International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcop20

Effect of MgO-based additive on the sintering

behavior for slagging-fouling mitigation in
Indonesian coal combustion

Hanafi Prida Putra, Feri Karuana, Ade Sana Ruhiyat, Bintoro Adi Nugroho,
Arif Darmawan & Hariana

To cite this article: Hanafi Prida Putra, Feri Karuana, Ade Sana Ruhiyat, Bintoro Adi Nugroho, Arif
Darmawan & Hariana (2022): Effect of MgO-based additive on the sintering behavior for slagging-
fouling mitigation in Indonesian coal combustion, International Journal of Coal Preparation and
Utilization, DOI: 10.1080/19392699.2022.2118257

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19392699.2022.2118257

Published online: 05 Sep 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcop20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COAL PREPARATION AND UTILIZATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/19392699.2022.2118257

Effect of MgO-based additive on the sintering behavior for

slagging-fouling mitigation in Indonesian coal combustion
Hanafi Prida Putra a, Feri Karuana a
, Ade Sana Ruhiyat a
, Bintoro Adi Nugrohob,
Arif Darmawan a, and Hariana a
a
Research Center for Energy Conversion and Conservation, National Research and Innovation Agency,
Tangerang Selatan, Indonesia; bDepartment of Primary Energy, Suralaya Power Generation Unit, PT. Indonesia
Power, Jakarta, Indonesia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Understanding phenomena in the boiler during combustion to mini­ Received 19 March 2022
mize slagging fouling caused by ash deposit is important. The ash Accepted 18 August 2022
particle adhesion mainly influenced by the ash components and ash KEYWORDS
fusion temperature (AFT). Therefore, keeping the ash dry and powdery Coal ash deposit; ash fusion
can avoid deposition problems. Fuel additives are widely used to temperature; MgO-based
reduce the sintering caused by alkaline compounds. This research additive; slagging fouling
aimed to minimize the ash deposit problem by introducing additives
into coal combustion to increase the AFT. Experimental analysis was
performed to determine the AFT value of 15 Indonesian Coal samples
with and without additives. The ash was prepared in a cone-shaped
and heated slowly in a furnace at a high temperature, then the change
of cone shape is observed while the temperature is recorded. These
samples were also blended with 150 ppm MgO-based additive to
investigate the additive effect. Furthermore, statistic analysis was
employed using the dependent t-test method to decide the significant
effect of the use of MgO-based additive on the AFT value. The result
showed the average AFT value of coal with additive is relatively higher
than without additives. The MgO blending with coal significantly
increases the AFT and can reduce ash-related problems like slagging
fouling.

Introduction
Electricity demand in Indonesia continues to increase following the population and economic
growth. Low-rank coal is widely utilized in coal-fired power boilers and industrial boilers due
to cheap and supported by government regulation. The largest source of electricity in
Indonesia is dominated by the coal-fired power plant reaching 75% (Arinaldo and Christian
Adiatama 2019). However, the sub-bituminous coal containing less than 6100 kcal/kg pos­
sesses higher alkali, sulfur, and ash contents. These parameters can affect the power plant’s
performance. Although low-rank coal is considered economically feasible, decreased effi­
ciency in several power plants can increase operational costs due to low-quality of coal. The
combustion in boilers with low-quality coal can produce ash adhering to the piping surface
and trigger ash deposition (Ji et al. 2018; Kleinhans et al. 2018). The ash deposits are triggered
by coal ash’s low melting point, decreasing combustion efficiency.

CONTACT Hariana Hariana hari011@brin.go.id National Research and Innovation Agency, Tangerang Selatan,
Indonesia
© 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 H. P. PUTRA ET AL.

