Search Documents

By G. P. Connell, R. E. Gilmore, J. H. H. Nicolls

The purpose of this paper is to suggest a procedure for indicating the dividing line between noncaking coals and those that have weakly caking properties. A laboratory agglomerating test as an aid in classifying weakly caking coals is outlined and its merits in comparison with the standard agglutinating method advanced by the U. S. Bureau of Mines are discussed. No attempt, however, is made to discuss in detail either the different methods for determining "caking" and "agglutinating" indices or the various systems of classification. Two methods, differing somewhat in procedure, have been employed and recognized as suitable for determining the caking or agglutinating values of coals; namely, those in which an inert material such as sand, electrode carbon, etc., has been mixed with the coal before being heated, and those in which the coal is carbonized alone. In all such methods, the coal with or without the inert material is in the finely divided state and the index or value sought is derived from the examination of the residue after heating in a closed crucible or other container. The procedure outlined by Selvig, Beattie and Clellandl is the most recent representative of the method using sand as inert material, while the agglomerating test described below is representative of the method in which the coal is carbonized alone. The standard volatile-matter determination affords a means for observing the coking properties of a coal, and this has been described by Rose2 as the simplest of all coking tests. According to him, "the resulting coke button will indicate whether the coal is noncoking, feebly coking or strongly coking," despite the fact that "almost every condition in this test is at variance with large-scale carbonizing practice." Lessing,3 the

Jan 1, 1934

By Roy P. Hudson

A micropyrometer known as the De Graaf apparatus has several advantages over the gas-furnace method for determining ash fusibility. When the De Graaf apparatus is operated by a modified method of procedure, the results closely check those of the gas-furnace method. This is indicated by tests on 27 samples of coal ash, with an extreme variation in fusibility values of 654" F. However, most of the ashes fused at temperatures between 2300º and 2500º. This, presumably, is the temperature interval within which the micropyrometer gives the best results. Additional comparisons are desirable. DISCUSSION (Thomas G. Fear presiding) A. C. FIELDNER,† Washington, D. C. (written discussion‡).-—The Pittsburgh Experiment Station of the Bureau of Mines has made two investigations1 of the micropyrometer for determining the fusibility of coal ash. These studies were undertaken with a view to adopting the micropyrometer method us a substitute or alternate to the present standard gas-furnace method, in view of the obvious advantages of greater speed, smaller ash sample, smaller laboratory space requirements, less equipment and greater comfort to the operator. However, the investigation showed that the micropyrometer type of furnace as then operated in five laboratories having this equipment could not be accepted as an alternate to the standard gas furnace, which is capable of close duplication in different laboratories, as shown in a recent colmparison between the Pittsburgh Experiment Station of the United States Bureau of Mines and the Fuel Research Station of Great Britain.2 The algebraic meau

Jan 1, 1934

By H. J. Rose, J. J. S. Sebastian

When coal is stored under ordinary conditions, progressive changes take place in its chemical and physical properties. These changes are largely caused by the reaction of atmospheric oxygen with the coal substance. Although this "oxidation" or "weathering" occurs slowly in the case of high-rank coals, it is nevertheless a matter of considerable importance, since even a small amount of oxidation may affect the value of coal for carbonization purposes. Coal storage is a necessity at all carbonizing plants. In normal times there are about 5,000,000 tons in storage at by-product coke ovens and gas retorts in the United States, as compared with an annual throughput of about 75,000,000 tons. In other words, the average coal reserve at such plants is slightly less than one month's supply. However, owing to the cost of storage and recovery, coal is usually left in stockpile for as long a time as the management thinks advisable. Storage for six to eight months is common practice and is, in fact, a necessity at certain plants which obtain their coal by water routes that are closed during winter months. Modern by-product coke ovens operate continuously, and they are not cooled down from the time that they arc put into operation until they are shut down for rebuilding—perhaps 20 years later. This continuous operation is imposed by silica-brick construction and high operating temperatures. It is therefore obvious that coke plants must at all times maintain an adequate supply of stored coal, in order to prevent a failure in supply from any cause whatever. Thus when strikes or other emergencies threaten, abnormally large coal stocks are accumulated and held at coke and gas plants. Many of these plants have been forced, at some time or other, to use coal that has been stored for several years. Such coal may fail to coke at all, or it may produce a dirty appearing, weak coke of reduced value. The yields of salable by-products may also be distinctly lowered. However, it must not be assumed that slight oxidation or heat effects are always injurious. Certain high-volatile coals produce a stronger, blockier

