Characterisation of coal blends for pulverised fuel combustion

J. Haas, M. Tamura
*
, R. Weber
IFRF Research Station, P.O. Box 10000, 1970 CA Ijmuiden, The Netherlands
Received 7 January 2000; revised 22 November 2000; accepted 8 December 2000
Abstract
This study evaluates the effect of blending on the combustion characteristics of pulverised coal through the testing of six coals and fteen
coal blends in an isothermal plug ow reactor (IPFR). The aim of the test was to assess whether the combustion behaviour of blends could be
predicted from that of the parent coals. For blends of bituminous coals, an additive behaviour was found for ash, volatile matter and caloric
value. Other non-standard fuel properties such as the high volatile matter content determined using the IPFR, fuel-N release and char
combustion, were found to be additive. The blends of bituminous coals and lignite demonstrated non-additive properties as far as volatile
matter release is concerned. It was concluded that the inorganic coal phase is responsible for non-additive behaviour in blends, since the
volatile components of the coal mineral matter may undergo reactions with the second blend partner. q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Coal characterisation; Blending; Char burnout
1. Introduction
Currently, only 10% of coal mined world-wide is inter-
nationally traded [1]. Since the coal supply agreements in
Europe are coming to an end, it is now possible to make
greater use of cheaper coals available on the world market.
It is usual that every coal user has his own fuel envelope of
required coal characteristics which provides safe operation.
However, imported coals may have characteristics, different
from the locally mined fuels. Hence, the utilisation of
imported coals may require an enlargement of the envelope
and this may often require modications of the plant. To
prevent dangerous plant operation or the necessity to modify
a plant, coal blending could be used, instead, in order to
achieve the fuel properties which satisfy the criterions of a
given fuel envelope. There has been an abundance of
research on coal blending, especially in the United States
[26]. In the Netherlands, the need for coal blending arose
much earlier than elsewhere, since it was necessary to mix
the high sulphur containing Eastern USA coals with the low
sulphur Western USA coals to limit SO
x
emissions.
However, the combustion performance of blends is yet
fully understood.
The present investigation aims to achieve a better under-
standing of the combustion behaviour of coal blends, with
emphasis on devolatilisation, char burnout and fuel nitrogen
release under pulverised fuel combustion conditions.
2. Background
Coal blending research became necessary when it was
found that predictions based upon the characteristics of
the parent coals were not always applicable. A recent desk
study by Carpenter [1] provides a comprehensive review of
the current knowledge on coal blending. Riley et al. [3]
found, that the elemental C,H,N,O,S-analysis, moisture
content and LCV of the coals are additive properties. The
ash level of blends determined by the ASTM standard
method was found to be generally 0.36 wt% higher than
the calculated ash. The proximate volatile matter (PVM)
content was found to be within 4 wt% of the predicted
value, depending on the analytical method used (ASTM D
3174 or Leco analyser). Hardgrove grindability and
swelling indices were found to be non-additive, and this
non-additivity was more pronounced for coals of widely
differing rank, due to the increased formation of sulphates
from the minerals of the parent coals. Baxter and Dora [2,5]
presented results on the slagging behaviour of blends of
Eastern and Western USA coals. Their laboratory scale
experiments and measurements in four utility boilers
(tangential- and wall-red) showed that the deposit tenacity
is a non-additive property. The combined effect of alkali
minerals from the low rank coal and the sulphur from the
Fuel 80 (2001) 13171323
0016-2361/01/$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0016- 2361( 00) 00216-7
www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 131-251-493-064; fax: 131-251-226-318.
E-mail address: masato.tamura@ifrf.net (M. Tamura).
high rank coal causes the increased formation rate of
sulphates. This was concluded to have a major effect on
deposit tenacity resulting in non-additive behaviour. Artos
and Scaroni [7] performed similar experiments to those
presented here. They reported additive predictions for
TGA reactivity and drop tube combustion efciency. Non-
additive behaviour was observed for ash levels of blends of
widely differing ranks.
