See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276443925

Enhancement of Coking Properties of Coal by Differential Screening

Article  in  International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization · May 2015

DOI: 10.1080/19392699.2015.1046597

CITATIONS READS

8 4,669

3 authors:

Debjani Nag (Ghosal) Bidyut Das

Tata Steel Tata Steel
48 PUBLICATIONS   238 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   86 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

V. K. Saxena
Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad
90 PUBLICATIONS   1,215 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Microwave-Assisted and Analytical Pyrolysis of Coking and Non-coking Coals: Comparison of Tar and Char Compositions View project

working on shale gas potentiality in Indian basin View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Debjani Nag (Ghosal) on 05 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization

ISSN: 1939-2699 (Print) 1939-2702 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcop20

Enhancement of Coking Properties of Coal by

Differential Screening

Debjani Nag, Bidyut Das & V. K. Saxena

To cite this article: Debjani Nag, Bidyut Das & V. K. Saxena (2016) Enhancement of Coking
Properties of Coal by Differential Screening, International Journal of Coal Preparation and
Utilization, 36:1, 1-9, DOI: 10.1080/19392699.2015.1046597

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19392699.2015.1046597

Accepted author version posted online: 08

May 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 58

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcop20

Download by: [Tata Steel] Date: 15 January 2016, At: 20:30

 International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization, 36:1–9, 2016
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1939-2699 print=1939-2702 online
DOI: 10.1080/19392699.2015.1046597

Enhancement of Coking Properties of Coal

by Differential Screening

DEBJANI NAG1, BIDYUT DAS1, AND V. K. SAXENA2

1
Raw Material and Coke Making Research Group, Research and
Development, Tata Steel, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India
2
Chemical Engineering Department, Indian School of Mines,
Dhanbad, India

Coke plays a major role in blast-furnace operation. Quality of coke mainly depends
Downloaded by [Tata Steel] at 20:30 15 January 2016

upon the coal used in blend. As the reserve of good coking coal is diminishing, at this
point of time, it is important to give emphasis on coal-preparation techniques.
Keeping this in mind, this article presents a coal-preparation technique named
‘‘differential screening’’ based on a selective crushing principle. Different types
of indigenous and imported coals are characterized and screened in different size
fractions. These size fractions are again characterized and carbonization tests are
designed based on their properties under stamp-charging condition. This research
suggests that the use of a specific fraction of coal in the blend in order to achieve
the higher coke strength after reaction (CSR).

Keywords Differential screening; Coal; Characterization; Coke strength after

reaction (CSR)

Introduction
Coke serves very important purposes in a blast-furnace process; it is a fuel, a reducing
agent and is responsible for the permeability of the charge [1–2]. Because of
the numerous functions of coke in a blast furnace, stringent quality parameters
of its physical and chemical properties are required to ensure smooth operation
of high productivity in modern blast furnaces [3].
A good quality coke is generally made from carbonization of good quality coking
coals. Coking coals are defined as those coals that on carbonization pass through
softening, swelling, and resolidification to coke [4–5]. The quality of coke depends
mostly on the properties of the coals used in the coal blend [6]. Apart from coal quality,
coke quality also depends upon the coke-making condition and precarbonization
techniques. Coke-making conditions, for example, bulk density, coking time, preheating
of the charge, etc., minimize some deficiencies in coal properties. Precarbonization
techniques such as, preheating, briquette blending, stamp charging, groupwise crushing,
etc. have been commercially implemented in different coke plants all over the world [7–8].

Received 10 January 2015; accepted 27 April 2015.

Address correspondence to Debjani Nag, Raw Material and Coke Making Research
Group, Research and Development, Tata Steel, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand 831001, India.
E-mail: debjani.nag@tatasteel.com

1
 2 D. Nag et al.
Downloaded by [Tata Steel] at 20:30 15 January 2016

Figure 1. Comparison between conventional screening and differential screening.

