This article was downloaded by: [University of Boras]

On: 08 October 2014, At: 01:30

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

Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,

Utilization, and Environmental Effects
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueso20

Comparisons of Dry Grinding Kinetics of

Lignite, Bituminous Coal, and Petroleum
Coke
a
V. Deniz
a
Department of Chemical Engineering , Hitit University , Çorum ,
Turkey
Published online: 08 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: V. Deniz (2013) Comparisons of Dry Grinding Kinetics of Lignite, Bituminous Coal,
and Petroleum Coke, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 35:10,
913-920, DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2010.514591

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2010.514591

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

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. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Energy Sources, Part A, 35:913–920, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1556-7036 print/1556-7230 online
DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2010.514591

Comparisons of Dry Grinding Kinetics of Lignite,

Bituminous Coal, and Petroleum Coke

V. Deniz1
1
Department of Chemical Engineering, Hitit University, Çorum, Turkey
Downloaded by [University of Boras] at 01:30 08 October 2014

The objective of this study was to analyze dry grinding kinetics of three different solid fuels in terms
of selection and breakage distribution functions values using a batch laboratory ball mill. For this
purpose, first, standard Bond grindability tests were made for three different fuel samples. Second,
experiments were carried out with eight different mono-sizes between 1.7 and 0.106 mm formed by
p
a 2 sieve series fraction. Then, parameters of Si and Bi;j equations were determined from the size
distributions at different grinding times. Finally, the kinetic model parameters (Si , aT , ˛, , ˇ, and
j ) were compared for three different fuel samples, and the relationship between proximate analysis
values (ash, moisture, etc.) with the Bond grindability value (Gbg ) and breakage parameters were
examined. From the results of the test, the validity of the relationships between Bond grindability
and proximate analysis has been not confirmed with good correlation coefficients. The reason for this
negative result could be attributed to a difference of the geological origin of solid fuels. However,
relationships between breakage parameters of grinding kinetic and proximate analysis values of solid
fuel samples were obtained for value. Additionally, it was found that the bituminous coal was
easier to grind than lignite and petroleum coke, taking into account the quite different values of
the model parameters. However, petroleum coke was given finer than other fuel in respect to finer
size fraction.

Keywords: bituminous coal, Bond grindability, breakage function, lignite, petroleum coke, selection
function

1. INTRODUCTION

Comminution is know to be a large consumer of the energy, which consumes 3–4% of the
electricity generated worldwide and comprises up to 70% of all energy required in a typical
cement plant, and is one of the most important unit operations in cement and mineral processing.
The grinding process has many variables, some of which are difficult to understand (Deniz, 2003).
Many expressions of grindability have been proposed over the years, but of these two of
them have come into prominence because they have become the recognized basis for design of
certain types of mill. One of them is the Hardgrove index, associated mainly with vertical spindle
mills, and the other is Bond grindability index, associated with tumbling mills (Prasher, 1987).
The Hardgrove grindability for lignites or other heterogeneous materials can be applied only
as a qualitative grindability characteristic, for example, to categorize them as difficult, easy, or

Address correspondence to Prof. Vedat Deniz, Chemical Engineering, Hitit University, Mühendislik Fakültesi, Kimya
Müh. Böl., Çevre Yolu, Çorum 19030 Turkey. E-mail: vedatdeniz@hitit.edu.tr

913
 914 V. DENIZ

mediocre grindable. The Bond work index, however, is the genuine grindability parameter (Csöke
et al., 2003).
Coal grindability usually measured by the Hardgrove Grindability Index (HGI) is of great
interest since it is used as a predictive tool to determine the performance capacity of industrial
pulverizers in power station boilers. Although the HGI testing device is not costly, it is tedious
to determine the grindability index experimentally. Therefore, there exists an interest to predict
HGI values from proximate analysis. However, the test does suffer from some limitations. For
example, the measurement can be insensitive to the heterogeneous properties of coal that arise
from different mineral contents, maceral constituents, moisture contents, levels of maturity, etc. It
is difficult to predict the HGI based on some basic coal quality, such as proximate analysis. As
such, it often gives misleading results to understand and explain properties emerging from other
analyses and testing. Therefore, it is necessary to predict the grinding behavior of the individual
Downloaded by [University of Boras] at 01:30 08 October 2014

