3532 Case Study 008 3/5/02 1:39 pm Page 2
CASE STUDY
GUARANTEED BUNKER FLOW USING THE
EDINBURGH COHESION TESTER
Figures 1a and 1b. Consolidation and testing with the Edinburgh Cohesion Tester
SUMMARY
Tens of thousands of tonnes of coal pass through UK power
station coal bunkers every day. When coal is placed in the
bunker, it is assumed that it can be easily and freely removed
by gravity discharge from the bottom using a feeder. However,
when the coal is cohesive (sticky), it can easily develop flow
problems, eg arching or ratholing. The potential of a coal to
be free of such problems is termed its handleability, though this
term is not scientifically defined.
The stoppage of coal flow in a bunker depends on cohesion of
the coal and the geometry and frictional properties of the
bunker walls. Most bunkers can cope with coal with a low
cohesion, but all will block when highly cohesive coals are placed
in them. As a result, each power station bunker has a different
limit on the acceptable coal cohesion. Clearing blockages and
removing large volumes of cohesive coal from bunkers is very
expensive and seriously disruptive to operations. It is therefore
important that each coal is monitored before placement in a
bunker to ensure that it can be freely removed again.
Cohesion of coal depends on a large number of factors,
including the constituents, particle size distribution, moisture
content and handling stress history. As a result, the cohesion
often varies daily or weekly with changes in the seams being
mined, underground operations and decisions on the blending
of different source coals. To guarantee the handling
performance of each new blend, rapid tests are needed to
determine the cohesion before it leaves the mine, and to
determine the consequences of blending decisions before they
are implemented.
A project was initiated in 1996 by Edinburgh University to
develop a tester, which was able to make real time
measurements of cohesion, with the aim of eliminating these
bunker flow problems. The result was the development of the
Edinburgh Cohesion Tester (ECT). The development of the
tester was supported by UK Coal Plc (formerly RJB Mining (UK)
Ltd) and funded by the joint funding agreement between
BCURA and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). This
Case Study gives an outline description of the new tester
(Figure 1) and presents some of the results that indicate why it
is now being widely adopted in the UK.
MARCH 2002
CLEANER COAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMME
BENEFITS OFFERED
The ECT offers a number of advantages over alternative methods
of evaluating the potential of a coal to cause flow problems:
• Measurement is made of the coal’s potential to cause flow
stoppages, rather than of the notional flow rate through a
model bunker.
• Tests are rapid, permitting real-time decision-making
(~3 minutes).
• High reliability of measurement through repeatability, even
with relatively inexperienced operators.
• Whole-sample testing, including the full particle size range.
The use of the ECT offers the following benefits in coal
handling operations:
• Testing can predict whether a coal being loaded into a
train will cause problems on arrival at the power station.
• The acceptance criterion for a coal can be calibrated to the
individual power station bunkers.
• Use of this tester as a formal part of coal handling
management can eliminate power station coal bunker
blockages.
• The tester can be used to characterise the handleability of
different source coals available at a mine (run of mine,
stock, singles, filter cake etc).
• Such characterisations can be used to make scientifically
based blending decisions that produce coal blends of
reliable handleability and economy.
MARKET OPPORTUNITIES
The tester is a simple, robust and rapid device for handleability
assessment. Extensive market opportunities exist for its use in:
• Daily monitoring of coal handleability properties as coal is
produced from the coal preparation plant and blended for
shipment to power stations.
• Daily monitoring of coal handleability on arrival at power
stations as part of contractual assessments concerning
handleability.
Case
Study
008
3532 Case Study 008 3/5/02 1:39 pm Page 3

