Low Rank Coals

Indonesian Coals, Australian Coals
and the Significance of Coal Rank
Section Contents
Coal Rank
Comparison of Indonesian and Australian Coal
Rank
Typical Properties of Indonesian Coals
compared with Australian
Utilisation Performance of Indonesian and
Australian coals in power plant
Overview of Upgrading and Blending of
Indonesian Coals
MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 1

Indonesian Coals, Australian Coals & the Importance of Coal Rank
Indonesian Coals, Australian Coals and

the Significance of Coal Rank
COAL RANK
The Path from Plant Matter to Anthracite
As long ago as 600 million years, lush growing plants deposited thick layers of dead material
in shallow swamps. The initial transformation was due to biochemical decomposition to form
peat bogs.
Due to local movements of the earth’s crust the peat bogs sank, increasing the depth of water
over the deposit and allowing mineral sedimentation to cover the layer, which became the
beginning of a coal seam. These processes of plant deposition, further sinking and covering
with sediment may be repeated several times, forming a multi-seam coal deposit.
Continuing movements of the earth’s crust with deposition of mineral matter caused the new
coal seams to sink to depths of several kilometres, where elevated temperatures and pressures
progressively changed the chemical and physical properties of the coal. High temperatures
from volcanic activity sometimes played a part also.
The most pronounced change was an increase in the carbon content and this process is known
as coalification. Due to coalification the coal progresses from peat, to lignite, to coal, and
finally to anthracite.
The coalification path may be followed relatively quickly or slowly depending on the severity
of the conditions to which the coal is exposed. The path is not identical for all coals, as there
may be differences in:
• The raw materials, that is types of plant matter – species, foliage, branches, spores,
algae,
• The chemical environment for the initial plant decomposition – availability of oxygen,
• The temperature and pressure history.

Though the paths differ, coal geologists like to define the progress a coal has made on its
journey from peat to anthracite. This leads to definitions of coal rank. Coal rank is the term
used to describe the extent of the coalification process, going from low rank to high rank.
Any discussion of coal formation should recognise that dirt was also deposited in the swamps
simultaneously with the plant matter, so that all coals contain intimately mixed mineral matter
in varying amounts.
Many utilisation properties of coal tend to change with coal rank, making it a useful concept.
However, it must be reiterated that different coals of the same rank may differ markedly in the
chemical composition and heterogeneity of the organic matter, as well as of the mineral
matter.
Definition of Coal Rank
The simplest definitions of coal rank are based on a single coal quality parameter that changes
progressively during coalification. There are two main examples:
Carbon Content: It is necessary to exclude the mineral matter in coal so as to characterise the
organic component, consequently organic carbon content on a dry mineral matter free basis is
the most relevant. This differs slightly from the organic carbon on a dry ash free basis, but
the latter is more easily measured and is therefore often used. Carbon (daf) varies from
approximately 65% for lignite to 95% for anthracite.
Reflectance of Vitrinite: The metallurgical coal trade makes extensive use of the Reflectance
of the Vitrinite maceral. Reflectance of vitrinite generally increases as coalification
proceeds1, typical values being 0.3% for lignite, against 3% for anthracite.
Descriptive ranking makes use of traditional terms used for coal types. The ASTM Ranking
System2 is defined in Table 1 and classifies coals according to their Volatile Matter content
1
Coal is composed of microscopically identifiable components termed the maceral groups
vitrinite, inertinite and liptinite. The relative proportions of these in a coal relate principally
to the types of plant matter that were present and the biochemical conditions that applied
during the initial transformations, and not so much to the degree of coalification. Both the
reflectance and the carbon content differ significantly between the maceral groups within a
single sample, therefore the measurement of a property (such as reflectance) of a single
maceral group gives technically a more precise measure of the degree of coalification than
does a value averaged over the three maceral groups.
2
ASTM D388-95 (1997), Coal by Rank

and/or Calorific Value. The system is widely used but the definitions depend on unusual
bases: dry mineral matter free (dmmf) basis requires either a measurement or estimate of the
mineral matter content of a coal, while moist mineral matter free (mmmf) basis requires a
measurement or estimate of the Equilibrium Moisture content.
Table 1: The ASTM Ranking of Coals
Volatile Matter Calorific Value

(% dmmf*) (kcal/kg mmmf#)
Class Group
Greater Equal or Equal or
Less than
than less than greater than
Meta- anthracite - 2 - -
Anthracite Anthracite 2 8 - -
Semi- anthracite 8 14 - -
Low volatile 14 22 - -
Medium volatile 22 31 - -
Bituminous High volatile A 31 - 7778 -
High volatile B - - 7222 7778
High volatile C - - 6389 7222
Sub-bituminous A - - 5833 6389
Sub-
Sub-bituminous B - - 5278 5833
bituminous
Sub-bituminous C - - 4611 5278
Lignite A - - 3500 4611
Lignite
Lignite B - - - 3500
* Dry mineral matter free basis
# Moist mineral matter free basis. This refers to the moisture content determined by the
ASTM Moisture Holding Capacity Test

