0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
158 visualizzazioni7 pagine
In this study a new method based on a
coefficient, named as Composite Coking Index (CCI),
has been proposed for assessing the suitability of a
coal as well as a blend for making coke of acceptable
properties...........H P Tiwari, S Suri, P K Banerjee, S K Haldar, P Sarkar and R Agarwal......Düsseldorf, 27 June – 1 July 2011... METEC INSTEELCON2011
Titolo originale
A Simple Technique for Selecting Coals for Non-Recovery Coke Making Process
In this study a new method based on a
coefficient, named as Composite Coking Index (CCI),
has been proposed for assessing the suitability of a
coal as well as a blend for making coke of acceptable
properties...........H P Tiwari, S Suri, P K Banerjee, S K Haldar, P Sarkar and R Agarwal......Düsseldorf, 27 June – 1 July 2011... METEC INSTEELCON2011
In this study a new method based on a
coefficient, named as Composite Coking Index (CCI),
has been proposed for assessing the suitability of a
coal as well as a blend for making coke of acceptable
properties...........H P Tiwari, S Suri, P K Banerjee, S K Haldar, P Sarkar and R Agarwal......Düsseldorf, 27 June – 1 July 2011... METEC INSTEELCON2011
The authors acknowledge the partial financial support of the Australian Coal Association Research Program for this work. We gratefully acknowledge the agreement of Illawarra Coke Company and BHP Billiton to present the thermocouple measurements from the Corrimal non-recovery coke ovens.
References
[1] Buss W. E.; Toll H.; Worberg R. (2003) Cokemaking in Europe trends and directions. AISE Steel technology 80(7), 35-41. [2] Cleary, P.; Isler, D.; Lungen, H. B.; Reinke, M.; Rudack, W. (2005) Coke production and demand today and tomorrow face up to the reality? Proc. 5th European Coke and Ironmaking Congress, Stockholm, June 12-15. Mo 1:3. [3] Valia, H. (2005) The phoenix of non recovery cokemaking and its rapid flight. Proc. 5th European Coke and Ironmaking Congress, Stockholm, June 12-15. We 6:3. [4] Arendt, P.; Lungen, H. B.; Reinke, M. (2006) Conventional slot oven or heat recovery oven? Stahl und Eisen 126(1), 17-26. [5] Kim, R.; Reinke, M.; Worberg, W. (2009) Process model for heat recovery coke ovens. Proc 5th Intl Congress on the Science and Technology of Ironmaking, Shanghai, China. [6] Merrick, D. (1983) Mathematical models of the thermal decomposition of coal 1. The evolution of volatile matter. Fuel 62, 534-539. [7] Merrick, D. (1983) Mathematical models of the thermal decomposition of coal 2. Specific heats and heats of reaction. Fuel 62, 540-546. [8] Merrick, D. (1983) Mathematical models of the thermal decomposition of coal 3. Density, porosity and contraction behaviour. Fuel 62, 547-552. [9] Merrick, D. (1983) Mathematical models of the thermal decomposition of coal 4. Heat transfer and temperature profiles in a coke-oven charge. Fuel 62, 553-561. [10] DR Jenkins, D.R.; Mahoney, M.; Keating, J.; Swann, A.; Penny, G. (2003) Factors affecting coke size and fissuring during cokemaking. ACARP Project C10052 Final Report, October 2003. [11] Mahoney, M.; Jenkins, D.R.; Keating, J.; Le Bas, A.; McGuire, S. (2004) Factors affecting coke size and fissuring during cokemaking. Proc. 2nd International Meeting on Ironmaking, Vitoria, Brazil, Sept 12-15 2004, ABM (Associacao Brasileira de Metalurgia e Materiais), 871-880. [12] Jenkins, D.R.; Shaw, D.; Mahoney, M.; Keating, J.; Woodhouse, S.; McGuire, S.; Lingard, G. (2006) Mechanism of fissuring during coking and its impact on coke size distribution. Proc. 4th Intl Congress on the Science and Technology of Ironmaking, Osaka, Japan, November 2006, 121-124. [13] Jenkins, D.R.; Mahoney, M.R.; Keating, J.C. (2010) Fissure formation in coke. 1. The mechanism of fissuring. Fuel 89 (7), 1654 1662. [14] Jenkins, D.R.; Mahoney, M.R. (2010) Fissure formation in coke. 2. Effect of heating rate, shrinkage and coke strength. Fuel 89 (7), 16631674. [15] Jenkins, D.R.; Mahoney, M.R.; Shaw, D.E. (2010) Fissure formation in coke. 3. Coke size distribution and statistical analysis. Fuel 89 (7), 16751689. [16] Peyret, R; Thomas, D. (1983) Computational Methods for Fluid Flow, Springer-Verlag, New York. [17] Loison, R.; Foch, P.; Boyer, A. (1989) Coke: Quality and Production. 2 nd Ed. London: Butterworths, 60-61. A Simple Technique for Selecting Coals for Non-Recovery Coke Making Process H P Tiwari 1 , S Suri 2 , P K Banerjee 1 , S K Haldar 1 , P Sarkar 1 , R Agarwal 1
1 Tata Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur, India 2 Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., Sambalpur, Orissa, India Abstract In general, Steel industries use many kinds of coking coals from various sources for producing coke for blast furnace usage. The selection process further varies with the coke making technology adopted. The ratio of inferior grade coking coal, which is relatively low in price, has been increased in recent years in order to reduce the coke cost to produce coke of desired quality.
