Blending of Thermal Coals

Section Contents
Introduction
Targeting a Blend Specification
Power Plant Performance of Blends

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 1

Blending of Thermal Coals

Blending of Thermal Coals

Introduction
Coal has many diverse properties, each one of which impacts on some aspects of power plant
performance. The value of coal to the user is a maximum when the set of coal properties is
matched to the particular requirements of the user’s power plant. Because there are so many
diverse properties, there may be few coals that give a good match for all properties.

This shortage of matching coals is favourable to neither the coal producer nor the coal buyer,
hence the need for blending - this increases the scope tremendously for presenting coals that
fully satisfy a strict specification.

A normal coal specification is based on standard chemical and physical laboratory tests. The
ability to satisfy a specification by blending is limited by:
• The properties of the available coals, and
• The additivity of properties, that is whether they are a weighted average of the
properties of the component coals.

The next major issue with blending is how a coal blend performs. Achieving a coal
specification does not infallibly predict the coal’s performance in power plant, though it is
often all we have to make these predictions. Satisfying a specification does not guarantee
satisfactory performance, even in the case of unblended coals, which raises the question as to
whether standard laboratory tests are less reliable predictors for blends than for single coals.

Benefits of Blending

Both coal producers can benefit from blending and blends are produced anywhere between
the mine and the power plant. Coal producers may blend for a combination of the following
reasons:
• To enable them to offer a product that satisfies customers’ specifications,
• To enable them to sell coals that may be otherwise unsaleable,
• To increase their tonnage sales,

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 2

Blending of Thermal Coals

• To offer products that can be produced more cheaply and are more competitive on the
market,
• To formulate new supplies to match an established product that may come from a mine
approaching the end of its life,
• To win favour with customers by supplying more consistent quality,

The above benefits can also accrue from blending with a competitor’s coal and there may be
more of this in the future.

Power station operators may blend for a combination of the following reasons:
• To design acceptable feedstocks from coals that may be unsuitable in the unblended state,
• The coals used can be cheaper, thus saving fuel costs,
• To make boiler plants more easy to operate by improving the consistency of coal quality,
• To diversify the sources of the coal supply, thereby increasing competition and securing
the supply,
• To enable poor quality domestic coals to be used.

Blending Logistics & Methods

Coal blends may be produced at:

• The mine, from different seams or areas,
• The outgoing seaport, where competitors may make blends for mutual advantage,
• The receival/distribution port, where customers may specify blend proportions,
• The power station stockyard, where two coals may be reclaimed simultaneously and
combined on the conveyors,
• In the power plant, where different coals may be sent to separate mills1.

Methods of blending include:

• Stacking the coal in different layers. Reclaiming is performed in a different direction,
across the layers, in order to achieve a degree of mixing.
• Reclaiming simultaneously from more than one stockpile and feeding onto a common
belt.
• Feeding from separate coal bins onto a common belt.

1
Though this is not really blending, many of the impacts of plant performance are like blending. After the
milling of the separate coals and their ignition at the burners, the remaining processes occur with “blended”
products of combustion.

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 3

Blending of Thermal Coals

It is clear that a degree of homogeneity, that is adequate mixing, is needed after blending to
avoid slugs of unblended coals entering the boiler. Nevertheless it is recognised that some
mixing occurs as a result of materials handling after the point of blending.

Targeting Coal Blend Characteristics

Coal Analysis: The initial approach in formulating a blend is to aim for a particular set
of coal properties, based on the standard analysis of blends. This is
logical since these results are the normal basis for coal specifications that
satisfy coal supply contracts. Additionally, it is standard coal analysis
that provides the first (and sometimes only) indication of how a coal will
perform in a power plant.
Coal Performance: Ultimately it is the actual performance of a coal in the power plant that
matters. It is difficult enough to rely on coal analysis to predict the
performance of single coals, and it may be expected that it would be
more difficult for coal blends, particularly when the properties of the
component coals are very different.