Ranking of Indonesian and Australian Thermal

Coals
Figure 1 ranks a selection of Indonesian and Australian thermal coals (generally export coals)
according to the ASTM ranking and also according to the Carbon Content (% daf).
Generally the Indonesian coals are of lower rank than Australian, with very little overlap.
Most Indonesian coals are either Sub-bituminous (A, B or C) or High Volatile Bituminous (B
or C). In contrast the majority of Australian coals are High Volatile Bituminous A with lesser
numbers at higher and lower ranks than this.
Regarding Carbon content (daf), the Indonesian coals range from about 72 to 82%, whereas
the Australian coals range from about 78 to 89%.
100 16
Carbon (% daf)
Carbon (% daf)
90 14
80 12
ASTM Rank
70 10 Bit
LV
MV Bit
60 8 Bit A
HV
HV Bit B
50 6 Bit C
HV
Sub-bit A
40 4
Sub-bit B
ASTM Rank Sub-bit C
30 2
Lignite A
Lignite B
20 0
1Arutmin
5 9 13KPC
17 21 25 Other
29 33Indonesian
37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 Australian
69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97
Figure 1: Ranks of Arutmin, KPC, other Indonesian and Australian Coals

Chemical & Physical Properties Related to Coal

Rank
Apart from carbon content, many coal properties follow trends with rank. Figures 2 to 16
show variations in Moisture content, Volatile Matter, Ash content, Calorific Value, Hydrogen,
Nitrogen, Sulphur, HGI, Ash Composition and Ash Fusion Temperature with rank for
Indonesian coals (with Arutmin and KPC coals identified) and Australian coals3. Notable
observations include:
Moisture (Figures 2 and 3): There is a sharp increase in Moisture (arb4 or adb5) as the
Carbon content decreases from 80 70 70%.
Volatile Matter Content (% daf, Figure 4): Decreases sharply for higher rank coals in the
carbon range 80-90%. Reasonably constant at around 50% for Carbon in the range 70-80%.
Ash Content (% db, Figures 5): A slight trend for increasing Ash with Carbon in the range
70-80%.
Calorific Value (Figures 6 and 7): A sharp increase in CV (daf or arb) in the Carbon range
70-80%. Continuing increase in the Carbon range 80-90%.
Hydrogen Content (% daf, Figure 8): Generally reaches a maximum at Carbon about 79%,
with considerable scatter.
Nitrogen Content (% daf, Figure 9): Rough trend for nitrogen to increase with Carbon.
Sulphur Content (% daf, Figure 10): Not much of a trend. The range of Sulphur is wider
for Indonesian coals than for Australian.
3
Data sources: KPC and Arutmin coal data was provided by the Bumi Group. Other
Indonesian and Australian coal data came from the Barlow Jonker database.
4
Total Moisture is strictly not a property since it can vary as a result of weather conditions
and coal preparation processes. The values used here are considered typical.
5
Air-dried Moisture is not a property to the extent that the laboratory conditions of
temperature and humidity are not rigidly controlled. Nevertheless it is a useful indicator of
the inherent attraction of moisture to a coal. The sometimes used term inherent moisture is
not completely justified.

HGI (Figure 11): Pronounced trend for HGI to increase for Carbon in the range 80-90%.
For lower Carbon the HGI is generally low with some exceptions.
SiO2 in Ash (Figure 12): There is a general increase for Carbon in the range 70-80%. Above
that, the SiO2 is very wide ranging.
Fe2O3, CaO and Na2O in Ash (Figures 13, 14 and 15): Generally higher for lower rank
coals in the Carbon range 70-80%.
Ash Fusion Temperature (Figure 16): The Initial Deformation Temperature is generally
lower for lower rank coals in the Carbon range 70-80%.

40
35
30
Total Moisture (% arb)
25
Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
20
Other Indonesian
Australian
15
10
0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 2: Total Moisture of Indonesian and Australian Coals
25
20
Air-Dried Moisture (% adb)
15
Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
Other Indonesian
Australian
10
0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 3: Moisture (adb) of Indonesian and Australian Coals

55
50
45
40
Arutmin Coals
VM (% daf)
KPC Coals
Other Indonesian
35
Australian
30
25
20
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 4: Volatile Matter Content (% daf) of Indonesian and Australian Coals
18
16
14
12
Ash (% db)
10 Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
Other Indonesian
8 Australian
0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 5: Ash Content (% db) of Indonesian and Australian Coals

9000
8500
8000
CV (kcal/kg daf)
Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
7500
Other Indonesian
Australian
7000
6500
6000
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 6: Calorific Value (daf) of Indonesian and Australian Coals
7500
7000
6500
CV (kcal/kg arb)
6000
Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
Other Indonesian
5500
Australian
5000
4500
4000
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 7: Calorific Value (arb) of Indonesian and Australian Coals

7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
Hydrogen (% daf)
Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
5.0
Other Indonesian
Australian
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 8: Hydrogen Content (daf) of Indonesian and Australian Coals
2.5
2.0
Nitrogen (% daf)
Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
1.5
Other Indonesian
Australian
1.0
0.5
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 9: Nitrogen Content (daf) of Indonesian and Australian Coals

2.0
1.5
Sulphur (% daf)
Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
1.0
Other Indonesian
Australian
0.5
0.0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 10: Sulphur Content (daf) of Indonesian and Australian Coals
100
90
80
70
60
Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
HGI
50
Other Indonesian
Australian
40
30
20
10
0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 11: HGI of Indonesian and Australian Coals

80
75
70
65
60
SiO2 in Ash (%)
55
Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
50
Other Indonesian
Australian
45
40
35
30
25
20
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 12: SiO2 in Ash of Indonesian and Australian Coals
40
35
30
25
Fe2O3 in Ash (%)
Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
20
Other Indonesian
Australian
15
10
0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 13: Fe2O3 in Ash of Indonesian and Australian Coals

20
15
CaO in Ash (%)
Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
10
Other Indonesian
Australian
0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 14: CaO in Ash of Indonesian and Australian Coals
10
6
Na2O in Ash (%)
Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
Other Indonesian
Australian
4
0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 15: Na2O in Ash of Indonesian and Australian Coals

