Search Documents

By Albert L. Toenges

Alaska requires an adequate fuel supply for its development, and has large potential coal reserves ranging from lignite to subbituminous and anthracite. Coal production in the Territory now is less than the requirements. In L947, production was 361,000 tons, divided about equally between bituminous coal from the Matanuska field and subbituminous coal from the Nenana field. There is need for development of modern mechanized mines, which should produce the required output with a minimum of workers. These mines should not be thought of in the light of large potential capacity, as in the States. However, these new mines should be developed by modern methods, which should result in lower costs than at Present. Because of the diverse physical conditions in the coal fields, intensive investigation by diamond drilling is necessary to properly plan the development and equipment of mine sites at minimum cost. The Bureau of Mines is doing this now in the Wishbone Hill area of the Matanuska field. All coal land in Alaska is government-owned and subject to the Coal Leasing Act. Coal mining in Alaska has been handicapped by an inadequate supply of dependable workers. Wage scales have been very high in recent years, and "floaters" have been attracted to the coal mines. This type of labor is not conducive to efficient operation. Modernization of mines will require skilled and dependable workers and to induce such men to become interested in coal mining in Alaska, modern facilities, such as modern houses, schools, churches, and recreation halls, must be provided near the mines. Alaska is still a frontier and improvements in living standards must accompany development of mines in order that a stable community may be established. Coal is known to have been mined in Alaska at Port Graham, on Cook Inlet, by the Russians in 1854. During the Klondike gold rush in 1898, coal was mined in scattered areas for use on steamers plying the Yukon River and its navigable tributaries. After the Alaska Railroad was built, two important fields were developed—the Nenana and the Matanuska (Fig 1). The Bering River field was explored by the Guggenheim interests at one time, and a railroad to the area was constructed. However, the field was abandoned because of litigation and reported unsatisfactory physical condition of the beds. There are areas that today are unimportant but which may be developed in the future. Possibly the most important of these is the deposits of subbituminous coal adjacent to Cook Inlet, near Homer, on the Kenai Peninsula (see Fig 1). It is expected that the demand for coal in the Kenai Peninsula will increase because the population in that area has increased as a result of agricultural development. Numerous outcrops of coal are exposed on the peninsula and development of a mine there would obviate dependence on supplies of coal from the Matanuska field. Coal from this field must be shipped approximately 160 miles by rail to Seward and transported thence by boat about 180 miles to Homer. There has been no regular boat service from Anchorage to Homer. There are deposits of coal in the Arctic region but a description of them will not be given in this paper, which will describe the more important deposits in the Alaska Railroad belt. The results of a reconnaissance in the Arctic have been described.' Description of Fields MATANUSKA FIELD The Matanuska field lies in the valleys of the Matanuska River and its tributaries and their separating ridges. This field has been interpreted by geologists as a sunken fault block that separated the Talkeetna Range of mountains from the Chugach Range. The Matanuska River flows west along the south side of the field and the Glenn highway, which extends from Anchorage via Palmer to the Richardson highway near Glen Allan, follows the Matanuska Valley. This road to the coal field can be traveled the year around. Although the snow-

Jan 1, 1950

By J. R. Dawson, J. A. Glunt

VESTA No. 4 and 5 mines supply most of the high volatile coal required for Jones & Laughlin's byproduct coke plants. Until 1944 all coal produced in these mines was loaded by hand. Pressure to mechanize at Vesta was brought on by the manpower shortage in World War 11, and in 1943 a decision was made to change to mechanical loading. It was the opinion of those concerned that by use of selective mining the coal would be clean enough to be processed by the existing preparation plants. At that time coal cleaning at Jones & Laughlin consisted of hand picking the larger sizes at the mine tipples and wet washing at plants located at the Pittsburgh and Aliquippa Works. A typical section of the Pittsburgh seam as it occurs at Vesta is shown in Fig. 1. The 14 to 16 in. of drawslate immediately over the coal is too soft to be used for roof and must be taken down, leaving the rooster coal just above for roof. In selective mining an attempt is made to mine the coal under the drawslate first and then load out the drawslate separately as refuse. In full seam mining slate and coal are shot down at the same time and loaded out. Mechanical loading at Vesta created new problems. It was found that selective mining, even when carefully applied, increased the refuse in the raw coal to such an extent that the washers at the mills were unable to handle it. Large tonnages of refuse were being transported, a reject disposal problem was created, and good metallurgical coal was being loaded out and lost. In addition, the selective method handicapped operation of the loading machines. Fig. 2 shows how the ash content of the raw coal increased as mechanization proceeded at No. 5 mine. New Preparation Plant: After an exhaustive study of this situation by J & L management, is was decided that a preparation plant should be constructed at the mines, capable of handling full seam mined coal and large enough to process full production of both No. 4 and No. 5 mines. It was decided that from the standpoint of inside operation and haulage the new plant should be located as near as possible to the old No. 5 tipple on the Monongahela River near Vestaburg. Full seam mining at Vesta could be expected to produce a tremendous volume of refuse along with the coal, since 14 to 16 in. of slate would be mined with an average 78 in. of coal. Disposal of this refuse required serious consideration in selecting a plant site. The only area near Vestaburg large enough for disposal of the plant refuse was across the Monongahela River at LaBelle. Ample space was available here, and construction at this location would not interfere with operation at the No. 5 tipple. It had been noted over the years that the sulfur content of the coal produced at Vesta was gradually increasing, and there was every indication that this increase could be expected to continue as the mines developed further from the river. It was decided to construct a three-part separation plant with complete blending facilities to produce both metallurgical and steam coal. In this system an attempt is made to reduce the sulfur in the metallurgical coal in a secondary cleaning process. Construction of the new preparation plant got under way early in 1947 and continued until the spring of 1950. The plant was designed to handle 2400 tph of raw coal containing 30 to 35 pct refuse. Cost of outside buildings and equipment was about $14 million. Total cost of the plant, together with improvements and changes made at this time, was approximately $21 million.