3. Experimental
An isothermal plug ow reactor (IPFR) was used to
measure devolatilisation and char burnout under conditions
found in industrial boilers. The temperature of the primary
reactor gas is in the range of 10001700 K. The reactor
walls are electrically heated in the same temperature range
to guarantee an isothermal temperature prole over the 4 m
long and 0.15 m diameter reactor tube. A detailed descrip-
tion of the facility can be found elsewhere [810]. For
devolatilisation tests, the fuels were injected iso-kinetically
into the reactor operated at a temperature of 1473 K in an
oxygen free atmosphere. A moveable sampling probe with
cyclone was used to collect samples at residence times
between 5 and 150 ms. Chars were prepared under the
same conditions as used for devolatilisation, being collected
after a residence time of approximately 250 ms. This pro-
cedure guarantees that all volatiles are released without
exposing the residual char to high temperatures for a signi-
cant period of time, which may change its organic structure.
Char burnout was measured at temperatures of 1223, 1473
and 1673 K in a gas atmosphere containing approximately
5 vol% oxygen. The blends were tested at temperatures
1223 and 1673 K, representing kinetic control and diffusion
control conditions, respectively. For each fuel, samples
were collected after residence times between 150 and
1300 ms.
Each parent coal was separately ground to a particle size
distribution of 75 wt%,75 mm and subsequently, classi-
ed to remove particles smaller than 20 mm. A cyclone
sampling system connected to the IPFR, could not capture
very ne particles with a high efciency. Hence, the coals
were classied to a size coarser than 20 mm. Table 1 shows
the ultimate and ash composition analysis of the six coals
used to prepare 15 blends. The blends were chosen so as to
blend one of the three hvb coals (Polish, El Cerrejon,
Gottelborn) with the coals of other ranks (Great White Tip
(lvb), Klein Kopje (mvb), TBK (lig)) in a 50/50 ratio by
weight. The analyses were performed according to ASTM
standards, with the exception of proximate analysis and
determination of the lower caloric value, which followed
the standard DIN51718-20 and DIN 51900, respectively.
4. Results
4.1. Additivity of standard coal analyses
Proximate and ultimate analysis determination of the
lower caloric value, and true and apparent density
measurements were performed for all coals, blends and
their chars. The analysis of all the samples is shown in
Table 2, with the ash values being determined by two
separate laboratories. The calculated additive values were
compared against the actual measurements from both
laboratories. The measured ash level for the coals was
found to be approximately 4.6% higher than the calculated
values. However, the comparison of the analysis results
J. Haas et al. / Fuel 80 (2001) 13171323 1318
Table 1
Ultimate and ash composition analysis of the coals
Polish Gottelborn El Cerrejon Dried brown Great white tip Klein Kopje
wt%
daf
C 79.90 79.30 78.70 64.40 88.80 81.20
H 5.00 5.20 5.20 4.90 4.20 4.40
N 1.32 1.48 1.49 0.72 1.44 1.83
O 12.90 12.90 13.70 26.70 4.00 12.00
S (total) 0.98 1.26 0.68 0.41 1.65 0.57
wt%
dry
SiO
2
46.8 43.3 61.6 4.8 45.3 47.2
Al
2
O
3
27.5 24.4 20.4 5.1 29.9 33.6
MgO 2.8 3.4 1.0 16.2 1.1 1.8
Na
2
O 0.6 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.1
CaO 4.2 5.3 1.9 37.0 2.0 6.4
K
2
O 2.3 3.1 2.1 0.5 2.0 0.7
TiO
2
1.1 0.9 0.9 0.3 1.1 1.7
MnO 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1
Fe
2
O
3
8.7 12.5 8.7 18.5 13.5 3.0
Ash 14.3 10.3 5.5 7.9 4.1 12
J. Haas et al. / Fuel 80 (2001) 13171323 1319
T
a
b
l
e
2
L
a
b
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
a
l
l
t
e
s
t
e
d
c
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
c
o
a
l
b
l
e
n
d
s
T
e
s
t
e
d
f
u
e
l
A
b
b
r
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
(
w
t
%
)
a
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
a
s
h
c
o
a
l
(
w
t
%
d
r
y
)
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
a
s
h
c
h
a
r
(
w
t
%
d
r
y
)
P
V
M
(
w
t
%
d
a
f
)
H
V
M
(
w
t
%
d
a
f
)
L
C
V
(
M
J
/
k
g
d
r
y
)
T
r
u
e
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
k
g
/
m
3
)
A
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
k
g
/
m
3
)
L
a
b
1
L
a
b
2
L
a
b
1
L
a
b
2
L
a
b
1
L
a
b
1
(
%
)
L
a
b
2
(
%
)
P
o
l
i
s
h
P
1
0
0
1
2
1
2
.