The low-quality coal induces slagging fouling due to the accumulation of ash deposit on
the boiler wall. The sintering and slagging of coal ash in the combustion chamber is mainly
influenced by the melting point or ash fusion temperature (AFT) and the chemical contents
of coal (Shi et al. 2021). The coal chemical composition is associated with the ash samples’
tendency to produce slag which consists of two types of oxides, namely, base oxides (Na2O,
CaO, Fe2O3, K2O, and MgO) and acidic oxides (Al2O3 and SiO2) (Zhang et al. 2021). Several
researches have been performed concerning the correlation among the ash composition and
the AFT value that causes slagging fouling in the boiler. In general, the AFT value will
decline by increasing the amount of Na2O, Fe2O3, and S/A (SiO2/Al2O3) (Chen et al. 2017;
Ilyushechkin et al. 2018; Shi et al. 2018; Yan et al. 2017). Liu et al. (2013) investigated 17
typical coals with ash synthetic consist of CaO, Fe2O3, K2O, Al2O3, and SiO2, it was found
that the AFT value declines with the growing of Fe2O3 content and S/A ratio. Higher Fe2O3
causes the high-melting mullite replaced with low-melting cristobalite, the structure also
changed into loose structure that may lead to decrease of the AFT. For S/A ratio, when Al2
O3 content increases, liquidus temperature of coal is also increases. High concentration of
SiO2 leads to low deformation temperature but high fluid temperature which mean high
deposition and sticky at low temperature. High-melting species can be found in low S/A
ratio such as mullite and corundum changed to low-melting anorthite and gehlenite with
the increased value of S/A (Liu et al. 2013; Yan et al. 2017). According to another study (Xu
et al. 2020), addition of Na2O is effective to decreasing AFTs, the fluid temperature could be
110℃ lower than the original when Na2O is 9%, but when Na2O increases over 12% the
AFT value starts to increase. In this study, they also found that AFT value increases as the
addition of MgO increases while Al2O3, K2O, and TiO2 can decrease AFT value in certain
range. Addition of MgO to the coal tends to produce some aluminosilicate with high-
melting temperature (Akiyama et al. 2011).
One method to minimize the risk of coal ash deposits is using additives to be mixed with
fuel or added to the combustion chamber. The additive is components that affect the
chemical characteristics in the boiler combustion chamber to minimize the occurrence of
deposits and the tendency of high-temperature corrosion (Li 2016). Wang et al. (2022)
studied the different ash fusion characteristics using six types of additives to iron-rich coal
including SiO2, MgO, CaO, alumina-rich ash, halloysite, and dolomite. This study found
that MgO, alumina ash, and dolomite additives lead to the production of high-melting
element that increases the AFT value. Experiment by Persson et al. (2013) showed the SEM
analysis of deposit ash in flue gas heat exchanger, the MgO additive reduces the deposit of
sodium, potassium, chlorine, and sulfur which are the main cause of ash deposit and
fouling. Hariana, Adi, and Darmawan (2021) investigated combustion performance of
several types of coal with and without MgO-based additive in a drop tube furnace. From
this investigation, it is found that the surface of probe which to simulate slagging condition
has clearer and less slag attached when MgO-based additive is added compared to the
combustion without additive.
In this study, MgO-based additive is mixed to several Indonesian coals to determine the
effectiveness of the additive for various coal in Indonesia based on AFT value. AFT analysis
was carried out for 15 types of Indonesian coal with and without addition of MgO additive.
Furthermore, the data were analyzed and calculated using the dependent t-test statistical
method to determine the significance of MgO-based additive on the AFT value.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COAL PREPARATION AND UTILIZATION 3

Material and Method

Material
There were 15 types of Indonesian coals used in this study originating from several regions
in Indonesia consisting of Coal A to Coal O (Hariana et al. 2020; Hariana, Adi, and
Darmawan 2021). The 15 original coal samples are prepared to analyze according the
ASTM standard for coals. Table 1 shows each original coal sample’s characteristics from
proximate, calorific value, AFT, and ash composition. Then, MgO-based powder additive is
mixed to each 15 prepared coal samples as much as 150 ppm. Samples with additive are
analyzed for AFT and ash composition. In order to find out the potential for slagging and
fouling of each coal ash sample, an approach by comparing the content of SiO2/Al2O3 is
carried out because these two oxides are the main constituents of coal ash (Liu et al. 2013).
The calculation results are <1.87 for low risk, 1.87–2.65 medium risk, and >2.65 high risk in
the slagging fouling potential (Zhu et al. 2019).