components in blends to make the right product with the desired size distribution and composition.
This is only possible by the analysis of the grinding behavior of the components in a blend during
simultaneous grinding in terms of the kinetic grinding model (Cho and Luckie, 1995; Vuthaluru
et al., 2003; Chalgani et al., 2008; Malav et al., 2008).
Bond grindability can be empirically related to the energy required for comminution and, thus,
is useful for the design and selection of crushing and grinding equipment (Deniz and Özdağ,
2003).
In recent years, a matrix model and kinetic model, which are suggested by investigators, have
been used in laboratory and industrial applications. The kinetic model, which has more advantages
than the matrix model, can be used to determine the particle size distribution from lab-scale mill
dates to full-scale mill dates (Deniz and Onur, 2002).
The analyses of size reduction in tumbling ball mills, using the concepts of specific rate of
breakage and primary daughter fragment distributions, have received considerable attention in
recent years. Austin et al. (1984) has reviewed the advantages of this approach, and the scale-up
of laboratory data to full-scale mills has also been discussed in a number of papers.
This article presents a comparison of the breakage parameters in terms of kinetic grinding model
of these fuel samples that have three different proximate analyses and mineralogical compositions
under identical conditions in a small (20  20 cm) laboratory ball mill.

2. THEORY

In an efficient breakage, the breakage of a given size fraction of material usually follows a first-
order law (Austin et al., 1984). Thus, the breakage rate of material in the top size interval can be
expressed as:
dw1
D S1 w1 .t/: (1)
dt
Assuming that S1 does not change with time (that is, a first-order breakage process), this
equation integrates to:
S1 t
log.w1 .t// log.w1 .0// D ; (2)
2:3
where w1 .t/ is the weight fraction of the mill hold-up that is of size 1 at time t and S1 is the
specific rate of breakage. The formula proposed by Austin et al. (1984) for the variation of the
specific rate of breakage Si with particle size is

Si D aT Xi˛ ; (3)
 COMPARISIONS OF DRY GRINDING KINETICS 915

where Xi is the upper limits of the size interval indexed by i , mm, and aT and ˛ are model
parameters depending on the properties of the material and the grinding conditions.
On breakage, particles of a given size produce a set of primary daughter size fractions that are
mixed into the bulk of the powder and then, in turn, have a probability of being refractured. The
set of primary daughter size fractions from the breakage of size j can be represented by bi;j ,
which is the fraction of size j material, and appears in size i on the primary fracture, n  i > j .
It is convenient to represent these values in cumulative form:

X
i
Bi;j bk;j ; (4)
kDn

where Bi;j is the sum fraction of material less than the upper size of size interval i resulting from
Downloaded by [University of Boras] at 01:30 08 October 2014

primary breakage of size j material: bi;j D Bi;j Bi C1;j . Austin et al. (1984) have shown that
the values of Bi;j can be estimated from a size analysis of the product from short time grinding
of a starting mill charge predominantly in size j (the one-size fraction BII method). The equation
used is
logŒ.1 Pi .0//= logŒ.1 Pi .t//
Bi;j D : n  i  j C 1; (5)
logŒ.1 Pj C1 .0// logŒ.1 Pj C1 .t//

where Pi .t/ is the fraction by weight in the mill charge less than size Xi at time t. Bi;j can be
fitted into an empirical function (Austin et al., 1984):
y ˇ
Bi;j D j ŒXi 1 =Xj  C .1 j /ŒXi 1 =Xj  n  i > j; (6)

j D 1 ŒXi =X1  ı ; (7)

where ı, , , and ˇ are model parameters that depend on the properties of the material. It was
found that B functions are the same for different ball filling ratios, mill diameters, etc. (Austin
et al., 1984). If Bi;j values were independent of the initial size, i.e., dimensionally normalizable,
then ı would be zero.