1
1
9
.
9
2
1
.
6
3
4
.
3
4
5
.
1
5
0
.
0
2
7
.
2
8
1
8
4
0
4
1
5
G
o
t
t
e
l
b
o
r
n
G
1
0
0
1
0
.
4
1
0
.
1
1
9
.
2
1
9
.
7
3
7
.
1
5
1
.
2
5
4
.
2
2
8
.
0
0
1
8
2
8
4
0
7
E
l
C
e
r
r
e
j
o
n
E
1
0
0
5
.
6
5
.
9
1
2
.
2
1
2
.
2
3
9
.
4
5
7
.
3
5
4
.
9
2
8
.
5
1
8
3
6
4
3
1
D
r
i
e
d
b
r
o
w
n
B
1
0
0
4
.
5
4
.
8
1
3
.
8
1
5
.
3
5
4
.
6
7
0
.
6
7
2
.
1
2
7
.
5
7
1
9
5
0
4
3
4
G
r
e
a
t
w
h
i
t
e
t
i
p
W
1
0
0
7
.
9
8
.
2
9
.
3
9
.
5
1
4
.
8
1
6
.
3
1
4
.
9
3
0
.
7
4
1
7
5
8
5
7
9
K
l
e
i
n
K
o
p
j
e
K
1
0
0
1
4
.
7
1
4
.
6
2
0
.
8
2
1
.
1
2
8
.
3
3
4
.
4
3
6
.
1
2
7
.
6
6
1
8
2
1
6
0
4
B
l
e
n
d
1
P
-
B
5
0
8
.
5
9
.
4
1
7
.
1
1
9
.
2
4
3
.
9
5
5
.
0
5
6
.
3
2
9
.
6
6
1
8
5
4
4
3
2
B
l
e
n
d
2
P
-
W
5
0
1
0
9
.
3
1
5
.
2
1
5
.
3
2
5
.
1
3
8
.
0
4
3
.
2
2
8
.
7
8
1
7
9
3
5
1
3
B
l
e
n
d
3
P
-
K
5
0
1
3
.
5
1
3
.
7
2
0
.
4
2
1
.
5
3
0
.
6
3
9
.
1
4
2
.
0
2
7
.
1
2
1
8
8
6
5
0
5
B
l
e
n
d
4
G
-
B
5
0
8
.
3
7
.
2
1
8
.
5
1
9
.
3
4
4
.
3
6
0
.
1
6
7
.
6
2
7
.
2
7
1
8
7
6
4
3
5
B
l
e
n
d
5
G
-
W
5
0
9
.
1
8
.
8
1
2
.
5
1
3
.
2
2
6
.
2
2
9
.
9
3
6
.
5
2
9
.
5
7
1
7
4
0
5
0
9
B
l
e
n
d
6
G
-
K
5
0
1
2
.
3
1
2
.
3
2
0
.
4
2
0
.
6
3
2
.
8
4
5
.