• Data input into scientifically based blending decision-making

processes.
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
• Application to a wide range of mining products other than coal that Arching Problems and Theory
present handling problems. Cohesive strength, which results from compression as coal is loaded into a
bunker, plays a major role in coal handling problems. Figure 2 shows the
consolidation stresses causing the development of cohesion.
DTI SUPPORT The key feature of the formation of a stable arch or rathole is that the
The development cost of the tester, its verification, the scientific study and stress normal to the surface is zero whilst that parallel to the surface is
a full-scale trial totalled £170,919, and was provided by BCURA and the insufficient to cause crushing of the arch. This state can be represented by
DTI through the joint funding agreement. Other in-kind contributions compressing a cylindrical block of the solid in a confined mould, inducing
were received from UK Coal Plc. a cohesion corresponding to the stress state near the bottom of the
bunker, and then measuring its strength when the stress parallel to the
arch is zero (unconfined compression).
BACKGROUND
Many operations in the mining, power generation and steel-making
industries depend on reliable flow of coal through materials-handling Coal
equipment. The North America Reliability Council undertook a survey that
showed that problems in coal handling are not rare events, with nearly σp
1000 problematic bunker flow events reported in the period 1982-87
alone. These problems have caused major costs to some plants. Major σp
cost savings could be made if an effective, rapid and reliable method of Arch across
Paddle of
assessing the handling characteristics of a coal could be produced to feeder outlet
predict handleability before coal enters the materials-handling stream.
Compressed
Testing devices previously used included the Jenike Shear Cell and the coal
Durham Cone. The Jenike shear test is well known and is currently used in
bunker design for reliable flow. However, it cannot handle particles
Feeder
>5mm, it takes considerable time to perform tests and to analyse data, table
and it has been shown to be sensitive to the mode of operation (ie
operator skill). The Durham Cone, developed by the National Coal Board (a) Arching in typical bunker
(NCB) in the 1960s, measures the mean flow rate of a coal sample from a
vibrating small hopper. However, despite regular and careful use of this
apparatus, predicting handling performance of coals was difficult. The
Durham Cone gives a guide that can distinguish really bad and good
Cohesive strength envelope
handling coals, but is a poor discriminator of marginal coals.
Shear stress

Owing to the lack of suitable devices for measuring handleability, a proper

Stress state in stable arch
procedure for coal blending has never been proposed. Until now, blending
practices have been based on experience (trial and error), and have no
Stress normal to Stress parallel to arch surface
scientific basis. Source coals are first mixed in assumed proportions and arch surface
measurements of samples of the blend are taken at given time intervals. If
the results show that any requirement is not met, the proportions of the σp Normal stress
source coals are altered and this is repeated until a complete batch (train
load) has been prepared. Occasionally measurements on samples of source
coals are also taken, but the information obtained is not used scientifically (b) Mohr circle for stress state in arch
in the blending process because there is no technique available.
Figure 2. Theory of arching over a real coal bunker
In order to overcome potential handleability problems, it is commonly
thought that the addition of clean coal (eg singles/doubles) will improve Design and Construction
the situation. However, the quantity of valuable source materials needed The ECT was devised to measure directly the cohesive strength developed in
cannot be quantified, so sometimes too much is used. Since clean coals a coal under a known consolidation pressure. A cylindrical sample of coal is
are the most valuable output from the mine, and are sometimes imported consolidated under a vertical load Fc in a rigid split mould (Figure 3a). The
from other collieries with additional transportation cost, blending with sample mould is then removed and the sample is compressed to failure and
clean coal means that the product becomes more expensive for the the maximum load Fu is recorded (Figure 3b). The consolidation pressure
producer, even though its value has not changed. and the unconfined compression strength are then given by sc = Fc /A and
At other times, handling problems may arise because sticky coal is included su = Fu /A respectively (A is the nominal value, taken as the internal cross-
in a coal blend. This can also be problematic and may result in: sectional area of the mould).

• extra labour being needed to make the coal flow when arching (or
bridging) occurs in the receiving bunkers; this is a cost to the power
station
• the coal producer being charged for each reported problematic
unloading (transferring the cost back to the producer)
• serious disruption of the power plant if the train load of coal is
rejected.
The substantial economic loss in any of these circumstances is clear. The Split mould
development of an efficient reliable blending technique is clearly an
important goal.
(a)
The ECT was developed to overcome the problems of predicting coal
handleability and to develop a scientific means of improving coal blending
procedures.
3532 Case Study 008 3/5/02 1:39 pm Page 4

Operator 1 (m/c = 5.9%)

Operator 2 (m/c = 6.4%)

Unconfined strength (kPa)

6 Polynomial fit

Jack

Load cell 4
Digital display

Coal sample 2 Edinburgh Coal Type C

Particle size : -6.3mm
(b)
0
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Consolidation pressure (kPa)

Figure 3. (a) One dimensional consolidation and (b) uniaxial loading to failure of
Edinburgh Cohesion Tester Figure 5. Sensitivity of tester to operator