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS

3.1. Material
Three different fuel samples, called the lignite, the bituminous coal, and the petroleum coke,
taken from a fed storage area of ball mills belonging to Göltaş cement factory in Isparta (Turkey),
were used as the experimental materials. The proximate analyses of fuel samples used in the
experiments were presented in Table 1.

3.2. The Test of Standard Ball Mill Bond Grindability

The standard Bond grindability test is a closed-cycle dry grinding and screening process, which
is carried out until a steady state condition is obtained. This test was described as follows (Deniz
and Özdağ, 2003; Deniz, 2004).
The material is packed to 700 cc volume using a vibrating table. This is the volumetric weight
of the material to be used for grinding tests. For the first grinding cycle, the mill is started with an
 916 V. DENIZ

TABLE 1
Model Parameter Values in Grinding Processing and Proximate Analysis of
Fuel Samples Used in the Experimental Work

Sample

Bituminous Petroleum
Lignite Coal Coke

Proximate analysis
Moisture (%) 22.92 3.71 0.81
Ash (%) 14.61 13.43 1.88
Fixed carbon (%) 25.92 65.26 95.74
Volatile matter (%) 36.55 17.60 1.67
Downloaded by [University of Boras] at 01:30 08 October 2014

Net calorific value (kcal/kg) 3,815 6,995 7,230

Model parameter values
Gbg (g/rev) 0.95 1.04 2.10
Si ( 0.150 C 0.106 mm) 0.042 0.304 0.191
aT 0.283 0.879 0.501
˛ 1.292 0.220 0.349
1.415 0.948 0.623
ˇ 7.978 3.093 4.765
j 0.616 0.325 0.363

arbitrarily chosen number of mill revolutions. At the end of each grinding cycle, the entire product
is discharged from the mill and is screened on a test sieve .Pi /. The standard choice for Pi is
106 micron. The oversize fraction is returned to the mill for the second run together with fresh
feed to make up the original weight corresponding to 700 cc. The weight of product per unit of
mill revolution, called the ore grindability of the cycle, is then calculated and is used to estimate
the number of revolutions required for the second run to be equivalent to a circulating load of
250%. The process is continued until a constant value of the grindability is achieved, which is
the equilibrium condition. This equilibrium condition may be reached in 6 to 12 grinding cycles.
After reaching equilibrium, the grindabilities for the last three cycles are averaged. The average
value is taken as the standard Bond grindability value .Gbg /. The standard equation used by them
for the ball mill work index (Bond work index) is as follows:
44:5
Wi D 1:1  p p ; (8)
Pi0:23  0:82
Gbg  Œ.10= P80 / .10= F80 /

where

Wi : Bond work index (kWh/t);

Pi : screen size at which the test is performed (106 m);
Gbg : Bond standard ball mill grindability (g/rev); and
P80 and F80 : sieve opening in which 80% of the product and the feed passes (m).

4. EXPERIMENTS

First, standard Bond grindability tests were obtained for three fuel samples, and Bond work indexes
were calculated. The result of the tests for Bond grindability values of fuel samples (lignite,
bituminous coal, and petroleum coke) were 0.95, 1.04, and 2.51 g/rev, and Bond work index
 COMPARISIONS OF DRY GRINDING KINETICS 917

values of fuel samples were calculated at 19.39, 17.40, and 9.05 kWh/t, respectively. Then, eight
mono-size fractions ( 1:7 C 1:18 mm, 1:18 C 0:850 mm, 0:850 C 0:600 mm, 0:600 C 0:425
mm, 0:425C0:300 mm, 0:300C0:212 mm, 0:212C0:150 mm, and 0:150C0:106 mm) were
prepared and ground batch-wise in a laboratory-scale ball mill of 6,283 cm3 for determination of
the specific rate of breakage. Each sample was taken out of the mill and dry-sieved product size
analysis.