3
4
5
.
9
2
7
.
6
2
1
7
8
2
5
2
1
B
l
e
n
d
7
E
-
W
5
0
6
.
5
6
.
6
9
.
7
1
0
2
8
.
9
3
5
.
3
3
6
.
4
3
0
.
1
9
1
7
6
8
4
9
8
B
l
e
n
d
8
E
-
B
5
0
6
.
1
5
.
6
1
3
.
2
1
3
.
4
4
7
.
5
5
7
.
3
6
1
.
7
2
9
.
3
3
1
8
4
8
4
4
5
B
l
e
n
d
9
E
-
K
5
0
1
0
.
9
1
0
.
5
1
7
.
2
1
6
.
8
3
4
.
2
4
1
.
1
4
1
.
9
2
8
.
4
9
1
8
0
7
5
0
4
B
l
e
n
d
1
0
B
-
W
5
0
7
.
2
7
.
3
1
1
.
6
1
2
.
3
3
4
.
8
0
4
0
.
9
4
3
.
9
3
0
.
2
0
1
8
6
5
5
6
8
B
l
e
n
d
1
1
B
-
K
5
0
1
0
1
0
1
8
.
4
1
9
.
1
4
1
.
2
0
5
0
.
7
5
2
.
9
2
7
.
0
1
1
8
3
5
5
2
9
B
l
e
n
d
1
2
G
-
W
b
7
5
9
.
9
9
.
4
1
5
.
9
1
6
.
1
3
1
.
0
0
4
1
.
9
4
5
.
9
2
8
.
6
9
1
8
4
9
5
0
2
B
l
e
n
d
1
3
E
-
W
b
7
5
6
.
3
6
.
3
1
0
.
8
1
0
.
7
3
2
.
4
0
4
4
.
5
4
3
.
9
3
0
.
1
6
1
8
1
3
5
2
1
B
l
e
n
d
1
4
G
-
W
c
2
5
8
.
2
8
.
2
1
0
.
9
1
1
.
3
1
7
.
8
0
2
7
.
0
2
9
.
9
3
0
.
2
4
1
7
9
0
5
7
0
B
l
e
n
d
1
5
E
-
W
c
2
5
7
.
6
7
.
2
9
.
7
9
.
9
2
1
.
1
0
2
3
.
4
2
9
.
4
3
0
.
1
5
1
7
8
6
5
6
5
a
M
a
s
s
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e

r
s
t
b
l
e
n
d
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
.
J. Haas et al. / Fuel 80 (2001) 13171323 1320
Fig. 1. Comparison of measured and calculated weight loss during devolatilisation at 12008C for (top) El Cerrejon, (middle) Polish, (bottom) Gottelborn coal
blended 50 wt%:50 wt% with dried brown coal (W measured, predicted), Klein Kopje (K measured, predicted), Great White Tip (A measured, - - -
predicted).
from the two different laboratories shows the same order of
magnitude of difference, suggesting an inherent accuracy of
the analysis technique of 5%. This means that the ash values
show additivity within experimental error. A similar conclu-
sion can be drawn for the analysis of the char ash levels.
The PVM and high volatile matter (HVM), found from
devolatilisation measurements in the IPFR, were also
assessed for their additive behaviour. The PVM, which is
determined by thermogravimetry, was found to behave
additively. In average, the calculated PVM were found to
be approximately 3% higher than the laboratory values. In
absolute terms, this corresponds to 0.78 wt% of volatile
matter, and this should be compared with an error of
0.3 wt% inherent to the analysis technique. Taking into
account the other possible measurement errors, caused by
factors such as poor mixing of the blends sample, or uctua-
tions in the parent coal composition, this level of difference
can be regarded as being within the overall measurement
accuracy.