1600
1500
Initial Deformation Temp. (deg. C Reducing)
1400
Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
Other Indonesian
Australian
1300
1200
1100
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 16: Ash Initial Deformation Temperature of Indonesian and Australian Coals

Summary: The above observations demonstrate that Indonesian coals typically differ in
many ways from Australian coals. Many of the noted trends can be related to differences in
rank and are also observed over a much wider range of coals than just Indonesian and
Australian. A summary of typical differences in given in Table 2.
Table 2: Typical differences between Indonesian and Australian coals based on

Standard Laboratory Analysis
Property Features of Indonesian Coals (compared with
Australian)
Moisture (total and air-dried Higher. Increases with lower rank
basis)
Volatile Matter Higher
Ash Lower
Calorific value (arb and daf) Lower. Decreases with lower rank
Hydrogen content (% daf) Similar for lower rank, higher for higher rank
Nitrogen Lower. Decreases with lower rank
Sulphur More variable: some lower, some higher
HGI Generally lower, particularly for Carbon in high 70s
SiO2 in Ash Lower. Decreases with lower rank
Fe2O3 in Ash Higher. Tends to increase with lower rank
CaO in Ash Higher but very scattered. Tends to increase with
lower rank
Na2O in Ash Higher but very scattered. Tends to increase with
lower rank
AFT Lower. Decreases with lower rank

Utilisation Performance of Indonesian and

Australian Coals
Introduction
This section examines correlations between coal properties and performance in coal-fired
power plants and relates these specifically to the effects of rank and typical differences
between Indonesian and Australian coals. This will identify limitations that may occur in
some of the power plant processes and may preclude the use of some of these coals in plant
not specifically designed for them.
As well as the properties determined by standard laboratory analysis and identified in the
previous section, reference will be made to other properties that are more difficult to
measure/define such as coal reactivity. Further reference will be made to site-specific
variables such as size distribution and moisture content. For convenience, all of these
characteristics will be referred to as properties.
ACIRL’s experience of testing Indonesian and Australian coals a pilot-scale mill and Boiler
Simulation Furnace will also be included.
The Importance of Plant Design
When inherent limitations to coal utilisation are identified, the importance of plant design
must be recognised. It is possible to design plant to cope with nearly any shortcoming in coal
quality. The job of the coal technologist is to recognise the coal quality issues and to relate
these to the requirements of the power plant.
Stockpiling & Handling
This section covers:

• Self-heating and spontaneous combustion
• Bulk handling
• Stockpile slumping
• Fugitive dust emissions

Spontaneous Combustion
Relevant Properties:
• Coal Reactivity
• Size Distribution
• Total Moisture Content
Coal Reactivity. Spontaneous combustion involves reactions between the coal and oxygen
or moisture. Reactivity involves characteristics such as molecular structure and porosity that
are not normally measured. Generally, low-rank coals tend to have more chemically reactive
organic molecular structures and greater porosity to explain their greater propensity to
spontaneous combustion.
Laboratory tests have been devised to measure a coal’s inherent propensity to spontaneous
combustion without site-specific effects. One such test is the Relative Ignition Temperature
test6, also called the Crossing Point Temperature, which has been performed on several
hundred coals. Carbon (daf) may correlate well with RIT, however this is not available for
the majority of the coals in the database. VM is generally available but does not correlate well
with RIT. Air-dried Moisture provides the best correlation from the available data (Figure
17). As the Figure shows, the coals with the lowest RIT (highest propensity to spontaneous
combustion) are those with the highest Mad.
200
190
Relative Ignition Temperature °C
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
0 5 10 15 20
Moisture Content %adb basis
Figure 17: Relative Ignition Temperatures versus Air-Dried Moisture
6
This is an ACIRL in-house test.

Figure 18 shows RIT values for a selection of Indonesian and Australian export thermal coals,
including some Arutmin and KPC coals.
220
200
180
Relative Ignition Temperature (oC)
A
160
AKK
K K K
KA K Higher
140 K Propensit
y
120
100
80
60
Indonesian Australian
Figure 18: Relative Ignition Temperatures for Indonesian and Australian Coals
Variations in Total Moisture and Size Distribution. The use of air-dried moisture in the
previous section was not intended as a measure of the impact of moisture content but as an
indicator of inherent coal reactivity or rank. For completeness it needs to be recognised that
in situ variations in Total Moisture content and segregation of coal size distribution are also
factors, but these re not obviously connected with the origins or rank of coals.
Bulk Handling
Blockages of chutes and hoppers may be related to:

• Coal size distribution
• Surface Moisture Content
• Types of mineral matter
Coal Size Distribution: The most common cause of bulk handling problems is an excess of
fines, such as the percentage -2 mm. A high fines content originates form either:
• Crushing to liberate mineral matter as part of a coal washing process,
• Degradation of coal size due to handling.