In India, a wide variety of coking coals, with different coking properties, is used
for metallurgical coke making. These coals are broadly classified as prime coking,
medium coking, and weakly coking coals, and they are blended in different proportions
for the production of blast-furnace coke. Since the indigenous source of prime coking
coals is extremely limited, special attention needs to be given to the precarbonization
techniques in various steel plants to optimize the use of coking coals [2].
Coal is a heterogeneous material. Its various components have a different
hardness, so that during breakage by mechanical means whether the inevitable
breakage in mining or true crushing, the weaker components tend to concentrate
in the fine fractions and the others in the coarse fractions. These various fractions
would be expected to have different coking properties [9]. This triggers the concept
of ‘‘differential screening.’’ This method based on the principle of selective crushing
aims at controlling the degree of crushing of different constituents of coal.
Differential screening is an innovative way, in which blendable coal is screened
in a non-conventional manner and is separated in several fractions. As different size
fractions has different properties so it is possible to improve the coke quality by
enhancing one of the fractions in blend [10].

Concept of Differential Screening

Differential screening is a smart way of separating out the fractions having superior
coking properties from a single coal. It is different than conventional screening.
Conventionally coal used in carbonization tests is crushed in such a manner that
90% of it should pass through a 3.2 mm screen. They are then blended and carbo-
nized under a stamp-charge condition. Differential screening is based on screening
the coal before blending. In which, coal after crushing in a conventional manner is
passed through different screens (þ3.2, 3.2 þ 1.6, 1.6 þ 0.8, 0.8 þ 0.5, 0.5 þ 0.2,
and 0.2 mm) and each fraction is collected separately. Complete characterizations
of different fractions for coking potential have been done. It is found that some
 Differential Screening 3

specific fractions of a coal have richer coking properties. This method suggests
isolation of the richer fraction of coal by screening and then adding it to the blend.
Experiments have been done with different types of indigenous and imported coals.
Richer fractions from the coals were separated out and blended with other coal.
It is then carbonized under a stamp-charge condition. Figure 1 shows the difference
between a conventional method and a method with differential screening.

Experimental Part
Characterization of Coals
Six coals have been chosen for the experiment. Among them Coals A, B, and C are
indigenous and D, E, F are imported. These coals are tested for their chemical,
rheological, and petrographic properties.
Downloaded by [Tata Steel] at 20:30 15 January 2016

Differential Screening
Six coals were first crushed in such a manner that 90% of it should passes through
a 3.2 mm screen. Coals after crushing were passed through different screens (þ3.2,
3.2 þ 1.6, 1.6 þ 0.8, 0.8 þ 0.5, 0.5 þ 0.2, and 0.2 mm). Each fraction from
individual coals were collected separately and characterized.

Characterization of Fractions
Six fractions as mentioned in the previous section were separated from each coal and
subjected to characterization. The fractions were characterized for proximate analysis
following American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTMD) 3172-89 standard.
The swelling property of the coals was determined by crucible swelling number
(CSN) according to ASTM standard ASTM-D720. Fluidity was found by a constant
torque Gieseler Plastometer (ASTMD 2639-04e1). Oil immersion microscopic analysis
was carried out according to the ASTM D2799-05a procedure. Amount of reactives
and inerts were found out by petrographical analysis using QWIN software.

Carbonization Study
A number of carbonization tests were conducted in the 7 kg test oven, under
stamp-charging conditions using a standard procedure established at R&D, Tata
Steel (Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India) [11]. The series of carbonization tests were
carried out to study the influence of specific size fractions of coal under stamp-charge
conditions. Water was added to the coal blend to obtain the desired value of the
moisture content. The coal cake was made inside a cardboard box keeping the bulk
density at 1150 kg=m3. Before charging the coal cake into the oven, it was ensured
that the empty oven temperature was 900  5 C. After 5 hours of carbonization time,
the hot coke was pushed out and quenched with water. The coke samples were tested
mainly for coke strength after reaction (CSR) and coke reactivity index (CRI).
To prove the concept of ‘‘differential screening,’’ coal blends were prepared conven-
tionally and carbonized. In another case, a part of the coal=coal blend was replaced
by a specific fraction during preparation. Then, it was carbonized. The comparison
of coke quality has been done by coke characterization.
 4 D. Nag et al.