Possibility of predicting coke quality from the properties of the coals in the blend has been attempted by many authors. In this study a new method based on a coefficient, named as Composite Coking Index (CCI), has been proposed for assessing the suitability of a coal as well as a blend for making coke of acceptable properties. The index takes into account the various coking properties of the coals of a given blend and converts them into a single value. This value is particularly important since each of these parameters represents different aspects of the coking phenomena with varying importance. Inter dependence of some of these parameters also exists. This makes the prediction process extremely difficult and majority of cases, decision is taken based on experience. The current method proposes a simple method for prediction of coke properties from the properties of the coals used in non-recovery coke making processes.
The Composite Coking Index (CCI) model predicts the least expensive coal blend that would still comply with the minimum coke quality requirements of a blast furnace. The study confirms the existence of a relationship between the CCI and the hot & cold strength of coke. Actual plant data of a non-recovery coke oven have been used for developing the model. This model was further validated with some commercial coke oven data for different type of blends and operating parameters. The technique was successfully used in selecting cheaper coals for producing coke with CSR >65%, CRI <25% and M10 <6%. Details of the technique with some of the predictions have been discussed in the paper.
Key Words Composite coking index (CCI), CSR & non-recovery coke making Introduction In Integrated steel plants, the cost of coke represents the cost of producing hot metal. Therefore, in an effort to sustain its cost the designing of low cost coal blends for producing desired quality of coke. The optimization of coal blend is ongoing process for any integrated steel plant not a new process. In this regards the selection and evaluation of coking potential of coal is very crucial before using in coal blend for desired coke quality. Designing of low cost coal blends for meeting the requirements of blast furnace coke is very important in coke making. The important coke properties that affect the blast furnace performance are chemical composition, size, strength, and reactivity. Keeping in view reduces the % of HCC and maximum usages of inferior grade coals in coke making. In order to reduce the cost of production of coke further, the use of semi- soft coals in the stamp charging blend and use of optimum proportion of hard coal component from the oven charge without impairing the strength characteristics of resultant coke. Incorporation of such blended semi-soft coals which are comparatively less expensive than that of single source of semi- soft/inferior coal can also reduce the overall cost of the oven charge. With the above in view, it was felt necessary to select requisite new source of coal for decreasing cost of coke without affecting the coke quality. Blending is the process of mixing together coals of different properties in the desired proportion. Since most of the caking/coking properties are considered to be additive in nature, a coal-blending model has been developed and used for blend optimization. However, the compatibility of individual coals in the blend plays an important role in the quality of the final coke product. The high-volatile coals normally have a lower softening temperature when compared to the medium and low volatile coals. The resolidification temperature is also different for the different coals. However, quality of coke depend upon the coal blend properties, thermal cycle developed to maintain the optimize oven temperature over the coking period by controlling the primary air inlet, secondary air regulator and individual oven draft. New coke making technologies Session 22 2 Dsseldorf, 27 June 1 July 2011 The basic difference between heat recovery coke making and by-product coke making is that in by- product ovens the heat input into the coal charge is provided by indirect heat transfer through the oven walls from an independent heating system. As such, coal is carbonized in the absence of air and a positive internal pressure environment is created. In the heat recovery process, heat input results from the complete combustion of the volatile components of the coal within and at the top of the oven chamber generated during carbonization and a negative pressure is created. The negative pressure results in significantly reduced emission levels compared with by-product ovens and the design requirements for the ovens are simpler, cheaper and easier to maintain. The Non- recovery coke making technology may accommodate a wide variety of coals to produce superior quality coke which should give the advantage of better coal selection as compared to the by-products coke making process. The non-recovery stamp charging coke making technology is eccentric compare with the recovery stamp charging coke making technology. It contrasts hereto the big