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 4

Blending of Thermal Coals

Targeting a Coal Specification

Additivity

In order to formulate a blend to satisfy a coal specification it is necessary to understand

whether the coal properties are additive. Additive properties are those that can be calculated
as a weighted average of the properties of the component coals. For practical purposes these
properties include:

Moisture
Ash
Volatile Matter
Carbon
Hydrogen
Nitrogen
Sulphur
Forms of sulphur
Chlorine
Phosphorus
Ash analysis2
Calorific value
Trace elements

Properties that are not additive include:

Ash Fusion Temperature: It is well established from phase equilibrium theory that the melting
behaviour of mixtures of ash oxides are not additive. Occasionally blends can have AFTs that
are higher than or lower than those of either of the component coals.

Hardgrove Grindability Index: The HGI of a blend is normally lower than the weighted
average. Figure 1 shows HGI measured for blends between many pairs of coals as well as of
the component coals. The connecting lines are not straight but generally curved downward.
The measured HGI therefore provides an unfavourable indication of the pulverising
characteristics of the blend which is often not justified in practice. It is not recommended that
the HGI of a blend be reported if it can be avoided.

2
This may not apply to sulphur (as SO3) because not all of the coal sulphur remains in the ash. In such a case the
other elements would need to be normalised to a constant sulphur level.

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 5

Blending of Thermal Coals

80

70

60
HGI

50

40

30
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Proportion of Second Coal in Blend

Figure 1: Measured HGI for Blends of Coal Pairs

Abrasion Index: Experience suggests that the Abrasion Index may not be additive, though this
may be a result of poor precision of the test.

Calculating the Coal Analysis for Additive Properties

In principal it is necessary to convert all analytical results to the as-received basis before
determining the weighted average. Once this has been done the results can be converted back
to any other basis if required.

The Ash Analysis of a blend is an important example of the above. In this case it is necessary
to firstly calculate the percentages in the coal rather in the ash. The required steps for
calculating the CaO in a 50/50 blend of two coals A and B are:

(1) CaOA (arb) = CaOA (% in Ash) x AshA (arb) / 100

(2) CaOB (arb) = CaOB (% in Ash) x AshB (arb) / 100
(3) CaOblend (arb) = 0.5 x CaOA (arb) + 0.5 x CaOB (arb)
(4) Ashblend (arb) = 0.5 x AshA (arb) + 0.5 x AshB (arb)
(5) CaOblend (% in Ash) = CaOblend (arb) / Ashblend (arb) x 100

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 6

Blending of Thermal Coals

A spreadsheet can easily be made to perform these steps without risk of errors. Alternatively
a more compact spreadsheet can be made to do the calculations more directly and for blends
of several coals3.

Optimising the Composition of a Blend

Blends may be designed to satisfy a number of criteria such as top or bottom-limits on coal
composition parameters using an optimising program4. At the same time it is possible to
optimise the solution, for example:

Two coals are to be blended to achieve less than 15% total moisture, less than 0.9%
sulphur, a Fuel Ratio less than 2, and Na2O in ash between 0.5 and 2%. While
achieving this it is desired to minimise the cost of the coal, that is to maximise the
proportion of the cheaper component coal. The required solution is the proportions of
the two coals that satisfy all of these criteria at minimum cost.

The above example includes the Fuel Ratio which is derived from two parameters (Fixed
Carbon/Volatile Matter). It is possible to include more complex parameters such as a
Slagging Index. Occasionally there is no possible solution to the problem as defined, that is
all of the requirements cannot be satisfied simultaneously. In such a case it is necessary to
either relax one of the requirements or look at different component coal(s).

A Blending Scenario

Table 1 gives the analysis of two coals of very different properties, and the analysis of a 70/30
blend calculated as described above.

3
An Excel spreadsheet will do this using the SUMPRODUCT function. It is wise to check the calculations once
using the long-hand method described above.
4
For example the Add-in Solver operation in Excel.

