Search Documents

By H. Rees

This paper supplements and brings up to date a report prepared earlier this year and presented at the Eleventh Pan American Railway Congress in Mexico City. Most of the original report is contained in this paper in order to acquaint the reader with the project background. On December 1, 1961, construction of this locomotive was completed. Stationary testing started immediately, and a host of problems in various areas were uncovered. Many of these had no relation to the use of coal in a direct fired gas turbine. All of them emphasized the problems which plagued previous projects of this kind. In 1944 the Locomotive Development Committee of Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., was formed to study the problems of combustion, coal handling, and fly ash removal which would have to be solved before coal could be used to fire a gas turbine. By 1947 this committee was composed of the chief executive officers of nine eastern railroads and five eastern coal companies. All of the members of this committee were vitally concerned in a coal fired gas turbine because coal cost only one-fourth as much per heat unit as fuel oil. A number of research projects were started to develop and test components on a small scale. This included work at John Hopkins University, Battelle Memorial Institute, Institute of Gas Technology at Chicago, Purdue University, and Southern Research Institute. By 1946 a pilot plant had been installed at the Dunkirk, New York plant of Alco Products Div. of American Locomotive Co. The U. S. Bureau of Mines made available to the Locomotive Development Committee (hereafter called LDC) a Houdry process gas turbine plant, originally destined for a Russian oil refinery. The full scale pilot plant was used to evaluate the results obtained from the small scale studies under actual gas turbine conditions. Operation of this plant disclosed a number of problems which had not been discovered in the small scale tests. By 1951 four 250 hr tests had been conducted with the Houdry gas turbine to test out a variety of equipment. The major problem concerned the removal of abrasive fly ash from the products of combustion so that wear on turbine blades would not be excessive. The first 250 hr test showed that the original fly ash separating equipment was inadequate. Large ash particles passing through the turbine blading were nicking the leading edges of the first row blades. At the conclusion of the second 250 hr test, erosion was so severe that the first row of stator and the first row of rotor blades were replaced. At the end of the third 250 hr test, it was necessary to replace the first three rows of stator blading. The fourth test was used to test out a new design fly ash separator developed by LDC and named the Dunlab tube. This device gave more encouraging results than any of the others tested. Early enthusiasm for overcoming major difficulties had resulted in placing an order in 1946 with Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. for a 3750 hp regenerative gas turbine. The gas turbine, together with associated combustion and ash removal equipment, coal handling equipment, generators and gear reduction unit was installed at Dunkirk by 1951. A 750 hr test was made in 1952 with the LDC-Allis Chalmers gas turbine power plant. At the end of this test it was necessary to replace the first four rows of both rotor and stator blading. Rows 5 and 6 did not require replacement. In 1953 the American Locomotive Co. joined with LDC and assumed an active role in equipment development and manufacture. During 1954 LDC-Alco operated the rebladed gas turbine 300 hr to determine if a new fly ash separator was adequate. Performance of the improved separator was considerably better, but trouble was experienced with clogged blowdown lines from the Dunlab tubes. When these lines clogged it permitted the passage of abrasive particles. In 1955 a total of 1421 hr was run. This included 243 hr of cycle operation on Union Pacific coal from the D. O. Clark mine at Superior, Wyoming. During the 243 hr a total of 370 tons of coal was consumed. The purpose of this test was to determine if U.P. coal was suitable for use in a coal fired turbine. It was the unofficial opinion that it was as good or better than the eastern coals that had been tested.

Jan 1, 1964

By E. S. Bardwell, Roy H. Miller

During the period extending from May, 1922, to September, 1923, the copper-refining furnaces of the Great Falls Reduction Department of the Anaconda Copper Mining Co. at Great Falls, Mont., were operated exclusively with pulverized coal as fuel. The installation was made first as an experiment. It proved successful from the start and was abandoned solely because fuel oil from the Sunburst field became available at a price sufficiently low to be more desirable from an economic standpoint. The equipment required for pulverized coal has, however, been kept intact and is available for immediate use should the oil supply fail. Inasmuch as pulverized coal had been used on two large reverbera-tory smelting furnaces and was, at the time we were considering its application-to the copper-refining furnaces, being used on the Wedge furnaces roasting zinc concentrate for the electrolytic zinc plant, we were equipped with a coal-pulverizing plant of ample capacity to supply pulverized coal for the furnace refinery. The only problem was to devise suitable means for transporting pulverized coal from the pulverizer plant, located in the smelter building, to the refinery about 3000 ft. distant and about 150 ft. above the level of the pulverizer plant. When studying this installation, it should be borne in mind that the layout represents an adaptation suited to the existing conditions at this particular plant. The installation was entirely satisfactory and uniformly dependable but might be modified to advantage from an operating point of view if an entirely new installation were being planned. Fuel Supply The use of the local coals, high in ash and sulfur, was abandoned some time before coal-dust firing was attempted. Local coals from the Great Falls field carrying an average of 4 per cent. sulfur and 22 per cent, ash were used with fair success in the small furnaces in use prior to 1916. In the 250-ton furnaces, however, the time lost in grating and removing clinker from the fireboxes, as well as the difficulties incident to the high-sulfur content of the fuel, became serious and recourse was had to the