advantages of the method could not be denied: (a) extension of the range of charge coals; (b) utilization of cheaper charge coal & (c) saving the prime coking coal and, (d) the major advantage of this technology is eco-friendly behavior for operation. The above all assumption is applicable if the coal blend is properly chosen. The properties of coal like volatile matter (VM) are the most important parameter for deciding the proportion of different coal in a coal blend for non-recovery coke making. Low VM coals generate less gas and hence, the total thermal energy on its combustion may be insufficient for attaining the coking temperatures in the oven. On the other hand, a high VM coal results in coke with high porosity and hence, poor CRI and CSR characteristics. This was confirmed in the case of coal blends with high VM resulting in coke with lower CSR and lower yield. Also, the crucible swelling number (CSN) is the coking property of coal and is the most crucial parameter in deciding the right blend. The higher CSN of coal blend indicate higher wall pressure. Also, the maximum fluidity of coals and reflectance of coal (Ro avg.) are equally important for selection of coal for carbonization. Normally the target specification for the blend is to maintain a maximum fluidity (Gieselers fluidity) in the ranges of 2001000 ddpm and average reflectance of 1.2 to 1.3 %. The maximum fluidity is used to predict the behavior of the plastic phase during coking. The fluidity measurement is an attempt to provide a practical test for comparing the rheology of coals. The fluidity of coal blend determines the bonding process during coke making. It has an effect on the coke strength after reaction (1-5). Possibility of predicting coke quality and optimization of coal blend from the properties of the coals in the blend has been attempted by many authors (6- 14). In this study a new method based on a coefficient, named as Composite Coking Index (CCI), has been proposed for assessing the suitability of a coal as well as a blend for making coke of acceptable properties. Thirty Five (35) numbers of coking coals of wide varieties (prime hard coking coals to weak coking coals) were chosen for developing the CCI. The index takes into account the various coking properties of the coals of a given blend and converts them into a single number. This number is particularly important since each of these parameters represents different aspects of the coking phenomena with varying importance. Inter dependence of some of these parameters also exists. This makes the prediction process extremely difficult and in majority of cases, decision is taken based on experience. The current method proposes a simple method for prediction of coke properties from the properties of the coals used in non-recovery coke making processes. The process starts with prediction of unique value of coal blend named Composite Coking Index (CCI) based on properties of coals. Based on the unique CCI of coal, a simple model has developed to find out the composite coking index of the blend and thereby, to predict the coke quality. The unique futures of this approach are that the model captures the past experience of the coke making and converts then into a single number for categorization of various coking coals and optimization of coal blend cost. The composite coking Index (CCI) model predicts the least expensive coal blend that would still comply with the minimum coke quality requirements of a blast furnace. The study confirms the existence of a relationship between the CCI and the hot strength of coke. Actual plant data of a non-recovery coke oven have been used for developing the model. This model was further validated with some commercial coke oven data for different type of blends and operating parameters. The technique was successfully used in selecting cheaper coals for producing coke with CSR >65% and optimum CRI. New coke making technologies Session 22 3 Dsseldorf, 27 June 1 July 2011 Experimental A total of 35 numbers of coking coals were used for evaluating the CCI of coal. All coals are characterized through its proximate analysis, chemical analysis, rheological and petrographic analysis (Tables 1 - 4). The CCI of individual coking coals are shown in Figure 3. Total 104 number of coal blends using above 35 coking coals and also some non-coking coal for developing and validation of CCI value were used for present investigation. All coal blend trials were conducted in an Industrial Coke Oven Battery (selected ovens). The wide varieties of coking coals were chosen for this purpose and the blends were then subjected to high temperature carbonization tests under a given set of conditions. In this study different coals collected from yard were fed with the help of conveyor belt in to the identified blending bunkers. After collection of the coal, the blended coal was passed through the coal crusher and crushed to the extent that > 90 % coal is below 3.0 mm. The moisture content was fixed at 11% (1 %). After crushing the coal was charged in stamping press mold for formation of coal cake. Normally, the coal cake