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 7

Blending of Thermal Coals

Table 1: Calculated Composition of a 70/30 Blend

Parameter Coal A Coal B A/B
Bituminous Sub-bit. Blend
Proportion in Blend (% as received) 70 30
Total Moisture % arb 10.8 17.2 12.7
Proximate Analysis % adb
Moisture 1.7 9.4 4.0
Ash 14.4 7.3 12.3
Volatiles 25.4 39.4 29.6
Fixed Carbon 58.5 43.9 54.1
Calorific Value, Gross % adb 28.63 26.42 27.97
Ultimate Analysis % daf
Carbon 85.3 76.9 82.8
Hydrogen 4.98 5.48 5.13
Nitrogen 1.92 1.55 1.81
Sulphur 0.39 0.83 0.52
Oxygen (diff) 7.4 15.2 9.8
Chlorine % adb 0.03 0.01 0.02
HGI 55 41 (51)
Abrasion Index 17 4 (13)
Ash Analysis % in ash
SiO2 69.4 36.9 63.6
Al2O3 24.9 18.7 23.8
Fe2O3 2.81 9.26 3.97
CaO 0.24 11.89 2.33
MgO 0.12 3.74 0.77
Na2O 0.02 5.31 0.97
K2O 0.77 0.72 0.76
TiO2 0.68 0.55 0.66
Mn3O4 0.03 0.04 0.03
SO3 0.06 10.22 1.88
P2O5 0.06 1.32 0.29
Total 99.1 98.7 99.0

In this case each of the coals has properties that may make them unattractive to coal
customers. Because they are not the same properties for the two coals, the blend has
properties that are generally more attractive, demonstrating that there may be mutual benefits
with blending.

Some of the features that are improved by blending are listed in Table 2.

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 8

Blending of Thermal Coals

Table 2: Properties that may be improved by blending Coals A and B

Parameter Coal A Coal B
Bituminous Sub-bit.
Total Moisture High. Mill drying,
pulverising, and combustion
performance
Proximate
Analysis
Ash High. Abrasion, erosion,
ash disposal and emissions
Volatiles Low. Burnout, carbon-in
ash, ash utilization, NOx
formation
Calorific Value, Slightly low. Handling
Gross capacity, mill capacity
Ultimate Analysis
Nitrogen High. NOx formation
Sulphur Low. ESP performance High. SO2 emissions
HGI Low. Mill capacity, PF
fineness
Abrasion Index High. Mill wear
Ash Analysis
SiO2 High. Abrasion, erosion,
poor radiative heat transfer
Fe2O3 Low. Poor radiative heat High. Slagging
transfer.
CaO High. Slagging
Na2O Low. ESP performance High. Fouling

Worth noting is that in the case of sulphur, Fe2O3 and Na2O, intermediate values may be
preferable to low or high values, so that blending improves these values for both coals.

Table 1 includes estimates of the HGI and Abrasion Index of the blends event though these
may not be strictly additive. As mentioned above, a measured HGI on the blend would
probably be lower (perhaps around 48) than the value in Table 1, however experience
suggests that the calculated value is a better indicator of mill performance than a measured
value.

Ash Fusion Temperature. As indicated above, the AFT of a blend cannot be predicted by
weighting the numbers. Nevertheless is reasonable to calculate a hypothetical value by this
means (taking into account the different ash contents of the component coals), then
confirming by direct measurement on a laboratory sample of the blend.

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 9

Blending of Thermal Coals

Performance of Blends
The previous section set out the coal quality parameters which can be calculated for blends
and gave an example of blending to improve or optimise the coal specification. The material
was relevant because:
• It is often necessary to provide coals to a specification, and
• The coal analysis may be all that is available to estimate the performance of a coal
product.

Ultimately it is important to know:

• How well the specification of the blend will predict the performance, and
• If the performance of the component coals is already known, whether the performance
measurements are additive in a blend.

If the component coals behave independently during combustion processes, it may be

expected that the performance of the blend can be predicted by summation. However in some
cases there are interactions between the coals that may produce unexpected results, favourable
or otherwise. It is generally believed that the likelihood of these interactions is greater when
the properties of the component coals are more dissimilar.

