Briquetting of Coal Fines and Sawdust:

Part 2. Compaction and Combustion studies.

D. Taulbee, D.P. Patil, B.K. Parekh and R. Honaker
University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research
Lexington, KY 40514


ABSTRACT

The coal industry usually discards fine-size (-150 microns) coal because of its high moisture content and
handling problems. One avenue is to either pelletize or briquette this material. However, industry has
not adopted this route due in part to a significant binder cost that would be involved. In an effort to
reduce costs, a study was conducted on combining a coarse, 16 x 100-mesh spiral product, with a fine-
coal flotation product, both with and without added saw dust. Maximizing packing-density of the coal
and wood waste mixture provides a potential for reducing the binder requirements due to a minimization
of the void space. Tests were conducted to evaluate the impact of particle-size distributions for different
blends of fine and coarse coal, with and without saw dust and a binder. Modified Proctor densities,
porosity, and green, one-day, and seven-day compressive strengths were determined for each of these
blends

For the coal-only blends, packing density maximized at a relatively high (70 to 80%) coarse-coal
content. However, for these blends, packing densities did not correlate with compressive strengths but
instead maximized at 100% fine coal and continuously decreased as higher proportions of coarse coal
were added. Similar compaction and compressive-strength results were obtained for briquettes prepared
with sawdust and varying proportions of coarse and fine coal. With the addition of a binder, the highest
strengths were no longer obtained with 100% fine coal but instead maximized between 20%-50% coarse
coal addition for one day and became more defined at a 50% coarse product for seven-day strengths.

In a second set of evaluations, a limited number of combustion tests, simulating a traveling grate, were
conducted. Three samples of coal/sawdust briquettes were combusted during these tests, one prepared
without a binder and two prepared with different binder formulations. The two briquetted samples
prepared with a binder exhibited good integrity and burn-out characteristics with one of the binder
formulations showing a significant reduction (~32%) in NO
x
emissions.


1. INTRODUCTION

Kentucky ranks third in coal production with about 150 million tons annually while also producing the
largest amount of timber products east of the Mississippi River. A majority of the timber production
occurred within or near the coalfields within Kentucky.

Vast quantities of fine, high quality carbon material currently exist in slurry impoundments in Kentucky
due to the lack of effective recovery technologies. The fine coal in the waste represents not only a loss
of valuable energy resources but also an environmental hazard. Estimates indicate that over 500 million
tons of fine coal refuse are currently stored in refuse ponds in the state of Kentucky. Currently,
approximately 3 million tons annually of fine clean coal is being lost to the reject stream.

In 1997, the amount of sawdust generated was 35 million cubic feet or about 12% of the total
production. Nearly 47% of the sawdust was used as an industrial fuel while the remaining was disposed
in landfills. It is a goal of the Industry to utilize 100% of the sawdust for autonomous energy
production. The approach described in this proposal will significantly enhance the possibility of
reaching this goal.

The goal of the project was to develop a premium fuel from the waste materials created from the
production of coal and lumber. A specific objective is to achieve a fuel having an energy value around
9,000 to 10,000 btu/lb from the processed waste material. The fine coal obtained from the fine coal
refuse slurry being discarded using advanced separation technologies and then dewatered to lower
moisture levels . The coarser size clean coal was collected from the coal preparation plants spiral
circuit. The present study was conducted to evaluate the impact of particle-size distributions for blends
of 1) fine and coarse coal, 2) fine and coarse coal with saw dust, and 3) fine and coarse coal with saw
dust and binder on briquettes quality. The purpose behind the study was to reduce binder costs by
maximizing packing density through blending a portion of the spiral product with the ultrafine clean
coal. Preliminary combustion testing was conducted of the briquettes using a simulated traveling grate
boiler.