Jan 1, 1927

By J. Hudy

An investigation has been made to determine the applicability of the Cendrex X-ray instrument for the measurement of the ash contents of washed bituminous coal products. The results obtained for selected products from five preparation plants in the northern Appalachian region are described. Emphasis of the study was placed on low-ash bituminous coals suit-able for utility or metallurgical markets. There was good agreement between the results obtained by conventional ash determination methods and by the Cendrex for all the products tested. A principal disadvantage of coal in competition with other fuels has been its inconsistent quality, especially with respect to ash content. Mine rnechanization and production from coalbeds of inferior quality have accentuated this failing. Present quality control methods in coal preparation plants are inadequate because (1) control samples taken over a production shift only serve to give the average quality of the product, (2) conventional sampling and analysis data are usually not available at the time a shipment is scheduled, and (3) the plant operator does not have the use of such data when the coal is being processed so that operating conditions may be adjusted for correcting variations in quality. Thus, the development and use of continuous-control monitoring instruments is of prime importance. The Federal Bureau of Mines arranged to investigate an instrument using x-rays for rapid continuous ash determinations. Developed by the Dutch State Mines and first described in 1958,' this instrument, which has found widespread acceptance in Europe, is designed to provide ash analysis of any desired coal feed or product stream with only a five-minute time lag between sample collection and analytical results. With limit controls, this unit could be used to feed back signals to preset the separating gravity of coal washers, control the ratio of various coals needed to produce an acceptable blend, and permit the sorting of a washed product into two qualities, one which is below and the other which is above a prescribed ash content. This unit can also be used discontinuously for rapid determination of coal samples taken in the usual manner. THEORY Di jkstra and Sieswerda of the Dutch State Mines studied the effect of chemical composition and ash content on the absorption coefficient of coal with the transmitted radiation method.' They found that with an X-ray wavelength of 1.79 A and values calculated for the absorption coefficients of ash and combustibles, the absorption coefficient of coal gave a linear relationship when plotted against the ash content. Thus, a method of measuring the absorption coefficient of coal could also be used to measure the ash content. However, practical attempts to measure the ash content of coal by comparing the intensities of the transmitted X-rays failed. The absorption coefficient of coal can also be obtained by irradiating a layer of coal with x-rays and measuring the intensity of the diffused reflection (backscatter method). The relationship between the diffused reflection and the ash content is actually hyperbolic but approximates a straight line over a narrow range. A measuring circuit that balanced the difference in intensity of the reflected radiation from a standard surface against that from a coal sample was used. By plotting this difference of reflected radiation against the ash content, a curve which approximated a straight line over a range of 8 percentage points of ash was obtained. DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT The apparatus performs two distinct functions: (1) the preparation of the sample to a suitable size consist and moisture content for delivery to the x-ray element, and (2) the measurement of the ash content by the x-ray element. In a continuous operation the coal sample is delivered to a conditioner where it is dried to a maximum of 1% surface moisture and pulverized in a high speed mill to -48-mesh. This material is fed, at a rate of 250-300 gpm onto a rotating disk, shown in Fig. 1, where it is mixed with material already present. The mixture is rotated on the disk and

Jan 1, 1969

By W. W. Anderson

WEBSTER'S dictionary gives the following definition for "efficiency": "Effective operation as measured by a comparison of actual and possible results." Engineers think of this definition in terms of the ratio of output to input, and since they learn early in their careers that output cannot be greater than input, they usually consider a machine to be 100 pct efficient if it operates perfectly, and to be 0 pct efficient if it performs no function at all. Hence, values of efficiency between 0 and 100 pct reflect how well or how poorly a machine has performed; and any method of calculation for determining efficiency that does not show 0 pct when no function has been performed, and 100 pct when a perfect job has been done, is looked upon with skepticism. The literature on performance of coal cleaning equipment contains many references to efficiency of performance, but there is no unanimous agreement among the authors as to how the efficiency should be determined. Numerous methods of calculation have been proposed from time to time, most of which attempt to fulfill the definition of efficiency by comparing output to input, using float and sink data or some other characteristic, such as dry ash content, as a measure. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of the methods advocated in the past meets the requirements of a practical engineer in judging cleaning plant performance, because the formulas previously advocated do not confine numerical values of efficiency between 0 and 100 pct, and the literature does not contain an explanation of the meaning of the formulas under various conditions of operation. Therefore, the following formula, based on Yancey's concept of misplaced material,' is proposed as a measure of efficiency which will conform with the requirement that the values of efficiency must be confined between 0 and 100 pct: Quantitative Efficiency = 100.0 — (pct wt sink* in cleaned coal + pct wt float* in refuse)t • At gravity of separation effected by cleaning equipment. t Total product basis of the size of material under study. It will be noted from this formula that an actual separation between cleaned coal and refuse must be effected by the cleaning equipment before the formula can be used; also, that improperly distributed material in the products must be determined at the gravity of separation, rather than at some arbitrary test gravity. It will further be noted from this formula that the weight of cleaned coal recovered and the weight of refuse rejected by the equipment have their proper influence, because the sink in the cleaned coal and the float in the refuse are expressed in the equation as a per cent weight of the total products of a definite size discharged from the plant. This formula has one other important characteristic, in that it requires no knowledge of the feed to the cleaning unit. Comparison of data on the products from a cleaning unit with the feed to the unit can lead to many worthwhile conclusions. but not in regard to the efficiency of separation effected by the equipment. The reason for this is that mechanical fracture of many pieces of the feed occurs during the cleaning process; and in some processes crushers are deliberately incorporated in the flow to produce size degradation to free impurities from cleaned coal, thereby altering the washability characteristics of the material while in process. When such size degradation occurs in a cleaning process, it is quite possible that this crushing will result in a reduction in ash content in the finer sizes of cleaned coal when compared with the raw coal feed, even though no true separation has been effected. This is due to the fact that the finer sizes have been "sweetened" by the crushing of cleaned coal from some coarser size. Many formulas advocated in the past show high cleaning efficiencies