Jan 1, 1930

By W. T. Thom

Many able men have contributed to the subject of coal classification, and recent publications on the subject have indicated a crystallization of opinion in that connection which promises the development in the near future of a scheme of coal classification which will be of real and increasing value to coal producers and users, as well as to those interested in coal on more exclusively scientific grounds. It is obvious that such a classification must be simple; must be based upon readily ascertainable factors; and if properly developed will apply to the whole range of coals between peat and anthracite and not merely to certain types of coal. Many of the numerous schemes of classification proposed in the past have given quite satisfactory results when applied to the higher rank coals, but have broken down when applied to the younger coals of higher moisture, and, as previously pointed out by the writer,' this breakdown has been due to the practice of ruling out "moisture" as an essential component of the volatile matter reported in the customary proximate analysis of coal, whereas a review of the mode of formation and natural history of coal satisfies us that moisture is a normal and natural ingredient among its volatile constituents; and a knowledge of analytical practice shows that the "moisture" and "volatile matter" reported are both mixtures of moisture and volatile matter, rather than sharply differentiated distillation fractions. After an extended consideration of the subject the writer regards the conventional proximate analyses of coals as affording the information essential for a both practically and scientifically satisfactory c1assification—assuming that the coal samples compared have been collected and analyzed according to standard methods. Two variables are required for a workable classification, and these appear to be afforded by the calorific value and proportion of volatile constituents (including moisture) credited to the coal on an ash-free basis. The writer originally proposed that the figures used for classification purposes be those given for the "air-dried" and "ash-free" form of the proximate analysis,

Jan 1, 1930

By F. G. Tryon

This paper treats only of the practicability of introducing a standard classification into the records of production and distribution of coal which we try to keep in the Bureau of Mines. From the point of view of gathering and analyzing statistics, the requirements of a satisfactory classification are that it shall be so definite as to eliminate the factor of arbitrary judgment, that it shall be reasonably simple and, finally, and most important, that it shall be understandable to the trade. In other words, to be woven in the statistical record it must be adapted to the raw material which flows in from the 7000-odd mines that produce the coal. The success of any scheme of classification, from the point of view of use, will depend largely on the degree to which it utilizes the accumulated experience of the trade and employs as far as may be possible the accepted trade designations. The experience of the Tidewater Coal Exchange during the war would be an excellent point of departure for a use classification of the coals of the Eastern Appalachians. Although the exchange long since passed out of existence, coal is still quoted and sold by the old pool numbers, and they have shown rather extraordinary vitality. Some years ago, in the Geological Survey, the experiment was tried of getting operators to classify their own coal by offering them a list of standard designations on the annual statistical questionnaire. The results were more amusing than informative. What with the confusion in terminology and the natural temptation to put one's best foot foremost, there was a general tendency to grade up the quality. Floods of semi-bituminous coal flowed in from many sources, millions of tons from districts where not a pound of that quality has ever been produced. The producers of semianthracite in Arkansas almost without exception would report their product as anthracite and their neighbors in the little Paris field, producing a fine blocky house coal averaging about 17 per cent, volatile, would say, "Our coal isn't anthracite; it's a semianthracite." Finally we discontinued the publication of those data as being more misleading than helpful.