2. EXPERIMENTAL

The fine refuse slurry was processed using the Jamison flotation cell which provided a very low ash ( ~
6%) clean coal at more than 90% recovery. The median particle size (D
50
) of the product was 35
microns. From the same preparation plant a 55-gallon drum of clean coal from the Spiral circuit was
collected. The size distribution showed that 90% of the particles are coarser than 297 microns (50
mesh). The sample of the spiral concentrate was first mildly dried in room air to facilitate
screening/sampling, and then screened to -8 mesh. Blends of the fine and coarser coal fractions were
then prepared in a laboratory blender by varying the proportion of spiral concentrate from 0 to 100% in
10% increments. The initial, wet blends, were subjected to modified Proctor-(packing) density tests and
briquetting studies. Each of the blends was then moisture-equilibrated (dry blends) in an environmental
chamber for seven days at 80% relative humidity and 22
o
C and again subjected to a modified Proctor
densities and briquetted. Finally, the same blends were used to study the effects of moisture content, as
well as the addition of saw dust and binder on packing density and compressive strength. During these
tests, the weight of material that was loaded to the pellet dye was adjusted to compensate for the
differences in moisture content between the various blends in an effort to maintain a constant weight of
dry material in each briquette.

Modified Proctor densities were obtained by compacting each blend into an approximate one-liter
volume with an impact hammer and then recording the weight of material compacted into that fixed
volume. These modified Proctor densities will be referred to as packing densities in the following
sections. For briquette formation the standard conditions of 4,000 lbs briquetting force, 3-s dwell time,
and 22.2
o
C cure temperature was utilized. The porosity of the briquettes was determined by measuring
the briquette height since the sample weight and briquette diameter were fixed. The compressive
strength were measured with the


3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Figure 1 shows the packing densities of the coal-only blends (no sawdust or binder) as a function of
spiral-product content. The packing density was found to maximize at a relatively high 70-80% spiral-
product content which is explained to some extent by the high-density, mineral matter content (20%) of
the spiral product that was used in this study.

Packi ng wei ght as a functi on of product stream
(coal onl y bl ends)
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% Spi ral product
W
e
i
g
h
t
/
L
i
t
e
r
wet blends dry blends

Figure 1. Packing densities for blends of spiral and flotation product.


Figure 2 shows the compressive strength and porosity of briquettes formed from the wet, coal-only
blends (no binder). The green-briquette strengths (day 0) were highest for those briquettes prepared
with 100% fine coal (~90 lb
f
). Green strengths generally declined with increasing spiral content but did
exhibit an inflection or increase at ~50% spiral-product, beyond which compressive strengths declined
sharply. In contrast, the compressive strength maximized in the 50:50 blend for the cured briquettes
(day 7). Interestingly, cured-briquette compressive strengths were generally declined from day 0 to day
7 for the blends containing higher proportions of fine flotation coal but increased over the same period
for those blends containing more of the larger particle size spiral product. As there is a significant
amount of water loss over this period, these data suggest a more beneficial role for moisture in the initial
binding of the smaller particles but a detrimental role for larger ones. This advantage disappeared as the
moisture evaporated.

The height of the fixed diameter briquettes coupled with the skeletal densities of the coal fines were
used to calculate porosity values for the briquettes that were formed from the spiral-flotation blends.
Porosity minimized at approximately 90% spiral product, much higher than the spiral concentrations in
which the maximum 7-day compressive strengths (50% spiral blends) were observed. A somewhat
puzzling result of this study is the lack of a clear (inverse) correlation between porosity and briquette
strength which had been anticipated when the study was initiated. The reason for this low correlation is
not clear but may again be related to the high mineral-matter content of the spiral product as well as the
nature of the spiral particles which have a lower surface area to weight than do the smaller flotation
particles. Both of these factors would be expected to impact porosity and the strength of the inter-
particle attractions in the manner observed.

0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Percent Spiral Product in Briquette
S
h
a
t
t
e
r


(
l
b
)
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
Shatter Day 0
Shatter Day 7
Porosity Day 7

Figure 2. Compressive strengths and porosities of the coal-only briquettes
formed with the wet spiral-flotation blends.

