Effects of moisture and coal blending on Hardgrove

Grindability Index of Western Australian coal

H.B. Vuthaluru
a,
*
, R.J. Brooke
b
, D.K. Zhang
a
, H.M. Yan
a
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box 1987, Perth,
Western Australia 6845, Australia
b
Wesfarmers Premier Coal Limited, P.O. Box 21, Premier Road, Collie, Western Australia 6225, Australia
Accepted 13 February 2003
Abstract
Investigations into the effects of moisture and coal blending on Hardgrove Grindability Index
(HGI) were carried out on Collie coal of Western Australia. Experiments were conducted in a standard
Hardgrove apparatus on four individual Premier seam coals (namely P2, P3, P4 and Hebe) and several
blends (namely Hebe/P2, Hebe/P3, Hebe/P4, Hebe/P2/P4) prepared at various blending ratios. The
experiments comprised of 5 days of air-drying followed by oven drying.
Among the coal seams tested, Hebe showed the highest HGI (58) whereas P4 was the lowest
(47). HGI was found to correlate well with residual moisture, with correlation coefficients ranging
from 0.5 to 0.9 depending on the type of coal seam or blend. In contrast, moisture measurements on
the samples loaded into the HGI apparatus (size 0.600 to 1.180 mm), referred to as the coarse
fraction showed erratic trends with HGI. The experimental results suggest that no relationship exist
between the coarse fraction moisture and HGI. Measured HGI values of binary and ternary blends
were found to correspond well with the weighted average values of HGI within F2 HGI units. This
effect was confirmed by a further investigation with a range of 11 binary (P3/Hebe) blends of various
proportions.
D 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Hardgrove; Grindability; Coal blending; Residual moisture; Coal combustion; Sub-bituminous coal
1. Introduction
The grindability (i.e. ease of grinding) of coal is an important practical and
economic property to coal handling and utilisation aspects, particularly for pulverised
0378-3820/03/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0378-3820(03)00044-4
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-8-9266-4685; fax: +61-8-9266-2681.
E-mail address: haribabu@che.curtin.edu.au (H.B. Vuthaluru).
www.elsevier.com/locate/fuproc
Fuel Processing Technology 81 (2003) 6776
coal fired utilities. Coal grindability usually measured by Hardgrove Grindability Index
(HGI) is of great interest since it is used as a predictive tool to determine the
performance capacity of industrial pulverisers in power station boilers. In general, coal
grindability characteristics reflect the coal hardness, tenacity, and fracture which are
influenced by coal rank, petrography, and the distribution and the types of minerals
[16].
For Australian coals, HGI is determined by the Australian Standard AS 1038.20 [7]
method. This standard is closely based on the ASTM D409-93a American standard [8]. The
Australian Standard explicitly states that the coal should be air-dried in the atmosphere until
its moisture attains approximate equilibrium with the atmosphere. A coal, hydrophilic in
nature, could increase in moisture at appropriate conditions of temperature and humidity.
The ASTM warns that variations in moisture may alter the grindability characteristics and
could result in different indices.
The coal selected for the present study was a low rank sub-bituminous coal from Collie
coalfield, which has hydrophilic properties. Coals of this type are characterised by high
moisture levels, low specific energy and low HGI. Collie coal is basically lignitic in
structure and breaks into thin layers as it dries. In the Collie area, seasonal conditions are
very well defined with the summer months being hot and dry, with low humidity, whilst
the winter months are typically cool and humid with regular rain. This has a significant
effect on the coal with average moisture levels being approximately 2.5% higher in winter
than summer. As this difference is relatively consistent despite the actual rainfall, it is
reasonable to assume that the moisture content during the determination of HGI is
significantly higher in winter than in summer. As the coal dries well in summer it is
likely that the as analysed moisture shows a greater difference between summer and
winter than it would be apparent from the coal stockpile moisture levels [9]. These
variations in moisture could alter the grindability characteristics and result in different
HGIs.
Blending is another parameter which influences the grindability of a given coal. There
have been some investigations in the past on the HGIs of coal blends in relation to the
additivity of the HGI, and although some coals show additivity, this is not usually the case