Ash vaporisation may have a minor effect on the PVM
additivity, because volatile mineral matter cannot be distin-
guished from organic volatile matter. This can also inu-
ence HVM content, since it is determined by an ash tracer
calculation between coal ash and char ash levels. In case of a
non-inert ash tracer (loss of ash due to vaporisation or reac-
tion), a virtual decrease in volatile matter can be observed.
The release of a small fraction of volatile ash will lead to a
small increase in the volatile matter content in the proximate
analysis (direct proportionality). An equally small fraction
of volatile ash may lead to substantially lower HVM
content. Therefore, it is important for the HVM assessment,
that ash additivity (no interaction of the ashes) can be
assumed. The deviation of the HVM between the two
laboratory analyses was found to be about 3.1 wt%, corre-
sponding to a 6% average difference. The analysed HVM
was 2.9 wt% lower than the calculated one, suggesting that
the HVM is also an additive property, with the assumption
that the ash tracer is inert.
Apparent density (particle density, including the pores)
and true density (particle density, excluding the pores) were
examined as well. These are important for the study of the
particle heat-up process and char burnout behaviour.
The measured true density of the coal blends deviated
from the additive calculation by 2.5%. For the char blends,
an even smaller error of 1.6% was found.
A much larger difference was observed for the apparent
particle density, which could not be reproduced by the addi-
tive calculation. This property showed an average deviation
of 15.7% between the measured and calculated values. The
non-additivity of the apparent density could be due to
the fact that this property cannot be measured according
to the ASTM standard. The values found in this investiga-
tion are of the order of 1520% lower than the literature
values. The ASTM standard requires that particles larger
than 25 mm in size should be used. In this case, the inter-
particle volume is negligible compared to the pore volume.
Since, in this study, the analysed coal was in a pulverised
form, the inter-particle volume introduced a considerable
error, affecting the accuracy of the measurement. In addi-
tion, there may be variations between the shape of the
particles of the different coals within a blend. This can
thus, give rise to an unexpected variation in the inter particle
volume of a blend, when compared with the parent coals.
The caloric values of the chars were additive within an
average deviation of 0.6 MJ/kg (2.1% difference) between
the measured and calculated caloric values.
4.2. Additivity of volatile matter release
Devolatilisation was measured at various residence times
between 5 and 150 ms. Fig. 1 shows the results for three hvb
coals (El Cerrejon, Polish, Gottelborn) blended with three
different partners (dried brown coal (lig), Klein Kopje
(mvb), and Great White Tip (lvb)). All measured blends,
with the exception of the blends with dried brown coal
(lig), could be predicted by the additivity rule within the
range of reproducibility. The devolatilisation of brown
coal blended with either Gottelborn (hvb) or Polish coal
(hvb) could not be predicted satisfactorily from the parent
coals. This may be due to reactive ash components of the
two blend partners introducing a substantial error in the ash
tracer calculation. More tests with Gottelborn coal, shown in
Fig. 2 proved that the non-additivity relates to the lignite
blend partner. Fig. 2 also shows the devolatilisation beha-
viour of Gottelborn and Great White Tip coal and of three
blending ratios (25, 50, 75%) together with their predicted
volatile matter release.
4.3. Fuel nitrogen release
Fuel nitrogen release was studied during devolatilisation
J. Haas et al. / Fuel 80 (2001) 13171323 1321
Fig. 2. Weight loss during devolatilisation measured at 12008C for blends of
Gottelborn (hvb) with Great white tip (lvb) in weight fractions of 0, 25, 50,
75, 100%.
and is based on the nitrogen analysis of samples taken from
the IPFR. In earlier investigations [8,1113], it was found
that char nitrogen is not preferentially released into the gas
phase during char burnout. Therefore, a proportionality
between burnout and char nitrogen release was assumed.
