Advertisement

Journal of Central South University

, Volume 26, Issue 12, pp 3225–3237 | Cite as

Effect of coal moisture content on coke’s quality and yields of products during coal carbonization

  • Hong-ming Fang (方红明)
  • Jun Han (韩军)
  • Hong-jie Zhang (张洪杰)Email author
  • Bo Zhao (赵波)
  • Lin-bo Qin (秦林波)Email author
Article

Abstract

The coal with low moisture during carbonization could not only increase the yield of coke, but also promote the coke quality and reduce the energy consumption. In this paper, the influence of the moisture in the blend coal (1.8%–10.13%) on the product yields and coke quality during coal carbonization were investigated. The results show that the coke yield is increased from 75.90% to 77.16%, and the coke qualities such as coke strength after reaction with CO2 (CSR), coke reactivity index (CRI), fragmentation index (M25) and abrasion index (M10)) are also improved when the moisture of the blend coal decreases from 10.13% to 1.80 % in a bench scale reactor. Due to the secondary reaction, tar become lighter when the moisture is decreased. In order to further prove the above results, the blend coal with 1.8% and 9%–10% (common moisture used in coke plant) moisture is carbonized in a coke oven with 6 m height, the results show that CRI are 23.4% and 27.3%, CRS are 67.1% and 62.2% under 1.8% and 9%–10% moisture of blend coal. Moreover, the variation of the moisture in blend coal has a limited influence on dust emission at the ascension pipe and the charging car.

Key words

coking coals low moisture carbonization coke coke qualities 

炼焦过程中配合煤水分对焦炭质量和产物产率的影响

摘要

低水分煤炼焦不仅可以提高焦炭产率, 而且可以提高焦炭质量、降低能耗。本论文研究了炼焦过程中不同水分的配合煤(1.8%∼10.13%)对焦化产物产率和焦炭质量的影响. 结果表明, 小型固定床干馏实验中配合煤水分由 10.13%降至 1.80%时, 焦炭产率由 75.90%提高到 77.16%, 焦炭与CO2 反应后强度(CSR)、 焦炭反应性指数(CRI)、 破碎指数(M25)和磨损指数(M10)等焦炭品质也得到改善. 同时,随着配合煤水分的降低, 焦油轻质化程度变高. 为了进一步证实上述结果, 在 6 m 高的工业焦炉中对比研究了配合煤水分为 1.8%和 9%~10%炼焦现场试验,焦炭CRI 分别为23.4%和27.3%, CRS 分别为 67.1%和 62.2%, 说明降低配合煤水分有利于改善焦炭质量. 此外, 降低配合煤水分对焦炉上升管和装煤车的粉尘排放量影响较小.