Jan 1, 1957

By W. L. Crentz, E. E. Donath, D. Doherty

IN 1948, the United States used nearly six million barrels of petroleum products every day. Although substitution of synthetic fuels for the natural petroleum product is not here yet, large quantities of special-purpose coal will be required in ever-increasing volume as the domestic production of oil from other sources fails to meet demand and the production of synthetic fuels begins. Petroleum economists do not agree as to when the shortages of domestic oil will appear; but the increasing per capita consumption of oil, coupled with a constantly growing population drawing on a potential domestic oil supply estimated to be 85 billion barrels, sooner or later will result in demand exceeding domestic supply. When this situation comes about, the excess demand will be either eliminated by curtailment of consumption or the demand met by increasing importation of foreign oil or by the production of synthetic fuels. The first recourse would definitely retard the heretofore unbroken rise in American living standards, while dependence upon a foreign oil supply during a war or other emergency would be dangerous. On the other hand, the enormous coal reserves in the United States, plus sizable deposits of oil shale, indicate adequate means of augmenting a diminishing domestic oil supply. Some idea of the impact of an expanding synthetic liquid fuels program on the coal-mining industry may be gathered when it is considered that to supply just half of our present-day petroleum needs synthetically from coal would increase the coal output by about 500 million tons annually, using an 11,900 Btu bituminous coal as the plant feed. If either a subbituminous coal or lignite were used, the quantity required would be materially increased. Synthetic Fuel Processes: The principal synthetic fuel processes using coal as a raw material are the Bergius, or coal-hydrogenation process, and the Fischer-Tropsch, or gas-synthesis process. These two processes not only produce different end products, but the preparation of the coal used in each presents its own individual problem to the coal-preparation engineer. The hydrogenation process brings together a mixture of dry, finely powdered coal, catalyst, and heavy oil to form a paste. Addition of hydrogen under rather high pressure and temperature conditions brings about transformation of the coal to a liquid product, from which a high-grade gasoline and other motor fuels may be obtained. The Fischer-Tropsch process requires the production of synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. At the Bureau of Mines Louisiana, Mo., demonstration plant, this gas is being made by reacting dried pulverized coal with carefully controlled volumes of oxygen and superheated steam. After purification and in the presence of the proper catalyst and suitable conditions of pressure and temperature, the hydrogen and carbon monoxide components of the synthesis gas react to form motor fuel. The two processes are not competitive but rather com-

