confidence interval for both constants a and b were achieved. The new partition data generated in the present study was also used to fit this model and the results showed that a high R2 of .973 was achieved and the fitted a and b values were within the 95% confidence interval predicted by using above-mentioned data available in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS Some of the key technical findings of this study are listed in the following section. An economic analysis conducted to determine the capital and operating cost of cleaning coal using the FGX Dry Separator will be reported in another publication. 1. Of the eight process variables for the FGX Dry Separator investigated using the Plackett and Burman experimental design, four parameters had the most significant effects on process responses such as combustible recovery, ash rejection, and product ash and tailings ash content. These four process variables were feeder frequency, deck vibration frequency, clean coal gate (baffle plate) height, and longitudinal deck angle. 2. The optimization study conducted utilizing a Central Composite Design revealed the relative importance of these four key process parameters. Baffle plate height and feeder frequency affected product ash the most. Longitudinal deck angle affected tailings ash the most. Feeder frequency and longitudinal deck angle were the most significant

OPTIMIZATION OF THE FGX DRY SEPARATOR

183

3.

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

4.

5.

6.

factors contributing to ash separation efficiency. Deck vibration frequency and longitudinal deck angle affected sulfur rejection the most. The best density-based cleaning performance obtained from the FGX Dry Separator is described by SG50 and Ep values of 1.98 and 0.17, respectively, for 4.76 mm size coal. SG50 and Ep values for individual size fractions were as follows: 1.90 and 0.12 for the 50.8 mm size fraction, 1.95 and 0.18 for the 50.8 25.4 mm size fraction, 2.01 and 0.19 for the 25.4 12.7 mm size fraction, and 2.03 and 0.23 for the 12.7 4.76 mm size fraction. The presence of fines (4.76 mm size coal) in the feed ranging from 0% to 29% improved cleaning performance significantly. However, the highest ash separation efficiency was achieved at 29% fines, whereas the best sulfur rejection was achieved at a fines content of 18% in the feed. More study may be needed to resolve this anomaly. For a relatively easy-to-clean coal sample (having a CI of 0.72), only 0.42% of clean coal (i.e., 1.6 float fraction) present in the feed was lost to the tailings stream, whereas 95.54% was recovered to the product. For this type of coal, recleaning of the middlings coal following a size reduction step (to improve liberation) will most likely allow recovery of almost all clean coal to the product. For a relatively difficult-to-clean coal sample (having a CI of 0.53), 93.1% of clean coal present in the feed was recovered to the product, whereas 0.98% of recoverable clean coal was lost to the tailings stream. For coal of such type, a rougher-scavenger type of FGX Dry Separator circuit along with an intermediate crushing step for the rougher middlings and tailings streams would be recommended.

REFERENCES
1. Honaker, R. Q. 2007. Demonstration of a novel dry coarse coal processing for improved mining economics, Progress report submitted to Div. of Energy, Development & Demonstration Governors Office of Energy Policy. 2. Bhattacharya, S. 2006. Rotary breakers: Prospects of application in India. Proceedings of The First Asian Mining Congress, 1618 January 2006, Kolkata, India, 353359. 3. Kelley, M., and R. Snoby. 2002. Performance and cost of air jigging in the 21st century. In Proceedings of 19th International Coal Preparation Conference, April 30May 2, Lexington, Kentucky, 177185.