is stamped with three layers at hydraulic stamping station. The stamped coal cake density was around 1.06 1.08 t/m 3 (on wet basis) and the weight of one coal cake [13000 mm long X 3400 mm wide X 1000 1025 mm high] was approximately 46.50 - 48.50 MT. After making coal cake, the charging plate is retracted back along with the coal cake on the charging car. The pusher cum charging car along with the coal cake travels to the specified oven as per the oven schedule. At the same time, quenching car also moves to the specified oven for receiving ready hot coke. Both side (charging and pushing) doors are opened after both the cars are aligned. The ready hot coke is pushed to the quenching tray by using pusher ram and the fresh cake is charged in the empty oven. During trial the following precautions were taken to maintain standard test conditions: The blending ratio was continuously monitored through PLC to ensure the accurate percentage of each coal. The coal tower (which receives blended coal) was emptied and cleaned before each experiment. The ovens, in which the experiments were done, were carefully selected to ensure set test conditions. Results & Discussion The present investigation used a wide range of coking coals (prime hard coking coal to inferior grade coking coal) for the development of an index named CCI. The selection criteria of individual coal was based on the unique number of individual coal and predicting the coal blend CCI for achieving targeted CSR through maximum usages of semi-soft/inferior coking coal in coal blend. The characteristic of all the coals is presented in Tables 1 - 4. The CCI model has been developed for individual coal used specifically by coking properties of coals. Because of differences in coal selection (type, proportion), coal preparation, coking conditions and the required CSR based on the blast furnace and availability of coal for a particular plant. This CCI concept is especially validated and successful only for non-recovery coke making using a wide variety of coking coal blends from different origins. The coefficient of coal named CCI may be increased or decreased based on the coking potential of individual coal. The resultant Coke qualities (mainly CSR) may vary with coke making technologies like top charged, recovery and non-recovery stamp charging etc. The model is based on the following coal properties: coal ash, volatile matter (VM), crucible swelling number (CSN), low temperature gray king test (LTGK), maximum fluidity of coal (ddpm), alkalinity index, silica : alumina ratio, reactive : inert ratio, reflectance (Ro avg.) and V type distribution of coal, etc. The model was used to calculated CCI number of individual coals. The relationship between CCI and the properties of the coals was also investigated, and a blending design system using CCI, which was different from the conventional methods, was developed. The model also predicts the least expensive coal blend that would still comply with the minimum coke-quality requirements of the blast furnace. The study also confirms the existence of a relationship between the coking properties of coal and the hot strength of coke if the operating parameters are constant. This CCI prediction methodology is successfully used for selection of coal blend only for non-recovery coke making process. Figure 1 and 2 shows that the model used in this investigation of find out the coking potential of coal as well as coal blend in terms of CCI. The proportions of the individual coals are the inputs for calculating the CCI of individual coal as well as coal blends. New coke making technologies Session 22 4 Dsseldorf, 27 June 1 July 2011 Results showed that the decreasing CCI value of individual coking coal will decrease the coking potential of individual coal. Figure 3 clearly showed that the composite coking index (CCI) of individual coking coal varies from 2.12-7.89 which represents the wide range of coking coals (prime hard coking coal to inferior grade coking coal) used. From this investigation, it was found that Coal AK is having minimum CCI i.e. 2.12, while, Coal A has the maximum CCI i.e. 7.89. Figure 4 and 5 showed that the effect of CCI of coal blend on coke CSR. It may be seen from Figure 4 that CSR increases with increasing CCI value of coal blend (correlation coefficient is 0.7552). The coal blend having CCI 4.08 is producing the minimum CSR i.e. 63.09, whereas, the CCI of 6.32 is producing higher CSR i.e. 69.51 (based on the plant trials of 18 numbers of coal blends). Also, Figure 5 showed that a similar increasing trend of CSR value with CCI during the validation trials conducted (correlation coefficient is 0.6692). The coal blend having CCI 3.77 is producing the minimum CSR i.e. 61.82 and the CCI of 6.67 producing the higher CSR i.e. 71.50. This CCI module is first developed based on 18 numbers of trial coal blends at selected ovens of a commercial coke oven battery and after that it has been validated with 84 numbers of commercial plant data (Non-Recovery Coke Making Process). The CCI model is now successfully used in the non-recovery coke making technologies.