Coke Characterization
The coke samples were analyzed for their ash and volatile matter (ASTMD 3172-89).
The CSR and CRI of the collected coke samples were assessed by the testing
procedures developed by the Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC, Japan) method, in
which 200 g coke of 19–21 mm in size was heated in a reaction tube (78 mm diameter
210 mm length) at 1100 C for two hours during which CO2 is passed a 5 l=min. The
percentage loss in weight of coke during the above reaction is reported as the CRI.
This reacted coke is further tested by rotating in an I drum (127 mm diameter x
725 mm length) for 30 minutes at a speed of 20 rpm. The coke is then screened on
a 10 mm sieve and the percent of þ 10 mm fraction is reported as the CSR.

Result and Discussion

Tables 1 and 2 show the chemical (proximate and elemental) analyses of six different
coals. The ash varies from 5% to 19% where volatile matter varies from 18 to 31%.
Downloaded by [Tata Steel] at 20:30 15 January 2016

Tables 3 and 4 are showing rheological and petrographic properties of the coals,
respectively. Maximum fluidity varies from 3 to 3988 ddpm for these six coals.
The fractions obtained from the six individual coals are then characterized as shown
in Table 5.
Figures 2–5 present the variation in properties of different fractions of the
abovementioned six coals. Figures 2 and 3 present the variation in ash and volatile
matter. It is found that, in general, the percentage of ash is decreasing with the size.
This is explained by the concentration of the harder mineralized part of the coals and
a higher content of inerts in the coarser size fractions. It is clear from the data that
with finer size, volatile matter increases. Figure 4 presents the variation of CSN of

Table 1. Proximate analysis of the coals

Coal Ash (%db) VM (%db)

A 18.1 18.86
B 14.23 24.81
C 13.91 22.89
D 9.97 20.66
E 6.62 31.62
F 10.1 21.9

Table 2. Ultimate analysis (%db) of the coals

Coal C H N S O

A 72.65 4.078 1.297 0.665 21.31

B 74.05 4.680 1.386 1.057 19.01
C 75.61 4.635 1.318 0.872 17.56
D 78.79 4.606 1.158 0.966 14.48
E 76.25 4.830 0.747 1.372 16.80
F 74.21 4.451 1.4 0.784 19.16
 Differential Screening 5

Table 3. Rheological properties of coal

Max Fluidity Fluid Crucible Swelling
Coal (ddpm) Range ( C) Number (CSN)

A 407 69 4.5
B 3988 76 5
C 90 72 8
D 59 48 8
E 3 33 4.5
F 720 82 9

Table 4. Petrographic properties of coal

Mineral Vitrinite
Coal Vitrinite Semi-Vitrinite Exinite Inertinite matter Ro Distribution
Downloaded by [Tata Steel] at 20:30 15 January 2016

A 27.1 0.9 2.6 58.6 10.8 1.22 V9-3

V10-9
V11-20
V12-49
V13-15
V14-4
B 47.6 1.4 2.4 39.8 8.8 1.03 V8-4
V9-25
V10-36
V11-30
V12-4
V13-1
C 50.1 1.1 1.2 37.4 10.2 1.24 V10-12
V11-14
V12-29
V13-33
V14-11
V15-1
D 41.1 1.2 2.5 49.1 6.1 1.26 V10-1
V11-14
V12-48
V13-37
E 90 0.2 0.2 8.7 0.9 0.87 V7-2
V8-15
V9-39
V10-39
V11-39
V12-4
V13-1
F 72.9 0.6 1.3 19.2 6 1.247 V11-12
V12-74
V13-14
 6 D. Nag et al.