Similar unconfined compression testers have been proposed before, but Laboratory Blind Trial
this tester has several new features, which significantly improve the test Testing on three coals supplied by UK Coal Plc were conducted using both
procedure and results, and substantially overcome the main problems the ECT and the Durham Cone. For the Durham Cone, coal samples were
encountered in other similar testers. These features include the following: placed inside the cone and the time taken to empty under some induced
vibration was measured. All coals were classified as handleable and
• A three-piece split mould was used to minimise the disturbance whilst
measured flow rates were very stable (Table 1).
setting up the sample.
• Support of the mould on a soft elastic base was used to minimise wall Table 1. Durham Cone tests on Coals D, E and F
friction effects during vertical consolidation.
Coal Type Mean flow The coefficient
• Sample height correction was included to avoid interference with the rate kg s-1 of variation
initial sample (cutting or adding material after consolidation).
D 2.09 6.5% Easiest to
• A digital peak holder display was used to record the maximum vertical handle
force required to fail the sample.
E 1.75 3.8%
Similar
Experimental Studies handleability
More than 30 source coals from about five UK collieries and three power F 1.72 9.0%
stations were tested intensively to investigate the handling characteristics
of coal blends and to verify the reliability of the tester. Handling The ECT was then used to measure the unconfined compression strengths
performances observed on site were compared with those predicted by (cohesive strengths) of the same coals at different consolidation pressures.
both the tester and Durham Cone. Major factors that affect the coal In general, the cohesive strength increased as the consolidation pressure
handleability were studied extensively. increased. The handleability of each coal was related to the magnitude of
consolidation pressure. The observations drawn from these tests indicated
Repeatability and Operator Sensitivity the following:
Eighteen tests conducted on one coal by a single operator are shown in • Coal D developed little or no cohesive strength for a wide range of
Figure 4. The tester was shown to be reliable and highly repeatable for a consolidation pressures. Thus Coal D is handleable in all situations.
wide range of consolidation pressures. Following this, two operators were
used. One was an experienced tester, the other was given a 10-minute • When the consolidating stress levels are low (eg train trucks and small
training session. Each operator conducted the tests blind and bunker situations), Coals E and F develop only a small cohesive
independently. Similar results were obtained (Figure 5) indicating the ECT strength and so should be handleable. At medium to high stress
was not operator sensitive and that careful training was not needed if the levels (ie larger bunkers), Coal F stood out as the most difficult to
simple defined procedure is followed carefully. handle and Coal E could also be problematic.
• In addition, segregation, which may occur during handling, has a
considerable effect on the handleability of Coal F, but little effect on
8 Coals D and E.
The conclusions from the ECT were in excellent agreement with the mining
Experiments operators’ perceived handleability of each of these coals.
Unconfined strength (kPa)

6
Polynomial fit

Field Trials and Pilot Implementation

4
Based on the success of the laboratory trials, UK Coal Plc wanted to
undertake field trials to assess the handleability of various coal
2 Edinburgh Coal Type C consignments, and to compare the results with existing Durham Cone
Particle size : -6.3mm measurements. Coal output at the mine varies on a daily basis according to
Moisture content : 5.9%
changes in underground conditions, blending decisions and stockpile
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 management. Trials, lasting five weeks, were conducted at a single mine
Consolidation pressure (kPa) in March 1999. About 750 cohesion tests were conducted on 50 coal
consignments. The large numbers of cohesion tests were conducted to
Figure 4. Test repeatability
explore the repeatability of testing, the variability of the coal products and
the effects of coal blend proportions.
At the power station, discharge was observed and detailed information (eg
total discharge time, the number and the time when arching occurred etc)
3532 Case Study 008 3/5/02 1:39 pm Page 1