Jan 1, 1951

By E. E. Donath, W. L. Crentz, D. Doherty

IN 1948, the United States used nearly six million barrels of petroleum products every day. Although substitution of synthetic fuels for the natural petroleum product is not here yet, large quantities of special-purpose coal will be required in ever-increasing volume as the domestic production of oil from other sources fails to meet demand and the production of synthetic fuels begins. Petroleum economists do not agree as to when the shortages of domestic oil will appear; but the increasing per capita consumption of oil, coupled with a constantly growing population drawing on a potential domestic oil supply estimated to be 85 billion barrels, sooner or later will result in demand exceeding domestic supply. When this situation comes about, the excess demand will be either eliminated by curtailment of consumption or the demand met by increasing importation of foreign oil or by the production of synthetic fuels. The first recourse would definitely retard the heretofore unbroken rise in American living standards, while dependence upon a foreign oil supply during a war or other emergency would be dangerous. On the other hand, the enormous coal reserves in the United States, plus sizable deposits of oil shale, indicate adequate means of augmenting a diminishing domestic oil supply. Some idea of the impact of an expanding synthetic liquid fuels program on the coal-mining industry may be gathered when it is considered that to supply just half of our present-day petroleum needs synthetically from coal would increase the coal output by about 500 million tons annually, using an 11,900 Btu bituminous coal as the plant feed. If either a subbituminous coal or lignite were used, the quantity required would be materially increased. Synthetic Fuel Processes: The principal synthetic fuel processes using coal as a raw material are the Bergius, or coal-hydrogenation process, and the Fischer-Tropsch, or gas-synthesis process. These two processes not only produce different end products, but the preparation of the coal used in each presents its own individual problem to the coal-preparation engineer. The hydrogenation process brings together a mixture of dry, finely powdered coal, catalyst, and heavy oil to form a paste. Addition of hydrogen under rather high pressure and temperature conditions brings about transformation of the coal to a liquid product, from which a high-grade gasoline and other motor fuels may be obtained. The Fischer-Tropsch process requires the production of synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. At the Bureau of Mines Louisiana, Mo., demonstration plant, this gas is being made by reacting dried pulverized coal with carefully controlled volumes of oxygen and superheated steam. After purification and in the presence of the proper catalyst and suitable conditions of pressure and temperature, the hydrogen and carbon monoxide components of the synthesis gas react to form motor fuel. The two processes are not competitive but rather com-

Jan 1, 1951

By W. L. Crentz, E. E. Donath, D. Doherty

Maurice Rey—The influence of cyclone diameter upon the fineness of separation is an important point which, however, cannot be discussed adequately if the injection pressure or the rate of flow are not specified. Perhaps some light can be thrown on the matter by using the formulas derived by Dahlstrom. Let us consider several geometrically similar cyclones where the apertures e and b are equal and proportional to the diameter D and which are operated with the same pressure drop. Eq 8 of Dahlstrom's paper can be written: Q Q = K D'. " or. if F is constant: Q = K D18 K is a constant of proportionality. Introducing this value of Q in eq 13 gives elimination efficiency = K D0' " Elimination efficiency, in the terminology of Dahlstrom, means the diameter of particles, in microns, which divide equally between the underflow and the overflow. This denomination is regrettable and it would be preferable to call it diameter of separation or characteristic size or any other name connoting a size rather than an efficiency. Whatever the name used, the above equation shows a slow increase in the fineness of separation when the diameter of the cyclone decreases. For example, if a 14-in. cyclone gives a 400-mesh separation (37 microns), geometrically similar cyclones, having the same pressure drop will give separations at the sizes shown below.

Jan 1, 1951

By E. E. Donath, W. L. Crentz, D. Doherty

Maurice Rey—The influence of cyclone diameter upon the fineness of separation is an important point which, however, cannot be discussed adequately if the injection pressure or the rate of flow are not specified. Perhaps some light can be thrown on the matter by using the formulas derived by Dahlstrom. Let us consider several geometrically similar cyclones where the apertures e and b are equal and proportional to the diameter D and which are operated with the same pressure drop. Eq 8 of Dahlstrom's paper can be written: Q Q = K D'. " or. if F is constant: Q = K D18 K is a constant of proportionality. Introducing this value of Q in eq 13 gives elimination efficiency = K D0' " Elimination efficiency, in the terminology of Dahlstrom, means the diameter of particles, in microns, which divide equally between the underflow and the overflow. This denomination is regrettable and it would be preferable to call it diameter of separation or characteristic size or any other name connoting a size rather than an efficiency. Whatever the name used, the above equation shows a slow increase in the fineness of separation when the diameter of the cyclone decreases. For example, if a 14-in. cyclone gives a 400-mesh separation (37 microns), geometrically similar cyclones, having the same pressure drop will give separations at the sizes shown below.

Jan 1, 1951

By John Griffen

OF the western European countries, only England has made any extensive use of equipment developed initially by the coal preparation industry of the United States. About 20 years ago, the Chance sand flotation process for cleaning coal was introduced in England, and it has had a fairly wide adoption, particularly in the South Wales coal fields. In recent years, particularly since 1946, a considerable number of Denver flotation cells have been installed throughout the English coal fields for the cleaning of slurry. Until the advent of the Denver cells, the flotation of coal slurries in Western Europe had been done largely with the Mineral Separations cell or its modifications. Kleinbentik of Dutch State Mines had developed a cylindrical cell used in Holland and occasionally in Belgium and France. In England, the establishment of the National Coal Board to control the planning and operation of all coal production has retarded somewhat modernization of properties. A considerable period of study was required before definite long-range plans could be formulated. It was soon recognized that stopgap measures were needed in many cases to bridge the period until final plans could be developed and consummated. One of the stopgap problems in coal preparation was providing plants of small and medium capacity that could be used for a few years at one site and yet could be moved economically to another site so as to reduce depreciation charges per year and per ton. Such plants are being installed but the most satisfactory answer probably has not yet been found. One such installation uses a Norton Baum jig to wash 6 in. to 0. The equipment is in a steel structure rather than in a reinforced concrete frame with brick curtain walls, which is the normal structure for permanent plants. Since England has between 700 and 800 preparation plants for an output of 200 million tons per year, one of the long-range objectives is a consolidation of mine output which will require fewer coal

