Coal - Comparative Effectiveness of Coal Cleaning Equipment

This paper presents a method whereby the amount of misplaced material and the difficulty of the separation can be used to compare coal cleaning equipment of all types, from effectiveness and capacity standpoints. The correlations presented do not include all types of equipment currently available, but the method can be used to evaluate any make or type of coal cleaning equipment, both old and new. THE relative performance of coal washing equipment, or the effectiveness with which any type or make of equipment removes impurities from coal, has been most difficult to evaluate in the past. The most widely used yardstick is the Frazer and Yancey efficiency formula developed in 1922,' but Yancey in a later article states that "washers treating coals of different density composition or operating at different densities of separation cannot be compared directly on the basis of this criterion."' Prior to and since 1922, a variety of other methods has been used for comparison purposes, including the distribution curve, the error area, and the "ecart probable" or probable error. Yancey and Geer in discussing these methods conclude, "Performance can be evaluated in a number of different ways, with the choice of the proper method to use being dictated by the objectives of the investigation and the data available."' It is true that performance can be evaluated in a variety of ways, but if the equipment is to be evaluated on an effectiveness basis, there should be only one universal comparison method. Varying methods have been used because one universal comparison method has not been found or developed. In the article previously quoted, Yancey and Geer state in clear terms the primary concept for a universal comparison method: "One of the simplest, and certainly one of the most obvious evaluations of washery performance is the quantity of sink material in the washed coal and the float material in the refuse. If the washery products are tested at the density at which the washing unit is operated, the sink in the washed coal and the float in the refuse represent material that has been misplaced." The quantity of misplaced material was used as a criterion of washery performance by Lincoln in 1913," by the United States Bureau of Mines in 1938,' by Hancock in 1947," and by the national French research agency Cerchar in recent years.' In 1950 Andersone proposed the use of this criterion as an efficiency value to replace the Frazer and Yancey formula. However, none of the above-mentioned investigators used the misplaced material concept in a manner that would provide universal coal-cleaning equipment comparisons. The Correlation Theory The ideal coal cleaning process would treat all sizes and would make a perfect separation at any given specific gravity. All material lower in density than the desired value would report in the coal product and all material higher in density would report in the refuse product. Unfortunately, no known cleaning process achieves this goal and there seems little likelihood that any process yet to be invented will do more than approach it. When coal is treated in volume under operating conditions, it is impossible to avoid mechanical entrapment, fluctuations in throughput and effective gravity of separation, and the creation of turbulent currents, even when a true heavy-liquid bath is used and the feed is closely sized and contains little intermediate gravity material. This being so, it is possible to appreciate the difficulties inherent in trying to obtain a perfect separation when treating a wide range of sizes and a feed containing high percentages of intermediate material, using turbulent currents to help create the effective separation gravity, under operating conditions which normally tend to be on the overload side. When coal is separated from refuse in any coal cleaning equipment, some refuse always reports to the coal and some coal to the refuse; the writer therefore assumed that there should be a relationship between the total amount of misplaced material produced by any given piece of equipment and the difficulty of separation as represented by the percentage of near gravity material in the feed. With small amounts of near gravity or k0.1 material in the feed there should be less misplacement of material than would occur with large amounts of near