Coals that are not washed therefore require less crushing at the mine and their fines content is
therefore normally lower. Most Australian coals are washed and may contain up to around
30% -2mm. By comparison, Arutmin and KPC products are understood to contain less than
about 20% -2 mm material.
Size degradation is more severe with high HGI coals, meaning that some Australian coals
would be the most susceptible.
Surface (Free) Moisture Content: There is normally a range of coal moisture contents
within which handling problems are most severe. On the other hand coal that is either air-
dried or very wet will normally handle satisfactorily. Since the Free Moisture is the criterion,
not Total Moisture, there are no inherent differences between high rank and low rank coals.
Types of Mineral Matter: Clays of the bentonite or montmorillinite type become very
sticky when moist, coating the coal lumps and causing them to adhere and interfering with
bulk flow. The problem is compounded when a growth forms in the throats of chutes
composed of a mixture of the clay and coal fines. The sticky lump grows over time as more
clay and fines adhere, then becomes hard and strong with drying.
Fortunately, the majority of clay associated with most coals is the kaolinite type which is not
very susceptible to the problem. Bentonitic clays occur in significant quantities in some coals
from SE Queensland and may also occur in some Indonesian coals. It is not always possible
to remove all bentonite by washing because it may occur as thin bands within the coal lumps.
Subsequent weathering on coal stockpiles causes the bentonite to gradually migrate to the
coal surface.
Stockpile Slumping
Collapsing of stockpiles may be related to:

• High surface (free) moisture content
• High fines content
High surface moisture content: Slumping is normally a result of high rain-fall at the
stockpile. All coals are susceptible to increases in surface moisture.
High Fines Content: It has been suggested that coals with more than 12% of the -0.5 mm
fraction are susceptible in extreme rain conditions. As noted above, Indonesian coals are
likely to have a lower fines content than Australian coals.

Dustiness
Dust emissions during handling and stockpiling may be related to:

• Low surface (free) moisture content
• High fines content
Low surface moisture content can equally be an issue for any coals.
As indicated above, Indonesian coals are likely to contain less coal fines, in which case
fugitive dust emissions are likely to be lower.
Milling
Areas where coal characteristics can cause limitations to mill performance include:
• Power consumption & product fineness
• Primary air heating requirements
• Mill fires
• Mill wear
Power Consumption & Product Fineness
Both of these performance aspects relate to the grindability of the coal, which is related to the
amount of energy required to reduce the coal particle size. Low rank coals are not normally
hard in the sense that they are relatively easy to deform, however much of the deformation is
plastic rather than elastic, that is they are not brittle. Therefore the amount of deformation
required to break the particles is higher than for many higher rank coals, therefore requiring a
greater expenditure of energy.
The Hardgrove Grindability Index is essentially a measure of this energy requirement, though,
as a small-scale simulation of the milling process, it has some shortcomings as a test. Figure
11 showed that there was a clear trend for HGI to reduce (more difficult to mill) as coal
Carbon content dropped from 90 down to about 80. With a further reduction in Carbon
content, there was less of a trend, with HGI values lying between approximately 30 (for an
Australian coal) and 60. The HGI test is known to lack precision for low rank, high

moisture, coals because the test result is highly sensitive to the moisture content for a
particular determination7.
Thus, the HGI has limited reliability in predicting the fineness and power consumption when
pulverising a low rank coal at a given tonnage per hour. A second important factor not
covered by the HGI is that low CV coals need to be milled at a higher tonnage rate for a given
boiler duty, thus compounding the problem.
When a new coal is introduced to a power station, there are two possible courses of action for
the operators regarding the running of the mills:
• They may retain all the previous mill settings and hope that the performance is
satisfactory,
• They may adjust the mill settings (including roll pressure, classifier setting) to suit the
new coal.
ACIRL adopts both these approaches when testing coals in the pilot-scale vertical spindle
mill:
• The mill is run at standard settings; power consumption and fineness are reported,
• The mill settings are adjusted to give a standard fineness of PF of 70% passing 75 μm.
Standard Mill Settings: Figures 19 and 208 show mill power consumption and fineness
respectively for standard mill settings. Figure 19 shows the typical trend for the power
consumption to increase with lower HGI. However, it shows that most Indonesian coals
perform better than expected, ie, the mill power consumption is lower than the trend for their
HGI range.
On the other hand, Figure 20 shows that the Indonesian coals produced coarser PF than the
trend. This represents an enforced trade-off between power consumption and fineness when
coals are milled in this way.
7
HGI of low rank coals may also depend on the history of wetting and drying before the test.
8
Mill performance data and coal quality data in this section came from projects
commissioned by coal companies and industry funding.

16
Standard Mill Conditions (variable PF fineness)

14
12
Mill Power (kW.h/t)
10
Indonesian
8
Australian
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
HGI
Figure 19: Mill Power Consumption (kW.h/t) at Standard Mill Settings for Indonesian
and Australian Coals
90
80
70
PF Fineness (% < 75 um)
60
50
Indonesian
Australian
40
30
20
10
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
HGI
Figure 20: PF Fineness at Standard Mill Settings for Indonesian and Australian Coals

Milling to a Standard Fineness: Figure 21 shows the trend of power consumption versus
HGI when the mill is adjusted for standard fineness. Under these conditions, Indonesian coals
perform close to the overall trend, though the majority are still slightly better than the trend.
25
Standard PF Product (70% <75 um)
20
Mill Power (kW.h/t)
15
Indonesian
Australian
10
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
HGI
Figure 21: Mill Power Consumption (kW.h/t) to Produce Standard PF for Indonesian
and Australian Coals
The significance of these results is as follows:

• If an Australian coal is replaced by an Indonesian coal without mill adjustments, the
power consumption will probably be similar to that for Australian coal with HGI
about 10 points higher, so it is not likely to be excessive,
• The PF of the Indonesian coal is likely to be coarser than that of the Australian coal.
This may not become obvious because not all power station operators sample and
analyse the PF,
• Coarser PF can lead to a deterioration in burnout efficiency. However, as will be
covered later, Indonesian coals inherently produce very favourable burnout efficiency,
so this may not be a problem,
• If it is found necessary to adjust the mills to produce standard PF, then the mill power
consumption is likely to be only slightly better than that of an Australian coal of the
same HGI.