Jan 1, 1951

By W. W. Anderson

WEBSTER'S dictionary gives the following definition for "efficiency": "Effective operation as measured by a comparison of actual and possible results." Engineers think of this definition in terms of the ratio of output to input, and since they learn early in their careers that output cannot be greater than input, they usually consider a machine to be 100 pct efficient if it operates perfectly, and to be 0 pct efficient if it performs no function at all. Hence, values of efficiency between 0 and 100 pct reflect how well or how poorly a machine has performed; and any method of calculation for determining efficiency that does not show 0 pct when no function has been performed, and 100 pct when a perfect job has been done, is looked upon with skepticism. The literature on performance of coal cleaning equipment contains many references to efficiency of performance, but there is no unanimous agreement among the authors as to how the efficiency should be determined. Numerous methods of calculation have been proposed from time to time, most of which attempt to fulfill the definition of efficiency by comparing output to input, using float and sink data or some other characteristic, such as dry ash content, as a measure. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of the methods advocated in the past meets the requirements of a practical engineer in judging cleaning plant performance, because the formulas previously advocated do not confine numerical values of efficiency between 0 and 100 pct, and the literature does not contain an explanation of the meaning of the formulas under various conditions of operation. Therefore, the following formula, based on Yancey's concept of misplaced material,' is proposed as a measure of efficiency which will conform with the requirement that the values of efficiency must be confined between 0 and 100 pct: Quantitative Efficiency = 100.0 — (pct wt sink* in cleaned coal + pct wt float* in refuse)t • At gravity of separation effected by cleaning equipment. t Total product basis of the size of material under study. It will be noted from this formula that an actual separation between cleaned coal and refuse must be effected by the cleaning equipment before the formula can be used; also, that improperly distributed material in the products must be determined at the gravity of separation, rather than at some arbitrary test gravity. It will further be noted from this formula that the weight of cleaned coal recovered and the weight of refuse rejected by the equipment have their proper influence, because the sink in the cleaned coal and the float in the refuse are expressed in the equation as a per cent weight of the total products of a definite size discharged from the plant. This formula has one other important characteristic, in that it requires no knowledge of the feed to the cleaning unit. Comparison of data on the products from a cleaning unit with the feed to the unit can lead to many worthwhile conclusions. but not in regard to the efficiency of separation effected by the equipment. The reason for this is that mechanical fracture of many pieces of the feed occurs during the cleaning process; and in some processes crushers are deliberately incorporated in the flow to produce size degradation to free impurities from cleaned coal, thereby altering the washability characteristics of the material while in process. When such size degradation occurs in a cleaning process, it is quite possible that this crushing will result in a reduction in ash content in the finer sizes of cleaned coal when compared with the raw coal feed, even though no true separation has been effected. This is due to the fact that the finer sizes have been "sweetened" by the crushing of cleaned coal from some coarser size. Many formulas advocated in the past show high cleaning efficiencies

Jan 1, 1951

By D. W. Loucks

There is plenty of evidence to indi-cate that at least one of man's chief interests in life is to make himself as comfortable as possible. If you doubt this, just watch the fellow next to you for the next half hour trying to find the most comfortable position that a hard chair has to offer. Comfort, however, does not always mean an easy chair. To some, it may mean a wealth of money; to another, freedom from worry. But to most of us, it means first of all a comfortable atmosphere in which to live, and to a great many of us it probably also means freedom from that annoying task of firing the furnace. Today more than ever before. automatic heat is one improvement that is placed high on everyone's list. Perhaps this is because automatic heating is becoming relatively cheaper. Perhaps it is because of a good publicity campaign on the part of the oil and gas men or maybe it is just that we are getting lazier day by day. At any rate, almost every issue of Better Homes and Gardens, House Beautiful, or your other favorite home magazine carries an article extolling the virtues of this or that automatic heating system. If I were to ask you to name the first thing that came to your mind when I said automatic heat, you would prob-ably say either gas furnace or oil burner. Or if you had just been studying heating systems, you might possibly say heat pump. But chances are you would not mention anything about coal, and yet coal is the most common source of the greatest automatic heat of them all. I say this because coal is the fuel used almost universally by the district heating industry in producing and delivering to certain heavily populated areas heat ready to use at the touch of a valve or the click of a thermostat. Although the industry is over a half century old, it has not experienced the widespread development of other utility industries because of certain limitations which I believe you will realize from the next few minutes discussion. District Heating Operations We may define district heating as any operation where two or more buildings are heated from a central heating plant. The method of heat transfer may be hot water or in some cases warm air, but generally the medium of heat transfer is steam. So universally is steam used that the industry is frequently referred to as the district steam industry. The Allegheny County Steam Heating Co. which operates the district heating system in downtown Pittsburgh is a subsidiary of the Du-quesne Light Co. Although organized in 1912 primarily as a means of securing the electric load of downtown buildings, the service has now become so valuable and so popular that it is no longer considered a necessary adjunct to the electric business but rather a separate business standing on its own feet. Fig 1 shows the layout of the plants and distribution system of downtown Pittsburgh. Two generating plants, one known as the Stanwix and the other as Twelfth Street, supply the area. Each has two boilers with capacity totaling 1,350,000 lb per hour. The Stanwix Plant is supplied coal by truck. The coal is pulverized at the plant and burned as powdered fuel. Coal is supplied to the Twelfth Street Plant also by truck but the boilers arc stoker fired. Over 1 1/2 miles of tunnel house a portion of our main lines, but it requires over twelve miles of pipeline, ranging in size from 32 down to 1 in. in diameter, to supply all our customers. The distribution system consists of two systems in a sense, one high and one low pressure with certain interconnections between the two. Our high pressure system supplies steam up to 125 Ib to some but not all customers, while the low pressure system operates in the range of 10 to 20 psi. Note that the two plants are tied together through large steam mains and that the system to some extent is a loop system, making it possible to have a portion of the line shut, down without interrupting service to any customer. Fig 2 conveys a picture of the extent to which steam service is used in the downtown triangle. The black area indicates the buildings which now use district steam. The dotted area indi-

Jan 1, 1950

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

Ash in coal has always becri regarded as an undesirable substance, as the heat content of a coal dccreases in direct proportion to its ash contcnt. It represents so much inert materid that has to be transported, handled when the coal is burned, and finally disposed of. W. R. Roberts, in an address bcfore the Engineers' Society of Western Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, on Sept. 29, 1925, said that on an annual output of five hundred rnillion tons of coal, a reduction of 3 per cent. of ash means fifteen million tons of refusc and a decrcase of $30,000,000 in freight charges. Ash also often prevents effieient utilization of the coal through the formation of clinker causcd by the mcltirig of the ash constituents when subjected to heat. The mineral constituents of coal may be of such nature as to make the coal unsuited for speeifie uses as for instance, high-sulfur coal for making metallurgical coke. While the usual proximate analysis of coal gives the amount of ash, it gives no information as to the nature and coniposition of the ash nor of the minera1 constituents from which the ash is produced. For the efficient washing of coal to remove ash-forining constituents it is desirable to know the composition and distribution of the ash-fonning constituents. Obviously such information is also desirable for the most efficient utilization of coal. Nature and Composition of Coal Ash Coal ash may be defined as the inorganic residue remailning after cornplete ignitior of coal. It is dcrived from the mineral constituents of thc coal. The ash-forming constituents may be roughly classified as inherent impurities and extraneous impurities. The former are mixed intimately with the coal substance, and arc derived either from the original coal-forming material or from external sources such as sedimentation and preeipitation while the vegetal coal-forming plant remains accumulated. The latter are present in the coal bed as partings, bands or nodules of pyrite! slate, shale, calcit,e, bone, etc. These are formed either during the laying down of the coal bed, or subsequently. Flag-