AFT Analysis
AFT analysis is tested using ash fusion analyzer to determine the melting temperature of the
ash from each coal sample. Each coal samples are ashed by muffle furnace according to
ASTM D 3174–2017 (ASTM, Standard Test 2017). 60 mesh prepared coal was heated
gradually to temperature of 500°C at the end of 1 hour, then heated gradually to tempera­
ture of 750°C at the end of 1 hour, and continuous to heat at temperature of 750°C for 2
hours. The produced ash was prepared in a cone shape with cone mold according to ASTM
D1857–2017 standard (ASTM, Standard Test 2017). Cone mold has ¾“in height and ¼” in
width at each side of the equilateral triangle base. The mounted test cones are placed into
the electric furnace at the temperature lower than 400°C then heated slowly with heating
rate of 8 ± 3 °C/min. For reducing test, regulated gas consisting of 60% CO and 40% CO2
shall be maintained to provide flow of 1.3–1.5 furnace volumes per minute. For oxidizing
test, regulated stream of air is used. The change of cone shape as shown in Fig. 1 is observed
while the temperature of each change in the cone shape is recorded. There are four
deformation temperature characteristics in this standard. Initial deformation temperature
(IT) is the temperature at which it starts rounding of the apex of cone. Softening tempera­
ture (ST) is the temperature at which the cone fused down to spherical lump in which the
height is equal to the base width. Hemispherical Temperature (HT) is the temperature at
which the cone has fused down to hemispherical lump in which the height is half of the base
width. The last is Fluid Temperature (FT), the temperature at which the fused ash has
spread out with maximum height of 1/16.” This analysis has been trusted and is widely used
in predicting the behavior of coal ash because it can represent the melting conditions of coal
ash (Kim, Bo Kim, and Hwan Jeon 2017).

Dependant Sample T-Test

After the AFT value from each coal sample is obtained, the next step is to validate the data
population consisting of the AFT value with and without additives. This step aims to
determine the significant effect of using MgO-based additives to increase the AFT value.
 4

Table 1. Characteristics and ash analysis of original coal samples without Mgo-based additive.
H. P. PUTRA ET AL.