Calorific Value: The above comments are based on the same coal feed rate for all coals.
Taking into account the need for a greater tonnage for lower CV coals, Figure 22 allows for
this by plotting mill power consumption (kW) per unit coal energy input (GJ/h). The data
spread is much wider than that of Figure 19, indicating that lower CV coals may be subject to
limitations based on mill power consumption.
0.6

0.5
0.4
Mill Power (kW.h/GJ)
Indonesian
0.3
Australian
0.2
0.1
0.0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
HGI
Figure 22: Mill Power Consumption per Unit Coal Energy at Standard Mill Settings for
Indonesian and Australian Coals
Primary Air Heating Requirements
Coal is dried in the mills as well as pulverised, requiring higher primary air temperatures for
higher moisture coals.
Based on the as-fired moisture content of the coal entering the mills, and assuming the PF
exiting the mills contains a fraction (approximately half) of the air-dried moisture, the
quantity of moisture removed can be estimated. The problem is compounded for low CV
coals (which are often the high moisture coals) because a greater tonnage throughput of coal
is required. Consequently a ranking of the drying requirements may be calculated as:
Drying Requirement = (Moisture Removed)/CVNAR (kg/GJ) (1)

Figure 239 shows the Drying Requirement versus Carbon (%daf) for Arutmin, KPC, other
Indonesian and Australian export coals. The Drying Requirement rises steeply as Carbon
content decreases below about 78%.
18
16
14
Moisture Removed (kg/GJ NAR)
12
10 Arutmin Coals
KPC Coals
Other Indonesian
8 Australian
0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 23: Moisture Removed per Unit Coal Energy during Milling for Indonesian and
Australian Coals
In a given power plant there will be a top limit on the acceptable value of Drying
Requirement; the limit will depend on the mill and burner design. The specific limitations
may arise from:
• The air-heater capacity may be insufficient to attain the required primary air
temperature,
• The operators may place a top-limit on the allowable mill inlet air temperature to
avoid the possibility of mill fires.
It is clear that, because of high as-fired moisture content, some Indonesian coals will not suit
some plants that are not designed for them.
9
Based on data supplied by the Bumi Group (KPC and Arutmin coals) and the Barlow Jonker
database (other coals).

Mill Fires
As indicated under the previous heading, high moisture coals may require higher mill inlet
temperatures which increase the hazard of mill fires. Unfortunately, as well as having high
moisture contents, low rank coals tend to be more prone to spontaneous combustion because
of the reactivity of their organic matter. The two characteristics compound the mill-fire
problem. For very low rank coals, special plant design features may include:
• Higher than normal primary air volume to reduce the temperature requirement
• The use of attrition mills and recycling some flue gas into the primary air10.
Mill Wear
It is a misconception that low HGI coals are inherently abrasive. Abrasive wear of mill
components is normally caused by hard mineral matter in the coal, typically free silica
(quartz) or iron pyrite. The Abrasion Index (or Yancey Geer Price Index) is a standard
laboratory test to provide an indication of abrasiveness.
ACIRL’s pilot-scale vertical spindle mill has the capability of measuring mill wear, which
tends to correlate, though not perfectly, with Abrasion Index. Indonesian coals typically have
lower Abrasion Index than Australian coals and this is reflected in lower mill wear rates in the
vertical spindle mill (Figure 24).
18
16
14
12
Mill Wear (g Fe/t coal)
10
Indonesian
Australian
8
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Abrasion Index
Figure 24: Mill Wear Rate for Indonesian and Australian Coals
10
These measures are used for Australian brown coals (typical Carbon content 68% daf),
which are not exported.

Combustion Performance
This section covers the combustion reaction and the effective generation of heat form the coal,
specifically:
• Flame Stability & Turndown Capability
• Burnout Efficiency & Carbon in Ash
Flame Stability & Turndown Capability
Flame stability is the ability to maintain a strong stable flame at the burners, without
pulsations or the threat of extinction. When flame stability is poor at low boiler loads, this
gives poor turndown capability.
In order to achieve favourable flame stability it is necessary that the ignition and initial
combustion in the boiler be rapid, and most of the heat required to achieve this comes from
the volatile matter generated in the coal’s first 50 milliseconds or so in the boiler.
Consequently poor flame stability is most often associated with low volatile coals (such as the
Australian higher Carbon coals referenced in this chapter).
On a daf basis, the VM content is high at between 45 and 55% for most coals with Carbon
content less than 80%, suggesting that flame stability should not be an issue. However, as the
rank decreases the heating value of the VM also decreases because the VM contains more
oxygen and less hydrogen. The higher moisture content of these coals further reduces the
flame temperature which does not favour flame stability.
Therefore some of the lower rank Indonesian coals may suffer a deterioration in flame
stability and turndown capability, but ACIRL is not aware of this having been an issue.
Burnout Efficiency and Carbon in Ash
Poor burnout efficiency11 arises from the inability to burn all of the coal char remaining after
the release of volatiles during combustion. High volatile (low rank) coals benefit from the
relatively low yield of char needing to be burnt, and also from the fact that the remaining char
tends to be more reactive than those from high rank coals.
11
Burnout Efficiency is defined as the percentage by weight of the coal combustibles that are
burnt in the boiler. The balance of combustibles reports to the fly ash and