Jan 1, 1952

By John Griffen

K. F. Tromp (Kerkrade, Holland)—Your assumption that the Dutch State Mines have lead in the development of heavy medium processes—the Barvoys, Loess, Driessen—is not correct. The credit should be given to a Dutch engineer Mr. deVooys, the inventor of the Barvoys process. deVooys started in 1932 in Hiickelhoven, a German but Dutch-owned mine, where he was a director. Several plants on the Continent as well as in Great Britain were erected. The State Mines started their first plant in 1937. They could not get that plant working satisfactorily and built another one. Their process made no headway, and up to 1946 there was only one plant installed, the one at their own pit. Since 1946 they started the cyclone process and only since that time have they been more active, though industrial cyclone washeries are still in their infancy. deVooys sold his patents to the Dutch State Mines in 1946 and this might have given you the impression that the pioneer work had been done by the Dutch State Mines. John Griffen (author's reply)—I wish to thank Mr. Tromp for giving the correct story on the development of heavy medium processes in Holland.

Jan 1, 1952

By G. A. Vissac

The only fine coal washer with proved automatic controls, the feldspar jig is capable of good efficiencies even at low separating gravities, handles a variety of products, and treats 150 tph and over. IN continental Europe the feldspar jig is used almost exclusively for cleaning the fine sizes of coal; it operates with an artificial bed, made up generally of pieces of feldspar or of any other hard and heavy rock with good cleavages. A primitive form of this machine requiring close supervision was used in this country years ago, but output was small. The modern machines are generally air-pulsated Baum-type jigs, with capacities up to 150 tph, and treat sizes from % in. to 0, usually previously dedusted or deslimed. These jigs are equipped with very accurate and sensitive automatic controls insuring satisfactory operation even at low separating gravity and with feeds irregular in quality and quantity. This paper will deal more particularly with coal cleaning separation, but the technical studies apply equally to all minerals. Theory of the Feldspar Jig To understand fully the operation of the feldspar jig and to appreciate its potential value, it is necessary to measure and analyze the motion of small particles of various specific gravities, falling in various media, under various conditions. As no practical formulas were available for that purpose, the writer has developed new theories and established new sets of formulas, which cannot be demonstrated here. They are applicable to all minerals and to many problems of coal or mineral concentration. These formulas do not pretend to absolute accuracy, but results, tested by comparison with experimentally recorded data, are sufficient for practical purposes, as they give definite indications of trends, relative values, and order of magnitude of the many factors involved. For pulsating motions no earlier formulas are available. In the case of continuous currents or motions, such formulas as Rittinger's, Allen's, or Stokes', over a hundred years old, apply only to special shapes and sizes of particles, involve factors and coefficients difficult to measure or appreciate, and deal only with free motions. They are of little use in solving practical problems. Units used with the formulas presented here are in the CGS system. Lateral friction and suction have been taken into account according- to methods currently used in aerodynamics, and only hindered motion is dealt with. As the feldspar jig is primarily intended to create a fluid bed condition, the mixture of fluids and solids obtained is homogeneous, and the apparent specific gravity of the separating medium is calculated accordingly. For instance, if 20 pct of the volume is coal and shale, with an average of 1.60 sp gr, in a liquid of 1.10 sp gr, the actual specific gravity of the separating fluid is 0.80 x 1.1 + 0.20 X 1.6 = 1.20. The fundamental equations are as follows: The general motion of a particle falling in a medium of specific gravity equal to u, hindered motion. is dv/dt = g/Ls [ L (s-u) - u/g v2 [1] g = 981 cm per sec, acceleration of gravity, and L = thickness of the particle of specific gravity (s) and velocity (v). The initial acceleration dv/dt = g (1-u/s ) [2] is a function of the specific gravity of the particle, only for a given medium, and independent of its dimensions—an ideal separating condition. The terminal velocity Vt = gxL- (s-u)/u, [3] for a given value of u, is a function of s and L. Two particles, L, s, and L2 s2, are said to be equivalent if they have the same terminal velocity, and accordingly L1/L2=s2-u/s1-u. [4] Two such particles cannot be separated by continuous currents, in any concentrating device. Because the initial accelerated motion, which provides for efficient separation, is followed by a constant velocity, which has a limiting effect, it is essen-

