A proposed maceral index to predict combustion behavior of coal

S. Su
a,
*
, J.H. Pohl
a
, D. Holcombe
b
, J.A. Hart
c
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia
b
ACIRL Limited, 1 ACIRL St., Riverview, Qld 4303, Australia
c
CRC for Black Coal Utilization, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
Received 20 December 1999; accepted 25 July 2000
Abstract
To predict the combustion performance in pulverized coal-red boilers, this paper examines existing indices and develops a maceral index
(MI). These indices were compared with the data of 68 coals and blends in a range of the mean vitrinite reectance from 0.25 to 1.63. The
results showed that the fuel ratio and the mean vitrinite reectance could qualitatively indicate the burnout of the coals and blends. The new
MI,
MI
L 1V=R
2
I
1:25
HV
30

2:5
;
provides a useful correlation for the burnout of the coals and blends. The correlation coefcient (r
2
) is 0.982 for the EER data, and 0.808 for
the ACIRL data. The MI also has potential to correlate ignition and ame stability of the coals and blends. The MI predicts the burnout better
than the other indices. q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Burnout; Flame stability; Maceral index; Prediction
1. Introduction
At present, there are two methods of predicting the
combustion behavior of coals and blends: experiment and
indices [1]. The rst one is a direct approach, i.e. to conduct
combustion experiments in test furnaces or operating plants.
This approach is expensive and requires a large quantity of
coal. The latter is predicting the combustion behavior by
using indices associated with the nature of coals.
Simple predictive indices of burnout and ame stability
have been developed based on standard analyses of coal/
blends. Published simple indices for burnout prediction
include fuel ratio (FC/VM) [2], mean vitrinite reectance
[3], percent of vitrinite with .0.96 random reectance or
percent of vitrinite and inertinite with .0.96 random reec-
tance [4]; and those for ignition and ame stability are heat-
ing value, volatile matter and heating value of volatile
matter [5]. All of these existing indices for predicting the
burnout have large uncertainties. Consequently, this paper
developed a new index, the maceral index (MI), based on
maceral compositions, mean vitrinite reectance and heat-
ing value. Examination of the existing indices and the new
MI was conducted based on the performance data of 68
coals and blends.
2. Experimental data
Table 1 summarizes the analysis of the burnout parameters
for the 68 coals and blends. The maceral volume percentage
was determined at Pennsylvania State University for the EER
data, andat the ACIRLfor the ACIRLdata. Asample of coal is
prepared as either a polished particulate block or a polished
block [6]. The block is examined using a reected light micro-
scope and the macerals are identied under an immersion
medium by their relative reectance, color, morphology, and
uorescence characteristics. The proportion (volume percen-
tage) of each maceral is determined by a point-count proce-
dure [7]. In addition, the mean maximum reectance of
vitrinite was determined in accordance with the standard [8].
The performance parameters of the coals and blends in
Table 1, including burnout, ignition and ame stability,
Fuel 80 (2001) 699706
0016-2361/01/$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0016-2361(00)00137-X
www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel
* Corresponding author. Present address: CSIRO Division of Exploration
and Mining, P.O. Box 883, Kenmore, Qld 4069, Australia. Tel.: 161-7-
3327-4679; fax: 161-7-3327-4455.
E-mail address: shi.su@dem.csiro.au (S. Su).