Jan 1, 1927

By S. W. Parr

The extent to which geological carbonization has taken place in the process of coal formation is a fundamental factor in all considerations relating to classification, oxidation, deterioration, spontaneous combus tion, and especially in all considerations relating to destructive distillation having as an objective the production of marketable coke and by-products. Moreovcr, it may be readily shown that a striking relationship exists between the geological decomposition or geological carbonization processes and those artificially produced by heat. This may be well illustrated by bringing again to view some of the charts more commonly mct with 25 years ago, as in Fig. 1.' In this figurc the line of geological decomposition by decay, pressure, etc., because of its relation to the line of carbonization by destructive distillation, becomes of special significance when we attempt to formulate any system of classification which shall be reasonably scientific and at

Jan 1, 1927

By R. Q. Shotts

This paper is a review of recoverable reserves of bituminous coal in the Southern Appalachian area, according to the latest published estimates. A few comparisons are made, some apparent trends are discussed, and some comments are made regarding the limitations of present estimates. The definition of Southern Appalachian area used in this report is somewhat arbitrary. It includes all the bituminous coal deposits of Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. All of West Virginia has been excluded. The East Kentucky and Virginia counties included were selected in connection with a literature study the writer made in 1959 of possible coal supply areas for the Tennessee Valley Authority. The selected counties were considered to be the only ones from which TVA might expect to obtain coal. The availability of coal from some of these counties is doubtful, but no other East Kentucky counties were considered more than remote possibilities. With these limitations, the Appalachian area covered is that from which producers of electric power and steel and commercial coal users, located in the Southeastern U. S., may expect to obtain their supplies of coal. Of course, it is recognized that coal from the eastern interior fields is also available to many of these same organizations. RANK AND QUALITY OF THE COALS Practically all the coals in the Southern Appalachian region are of high volatile A bituminous rank. An occasional sample indicates a slightly lower rank, but such samples may be oxidized or otherwise not representative. Some thin beds in Lookout Mountain and Sand Mountain in Alabama and Georgia, are low volatile bituminous coals, but they have not been mined extensively in modern times. There is a possibility that some of the deeper beds along the southeastern edge of the Warrior field of Alabama are near the Low-medium volatile bituminous dividing line. The Sewanee bed and some other minor ones of the Southern Tennessee field, some of the lower beds in Virginia, many beds in Sand and Lookout Mountains in Georgia and Alabama, one or more beds in the Coosa field, possibly some lower beds in the Cahaba field, and most of the beds along the southeastern edge of the Warrior field and the southern end of the Sequatchie anticline of Alabama, are of medium volatile bituminous rank. The quality of the Southern Appalachian coals is highly variable. Some of them, particularly such prevailingly thin ones as the Black Creek bed of Alabama and the Straight Creek bed of Kentucky, are unusually low in mineral matter— probably the lowest in the U. S. With the exception of certain beds and local areas, Alabama and East Kentucky coals probably have as low average ash and sulfur content as can be found in any sizeable coal area in the country. The sulfur content of Southern Appalachian coals is also variable, but few beds are consistently high in sulfur. In Alabama, sulfur generally increases from southeast to northwest across the Warrior field, but this trend is not quite as clear in the other states. A few beds in Northern Tennessee are prevailingly high in sulfur. All Southern Appalachian coals are potential coking coals if they can be prepared to meet chemical requirements. Only a comparatively small part of the medium volatile A bituminous coal, but most of the medium volatile bituminous coal mined is actually used for coking purposes. An estimate of reserves of coking coal under the requirements of present practice, could be compiled comparatively easily, but this probably has never been done. The reserve of coal that can be coked as an ingredient of a suitable blend is probably many times the size of the reserves of coal that will yield suitable blast furnace and foundary coke without blending. WHAT CONSTITUTES ECONOMICALLY RECOVERABLE COAL RESERVES? When one first realizes the vast extent of the coal-bearing rocks in the Southern Appalachian area, (see Fig. 1) the thought is likely to occur that the supply of coal is inexhaustible. This is particularly true on realizing that in some of the basins of thicker coal-

Jan 1, 1962

During the past year the Committee on Coal and Coke has been collecting data concerning various phases of the bituminous industry about which considerable misinformation has been circulated even, in some cases, through the coal trade papers. The data here presented have been compiled by various members, from the most authentic sources available and, where possible, cover the period 1913-1924. They will enable comparisons to be made within the industry, and of this and other industries, and will explain some of the differences between conditions existing now and in the prewar period. Capacity and Over-development The capacity of bituminous mines is frequently stated at figures ranging between 800,000,000 to 1,400,000,000 tons per year. Table 1 shows statistics for the industry, mainly from U. S. Geological Survey sources but partly from U. S. Coal Commission reports. Column 3 gives the mine capacity with equipment and labor as of given date, as estimated from the data published by the U. S. Geological Survey. This is calculated for each State by obtaining the total man days worked as reported by the operators (multiplying average men employed by total days worked at each mine) and dividing this figure into the total production, getting the production per man day; this figure times number of men employed times 308 (a theoretical full working year) equals estimated full-time capacity. Two major objections are made to this method—one that the total number of men employed is used, instead of the number actually working, and the other that the number of days used only deducts Sundays and five holidays. The first objection is answered by the fact that the same number of men is used in estimating capacity as is used in actual production, and while this number is always from 12 to 20 per cent. more than are actually working, this condition exists at all times, although it is worse at times of maximum output. Few coal men will agree with the conclusion that the use of 308 days is correct, as it is practically impossible to keep any mine working full time at the same daily rate of production as when it is working part time, and the opinion is