Parameter Coal A Coal B Coal C Coal D Coal E Coal F Coal G Coal H Coal I Coal J Coal K Coal L Coal M Coal N Coal O
Moisture, ar 11,86 24,05 24,49 21,72 24,32 27,28 24,13 28,14 27,95 23,76 26,66 27,52 24,58 26,50 22,31
Moisture, adb 12,83 11,16 12,66 11,86 11,93 11,37 11,53 11,78 9,29 10,87 9,74 9,57 11,30 8,98 10,56
Ash Content, adb 5,24 6,30 4,15 5,69 3,71 5,84 6,00 4,50 7,14 6,63 6,91 5,94 6,68 6,57 5,97
Volatile Matter, adb 38,95 39,35 40,76 38,73 40,77 40,67 39,53 41,79 40,56 37,66 40,27 41,00 38,66 41,13 39,52
Fixed Carbon, adb 42,98 43,20 42,45 43,73 43,60 42,13 42,94 41,94 43,01 39,94 43,09 43,48 43,37 43,33 43,72
Total Sulphur, adb 0,71 0,54 0,41 0,61 0,42 0,46 0,55 0,25 0,58 0,54 0,55 0,52 0,52 0,47 0,41
Gross Calorific Value, ar 5.256 5.073 4.960 5.243 5.090 4.727 5.040 4643 4751 5079 4838 4765 4978 4894 5222
Ash Analysis, %
SiO2 44,97 56,87 39,22 48,85 39,14 40,40 51,19 36,47 52,13 48,92 52,75 51,60 51,67 50,40 48,03
Al2O3 12,84 14,43 11,01 16,51 12,42 15,54 14,33 12,63 18,56 17,70 21,06 16,38 18,70 21,33 20,87
Fe2O3 9,04 6,20 12,87 8,19 11,49 11,53 7,83 14,36 9,34 8,78 7,52 10,14 8,86 9,85 9,46
CaO 9,85 6,49 19,22 7,52 13,05 14,25 8,71 21,86 6,47 8,16 5,77 7,23 5,52 6,20 8,18
MgO 3,20 2,33 6,44 3,32 6,65 3,92 2,82 6,87 2,66 3,68 3,07 4,71 3,21 2,47 3,63
TiO2 0,45 0,46 0,52 0,54 0,55 0,54 0,47 0,57 0,83 0,87 0,82 0,82 0,86 0,75 0,81
Na2O 4,29 3,82 2,25 3,56 3,64 2,39 3,63 1,11 3,09 2,96 1,79 1,78 3,37 3,07 3,00
K2O 0,99 0,79 0,85 1,51 0,92 0,80 0,83 0,73 1,64 1,76 1,58 1,88 1,93 1,48 1,63
Mn3O4 0,07 0,06 0,13 0,05 0,12 0,20 0,09 0,21 0,086 0,05 0,10 0,08 0,05 0,10 0,07
P2O5 0,22 0,21 0,20 0,25 0,18 0,15 0,20 0,16 0,325 0,41 0,38 0,37 0,49 0,20 0,30
SO3 13,85 8,06 7,05 9,43 11,60 10,03 9,61 4,76 4,58 4,17 4,84 4,70 5,03 3,84 3,48
Slagging fouling indication
SiO2/Al2O3 3,50 3,94 3,56 2,96 3,15 2,60 3,57 2,89 2,81 2,76 2,50 3,15 2,76 2,36 2,30
ar : as received basis
adb : as determined basis
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COAL PREPARATION AND UTILIZATION 5

Figure 1. The state from the cone in the ash fusion temperature analysis (ASTM, Standard Test 2017).

To find the correlation or difference between two treatment, the dependent t-test method is
used (Potochnik, Colombo, and Wright 2018).
Before the t-test was carried out on the population of data, a normality was carried out to
determine whether the statistics population were normally distributed with Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test method (Sakamoto 2017). If the significance value is >0.05, the population is
normally distributed. When the significance value was <0.05, it needed to eliminate data
with extreme values or often called outliers, because it can affect the results of statistical
testing. The dependent t-test can be calculated using the following formula (Potochnik,
Colombo, and Wright 2018).
X1 X2
t ¼ qffiffi2ffiffiffiffiffiffi2ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (1)
S1 þS2 2ρS1 S2
n

t = t statistic
X1 = The first sample mean
X2 = The second sample mean
S1 = Variance of variable A
S2 = Variance of variable B
ρ = The correlation coefficient for the two variables
n = Number of paired samples
Based on the calculation results, a hypothesis used to decide the significant impact of
MgO additives on the AFT value in coal samples. If null hypothesis Ho has value X1 = X2 or
significance >0.05, there is no significant effect on the application of additives.If opposite
hypothesis H1 has value X1 ≠ X2 or significance <0.05, there is a significant effect on the
application of additives (Gerald 2018).

Result and Discussion

Additive Effect on Ash Content
Each constituent components of coal ash have a special impact at the AFT value of coal
combustion. The main constituent components of coal ash are SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, CaO,
and MgO dominating about 80–90% (Zhang et al. 2021). The characteristic results are
shown in Tables 1 and 2; the composition of all coal ash samples had changed after adding
 6
H. P. PUTRA ET AL.