S. Su et al. / Fuel 80 (2001) 699706 700
Table 1
Burnout parameters of coals and blends (K, W stands for component coals; O, X stands for blends; L stands for unknown coals and blends)
Coal or blend
a
FC/VM R Liptinite
(% mmf)
Vitrinite
(% mmf)
Inertinite
(% mmf)
MI
Tests in the ACIRL furnace [1]
100A K 0.94 0.44 24.91 59.5 11.7 10.50
67A/33B O 1.31 0.63 17.1 54.9 26.1 2.02
67B/33A O 1.66 0.77 9.99 52.6 36.0 0.99
100B K 2.47 1.01 3.18 48.3 47.0 0.40
100C K 1.52 0.61 3.66 73.3 22.7 4.05
75C/25D O 1.57 0.63 3.72 64.0 31.4 2.08
50D/50C O 1.67 0.62 5.17 61.3 32.7 1.95
100D K 1.81 0.64 8.44 30.0 59.6 0.45
67A/33E O 1.14 0.61 4.74 78.2 15.8 4.91
33E/67A O 1.44 0.63 4.08 70.4 24.1 2.81
100E K 1.77 0.8 1.20 66.5 30.4 1.45
Tests in the EER furnace [4,1517]
100FL W 1.14 0.476 9.3 69 21.7 3.54
100LR W 1.23 0.45 5.3 76.3 18.4 7.45
100PM W 1.13 0.427 7.8 78 14.2 12.27
70PM/30K X 1.19 0.536 4.9 80.7 14.4 8.78
50FL/50PM X 1.21 0.456 11.9 69.4 18.7 5.94
40LR/40PM/20K X 1.27 0.599 8.8 78.6 12.6 8.24
75FL/25K X 1.35 0.542 9.5 67.9 22.6 3.80
75LR/25K X 1.23 0.531 8.2 78.3 13.5 9.46
50LR/50PM X 1.16 0.426 12.9 68.6 18.5 8.09
50BC/50OM X 1.80 1.2 1.7 57.8 40.5 0.32
100BC W 2.28 1.243 0.8 46.6 52.6 0.20
100OM W 1.19 0.523 9.5 80.5 10 11.98
80OM/20SR X 1.30 0.588 9.4 65.2 25.4 2.47
70OM/30SR X 1.39 0.697 6.5 67.5 26 1.72
60OM/40SR X 1.59 0.743 11.8 69.4 18.8 2.60
70OM/30SC X 1.85 0.859 6.75 81.3 12.1 4.42
Tests in the ACIRL furnace [1]
ACIRL1 L 2.17 0.65 3.0 33.8 63.3 0.41
ACIRL2 L 2.02 0.45 8.3 17.8 73.8 0.22
ACIRL3 L 1.41 0.4 2.5 59.5 37.3 1.74
ACIRL4 L 1.50 0.43 5.8 59.2 35.0 1.62
ACIRL5 L 1.29 0.41 7.1 63.8 29.1 2.64
ACIRL6 L 2.59 1.05 5.1 33.6 61.3 0.21
ACIRL7 L 1.91 0.7 2.1 59.4 38.5 1.16
ACIRL8 L 1.48 0.76 2.9 72.7 24.4 1.42
ACIRL9 L 1.23 0.67 13.0 68.9 18.0 4.99
ACIRL10 L 1.62 0.82 3.2 70.0 26.8 1.44
ACIRL11 L 1.63 0.7 4.5 62.2 33.4 1.53
ACIRL12 L 0.96 0.4 11.6 86.3 2.1 156.7
ACIRL13 L 0.92 0.35 22.4 54.6 23.0 6.76
ACIRL14 L 1.57 0.67 9.0 53.2 37.9 1.36
ACIRL15 L 1.80 0.93 3.8 72.1 24.2 1.63
ACIRL16 L 1.99 0.71 3.5 45.3 51.2 0.64
ACIRL17 L 3.42 1.2 1.4 26.4 72.2 0.09
ACIRL18 L 2.64 1.2 0 80.4 19.6 0.98
ACIRL19 L 1.73 0.7 3.9 59 37.2 1.12
ACIRL20 L 1.78 0.61 5.3 30.1 60.7 0.49
ACIRL21 L 3.57 1.27 0.6 24.2 67.9 0.08
ACIRL22 L 1.14 0.34 8.6 89.3 1.7 237.4
ACIRL23 L 4.14 1.63 0 71.8 23.2 0.62
ACIRL24 L 1.45 0.62 9.2 46.6 34.7 1.38
ACIRL25 L 1.43 0.57 3.7 45.6 26.7 1.02
ACIRL26 L 3.31 1.14 0.6 30.4 61.9 0.12
ACIRL27 L 1.57 0.38 3.5 50.6 42.8 3.25
ACIRL28 L 1.59 0.7 4 33.9 39.8 0.31
ACIRL29 L 0.98 0.34 5.6 86 7.3 38.13
ACIRL30 L 1.00 0.5 10.2 82.7 7.1 23.33
were determined in the Australian Coal Industry
Research Laboratory (ACIRL) furnace [1,9] and Energy and
Environmental Research Corporation (EER) furnace [4]. Both
of the ACIRL and EER furnaces were built with the same
structure and schematic diagram. However, the ACIRL
furnace has a resident time of 3.2 s, and the EER furnace
2.4 s. The nominal ring rates are 150 and 176 kW for the
ACIRL and EER furnaces, respectively. Their schematic
diagram is shown in Fig. 1. The burnout was determined by
using the ash tracer technique [10,11]. The ash samples were
taken at residence times of 3.2 and 2.4 s for the ACIRL and
EER furnaces, respectively. Ignition and ame stability were
assessed by using stand-off distance at zero swirl [1].
