See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228345530

A PREDICTION OF MICUM STRENGTH OF METALLURGICAL COKE USING

RUHR DILATOMETRIC PARAMETERS OF PARENT COALS

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

3 4,071

5 authors, including:

Abraham Adeleke Simeon Ibitoye

Tshwane University of Technology Obafemi Awolowo University
25 PUBLICATIONS   90 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   195 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Welding View project

Mineral processing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abraham Adeleke on 26 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Petroleum & Coal
ISSN 1337-7027

Available online at www.vurup.sk/pc

Petroleum & Coal 51 (2) 75-79, 2009

A PREDICTION OF MICUM STRENGTH OF METALLURGICAL COKE

USING RUHR DILATOMETRIC PARAMETERS OF PARENT COALS
A.O.Adeleke1,A.O. Olulana2,A. B. Adahama2, R.S. Makan2, S.A. Ibitoye1
1
Department of Materials Science & Engineering, Obafemi Awolowo
University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria., E-mail:aoadeleke2002@yahoo.com, 2National
Metallurgical Development Centre (NMDC), P.M.B. 2116, Jos, Nigeria.
Received January 5, 2009, accepted May 7, 2009

Abstract
The Polish Bellview, Australian Agro-Allied and American Carbon Energy coals were subjected to Ruhr
dilatometric analysis to predict their suitability for cokemaking. The Ruhr dilatometric softening point,
maximum contraction, maximum dilatation, maximum contraction temperature and the G-value coking
capacities were determined from which G-values of 0.97, 0.93, 0.94 and 1.01 were calculated for
Bellview 1, Bellview 2, Agro-Allied, and Carbon Energy respectively. Also, micum 10 indices of 11.40%,
15.40%, 15.40% and 25% and micum 40 indices of 77.80%, 70.80%, 78.20%, and 64.16%,
respectively were determined for Bellview 1, Bellview 2, Agro-Allied and Carbon Energy coals. The
studies confirmed that Simonis’ G-value provides a reliable indication of coke micum strength indices,
with the two strength parameters found to be poor at G-values below and above the Simonis’ range
of 0.95 to 1.15. The analysis results showed that Bellview 1 with the nearly mid-value coking
capacity of 0.97 has the best combination of resistance to abrasion and fragmentation.

Keywords: Coals; dilatometry; cokemaking; dilatation; coke.

1. Introduction
Coal is a compact, stratified mass of mummified plant debris, interspersed with smaller
amounts of inorganic matter and covered with sedimentary rocks. The rank of a coal is the
degree of change of chemical composition of the coal within the series of fossil fuels ranging
from the least mature peat to the most mature anthracite[1]. When a bituminous coal is
subjected to high temperatures, it undergoes some changes which among others include
decomposition into a number of complex compounds, the evolution of various gaseous and
condensing substances, conversion into plastic mass at specified temperatures as a result of
melting of its bitumen constituents and conversion of the plastic mass formed into non-
plastic mass due to further molecular decomposition of the organic mass.
The process described results in the formation of coke, a solid residue having properties
suitable for blast furnace ironmaking. Metallurgical coke has a high mechanical strength and
abrasion resistance to withstand abrading forces when a column of smelted charge gradually
descends in a blast furnace[2]. Dilatometers are used to measure the expansion and
contraction of coals when heated. The Ruhr dilatometer, a modified form of Audibert-Arnu
dilatometer, gives a coal’s initial softening temperature (E), the maximum contraction(c),
the temperature at maximum contraction, the maximum contraction temperature, maximum
dilatation temperature (V) and the masximum dilatation percent (d). Simonis derived a
coefficient G from the co-ordinates of the plastic zone curve, which can be used to predict
coke strength. G was defined as[3,4]:
 O. A Adeleke et al./Petroleum & Coal 51(2) 75-79 (2009) 76

