Creat membership Creat membership
Sign in

Forgot password?

Confirm
  • Forgot password?
    Sign Up
  • Confirm
    Sign In
Creat membership Creat membership
Sign in

Forgot password?

Confirm
  • Forgot password?
    Sign Up
  • Confirm
    Sign In
Collection
For ¥0.57 per day, unlimited downloads CREATE MEMBERSHIP Download

toTop

If you have any feedback, Please follow the official account to submit feedback.

Turn on your phone and scan

home > search >

The prediction of the Gieseler characteristics of coal blends

Author:
Nicolas Guelton  


Journal:
Fuel


Issue Date:
2017


Abstract(summary):

Highlights • Easy and reliable prediction of Gieseler characteristics of a coal blend. • Good prediction performance regardless the number of component coals. • Identification of two main schemes of interaction between component coals. Abstract Prediction of plastic properties of blends is a prerequisite for optimal blend design since coke quality indices depend on them. 108 blends and their 121 components coals were characterized by Gieseler plastometry and used to test different models of prediction of the logarithm of maximum fluidity (LMF) of blends. Best results are obtained by the method of reconstruction of blend plastograms consisting in weight averaging the logarithm of fluidity of the component coals whose plastometric curves are approximated by two half-parabolas. Its performances improve with increasing number of components coals, probably due to the decrease in the resultant of all the possible interactions between coals. The softening and resolidification temperatures of blends can be expressed as a function of an “interaction parameter” which quantifies the fusion/solidification-retardant/accelerant effect induced by interactions between blend components. Because this interaction parameter does not change too much between softening and resolidification, plastic range (PR) is less sensitive to interactions than LMF and can be satisfactorily modelled by additivity but, from the only point of view of performance, LMF prediction is better than the PR one.


Page:
661-661


VIEW PDF

The preview is over

If you wish to continue, please create your membership or download this.

Create Membership

Similar Literature

Submit Feedback

This function is a member function, members do not limit the number of downloads