184

B. ZHANG ET AL.

4. Weinstein, R., and R. Snobby. 2007. Advances in dry jigging improves coal quality. Mining Engineering 59(1): 2934. 5. Lu, M., Y. Yang, and G. Li. 2003. The application of compound dry separation in China. In Proceedings of 20th International Coal Preparation Conference, 29 April3 May, Lexington, KY, 8195. 6. Luo, Z., and Q. Chen. 2001. Dry beneficiation technology of coal with an air dense medium fluidized bed. International Journal of Mineral Processing 63(3): 167175. mper. 2009. Evol7. Rubarth, W., M. Steinberg, H. Wotruba, and D. Weitka ution in dry separation for environmentally friendly mining AKAFLOW, In Proceedings of Physical Separation, 1617 June, Falmouth, Cornwall, UK. 8. Dwaria, R. K., and K. H. Rao. 2009. Fine coal preparation using novel tribo-electrostatic separator. Minerals Engineering 22(2): 119127. 9. Oder, R. R., R. Hurst, and J. N. Ralston. 2008. MagMill Processing of Coals at the DTEES Vicksburg Facility. Louisville, KY: Coal-Gen, slides. 10. Chen, Q., and L. Wei. 2005. Development of coal dry beneficiation with air-dense medium fluidized bed in China. China Particuology 3 (12): 42. 11. Chen, Q., and Y. Yang. 2003. Development of dry beneficiation of coal in China. Coal Preparation 23: 312. 12. Luo, Z., Q. Chen, and Y. Zhao. 2002. Dry beneficiation of coarse coal using air dense medium fluidized bed (ADMFB). Coal Preparation 22: 5764. 13. Luo, Z., Q. Chen, and X. Tao. 2000. Formation mechanism of vibration fluidized bed (VFB). Journal of China University of Mining & Technology 29: 230234. (In Chinese) 14. Wei, L. 1998. Forming mechanism of a dual density fluidized bed. Journal of Central South University of Technology 29: 330333. (In Chinese) 15. Parekh, B. K., D. P. Patil, and R. Q. Honaker. 2010. Dry Processing of Fine Coal. Phoenix, AZ: SME Annual Meeting, slides. 16. Gray, V. R., and P. F. Whelan. 1956. Electrostatic cleaning of low rank coal by the drum separator. Fuel 35: 184. 17. Tao, D., A. Sobhy, Q. Li, and R. Q. Honaker. 2010. Dry fine coal cleaning using rotary triboelectrostatic separator. Preprint 10029, Proceedings of 2010 SME Annual Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. 18. Mukai, S., T. Ishikawa, Y. Shida, and T. Wakamatsu. 1967. Study on the electrostatic concentration of low ash coal in corona discharge field. Society of Mining Engineers AIME Transaction 238: 205. 19. Hower, J. C., B. Hang, J. L. Schaefer, and J. M. 1997. Stencel, maceral microlithotype partitioning through triboelectrostatic dry coal cleaning. International Journal of Coal Geology 34: 277286. 20. Finseth, D., T. Newby, and R. Elstrodt. 1993. Dry electrostatic separation of fine coal. In Processing and Utilization of High Sulfur Coals, eds. B. K. Parekh and J. G. Gropps, 9198. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