Indonesian coals typically give very high burnout efficiencies as demonstrated by Figure 25
showing results form ACIRL’s pilot-scale Boiler Simulation Furnace plotted against Carbon
(% daf). All of the coals in the Figure were pulverised to the same fineness of 70% passing
75 μm.
99.99
99.9
Burnout (%)
Indonesian
99
Australian
90
70 75 80 85 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 25: Burnout Efficiency for Indonesian and Australian Coals
Carbon in Ash: Though Indonesian coals generally give very high burnout efficiency, this
does not guarantee a low Carbon-in-Ash, since the coal ash dilutes the unburnt carbon. That
is to say:
• If the ash content of a coal is reduced while the burnout remains the same, the carbon
in ash will increase (Figure 26) or,
• To put it another way, the Carbon-in-Ash of very low ash coals is extremely sensitive
to small variations in burnout efficiency.
Indonesian coals, which typically give high burnout but have low ash contents, can therefore
produce wide ranging levels of Carbon-in-Ash. Australian coals generally have poorer
burnout efficiency but their higher ash contents help to keep the Carbon-in-Ash down.
Milling Strategy: Because of their inherently high burnout efficiency, Indonesian coals may
be allowed to enter the boiler in a coarser state, than other coals, thus reducing the mill power

consumption and increasing the mill capacity, while returning burnout efficiency as good as
other coals. However, this approach is not always acceptable because, as just explained, the
Carbon-in-Ash may then be too high12.
30
2
25 Coal Ash %
db
6
20
Carbon in Ash (% db)
15
10
10 14
INDONESIAN
HUNTER VALLEY
0
100 99.5 99 98.5 98
Burnout Efficiency (%)
Figure 26: Carbon-in-Ash Related to Burnout Efficiency and Coal Ash Content
(indicative ranges for Indonesian and Hunter Valley Coals)
Ash Deposition
Broadly speaking, fouling and slagging are associated with the presence of elevated levels of
the fluxing elements iron, calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium in the coal ash, as well
as with direct measurements of the ash fusion characteristics.
It was demonstrated in the Section: Chemical & Physical Properties Related To Coal Rank
that many Indonesian coals have higher levels of some of these elements and lower Ash
Fusion Temperatures. Many slagging and fouling indices, based on ash analysis, have been
devised to predict deposition problems. While these indices are known to lack reliability,
there are usually no well-established substitutes.
12
Burnout Efficiency is relevant to overall boiler efficiency, whereas high Carbon-in-Ash
may render the fly ash unsuitable for use in cement or concrete.

The difficulties in predicting fouling and slagging are worsened by the extreme sensitivity of
deposition to power plant design. Power plants that are more tolerant to coals prone to
deposition may include features such as:
• Larger boiler size and greater spacing of the burners to reduce flame temperatures,
• More effective coverage by the soot-blowers,
• Design of burner systems to lessen the contact of ash on the walls,
• Larger spacing of superheater/reheater/economiser tubes to prevent bridging.
When all other factors are the same, it can be expected that coals with high levels of fluxing
elements will be more prone to deposition problems.
However, Indonesian low rank coals have inherent properties that lessen the impact of ash
chemistry to some extent:
• Their higher moisture content makes the flame temperature lower, thus helping to
avoid ash melting,
• The ash content is lower, meaning slower growth of deposits which are more able to
be removed by regular soot-blowing before they grow thick enough to melt.
Many Indonesian coals have been tested for slagging and fouling in ACIRL’s Boiler
Simulation Furnace for periods of typically 8 hours. In this time, the above two factors have
often contributed to produce deposits that are relatively soft and easily removed from the
boiler surfaces.
The most likely problem to occur with those Indonesian coals that have high sodium levels is
fouling, when:
• A boiler of relatively small dimensions may give high furnace exit gas temperatures,
due to the relatively low heat removal in the radiant furnace, and in spite of the lower
flame temperature at the burners. This gives high gas temperatures in the superheaters
reheaters,
• The soot-blower coverage in these convective sections is not adequate. If the deposits
are allowed to continue to grow, the surface temperature of the deposits increases,
causing them to fuse.
One mechanism that has been suggested for fouling is that sodium vaporises in the flame,
then combines with sulphur and condenses to a liquid on the (relatively cool) convective
tubes, causing the ash to stick and cementing it into strong deposits.
Sodium in coal occurs in different forms, such as:

• Insoluble minerals,
• Soluble minerals, principally salt,
• Organic sodium, which is part of the coal molecules.
Research studies have suggested that the organic form of sodium, followed by the soluble
salts, are the main ones to vaporise. The forms of sodium can be identified in a coal by
chemical means, but ACIRL is not aware of much data to place the results in context for
Indonesian coals.
Environmental Performance
This section covers the environmental effects of coal firing including:

• Solid particulate emissions,
• Carbon dioxide emissions
• Sulphur dioxide emissions
• Oxides of nitrogen emissions
• Fly ash disposal
• Fly ash utilisation
Solid Particulate Emissions
This section is confined to the use of electrostatic precipitators to collect fly ash. The relevant
issues are:
• The coal and fly ash properties that impact on ESP collection efficiency,
• Pilot-scale measurements of ESP performance.
Fly Ash Properties – Ash Resistivity: High electrical resistivity is associated with
limitations to collection efficiency. When the resistivity is greater than 1010 Ohm.metres,
there may be some difficulties. Fly Ash Resistivity has been measured for a number of
Indonesian and Australian coals (Figure 27). Based on resistivity, a few Indonesian coals
may have collection efficiency limitations, though the majority have favourable results.