The fuel-N release during devolatilisation was calculated
by normalising the instantaneous fuel-N content (N
sample
)
with the initial coal nitrogen (N
initial
) according to the
following equation:
VN 1 21 2VMN
sample
=N
initial
; 1
where VN is the fraction of volatile fuel nitrogen and VM
stands for the volatile matter. A 8 wt% average deviation
between the measured and predicted volatile fuel-N fraction
was found corresponding to a relative error of 24.4%. An
error analysis suggests that a substantial part of that devia-
tion results from the superposed errors combined in Eq. (1),
which are inherent to the measurement techniques applied
for the VM and N determination. Because of this, it is very
difcult to make an assessment of additivity of the volatile
fuel-N release. Another approach is presented in Fig. 3,
showing the volatile fuel-N fraction of blends in comparison
with the ones of pure coals. The correlation coefcient R for
a linear regression of the coals is R 0.88, whereas the
blends showed a stronger correlation, with R 0.93. Both
coals and blends seem to follow the same trend, with the
volatile nitrogen fraction being directly proportional to the
volatile matter released during devolatilisation.
4.4. Additivity of char burnout
Char burnout was determined for the parent coals at 1223,
1473 and 1673 K in a gas atmosphere containing 5 vol.%
O
2
. From these measurements, both the frequency factor and
activation energy were determined for an Arrhenius expres-
sion using a modied pseudo-kinetic char burnout model
[1418].
For the burnout prediction of a blend, a calculation
method is needed, which superimposes the combustion
rate of each char fraction in the blend. It is therefore, neces-
sary to know the initial weight fractions of the chars and not
of the coals. The char weight fractions can be calculated
assuming additive behaviour of the HVM by the following
formulation:
M
char1
M
coal1
1 2HVM
coal1
=M
coal1
1 2HVM
coal1

11 2M
coal1
1 2HVM
coal2
;
2
where M
char1
is the resulting weight fraction of the rst blend
partner after devolatilisation, M
coal
is the weight fraction of
the same partner in the original blend and HVM is the high
volatile matter content. The char burnout was calculated
independently for the two blend components and their
instantaneous ash contents were weighted according to
their initial char fractions. Fig. 4 shows an example calcu-
lated for blends of Great White Tip with two hvb coals
(Gottelborn, El Cerrejon). The char burnout behaviour of
the lvb coal is dominant in both cases, since its residual char
weight fraction after devolatilisation is substantially higher
than that of the hvb coal. The pseudo-kinetic model under-
estimates the conversion of pure Gottelborn char. This
deviation can be found in the 75%:25% blend, but at higher
blend ratios, the Great White Tip char camouages the
incorrect prediction of the hvb char. However, it is possible
to predict char burnout behaviour with the kinetic informa-
tion of the parent coals.
J. Haas et al. / Fuel 80 (2001) 13171323 1322
Fig. 3. Measured volatile fuel nitrogen fraction of pure coals and coal
blends.
Fig. 4. Comparison of char burnout of blends measured at 14008C, 5% O
2
and predicted from the parent coals for (top) GoteelbornGreat white Tip 0,
25, 50, 75, 100% original mass fraction, (bottom) El Cerrejon with Great
White Tip in 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100% original mass fraction.
5. Conclusions
Five bituminous coals, a lignite and fteen blends were
tested in the IPFR. The reactor was operated in the 1223
1673 K temperature regime, at 5% oxygen concentration
and the particle residence time was in the range 5
1300 ms. The objective of the work was to examine whether
both the devolatilisation and the char combustion of blends
could be determined from characteristics of the parent coals.
The following has been concluded:
neither the release rate of the volatiles nor the HVM
content of the blends containing the lignite are additive;
for both blends, with bituminous and with lignite coal,
the apparent particle density does not obey the additivity
rules. The ash level, volatile matter, volatile fuel nitrogen
release, true particle density, lower caloric value of char
and char burnout behaviour are additive;
from both this investigation and the information gained
from the literature [113], it is concluded that non-
additive effects may result from the inorganic (mineral)
phase of the parent coals. Mineral compounds can vapor-
ise and react with a component of the second fuel. The
greater the difference in coal rank, the more pronounced
is the non-additive behaviour, since coals of different
rank have generally a broad difference in their ash
composition. Characteristics related to the organic coal
phase appear to be additive within the measurement error.