3. Denition of the MI
The burnout of coal/blends depends on the amount of
volatile matter, which is quickly released from the coal,
the resultant physical structure of the char, and the chemical
and/or diffusion rate of char burning. This relation funda-
mentally depends on maceral compositions of the coal/
blend. Macerals are divided into three main groups of lipti-
nite, vitrinite and inertinite. Liptinite has the highest hydro-
gen content and volatile matter. Its volatile matter is roughly
twice that of the associated vitrinite, and as a result, liptinite
has been linked with ignitability and ame stability [12].
The liptinite is signicant only in the pyrolysis stage of
combustion, and affects the igniting process. General inu-
ence of macerals on combustion behavior can be schemati-
cally described as follows [12,13]:
In addition, the effect of vitrinite and inertinite on char
burnout can be complicated and depends on how their
concentrations effect the physical structure of the char
according to the test results on a limited number of coals
obtained by Thomas et al. [14]. Thomas et al. [14] found
that vitrinite in the reectance range approaching 1.5 forms
fused particles with largely inaccessible surface areas.
These particles have decreasing rates of burning. However,
they found that inertinite above a reectance of 1.5 does not
form fused particles but retains and increases pore structure
during burning, and has an increased rate of burning with
higher reectance. Therefore, we have analyzed a number of
semi-empirical relations to relate properties of coal/blends
to burnout. These expressions are based on four observed
trends in the burnout as follows:
1. The high volatile liptinite burns out rapidly.
2. Vitrinite burns out at a rate that depends on its reec-
tance.
3. Inertinite is generally, but not always, difcult to burn.
4. Other factors being equal, the burnout depends on the
heat release of the coal/blends.
Finally, we arrived at a semi-empirical expression to
predict that the burnout results of experiments in two similar
pilot-scale furnaces. This expressed predicted burnout
increased with liptinite content and vitrinite content, but
decreased with vitrinite reectance, and decreased with
inertinite content. These factors were combined into the MI.
MI HVF
2:5
RF 1
HVF HV=30 2
RF
L 1V=R
2
I
1:25
3
where L is the percent by volume liptinite, mineral matter
free, normalized to 100%; V the percent by volume vitrinite,
mineral matter free, normalized to 100%; I the percent by
volume inertinite, mineral matter free, normalized to 100%;
S. Su et al. / Fuel 80 (2001) 699706 701
Table 1 (continued)
Coal or blend
a
FC/VM R Liptinite
(% mmf)
Vitrinite
(% mmf)
Inertinite
(% mmf)
MI
ACIRL31 L 1.49 0.72 3.6 76.3 19.5 4.27
ACIRL32 L 0.99 0.4 15.8 76.9 7.3 34.79
ACIRL33 L 0.84 0.25 16.5 79.9 3.6 146.8
ACIRL34 L 1.69 0.74 7.9 55 37.1 1.06
ACIRL35 L 1.58 0.8 4.6 70.9 24.5 2.11
ACIRL36 L 3.70 1.29 0 31.5 68.5 0.10
ACIRL37 L 1.00 0.54 6 90 4 46.14
ACIRL38 L 1.11 0.45 8.7 83 8.3 20.84
ACIRL39 L 1.21 0.55 6.3 86.1 4.7 40.30
ACIRL40 L 1.08 0.58 4.7 82.3 1.1 218.9
ACIRL41 L 1.21 0.57 4.1 84.1 7.8 20.08
a
A, BCD, E, FL, LR, PM, K, BC, OM, SR, andSCstandfor the component coals. The numbers before the component coals are their weight percentages inblends.
S. Su et al. / Fuel 80 (2001) 699706 702
Fig. 1. A schematic diagram of the ACIRL and EER test furnaces.
Fig. 2. Correlation between the burnout and the MI.
R the mean maximum vitrinite reectance; and HV is the
heating value of the coal/blend, air dried, MJ/kg.
HVF is called a heating value factor, and 30 MJ/kg (air
dried) is a typical heating value of coal. HVF indicates the
inuence of moisture and ash on the ignition, ame stability
and combustion density. RF indicates the reactivity of the
coal/blend.