1.E+13
Export Coals
1.E+12
Resistivity (Ohm.m)
1.E+11
1.E+10
1.E+09
1.E+08
1.E+07
1.E+06
Indonesian Australian
Figure 27: Fly Ash Resistivity for Indonesian and Australian Coals
Fly Ash Properties – Particle Size Distribution: Fly ash particles of less than about 10 μm
are considerably more difficult to collect than larger particles. Comprehensive data on fly ash
size is not available.
Fly Ash Properties – Ash Chemistry: The presence of elevated levels of sulphur in the coal
and sodium in the ash is associated with favourable collection efficiency. Figure 28 plots the
Chubu K Factor which is defined as:
K = 1000*(Sulphur in Coal %adb) x (Na2O in Ash %) / (Coal Ash Content %adb)
Based on their relatively high K Factor, Indonesian coals would be expected to give
favourable collection efficiency. K Factor is probably only significant because it correlates
with the physical property resistivity (and possibly with particle size).

300
250
200
Arutmin Coals
Higher Collection KPC Coals
Chubu K
Efficiency
Other Indonesian
150
Australian
100
50
0
70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90
Carbon (% daf)
Figure 28: K Factor for ESP Performance of Indonesian and Australian Coals
Pilot-Scale ESP Measurements: Figures 29 and 30 show the results of direct measurements
of fly ash collection characteristics using pilot-scale test facilities13. Figure 29 shows that the
collection efficiencies of the Indonesian coals tend towards the favourable end of the range of
the Australian coals; Figure 30 shows the emissions which, for the Indonesian coals, generally
display the additional benefit of lower ash contents.
13
For Specific Collection Area of 120 m2/(m3/s)

10
Export Coals
Constant ESP Size
ESP Slippage (100-Efficiency) %
0.1
0.01
Indonesian
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29Australian
31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57
Figure 29: ESP Slippage (100-Efficiency) for Indonesian and Australian Coals
1000
Export Coals
Constant ESP Size
Soldid Particulate Emission (mg/Nm3)
100
10
0.1
Indonesian
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31Australian
33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57
Figure 30: Solid Particulate Emissions for Indonesian and Australian Coals

Sulphur Dioxide
The relevant coal properties for SO2 emissions are:

• Sulphur content
• Ash content and chemistry
Figure 31, showing the SO2 emissions measured in ACIRL’s Boiler Simulation Furnace
plotted against coal sulphur content, demonstrates the strong influence of sulphur content and
shows that Indonesian coals are therefore wide-ranging in their SO2 production.
A small proportion (typically 5-20%) of the sulphur is absorbed by the ash, thus lowering the
SO2 emission below the theoretical maximum. The available calcium in the fly ash is thought
to provide the mechanism for this absorption, but the correlation between total calcium in the
coal and sulphur absorption is not strong enough to provide a confident prediction.
2000
1800
SO2 Emissions (ppm, dry, 0% O2)
1600
1400
1200
Indonesian
1000
Australian
800
600
400
200
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Coal Sulphur Content (% daf)
Figure 31: SO2 Emissions for Indonesian and Australian Coals

Emission of Oxides of Nitrogen
NOx emission levels are heavily dependent on plant operating conditions and design features.
Nevertheless coal properties must be relevant because some coals inherently produce low
NOx levels.
ACIRL has measured NOx emission levels for several hundred coals using standardised
conditions in the pilot-scale Boiler Simulation Furnace. Figure 32 presents these results
plotted against nitrogen content, showing that:
• NOx has very little correlation with coal nitrogen content,
• Indonesian coals generally produce low NOx levels compared with Australian and the
other coals shown. This may be partly explained by the generally higher moisture
contents of the Indonesian coals resulting in lower flame temperatures.
In certain situations, high volatile coals tend to produce lower NOx levels than other coals.
This applies especially where boilers are fitted with low-NOx burners (the ACIRL furnace is
not fitted with a low-NOx burner). This may be a further advantage to Indonesian coals
because they all have high volatile coals contents.
1200
1100
NOx Emissions (ppm, dry, 0% O2)
1000
900
800
Indonesian
700
Australian
600
500
400
300
200
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Coal Nitrogen Content (% daf)
Figure 32: NOx Emissions for Indonesian and Australian Coals

Ash Utilisation
The major application of fly ash is as a component increment or concrete. There are a number
of physical and chemical requirements for suitable fly ashes. The ones covered here are
chemical requirements relating to the content of carbon, silicon, aluminium, iron and sulphur.
The following is a guide14:
ASTM Requirements for Fly Ash Use in Concrete

Class F Fly Asha Class C Fly Ashb
Loss on Ignition, max % 6.0 6.0
SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3, min % 70.0 50.0
SO3, max % 5.0 5.0
a Normally obtained from bituminous coals
b Normally obtained from sub-bituminous coals or lignite, containing high levels of calcium
Loss on Ignition: This is equivalent to carbon-in-ash which, as indicated in the section on

Burnout (see Figure 26), is lowest when the burnout efficiency is high and the ash content of
the coal is high. Coals that satisfy only one of these requirements may suffer from high
carbon-in-ash. Low ash Indonesian coals are very sensitive to small variations in burnout
efficiency, which in turn may vary from one boiler to another depending on design.
Therefore Indonesian coal fly ashes sometimes fail this requirement because of their low ash
content, whereas when Australian coals fail it is more likely a result of lower burnout
efficiency.
SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 Content: Most Indonesian and all Australian coals satisfy the
requirement for Class F fly ash, whereas the remainder, which generally contain high levels of
calcium, would satisfy the requirement for Class C fly ash.
SO3 Content: The SO3 in the fly ash will normally be lower than the SO3 determined from
the Ash Analysis of the coal. Nevertheless it is possible that fly ashes from coals high in both
calcium and sulphur may exceed this limit.
Ash Disposal
The main issue for ash disposal is the contamination of surface-water and ground-water by
trace elements leaching out of the ash. Laboratory leaching tests of fly ash indicate that most
fly ashes would not be classified under the definition of hazardous wastes, based on
14
ASTM C618-1996: Coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural Pozzolan for use as a mineral
admixture in concrete. Local requirements may vary.