Table 2. Ash analysis composition coal samples with MgO based additive
Parameter Coal A Coal B Coal C Coal D Coal E Coal F Coal G Coal H Coal I Coal J Coal K Coal L Coal M Coal N Coal O
Ash Analysis, %
SiO2 44,86 51,61 43,24 45,38 45,10 43,79 48,51 35,67 44,68 46,82 49,96 47,60 54,18 50,37 47,25
Al2O3 14,26 20,78 13,84 16,74 15,78 18,34 20,78 15,94 20,64 19,36 22,28 22,64 20,05 21,00 20,49
Fe2O3 9,45 7,05 10,72 9,86 9,84 11,91 8,98 14,34 8,96 8,29 7,61 10,27 7,61 9,06 8,16
CaO 9,20 5,08 11,15 9,12 10,40 11,52 8,50 17,02 11,00 9,45 8,60 5,90 4,64 6,08 8,00
MgO 2,96 2,38 4,20 3,41 4,12 2,66 2,41 4,66 2,52 3,24 3,00 3,76 2,96 2,54 3,64
TiO2 0,46 0,61 0,54 0,58 0,64 0,65 0,50 0,52 0,64 0,78 0,80 1,02 0,88 0,75 0,73
Na2O 4,46 4,18 2,64 3,82 3,50 2,10 3,00 1,36 2,45 2,72 1,50 1,56 3,11 2,80 3,24
K2O 1,06 0,97 1,15 1,31 1,30 0,86 1,24 0,93 1,63 1,98 1,68 2,43 1,87 1,70 1,87
Mn3O4 0,06 0,06 0,09 0,06 0,07 0,35 0,12 0,33 0,07 0,04 0,09 0,08 0,05 0,08 0,05
P2O5 0,37 0,60 0,83 0,36 0,39 0,20 0,52 0,27 0,31 0,43 0,34 0,13 0,46 0,17 0,22
SO3 12,60 6,42 11,35 9,20 8,68 7,50 5,28 8,72 6,80 6,60 3,85 4,32 3,90 5,15 6,05
Slagging fouling indication
SiO2/Al2O3 3.15 2.48 3.12 2.71 2.86 2.39 2.33 2.24 2.16 2.42 2.24 2.10 2.70 2.40 2.31
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COAL PREPARATION AND UTILIZATION 7

150 ppm MgO additive, such as the Al2O3 value which increased in almost all coal samples
except for N and O coal samples. In contrast to the SiO2 content, the effect of additive causes
the decrease of SiO2 value except in coal samples C, E, F, and M. This is the positive effect of
the additive due to the increasing value of Al2O3 and decreasing value of SiO2, which can
trigger an increase in the value of AFT (Fan et al. 2020). In addition, it also reduced the CaO
value in almost all coal samples except for coal samples D, I, J, and K. The Fe2O3 and MgO
contents in the samples resulted in varied values. Some samples showed an increasing value,
and others showed a decreasing value, as shown in Table 2. The SiO2/Al2O3 ratio as one of
critical factors in predicting slagging fouling of coal ash in boilers (Yan et al. 2017) shows
a positive effect from several samples. In coal samples, B, G, H, I, J, and L without additive
showed a high potential for slagging fouling risk, but after addition of additive, the slagging
fouling potential becomes medium.

AFT Analysis – Without & with Additive

The analysis results of initial deformation temperature, softening temperature, hemi­
spherical temperature, and fluid temperature of each sample of AFT reducing with and
without MgO-based additive are shown in Fig. 2. The initial deformation temperature
value indicates that the ash from coal samples C, D, and E have the lowest melting
temperature compared to other samples. The deformation temperature in coal samples
C and D have value of 1100°C while coal sample E has value of 1130°C. From these
three samples, the content of Fe2O3 in the ash without additives has a higher value than
the other samples affecting the low AFT value of these coals (Liu et al. 2013). The Fe2O3
content in coal samples D, C, and E were 8.19%, 12.87%, and 11.49%, respectively. In
addition, the high CaO content in these three samples also contributed to the low AFT

Figure 2. Comparison of AFT reducing analysis of coal A to coal O without and with MgO-based additive.
8 H. P. PUTRA ET AL.