[1,1012]. Conroy and Bennette [13] evaluated the blending of Indonesian coals (similar
in rank to Collie coal) with Australian thermal coals with HGIs ranging between 48 and
56. The Indonesian coals were sub-bituminous with HGI values of 46 and 49. In all cases,
the HGI values of the blend were lower than the calculated value, and in some cases,
lower than either blended components. More recently, Rubiera et al. [1] also found that
the non-additivity of the HGI especially when coals of widely different HGI were
blended. Usually, all the seams from the Premier mine are supplied as blends in varying
proportions. Whilst it appears that sections within a single seam, showing different HGI
values, would yield blends which are the weighted average of the individual sections,
different seams do not appear to be additive. Thus, there is no general method of pre-
dicting the HGI of a coal blend, which must be determined experimentally on a case-to-
case basis.
The present work is aimed at investigating the unusual properties of Collie coals
with reference to the HGI and possible variations with respect to moisture and blending.
The tests have been carried out on individual seams and blends typical of those used to
H.B. Vuthaluru et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 81 (2003) 6776 68
build stockpiles at Premier mine site in Western Australia. The paper presents infor-
mation obtained from the tests covering several despatches of coal seams of the Premier
mine.
2. Experimental
Experiments were conducted using standard Hardgrove equipment at Western Powers
East Perth Laboratories. The coal seams or blends used for the experimentation are given
in Table 1. The experiments comprised of 5 days of air-drying followed by oven drying
(P2 seam, Hebe/P2/P4 coal blend samples for 3 h and P4, Hebe, Hebe/P4 samples for 1 h
at 40 jC). The experiments lasted for 8 days, which covered five samples (coals/coal
blends) [13]. To accelerate the drying and experimental time, samples were placed in the
oven instead of air-drying. For simulating air-drying in the oven, the calibration chart of
coal moisture loss against oven drying time at 40 jC was used. Upon superimposing the
data obtained with air-drying on to the calibration chart and comparing the drying
sequence, it was observed that 3% reduction in moisture for 2 h of oven drying
corresponded with 1 day of air-drying. Experiments comprised of overnight air-drying
followed by 2-, 4-h oven drying at 40 jC on successive days (hereafter referred to as
accelerated drying). Accelerated drying (overnight drying in air followed by oven drying
at 40 jC for 2-, 4-h periods on successive days) enabled to complete two and four samples
in a short period.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Hardgrove Grindability Index
Fig. 1 shows day-to-day variations in HGI values for the tested samples. Hebe showed
the highest HGI (58) whereas P4 is the lowest (HGI of 47) among the tested samples.
Blending had the positive effect on both binary (Hebe/P4) and ternary blends (Hebe/P2/
P4-40/30/30), with HGI values shifting towards that of P2 and P4 seams, respectively.
Ternary blend showed similar HGI values as those observed with P2. A similar behaviour
is observed for the binary blend. HGI values of Hebe/P4 were found to be same as P4 after
1-day air-drying, whereas for longer drying periods (especially 2 and 3 days), the HGI
values are closer to P4 than Hebe. All the measured HGI values for the coal seams and
blends were in the range of 4659.
Table 1
Samples tested for Hardgrove Grindability Index
Coal seams Binary blends Ternary blends
P2, P4, Hebe Hebe/P4 (30:70) Hebe/P2/P4 (30:35:35)
Hebe/P2/P4 (40:30:30)
Hebe/P2/P4 (20:40:40)
H.B. Vuthaluru et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 81 (2003) 6776 69
3.2. Residual moisture
As expected, the residual moisture decreased gradually with increase in drying period
(Fig. 2). Measured data showed a consistent increase in HGI values with an increase in
residual moisture (Fig. 3) for the tested samples up to certain value ( f25% moisture) and
then levels-off for the tested samples. This indicates the existence of threshold moisture
value above which the grindability of the samples declines. Overall, the results indicated a
Fig. 2. Residual moisture versus drying time for the tested coal seams or blends.
Fig. 1. HGI versus drying time for the tested coal seams or blends.
H.B. Vuthaluru et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 81 (2003) 6776 70
good correlation between residual moisture and HGI with correlation coefficients of 0.5 to
0.9 depending on the type of coal seam or blend.
3.3. Coarse fraction moisture
Moisture measurements on the coarse fraction revealed inconsistent variations with