was recorded. Discharge time was taken as the period for each coal
consignment to discharge completely from the receiving bunkers at the
power station. Whilst discharge time measurements are not precise and
are subject to some human factors, they remain the only quantitative
indicator of the handleability of each coal.
The ECT predicted that six consignments had high cohesive strength values
and were therefore identified as problematic coal blends. In contrast, the
Durham Cone predicted that they had good handleabilities. Power station
observations indicated that handling problems were experienced for all six
of these consignments.
The variability of coal handleability was further investigated by looking at
the four cohesive strength measurements for each consignment. These
tests showed that there was considerable variation in coal handleability
within each consignment and that, if handling problems were reported,
these occurred in different parts of the consignment. These problems
correlated to a large cohesive strength measurement. This was found to
be the case even when other parts of the same consignment had
reasonably low cohesive strength and therefore good handleability.
Scientific Investigations
The ECT was also used to investigate the influences of various parameters
on coal handleability. The two most important were found to be moisture
content and particle size and both had profound effects when coal was
blended. Therefore in the last phase of the research project, the ECT was
used to optimise the coal blending process. With the tester it was possible
to monitor the handling performance of constituent materials and all the
properties including handleability of the final coal blend could then be
predicted. This information was used to develop an optimisation
technique, which now provides a very useful tool for coal preparation plant
manager managers to achieve their blending objectives.
CONCLUSIONS
As a result of the funding received through the joint funding agreement,
the ECT was designed and developed. The main conclusions are:
• The ECT was shown to produce repeatable results with a high
confidence level, and to be effective whatever the operator’s level of
training and experience.
• The experimental results from blind and field trials have shown that
the tester is able to correctly predict coal handleability. In addition it
is simple, portable and robust, and therefore is in advance of all
existing handling measurement devices.
• The tester was particularly useful in predicting whether arching
problems are likely to occur once coal has been placed in a bunker.
By contrast, the Durham Cone was found to be able to distinguish
only between coals at the extremes of the range and was not a good
discriminator for coals that were near the limit of handleability.
In addition to the tester being used as a coal handleability tool, it can also
be used as a scientific tool to understand the science behind coal
handleability and coal blending:
• A technique was proposed for producing a coal blend which
guarantees a reliable flow in the handling system of a client at low
production cost while all contractual requirements, such as calorific
value, ash content and moisture content, are maintained.
• It is clear that each coal has its own characteristic behaviour, and that
some coals may cause problems in wagons but not in bins, whilst
others may show the reverse.
• The tester is capable of distinguishing the features of each coal that
will be most problematic for handling purposes. It has also been
shown that great care must be taken over sampling: a traditional
‘representative sample’ may be a mixture of smaller samples taken
throughout a consignment. However, this is not true of coals that are
being tested for handleability. The stickiest coal controls the
occurrence of problems, so averaging of results or mixing of samples
is most inadvisable.
These studies have generated considerable interest, with enquiries from
the UK and abroad (USA, Europe, Australia, China and South Africa).
COMMENTS FROM UK COAL PLC
Mr Steve Pringle, Group Process Engineer of UK Coal Mining Ltd says “The
handling characteristics of our blended products, particularly those that
contain very fine mineral constituents have historically been difficult to predict.
Problematic consignments of product, as experienced by the end user, are not
necessarily identified at our despatch units due to indifferent flow conditions
and equipment design of mineral handling plant at our customers’ sites. The
Edinburgh Cohesion Tester has given us the confidence we require to despatch
our products with the knowledge that our customers will receive quality ‘Fit
for Purpose’ mineral with minimal operational disruption. Each of our
customers’ sites is given a specific maximum cohesion value of product which,
with experience and real data, we can accurately predict will flow effectively
through their handling plant. If this value is breached the consignment is not
sent and removed from our loading system for re-blending. UK Coal has
found the Edinburgh Cohesion Tester to be a rapid scientific monitor of
handleability that has had a significant effect on our business in an area that
has until now been variable, unpredictable and costly.”
ORGANISATIONS INVOLVED IN
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS
TECHNOLOGY FOR EXPLOITATION
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh EH9 3JN
Tel: +44 (0)131 650 5725
Fax: +44 (0)131 650 6781
E-mail: j.ooi@ed.ac.uk
Website: www.civ.ed.ac.uk
UK Coal plc (Formerly RJB Mining (UK) Ltd)
Harworth Park, Blyth Road
Harworth, Doncaster
South Yorkshire DN11 8DB
Tel: +44 (0)1302 751751
Fax: +44 (0)1302 752420
E-mail: enquire@ukcoal.com
Website: www.ukcoal.com

Further information on the Cleaner Coal Technology Programme,

and copies of publications, can be obtained from:
Cleaner Coal Technolgy Programme Enquiry Unit,
Department of Trade and Industry, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET
Tel: +44 (0) 207 215 6261
Fax: +44 (0) 207 215 2674
E-mail: Cleaner.Coal@dti.gsi.gov.uk
Web: www.dti.gov.uk/cct/

DTI/Pub URN 02/852