Jan 1, 1930

By S. B. Flagg

Advancement in the art of burning fuels for steam generation has been so marked and so rapid in the last 10 or 15 years that one may well hesitate to classify as unsuitable for stationary steam boiler firing any material having a fuel value. This statement should not be interpreted to mean that any existing boiler plant can successfully utilize any fuel with which it might be supplied. It does mean, however, that almost without exception it is possible to design and construct stationary boiler plants so that they can be operated with whatever coal is the economic supply therefor. In considering the subject of the use classification of coals, it must be recognized, first, that the suitability or unsuitability of a coal for certain uses or conditions may be largely a matter of opinion and, second, that as advancement in the art of burning fuels continues, fuels that may have been considered unsuitable may later be regarded as entirely suitable. This is well illustrated in the creation of a market for slack bituminous coal and for the finer sizes of anthracite that resulted from the development of mechanical stokers adapted thereto. Coke breeze is another fuel of which large tonnages were formerly wasted, that has now been found suitable for use in properly designed furnaces. Again, results that would have been thought quite impossible a generation ago are being obtained in steam boiler plants today with lignites of high moisture content and with coals of excessive ash content. It must, however, be admitted that oftentimes an existing boiler plant can be successfully operated with only a limited number of the coals that are available as possible supplies. We may briefly consider some of the more important factors that may affect the suitability of coals for such a plant. Insufficient or barely sufficient draft to meet peak steam demands is often a limiting factor, and the permissible frequency of fire-cleaning periods is another. In some cases, the action of the molten coal ash on refractory furnace linings prohibits or makes inadvisable the use of certain coals. Again, clinker conditions in the fuel bed or slag conditions on the boiler-heating surface may be much worse with some coals than with

Jan 1, 1930

By W. Francis

Before attempting to describe the application of recently acquired knowledge to the classification of coal it will be as well to consider the objects at which a scientific classification should aim. Here one can not do better than to follow the example of Clarence Seyler,l by quoting from Huxley's "Classification of Animals:" "By the classification of any series of objects is meant the actual or ideal arrangement together of those which are like and the separation of those which are unlike, the purpose of the arrangement being to facilitate the operation of the mind in clearly conceiving and retaining in the memory the characters of the object in question. Thus there are as many classifications of any series of natural or other bodies as they have properties or relations to one another or to other things. But the statement of the characters of the class ... is something more than an arbitrary definition ... it expresses firstly, a generalization based on and constantly verified by very with experience; and, secondly, a belief arising out of that generalization—in other worda. the definition of the class is a statement of a law of correlation or coexistence . . . from which the most important conclusions are deducible." In that same sense writes John Stuart Mill, in the chapter on classification in his "Logic:" "The ends of scientific classification are best answered when the objects are formed into groups concerning which a greater number of general propositions can be made, and these properties more important, than could be made respectiug any other groups into which the same things could be distributed. The properties, therefore, according to which objects arc classified should, if possible, be those which are causes of many other properties, or, at any rate, which are sure marks of them." Now in the case of coal, the properties which have been used from time to time for classification purposes are the ultimate analysis, volatile matter, caking power, calorific power, burning properties, etc. Seyler has shown that there is a general law of correlation or coexistence between the ultimate composition and the other properties. The ultimate composition, therefore, of the natural series of bodies known as coal is the

Jan 1, 1930

By A. C. Fieldner

In November, 1926, the American Engineering Standards Committee (now the American Standards Association) called a meeting of representatives of various professional societies and industrial, educational and governmental organizations to consider what action, if any, should be taken on the classification of North American coals. This meeting was called because a system for the use classification of coal, proposed by George H. Ashley, had been referred to the committee by the Coal Mining Institute of America. This meeting, at Pittsburgh, was well attended and was definitely in favor of taking up the whole question of scientific and use classification of coals, including all the various ranks from lignite to anthracite. The American Society for Testing Materials was recommended as the sponsor organization to take charge of the work and organize the sectional committee according to the rules of the American Standards Association. The American Society for Testing Materials proceeded with the organization of the sectional committee, holding a meeting in Philadelphia, June 10, 1927. Officers were elected, regulations adopted, and general plans for carrying out the work were outlined. The total membership of 28 comprising the sectional committee consists of 8 producers, 2 distributors, 9 consumers and 9 members representing general and scientific interest. From this committee three technical committees of 10 to 12 members each were organized: Scientific Classification, H. J. Rose, chairman; Use Classification, W. H. Fulweiler, chairman; Marketing Practice, F. R. Wadleigh, chairman. The Technical Committee on Scientific Classification was requested to formulate a system of coal classification based on chemical and physical properties of coal and with reference to origin and constitution. The Technical Committee on Use Classification was charged with developing a system of classification, if possible, based primarily on the uses of coal and commercial practice; this system to be correlated with the scientific system as far as possible and desirable. The Technical Commitlee on Marketing Practice was formed to collect and collate information on commercial practice for the benefit of the other two committees. The first meetings of the technical committees were held on Nov. 17, 1927, and the first informal progress reports were submitted to the

