4.4 Article

Production of High-strength Cokes from Non-/Slightly Caking Coals. Part I: Effects of Coal Pretreatment and Variables for Briquetting and Carbonization on Coke Properties

期刊

ISIJ INTERNATIONAL
卷 59, 期 8, 页码 1440-1448

出版社

IRON STEEL INST JAPAN KEIDANREN KAIKAN
DOI: 10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2018-819

关键词

coke; briquetting; fine pulverization; carbonization; occurrence of strength

资金

  1. Iron and Steel Institute of Japan
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan
  3. Kyushu University Program for Leading Graduate Schools: Global Strategy for Green Asia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In continuation of the present authors' studies on production of high strength coke from lignite by sequential binderless hot briquetting and carbonization, this study has been carried out aiming at proposing methods to produce high strength coke from non-/slightly caking coals of subbituminous to bituminous rank. This paper firstly demonstrates preparation of cokes with cold tensile strengths above 10 MPa from two single non-caking coals (particle size; < 106 mu m) by applying briquetting at temperature and mechanical pressure of over 200 degrees C and 100 MPa, respectively. Such strength of coke is obtained over a wide range of heating rate, 3-30 degrees C/min, during carbonization with final temperature of 1 000 degrees C. Then, a simple pretreatment, fine pulverization of coal to particle sizes smaller than 10 or 5 mu m, is examined. This pretreatment enables to prepare coke with tensile strength even over 25 MPa, by decreasing porosity of resulting coke and more extensively the size of macropores simultaneously. The coke strength changes with carbonization temperature having a particular feature; significant development of strength at 600-1 000 degrees C, i.e., after completion of tar evolution, in which macropores and non-porous (dense) part of coke shrink in volume, inducing bonding and coalescence of particles and thereby arising the strength.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据