4.1. Determination of S Function

The first-order plots for various feed sizes of three different fuel samples were illustrated in
Figure 1. The results indicated that grinding of all size fractions, only three samples could be
described by the first-order law. In addition, parameters of specific rate of breakage as given in
Downloaded by [University of Boras] at 01:30 08 October 2014

Table 1, were determined by first-order plots.

The specific rates of breakage of each mono-size fraction, which exhibited first-order grinding
kinetic behavior, were determined from the slope of straight-line of the first-order plots. In Figure 2,
Si values of the three samples used were given as a function of time.

4.2. Determination of B Function

By definition, the values of B were determined by the size distributions at short grinding times.
The parameters were determined according to the BII method and Table 1 shows the fitted values,
while their graphical representation was given in Figure 2. Each sample shows a typical normalized
behavior, and the progeny distribution does not depend on the particle size. It followed that the
parameter ı was zero. Model parameters were obtained from cumulative distribution and these
parameters were presented in Table 1. From the table, it was seen that petroleum coke is broken
faster than lignite and slower than bituminous coal in terms of the aT values.
The slope of the lower portion of the Bi;j curve can be denoted by with smaller values of
indicating that once particles of a certain size break, they produce many much smaller progeny
fragments. Thus, is a convenient and measurable parameter for characterizing material oriented
breakage properties. The comparison of the breakage parameters of petroleum coke in terms of
the values of Si , aT , ˛, and to the other coal samples (lignite and bituminous coal) were given
in Table 1. From Table 1, it can be seen that petroleum coke produced finer material than lignite
and bituminous coal by considering the value of Bi;j .

5. VARIATION

The relation of Gbg with moisture, volatile matter, ash, fixed carbon, and net calorific value for
fuel samples, on a determined basis, are shown in Figure 3a. The Bond grindability increases with
increasing net calorific values and fixed carbon content in the samples. On the other hand, the Bond
grindability decreases with increasing volatile matter and moisture content in the samples. The
results show that there was no acceptable correlation coefficient between fuel proximate analyses
and the Bond grindability index. The insignificant results show that fuel proximate analysis alone
cannot be used to predict Gbg . Examinations of the graphs in Figure 3a demonstrated that certain
elements have no relationship to Gbg . The best relationships were with ash. Ash shows some
promise as a predictor, but moisture, volatile matter, fixed carbon, and net calorific value were
present in such low quantities, and their inclusion in the equation contributes little if anything to
the overall regression.
 918 V. DENIZ
Downloaded by [University of Boras] at 01:30 08 October 2014

FIGURE 1 First-order plots for solid fuel samples.

Relations of kinetic grinding parameters with individual proximate analyses were shown in
Figure 3b. It was observed that there was acceptable correlation between fuel proximate analyses and
parameter in linear regression. According to the above significant results, it could be concluded
that the estimate of breakage parameter from the input set of fuel proximate analyses was better
than the estimate of Gbg from the input set of fuel proximate analyses, with a higher correlation.
 COMPARISIONS OF DRY GRINDING KINETICS 919
Downloaded by [University of Boras] at 01:30 08 October 2014

FIGURE 2 Specific rates of breakage and cumulative breakage distribution functions for solid fuel samples.

FIGURE 3 (a) Variation Bond grindability index and (b) variation breakage parameter . / with proximate
analyses values of the fuel samples.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The kinetic grinding model has been successfully used for predicting the outcome of various
grinding systems. Therefore, this is only possible by the analysis of the grinding behavior during
simultaneous grinding in terms of the kinetic grinding model.
It was determined that dry grinding of size intervals of the fuel samples followed the first-order
breakage law with constant normalized primary breakage distributions. In addition, these samples
do not depend on the particle size from cumulative breakage distribution function.
The values of the primary daughter fragment distributions and the values of ˛ in Si D aT X ˛
were different in the fuel samples. As the amount of Si or aT values increase, the effective
breakage increases, and breaks as very fast in the undersize of original particle size. The lower
values, the fineness factor, contribute more for the large parameter values of the finer size
fractions, j values contribution mainly towards the coarser size fractions.
The breakage parameters of petroleum coke were compared to other coal samples (lignite and
bituminous coal) under similar experimental conditions, i.e., it can be said that the petroleum
 920 V. DENIZ