E +V c+d
G= x (1)
2 Vxc + Exd
The micum drum test indices M10 and M40 have been found reliable to indicate the abrasion
and fragmentation resistance of metallurgical coke. The aim of this research work is to study
the relationship between Ruhr dilatometric parameters and the micum strength of coke
produced from coals imported from Australia, Poland and United States for cokemaking at
the Ajaokuta Steel Plant, Nigeria.
2. Materials and methods
Samples of Australian Agro-Allied (AA), Polish Bellview (BV) and USA Carbon Energy (CE)
received from the Ajaokuta Steel Plant, Nigeria. The coal samples were quartered and
representative samples were ground in a mortar to obtain samples passing a 250 micron
sieve for the Ruhr dilatometry tests.
For the micum strength tests, the coke sample dropped into a steel receiver from a height
of 5m was used. The Ruhr dilatometry test involved sample preparation in which coal pencils
were produced and thermoplastic tests in the Ruhr dilatometer according to the description in[5].
In Ruhr dilatometry, the variation in the length of a column of coal during heating is
measured[4,5]. The coal sample ground to pass 250 micron sieve was compacted into a pencil
form. The pencil of coal was then placed in a metal tube and a piston rod was inserted into
the tube to rest on piston’s top. The other end of the piston rod was attached to a rotating
barrel to record the vertical movement of the piston. On heating, the column of coal
softened and contracted in length due to the plastic deformation under the action of piston.
When the coal softened, bubbles of gas were evolved causing the coal column to swell up.
The dilatation percent of the coal indicates its coking power. The results of the Ruhr
dilatometric analysis are presented in Table 1, while Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the interrelationship
between G-values and other dilatometeric parameters.
The coal samples were carbonized by normal charging in a 250-kg capacity coke oven
according to German standard described in[6]. Typical normal charging carbonization
conditions used were:
• Flue temperature – 1020oC
• Bulk density – 830kg/m3
• Carbonization period – 15 hours
• Charge temperature – 1250oC
The determination of micum indices involved coke stabilization, coke screening and
micum drum test. In coke stabilization, the coke yield was dropped from a height of 5m into
a metal receiver once. The stabilized coke was then screened through vibrating round hole
screens of sizes <10, 10-20, 20-40, 40-60, 60-80 and > 80mm. For micum drum test, 50 kg
of the screened coke was subjected to 25rev/mm for 4min in a steel drum and screened
again. The micum 10 (M10) was determined as the percentage of the coke residue below
10mm sieve size and micum 40 (M40) the percentage of the coke residue above 40mm
sieve size.
3. Results and discussion
The results of the Ruhr dilatometry and micum drum analyses are presented in Table 1. The
results of the dilatometric analysis showed that Bellview 1, Bellview 2, Agro-Allied, Carbon
Energy 1, Carbon Energy 2 have maximum contraction percent of 26%, 24%, 22% and
30%, respectively. It is observed that the Agro-Allied coal with the lowest maximum
contraction gave the highest micum 40 value of 78.20%, while Carbon Energy coal with the
highest maximum contraction yields coke with the least M40 value of 64.16%. It is however
noted that M40 index does not generally increase with decreasing value of maximum
contraction. Thus, for resistance to shattering or fragmentation, coal blends with low values
of maximum contraction may produced coke with the required M40 indices.
 O. A Adeleke et al./Petroleum & Coal 51(2) 75-79 (2009) 77

