Discussion - Development of the Screen Bowl Centrifuge for Dewatering Coal Fines Technical Papers, MINING ENGINEERING, Vol. 35, No. 4 April 1983, PP. 333-336

D.A. Dahlstrom In the paper, a comparison was made between flowsheets using the screen bowl centrifuge and disc filters, respectively, as the primary dewatering device. The authors very effectively show that by raising feed temperature, mechanical dewatering is enhanced through reduced viscosity of the water. When a final coal moisture of 10% is required, the net effect of heating the feed is a reduction in thermal requirements because of the lower evaporated load on the dryer. The flowsheet comparison on this, however, was not completely correct. Disc filters do not generally utilize enhanced mechanical dewatering through increased temperature. Horizontal belt filters, through the optimal use of steam heating of the filter cake, have shown significant cost reductions over disc filters where steam is not used. In addition, the authors forgot to mention that there is a certain fraction of the feed that is so fine that it cannot be recovered by the centrifuge economically. That is the function of the filtration device shown in Fig. 4. In subbituminous pipeline coals, this fraction represents more than 10% of the feed. Even after flocculation and belt pressing, the moisture content in the fine fraction is 30%-40. Recent tests on a subbituminous pipeline coal slurry, compared an Eimco-Extractor horizontal belt filter with the screen bowl centrifuge flowsheet shown in Fig. 4. Mechanical dewatering was enhanced through the use of a steam dry zone after the initial dewatering zone. Vacuum pump horsepower was reduced by more than 50% through the use of condensors, and heat recovery was utilized to minimize thermal costs. Thermal drying to 10% moisture by weight was required in both flowsheets. The 0.5 wt% fines in the filtrate were flocculated and recycled to the filter, thus eliminating the belt press and solids mixers. When the three major operating costs (which normally account for 50%-75% of the coal operating costs) of steam, electricity, and flocculants at current prices were calculated, the flowsheets utilizing the Eimco-Extractor had cost savings vs the centrifuge flowsheet of 89¢/t (81o; per st) of surface dry coal. This advantage increases with increasing thermal and electricity prices. I congratulate the authors for the strides made with the screen bowl centrifuge. However, filtration flowsheets continue to be improved and their simplicity and low thermal and electrical requirements should not be so quickly dismissed. ? Reply by N.D. Policow From a technical standpoint, a number of extensive test programs have demonstrated that by raising the feed temperature, mechanical dewatering is enhanced whether it be centrifuges or filters performing the separation. Economic constraints usually become the over-riding issue. If an inexpensive source of thermal energy is available, i.e., waste steam, etc., the approach becomes commercially acceptable. For the specific case of coal slurry pipelines, since the dewatering plants will be located close to power generation stations, the preheating approach becomes especially attractive. The cost comparison shown in Fig. 7, which was prepared by a major West Coast engineering firm, contrasted screen bowl centrifuges and disc filters. In both alternatives, a thermal dryer was specified to produce a contract moisture of the final product. Sizing of the thermal dryer on the screen bowl alternative was substantially smaller than that of the filter, since the screen bowl was credited with a four to six percentage point decrease in product moisture compared to the disc. This comparison was made at ambient temperatures and reflected solely the mechanical dewatering capabilities of the two devices. No preheating of the feed was included in this particular comparison. Early generation screen bowl centrifuges operated under the principle of maximum bulk tonnage throughput. Second and third generation machines have followed the trends dictated by the coal industry calling for higher one-pass recoveries than previously demanded. The current generation of high-speed, long-bowl centrifuges permit recoveries of ultrafine solids directly comparable to commercial filter operation. On typical coal preparation plant feeds with nominal 600 E. an X 0 (28 mesh X 0) clean coal, recovery levels in excess of 99% are now obtained. The material that does escape the centrifuge and reports to the main effluent is typically -10 µm, high ash material. We have documented substantial beneficiation effects in screen bowl centrifuge performance with the cake product containing lower ash levels than the feed. On the referenced pipeline, coal tests performed on Western subbituminous coal, we found that the percentage of -10 µm material in the feed was six to eight times greater than normally encountered on eastern Appalachian seams. Our 45-t/h (50-stph) production centrifuge was never set up to maximize recovery. It was used as part of the two-stage dewatering circuit that had been chosen by designers of the proposed pipeline. Recoveries up to 95% were recorded. With field adjustments, that performance could most certainly have been improved. In contrast, manufacturers of the horizontal belt filter provided a small pilot-scale unit that operated on a side stream at the test facility. Numerous combinations of chemical additions were evaluated to determine those that had the best impact on filter performance. Whereas the screen bowl centrifuges operated without chemical addition, producing a dry, fluffy cake, the belt filter required two stages of chemical addition to attain satisfactory performance and high recovery levels. On the two-stage circuit that incorporated a belt press as the secondary