coke (aT D 0:501) was broken faster than lignite (aT D 0:283) and slower than bituminous coal
(aT D 0:879) in terms of the aT values reported previously. On the contrary, the Bond work index
for petroleum coke (Wi D 9:05 kWh/t) was easer than bituminous coal (Wi D 17:40 kWh/t), while
bituminous coal was broken faster than lignite (Wi D 19:39 kWh/t) and petroleum coke in terms
of the aT and Si values.
On the other hand, petroleum coke . D 0:623/ produces finer material than bituminous coal
. D 0:948/ and lignite . D 1:425/ by considering the value of Bi;j , while petroleum coke
was easier grinding than lignite and bituminous coal samples by considering the Wi value easy
grinding than lignite and bituminous coal samples.
The j and ˇ values (j D 0:616 and ˇ D 7:978) are higher for lignite than other fuel samples,
indicating that breakage of the top size showed acceleration, and deceleration for petroleum coke
(j D 0:363 and ˇ D 4:765) and bituminen coal (j D 0:325 and ˇ D 3:093).
Downloaded by [University of Boras] at 01:30 08 October 2014

In this study, a relationship (Figure 3a) between Bond grindability index and proximate analysis
values of fuel samples was not obtained. It appears that there is no general method of predicting the
grindability of coal or solid fuel. However, a relationship (Figure 3b between breakage parameters
of grinding kinetic and proximate analysis values of fuel samples was obtained for value.
From the results, it has appeared that the kinetics methods for grind properties of solid fuels
are better represented than other grindability methods. Therefore, there should be using kinetic
methods of predicting the grindability properties of coal or solid fuel, which must be determined
experimentally in order to reduce the energy costs during the grinding process.

REFERENCES

Austin, L. G., Klimpel, R. R., and Luckie, P. T. 1984. Process Engineering of Size Reduction: Ball Milling. New York:
SME-AIME.
Chelgani, S. C., Hower, J. C., Jorjani, E., Mesroghli, Sh., and Bagherieh, A. H. 2008. Prediction of coal grindability based
on petrography, proximate and ultimate analysis using multiple regression and artificial neural network models. Fuel
Process. Technol. 89:13–20.
Cho, H. C., and Luckie, P. T. 1995. Grinding behaviour of coal blends in a standard ball-and-race mill. Energy & Fuels
9:59–66.
Csöke, B., Bokanyi, L., Böhm, J., and Pethö, Sz. 2003. Selective grindability of lignites and their application for producing
an advanced fuel. Appl. Energy 74:359–368.
Deniz, V. 2003. A study on the specific rate of breakage of cement materials in a laboratory ball mill. Cem. Concr. Res.
33:439–445.
Deniz, V. 2004. Relationships between Bond’s grindability (Gbg ) and breakage parameters of grinding kinetic on limestone.
Powder Technol. 109:208–213.
Deniz, V., and Onur, T. 2002. Investigation of the breakage kinetic of pumice samples as dependent on powder filling in
a ball mill. Int. J. Miner. Process. 67:71–78.
Deniz, V., and Özdağ, H. 2003. A new approach to Bond grindability and work index: Dynamic elastic parameters. Miner.
Eng. 16:211–217.
Malav, D., Ganguli, R., Dutta, S., and Bandopadhyay, S. 2008. Non-impact of particle size distribution on power generation
at a pulverized coal power plant burning low rank Alaska coal. Fuel Process. Technol. 89:499–503.
Prasher, C. L. 1987. Crushing and Grinding Process Handbook. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Vuthaluru, H. B., Brooke, R. J., Zhang, D. K., and Yan, H. M. 2003. Effects of moisture and coal blending on Hardgrove
Grindability Index of Western Australian coal. Fuel Process. Technol. 81:67–76.