Table 5. Different properties of coal

Chemical Properties Ash and VM

Rheological Properties Crucible swelling number (CSN), maximum

fluidity, and plastic temperature range
Petrographic Properties Reactive (vitrinite and semi vitrinite) and inert content
Downloaded by [Tata Steel] at 20:30 15 January 2016

Figure 2. Variation of ash in different fractions of designated coals.

different fractions of different coal. It was noted that, except Coal E, the CSN value
is maximum in case of finest fraction (0.2 mm). Table 6 presents the maximum
fluidity of different fractions of different coal in ddpm unit. It is found that in most
of the cases maximum fluidity increases to a certain fineness and then again

Figure 3. Variation of volatile matter in different fractions of designated coals.

 Differential Screening 7
Downloaded by [Tata Steel] at 20:30 15 January 2016

Figure 4. Variation of the crucible swelling number (CSN) in different fractions of designated
coals.

decreases except Coal B for which the fluidity is maximum in coarser fraction.
Figure 5 represents the amount of reactive (vitrinite and semivitrinite) in different
fractions of different coals. It was reported that for most of the coal, namely, A,
B, C, and E, the reactive percentage is maximum in the 0.5 þ 0.2 mm size fraction.
For the other two coals, it is maximum in the finest fraction. For inerts, the scenario
is just the opposite. It is found that for most of the coals all of the properties are
improving from coarser to finer size fractions. Reactive maceral like vitrinite and
exinites soften on heating and bind inerts and then resolidifies to coke [12–13].
As the reactive parts were increased in the finer fractions, its plastic properties
get improved.

Figure 5. Variation of reactives in different fractions of designated coals.

 8 D. Nag et al.

Table 6. Fluidity of different fractions of designated coals

Fluidity (ddpm)

Fraction size (mm) Coal A Coal B Coal C Coal D Coal E Coal F

þ3.2 7 5099 202 1 31 31

3.2 þ 1.6 5 3109 162 3 12 66
1.6 þ 0.8 90 1624 371 5 7 213
0.8 þ 0.5 70 1474 285 21 14 104
0.5 þ 0.2 897 1216 481 491 18 203
0.2 448 713 118 35 3 40

Based on the fraction properties, carbonization tests have been designed. In

the carbonization study, the individual coal was carbonized separately and its coke
Downloaded by [Tata Steel] at 20:30 15 January 2016

quality was measured in terms of CSR. A part of this individual coal is replaced by
rich fraction and then carbonized. In both cases, the coke quality was measured.
Experiments have been designed with Coals A and E as these are the prime and
medium coking coals. Coal A has been carbonized under stamp-charge condition
(Blend No. 1 of Table 7). Next, 10% of Coal A has been replaced by its fraction
(0.5 þ 0.2 mm) and it was carbonized. Results (Blend No. 2) show that the CSR
properties of coke have been increased. Similar tests have been conducted with Coal
E. It was found that, when certain portion are replaced by its definite fraction
(0.5 þ 0.2 mm), it shows improvement in coke quality (Blend Nos. 3 and 4). Blend
5 is a commercial blend used in a coke plant and is comprised of 10% Coal A.
In Blend No. 6, Coal A is replaced by its fraction and it shows improvement in coke

Table 7. Results of carbonization study

Blend
properties Coke properties

Blend Ash VM CSR CRI Ash VM

No. Blend detail (%db) (%db) (%) (%) (%db) (%db)