Jan 1, 1927

By John Griffen

This paper records over twenty years' experience with the use of the Rheolaveur system in the United States, showing its ability to meet changing conditions caused by the dirtier mine output of present-day mechanical mining methods. Data are given on size ranges handled, number and capacity of units installed, maintenance experience, and operating results on two-product and three-product separations. IT is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the principles employed in the Rheolaveur system of fine-coal cleaning as these have been fully covered in the technical literature of the Institute."2 Rather, our purpose will be to record the highlights of over 20 years' experience in the United States with Rheolaveur fine-coal launders, which will indicate their capabilities and costs of cleaning and their adaptability to meet the changing conditions caused by present-day mechanical mining methods. Rheolaveur fine-coal launders are used in the United States to treat a wide variety of size ranges of fine coal, the coarsest being 1/2 in. to 0 and the finest about 1/8 in. to 0. In Europe feeds as coarse as 5/8 in. and as small as 1/2 mm (28-mesh) to 0 are being cleaned. The size ranges usually handled in this country are 3/8 to 1/4-in. round to 0. Thirty five units with a combined hourly feed capacity of 3200 tph have been installed in the United States. Individual units are cleaning as little as 25 tph, while others are cleaning as much as 200 tph. Rheolaveur fine-coal launders offer cleaning units of high capacity and are outstanding in requiring a minimum of building space per ton of input. Experience has shown that maintenance costs are low. Several installations were made in the Pittsburgh district from 1928 to 1930, and since that time operation has been largely two shifts per day. Minor repairs to liner plates and Rheo boxes have been required during the intervening years, but no major replacement of launders was required until 1947 and 1948. At one of these plants, launders operated for 17 years before they were replaced and during that period over 26,000,000 tons of —5/16-in. coal were cleaned. The effect of the much dirtier raw coal produced by mechanical loading of the Pittsburgh seam is shown by the following tests. The data in table I summarize the performance of a Rheo fine-coal unit when cleaning hand-loaded raw coal. The —4-in. raw coal fed to the cleaning plant analyzed only 8.16 pct ash and 1.31 pct sulphur and contained 4.6 pct sink, 1.55 sp gr. Two years later, in 1945, mechanically-loaded coal from the same mine was cleaned in the same plant. The feed, —4 in., then analyzed 20.10 pct ash and 1.53 pct sulphur and contained 20.2 pct sink, 1.55 sp gr. The performance of the Rheo fine-coal unit when cleaning this coal is given in table 11. It will be noted that the +48-mesh coal is cleaned almost as thoroughly as in table I. The large amount of high-ash slimes produced from the dirtier feed are responsible for the higher ash of —--48-mesh washed coal in table 11. In this plant the Rheo fine-coal unit did not get the full load of refuse resulting from mechanical

Jan 1, 1951

By John Griffen

This paper records over twenty years' experience with the use of the Rheolaveur system in the United States, showing its ability to meet changing conditions caused by the dirtier mine output of present-day mechanical mining methods. Data are given on size ranges handled, number and capacity of units installed, maintenance experience, and operating results on two-product and three-product separations. IT is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the principles employed in the Rheolaveur system of fine-coal cleaning as these have been fully covered in the technical literature of the Institute."2 Rather, our purpose will be to record the highlights of over 20 years' experience in the United States with Rheolaveur fine-coal launders, which will indicate their capabilities and costs of cleaning and their adaptability to meet the changing conditions caused by present-day mechanical mining methods. Rheolaveur fine-coal launders are used in the United States to treat a wide variety of size ranges of fine coal, the coarsest being 1/2 in. to 0 and the finest about 1/8 in. to 0. In Europe feeds as coarse as 5/8 in. and as small as 1/2 mm (28-mesh) to 0 are being cleaned. The size ranges usually handled in this country are 3/8 to 1/4-in. round to 0. Thirty five units with a combined hourly feed capacity of 3200 tph have been installed in the United States. Individual units are cleaning as little as 25 tph, while others are cleaning as much as 200 tph. Rheolaveur fine-coal launders offer cleaning units of high capacity and are outstanding in requiring a minimum of building space per ton of input. Experience has shown that maintenance costs are low. Several installations were made in the Pittsburgh district from 1928 to 1930, and since that time operation has been largely two shifts per day. Minor repairs to liner plates and Rheo boxes have been required during the intervening years, but no major replacement of launders was required until 1947 and 1948. At one of these plants, launders operated for 17 years before they were replaced and during that period over 26,000,000 tons of —5/16-in. coal were cleaned. The effect of the much dirtier raw coal produced by mechanical loading of the Pittsburgh seam is shown by the following tests. The data in table I summarize the performance of a Rheo fine-coal unit when cleaning hand-loaded raw coal. The —4-in. raw coal fed to the cleaning plant analyzed only 8.16 pct ash and 1.31 pct sulphur and contained 4.6 pct sink, 1.55 sp gr. Two years later, in 1945, mechanically-loaded coal from the same mine was cleaned in the same plant. The feed, —4 in., then analyzed 20.10 pct ash and 1.53 pct sulphur and contained 20.2 pct sink, 1.55 sp gr. The performance of the Rheo fine-coal unit when cleaning this coal is given in table 11. It will be noted that the +48-mesh coal is cleaned almost as thoroughly as in table I. The large amount of high-ash slimes produced from the dirtier feed are responsible for the higher ash of —--48-mesh washed coal in table 11. In this plant the Rheo fine-coal unit did not get the full load of refuse resulting from mechanical