Jan 1, 1956

By Hubert E. Risser

Although, for about a half-century the percentage of coal production provided through strip mining has steadily increased, recent trends indicate that a peak in percentage (not tonnage) is being approached, principally because of the decline in economic adrantage enjoyed by strip mining compared to underground mining. Factors contributing to the decline are the decrease in the margin of advantage in manpower requirements held by strip mining; an increase in depth and volume of overhurden, requiring larger equipment and capital investment; increasing lack of reserve land blocks large enough to support extensive strip mining operations; more stringent legislation for reclamation of stripped land, with increasingly higher costs of such reclamation; and the increasing costs of land surface rights for strip mining. Already there has been a peak and suhsequent decline in relative importance of strip mining insome major Eastern coal-producing states; trends indicate that a peaking for the whole Eastern region is on the way. Although, in the West the pressures are less severe, they will, nevertheless, reduce to an increasing degree the advantage that strip mining has possessed. For about half a century, strip mining has been providing an ever-increasing share of total coal output in the United States, and in the past 30 years this share has grown from less than 8% to 33.7%, as shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 also shows that strip mining is gaining faster in the West than in the East. From 1961 to 1967, output from strip mines grew 63.6 million toqs, or 52.2%. Certainly there is nothing in such performance to indicate any peaking in the level of strip coal-mine production. But the fact is that, if not in actual tonnage, strip mining appears to be reaching its peak in relative importance, at least east of the Mississippi River. And the area east of the Mississippi provides 90.0% of the strip and 94.9% of the total coal production of the nation. The relative economic advantage which spurred strip mining's growth for a third of a century has been diminishing markedly in recent years. Fig. 2 shows evidence of this decline. From 1947 until 1961, strip tonnage output remained fairly stable, at the end of the period showing only a 12.5% decline. Meanwhile, underground coal production fell 44.5%. As the result of the greater decline in underground coal, strip coal in 1961 furnished 30.3% of the total coal produced, compared to only 22.1% in 1947. In the succeeding six years, however, underground coal output increased by 76.5 million tons, while strip output increased only 63.6 million. Further evidence of the strengthening of underground coal's relative position — or if you will, the weakening of strip coal's position — can be found in the major coal stripping states: Illinois, West Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West Virginia, which in 1966 provided 80% of the nation's strip coal. Fig. 3 shows what has been happening in three states lying in the Appalachian field and in the total output of these three states. In the figure, the column height represents the output of coal mined by all methods. The number at the base of each column is the percentage mined by stripping. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, the percentage of strip mining increased between 1956 and 1961, but by 1966 had declined from the 1961 level. In West Virginia, a decline occurred during the first five years but was followed by a rise. In January 1968, Coal Age published an article listing the locations and capacities of new large mines in the planning and construction stages that would be operating by 1968-1971. The plans for West Virginia and Pennsylvania indicated all the new mines would be underground. Except to the extent they might replace existing under-

Jan 1, 1970

By Martial P. Corriveau

Almost everyone agrees that coal and oil shale are the only fossil fuel resources in which the United States is self-sufficient. Of the two, only coal has a technology sufficiently developed to be of intermediate term benefit. Since it takes at least 20 years to bring advanced technology into practice, it seems logical that the major focus on energy developments should be aimed at coal. Meanwhile, we need to trade-off between actions to meet our immediate needs and the various political regulations and social demands that are disrupting the coal industry and the industries dependent upon it. The largest single user of coal is the electric power generation industry. Over 300 million tons of coal are presently being consumed each year. In view of the 5-to 7-years lead time to bring in a base-load fossil-fuel fired generating station, our requirements for double this tonnage in 1980 are already well forecast; that is, if the coal companies are allowed to mine and the utilities are allowed to burn the coal.

Jan 2, 1974

By J. D. Price, W. M. Bertholf

In preparing a paper on coal washing in Colorado and New Mexico, it is difficult to refrain from entering into a discussion of the historical aspects of this subject, for the story of coal washing in these states goes hack well into the last century. This phase of the subject could well make a complete paper in itself, and of necessity this present discussion must be limited to current operations. Therefore, we are taking into consideration only those washing plants which have operated for some period during the years of 1947 and 1948. Summary Of the eight million tons of coal mined in the two states in 1947. ap- proximately two million tons were washed in wet washing plants, using concentrating tables or jigs. The one table plant accounted for 70 pct of the output of washed coal, and two large Baum jig plants accounted for an additional 26 pct, leaving only a small residual tonnage to be accounted for by other types of jigs The necessity for washing coal is occasioned by the desire or necessity of reducing the ash content of the coals— sulphur is not a problem in this area. All washeries, except the table plant, are at or near the tipple, hence wash only one kind of coal. At the table plant a large number of different coals are washed. Only at the table plant is there any occasion for drying any considerable quantity of fine coal— other plants size and/or dewater on shaking screens. The results of washing at the smaller plants are judged by the number (or lack) of complaints about the quality of the washed coal. This is probably as good a system as can he devised for small, intermittent operations. The efficiency of the Baum jig ap-pears to be quite high. This is to be expected as long as the automatic control of the refuse gate operates properly. The efficiency of the concentrating table is not as high as that of the Baum jig, especially when the "difficulty" of washing is taken into consideration. When dealing with coals in which the "bone" is larger than the "coal," the table appears to be at a definite disadvantage, because of its sizing action.