concentrations limits given in drinking water standards. Nevertheless safeguards may be

required at disposal sights.
Compared with the fly ash from Australian coals, most trace elements are leached in similar
levels from Indonesian coal fly ashes. Elements for which the median levels are relatively
low for Indonesian fly ashes are cadmium, fluorine and nickel. However boron levels from
Indonesian fly ashes are relatively high.
UPGRADING LOW RANK COALS

Processes to upgrade low rank coals normally attempt to overcome their main shortcomings,
namely high moisture content and, as a direct result, low calorific value.
Merely drying these coals is not a solution because (a) they will reabsorb moisture during
handling and stockpiling and (b) it will create dust problems. The answers therefore lie in
modifying the pore structure of the coals as part of the drying process. Some solutions that
are being tried include:
• Hot briquetting,
• The Upgraded Brown Coal process (UBC) whereby the coal is immersed in recycled
oil and heated to dry. Most of the oil is recycled, but the coal pores are sealed in the
process, preventing moisture from entering,
• Sequential processes of drying, heating to generate tar from the coal, followed by
absorption of the tar to seal the pores.
These measures will reduce transport costs and reduce the required handling and milling
capacities at the power plant. A valuable side-effect may be a reduction in the coal’s
propensity to spontaneous combustion.
BLENDING OF LOW RANK COALS

Blending with higher rank coals may enable what are sometimes cheaper coals to be utilised
in power plants not designed specifically for the unblended coals, thereby reducing the capital
costs of the plant as well as the fuel costs.

However, blending also offers greater opportunities to overcome inherent problems of some
higher rank coals, which may include:
• High nitrogen content which may exceed legal limits
• High ash content, resulting in difficult stack cleanup and high ash disposal costs,
• Abrasive minerals causing pulveriser wear and boiler tube erosion,
• Reflective ash limiting radiative heat transfer in the furnace,
• High resistivity ash lowering electrostatic precipitator efficiency.
Based on these considerations there are many scenarios for blending low rank and high rank
coals to mutual advantage.
CONCLUSION
Many Indonesian coals have negative properties, some of which are related to their rank being
lower than many Australian and other overseas coals. Depending on power plant design
features, these properties will limit the plant performance and reduce the value of the coals.
Some of these limitations include:
• Low CV giving high freight costs,
• Self-heating and spontaneous combustion,
• Low CV needing high coal handling capacity,
• Low HGI together with low CV requiring higher mill capacity ratings,
• High moisture requiring greater air–heater capacity and causing mill fires,
• Slagging and fouling associated with their ash chemistry,
• Larger more expensive boilers.
Indonesian coals are typically superior to many Australian and other overseas coals in the
following areas:
• Their low ash content has environmental advantages for stack cleanup and ash
disposal,
• They are highly reactive and give high burnout efficiency,
• The mineral matter has low abrasivity, giving low mill wear and boiler tube erosion,
• Some have very low sulphur contents,
• The ash has favourable electrostatic precipitation characteristics,
• They have medium to low nitrogen contents, satisfying any legal nitrogen limits,
• They produce low NOx levels.
Blending will enable many of these characteristics to complement the different characteristics
of competitor coals.

Low Rank Coals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Low Rank Coals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Low Rank Coals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indonesian Coals, Australian Coals

and the Significance of Coal Rank

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 1

Indonesian Coals, Australian Coals and

The Path from Plant Matter to Anthracite

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 2

Definition of Coal Rank

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 3

Table 1: The ASTM Ranking of Coals

Volatile Matter Calorific Value

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 4

Ranking of Indonesian and Australian Thermal

ASTM Rank Sub-bit C

Figure 1: Ranks of Arutmin, KPC, other Indonesian and Australian Coals

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 5

Chemical & Physical Properties Related to Coal

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 6

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 7

Figure 2: Total Moisture of Indonesian and Australian Coals

Figure 3: Moisture (adb) of Indonesian and Australian Coals

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 8

Figure 4: Volatile Matter Content (% daf) of Indonesian and Australian Coals

Figure 5: Ash Content (% db) of Indonesian and Australian Coals

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 9

Figure 6: Calorific Value (daf) of Indonesian and Australian Coals

Figure 7: Calorific Value (arb) of Indonesian and Australian Coals

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 10

Figure 8: Hydrogen Content (daf) of Indonesian and Australian Coals

Figure 9: Nitrogen Content (daf) of Indonesian and Australian Coals

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 11

Figure 10: Sulphur Content (daf) of Indonesian and Australian Coals

Figure 11: HGI of Indonesian and Australian Coals

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 12

Figure 12: SiO2 in Ash of Indonesian and Australian Coals

Figure 13: Fe2O3 in Ash of Indonesian and Australian Coals

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 13

Figure 14: CaO in Ash of Indonesian and Australian Coals

Figure 15: Na2O in Ash of Indonesian and Australian Coals

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 14

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 15

Table 2: Typical differences between Indonesian and Australian coals based on

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 16

Utilisation Performance of Indonesian and

The Importance of Plant Design

Stockpiling & Handling

This section covers:

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 17

Figure 17: Relative Ignition Temperatures versus Air-Dried Moisture

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 18

Blockages of chutes and hoppers may be related to:

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 19

Collapsing of stockpiles may be related to:

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 20

Dust emissions during handling and stockpiling may be related to:

Power Consumption & Product Fineness

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 21

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 22

Standard Mill Conditions (variable PF fineness)