value (Liang et al. 2020). The addition of additives affected the reduction of Fe2O3 and
CaO content by 1.5–2% and 3–8% respectively, which caused an increasing the AFT
value of these three samples. The study also stated that changes in AFT values,
especially in reduction conditions, can be observed based on the Fe2O3 and CaO
contents (Sasi et al. 2018). Those materials act as fluxing agents for silica- and alumina-
rich coal. Coal samples K and M have higher fluid temperature than other samples with
value of 1300°C and 1320°C in conditions without using additive. After the additive was
added, both fluid temperatures increased to 1340°C. The lowest CaO content in the two
samples led to a higher AFT value than the other samples (Xiao et al. 2017).s
Fig. 3 shows the AFT oxidizing value from coal samples with and without MgO-
based additive. Similarly, coal sample D has the lowest value in the reducing condi­
tion, followed by coal sample E. The effectiveness of additive observed in the
oxidizing condition shows that almost all coal samples with additive experienced
increased in AFT value. A significant increase occurred in coal samples B, G, and L,
with an increase in the AFT value between 20 and 60°C, in line with the increase of
Al2O3 value. The increase of Al2O3 occurred in almost all samples, but the most
significant increase occurred in that three samples with initial values of 14.43%,
14.33%, and 16.38%, respectively, became 20.78%, 20.78%, and 22.64%. That is
consistent with the previous research (Xu et al. 2020), which stated that the AFT
value would decrease if the Al2O3 content increases up to 10%, but if the Al2O3
content continues to increase higher between 10 and 30%, the AFT value would also
increase. On the other hand, the Fe2O3 content showed an increase while the CaO
value showed a decrease. However, because the Al2O3 content is greater than the Fe2
O3 content in the ash, this value has no significant effect on the AFT values in the
three samples. In addition, the ash content in coal samples B, D, N, and O showed
the increase of MgO value which in line with the incline of AFT value. This result

Figure 3. Comparison of AFT oxidizing analysis of coal A to coal O without and with MgO based additive.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COAL PREPARATION AND UTILIZATION 9

Table 3. Test of normality Kolmogorov-Smirnov.

Before After
Treatment df sig. df sig.
No Additive 120 0.001 80 0.092
With Additive 120 0.057 80 0.200
df : amount of data.
sig. : significance value.

Table 4. The t-test significance.

mean t df sig. (2 tailed)
Pair 1 No additive – with additive -9.288 -2.842 79 0.006

aligns with the research that explained AFT value could increase by increasing MgO
content (Xing et al. 2020).

Dependent Sample T-Test

Total 240 data have been collected during AFT analysis without and with MgO-based additive.
Different results were obtained for the AFT value, some samples experience an increase in the
AFT value due to MgO-based additive while some samples do not. Therefore, it is necessary to
validate the significant effect of additive using the dependent sample t-test method, with
a significance value of 0.05 (Potochnik, Colombo, and Wright 2018).
Table 3 shows the result of normality check with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov check. The
result of significance value from the population of 120 data without additive obtained
a significance value of 0.001 which is lower than 0.05, it means the data is not normally
distributed. Meanwhile, based on 120 data with additive, a significance value of 0.057 or
higher than 0.05 was obtained, which means the data are normally distributed. The outlier
of AFT value from the data population without additive must be eliminated in several coal
samples. After trials and errors were carried out, the outlier coals are coal samples A, B, E, I,
and K. After eliminating those five data samples, the significance value from the data
population without additive was 0.092 and with additive was 0.200. Both population have
significance values higher than 0.05, which means the data are normally distributed. Then,
the dependent or paired sample t-test can be carried out.
The average AFT value from the test result with 80 data for each group is 1228.99 for
sample without additive and 1238.28 with additive. After using an additive, there was an
increase in the average value of AFT about 9.288, which indicates that additive affects the
AFT value. It is also validated by the significance value of the two samples obtained from the
dependent sample t-test, as shown in Table 4. A significance value of 0.006 was obtained
which is lower than 0.05. It means that there is significant effect in the use of additive.