Figure 3 shows the compressive strength and porosity of briquettes formed from the dry, coal-only
blends following 5% water addition (note, water had to be added in order to form briquettes that would
hold together, i.e., >5 lb
f
strength). As before, porosity minimized in the 70-90% spiral-product range
while green strengths were highest in the 100% flotation product and the maximum 7-day cured-
briquette strengths were obtained with the 50:50 blend. However, unlike observed with the wet coal
sample, the slope of the strength versus per cent spiral curve was both flatter and generally of a lower
magnitude than was observed for the wet blends, particularly at the higher flotation-product
concentrations.

0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Percent Spiral Product in Briquette
S
h
a
t
t
e
r


(
l
b
)
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
Shatter Day 0
Shatter Day 7
Porosity

Figure 3. Compressive strengths and porosities of the coal-only briquettes
formed with the spiral-flotation blends (dry blends with 5% added water).

The compressive strengths of briquettes formed from the coal/sawdust blends following addition of
either 5% or 20% water are shown in Figure 4. For all blends, the addition of 10% saw dust resulted in
substantial reduction in both green- and cured-briquette strength relative to the corresponding briquettes
prepared without sawdust (Figure 3). For the 5% added-water blends, both green and cured strength
were highest in the 100% fine coal/sawdust blends. It is notable that briquettes prepared with 20% added
water were stronger that their counterparts that contained 5% added water. This suggests that the
additional water may serve as a lubricant which aids particle rearrangement, thereby improving
packing efficiency. In addition, for the 20% added water blends, both green and cured strengths
maximized in the 20% spiral blends range instead of being highest in the 100% flotation blend as
observed with 5% water addition. In all cases, briquette strengths generally exhibited a strong inverse
relation with spiral content. The compressive-strength values tended to converge in the higher spiral-
content blends regardless of the cure time or the level of water addition.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 50 100 150
Percent Spi ral Product
S
h
a
t
t
e
r

(
l
b
f
)
5% water( day 0)
20% wate (day 0)
5% water (day 7)
20% water (day 7)

Figure 4. The impact of spiral content and water addition on compressive
strengths for coal + saw dust (10%) blends.


Finally, the bulk densities for cured briquettes that were prepared from either coal-only or coal/saw dust
feeds are shown in Figure 5. There are two interesting features in Figure 5. First, the density of the
briquettes formed from blends containing sawdust exhibited a maximum density near 60-70% spiral
content, significantly lower than that of the coal-only blends which maximized at approximately 80%
spiral product. Also note that the densities of the briquettes formed with 20% added water were higher
than the corresponding briquettes formed with 5% added water. This is despite the fact that these
briquettes were allowed to equilibrate under identical conditions for seven days. These observations are
favorable from a commercial stance as they suggest that it may not be necessary to radically reduce the
moisture content prior to briquetting as the presence of excess water appears to improve packing
efficiency, thereby potentially lowering shipping cost since a given weight of product may be contained
in a lesser volume.
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
0 50 100 150
Percent Spi ral Product i n Bri quette
P
a
c
k
i
n
g

D
e
n
s
i
t
y

(
g
m
/
c
m
3
)Dried +5% Water
Dried +10% SD +5%
Water
Dried +10% SD +20%
Water


Figure 5. Density of briquettes prepared from coal and from coal
plus saw dust (10%) following a 7-day cure at room temperature

Repeat compaction experiments: The results of the blending of spiral and flotation products indicated
that in fact, higher density briquettes (more efficient packing) could be obtained via blending of the
spiral and flotation products. However, the higher packing efficiencies did not equate to a higher -
briquette strength, at least not in the absence of a binder. It was speculated that a possible reason for the
lack of improvement in strength was a result of the high ash content (~20 weight %) of the spiral
product used in the initial blending study and an unusually high proportion of coarse particles in this
particular spiral sample. To explore this line of reasoning, the blending/compaction experiments were
repeated, only this time using a spiral product that contained less ash as well as fewer coarse particles.
The ash content of the spiral product was reduced via gravity separation (lithium metatungstate) at a
density of 1.50 g/cm
3
. The unusually high coarse particle content was reduced by splitting the spiral
product into +16 and -16 mesh fractions and then recombining at a ratio of 1 part of the +16 mesh
fraction and 9 parts of the -16 mesh fraction to simulate a more typical spiral material. These sample
preparation steps resulted in a reduction in the ash content from ~20 wt% in the unmodified- to ~9.5% in
the modified-spiral sample. In the repeat tests, only the wet flotation/spiral blends were tested and these
were tested with and without added sawdust and with and without added binder (GG).