Table 1 Ruhr Dilatometric Parameters and micum indices for coals

S/N Parameters BV1 BV2 AA CE1
1. Softening Temp.oC (E) 406 404 395 408
2. Temp of maximum contraction oC (Ec) 440 439 424 437
3. Temp. of maximum dilatation oC (V) 463 462 440 482
4. Maximum contraction % (c) 26 24 22 28
5. Maximum dilatation % (d) 10 -7 -8 40
6. Temp. range oC (Ec-E) (T1) 34 35 29 29
7. Temp range oC (V-Ec) (T2) 23 23 16 45
8. Temp range oC (V-E) (T3) 57 58 45 74
9. Micum 10 (M10) 11.40 15.40 15.40 25.00
10. Micum 40 (M40) 77.80 70.80 78.20 64.16
11. G-value 0.97 0.93 0.94 1.01
12. Total Expansion 36 14 14 68
For the M10 index, the Carbon Energy blend with the highest maximum contraction gave
the worst M10 index of 25% (which indicates a coke with very poor abrasion resistance),
while coke with the best M10 index of 11.40% was produced by Bellview 1 coal blend with
26% maximum contraction. Thus, the maximum contraction percent parameter gives no
clear indication of abrasion resistance, but coal blends with very high maximum contraction
may produce coke with very poor abrasion resistance. Thus, coal blends with moderately
high maximum contraction percent of about 26% may be more cokeable than those with
very high contraction.
The increase in maximum dilatation percent shows reasonable linear relationship with the
coke micum strength. It is however noted that Bellview coal 1 with 36% total expansion
produced coke with the best combination of M10 and M40 indices of 11.40% and 77.80%
respectively, while coke with the worst M10 and M40 combination of 25% and 64.16%
respectively, was produced by carbon energy blend with very high total expansion of 68%.
It was further observed that Bellview 2 and Agro-Allied blends with only negative dilatations
of –7% and –8%, respectively, produced coke with better combination of M10 and M40
when compared with Carbon Energy coal with the high positive dilatation of 40%. It is thus
obvious that while moderate positive dilatation is desirable, coal blends with even negative
dilatation may produce coke with reasonable micum strength.
This observation agrees with some results on dilatometric tests reported in literature that
coke strengths do not generally increase with increasing dilatation percent. According to[7],
two coal blends with dilatation percent of 13% and 5% gave M10 index of 6.2% and 5.8%,
respectively; and M40 index of 76.4% and 73.6% respectively. Thus, the blends with the
lower dilatation produce coke with the better abrasion resistance and only a slightly lower
resistance to fragmentation, M40.
Furthermore, a coal blend that gave a negative dilatation of –13% produced coke with
M10 index of 5.6% as compared to 6.2% for coal blend with positive dilatation of 13%. The
former coal also gave a relatively high M40 of 73%, which is only 3.6 units lower than the
M40 of coke with positive 13% dilatation[7]. The dilatation percent obtained for the coal
blends carbonized were observed to be far lower than 132.3% and 246.1% for Chinese
Aieweh and Wugong coking coals[8]. The 220% and 275% determined respectively for a high
volatile and a medium volatile American coal are very much higher than for the coals tested[9].
The observation made that the contraction and dilatation behaviour of the five coal blends
carbonized do not provide a clear indication of the micum strength thus agree with results
obtained in literature. From Figure 1, it was observed that the M10 decreases (i.e. improves)
as the G-value increases from 0.93 to 0.97 and increases (i.e. deteriorates) as the G-value
increases from 0.97 to 1.01. The lowest value of 11.40% for M10 thus occurs at G-value of
0.97 for Bellview 1 coal blend. From Figure 2, it was observed that the M40 index increases
sharply as the G-value increases from 0.93 to 0.94, followed by a slight decrease at 0.97
and a sharp decrease to 64.16% at 1.01.
 O. A Adeleke et al./Petroleum & Coal 51(2) 75-79 (2009) 78

30 80

78
25
76

74
20
72

M40 [%]
M10 [%]

15 70

68
10
66

64
5
62

0 60
0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1 1.01 1.02 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1 1.01 1.02
G-Value G-Value

Fig. 2: G-Value versus M40

Fig. 1: M10 versus G-Value

Figure 3 shows the plot of temperature ranges T1, T2, T3 against the G-values. It was
observed that the T1, T2, T3 values decreases from 0.93 to 0.94, followed by an increase
from 0.94 to 0.97. At 0.97, sharp changes in slope occur for T1, T2 and a slight change
occurred for T3. The least values for T1, T2, T3 occur at 0.94 G-value and the highest value
occur at 0.93, 0.97 and 1.01 for T1, T2 and T3 curve respectively. The high value of M40
index at 0.94 compared with that at 0.93 may be due to the much lower values of T1, T2 and
T3 at 0.94 in comparison with 0.93. The sharp decrease in M10 and M40 strengths at 1.01
may be due to the fact that the T2 curve has a negative slope only at 1.01 or that it is only
at 1.01 that T2 exceeds T1 value. Thus, a coal with a high T2 value in relation to T1 may yield
a poor grade coke. The very high increase in the M40 index for only 0.1 unit increase in G-
value may be due to the much lower value of T1, T2, T3 in comparison with values obtained
at 0.93. At 0.97, the T1, T2, T3 values are only slightly lower than at 0.93, while values at
1.01 far exceed the corresponding value at 0.93. These results suggest that coal blends with
low values of Ruhr temperature ranges T1, T2, T3 may produce coke of better grades than
blends with much higher values of temperature ranges.
T1
80
T2
T3
70

60
Temperature Range [deg. C]

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1 1.01 1.02
G-Value
Fig. 3: Temperature versus G-Values