4. Prediction and discussion
4.1. Prediction of the burnout by the MI
Fig. 2 shows that, taking into account the slightly differ-
ent conditions between the ACIRL and EER furnaces, the
MI correlates most of the data. The correlation coefcient
(r
2
) is 0.982 for the EER data and 0.808 for the ACIRL data
for pure and blended coals. There is one EER point that
appears to have a lower burnout than predicted. As shown
in Fig. 2, there are 68 coals and blends from the USA,
Australia, Canada, and Indonesia, which cover the mean
vitrinite reectance from 0.25 to 1.63. The EER data is
within 0.2% absolute burnout. We could not assess the accu-
racy of the ACIRL data, but ACIRL claims the data is
within 0.2% absolute burnout. However, eight points
marked with 1 were omitted from the correlation of the
ACIRL data. Two of these points are concerned with the
burnout of a pair of blends containing coal C and coal D.
The reason for this discrepancy is being investigated.
We attempted to improve the data t by taking into
account the effect of better burnout of inertinite with
increasing reectance [14] by adding a term in the numera-
tor of Eq. (3) containing inertinite and vitrinite reectance.
The inertinite reectance was only available for some coals
and blends in Table 1. These attempts only marginally
improved the t and resulted in more complicated expres-
sions for the burnout and are not presented.
In addition, we looked at using assumed rates of indivi-
dual maceral particle burnout to improve the correlation
coefcient of the expression (1). In general, this approach
will result in improved ts, but requires reaction rates
measured on individual vitrinite and inertinite particles.
We decided not to use the measured rates, as these values
are not generally available and are hard to obtain on coals.
4.2. Better prediction of burnout by the MI than the fuel
ratio and the mean vitrinite reectance
We tried tting a general relationship between the burn-
out and the fuel ratio for 68 coals and blends in Table 1.
Fig. 3 shows the fuel ratio qualitatively indicates the burnout
of coals and blends even though the correlation coefcient is
somewhat low, 0.2 and 0.47 for EER and ACIRL data,
respectively.
S. Su et al. / Fuel 80 (2001) 699706 703
Fig. 3. A general correlation between the burnout and the fuel ratio.
As shown in Fig. 4, we also tried to nd a general rela-
tionship between the burnout and mean vitrinite reectance
for all the coals and blends. The mean vitrinite reectance
also qualitatively indicates the burnout of coals and blends.
Comparing Figs. 3 and 4, we found that the correlation
coefcient of linear regression of the burnout to the mean
vitrinite reectance is similar to the fuel ratio, even though
the mean vitrinite reectance seems to correlate with the
burnout better than the fuel ratio. In fact, the mean vitrinite
reectance linearly correlates the fuel ratio with the correla-
tion coefcient of 0.77 [1]. Thus, either the mean vitrinite
reectance or the fuel ratio can qualitatively predict the
burnout of coals and blends.
Comparing Fig. 2 with Figs. 3 and 4, we can say that the
MI provides a better correlation than the fuel ratio and the
mean vitrinite reectance as an index to predict the burnout
of the coals and blends. In addition, the MI is more sensitive
in assessing the burnout than the fuel ratio. For example, the
difference of fuel ratio between coal A and coal E is 0.83 in
Table 1, but for the MI, 9.05. Therefore, the MI appears to
be a good index to predict the burnout of coals and blends.
There should be no burnout problem for the coal/blends
with the MI .3, however, burnout problems are expected
for the coal/blends with the MI ,1. It should be pointed out
that an error of ,1.0% in burnout could occur for some
coals and blends with the MI ,1.0. However, all these
coal/blends have low burnout in any case.
In addition, Pohl [4,15,17] developed an index, percent of
vitrinite with .0.96 random reectance, to assess the burn-
out. It has been successful in assessing coals and blends with
intermediate vitrinite reectance. However, it is not useful
for those with low or high reectance. For example, the
percent of vitrinite with .0.96 random reectance is zero
for the blends and component coals from 100FL to 50LR/
50PM in Table 1, except it is 0.25 for 75FL/25K. Then, the
index was modied to use the percent of all maceral compo-
nents with .0.96 random reectance. While this index
works reasonably, it has never been proved and is limited
in the same way as the percent of vitrinite with .0.96
random reectance. Finally, limited data indicates the initial
temperature, determined in Thermogravimetric Analysis
(TGA) burning prole, might correlate burnout [1]. The
reason for this seems to be that the initial temperature corre-
lates in general with coal properties.