Jan 1, 1951

By A. L. Bailey, B. A. Landry

All who are even generally aware of the tremendous rate of increase in coal washing operations must realize the growing importance of the float-and-sink test. I believe it is conservative to estimate that, in the past decade, the dollar volume of float-and-sink testing has increased tenfold. It is a simple matter of economy, then, to examine the factors that determine the cost of adequate float-and-sink testing. When the Coal Preparation Section of the Bureau of Mines entered upon a greatly expanded program of such work in connection with the synthetic liquid fuels investigations, it seemed advisable to examine these factors experimentally. The principal consideration that differentiates float-and-sink test sampling from general purpose sampling, is that the original particle size must be preserved. Therefore, the total cost of the test will be directly affected by any standard that might be proposed to limit sample bulk reduction at any given particle size. For this reason, the relationship of sample size to variability of results was the first factor to be studied experimentally. Of course, the matter is rendered complex by the circumstance that the float-and-sink test, not a simple analytical measurement but a process test, comprehends a number of more-or-less independent items of fundamental data; and as shown in the report, the' variability of the samples differs with respect to these different items. This condition and the wide variety of situations in which float-and-sink test data are used, in combination with other factors, to study complex process operations, indicate the difficulty of setting up fixed standards for float-and-sink sampling and testing. At this stage at least, it is the intent rather to obtain experimental data on the principal Factors involved so that the reader may arrive more intelligently at a procedure adapted to his problem. The authors of this paper have presented experimental data showing the relationship between size of sample and particle size for different variability tolerances with respect to percentage of sink. In further studies, data are being collected to appraise also the variability of the samples with respect to float-ash content and size consist. The scope of this work will be broadened to cover particle sizes up to 4 in., and a third series of tests has yielded similar data for a much cleaner type of raw coal. Thus, the further studies will make available a fairly comprehensive meas- ure of variability with respect to size consist, percentage of sink, percentage of middlings, and percentage of ash in the float, for three coals ranging from 3.87 to 17.68 pct in refuse content (heavy sink material) and from 4.18 to 17.52 pct in middlings. Introduction At present there are no published standards for float-and-sink test sampling. During the rapid expansion of float-and-sink test work, varying procedures have been based on adaptations of the ASTM standards for sampling coal for analyses. For this reason, a special study of gross sample reduction has been undertaken to determine the limits for this step in the operation where no reduction in particle size is to be made before testing. Float-and-sink tests are made whenever a thorough study of coal characteristics is desired. The tests may be made on samples from coal-cleaning units such as jigs or tables, or coal samples may be tested which are taken from a loading boom, railroad car, or the coal seam itself. The resultant gross sample may be large and pose a problem of sample reduction. The question is, then, how much can the sample be reduced and still fall within preassigned limits of accuracy of the original gross sample of coal? Coal from channel samples may be crushed to liberate impurities and then separated into various gravity fractions from which washability curves are drawn; from these curves, it is possible to determine the cleaning characteristics of the coal. However, coal samples from coal-cleaning units cannot be

Jan 1, 1950

By A. L. Bailey, B. A. Landry

W. W. ANDERSON and G. E. KELLER*—We want to compliment the authors on this very thorough paper. It gives information which the coal industry has needed for some time. We hope that the additional information which the authors are collecting will he available shortly. The mixing and riffling procedure that was followed for experimental purposes is obviously not practical in routine float-and-sink testing because of the particle size degradation which would result in handling the sample so many times. It is important to obtain our tloat-and-sink fractions with a minimum amount of handling of material. A statement is made in the paper (p. 80) that "the variable most likely to affect the size of sample required to meet a given preassigned accuracy would be the state or degree of mixing of the coal." We agree that this is a large factor, but do not believe it is the most important factor. Our own opinion is that the most important single factor governing the total gross weight of sample that must be collected is the percentage of the weight of material in the smallest fraction that results from the screening and float-and-\ink operations. In other words, size of sample is governed by the total number of fractionations that must he made, and the distribution of material within the fractions. We can imagine a coal with perfect mixing, but with such a small amount of material in some float-and-sink fraction in one of the coarse sizes that a much larger sample would have to be taken than would be the case with very poorly mixed material, but with a large percentage of coarse material more evenly distributed in all float-and-sink fractions. Our own observation of many float-and-sink tests that we have run in our own organization on many types of coal is that the size of sample that must be used on fine size float and sink is governed more by the requirements for weight of material to be used for analysis in the laboratory than by weight of material necessary to obtain accurate float and sink percentage of weight values. In other words, it is our opinion that very small samples can be used for float-and-sink fractionation in the fine sizes, but that accurate analysis of the fractions will depend on a larger weight of sample being pulverized for the laboratory than is necessary to establish the float-and-sink distribution with respect to weight. A. L. BAILEY and B. A. LANDRY (authors' reply)—The authors thank Messrs. Anderson and Keller for their comments based on long experience. It is agreed that the involved mixing and riming technique used may be disadvantageous from the standpoint of degradation. Fortunately, the paper does point out that the extended riming was unrewarding in causing further mixing. Two large unknowns remain, however: (1) how much of the mixing from the presumed highly unmixed state in the bed was achieved toward the random state during blasting, loading, transportation, screening, and further transportation to the point where the gross sample was taken, and (2) how much of the mixing took place during the preparation described preceding riming. As has been pointed out by one of the authors.6 the degree of mixing has a very large effect on the size of sample required and there are still too few experimental data to show at what stage of coal handling most of the mixing occurs. The discussion states that the weight of material in a screened fraction, or in a float-and-sink fraction, is more important than the mixing factor. We do not believe that these factors are comparable in this instance inasmuch as our purpose was to give minimum sampling requirements to achieve a preassigned accuracy in the percentages of float, middlings, or sink, and nothing more. The gross sample had already been screened and no further division by screening was made or contemplated; also, it was not intended that the middlings and sink fractions would necessarily be adequate for percentage ash or other determination. In other words, the sample obtained by the method outlined is not intended for washability studies but only for preparation plant control. Further experimental work has been done, since the paper was prepared, to investigate the effect of increasingly larger top and bottom sizes on the variability of float, etc., of a double-screened coal from Western Pennsylvania. Results will be published and eventually attention is to be given to the preparation of sampling specifications. E. H. M. BADGER*—I should like the authors to explain more fully the fundamental assumptions on which their Eq 4 is based. The equation is of the form s2 = p(l - p) which is the usual expression for the (standard deviation)2 when the chance of finding a particular kind of particle in the sample is proportional to the number fraetion, p. But instead of the number fraction, the authors have used the weight fraction, WF/W. The chance of finding a particular kind of particle in the sample can only be proportional to the weight fraction, if the average ?eig?ts of all kinds of particles, that is, float, midlings, or sink, are the same. Surely a much more justifiable assumption would be that the average volumes of the particles are the same, and, if this is so, Eq 4 would not be true. This may be demonstrated as follows: Let be the weight fraction of float, middlings, or sink, dl the density of this fraction, and d2 the density of the rest of the coal. Then assuming that the average volumes of the pieces in the three classes are the same, the number fraction, p, is given by ? P = d1/l-?/d2 + ?/d1 = ?d2/d1 + ?(d2-d1) The weight fraction, w, in terms of p is given by ? = pd1/(l-p)d2 + pd1 = pd1/d2 + p(d1-d2) _____ [61

Jan 1, 1950

By J. W. MacDonald

Review of equipment, performance, and shaft design plans including head-frames for sinking and forms for lining are given. Also included are comparative data for shafts of 11 x20 ft and 193/4 x 30 ft with 756 and 666-ft depths, respectively. Advantage from curtain wall installation with "slip forms" which warrant consideration for normal lining are outlined. A preliminary review is also made of "chemical grouting" to stop water inflow leakage with Halliburton equipment and service. Two coal mine shafts recently completed in Franklin County, Ill., afford experience and accomplishment to warrant review. These shafts provide access to a tract with a potential recovery of one hundred million tons. This work provided the initial sinking by other than a contractor's organization since 1918. Four additional shafts required during the interim were sunk under contract arrangement with others. Supervisory contact and inspection afforded experience to govern planning and conduct of the recent work. TEST DRILLING Core test holes were drilled within each of the two shaft locations. Four additional cable tool holes were drilled on a radius of 700 ft from the shaft bottom to determine the coal seam elevations and govern the underground layout plans for each shaft. A graphic log of the hoist shaft test drillhole is shown by Fig. 1. A very soft sandstone was found at a depth of 16 ft. Cored recovery of the sandstone proved much weaker than the overlying compacted sand secured with coring facilities for soil recovery. Gradation from the very soft sandstone to fairly hard material occurred with the next 14 ft, extending to a depth of 30 ft. The weak character within the upper portion entailed need of adequate protection when sinking as described later. A part of the sandstone provided sufficient porosity and permeability to warrant further investigation. Adjacent cable tool drilling for temporary water supply disclosed inflow was limited to 2 gpm with a depth of 40 ft. It was increased to 12 gpm during the next 50 ft of drilling and occasioned subsequent precaution when sinking. General arrangement of facilities for sinking the hoist shaft is shown by Fig. 2. An available steel frame building was used to accommodate the hoist, compressor, shop, and shower or change room. The stiff leg derrick with 90-ft length of boom permitted removal of forms from the wood shop to the storage area or delivery within the shaft. Reinforcing steel and other needs were similarly handled, in addition to headframe erection. The headframe was placed over one end of the shaft to enable passage of forms for lining through the adjacent half next to the stiff leg derrick. The steel headframe as shown by Fig. 3 was fabricated locally. Side anchored cables from the

Jan 1, 1961

By Carl S. Westerberg

1,. C. McCABE*-—An increased derliand for coal in the west is to be expected because of the growth in population and industry during the past ten years. The author calls attention to the increased mechanical cleaning of Utah coal between 1938, when no cleaning was being done, and 194.7, when more than 24 pct of the production was cleaned. This is essentially the Period of most rapid growth of the Pacific Coast. area altliough the growth and, no doubt, the general trends in coal production and cleaning continued at a less accelerated rate during 1948. The Pacific southwest increased 37 pct in population between 1940 and 191.7 while the United States showed only a 7 pct increase in the same period. it has been estimated that there will be an additional 15 pct increase in population between 1947 and 1950. The conclusion that more coal and more mechanicak cleaning capacity will be required appears to be well founded. Mr. Westerberg discusses the cco- nomic advantages of coal cleaning reflected in freight savings, in lower cost per million Btu, and lowered ash and sulphur content. In view of the limited occurrence of coking coals in the west it would be interesting to know whether significant beneficiation in coking strength can be expected from mechanical cleaning of Utah coals. This has been demonstrated for some eastern and midwestern coals. One can readily agree to the desirability of recovering the fine coal that has heretofore been lost in washery slurry. The very cheapness of coal has Iridered

Jan 1, 1950

By F. R. Zacher

Unmined blocks in the Sewickley seam, surrounded by worked out areas, have been found to transmit overburden oads through the interval strata to the Pittsburgh seam workings 90 ft below. Operating experiences under these conditions are described in this paper. IT has always been understood, in northern West Virginia where both the Pittsburgh and Sewickley seams are mined, that pillaring or splitting in the lower Pittsburgh seam could break the interval strata and make mining in the overlying Sewickley difficult or impossible. In some instances, however, mining methods practiced in the overlying Sewickley have reversed the problem, resulting in a shifting of the intermediate layer and destroying valuable acreages of the Pittsburgh seam below. The Pittsburgh seam in this area is, on the average, 102 in. thick. About 18 in. of low-quality head coal are left for roof protection as it is mined. Immediately over the coal are two draw slates, two rider seams, and a good hard black shale, locally called black rock, which serves as a permanent roof where draw slates and riders are taken down on certain main haulroads. In most areas mined in this seam in the past the bottom has been satisfactory but soft. However, in areas now being mined by the Christopher Coal Co. in Monongalia County the bottom is very hard and unyielding. The Sewickley seam, lying 85 ft above the Pittsburgh, will average nearly 70 in. in thickness and is overlain by massive shales and sandstones. Much of the seam is mined only down to the "sheep skin," a hard band about 4 in. above the bottom, which is composed of relatively hard shale. Fig. 1 shows a typical cross-section through the Pittsburgh and Sewickley seams in the area being discussed. The thin Redstone seam is not deep-mined but is stripped in some locations where it outcrops. Most of the Sewickley seam in the Morgantown areas has been mined out from 10 to 30 years. There are at present only two large mines and five or six others of small production operating in that seam. Mining systems in the past were generally of the room and pillar type with some full pillar extraction. This seam in the Scott's Run area was operated by as many as thirty or forty different companies at one time, during an era beset with strikes, market failures, and depressions. Most of the barrier pillars along the many main haulroads were abandoned, and blocks of Sewickley coal that would be fully recovered with today's machinery were left unmined when conditions became anything less than favorable. Consequently the mined-out Sewickley is spotted throughout with solid blocks varying in size from 100x100 ft to 200x400 ft and larger. It is these unmined Sewickley blocks surrounded by worked-out portions that have caused transmissions of roof stresses to underlying Pittsburgh mining areas, see Fig. 2, resulting in untold difficulty. As the Christopher Coal Co. operates both the Pittsburgh and Sewickley seams, accurate maps of workings in both seams are readily available and are regularly consulted. The first Pittsburgh squeeze attributed to overlying Sewickley blocks occurred in the Arkwright mine, where a shuttle car crew was developing a section consisting of seven panel headings. These entries were being driven in solid coal 3400 ft from the nearest worked-out Pittsburgh area. As mining advanced it was noticed that certain ribs began to slough and certain areas to show signs