Milling

Moisture content, CV, HGI and Abrasion Index have been identified as coal quality
parameters associated with mill performance.

The effect of moisture on mill heating requirements, and of CV on mill throughput, are
straightforward and additivity therefore applies.

HGI is known to be an imprecise predictor of mill capacity, power consumption and product
fineness for single coals and the same applies for blends. If predictions are to be made it is
better to base them on a weighted HGI rather than on a measurement.

If the performance of the individual coals is known, experience suggests that most blends will
perform approximately as the weighted average of the components. This is illustrated in
Figure 2 for mill power consumption and seems to work for pairs of very different coals.

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 10

Blending of Thermal Coals

16

14
Mill Power Consumption (kW.h/t)

12

10

2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Proportion of Second Coal

Figure 2: Mill Power Consumption for Blends of Coal Pairs

Mill wear rates for blends generally lie somewhere between those of the component coals, but
do not appear to be strictly additive5 (Figure 3).
16

14

12
Mill Wear (g Fe/t coal)

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Proportion of Second Coal

Figure 3: Mill Wear Rates for Blends of Coal Pairs

5
Most of the coals shown had low abrasivity, where the precision of the measurement was poor. One coal was
very abrasive and appeared to have a strong influence on the blends.

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 11

Blending of Thermal Coals

Flame Stability

This performance characteristic is difficult to measure quantitatively. Flame stability is

mainly aided by the rapid release of heat with the volatiles, and is hindered by high moisture
levels. The calorific value of the volatiles is difficult to predict because the quantity of
volatiles released in a boiler flame is different (normally higher) than is measured in the
proximate VM analysis. It is not known whether this process is additive.

Burnout Efficiency

High burnout efficiency is normally expected of high VM coals, that is low Fuel Ratio coals.
However it is well known that FR or VM provide only very rough estimates of burnout.

For blends the burnout efficiency is mostly not additive; it is not uncommon for a blend to
perform worse or better than either of the component coals (Figure 4). It is reasonable to
suggest that two coals in a blend do not burn independently because each one influences the
environment of temperature and oxygen availability which affects the other one.

Another factor contributing to the erratic burnout behaviour of blends is the fact that they are
milled together. Though the gross behaviour of mill power consumption and PF fineness
appears to be approximately additive, the particles from the softer coal in a blend will be finer
than those of the harder coal; the single coals in Figure 4, and the blended coals overall, were
all at the same fineness (70% passing 75 μm).

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 12

Blending of Thermal Coals

100

99
Burnout Efficiency (%)

98

97

96

95
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Proportion of Second Coal

Figure 4: Burnout Efficiency for Blends of Coal Pairs

Deposit Formation

Slagging and fouling are very difficult to predict for single coals based on coal properties
because so many mechanisms are involved. For an ash deposit made up of finely mixed
elements of known proportions, the fusibility behaviour is complex because of eutectic
behaviour6, but can be predicted using complex mathematical models. However in a real case
this is complicated by factors such as:
• The deposit is not homogeneous and includes large particles of different compositions,
so that eutectic equilibrium may never be reached,
• The bulk composition of the deposit is not the same as the coal ash composition
because of differences in the stickiness and size of different particles that impinge on
the boiler surfaces, giving preferential deposition. It may therefore not be possible to
predict this composition.

6
A eutectic is a critical mixture of substances that melt at a lower temperature than other mixtures of slightly
different composition. Given the great number of elements in coal ash there are many eutectic combinations.

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 13

Blending of Thermal Coals

For a blend, the complexity of the ash composition and distribution is magnified and the
possibilities for eutectic interactions are great. Even if the above interactions were not
present, the temperature environment is normally modified by adding a second coal.

Therefore it is possible to combine two relatively harmless coals and to make a blend that
fouls or slags.

