Coal - The Blending of Western Coals for the Production of Metallurgical Coke - Discussion

R. W. Campbell (Jones and Laughlin Steel Carp., Pittsburgh)—As usual John Price has presented an excellent paper. I know of no one who has devoted more time and conscientious thought to this subject than he has, and his efforts have produced scientific data and conclusions of real value. Results of similar studies made by the Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp. on the blending of Pennsylvania coals may be of interest. During 1935 the late F. W. Wagner and the present writer developed an empirical physical fuel value formula for evaluating the combined physical tests of metallurgical coke, see Table IV. In the development of the formula, the tumbler test, shatter test, screen test, and porosity of coke have been taken into consideration. Each of these tests brings out some physical property not expressed by the others, and in estimation of the importance of these tests as a medium for evaluating coke for the blast furnace, their worth has been graded as follows: It was thought that some additional penalty should be applied to cokes that do not show a uniform screen size, assuming that coke larger than 4 in. was not desirable and that this size was an indication of irregular size. Therefore the screen test factor is further corrected by applying a penalty of 1 pct for each 1 pct material greater than 4-in. size as shown by the screen test. The physical fitness of coke for blast furnace use depends upon four fundamental characteristics: l—gen-era1 strength, as indicated by the shatter test; 2— abradability, or the resistance of cell walls to reduction in size by attrition, as indicated by the tumbler test; 3—porosity; and 4—size and uniformity. Each of these characteristics is not of equal importance, but surely, in an attempt to determine an accurate physical value, the individual value of each should be taken into consideration. The formula is used as a yardstick, so to speak, in determining variations in the normal production of metallurgical coke and in making comparisons between normal coke and experimental blends with other coals. Table IV gives results of coking tests on raw and washed high volatile coals and these same coals with blends of coke breeze, anthracite coal, char and low volatile coals, all from Pennsylvania. The table also gives the source of the coals and coke breeze, as well as their proximate analyses. It will be noted that the washing of the raw high volatile coal increased the physical fuel value from 26.17 to 39.16, showing the effect of removing shale and slate which produces a detrimental fracturing and weakening of the coke. It is a well known fact that many Pennsylvania high volatile coals contain an excess of resinous material or binder which has a tendency to weaken the coke, owing to its high evolution of gases during carbonization. Tests were therefore made with coke breeze, an inert material, in an attempt to alleviate this condition. Blends of washed coal with 5 pct and 7.5 pct coke breeze collected from the coke plant quenching sump (82.9 pct through 1/8-in. screen) resulted in cokes with a physical fuel value of 20.75 and 16.73 respectively, lower than results obtained from 100 pct raw high volatile coal. It will be noted that the percentage of + 4-in. coke increased but that the tumbler test was very low. Undoubtedly better results could have been obtained if the coke breeze could have been crushed extremely fine. During World War II the government asked the coking industry to consider the use of anthracite coal as a substitute for high quality low volatile coal, which was extremely scarce at the time. The next series of tests was made with blends of raw and washed high volatile coals and 5, 10, and 15 pct Pennsylvania No. 5 buckwheat anthracite (100 pct through l/8-in. screen). It was necessary to use some raw high volatile coal in these blends because of insufficient washer capacity at the time. It will be noted that the physical fuel values