Jan 1, 1950

By J. D. Price, W. M. Bertholf

A. C. RICHARDSON*—First of all, [ think that the paper represents a lot more work, study, and correlation than has been indicated by the brief talk by Mr. Price. I like the way he started out and described the areas from which the samples were obtained, the locations of the washing plants, the available tonnages, and other background information with which to evaluate the data he submitted later on. Then I like the way in which he described the various types of washing plants, the tonnages handled and the difficulties of the washing problems; showing the amount of material that lies close to the specific gravity at which the washing separation is made. Later he gave figures from washing plant operations showing recoveries and cleaning efficiencies. He then discussed his own plant at Pueblo. It is the same old plant, I think, that I worked around a good many years ago. It is unusual to find a plant treating nearly 5000 tons of coal a day on tables. But this table plant is, I believe, more efficient than is indicated by the figures that Mr. Price gave. To determine the efficiency of a cleaning operation or to compare it with another it is necessary to consider the quantity and character of the material close to the specific gravity at which the separation is made. It is not fair, I believe, to penalize the table operation by something like 4 pct of out-of-place-material as he has done here. The variety and difficulty of the coals that he has to wash, the continuous shift and change in their composition make a very difficult cleaning problem and the table performance is excellent. I believe that the information in this paper will be of interest and value to anyone operating or planning to build a coal cleaning plant in this or other areas; particularly where the cleaning of fine coal is a problem. The data may be used for comparative purposes in determining the relative efficiencies of other cleaning plant separations. E. D. HAIGLER*—What is a Baum jig? J. D. PRICE (authors' reply)—A Baum-type jig is one in which the pulsations of the water is secured by means of a pulsating air current applied on top of the water. I imagine you are all familiar with the old plunger-type jig which is in effect a U tube in which a plunger on one side of the U, moving up and down, causes a corresponding pulsation on the far side of the jig. In the Baum jig, the pulsating air current is applied on the surface of the water on one side of the U tube of the jig and gives a corresponding pulsation on the other. It is also commonly known as a pneumatic jig. The control of the rise and fall of the water in the jig body proper is under much better control than it is in any of the other type jigs. Mr. Richardson could enlarge on that feature, for I know that he has had considerable experience with these jigs. A. C. RICHARDSON—You have asked how to control a Baum-type jig. The pulsations in a Baum jig can be modified and regulated to a marked degree by the amount of water admitted to the jig and by the adjustments of the valve which regulates the manner in which air is admitted. The number of pulsations per minute is controlled by the number of cycles of the air valve. Thirty to forty cycles per minute is a good speed for large jigs treating coarse sizes of cod. With an air valve it is possible to modify the time-velocity curve of the pulsating water to some extent which in turn determines the action in a jig bed. Within limits the following parts of the air valve cycle may be regulated: (1) the rate and period of air admission, (2) the period of air expansion, (3) the rate and period of air exhaust, and (4) the period of air compression. The rate and period of air admission determines the acceleration of the water at the beginning of the pulsion stroke and the amplitude of the stroke. The period of air expansion, after inlet port is closed, is one in which the water has reached the desired velocity, positive acceleration reduced, and the bed held in a mobile condition. The rate and period of the air exhaust can be adjusted to modify the degree of suction and so modify the manner in which the particles in the bed stratify. The compression period, alter the exhaust port closes and before the intake port opens may be used to advantage in retarding the downward velocity of water during the suction stroke. An ideal jig stroke is one in which during the up stroke the bed is lifted slowly in a mass and opens up like an accordian with the bottom layers dropping away first. With the bed open and mobile the particles adjust themselves according to their hindered settling rates. During the down stroke, while the bed is still open the particles of high specific gravity are accelerated toward the bottom layers. It is possible to approach this stroke with all types of jigs but it is less difficult to approximate it with a Baum jig.