Jan 1, 1930

By W. H. Ode, W. A. Selvig

By plotting fixed carbon against British thermal units of coals free from mineral matter, and ranging in rank from anthracite to lignite, it is found that the coals of higher rank, from anthracite to the higher rank of the high-volatile bituminous coals, inclusive, can be separated into groups according to their degree of metamorphism by reference to their fixed carbon. Such charts show also that the coals lower in rank can be best separated into groups with respect to B.t.u., especially when plotted on the moist basis, that is, coal containing its natural bed moisture. A tentative scheme for coal classification was presented at the October, 1932, meeting of the Technical Committee on Scientific Classification, of the American Standards Association Sectional Committee on Coal Classification. This scheme was sponsored by Subcommittee IV on Tentative Classification of Coals, under the chairmanship of W. T. Thom, Jr. It proposed the grouping of coals according to rank by reference to fixed carbon and B.t.u., on the basis of coal containing its natural bed moisture but free from mineral matter. This scheme proposed classifying coals into four broad classes: (1) anthracitic, (2) bituminous, (3) subbituminous, (4) lignitic. The anthracitic class was divided into three groups designated as meta-anthracite, normal anthracite, and semianthracite. The bituminous class also was divided into three groups, low volatile, medium volatile, and high volatile. The high-volatile group was further subdivided into four subgroups according to moisture content, as fo1lows: (1) less than 5 per cent, (2) 5 to 10 per cent, (3) 10 to 15 per cent, and (4) 15 per cent and more. The subbituminous class was divided into two groups, group 1 including subbituminous coals having calorific values of 10,500 B.t.u. or more, and group 2 including those with less than 10,500 B.t.u. The lignitic class of coal was divided into two groups both below 8,000 B.t.u., the one group consisting of consolidated and the other of unconsolidated

Jan 1, 1934

W. H. Blauvelt, New York, N. Y.—One thought lias been running through my mind during the wholc of this meeting and that is that the scientific and the practical men must recognize very clearly their interdependence. The value of scientific classification of coal is going to be of the very greatest importance to the users, the practical men. Is not the scientific investigation and the great amount of work that is being done in a measure at least lost to the world? Therefore the scientific investigations and the practical needs of the users should bo brought as close together, and the work should be done as closely together, as possible; that is, the scientific man should know what the practical man needs, and the practical man should not feel that the scientific man is merely a theorist. Scientific investigation is going to have a great effeet and be of great valuc to the practical man who is trying to solve his problems. In the subject which I discussed' for instance, we must look to the scientific man to tell us why coal cokes in one way and not In another and why certain coals will do certain things and others, which appear on the surfacc to be generally similar, do not act in the same way. Need or Physical Data on Coal H. J. Rose, Pittsburgh, Pa.—There is a subject which is a sort of hobby of mine; that is, the need for what might be called critical tables of constants for coal. The chemist has big volumes giving constants, such as the density, solubility, specific heat, thermal conductivity and all other physical and chemical data that have been determined for chemical compounds. Data arc also available on many common materials, for example, the density, hardness, modulus of rupture or maximum crushing strength of swamp white oak as compared with some other wood. In fact, physical data for practically cvery hype of wood commercially produced in the world can he found. In the same way the metallurgical man has handbooks giving the properties of alloys, etc., but we havc very little tabulated information about coal. Our principal reference works are the volumes published by the U. S. Bureau of Mines on the proximatc and ultimate analysis and calorific values of coals of the United States. That is 3 pioncer work of enormous value, but we have reached the point where we need more diversified information. Mr. Fulweiler raised the question of the relative strength of the different coals and cokes. Dr. Campbell and Dr. Ashley wanted to have some information on the resistance of coal to air slacking. It was brought out in the discussion that we want to know something about the coking properties of coal. There are any number of physical tests that we need, such as the thermal conductivity of certain coals, the coefficient of expansion, or the coefficient of friction; or other constants. A smattering of such information is scattered through the literature; for instance, a research worker in Wales will report a coefficient of expansion on Wclsh coals and one in South Africa will report something else for one or two kinds of African coals, hut it is difficult to find the information that is needed on our own coals. Would it not be worth while to consider collecting reliable critical