The micum strength determined for the coal blends carbonized agree closely with the
results obtained for some German coke[10]. For a German coal blend with G-value of 0.95,
the M10 and M40 obtained were 7.8% and 77.8%, respectively. The 78.2% M40 index of
the Agro-Allied blend (of G-value 0.94) exceeds the M40 for the German coal by only
0.4units, while its 15.40% index is much below the 7.8% value for German coal in terms of
abrasion resistance. The German coal blend with G-value of 0.97 produced coke with M10
and M40 indices of 7% and 78.1%, respectively. Thus, for the German coals, better micum
strengths were obtained at higher values of G-value. The 11.40% M10 obtained for Bellview
1 at 0.97 G-value is not as good as the 7% obtained for the German coal. Similarly, the
77.80% M40 obtained for Bellview is lower than the M40 of German coal by 0.3units. For the
Australian Bulli coal, the G-value of 0.99 (Audibert – Arnu) produced coke with M10 and M40
of 8% and 82%, respectively. The micum indices, though determined with different
equipment are not too different from those obtained at 0.97 Ruhr G-value for Bellview coal
blend. These results show that a coal blend with G-value of about 0.97 may produce high-
grade coke.
 O. A Adeleke et al./Petroleum & Coal 51(2) 75-79 (2009) 79

It has been shown that most medium and strongly coking coals have G-values that lie in
the range 0.95 to 1.15[3]. The relatively good strength obtained at 0.97 G-value of Bellview
coal confirms this. However, the lower coke strength obtained for Carbon Energy coal with a
higher G-value of 1.01 shows that coke strength does not generally increase with increasing
G-value in the range specified. The M10 and M40 indices obtained at 0.97 G-value do not
satisfy the 9% (max) M10 requirement for coke to be used at the Nigerian Ajaokuta Steel
Plant. However, the M40 index of 77.80% is very close to the 78% (min.) required[11].
4. Conclusions
The Ruhr dilatometric parameters of the coal blends carbonized, particularly the G-coking
capacity, and the temperature ranges, have thus shown that Bellview 1 coal blend with the G-value
of 0.97 and the lowest values of temperature ranges, will produce coke with the best micum strength
characteristics. The micum tests conducted confirm this prediction. Though the effects of
temperature ranges on coke strength need to be investigated with more carbonization tests,
the Ruhr dilatometric analysis G-coking capacity and temperature ranges have been shown
to be fairly reliable parameters to predict the need for a pilot scale carbonization test.
Acknowledgment
The experimental contributions of Messer Agabi, Remyshak and Adedayo of the National
Metallurgical Development Center, Jos, is hereby gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Francis W, Peters M.C.: Fuels and Fuel Technology. New York: Pergamon Press.1980.
[2] Krivandin V, Markov B.: Metallurgical Furnaces. Moscow :Mir Publishers.1980.
[3] Gibson J.: Dilatometry and the Prediction of Coke Quality. In: Yearbook of coke oven
managers, UK:London, 1972, p. 182-201.
[4] Afonja A.A.: New Techniques of Low Coking Coal Utilization in the Blast Furnace.
Nigerian Metallurgical Society (NMS) Seminar on the potential of Nigerian coals for
industries, Lagos, September 1991.
[5] Moitra A.K, Banerjee N.G, Shrinkhande K.Y, Sing K, Raja K, Banerjee S.: Studies
on Coal Carbonization in India. Calcutta: Central Fuel Research Institute publication,
1972.
[6] National Metallurgical Development Centre (NMDC) Staff Training Report at the
Deutsche Montane Technologie (DMT), Germany, 1993.
[7] Echterhoff J, Killich H.J, Frick H.: Production of Blast Furnace Coke by Stamp
Charging and Utilization of Recycled Coke Breeze. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Coke-making Congress; Vol. 2, 1992 Sept 28-30; London, p. 172-188.
[8] Zhou J, Jing J, Bin X.: Study on the Coking Mechanism of Coal and Coal tar Pitchers.
In Proceedings of the 1st International Cokemaking Congress; Preprints vol. 1, 1987.
Sept 13-18; Essen.
[9] Lindert M, Velden B.: An Evaluation of Coking Coals and the Conception of Restricted
Coal Group Models. In proceedings of the 2nd International Cokemaking Congress,
London,1992 Sept 28-30; London, p. 200-207.
[10] Weskamp W, Rhode W, Stewen W, Habermehl T.: Greater Coke Strength through
Reactive Additives to Coking Blends. In Proceedings of the 1st international
cokemaking congress, 1987 Sept 13-18; Essen, Section II.
[11] Raw Materials Specification for the Federal Government Steel Companies; 1994,
Abuja, Nigeria.

View publication stats