Jan 1, 1950

By M. R. Geer, H. F. Yancey

Coal washing assumed an important role in the mining industry of the Pacific Northwest long before washing practice became firmly established in the Appalachian field. A Scaife washer was operated in the state of Washington in 1887; and by 1927, the fist year for which complete statistics were compiled, nearly a third of the state's coal production was washed, in comparison with only about 5 pct for the country as a whole. Mechanical preparation was adopted in Alaska in 1922 in a plant constructed by the United States Navy at Chickaloon to provide bunker coal for naval forces operating in northern waters. Many of the coal beds mined in Washington and Alaska contained more impurities than those mined elsewhere, and this circumstance contributed to the early interest in mechanical cleaning. A much more important factor, however, was the inclination of the coal beds. With steeply pitching beds, hand sorting by the miner at the face is impossible; consequently, all material must be loaded and dealt with on the surface, just as is now proving the case with mechanical mining of flat beds. Thus "full-seam" mining afforded the same stimulus to the early development of coal washing in the Northwest that it is providing under mechanization in the rest of the country today. Objeet and Scope ' This report is intended to provide a general summary of the status of coal-washing practice in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska—an area in which some of the coals mined are more difficult to wash than those mined elsewhere in the country. Detailed flowsheets of plants, statistical data on production, and cost figures have been omitted, largely for the sake of brevity but also because such information is principally of only local interest. On the other hand, considerable washability data have been included because they are Washington At present Washington leads all other states in the percentage of its total production that is cleaned mechanically, 82.1 pct in comparison with the national average of 25.6 pct in 1945.' The washing problems encountered in this state are highly variable because the mountain-building forces that created the Cascade Range caused such intense folding and faulting of the beds in some fields that the rank of the coal was increased to anthracitic, while in other fields more distant from the mountains the beds were relatively undisturbed, and the rank of the coal ranges down through subbituminous to lignitic. The complicated and burdensome schedule of sizes prepared in most coal fields has never been required by the Washington market. With but few exceptions, lump is prepared on a round-hole screen of about 3 in. size, egg is about 3 to 1 5/8 or 1½ in., and nut is 1 5/8 or 1½ in. to either 1 or ¾ in. Some mines screen no finer than ¾ in. and market a slack coal of that top size, but generally the coal is screened at about ¼ in. to give a stoker coal of ¾ or 1 to ¼ in., and a ¼ in. to 0 "buckwheat." During recent years the market for lump coal has largely disappeared, and lump is crushed to supplement the pro-

Jan 1, 1950

By M. R. Geer, H. F. Yancey

0. R. LYONS*—I know that we are all interested in hearing about problems that other people have. To most of the people from the eastern part of the United States, this kind of coal preparation is completely different. It represents washing difficulties that most operators have never experienced, or, if they have, they have refused to consider them because there are coals that are much easier to wash and, therefore. they leave the more difficult ones alone for the time being. E. R. McMILLAN†—I think the au-thors have summarized the material very well. Dr. Yancey has spent a great many years in the study of washing coals, as has Mr. Geer. I might comment briefly on some of the plants that were mentioned, plants with which I have had some con-nection, particularly those of our own company, the Northwestern Improve-ment Co. I would like to point out this: that ill each case, a great deal of work was done in the way of preliminary studies of washability of the coal before plants were built. The first plant of any size built in Roslyn field was mentioned in the paper. This central cleaning plant was designed and built to handle coal from three different mines. I might say that prior to 1935, the year in which the plant was built, the coal was used largely as railway fuel, close to a million tons annually. But as mining increased in depth, it became increasingly difficult to separate and gob much of the impurities underground, with the result that the run-of-mine coal became so high in ash that the railroad eventually was forced to consider installing some kind of preparation plant at the mine. We spent about a year in preliminary studies in cooperation with the Bureau of Mines to find out the best type of plant that would clean the coal. The result, as Mr. Geer has explained to you, is a rather complicated plant, but it is doing a very satisfactory job. We have, however, made a number of changes and improve-n~euts since it was first built. The last addition was the, installation of a cen- trifugal drier to dewater the minus ¼ in. size. We are now contemplating installing heat driers for further drying of minus ¼ in. We use Vissac heat driers for drying the stoker coal, the ¾ to in. The demand for drier coal, for both railway and industrial use, is forcing us to further drying of the coal. The plant that was mentioned as having been built in Pierce County, during the war, was a government sponsored plant. I happen to have had some connection with its design, construction and initial operation. We did what we thought then, and still think, was a very thorough job of preliminary studies in cooperation with the Burea of Mines of the coal from that field. The plant was as good a plant as could be built with the equipment available at that time, 1943. The plant that was mentioned as having been built at Ravensdale for treating the McKay coal was rebuilt about two years ago, and in addition to the modified Elmore jig washer that was mentioned. we added a coucentrating table for re-cleaning the minus 3/32 in. Our object there was to produce a commercial