4.3. Potential for correlating ignitability and ame stability
We found the MI also has potential to correlate the ignit-
ability and ame stability. Fig. 5 shows the correlation
between the stand-off distance and the MI for 11 coals
S. Su et al. / Fuel 80 (2001) 699706 704
Fig. 4. A general correlation between the burnout and the mean vitrinite reectance.
and blends from A to E (Table 1) tested in the ACIRL
furnace, and 16 coals and blends from 100FL to 70OM/
30SC (Table 1) tested in the EER furnace. It is obvious
that there is a relationship between the ignitability or
ame stability and the MI, particularly for the data of the
ACIRL furnace. The higher the MI, the better the ignitabil-
ity or ame stability. The correlation coefcient is 0.77 for
the ACIRL data, excluding one point marked with 1.
However, the correlation coefcient is only 0.34 for the
EER data. A possible reason is that the tests in the EER
furnace were carried out at a higher ring rate and a lower
primary air ratio, compared with those for the ACIRL data.
These conditions reduced the effect of fuel properties on
the ignitability and ame stability. The stand-off distance
was measured by eye and may contain signicant errors.
A relationship between ignitibility/ame stability and the
MI is tentative depending on more accurate experimental
data.
5. Conclusions
Based on the performance data of 68 coals and blends,
tested in the ACIRL and EER furnaces, this paper examined
the existing indices, including the fuel ratio and the mean
vitrinite reectance, and developed the new MI to predict
the burnout. The important conclusions are:
1. The mean vitrinite reectance and the fuel ratio can
qualitatively predict the burnout of coals and blends.
2. The maceral index, MI, correlates the burnout, and has
potential for correlating the ignitability and the ame
stability.
3. There should be no burnout problems for the coals and
blends with the MI .3, however, burnout problems are
expected for the coals and blends with the MI ,1.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the Commonwealth
Government funding under its CRC for Black Coal Utiliza-
tion research program, and the Queensland Department of
Mines and Energy Q-Therm Program for its specic funding
for the blending project.
References
[1] Su S. Combustion behavior and ash deposition of blended coals. PhD
thesis. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, 1999.
[2] Skorupska NM. Coal specicationsimpact on power station perfor-
mance. IEA Coal Research, London, 1993.
[3] Oka N, Murayama T, Matsuoka H, Yamada S, Yamada T, Shinozaki
S, Shibaoka M, Thomas CG. The inuence of rank and maceral
S. Su et al. / Fuel 80 (2001) 699706 705
Fig. 5. Correlation between the stand-off distance and the MI.
composition on ignition and char burnout of pulverized coal. Fuel
Process Technol 1987;15:21324.
[4] Pohl JH. Fuels Evaluation Report: SRP Coals. Energy and Environ-
mental Research Corporation, CA, 1984.
[5] Carpenter AM. Coal blending for power stations. IEA Coal Research,
London, 1995.
[6] Standards Australia, AS 2856.12000 (Originated as AS 2061
1989). Stratheld: Standards Australia International Ltd, 2000.
[7] Standards Australia, AS 2856.21998 (Originated as AS
28561986). Homebush: Standards Association of Australia, 1998.
[8] Standards Australia, AS 2856.32000 (Originated as AS
24861989). Stratheld: Standards Australia International Ltd,
2000.
[9] Baker J, Bennett P, Holcombe D, Naylor P. Construction and
calibration of the Australian coal combustion testing and research
facility, End-of-Grant NERDDC Report. ACIRL Limited, Brisbane,
1986.
[10] Badzioch S, Hawksley PGW. Kinetics of thermal decomposition of
pulverized coal particles. I&EC Process Design Develop
1970;9:52130.
[11] Kobayashi H, Howard JB, Sarom AF. Coal devolatilization at high
temperature. In: 16th Symposium (International) on Combustion. The
Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1976. p. 41125.
[12] Cloke M, Lester E. Characterization of coals for combustion using
petrographic analysis: a review. Fuel 1994;73:31520.
[13] Lee GK, Whaley H. Modication of combustion and y-ash charac-
teristics by coal blending. J Inst Energy 1983:1907.
[14] Thomas GC, Gosnell ME, Shibaoka M. Combustion kinetics of coal
maceral particles using a laser nanoreactor mass analyser, CET/IR
487. CSIRO Division of Coal and Energy Technology, Sydney, 1996.
[15] Pohl JH. Fuel Evaluation Report: OM Coal. Energy and Environmen-
tal Research Corporation, CA, 1985.
[16] Pohl JH. Fuel Evaluation Report: BC Coal. Energy and Environmen-
tal Research Corporation, CA, 1985.
[17] Pohl JH. Fuel Evaluation Report: OM/SR Blends. Energy and
Environmental Research Corporation, CA, 1985.
S. Su et al. / Fuel 80 (2001) 699706 706