Influence of additives of various origins on thermoplastic properties of coal

Fernández, A. M.; Barriocanal, C.; Díez, M.A.; Álvarez, R.

doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2008.11.029

Cited by 63 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results can be explained by the effect of components of the briquettes, although Gieseler fluidity is not an additive property. The effect of additives of various origins on Gieseler plasticity has already been reported in the literature [5,10,13,14,26]. Plasticizing additives such as coal tar or coal tar pitch produce an increase in fluidity of the coal while infusible material and biomass tend to decrease the thermoplastic properties of a coal.…”

Section: Variation Of the Thermoplastic Properties Of The Coal Due Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No great effect was observed on the plastic range of the coal upon the addition of briquettes (Table 3). Infusible materials, such as non-coking coal tend to reduce the plastic range because of the increase in softening temperature [13,26]. In contrast, addition of asphalts, pitches or tars lowers the softening temperature, but the resolidification temperature does not change, and so the plastic range increases [26,27].…”

Section: Variation Of the Thermoplastic Properties Of The Coal Due Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The co-carbonization of coal blends with additives has been observed to modify the coking properties of coals and the quality of the resulting cokes significantly [5,13]. In the present work, the effects of adding alternative raw materials to coking coals have been assessed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Partial briquetting vs direct addition of biomass in coking blends

Montiano

Díaz-Faes

Barriocanal

2014

Fuel

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this work partial briquetting is employed as a means of biomass densification to allow for biomass inclusion in coking coal blends. The effect of increasing the bulk density was evaluated by comparison with direct addition. Two briquettes of different composition were studied. The influence of the briquettes on the Gieseler plasticity of the coals was determined. It was found that the effect of the binder was not enough to compensate for the decrease in plasticity produced by the inert components of the briquettes. Carbonizations were carried out in a movable wall oven of 17 kg capacity and the quality of the cokes produced was tested by evaluating their mechanical strength, coke reactivity to CO 2 and post-reaction strength. In addition, the porosity and ash chemistry of the cokes was determined and an attempt was made to establish a relation between these results and the quality of the cokes. Coke quality results suggest that 10-15 wt% of briquettes containing biomass can be included in coking blends.

show abstract

Section: Variation Of the Thermoplastic Properties Of The Coal Due Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Variation Of the Thermoplastic Properties Of The Coal Due Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Partial briquetting vs direct addition of biomass in coking blends

Montiano

Díaz-Faes

Barriocanal

2014

Fuel

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also the effect of the two binders, the sawdusts and the non-coking coal on the fluidity of the coal blends was assessed by means of the Gieseler test (ASTM D2639-74), this test having been successfully used previously to determine the modification of coal fluidity due to the use of additives [17,20,24]. The sample was heated at 3 ºC/min up to a final temperature of 550 ºC, while a constant torque was applied to the stirrer inside the crucible containing the sample.…”

Section: Textural Characterizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However both sawdust and non-coking coal have a deleterious effect on the development of coal fluidity [16,17] making pitch and coal tar preferable binders considering that both of these produce an increase in coal fluidity [20,21]. Coal-tar pitch has already been successfully used as a binder [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of briquette composition and size on the quality of the resulting coke

Montiano

Díaz-Faes

Barriocanal

2016

Fuel Processing Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five briquettes were prepared using sawdust, a non-coking coal and a binder.Industrial coal blends were used to study the influence of the type of sawdust (pine and chestnut), the binder (coal tar and coal-tar sludge) and the size of the briquettes on the quality of the cokes produced from mixtures containing up to 15 wt.% of the five briquettes. The effect of the briquettes and briquette components on the fluidity of the industrial coal blends was investigated. It was found that biomass and non-coking coal produced a decrease in fluidity, whereas the binders increased it. The combined effect of both types of additive had the global effect of decreasing fluidity. Mixtures of the briquettes with the industrial coal blends were carbonized in a 17 kg movable wall oven in order to assess their influence on the quality of the cokes produced. Their cold mechanical strength (JIS DI150/15 index), reactivity to CO 2 (CRI index) and postreaction strength (CSR index) were also tested. The composition of the ash of the sawdusts and the reactivity of the briquette components were used as an indication of the effect on coke reactivity. The effects on cold mechanical strength and post-reaction strength were different in some cases.

show abstract