Coal - Coking Properties of Pittsburgh District Coals

IN 1948 the U. S. Bureau of Mines began a three-phase program to evaluate the extent and quality of U. S. coking coal: 1) a factual appraisal of known recoverable reserves in beds of mineable thickness, 2) a study of preparation characteristics, and 3) a study of carbonization properties. A previous paper presented the methods used in assessing reserves.' Although this investigation is only partly completed, data on coking properties of the Pittsburgh district coals are now available. The results are presented in this article. When coals are selected for manufacture of metallurgical coke more factors must be considered than for any other major use, as no basic industry requires coal of such high quality and uniformity. This is particularly true in the Pittsburgh district, where blast furnace practice is based on use of cokes from high quality coals. Although it is true that inferior coals are carbonized in other industrial areas, both here and abroad, the Pittsburgh coals are the best economically obtainable in the required tonnages, even though they are not the most desirable for metallurgical use. In the general evaluation of suitability of coals for coke making, particular attention is given to: 1) reserve, 2) ash and sulfur content, 3) inherent properties of forming strong, well fused coke, 4) expanding characteristics, and 5) blending properties. Items 1 and 2 are covered in detail in the first two phases of the survey, and coking behavior is considered in items 3 through 5. Problems is Coal Evaluation: Although not all coal beds of immediate or potential use to the coking industry in the Pittsburgh area have been tested for their coking properties, enough tests have been made to permit certain generalized statements. Virtually all the coals that will be used in this district are from the Appalachian region, and except for high oxygen coals from outcrops or stripping operations, they are coking coals. Hence the evaluation problem is not so much that of distinguishing between coking and noncoking coals as attempting to measure quantitatively differences in the coking and expanding properties of the better coking coals. Quantitative differentiation between good coking coals, is complex, since differences in their coking abilities are frequently of about the same magnitude as the precision of the test. Small-scale tests are generally unsuitable for measuring these slight differences, and there has been gradual acceptance of pilot-scale tests. Test Methods Employed: All the data reported here were obtained in two units known as the Bureau of Mines-American Gas Association (BM-AGA) carbonization apparatus and the sole-heated expansion oven. The BM-AGA unit, which consists essentially of a cylindrical steel retort about 18 in. diam and 26 in. high, carbonizes enough coal (180 lb) to allow evaluation of the coke by standard methods of the American Society for Testing Materials. The BM-AGA carbonization procedure and methods of testing the gas, liquid, and solid products have been described.' Expanding characteristics of the coals were determined in the sole-heated expansion oven," wherein the coal charge, heated from the bottom only, is carbonized under a constant applied force and the linear expansion or contraction is measured. Although results in this oven have never been quantitatively correlated with the expansion behavior of coals in conventional slot ovens, they are useful in assessing expansion behavior. In this report discussion will be confined to results obtained from these pilot-scale units, although the following data are available for most coals: proximate and ultimate analyses, free swelling index, agglutinating value, and plasticity. Sources of Coals Tested: In selection of coals for coke manufacture, economic considerations are as important as quality, and each coke plant balances these two factors to meet requirements of the most satisfactory coke at lowest price. Although these economic factors may in some instances outbalance small differences in coke quality, they are usually specific to each coke plant and cannot be given in any general statement. Recognizing that coal and plant operating costs are beyond the scope of the survey, the USBM evaluates the coking quality of various coals without regard to their competitive economic status. For the purpose of this article, coals of interest to the Pittsburgh district are arbitrarily defined as