For the coal-only blends, packing density maximized at about 60% spiral product (Figure 6) compared
to a maximum density at ~70-80% spiral product observed earlier with the higher ash-content spiral
product. The packing density for this blend was approximately 15% greater than was achieved with the
100% flotation product. Similarly, the packing density of the coal/sawdust blends maximized around
55% float and 45% spiral product. The inclusion of the spiral product in this mix increased packing
density by 7% relative to the equivalent 100% flotation/sawdust blend. The addition of sawdust resulted
in a shift in the maximum packing-density to a higher proportion of float product relative to the coal-
only blends, indicating that the smaller flotation particles appear to pack more efficiently in the presence
of the larger sawdust particles.

0.75
0.79
0.83
0.87
0.91
0.95
0 20 40 60 80 100
% spi ral product
d
e
n
s
i
t
y


Figure 6 a. Packing densities for spiral/flotation blends using a reduced
ash content spiral product (coal-only blends).


0.76
0.8
0.84
0.88
0.92
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% Spi ral product
d
e
n
s
i
t
y


Figure 6 b. Packing densities for spiral/flotation blends using a reduced
ash content spiral product (coal/sawdust blends).


Briquette Strength: Next, briquettes were formed from the coal-only blends for compressive-strengths
determinations. In the initial tests, compressive strengths were measured for the coal-only blends
without an added binder. As before, the highest compressive strengths were recorded for the briquettes
containing 100% flotation product. However, the decline in strength was relatively minor up to the
addition of approximately 50% spiral product.

Next, compressive strength measurements were made for coal/sawdust blends that were briquetted both
with and without binder (1% GG). Again, when no binder was used, the higher strengths were obtained
in the 100% flotation blend with a steady decline in both the initial and 7-day strength observed as a
function of spiral content. However, with the addition of a binder, the highest green strengths were no
longer clearly obtained with 100% flotation product but were essentially the same for blends containing
between 0 and 50% spiral product (Figure 7). A shift in the maximum-strength to higher proportions of
spiral became even more pronounced as the briquettes cured. Compressive strengths appeared to
maximize at a mix between 20%-50% spiral product on day 1 and became more defined at a 50% spiral
product content on day 7. Briquettes formed from blends of flotation and spiral product were also more
durable in terms of shatter resistance (drop tests) in which the most durable briquettes were obtained for
mixes containing nearly 60% spiral product (Figure 8). Thus, it would appear that when a binder is
employed, it may be possible to make stronger briquettes for a given binder addition when the coal fines
are blended with a larger particle size spiral products.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% Spiral Product
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
Green Strength
1-Day Strength
7-Day Strength


Figure 7. Briquette strengths for coal/sawdust blends as a function of spiral product content when using
a binder.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% Spiral Product
A
v
e
.

#

o
f

D
r
o
p
s

Figure 8. Shatter resistance for briquettes formed from coal/sawdust/binder blends
3.1 COMBUSTION TESTING OF BRIQUETTES:

A series of combustions tests firing of three different briquettes in a stoker simulator were
conducted at the Pennsylvania State Universitys Energy Institute The objectives of the tests were to
note combustion stability and emissions when firing the briquettes, which were produced from the feed
coal without any binder and two produced by adding additives (labeled LMR and GG). The flue gas
from the stoker simulator was sampled and analyzed, per EPA test protocol, for CO
2
, CO, SO
2
, and
NO
x
, emissions.
A schematic diagram of the stoker combustor apparatus is shown in Figure 2.
Combustion air to the stoker simulator was supplied from the bottom of the chamber through a
distributor plate. The air flow rate was varied during a test to simulate the variable air flow rate in an
operating stoker boiler. During the 45-minute test, the air flow rate for the first 10 minutes was set at 3.5
standard cubic feet per minute (scfm), then changed to 5 scfm for the next 20 minutes and then lowered
to 4 scfm for the last 15 minutes. The bed was purged with nitrogen after the 45-minute test period to
ensure that further combustion of the bed does not occur after the test was completed; assist in cooling
the bed quickly in order for it to be removed; and mimic the bed dropping into an ash pit where,
theoretically, no further combustion occurrs. The variation of air with time is shown in Figure 1. During
the peak combustion period at an air flow rate of 5 scfm, the cold air velocity through the grate is
approximately 1 ft/s. Although this velocity is lower than the conventional velocity of 1.2 to 1.5 ft/s, it is
consistent with the trend of reducing the combustion air flow rate through the grate and increasing the
over fire air flow rate to minimize pollutant emissions.


35.25
T
T
T
T
T
P
3.27"
3.49"
3.19"
4.36"
20 Gage s.s.
Grating with
1/16" Holes
1.75"
2.62"
3.49"
7.86"
10.91"
2"
3 Kw Heating Cone
Ignition Elements
Coal Charge
3.93"


Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the modified stoker simulator.

The fuel analyses are listed in Table 1. The briquettes made with the LMR additive contained a larger
concentration of inorganic constituents (i.e., it contained 30% more ash) and also had a very high
calorific value. A summary of the combustion tests is provided in Table 2, which contains the average
level of O
2
in flue gas during the 20 minute period of maximum air flow, and average emissions
normalized to 3% O
2
.

Feed Briquettes

Two tests were performed using the Feed briquettes and are labeled A and B in Table 2. The results
from the tests are similar in that the bed burnout was approximately 87% for both tests, although the
average level of O
2
in the flue gas was higher for Test B than Test A, i.e., 6.9 as compared to 4.0%,
respectively. The CO and CO
2
emissions, normalized to 3% O
2
, were identical for the tests with SO
2
and
NO
x
slightly lower in Test A than Test B. This type of variability is common for batch testing in the
stoker simulator. The higher NO
x
emissions in Test B may be the result of the higher overall O
2

concentration during the test as NO
x
formation is a function of both O
2
concentration and temperature.
The sulfur content in the ash was measured to determine if sulfur capture by the bed could be related to
SO
2
emissions. No apparent trend was evident as the sulfur content in the bed ash from Test A was
0.64% while the sulfur content in the bed ash from Test B was 0.75%.

Table 1. Fuel Analyses
Fuel Type
Feed GG LMR
Moisture (%, as received) 1.4 0.7 0.9

Proximate Analysis (%, dry basis)
Volatile Matter 27.2 29.3 31.4
Ash 10.8 11.0 14.3
Fixed Carbon 62.0 59.7 54.3

Ultimate Analysis (%, dry basis)
Carbon 76.1 72.7 71.6
Hydrogen 4.5 4.4 4.5
Nitrogen 1.4 1.3 1.3
Sulfur 1.0 0.9 1.0
Oxygen 6.2 9.7 7.3
Ash 10.8 11.0 14.3

Heating Value
As-fired 13,468 12,647 12,737
Dry 13,655 13,165 13,289






Table 2. Summary of the Stoker Combustion Tests
Average Emissions @ 3% O
2
Test
Code
Coal
Type
Bed
Burnout
(%)
Test O
2

Level
(%)
CO
(ppm)
CO
2

(%)
SO
2

(ppm)
NO
x

(ppm)
A Feed 87.3 4.0 242 15.5 671 168
B Feed 87.3 6.9 241 15.4 739 203

C GG 85.5 4.7 261 16.1 444 145
D GG 83.4 4.6 294 15.8 685 141
E GG 86.5 4.9 254 15.5 632 201

F LMR 98.3 1.2 >6,000
a
15.5 671 168
G LMR 97.6 1.0 N.R.
b
15.4 885 75
H LMR 96.0
c
5.4 233 15.6 682 126

a
CO emissions were off-scale, which is greater than 6,000 ppm.
b
Not reported. As can be observed from Figure 10, CO emissions were off-scale (i.e., >6,000 ppm) for a
portion of the test period.