Jan 1, 1930

By George H. Ashley

At the beginning of the war, about 13 years ago, a conference was called in Washington to lay plans for pooling the coals of the United States. A careful review of the various systems of classification then extant showed none well adapted to the needs of coal pooling. The system of Tidewater pools then adopted, using numbers to distinguish one pool from another, was based on typical coals of different localities. At that time, the writer undertook the preparation of such a practical classification. Aside from drawing on his experience of over 20 years in the coal fields of the United States, reaching from the Pacific Coast and the Rio Grande to Rhode Island, he first examined and carded all of the large collection of coals in glass jars made by and for M. R. Campbell. Next, he carded all of the descriptions of coals he could find in the U. S. Geological Survey bulletins and elsewhere, as well as practical tests of coals by the Navy and other organizations and then took account of every published coal analysis of the U. S. Geological Survey and U. S. Bureau of Mines. A study of this information, involving thousands of recomputations, led to the presentation of a paper on "A Use Classification of Coal" before this Institute at the Chicago meeting, September, 1919. That classification was unique (1) in a classification based on "standard coal" which included moisture, but used standardized ash, sulfur and nitrogen, (2) in using physical properties to distinguish the major classes or orders, (3) in recognizing British thermal unit values in the minor subdivision, (4) in the large number of classes recognized (thirty-six), (5) in proposing mineral names for all classes, (6) in proposing a letter code for the several classes for practical use, (7) in proposing a code for expressing what has commonly been called "grade" of the coal, the grade code to be combined with the rank code to designate and describe a coal. The writer still thinks that the principles then offered, though not necessarily the exact proposals, are valid and desirable in any practical classification. The actual classification of coal by rank was based on the ratio of fixed carbon to volatile matter for the high-rank coals—the well-known

Jan 1, 1930

By F. R. Wadleigh

It is generally realized and very often admitted by both producers and consumers of coal that there is great need for a revision of existing commercial classifications, and this will involve, of course, determination of a standard classification and a constant revision of marketing practices as they are affected by coal classification. I recently sent out some 200 letters to producers and consumers with a request for their views on the subject of commercial classification. Nearly all of the replies from both sides were that there was needed some change in the present method. There were three or four dissenting voices but the great majority of opinion was in favor of the formulation of some standard commercial classification. The classifications in commercial use today can best be described as a hodgepodge. They are made upon different bases, have different names and have different ways. There are, for instance, about 11 single bases of classifications as used commercially and some 17 or 18 combination bases. Then there were the Tidewater Pool Exchanges. The classification which they put in force is still used in the tidewater markets and has several different bases of its own. It will be considerable of an undertaking to bring about a change in marketing methods as affected by coal classification but it is well worth doing and I think the committee which has been appointed under the auspices of the American Society for Testing Materials realizes the importance of the subject and is on the way to at least bring about some provision for adjusting matters. By way of starting, each member of the Committee on Commercial Classification has been assigned to a general market district and each member is now engaged in collecting the commercial market practice data for submission at the next meeting of the Committee. About a year ago I made up a list of the commercial classifications in the different markets and the total was 171. The 11 single bases I found used in commercial practice were:

Jan 1, 1930

By F. R. Wadleigh

There are in commercial use today in the United States various classifications of coal, each based on one or more characteristics. The bases of these classifications may be described as follows: GeNeRaL Basis Examples 1. Geological By seams and basins (local). 2. Chemical By constituents, as determined by analysis—ash, volatilc, slilfur and hcating value. 3. Combustion Characteristics As frce-burning, smokeless, character of ash. 4. Carbonization Characteristics Coking, noncoking. 5. Physical Characteristics Splint, soft, hard, block. 6. Geographical States, Fields, Counties, Districts. 7. Sizes By dimension or name. 8. Company Names Producing or sales company names, as "C. C. B. Pocahontas," etc. 9. Trade Names, copyrighted or not 10. Uses Gas, steam, coking, locomotive, fuel, bunkers, etc. 11. Use Methods Stoker coal. 12. Pools (Tidewater Exchanges) Analyses Size Seams Railroads Uses Structure Districts There are also classifications founded on more than one basis, as follows: 1. Geographical and Geological. By locality of mines (State, District, County) and seam. Examples: Cambria County, Miller Seam, New River, Sewell Seam. 2. Geographical and Chemical. Alabama medium volatile. 3. Combustion Characteristics and Ash Content. Free-burning, red ash (anthra- cite). 4. Carbonization Characteristics and Analysis. Noncoking, high-volatile, low sulfur. 5. Physical and Carbonization Characteristics. Splint, noncoking. 6. Size and Use. ¾-in. gas coal; domestic sizes (prepared sizcs); stcam sizcs. 7. Company Name and Seam. Consolidation Co., Elkhorn. 8. Size and Analysis. Low-volatile run-of-mine; low-volatilc slack. 9. Sizes—size of screen and name. 6 by sin. lump. 10. Chemical and USP. High-volatile steam. 11. Geographical and Use. Youghiogheny gas. 12. District, Size and Use. Pittsburgh gas l¼-in. lump. ,

Jan 1, 1930

By E. W. Parker

Anthracite, as sent to market, comes under three general terms of description: characteristics, source and size. Anthracite is generally classified as white ash, red ash, or Lykens Valley. The white ash coals are sometimes further described as "hard" or "free-burning." Lehigh white ash would come under the former description and Shamokin white ash under the latter. As a rule, it may be said that the nearer the origin of the coal to the western extremity of the anthracite region, the softer and more free-burning it is. Indeed, for many years the coal from Trevorton, at the western tip of the Middle Western field, was classified as "semianthracite" in the shipment reports. Lykens Valley coal is always a red ash coal, with a higher volatile content than the general run of anthracite, and consequently free-burning. The name does not exclusively indicate the neighborhood in which the coal is dug, but rather refers to the beds from which it is obtained. These beds lie, not above the Pottsville conglomerate, as is the rule, but encased in it. The extreme eastern limit of the Lykens Valley beds would seem to be about Tremont, in Schuylkill County, and the Natalie mine, near Mount Carmel. There are, of course, traces of these beds farther to the east, but they do not seem to be workable. There are as many as six of the Lykens Valley measures found in the conglomerate at some points, but to a large extent they are unworkable. Whether this coal is obtained in the Lykens Valley proper, where the beds were first identified, or from the Shamokin Valley, it is always Lykens Valley coal, and it has long been considered a premium coal, especially desirable for domestic use, particularly when a quick, hot kitchen fire is desired. Coals are, of course, frequently marketed under special names—Jeddo, Scranton, Kingston, Old Company Lehigh, Famous Reading, Lacka-wanna, etc.—which, of course, have the trade significance which their producers and vendors have built up. General Description of the Various Coals, with Name of Seam and Producing District This is partly covered in the paragraphs above. Lykens Valley coal is produced from one or another of the six Lykens Valley beds lying within

Jan 1, 1930

By K. C. Gilbart, E. Stansfield

This test was described in a privately circulated First Progress Report on Slacking Characteristics of Coal, by A. C. Fieldner and W. A. Selvig, May 1, 1928. The test was described in detail in U. S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 3055, in November, 1930,1 The test, in brief, is conducted as follows: A sample of freshly mined coal consisting of 18 to 25 pieces approximating 1 1/4 cubes, and weighing 500 to 600 grams, is taken for the test. The sample is subjected to a "blank sieving" of carefully regulated degree, on an 8-in. circular sieve with 0.263-in. square openings, and the undersize and oversize weighed. The oversize is placed on a sheet-iron pan and dried for about 24 hr. in an A.S.T.M. air-drying oven maintained at 30" to 35" C. through which a current of warm air is drawn. The sample is then cooled to room temperature and immersed for one hour in water at the same temperature. The water is then drained off, the sample dried for 24 hr. as before, cooled, sieved as before, and the oversize and undersize weighed. The percentage weight of the undersize is calculated and reported as the first cycle loss. This loss, corrected by subtracting the percentage loss in the blank sieving, is termed the slacking index. The sample may be subjected to further cycles of wetting, draining, air-drying, sieving and weighing. In a letter (August, 1932) W. A. Selvig approved making the blank sieving on a duplicate sample, rather than on the sample used for the test, where sufficient coal was available. This method is now employed in these laboratories. The accelerated weathering test has been employed in the laboratories of the Research Council of Alberta, at Edmonton, since 1928, but not found entirely satisfactory as repeat determinations with samples taken from the same or adjacent mines frequently showed serious differences. Differences must be expected as the coal may vary in the seam, and the selection of a typical set of lumps approximating 1 1/4-in. cubes