Figure 1: Model for calculating the CCI of coals
Figure 2: Model for calculating the CCI of coal blends
New coke making technologies Session 22 7 Dsseldorf, 27 June 1 July 2011 Conclusion Selection of coking coals for coke making is a very complex process. This is due to the fact that large numbers of coking properties are used for assessing the coals for their commercial exploitation. In this study, a simple index named Composite Coking Index (CCI) has been proposed which incorporates the effects of these properties. Accordingly, a simple model has been developed for selecting individual coals and designing coal blend for coke making process. The model has been validated with actual plant data from a non-recovery coke making technology. The key futures of the model are: Identifying the coking potential and categorization of different coking coal grades (like prime hard, hard semi-hard, soft, semi-soft and weak coking coal) Selection of coal and blend design for achieving coke of desired properties (this may not be meet desired level, if coking is not completed in optimum conditions). Selection of cheaper coals for reducing coke cost Prediction of coke properties from individual properties of blend constituents (for non-recovery coke making technology) The above correlation to be developed for others coke making technologies (like top & stamp charged recovery coke making). It is also concluded that this model is not applicable for calculating the CCI of non-coking coal.
Acknowledgement We are thankful to the Chairman, METEC INSTEELCON
2011, for permitting to present this
paper in the conference. We are also thankful to Mr. Swapnil Gupta (Sr. Software Engineer, Wipro Technology, Hyderabad) for making this easier model and also the CRDSS, Tata Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur for their cooperation and support.
References [1] Grigore M., Sakurovs R., French D., Sahajwalla V.: Mineral matter in coals and their reactions during coking, International Journal of Coal Geology, 2008, 76, P. 301308 [2] Kumar P. P.; Barman S. C.; Singh S; Ranjan M,: Influence of coal fluidity on coal blend and coke quality, Ironmaking and Steelmaking, 2008, Vol 35, No 6, P. 416-420 [3] MacPhee J. A.; Giroux L.; Gransden J.F.; Price J.T.: The synergistic effect between macerals of different coals during coking, 2005, Fuel 84, 1998-1999 [4] Banerjee P. K.; Tiwari H. P.: Impact of beneficiation on coking properties of a typical Indian Medium Coking Coal, IMPC, 2008 [5] Arslan V.; Kemal M.: The effects of inert matters and low volatile coal addition on the plasticity of high volatile Zonguldak coals, The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2006, vol. 106, P. 191-204 [6] Gupta; A. K. Das; G. I. S. Chauhan,: A Coal- Blending Model: A Tool for Better Coal Blend Preparation a Coal Carbonisation Technology Group, Research & Development Centre for Iron & Steel, Steel Authority of India Limited, Ranchi, Coal Preparation, 2007, P. 28-38 [7] Lindert, M. te; Velden B. vd; Vander T; and Vos; R. A.: Coal blend selection for coke making, 3 rd
cokemaking Congress, Gent1996 [8] Nomura, Seiji; Arima, Takashi; Kato, Kenji: Coal blending theory for dry coal charging process, Fuel 83 (2004), P.1771-1776 [9] Tiwari, H. P.; Suri, S.; Banerjee, P. K.: Optimization of Coal Blend for Non-Recovery Coke Oven, TATA SEARCH, 2010, P. 135-139 [10] Hutson, Louise; Wilson, Chris: Cost Effective Coal Blending at Scunthorpe, the Coke Oven Managers Association, 2004, P. 171- 191 [11] Sakurovs, Richard: Interactions between coking coals in blends, Fuel 82, 2003, P. 439450 [12] Tiwari, H. P.; Suri, S.; Singh, J.: Optimization of Coal Blend for Coke Making using Inferior grade coking Coal at BPSL, International conference on Coking coal & Coke Making: Challenges and Opportunities at RDCIS, SAIL, Ranchi, 2009 [13] Kumar, P. P.; Barman, S.; Ranjan, M.; Ghosh, S.; Raju, V. V. S.: Maximisation of non-coking coals in coke production from non-recovery coke ovens, Ironmaking and Steelmaking, 2008, Vol 35, No 1, P. 33-37 [14] Rubchevskii, V. N.; Chernyshov, Yu. A.; Ovchinnikova, S. A.; Kompaniets, et al.: Predicting the Yield of Coke and Coking Byproducts, Coke and Chemistry, 2009, Vol. 52, No. 4