The above conclusions are drawn from the data generated
using the IPFR. It is intended to undertake appropriate
measurement to examine the validity of these conclusions to
industrial scale ames.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the IEACoal Combustion
Sciences Programme Annex-2 for the funding of this work.
References
[1] Carpenter AM. Coal blending for power stations. IEA Coal Res Lond
1995.
[2] Baxter L, Dora L. The combustion behaviour of a blend of eastern and
western coals: comparison between a blend and its individual compo-
nents. Proceeding of the International Power Generation Conference,
Atlanta, USA, 1822 October 1992, ASME paper no. 92-JPGC-
FACT 14.
[3] Riley JT, Gilleland SR, Forsythe RF, Graham Jr HD, Hayes FJ. Non-
additive analytical values for coal. Proceedings of the seventh inter-
national conference on coal testing, Charleston, WV, USA, 2123
March 1989.
[4] Pohl J, McDonald B, Breen B. Predicting the emissions from blends
of fuels. Proceedings of the Reducing Power Plant Emissions from
Blends of Fuels, Bethesda, MD, USA, 2728 October 1987.
[5] Baxter LL. Experimental and theoretical comparisons of the
combustion and ash deposition behavior of blended coals and that
of the blend components. Engineering Foundation conference on
coal-blending and switching of low-sulfur western coals, Snowbird,
UT, USA, 26 September1 October 1993 and ASME Journal,
1994:255264.
[6] Whaley H, Wong JK, Banks GN. Combustion performance and Fly
Ash Emission Control For an Unreactive Western Coal, presented
at the Jt. Proceedings of ASME/IEEE Power Generation Confer-
ence Boston, MA, 2125 October 1990, ASME Journal 90-JPGC/
EC-8.
[7] Artos V, Scaroni AW. Fuel 1993;72(7):92733.
[8] Haas J, Maalman TFJ, Gallagher G, van de Kamp WL. Pulverized
fuel combustion characterization of coal blends. Report on CC10
Trails, IFRF DOC No. F37/y/38, 1997.
[9] Haas J, van de Kamp WL. Characterisation of fuel nitrogen release
during pulverized coal combustion. Fourth International Conference
on Technologies and Combustion for Clean Environment, 1997.
[10] Lorenz H, Carrea E, Tamura M, Haas J. The role of char surface
development in pulverized fuel combustion. Fuel 2000;79:116172.
[11] van Heek KH, Muhlen H-J. Heterogene Reaktionen bei der Verbren-
nung von Kohle, BWK 1985;Band 37(12) (in German).
[12] Davidson RM. Nitrogen in coal. IEA Coal Research Report ISBN 92-
9029-230-X, January 1994.
[13] Rozendaal, CM, Gast CH, van Vliet HN, Hein KRG. Coal blending
and its effects on NO
x
and unburned carbon in large scale power plants
in The Netherlands. Eighth DVV Colloquium on Coal Dust Process-
ing, Essen, Germany, 9 December 1992.
[14] Menendez R, Alvarez D, Fuertes AB, Hamburg G, Vleeskens J.
Effects of clay minerals on char texture and combustion. Energy
Fuels 1994;8(5).
[15] Smith IW. Nineteenth Symposium (International) on Combustion.
The Combustion Institute, 1982:10451065
[16] Lawn CJ, Whitelaw JH, editors. Principles of combustion engineering
for boilers New York: Academic Press, 1987.
[17] Unsworth JF, Barratt DJ, Roberts PT. Coal quality and combustion
performance. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1991.
[18] Smoot LD. Fundamentals of coal combustion for clean and efcient
use. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1991.
J. Haas et al. / Fuel 80 (2001) 13171323 1323