1 100% coal A 18.1 18.86 55.02 29.98 22.2 0.60

2 90% A and 10% fraction 16.29 19.33 58.91 27.81 20.3 0.70
of A (0.5 þ 0.2 mm)
3 100% coal B 14.23 24.81 50.18 30.97 18.90 0.50
4 90% B and 10% fraction 13.10 25.67 53.51 29.87 17.70 0.70
of B (0.5 þ 0.2 mm)
5 100% coal E 6.62 31.62 45.54 40.07 8.31 0.20
6 90% E and 10% fraction 4.82 32.15 49.66 38.79 6.87 0.11
of E (-0.5 þ 0.2 mm)
7 Commercial blend 12.93 23.05 54.96 33.71 16.8 0.5
containing 10% coal A
8 Commercial blend containing 11.8 24.6 56.89 31.24 15.9 0.52
10% fraction of coal A
 Differential Screening 9

properties. All tests are repeated and its average values have been considered. These
results prove that preparation of a coal blend is an important factor from the point
of view of homogenization. It also indicates that it is possible to get the desired CSR
by replacing part of some coal with its specific size fraction. This will allow to get
improved CSR from the same blend.

Conclusions
This article described a coal-preparation method to improve the coke quality. It is
named as ‘‘differential screening.’’ Individual coal contains different size fractions
that have different coking properties. This is mainly due to the variation of amount
of reactives in different fractions. In this method, coal is screened in different
fractions and characterized. A carbonization study shows that it is possible to
improve the coke properties by enhancing specific fractions in the blend.
Downloaded by [Tata Steel] at 20:30 15 January 2016

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Tata Steel for permission to publish this paper. Authors
would like to thank Dr. Rashmi Singh for her contribution in petrographic analysis.

References
1. Bertling, H. 1999. Coal and coke for blast furnace. ISIJ International 39: 617–624.
2. Thupkari, R. H. 1989. Introduction to iron making, 2nd edition. Delhi: Khanna.
3. Adeleke, A. O., R. S. Makan, and S. A. Ibitoye. 2006. Characterization of Ajaokuta coke
for blast furnace ironmaking. Journal of Minerals & Materials Characterization &
Engineering 5: 155–165.
4. Miura, Y. 1982. Recent studies on the properties of blast furnace coke and their future
prospect. Transactions ISIJ 22: 483–494.
5. Diez, M. A., R. Alvarez, and C. Barriocanal. 2002. Coal for metallurgical coke production:
Predictions of coke quality and future requirements for coke making. International Journal
of Coal Geology 50: 389–412.
6. Pitt, G. J., and J. C. Rumsey. 1980. Some features of the structure of metallurgical cokes
and their effects on strength. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 13: 969–983.
7. Hiddling, T., S. Gupta, V. Sahajwalla, B. Bjorkman, and J. Wikstrom. 2005. Degradation
behaviour of a high CSR coke in an experimental blast furnace: Effect of carbon structure
and alkali reactions. ISIJ International 45: 1041–1050.
8. Prashad, H. N., R. S. Karmakar, M. Tiwary, B. K. Singh, and A. S. Dhillon. 1996.
Possibilities of eliminating coke cutting in case of stamp charged coke. Tata Search: 52–57.
9. Parthasarathy, L., M. K. Sharma, A. J. Choudhury, and R. P. Sharma. 1995. Preparation
of high ash Indian coals for carbonization. ISIJ International 35: 819–825.
10. Sharma, M. K., A. J. Chaudhuri, S. Prashed, B. N. Prasad, A. K. Das, and L. Parthasarthy.
2007. Development of new coal blend preparation methodologies for improvement in coke
quality. International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization 27: 57–77.
11. Nag, D., B. Das, and P. K. Banerjee. 2013. Methodology to improve CSR of coke
for stamp charge battery. Indian Patent 60=KOL=2013, January 2013.
12. Ammosov, I. I., I. V. Eremin, S. F. Sukhenko, and L. S. Oshurkova. 1957. Calculation
of coking charges on the basis of petrographic characteristics of coals, Coke and Chemistry
USSR 2: 9–12
13. Schapiro, N., and R. J. Gray. Petrographic classification applicable to coals of all ranks.
1960, Proceedings of the Illinois Mining Institute. 7: 83–90.

View publication stats