Jan 1, 1934

By W. A. Lang, K. C. Gilbart, E. Stansfield

It has long been known that coal is unstable and oxidizes in air, even at ordinary atmospheric temperatures; also, that such oxidation affects the analysis of coal. Nevertheless little or no precaution is taken to prevent oxidation in the ordinary methods of analysis, and the possibility of error due to oxidation is sometimes ignored even in researches on coal. Although the general nature of coal oxidation is well known, and many workers have made careful studies of the rate of oxidation of different types of coal exposed to oxygen at different temperatures, yet the amount of oxidation coals undergo in the ordinary process of analysis, and its influence on the determined analysis, is not well known, and the published data are widely scattered through the literature. This paper is a collection, from this laboratory, of data that bear on the subject, together with a brief summary of three methods employed here to evaluate the oxidizabil-ity of coal. The post-Carboniferous coals of Alberta range all the way from anthracite down to lignite. As some of them are notably susceptible to oxidation, the necessity for care was early forced upon our attention, and oxidation has been reduced either by the removal of air with a vacuum pump or by the displacement of air with natural gas (methane). The two routine analytical operations most liable to involve oxidation are the preliminary, partial drying of the crushed coal (called air-drying) and the determination of moisture. The first is a prolonged operation on coarse coal at ordinary temperatures, and the second a short treatment on powdered coal at higher temperatures. Oxidation also occurs in coal samples stored in ordinary sample bottles. In order to gain information for this study, determinations were recently carried out on the same samples in air, in natural gas, and in vacuo. Sixteen coals were tested; three would be classed in the United States as coking bituminous coals, two as noncoking, nonslacking, bituminous coals, and the rest as subbituminous. Table 1 gives typical analyses of these coals as mined.

Jan 1, 1934

By A. C. Fieldner, W. A. Selvig

For purposes of coal classification it is desirable to know the composition and calorific value of the pure coal substance; that is, of the coal free from its ash-forming minerals. Two methods suggest themselves: (1) To free the coal from most of the ash-forming material previous to the analysis; and (2) to analyze the coal as received and calculate the analysis, with certain more or less arbitrary corrections, to the pure-coal basis. Calculation methods are obviously more apt to give correct results with low-ash than high-ash coals. With coals of unusually high ash it would appear preferable to remove, previous to the analysis, as much of the inorganic matter as possible, by float-and-sink or acid-treating methods. Effect of Ignition on Inorganic Constituents of Coal The need of corrections in calculating analysis to the pure-coal basis is due to the fact that the ash, as determined by ignition, is not the same, in either weight or composition, as the inorganic mineral matter in the coal. On ignition a number of changes occur in the coal such as loss of water of hydration of the shaly material, conversion of pyrite (FeS2) to ferric oxide (Fe203) with evolution of the sulfur as sulfur dioxide or possible fixation of more or less of the sulfur in the ash as calcium sulfate (CaSO4), and decomposition of calcite (CaC03) to calcium oxide (CaO). The amount of sulfur from pyrite which remains in the ash as calcium sulfate depends on the amount of calcite and pyrite in the coal. Certain coals high in both calcite and pyrite show relatively large amounts of sulfate sulfur in the coal ash. The determination of total carbon and hydrogen in coal includes, besides the organic carbon and hydrogen, the carbon of inorganic carbonates such as calcite, and the hydrogen of the water of composition of some of the ash-forming minerals. For detailed discussion of corrections proposed for calculations of coal analyses to the " pure "