OPTIMIZATION OF THE FGX DRY SEPARATOR

185

21. Anderson, J. M., L. Parobek, M. A. Bergougnou, and I. I. Inculet. 1979. Electrostatic separation of coal macerals. IEEE Transactions on Industry Application 1A-153: 291293. 22. Ban, H., J. Schaefer, and J. Stencel. 1993. Size and velocity effects on coal particle triboelectrification and separation efficiency. In Proceedings of International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, 2024 September, Pittsburgh, PA, 138143. 23. Ban, H., J. Schaefer, and J. Stencel. 1994. Particle tribocharging characteristics relating to electrostatic dry coal cleaning. Fuel 73: 11081115. 24. Ban, H., J. Yang, J. Schaefer, K. Saito, and J. Stencel. 1993. Measurement of charge and charge distribution on coal and mineral matter during electrostatic dry coal cleaning. In Proceedings of International Conference on Coal Science, 1217 September, Banf, AB, Canada, 615618. 25. Lindquist, D. A., M. K. Mazumder, K. B. Tennal, M. H. Mckendree, M. G. Kleve, and S. Scruggs. 1995. Electrostatic beneficiation of coal. In Proceedings of the Materials Research Society Fall Meeting, Advances in Porous Materials, 27 November1 December, Boston, MA, 459463. 26. Mukherjee, A., D. Gidaspow, and D. T. Wasan. 1987. Surface charge Of Illinois coal and pyrites for dry electrostatic cleaning. American Chemical Society, Division of Fuel Chemistry 32(1): 395407. 27. Nifuku, M. 1989. Static electrification phenomena in pneumatic transportation of coal. Journal of Electrostatics 23: 4554. 28. Schaefer, J. L., H. Ban, and J. M. Stencel. 1992. Nonintrusive measurement of particle charge relating to electrostatic dry coal cleaning. In Proceedings of International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, 1216 October, Pittsburgh, PA, 259264. 29. Schaefer, J. L., H. Ban, and J. M. Stencel. 1994. Triboelectrostatic dry coal cleaning. In Proceedings of International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, 1216 September, Pittsburgh, PA, 624629. 30. Soong, Y., T. A. Link, M. R. Schoffstall, M. L. Gray, D. J. Fauth, J. P. Knoer, J. R. Jones, and I. K. Gamwo. 2001. Dry beneficiation of Slovakian coal. Fuel Processing Technology 72(3): 185198. 31. Tennal, K. B., D. Lindquist, M. K. Mazumder, R. Rajan, and W. Guo. 1999. Efficiency of electrostatic separation of minerals from coal as a function of size and charge distributions of coal particles. In Proceeding of 34th Annual Meeting of the IEEE Industry Application, 37 October, Phoenix, AZ, 21372142. 32. Zhang, X., M. Gao, C. Duan, Y. Yang, D. Wang, S. Jiang, J. Zang, and S. Qian. 2003. Experimental study of triboelectrostatic beneficiation for Datong coal. Journal of China University of Mining and Technology 32(6): 620623. (In Chinese) 33. Butcher, D. A., and N. A. Rowson. 1994. Microwave pre-treatment of coal prior to magnetic separation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Coal Preparation Congress, 2327 May, Cracow, Poland, 390395.

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

186

B. ZHANG ET AL.

Downloaded by [National Metallurgical Laboratory] at 00:09 17 June 2013

34. Luborsky, F. E. 1977. G. E. Reports to U. S. Bureau of Mines SRD 77047 and 77147. 35. Hise, E. C., A. S. Holman, and F. J. Friedlaender. 1981. Development of high gradient and open-gradient magnet separation of dry fine coal. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 17 (6): 33143316. 36. Liu, Y. A. 1982. HGMS for coal desulphurisation, physical cleaning of coal: Present and developing methods. In Physical cleaning of coal: Present and developing methods, ed. Y. A. Liu, 133254. New York: Marcel Dekker. 37. Doctor, R. D., and C. D. Livengood. 1990. Physical coal cleaning of Midwestern coals by open gradient magnetic separation. In Proceedings of the 25th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 1217 August, Reno, Nevada, 160. 38. Chovanec, F., I. Hllasnik, J. Pitel, and V. Hencel. 1984. The removing of sulphur and ash contamination from lignite coal by superconducting open-gradient magnetic separator. In Proceeding of the 10th International Cryogenic Engineering Conference, 31 July3 August, Helsinki, Finland, 813816. 39. Pitel, J., F. Chovanec, and V. Hencl. 1992. Application of superconducting magnet systems to dry magnetic separation of coal. Magnetic and Electrical Separation 4: 1929. mper, L., and H. Wotruba. 2004. Recent development in the dry 40. Weitka cleaning of coal. In Proceedings of Mineral Processing Technology, ed. G. V. Rao and V. N. Misra, 539546. Bhubaneswar, India: Allied. 41. Riedel, F., and H. Wotruba. 2004. Pre-concentration by sensor-based sorting devices in mineral processing. In Proceedings of Mineral Processing Technology, ed. G. V. Rao and V. N. Misra, 3744. Bhubaneswar, India: Allied. 42. Honaker, R. Q., M. Saraconglu, E. Thompson, R. Bratton, G. H. Luttrell, and V. Richardson. 2007. Dry coal cleaning using the FGX Separator. In Proceedings of Coal Prep 2007, 13 May, Lexington, KY, 6176.