drying period (Fig. 4). The results showed erratic trends between coarse fraction moisture
Fig. 4. Coarse fraction moisture versus drying time for the tested coals or blends.
Fig. 3. HGI versus residual moisture for the tested coal seams or blends.
H.B. Vuthaluru et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 81 (2003) 6776 71
and HGI (Fig. 5). The observed trends between coarse fraction and HGI values were quite
opposite to those observed with residual moisture and HGI values. There was no
relationship at all between coarse fraction moisture and HGI. Fig. 6 shows a plot of
relative humidity (prevailing at the time of sampling) against coarse fraction moisture. It is
evident from the graph that weather conditions could affect moisture levels of the coarse
fraction to a significant extent. A coal, which has hydrophilic properties (such as Collie
coal), could increase moisture level under the right conditions of humidity and temper-
ature. It appears that the sample rapidly reaches equilibrium during preparation of the 0.6
Fig. 6. Coarse fraction moisture versus relative humidity for the tested samples.
Fig. 5. HGI versus coarse fraction moisture for the tested coal seams or blends.
H.B. Vuthaluru et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 81 (2003) 6776 72
1.18-mm sample, and the moisture reading just reflects prevailing humidity at the time of
test, hence a poor correlation with HGI.
The results of the moisture studies suggest that two types of moisture exist in Collie
coal. One reflects the surface or free moisture, which changes rapidly with particle size and
factors such as temperature and humidity. The other type of moisture is bound in the coal
matrix. This moisture changes more slowly due to bonding with polar sites in the coal
molecule. This moisture however has a very important effect on the binding strength of the
coal and hence on HGI. It would be possible to have coal with high residual moisture (due
to high free moisture added by spraying, dew or rainfall) but actually lower inherent
moisture caused by long term exposure, which has a greater influence on HGI [9].
3.4. Maceral effects
Petrographic studies of borecores from a number of Premier seams indicated a
relationship between maceral content and HGI. There was evidence that the vitrinite
content of the coal samples had a marked effect on HGI values (Fig. 7). These
observations are in agreement with those reported in the literature [36]. The variations
in HGI could be partly attributed to the differing ash contents of coal seams in the same
pit. For coals containing higher mineral/ash content, it is likely that a substantial increase
in the proportion of mineral matter in the coal (from grinding zone), could result in the
increased recirculation of the heavier and more difficult to fracture mineral particles
through the grinding zone, compared to the coal particles. Other factors (such as oxidation)
could also contribute to the variations in HGI. This requires further attention in future
studies.
Fig. 7. Coal from borecores of the Premier seams displayed a good relationship between HGI and total vitrinite
content.
H.B. Vuthaluru et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 81 (2003) 6776 73
3.5. Coal blending
Weighted average of HGI values of binary and ternary blends in the experiments
corresponded well with the weighted average values of HGI of individual coal seams
within + 2 HGI units (Fig. 8). The additivity of Collie seams was confirmed by subsequent
tests with another binary blend (namely Hebe/P3 seams). The blend ratios are described in
Table 2 and showed similar trends (Fig. 9). This suggests that the grindability of a blend is
Fig. 8. Comparison of measured and weighted average values of HGI.
Table 2
Samples tested for blend additivity using P3/Hebe seams
Coal seams Binary blends Ternary blends
P3, Hebe Hebe/P4 (30:70) Hebe/P2/P4 (30:35:35)
Hebe/P2/P4 (40:30:30)
Hebe/P2/P4 (20:40:40)
Hebe/P3 (90:10)
Hebe/P3 (80:20)
Hebe/P3 (70:30)
Hebe/P3 (60:40)
Hebe/P3 (50:50)
Hebe/P3 (40:60)
Hebe/P3 (35:65)
Hebe/P3 (30:70)
Hebe/P3 (25:75)
Hebe/P3 (20:80)
Hebe/P3 (10:90)
H.B. Vuthaluru et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 81 (2003) 6776 74
merely the weighted average value derived from parent coals. Therefore, no general
conclusion on the grindability behaviour of coal blends can be drawn from the present
work. However, the results are in close agreement with those reported in previous studies
[1,1012] on the grindability of coal blends.
4. Conclusions
Principal conclusions drawn from this experimental investigation pertinent to the
grindability testing of Western Australian coal are as follows:

Grindability tests on samples of varied moisture content showed a significant effect of

moisture content on HGI. Good correlation with residual moisture was found for all the
samples tested; however, the range of variation of grindability with moisture content
varied among the tested samples.

No apparent relationship exists between coarse fraction moisture and HGI. It appears
that the sample rapidly reaches equilibrium during preparation of the 0.61.18-mm
sample, and the moisture content just reflects the prevailing humidity at the time of test.
Hence, a poor correlation with HGI.

Variations in grindability indexes have been observed from different batches of the
same coal (from the same pit) in different stages of experimentation are possibly due to
varying maceral as well as ash contents in the tested samples. HGI decreases with
increasing virtinite content in the samples.

HGI of blends showed merely the weighted average values of the individual coals.
Therefore, no general conclusions can be drawn on the grindability behaviour of coal
blends. It appears that there is no general method of predicting the grindability of a coal
blend, which must be determined experimentally.
Fig. 9. Measured and weighted average values of HGI of Hebe/P3 Coal blends.
H.B. Vuthaluru et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 81 (2003) 6776 75
Experimental results obtained from the present investigations would be further
complemented by the collection and analysis of feed coal and coal samples from the
grinding zone of a mill from a power station utility. This would prove to be valuable for
coal producers as well as coal utilisers in understanding the variations in HGI in terms of
mineral/maceral compositions for a particular coal.
Acknowledgements
Authors gratefully acknowledge Mr. Bob Eggleston for providing technical and
analytical support during HGI measurements at East Perth laboratories of Western Power.
The corresponding author also wish to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments
on the earlier version of the manuscript, which led to a great improvement of this paper.
References
[1] F. Rubiera, A. Arenillas, E. Fuente, N. Miles, J.J. Pis, Effect of the grinding behaviour of coal blends on coal
utilisation for combustion, Powder Technology 105 (1999) 351356.
[2] W.A. Barton, D.J. Condie, L.J. Lynch, Coal grindability: relationships with coal composition and struc-
ture, Proc. 6th Australian Coal Science Conference, Newcastle, 1719 October, AIE, Australia, 1994,
pp. 5564.
[3] A. Conroy, Impact of coal quality on grinding characteristics, Combustion News, Australian Combustion
Technology Centre Company Publication, 1994, August, pp. 14.
[4] J.C. Hower, A.M. Graese, J.G. Klapheke, Influence of microlithotype composition on Hardgrove Grind-
ability Index for selected Kentucky coals, International Journal of Coal Geology 7 (1987) 227244.
[5] J.C. Hower, G.D. Wild, Relationships between Hardgrove Grindability Index and petrographic composition
for high-volatile bituminous coals from Kentucky, Journal of Coal Quality 7 (1988) 122126.
[6] J.G. Bailey, A. Hodson, The effect of coal grindability on pulverised fuel combustion, Proc. 6th Australian
Coal Science Conference, Newcastle, 1719 October, AIE, Australia, 1994, pp. 4047.
[7] SAA, Higher rank coalHardgrove Grindability Index, Australian Standard 1038 (Part 20) 1992, pp. 46.
[8] American Society for Testing Materials D409-93a, Standard method of test for grindability of coal by the
Hardgrove-machine method.
[9] H.B. Vuthaluru, H. Yan, D.K. Zhang, J. Brooke, Proc. Australian Institute of Energy 9th Australian Coal
Science Conference, Solutions for Industry, 2629 November, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
[10] A. Waters, Journal of Coal Quality 5 (1998) 33.
[11] R.E. Douglas, M.C. Mai, R.D. Stoessner, Proc. 12th International Pittsburg Coal Conference, AIE,
Australia, 1990, pp. 837851.
[12] J.C. Hower, Additivity of Hardgrove Grindability: a case study, Journal of Coal Quality (1988) 6870.
[13] A. Conroy, C. Bennette, The Combustion Behaviour of Australian Export and Overseas Low Rank Coal
Blends; ACARP Final Report C3097.
H.B. Vuthaluru et al. / Fuel Processing Technology 81 (2003) 6776 76