Jan 1, 1950

By D. E. Wolfson, D. A. Reynolds, F. W. Smith

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

Jan 1, 1958

By J. W. Eckerd, P. S. Lewis, N. H. Coates

USBM designed, constructed, and operated an 18-in.-diam fluidized-bed combustor for highly caking coals to evaluate the method for possible application to power generation. In initial tests, combustion was carried on successfully, with carbon losses as low as 0.8%+ Coal ash was not satisfactory as a bed material, but mullite proved to be acceptable. Overall heat-transfer coeffients from the bed (-20 t 50 mesh mullite) to a water-cooled tube were about 75 Btuper hr-sq ft. Fluidized-bed combustion is being investigated by the U. S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) as a potentially cheaper method of firing power plant boilers. Lower combustion temperatures in fluidized beds—only 1400" to 1800°F-—should reduce fireside deposition and corrosion and nitrogen oxides production. Fluidized-bed combustion also offers possible advantages in the use of additives to control SO, emissions and amenability to processing of high-ash, high-moisture coals without special preparation. This paper describes development of a fluidized-bed combustor and the results of preliminary tests. Equipment and Procedure Fig. 1 shows the 8-ft-high combustor. A cone-shaped plate perforated by I/8-in.-diam holes supports the fuel bed and admits the fluidizing air; water passing through the 3/4-in. pipe extracts heat from the combustion bed. Fig. 2 is a flow diagram of the system. Coal is fed pneumatically to the base of the fuel bed. Combustion products are passed through two centrifugal separators to remove most of the entrained solids, then to a water

Jan 1, 1971

By Orville R. Lyons

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

Jan 1, 1953

By Orville R. Lyons

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

Jan 1, 1953

By H. Rumfelt

The author demonstrates an approach for analyzing overcasting requirements for a stripping project. This approach to the problem employs indicated trends in the relationship of the weight of the machine (only electropowered draglines are considered) to its ability to do stripping work. Strip mining in the domestic coal industry is contributing a greater proportion of overall production than at any time in the past. U.S. Bureau of Mines statistics show that the percentage of total production mined in 1958 by stripping methods increased to more than 30 pct, up from 22 pct in 1951. The tendency to favor strip and open pit mining exists in other mining activities, but such trends are not as clearly outlined as in the coal industry. Significantly, the depth of overburden in coal properties considered suitable for stripping is also increasing. A depth of 50 to 60 ft of overburden was once considered to be about the maximum amount that could be handled economically. Today, a depth of 80 to 100 ft is frequently taken into consideration for simple overcasting operations (i.e., excavating overburden and dumping it in the spoil position where it remains indefinitely). Accompanying these changes, there have been continuing studies searching for procedures to appraise deeper stripping problems. Although the only known practicable way to accurately evaluate a proposed stripping venture is to make studies (including cost estimates) step by step, it is nevertheless desirable to have a quick method for making preliminary evaluations of potential strip mining operations. A recently devised digital computer method of providing a preliminary simple overcasting analysis for a stripping prospect relates the indicated trends in the relationship of the weight of the machine to its ability to do stripping work. In addition, this approach employs situations where the geometry of each cut-and-spoil section is assumed to take certain defined relationships for varying overburden depths. Slopes are necessarily considered to be stable, which means such practical factors as the mechanics of soils are neglected for the sake of convenience. Definition of Terms: Photographs A and B show a shovel-type and a dragline-type of simple overcast operation, plus terms used to denote certain parts of a pit. Pits that follow a straight line when projected on a horizontal plane are referred to as straightaway. It has been assumed that all section drawings accompanying this article pertain to straightaway cuts which, in turn, means that areas can be compared by relative volume. The volume of overburden is measured in virgin cubic yards. Material displaced from its virgin state to a spoil area normally occupies a larger volume than when in situ; the difference is termed swell, and it is expressed as a percentage of the original volume. For example, if the original cut volume is denoted V cu yd, and the spoil volume is 1.2 V cu yd, the swell is a positive 20 pct. MAXIMUM USEFULNESS FACTOR (MUF) CONCEPT Men experienced in overburden removal give emphasis to the weight of the machine in relation to its value as an excavator. From the writer's understanding, value has been only loosely defined and discussed generally and vaguely. The concept is considered important, however, since it is based upon the observations of many men. It provides a clue for the approach taken to solve deep stripping problems. In the procedure described below, value has been arbitrarily established as the product of the nominal dipper size of the shovel (or dragline) times a functional dumping reach. MUFs—Shovel: A shovel's capability to handle thick overburden is usually limited by its ability to dispose of the spoil. Thus the dumping reach, as well as its dumping height, is significant. The angle of repose of spoil material must also be considered. Although such slope angles vary among different mines, jobs, and materials, a slope of 1.25 to 1, frequently found in both planning and practice, is used by this author in the illustration of this analytical method. The relationship of the shovel's geometry to a stripping operation is shown in Fig. 1. To gain maximum advantage in constructing spoil piles, the shovel is placed so that its tracks adjacent to the spoil are as close as possible to the rib of the coal deposit. A vertical plane passing through the line

Jan 1, 1961