GG Briquettes

Three tests were performed using the GG briquettes and are labeled C, D and E in Table 2. The third test
(Test E) was performed because of the large discrepancy in SO
2
emissions between Tests C and D,
which averaged 444 and 685 ppm (@ 3% O
2
), respectively.

In Tests C and D, the bed burnouts were similar (86 and 84%, respectively) as were the gaseous
emissions other than SO
2
. The sulfur in the bed ash was higher in Test C (0.70%) than in Test D
(0.59%), which would indicate increased sulfur capture in the bed and less sulfur in the flue gas.

In Test E, the average SO
2
emissions were 632 ppm (corrected to 3% O
2
), which are slightly less than
the emissions observed in Test D. The sulfur content in the bed ash for Test E was 0.64%. A trend of
decreasing SO
2
emissions with increased sulfur retained in the bed ash was observed with this fuel
series.
The NO
x
emissions in Test E were slightly higher than those observed in Tests C/D, i.e., 201 ppm as
compared to 145/141 ppm, respectively.

LMR Briquettes

The LMR briquettes burned with such intensity that the system was starved of oxygen and CO emissions
were excessive. Burnout ranged from 96 to 98% (see Table 2). Increasing air flow was helpful for the
first twenty minutes, however, it became too excessive and the bed of coal/ash was blown off of the
grate. As a final test, Test H, the coal charge was reduced from 800 g (1.76 lb or a firing density of 26.7
lb/ft
2
) to 600 g (1.32 lb or a firing density of 20.0 lb/ft
2
) while maintaining the same air flow/time
periods. This test was successfully performed and the emissions results are summarized in Table 2 with
the emissions profile shown in Figure 7.

Sulfur contents in the bed ash were also analyzed. They were 0.35, 0.34, and 0.33%, respectively, for
Tests F, G, and H,


4. CONCLUSIONS

Blending of spiral and flotation products provided higher density (more efficient packing),
however, it did not provided higher briquette strength, at least not in the absence of a binder.
Packing densities reached maximum at ~70% spiral product ; with a low ash spiral product the
maximum density reached at 60%, this was 15% higher than that achieved with 100% flotation
product
Packing density of coal/sawdust maximized at about 55% flotation and 45% spiral product.
It is possible to make stronger briquettes for a given binder addition when coal fines are blended
with larger size spiral product.
Highest compressive strength obtained with 100% flotation product, the decline in strength was
relatively minor up to addition of approx. 50% spiral product.
Briquetts formed from blends of flotation and spiral products (60%) were more durable in terms
of shatter resistance (drop tests)
For the briquettes made with the feed material the bed burnout was about 87.3%. CO and CO2
emissions were 240 ppm and 15.5%, respectively. Average SO2 and NOx were 705 ppm and
186 ppm, respectively
For the GG briquettes the bed burn out was about 85%; the CO and SO2 emissions were 257
ppm and 658 ppm, respectively. The NOx emission averaged 185 ppm. There was no reduction
observed in SO2 and NOx emissions.
The LMR briquettes burned with high intensity and starved the system of oxygen resulting in
high CO emission. The bed burnout was about 97%. There was no significant reduction in CO
or SO2 emissions, however, the NOx emission was reduced by about 32%.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

Financial assistance for the project provided by the U.S.Department of Energy through the Kentucky
Division of Energy under the State Industries of the Future program. Assistance provided by Dr. V.
Oszever and S. Li is acknowledged. Industrial partners were James River Coal, Cook & Sons Coal
Company, Pine Mountain Lumber, H & S Lumber, Kentucky Timber Association and Global Energy.