However it would be wrong to suggest that all blends cause unexpected deposition problems.
In an average case it makes sense to use a trouble-free coal in a blend to upgrade a
troublesome one. In spite of the risk of trusting the Ash Fusion Test to predict deposition
problems, it should be used to test laboratory samples of blends to try to avoid poor coal
combinations.

Electrostatic Precipitation

The most important ash property for ESP collection efficiency is its electrical resistivity.

Over a relatively narrow range of resistivity there tends to a marked change in collection
efficiency; above this range the efficiency is uniformly poor, while below the range it is
generally favourable. When two coals of different resistivity are blended the resistivity of the
blend ash tends to lie between those of the component coals; when the results are plotted on a
log scale (Figure 5) the appearance is of approximate additivity. In the Figure the resistivity
of the blend is in the middle of the range between those of the parent coals (based on the log
scale), but the slippage (ie, emission for a constant ash loading) is closer to that of coal A.

The example given demonstrates a bonus to be obtained by blending these two coals. In
another case (Figure 6) where the two blended coals have higher resistivities the blend may
turn out worse than anticipated.

These two examples seem to explain most results obtained for blends in ACIRL’s pilot-scale
Boiler Simulation Furnace. The collection efficiency is often not additive but the result for
the blend lies somewhere in the range between those of the parent coals (not better or worse
than both parent coals).

The above does not take into account the effects of coals moisture and ash content. For high
resistivity ash coals, moisture in the flue gas tends to lower the ash resistivity and therefore
improve collection efficiency, and moisture in coal is additive. Ash content does not impact

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 14

Blending of Thermal Coals

appreciably on collection efficiency but impacts on emissions. Ash is additive and needs to
be considered when predicting emissions.
10
Slippage (100-Efficiency %)

1 Coal B

Coal A Blend A/B

0.1

0.01
1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09 1.E+10 1.E+11 1.E+12 1.E+13
Resistvity (Ohm.m)

Figure 5: Impact on ESP Efficiency of Blending two Coals with Low to Moderate
Ash Resistivity
10

Coal B
Slippage (100-Efficiency %)

1
Blend A/B
Coal A

0.1

0.01
1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09 1.E+10 1.E+11 1.E+12 1.E+13
Resistvity (Ohm.m)

Figure 6: Impact on ESP Efficiency of Blending two Coals with Moderate to High
Ash Resistivity

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 15

Blending of Thermal Coals

Sulphur Dioxide Emissions

Sulphur Dioxide emissions are almost proportional to the sulphur content of the coal (% daf)
because only a small proportion of the sulphur is absorbed by the ash. Therefore a good
estimate of SO2 emissions can be calculated for a blend by calculating the daf sulphur content
(Figure 7). It is not clear whether the small proportion absorbed by the ash is additive.

Figure 7: SO2 Emission from Two Blends from Coal Nos. 299 and 240

Emission of Oxides of Nitrogen

The emission of NOx does not correlate with the coal nitrogen content, and other reliable
methods have not been developed.

A number of sets of blends have been tested in ACIRL’s pilot-scale Boiler Simulation
Furnace with the results shown in Figure 8. The NOx level of blends certainly cannot be
predicted based on that of two parent coals that have very different levels. In these cases the
blend seems to behave approximately like one or other of the parent coals. However when
the two parent coals have fairly similar emissions, blends made from them do not appear to
give any great surprises.

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 16

Blending of Thermal Coals

800

700
Nox Emission (ppm, dry, 0% O2)

600

500

400

300

200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Proportion of Second Coal

Figure 8: NOx Emissions for Blends of Coal Pairs

CONCLUSIONS

Enormous possibilities for satisfying coal specifications by blending, including the use of
optimisation.

There are pitfalls and risks because satisfying a specification does not guarantee satisfactory
utilisation performance. Nevertheless blending to a specification is a necessary precursor to
combustion trials of blends that look promising. When blends are planned between two coals
with very different properties, it is advisable to allow for trials at the pilot-scale or full-scale.

MineSkill Coal Quality Course Page 17