关键词

配合煤 低水分 干馏 焦炭 焦炭质量 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    NORTH L, BLACKMORE K, NESBLTT K, MAHONEY M R. Models of coke quality prediction and the relationships to input variables: A review [J]. Fuel, 2018, 219: 446–466. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.01.062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    NOMURA S J. The effect of binder (coal tar and pitch) on coking pressure [J]. Fuel, 2018, 220: 810–816. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.01.130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    FENG Sheng-dan, LI Ping, LIU Ze-yi, ZHANG Yue, LI Zhuang-mei. Experimental study on pyrolysis characteristic of coking coal from Ningdong coalfield [J]. Journal of the Energy Institute, 2018, 91(2): 233–239. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2016.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    NOMURA S. Recent developments in cokemaking technologies in Japan [J]. Fuel Processing Technology, 2017, 159: 1–8. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/jfuproc.2017.01.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    GAO Bing, LI Yu-geng, CHEN Peng, KONG De-wen. Application and effect analysis of CMC in coking plant [J]. Fuel & Chemical Processes, 2016, 47(4): 31–33. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-3709.2016.04.013.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    WAKURI S, MORIYOSHI O, HOSOKAWA K, NAKAGAWA K, TAKANOHASHI Y, OHNISHI T, KUSHIOKA K, KONNO Y. New moisture control system of coal for coking [J]. Transactions of the Iron and Steel Institute of Japan, 1985, 25(11): 1111–1115. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational1966.25.1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    NOMURA S, ARIMA T, KATO K. Coal blending theory for dry coal charging process [J]. Fuel, 2004, 83(13): 1771–1776. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2004.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    EREMIN A Y, ZAGAYNOV N, LOBANOV V, CHZHENCHAN V. Coal drying by coke-oven gas at Sanmin Iron and Steel Works [J]. Coke and Chemistry, 2014, 57(7): 284–287. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3103/S1068364X14070023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    BORKER S S, BANDYOPADHYAY P K. Better moisture control in coke manufacturing—A case study [J]. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 2011, 4: 1147–1154. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2011/v4i9/30246.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    NAITO M, TAKEDA K, MATSUI Y. Ironmaking technology for the last 100 years: Deployment to advanced technologies from introduction of technological know-how, and evolution to next-generation process [J]. ISIJ International, 2015, 55(1): 7–35. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.55.7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    KATO K, MATSUEDA K. Leading edge of coal utilization technologies for gasification and cokemaking [J]. Powder and Particle, 2018, 35: 112–121. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14356/kona.2018018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    CUI Ping, QU Ke-ling, LING Qiang, CAO Yin-ping. Effects of coal moisture control and coal briquette technology on structure and reactivity of cokes [J]. Coke and Chemistry, 2015, 58(5): 162–169. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3103/S1068364X15050075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    QIN Lin-bo, HAN Jun, YE Wei, ZHANG Shun, YAN Qian-gu, YU Fei. Characteristics of coal and pine sawdust co-carbonization [J]. Energy & Fuels, 2014, 28: 848–857. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/ef401942a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    QIN Lin-bo, HAN Jun, HE Xiang, ZHAN Yi-qiu, YU Fei. Recovery of energy and iron from oily sludge pyrolysis in a fluidized bed reactor [J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2015, 154: 177–182. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.02.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    HUANG Zhi-hang, QIN Lin-bo, XU Zhe, CHEN Wang-sheng, XING Fu-tang, HAN Jun. The effects of Fe2O3 catalyst on the conversion of organic matter and bio-fuel production during pyrolysis of sewage sludge [J]. Journal of the Energy Institute, 2019: 835–842. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2018.06.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    KRBES V, FURDIN G, MARECHE J F, DUMAY D. Effects of coal moisture content on carbon deposition in coke ovens [J]. Fuel, 1996, 75: 979–986. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-2361(96)00039-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    OKUMURA Y. Effect of heating rate and coal type on the yield of functional tar components [J]. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2017, 36(2): 2075–2082. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proci.2016.09.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    HAN Jun, ZHANG Li, KIM H J, KASADANI Y, LI Liu-yun, SHIMIZU T. Fast pyrolysis and combustion characteristic of three different brown coals [J]. Fuel Processing Technology, 2018, 176: 15–20. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    HASAN M D M, HU Xun, GUNAWAN R, LI Chun-zhu. Pyrolysis of large mallee wood particles: Temperature gradients within a pyrolysing particle and effects of moisture content [J]. Fuel Processing Technology, 2017, 158: 163–171. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2016.12.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    HAN Jun, ZHANG Li, ZHAO Bo, QIN Lin-bo, WANG Yu, XING Fu-tang. The N-doped activated carbon derived from sugarcane bagasse for CO2 adsorption [J]. Industrial Crops & Products, 2019, 128: 290–297. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.11.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    QIN Lin-bo, HAN Jun, ZHAO Bo, WANG Yu, CHEN Wang-sheng, XING Fu-tang. Thermal degradation of medical plastic waste by in-situ FTIR, TG-MS and TG-GC/MS coupled analyses [J]. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 2018, 136: 132–145. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2018.10.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    LIU Huan, ZHANG Qiang, HU Hong-yun, LI Ai-jun, YAO Hong. Influence of residual moisture on deep dewatered sludge pyrolysis [J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2014, 39(3): 1253–1261. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.10.050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    DING Lu, ZHOU Zhi-jie, DAI Zheng-hua, YU Guang-suo. Effects of coal drying on the pyrolysis and in-situ gasification characteristics of lignite coals [J]. Applied Energy, 2015, 155: 660–670. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.06.062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    DAS S K, NANDY A S, PAUL A, SAHOO B K, CHAKRABORTY B, DAS A. Coal blend moisture—A boon or bane in cokemaking? [J]. Coke and Chemistry, 2013, 56(4): 126–136. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3103/S1068364X13040030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    QIN Lin-bo, HAN Jun, ZHAO Bo, CHEN Wang-sheng, XING Fu-tang. The kinetics of typical medical waste pyrolysis based on gaseous evolution behaviour in a micro-fluidised bed reactor [J]. Waste Management & Research, 2018, 36: 1073–1082. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x18790357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    QIN Lin-bo, XING Fu-tang, ZHAO Bo, CHEN Wang-sheng, HAN Jun. Reducing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and its mechanism by porous alumina bed material during medical waste incineration [J]. Chemosphere, 2018, 212: 200–208. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.08.093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    ZHAO Bo, HAN Jun, QIN Lin-bo, CHEN Wang-sheng, ZHOU Zi-jian, XING Fu-tang. Impact of individual flue gas components on mercury oxidation over a V2O5−MoO3/TiO2 catalyst [J]. New Journal of Chemistry, 2018, 42(24): 20190–20196. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1039/C8NJ05084H.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    TIWARI H P, SHANKAR U, GUPTA R, SRIRAMOJU S K, DUTTA S, MISHRA P. Assessment of thermal efficiency of recovery stamp charge cokemaking [J]. Energy & Fuels, 2018, 32(6): 7017–7024. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b01199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Central South University Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hubei Key Laboratory for Efficient Utilization and Agglomeration of Metallurgic Mineral ResourcesWuhan University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.Industrial Safety Engineering Technology Research Center of Hubei ProvinceWuhan University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations