Combustion characteristics of blended coals

W. Moro
*
, W. Rybak
Wrocaw University of Technology
Institute of Power Engineering and Fluid Mechanics
Abstract
The paper presents performances of coals and coal blends during grinding and single stage of combustion. The
objective of this work was to evaluate the dependencies between the properties (grinding performance, emission of
NO
x
, SO
2
and burnout) of coal blends and parent coals according to their mass contributions. Four bituminous coals,
three brown coals and anthracite were selected. The coals were mixed in various ratios to obtain 15 coal blends. The
behavior of coals and coal blends during grinding was assessed using Hardgrove and laboratory facility test. The
combustion studies were performed in the Entrained Flow Reactor (NO
x
, SO
2
emission, UBC). The reaction of coal
blends to combustion is different than the one demonstrated by individual components. Some parameters can be
derived from the information about the blends compositions, but most of them have to be obtained directly by
testing a specific blend.
Introduction
Utilization of coal blends is becoming increasingly
common in pulverized fuel (PF) and FBC power plants.
It would be reasonable to improve it by:
reducing fuel costs,
controlling emission limits,
flame instability possibly due to differences in
ignition characteristics of each coal,
enhancing fuel flexibility and extending the
range of acceptable coals,
providing a uniform product from coal of
varying quality,
solving existing problems such as poor carbon
burnout, agglomeration formation in FBC,
slagging and fouling and improving boiler
performance.
These reasons still make of coal blends combustion an
attractive topic of PF and FBC combustion concerned
within many recent studies.
Coal is a complex substance with divergent
properties with respect to rank, maceral composition
and associated impurities. Therefore, it is rather difficult
to formulate a perfect methodology to predict
combustion behaviors of coals and coal blends. Some of
the properties of a blend such as proximate and ultimate
analysis data, heating value, can be determined by the
weighed average of the properties of the individual
coals in the blend [1]. Similarly, some aspects of the
combustion behavior of blended coals in power stations
are known, and can be determined reasonably well from
knowledge of the properties of the component coals in
the blend and their respective mass fractions (i.e.
proximate and ultimate analysis, SO
2
emissions) [2].
However, the combustion characteristics of a coal blend
(i.e., ignition behavior, burnout slagging and fouling,
NO
x
emissions) cannot always be predicted as a linear
combination of the properties of each component.
The grindability of a coals and coal blend, as
measured by the Hardgrove Grindability Index (HGI),
is used as a predictive tool to determine the capacity of
industrial pulverizes in coal-fired power plant. There
have been some investigations on the HGIs of coal
blends specifically in relation to the additivity of the
HGI [1,3,4]. The other tool to present in this paper, in
order to predict grindibality of a coals and coal blend, is
a device test designed like a roller table mill (details
describe in [5,6]). The grinding behavior is
characterized by the following relations: compaction of
the particle bed and specific power draft vs. specific
grinding force, production of fine material (dust), circuit
factor, specific surface of the dust and specific work-
input of the grinding circuit vs. grinding energy.
The conclusion of introduction presents only some
basic parameters which can be determined from the
properties of the individual coals in the blend. The
Experience with blends combustion has shown, that
several of the relevant operational variables do not agree
with the expected behavior as determined from the pure
coals used in the blend and most of these parameters
have to be obtained directly by testing a specific blend.

Coal samples
Four bituminous coals, three brown coals and
anthracite were selected for the preparation of binary
blends with different ratios. These coals were selected
because of wide differences between their combustion
characteristics and the possibility of detecting any
possible synergistic effects in the performance of their
blends. In this context, synergistic effects are aspects of
combustion performance of the blend that cannot be
predicted from the performance and composition of the
reactivity of the blend is higher or lower than predicted
individual coals in the blend. Depending on whether the
performance of its individual components would be
higher or lower, a synergistic effect will be termed
positive or negative. Standard proximate analyses
(moisture, ash and volatile matter), ultimate analyses
and determination of calorific values of the coals are
shown in Table 1.
The individual coals were mixed after grinding to
generate fifteen binary blends containing 25, 50 and
75 wt.%, respectively. The A/B, C/D and E/F blends
were burned in Entrained Flow Reactor (single stage of
combustion) and the A/H and C/G blends were grinded

*
wojciech.moron@pwr.wroc.pl
Proceedings of the European Combustion Meeting 2007
THIRD EUROPEAN COMBUSTION MEETING ECM 2007
Back to Table of Contents
2
Table 1. Proximate and ultimate analyses of coals
Bituminous coals Brown coals Anthracite
Proximate analyses A B C D E F G H
Moisture, (wt%, a) 1,57 1,97 4,37 1,19 11,82 16,28 6,54 2,10
Ash, (wt%, a) 24,73 17,31 34,33 21,85 18,48 27,99 50,55 9,01
Volatile matter (wt%, a) 24,64 26,88 24,33 26,79 42,98 33,43 18,50 4,48
FR (wt%, a) 2,00 2,00 1,50 1,80 0,62 0,45 1,32 18,80

Ultimate analyses

Carbon (wt%, a) 61,23 65,43 45,00 64,94 48,50 38,00 13,53 82,40
Hydrogen (wt%, a) 3,94 3,70 3,12 4,28 4,36 3,85 095 2,83
Nitrogen (wt%, a) 1,27 1,29 0,74 1,25 0,60 0,45 0,81 0,90
Sulphur (wt%, a) 0,98 1,22 1,22 0,82 1,33 3,41 0,61 1,00
Oxide (wt%, a) 6,28 9,07 11,22 4,96 14,91 10,02 27,02 1,77

Calorific values (kJ/kg, a) 25830 27820 18030 28010 17210 13750 6370 30940

using Hardgrove and laboratory facility test. The coals
were blended using a roller mixer, spinning at constant
speed for 20min. Under these conditions, the flask
containing the coals rotated at approximately 120rpm.
A wide range of values is observed for properties
relevant to the combustion, i.e. ash content (9.01% for
coal H versus 50.55% in coal G) and calorific value
(6370 kJ/kg of coal G versus 30940 kJ/kg for H). In
spite of these differences, all selected coals (with the
exception of F and G) contain little sulphur and ash,
making these coals attractive for the operation in large
utilities.

Experimental
These presents paper presents an experimental
approach to study the effect of coal blending on:
NO
x
,SO
2
, burnout (UBC) using a vertical
Entrained Flow Reactor (EFR) shown in
Fig. 1,
grinding behavior using a Hardgrove and
laboratory facility test shown in Fig. 2.

Coal blends emission and UBC were conducted in an
electrically heated flow reactor (EFR) illustrated in
Fig. 1. Coal particles were introduced with the transport
air into the furnace using a fluidized feeder to avoid
particle size segregation at feed rates of 0,1-
0,15g coal/h. The temperature of the primary air is kept
constant at about 400C using air heaters. An air excess
ratio was in the range of 1,0-2,0 and the combustion
temperature was in the range 900-1200C.
Concentrations of these gas components inside the
furnace were measured at the exit of the furnace. Fly
ash was collected from the gas cooler in the bag filter.
The weight of fly ash collected from bag filter was
measured and the unburned carbon concentration in fly
ash was determined.
The HGI was measured in accordance with Polish
Norn standard procedure. The HGIs of the binary coal
blends were determined after



mixing 0.601.18 mm size fractions in the proportions
outlined above.

Extraction fan
Fuel weight
F
l
u
e

g
a
s

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
R
e
a
c
t
o
r

p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
Pneumatic
fuels feder
F
l
u
e

g
a
s

a
n
a
l
i
s
e
r

Fig. 1. Entrained flow reactor (EFR)

Dust
<180mm
Coal sample
<2mm
Add coal
Start
coal sample
Recirculation 3times,
coal >180mm
Roller table
mill
Grinding energy E, kWh/Mg
C
y
c
l
o
n
e
Electric
drive

Fig. 2. Lab scale roller table mill
THIRD EUROPEAN COMBUSTION MEETING ECM 2007
Back to Table of Contents
3
Second grindibality test was held in a roller table
mill in Fig. 2 with one the conical grinding roller fitted
in the trough. The roller and its bearings are mounted at
the lever system with the spring. Coal sample around
200 to 1000g of 0-2mm particle size were grinding in
six cycle and the material was rolled over three times
during one cycle until grinding parameters were not
stable. Grinding product is divided into two samples:
fine material (coal particle <180m) and coarse material
(coal particle >180m). Coal blends composition after
grinding have been measured by using TGA technique.

Results and discussion

Hardgrove Grindability Index
For the experimentation used fifth coals and six
coal blends. Fig. 3 shows variations in HGI values of
tested coals. Coal G showed the highest HGI (94)
whereas H is the lowest (HGI of 31) among the tested
samples. Coals A, B, C it was similar Polish bituminous
coals, and they were HGI in the range of 47-57.
94
57
50
47
31
0
20
40
60
80
100
H B C A G
H
G
I

Fig. 3. HGI of tested coals

The results of the HGI values of tested coal blends (A/H
and C/G) show Fig. 4. The results indicated a good
correlation between blend ratio and HGI values with
correlation coefficients of 0,98 to 0,99 depending on the
type of coal blend. The results showed strong trends
between mass participation coal in the blend and HGI.
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 25 50 75 100
%weight
H
G
I
A/H C/G

Fig. 4. HGI of tested coal blends

There was linear relationship between blends ratio and
HGI and HGI values can be determined from the
weighed average of the HGI of the individual coals in
the blend.
Overall, the experimental results suggest, that there
exist linear relationship between the coal blends ratio
and the HGI. The accuracy of the results HGI values of
coal blend depending on precisely prepared coal sample
and precision in making coal blends.

Lab scale roller table mill
In this case four different coals and six coal blends
were used. The raw material was air-dried several days
in the laboratory, then crushed and screened at 2mm.
Typical parameters denotes of an experiment was circuit
factor (circuit factor was define as the ratio of fine
material to sample mass) and grinding energy. Fig. 5
shows these parameters of tested coals and coal blends.
A/H
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
5,5
6,0
6,5
7,0
7,5
0 25 50 75 100
E

[
k
W
h
/
t
]
;

k

C/G
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
5,5
6,0
0 25 50 75 100
% weight
E

[
k
W
h
/
t
]
;

k
k - circuit factor E - grinding energy [kWh/t]

Fig. 5. Circuit factor and grinding energy of tested coal
blends

Fig. 5 demonstrates how the circuit factor and grinding
energy depends on the blends ratio. The results
indicated that exist a correlation between blends ratio
and grinding parameters. Correlation coefficients of this
parameters was in the range of 0,93-0,98. However,
maximum of these changes for measurement of coal
blends appeared for different blends ratio. For A/H coal
blend maximum synergistic effects were in the range of
50-75% and for C/G coal blend 25-50%. But also in this
case of grinding parameters can be determined from the
weighed average of the circuit factor/grinding energy of
the individual coals in the blend.
THIRD EUROPEAN COMBUSTION MEETING ECM 2007
Back to Table of Contents
4
The level of circuit factor and grinding energy
depend strongly on the individual coal hardness in the
coal blends. The circuit factor declines from 5,5 to 3,7
for the softest coal blend (C/G), from 4,8 to 6 for the
hardest coal blend (A/H), whereas grinding energy
declines from 5,1 to 3,1 for the softest coal blend (C/G),
from 4,1 to 6,7 for the hardest coal blend (A/H). It can
be observed that in order to reduce grinding energy the
hard coal should be blend with soft coal to generate coal
blend on combustion parameters of the hard one.
The experiment showed, that only basic grinding
parameters can be determined from the properties of the
individual coals in the blend. Fig. 6 shows mass
participation coals of C/G coal blend in grinding cycles
(fine material). The results showed that blends ratio was
not in accordance with primary blend ratio. For example
coal blend 25C/75G in first cycle blends ratio had
44C/56G and in sixth cycles 26C/74G. The experiments
with the other coal blends showed the same tendencies.
44%
35%
33%
30%
28%
26%
56%
65% 67%
70% 72%
74%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
32% 34%
39%
42%
48% 49%
68% 66%
61%
58%
52% 51%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
m
a
s
s

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
,

%
82%
79%
76% 76% 74%
72%
18%
21%
24% 24% 26%
28%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Gr inding cycle
C G

Fig. 6. Mass fraction of C/G coal blend in grinding
cycles

As expected, in first cycle grinding of coal blend
dominated softest coal (A). In the next cycles this ratio
decreased to primary blend ratio. It could be caused by
large particles of hardest coal interaction with particles
of softest coal while grinding them.
Fig. 7 shows fine material (dust) components for
A/H coal blend in fraction group.
65%
73%
83%
35%
27%
17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
<45m 45 - 90m >90m
size fraction
D
u
s
t

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
A
H

Fig. 7. Dust components of A/H coal blend in fraction
group (coal blend 25A/75H)

It can be observed that in particles fraction dominated
the softest coal (A). Together with increasing particles
fraction this ratio decreased and fluctuates around start
value. It can be dangerous, especially during start-up of
boiler (for example in coal blend dominated coal of bed
ignition which perhaps reduced flame stability).

NO
x
, SO
2
emission characteristics in blended
combustion
Four bituminous and two brown coals and they
blends was fired in EFR with an air excess ratio in the
range of 1,0-2,0. Fig. 7 shows the relationship between
NO
x
and SO
2
concentration at the exit of the furnace
and the air excess ratio. NO
x
concentration was different
depending on the air excess ratio. When the air excess
ration increased, the NO
x
concentration in blended
combustion increased, attained maximum value and
then decreased. Other blends showed similar behavior to
that presented in Fig. 7 (NO
x
emission), but differences
were attained with varying proportions of the
component coals. The results obtained from the
combustion tests in the EFR showed clear differences in
the combustibility characteristics of the blends.
For all tested coal blends, the SO
2
concentration
was independent of air excess ratio. The results (Fig. 7.)
indicated a good correlation between blend ratio and
SO
2
concentration and SO
2
emission of coal blends can
be predicted from the weighed average of the emission
of the individual coals in the blend.
Fig. 8 shows the relationship between unburned
carbon concentration in fly ash and the air excess ratio
for E/F coal blend. The unburned carbon concentration
in fly ash in blended combustion was higher than that in
non-blended combustion of each coal for E/F coal blend
and lower for A/B and C/D coal blends. However,
THIRD EUROPEAN COMBUSTION MEETING ECM 2007
Back to Table of Contents
5
unburned carbon concentration in fly ash is dependent
on ash content. Even if combustion efficiency is high,
unburned carbon concentration in fly ash is high in the
case of low ash content coal. Therefore, it is very
difficult to compare combustibility using unburned
carbon concentration in fly ash. Then, the unburned
fraction (CN
L
) defined in Eq. (1) is used for the
investigation of combustion characteristics:
,% 100
100

=
UBC
UBC A
CN
a
L

(1)

where CN
L
, % is the unburned fraction, UBC, % is the
unburned carbon concentration in fly ash and A
a
, % is
the ash content in coal.

100
400
700
1000
1300
1600
1900
1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8
Air excess ratio
N
O
x
,

m
g
N
O
2
/
m
3

6
%
O
2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8
Air excess ratio
S
O
2
,

m
g
/
m
3

6
%
O
2
E 75E/25F 50E/50F 25E/75F F

Fig. 7. NO
x
, SO
2
emission versus air excess ratio of E/F
coal blend
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8
Air excess ratio
U
B
C
,

%
E
75E/25F
50E/50F
25E/75F
F

Fig. 8. Carbon in ash (UBC) versus air excess ratio of
E/F coal blend
Fig. 9 shows the relationship between the NO
x
emission
and the blend ratio of tested coal blends. The results
indicated a poor correlation between the blend ratio and
the NO
x
emission especial for C/D coal blend. The NO
x
emission had a maximum value when the blend ratio
was about 25% (maximum synergistic effects). The
results proved, that the NO
x
emission cannot be
determined from the properties of the individual coals in
the blend.

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 25 50 75 100
%, weight
N
O
x
,

m
g
N
O
2
/
m
3

6
%
O
2
A/B
C/D
E/F

Fig. 9. NO
x
emission and blend ratio of tested coal
blends (air excess ratio 1,2)

Fig 10 shows the relationship between the unburned
fraction and the blend ratio of tested coal blends. The
unburned fraction had a maximum value while the blend
ratio of E/F coal blend was about 25% (maximum
synergistic effects) and a minimum value when the
blend ratio of A/B coal blend was about 25 and 75%
(minimum synergistic effects) [7].

0
2
4
6
8
10
0 25 50 75 100
%, weight
C
N
L
,

%
A/B C/D E/F

Fig. 10. Unburned fraction (CN
L
) and blend ratio of
tested coal blends (air excess ratio 1,2)

As E/F coal blend coal was added to the blend, some
form of interaction occurred resulting in the carbon-in-
ash being much higher than predicted.

THIRD EUROPEAN COMBUSTION MEETING ECM 2007
Back to Table of Contents
6
Conclusion
In this research the investigations were conducted
on the combustion characteristics of eight coals and
fifteen binary coal blends having different combustion
properties. The main results are as follows:
The HGI of binary coal blends could be predicted
from the weighted average of the HGI of the
individual coals in the blend. Good linear
correlation with blends ratio was found for all the
samples tested.
Lab scale roller table mill showed that only basic
grinding parameters (i.e. circuit factor, grinding
energy) can be determined from the properties of
the individual coals in the blend.
The results (lab scale roller table mill) showed that
blends ratio was not in accordance with primary
blend ratio in grinding cycle. Blends ratio in initial
cycles was different and as the cycle increased,
blends ratio for fine material fluctuates around
basic value. It can be caused to large particles of
hardest coal interact with particles of softest coal
and grinding them.
The same results were observed in fraction group.
For all tested coal blends SO
2
concentration was
independent of air excess ratio. The SO
2
emission
of binary coal blends could be predicted from the
weighted average of the SO
2
emission of the
individual coals in the blend.
The results indicated a poor correlation between
blend ratio and NO
x
emission. NO
x
emission cannot
be determined from the properties of the individual
coals in the binary blend
The unburned carbon concentration in fly ash in
blended combustion was higher than the one in
non-blended combustion for E/F coal blend and
lower for A/B and C/D coal blends. The unburned
fraction cannot be predicted from the properties
average weighed of the individual coals in the
blend.

References
1. W. Moro, Combustion characteristics of
blended coals, Wroclaw University of
Technology 2005.
2. J.P. Smart, T. Nakamura, J. Inst. Energy 66
(1993) 99.
3. H.B. Vuthaluru, R.J. Brooke, D.K. Zhang,
H.M. Yan, Fuel Processing Technology 81
(2003) 67-76.
4. J.C. Hower, J. Coal Qual. 7 (1988) 68.
5. V. Werner, J. elkowski, K. Schnert, Powder
Technology 105 (1999) 30-38.
6. W. Moro, Z. Bbenek, J. elkowski,
Energetyka 10 (2004) 613-617.
7. M. Ikeda, H. Makino, H. Morinaga, K.
Higashiyama, Y. Kozai, Fuel 82 (2003) 1851-
1857.
THIRD EUROPEAN COMBUSTION MEETING ECM 2007
Back to Table of Contents