Conclusion
Based on the experimental investigation, varied results were obtained for the AFT value for
with and without MgO-based additive. Some samples experienced an increase in AFT value
10 H. P. PUTRA ET AL.

due to changes in ash characteristics, but there was also a decrease in the AFT value for some
samples. The average AFT value of coal with additive is higher than coal without additives. It
illustrates that the MgO-based additive increases the AFT value and can reduce the risk of
slagging fouling. In addition, based on statistical calculations using the dependent t-test
method, the average significance value of the two samples is 0.006, which confirmed that the
MgO-based additive has a significant impact on increasing the AFT value of Indonesian Coal.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Hanafi Prida Putra http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6096-3699
Feri Karuana http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7774-6383
Ade Sana Ruhiyat http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5466-1398
Arif Darmawan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4455-8263
Hariana http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0074-0944

References
Akiyama, K., H. Pak, Y. Ueki, R. Yoshiie, and I. Naruse. 2011. Effect of MgO addition to upgraded
brown coal on ash-deposition behavior during combustion. Fuel 90 (11):3230–36. doi:10.1016/j.
fuel.2011.06.041.
Arinaldo, D., and J. Christian Adiatama. 2019. Dinamika batu bara Indonesia: Menuju transisi energi
Yang Adil. Institute for Essential Services Reform (IESR) 1–12.
ASTM, Standard Test. 2017. Standard test methods for analysis of coal and coke ash 1.
05 (Reapproved):1–7. doi:10.1520/D1857-17.2.
Chen, X. D., L. Xue Kong, J. Bai, Z. Qing Bai, and W. Li. 2017. Study on fusibility of coal ash rich in
sodium and sulfur by synthetic ash under different atmospheres. Fuel 202:175–83. doi:10.1016/j.
fuel.2017.04.001.
Fan, Y., H. Zhang, Z. Zhu, P. Dong, Q. Lyu, R. Weerasinghe, J. Wu, and C. H. Weng. 2020. Effect of
ash components and atmospheres on slagging characteristics of high-AAEM lignite gasification.
E3S Web of Conferences 194:5–8. doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202019401035.
Gerald, B. 2018. A brief review of independent, dependent and one sample t-test. International Journal
of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics 4 (2):50. doi:10.11648/j.ijamtp.20180402.13.
Hariana, P., G. A. A. Adi, and A. Darmawan. 2021. Ash evaluation of Indonesian coal blending for
pulverized coal-fired boilers. Journal of Combustion 2021:1–15. doi:10.1155/2021/8478739.
Hariana, H., F. Milkiy Kuswa, D. Rudiana, and L. Marakkup Tua Naingolan. 2020. Investigation on
slagging fouling potential in coal blending for PLTU with PC boiler with droptube furnace method.
Kresna Social Science and Humanities Research 2 (February):28–40. doi:10.30874/ksshr.52.
Ilyushechkin, A. Y., S. Shwe Hla, X. Chen, and D. G. Roberts. 2018. Effect of sodium in brown coal ash
transformations and slagging behaviour under gasification conditions. Fuel Processing Technology
179 (April):86–98. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.06.017.
Ji, H., X. Wu, B. Dai, and L. Zhang. 2018. Xinjiang lignite ash slagging and flow under the weak
reducing environment at 1300 °C – release of sodium out of slag and its modelling from the mass
transfer perspective. Fuel Processing Technology 170 (August 2017):32–43. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.
2017.10.016.
Kim, J. H., G. Bo Kim, and C. Hwan Jeon. 2017. Prediction of correlation between ash fusion
temperature of ASTM and thermo-mechanical analysis. Applied Thermal Engineering
125:1291–99. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.07.114.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COAL PREPARATION AND UTILIZATION 11