Jan 1, 1953

By F. R. Zacher

Unmined blocks in the Sewickley seam, surrounded by worked out areas, have been found to transmit overburden oads through the interval strata to the Pittsburgh seam workings 90 ft below. Operating experiences under these conditions are described in this paper. IT has always been understood, in northern West Virginia where both the Pittsburgh and Sewickley seams are mined, that pillaring or splitting in the lower Pittsburgh seam could break the interval strata and make mining in the overlying Sewickley difficult or impossible. In some instances, however, mining methods practiced in the overlying Sewickley have reversed the problem, resulting in a shifting of the intermediate layer and destroying valuable acreages of the Pittsburgh seam below. The Pittsburgh seam in this area is, on the average, 102 in. thick. About 18 in. of low-quality head coal are left for roof protection as it is mined. Immediately over the coal are two draw slates, two rider seams, and a good hard black shale, locally called black rock, which serves as a permanent roof where draw slates and riders are taken down on certain main haulroads. In most areas mined in this seam in the past the bottom has been satisfactory but soft. However, in areas now being mined by the Christopher Coal Co. in Monongalia County the bottom is very hard and unyielding. The Sewickley seam, lying 85 ft above the Pittsburgh, will average nearly 70 in. in thickness and is overlain by massive shales and sandstones. Much of the seam is mined only down to the "sheep skin," a hard band about 4 in. above the bottom, which is composed of relatively hard shale. Fig. 1 shows a typical cross-section through the Pittsburgh and Sewickley seams in the area being discussed. The thin Redstone seam is not deep-mined but is stripped in some locations where it outcrops. Most of the Sewickley seam in the Morgantown areas has been mined out from 10 to 30 years. There are at present only two large mines and five or six others of small production operating in that seam. Mining systems in the past were generally of the room and pillar type with some full pillar extraction. This seam in the Scott's Run area was operated by as many as thirty or forty different companies at one time, during an era beset with strikes, market failures, and depressions. Most of the barrier pillars along the many main haulroads were abandoned, and blocks of Sewickley coal that would be fully recovered with today's machinery were left unmined when conditions became anything less than favorable. Consequently the mined-out Sewickley is spotted throughout with solid blocks varying in size from 100x100 ft to 200x400 ft and larger. It is these unmined Sewickley blocks surrounded by worked-out portions that have caused transmissions of roof stresses to underlying Pittsburgh mining areas, see Fig. 2, resulting in untold difficulty. As the Christopher Coal Co. operates both the Pittsburgh and Sewickley seams, accurate maps of workings in both seams are readily available and are regularly consulted. The first Pittsburgh squeeze attributed to overlying Sewickley blocks occurred in the Arkwright mine, where a shuttle car crew was developing a section consisting of seven panel headings. These entries were being driven in solid coal 3400 ft from the nearest worked-out Pittsburgh area. As mining advanced it was noticed that certain ribs began to slough and certain areas to show signs

Jan 1, 1953

By E. F. Koppe

The Upper Freeport coal in the Freeport and New Kensington quadrangles, Pennsylvania, varies from a bony streak to a thick coal deposit often exceeding ninety inches, the "Double" or "Thick Freeport". Distinctive basal partings, a central bone layer, and a canneloid top bench may be present. The appearance of a sandstone roof, sandstone rolls, and bony coal at the top of the main coal bench can be anticipated in thin Freeport areas when basal partings are absent. When the two basal partings are present, a shale roof is normal. These effects are correlated with the original topography upon which the coal was deposited. The original depositional high areas tend to coincide with present structural highs. Preliminary data indicate that coal quality, in part, is affected by the deposi-tional setting. In "high" areas, a tendency exists for the main coal bench to contain higher percentages of fusain and mineral matter. Within limits, some-what higher ash fusion temperatures appear to correlate with paleotopographic highs. As a result of these findings, critical examination of the paleotopography and related sediments is indicated in other areas and other coals. The Upper Freeport coal is quite variable both in thickness and composition in the Freeport and New Kensington quadrangles of Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The coal horizon in these quadrangles is marked either by a thin carbonaceous shale bed or by a single bed containing a variable number of partings (binders). The complex coal zone known locally as the "Double" or "Thick Freeport" contains the Upper Freeport Coal Bed at the base; but in addition, it has an overlying bone layer and an upper coal bed occasionally capped with a canneloid layer. The "Thick Freeport" often exceeds 90 inches in thickness, whereas the normal Upper Freeport coal usually varies between 34 and 50 inches.

Jan 1, 1961

By S. A. Falconer

D. A. Dahlstrom—Mr. Falconer has done an admirable job of proving the adaptability of the cyclone to the beneficiation of a very difficult size range in the preparation of coal. The addition of the cyclone to other coarser size methods makes it economically feasible for the coal operator to rigorously control his marketed products at a high and uniform quality level down to the 48 and 100-mesh size. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that by utilizing the cyclone as a deslimer or classifier the —3 200-mesh fraction, usually containing large percentages of undesirable material, can also be quickly and cheaply removed from the clean coal. Advantages of such a step are several: (1) Reduction of ash content, especially where clays and slimes are serious. (2) lower moisture content of the final coal. (3) easier mechanical and thermal de-watering of the fine coal due to higher cake and bed permeabilities. The author has indicated that adjustable control means should be installed on the cyclone operating on a heavy-media slurry. This also holds true for the cyclone acting as classifier, deslimer or preliminary dewatering agent and is worthy of special emphasis. Such controls, while not necessarily automatic, must be simple, rapidly adjustable, and require a minimum of attention. Three methods available to the operator are (1) throttling valve on the feed line, (2) back pressure valve on the overflow, and (3) adjustable diameter underflow nozzles. The first two, while fulfilling the specifications, suffer the disadvantage of restricting capacity if severe throttling is necessary. The third method has little effect on capacity and easily maintains an underflow of correct moisture content. Several designs are possible, but two find the widest application. The first was developed by Robert Piros of The Truax-Traer Coal Co. and uses a simple casting containing two holders for underflow nozzles which can be rotated about an axis parallel to the cyclone centerline. These holders retain the underflow nozzle flush with the conical section walls. When a change in nozzle diameter is required, the new size is placed in the spare holder and rotated into place. A second design utilizes a soft rubber cylindrical tube which is compressed or released from three sides, causing the inner diameter of the tube to decrease or increase. This is achieved by using a machine-threaded,

Jan 1, 1951