Jan 1, 1930

By Gilbert Francklyn

The requirements of coals for the manufacture of coal gas, water gas and producer gas will be considered sparately and a short description of each gasmaking process will be given. In this report the term "gas coal" is confined to coals suitable for the manufacture of city gas in horizontal, inclined or vertical retorts. The report does not refer to coke-oven practice.' Briefly, the process of manufacture consists of distilling the coal at high temperature in an externally heated retort out of contact with the air. The products of distillation, consisting of gas, tar, ammonia, etc. are collected and purified. The residue consists of coke, which is removed from the retort at the end of the carbonizing period. To supply the heat required in the process, a portion of the coke produced is converted into producer gas, which is burned under the retort settings. Qualities of Gas Coals The chief qualities that coal must possess in order to be classified as a gas coal are as follows: 1. Gas Yield.—The coal must be capable of yielding gas in sufficient volume and of a satisfactory quality. The yield depends considerably upon the temperature of distillation; a higher temperature will give a larger yield of gas, but the qualit,y of gas (now measured by the British thermal units per cubic foot) will be lower, while a lower carbonizing temperature will give less gas of higher heating value. The true measure of the yield is the number of British thermal units produced in the gas from a given quantity of coal. This number is obtained by multiplying the cubic feet of gas from 1 lb. of coal by the British thermal units per cubic foot of gas; it is called B.t.u. feet per pound. It is found that the

Jan 1, 1930

By G. S. Scott, H. G. Turner, W. L. Kleene

It is well known that different forms of carbon show differences in chemical behavior under apparently identical conditions. It is fairly well known that these differences persist, although to a lesser degree, in a single group of carbons, such as the anthracites of Pennsylvania. It is the purpose of this paper to show the extent of these variations for Pennsylvania anthracites from actual quantitative measurements of the amount of carbon dioxide reduced under the standardized test conditions employed. As the amount of carbon dioxide reduced to the monoxide (under comparative conditions termed, for convenience, the "reactivity") is important in combustion, gas production and metallurgy, it is hoped that this paper will be a useful contribution to the store of knowledge on these subjects. In carrying out the investigation, considerable time and thought were spent in obtaining what seemed to be the best possible design of apparatus. The next step consisted in making a number of trial runs on the same sample, varying temperature, particle diameter, etc. and then outlining a standardized procedure to be followed in testing all samples. Fifty anthracites were tested. As a matter of interest, some 10 miscellaneous samples were also tested. The data show initial reaction temperatures (abbreviated I.R.T.), reaction velocity constants at 900" and 950" C., some effects of added substances, and a few additional tests designed to throw some light on the causes of differences in reactivity. The sample of charcoal, as was anticipated, proved to be easily the most reactive of any sample tested. The anthracites as a group came second. The five samples of gas and by-product cokes, obtained from five different coke manufacturers, came third, and a single sample of Rhode Island anthracite ranked fourth, with respect to reactivity as above defined. Although the five coke samples do not necessarily represent the average market coke, and five samples constitute a rather small number of samples to serve as a basis for comparisons, the fact that none

Jan 1, 1934

By A. C. Fieldner

The usual analytical determinations made in analyzing coal are comprised in the proximate and ultimate analysis and the determination of calorific value. The proximate analysis includes determinations of moisture, volatile matter, fixed carbon and ash; the ultimate analysis determinations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur and ash. The proximate analysis is an empirical process, and the results, obtained, especially for volatile matter and fixed carbon, are materially influenced by the method of conducting the determinations. This fact must be kept in mind in comparing coal analyses from different laboratories for classification purposes. Unless these laboratories have followed the same standard methods, differences due to variations in the analytical methods may, in some cases, be large enough to change the classification of the coal. It is unfortunate that the determinations of volatile matter and fixed carbon, which are most used in coal classification, are the two that are subject to the greatest variations. Moisture comes next in the scale of variation. The ultimate analysis is less influenced by method, since it comprises the determination of definite chemical elements. However, even the ultimate analysis is subject to errors, due to inorganic carbon from carbonates and to inorganic hydrogen from water. For these reasons it is evident that the Committee on Coal Classification must be informed on the evolution of methods of coal analysis in America and the average differences in analytical results that may be expected from variations in methods. The committee should be informed also on which methods should be accepted as standard for classifying coal and on the magnitude of the differences in results that may be expected from duplicate samples of the same coal sent to different laboratories for analysis by the same standard methods. It is the purpose of the present paper to provide this information. The subject will be discussed under the following main heads:

Jan 1, 1930