Kleinhans, U., C. Wieland, F. J. Frandsen, and H. Spliethoff. 2018. Ash formation and deposition in
coal and biomass fired combustion systems: Progress and challenges in the field of ash particle
sticking and rebound behavior. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 68:65–168. doi:10.1016/
j.pecs.2018.02.001.
Li, J. 2016. Effect of coal blending on ash fouling and slagging in pulverized coal-fired supercritical
(SC) and ultra-supercritical (USC) power plants. PhD diss., The University of Western Australia.
Liang, W., G. W. Wang, X. Jun Ning, J. Liang Zhang, Y. Jiang Li, and C. He Jiang. 2020. Effect of CaO
mineral change on coal ash melting characteristics. Journal of the Energy Institute 93 (2):642–48.
doi:10.1016/j.joei.2019.06.001.
Liu, B., Q. He, Z. Jiang, R. Xu, and B. Hu. 2013. Relationship between coal ash composition and ash
fusion temperatures. Fuel 105:293–300. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2012.06.046.
Persson, T., J. Riedel, J. Berghel, U. Bexell, and K. Myat Win. 2013. Emissions and deposit properties
from combustion of wood pellet with magnesium additives. Ranliao Huaxue Xuebao/journal of
Fuel Chemistry and Technology 41 (5):530–39. doi:10.1016/s1872-5813(13)60029-8.
Potochnik, A., M. Colombo, and C. Wright. 2018. Statistics and probability. Recipes for Science
Table 2:167–206. doi:10.4324/9781315686875-6.
Sakamoto, N. 2017. A generalized fitting algorithm using the kolmogorov-smirnov test. International
Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering 9 (2):142–46. doi:10.7763/ijcte.2017.v9.1127.
Sasi, T., M. Mighani, E. Örs, R. Tawani, and M. Gräbner. 2018. Prediction of ash fusion behavior from
coal ash composition for entrained-flow gasification. Fuel Processing Technology
176 (March):64–75. doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.03.018.
Shi, W., J. Bai, L. Kong, H. Li, Z. Bai, S. V. Vassilev, and W. Li. 2021. An overview of the coal ash
transition process from solid to slag. Fuel 287 (October):119537. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2020.119537.
Shi, W. J., L. Xue Kong, J. Bai, J. Xu, L. Wei Cheng, Z. Qing Bai, and W. Li. 2018. Effect of CaO/fe2o3
on fusion behaviors of coal ash at high temperatures. Fuel Processing Technology 181 (July):18–24.
doi:10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.09.007.
Wang, Y., L. Li, Q. An, H. Tan, P. Li, and J. Peng. 2022. Effect of different additives on ash fusion
characteristic and mineral phase transformation of Iron-rich zhundong coal. Fuel
307 (September 2021):121841. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2021.121841.
Xiao, H., F. Li, Q. Liu, S. Ji, H. Fan, M. Xu, Q. Guo, M. Ma, and X. Ma. 2017. Modification of ash
fusion behavior of coal with high ash fusion temperature by red mud addition. Fuel 192:121–27.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2016.12.012.
Xing, X., Z. Pang, C. Mo, S. Wang, and J. Ju. 2020. Effect of MgO and BaO on viscosity and structure
of blast furnace slag. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 530 (November 2019):119801. doi:10.1016/j.
jnoncrysol.2019.119801.
Xu, J., X. Song, G. Yu, and C. Du. 2020. Investigating the effect of flux on ash fusibility of
high-calcium coal. ACS Omega 5 (20):11361–68. doi:10.1021/ACSOMEGA.0C00320.
Yan, T., J. Bai, L. Kong, Z. Bai, W. Li, and J. Xu. 2017. Effect of SiO2/al2o3on fusion behavior of coal
ash at high temperature. Fuel 193:275–83. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2016.12.073.
Zhang, L., J. Wang, J. Wei, Y. Bai, X. Song, G. Xu, Y. Pan, and G. Yu. 2021. Synergistic effects of CaO
and MgO on ash fusion characteristics in entrained-flow gasifier. Energy and Fuels 35 (1):425–32.
doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c03358.
Zhu, C., H. Tu, Y. Bai, D. Ma, and Y. Zhao. 2019. Evaluation of slagging and fouling characteristics
during zhundong coal co-firing with a Si/Al dominated low rank coal. Fuel 254 (March):115730.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2019.115730.