Oxidized coal in coking: A review

ISSN 1068�364X, Coke and Chemistry, 2011, Vol. 54, No. 5, pp. 139–146. © Allerton Press, Inc., 2011.Original Russian Text © N.A. Desna, D.V. Miroshnichenko, 2011, published in Koks i Khimiya, 2011, No. 5, pp. 2–9.

139

With the existing shortage of clinkering coal, manyUkrainian coke plants are employing imported coal(from Russia, Kazakhstan, the United States, Austra�lia, Canada, and elsewhere) and coal from small oper�ations that often include oxidized coal in their prod�ucts. This raises a host of questions regarding the use ofpartially oxidized coal for coking, assessment of thedegree of oxidation, its influence on batch character�istics (granulometric composition, packing density,technical analysis, and clinkering properties), themechanical and hot strength of the blast�furnace cokeproduced, the yield of coking byproducts, and the pos�sibility of reducing the negative impact of oxidizedcoal on coking.

METHODS OF DETERMINING THE OXIDATION OF COAL

State Standard GOST 8930–94 establishes a petro�graphic method of determining the oxidation of coal.In this method, a polished section of coal is inspectedin reflected light under a microscope and the ratio ofthe area of the oxidized areas to the total area is quan�titatively determined on the basis of microscopic char�

acteristics, by a point method. The oxidation Oxs (%)of a coal sample is calculated from the formula

Oxs = B × 100/(B + H),

where B is the number of points in the oxidized area ofthe polished section; H is the number of points inunoxidized areas of the section.

This method is included in certain standards. Thus,according to State Standard GOST R 50904–96, Kuz�netsk Basin coal is divided into three groups in termsof the degree of oxidation (Table 1).

Quantitative estimation of the degree of oxidationof early�metamorphic coal employs the followingmethod [1]. A polished briquet is immersed in a KOHsolution that has been dyed red and is then washedwith water. The content of highly oxidized coal (darkgreen and olive green), less oxidized coal (light green),and unoxidized coal (uncolored) is determined undera microscopic, by a point method.

One disadvantage of petrographic methods is anelement of subjectivity in determining the oxidation ofcoal. In addition, the microscopic characteristics ofoxidation do not appear immediately but somewhatlater. In other words, the initial stage in the oxidationof coal cannot be recorded by the petrographic

Oxidized Coal in Coking: A ReviewN. A. Desnaa and D. V. Miroshnichenkob

aKrivoi Rog Metallurgical Faculty, Ukrainian National Metallurgical Academy, Krivoi Rog, Ukrainee�mail: [email protected]

bUkrainian State Coal�Chemistry Institute, Kharkov, UkraineReceived February 7, 2011

Abstract—A literature review shows that the oxidation of coal changes its granulometric composition, pack�ing density, moisture content, and clinkering properties, the quality of the resulting coke, and the yield ofcoking byproducts. On account of the increased proportion of oxidized coal in coking batch, research is expe�dient in order to formulate recommendations regarding its use.

DOI: 10.3103/S1068364X11050036

COAL

Table 1. Oxidation groups in State Standard GOST R 50904–96

Oxidation group

Decrease in heat of combustion for the dry ash�free state with respect to

the unoxidized coal OxQ, %

Petrographic index of the degree of oxidation Oxs, %

Applications

I ≤10 ≤50 All uses, except coking and T coal for domestic consumption

II From >10 to 25 (inclusive) >50 By agreement with the customer, combustion as dust in stationary boilers

140

COKE AND CHEMISTRY Vol. 54 No. 5 2011

DESNA, MIROSHNICHENKO

method [2, 3]. In addition, the preparation of polishedsections is impossible for most oxidized coal samplesbecause they are highly hygroscopic, as noted in [4].

IR spectroscopy permits estimation of the degreeof coal oxidation [5]. This method is based on deter�mining the degree of oxidation Ko as a combination ofoptical densities D3040, D1690, and D1260

Ko = D1690/(D1260 + D3040).

In measuring the degree of oxidation of the coal,the following categories are employed:

⎯up to 0.50, the coal is unoxidized;⎯in the range 0.50–0.53, the coal has marked

signs of oxidation;⎯in the range 0.53–0.60, the coal is significantly

oxidized;⎯beyond 0.60, the coal is profoundly oxidized.It is interesting to note these categories, but the

equipment required is so complex that this methodwill not be widely adopted, in our view.

Chemical methods of estimating the oxidation ofcoal involve determining the total content of varioushydroxyls that increase the degree of oxidation [6–8].Chemical methods of determining active oxygen�bearing groups in coal are complicated by the poly�functional character of the coal structure, the mutualinfluence of different chemical groups, the heteroge�neous reaction medium, different group compositionof different coal ranks, and other factors. Therefore,chemical methods are rarely used to determine theoxidation of coal.

The luminescence method has been used to assessthe oxidation of coal [1, 3, 6, 9]. The UV source is amercury–quartz lamp in the upper part of a woodencabinet, separated into two parts by a horizontal bar�rier, with a hole for a light filter that transmits a beamof wavelength 300–400 nm. Benzene extracts of coalare placed under the filter.

To obtain the benzene extracts, a coal portion(20 g) is ground to powder and passes through a0.25�mm screen. The coal is poured into a centrifugalpot and drenched with 60 cm3 of benzene. The contentof the pot is centrifuged for 30 min. The coal particlesare deposited, and the benzene with dissolved bitumenis run off into an ampoule. The oxidation of the coal isdetermined from the color of the benzene extract.

Most methods are based on determining the initialtemperature of fast heating or ignition of the coal in anair or oxygen current or in the presence of solid oxidiz�ing agents. Such methods were considered in [10, 11].

Of particular interest is the method proposed in[12], on the basis of the work in [10]. At present, this isknown as the method of assessing the degree of oxida�tion of coal according to the Institute of Mining,Academy of Sciences of the USSR, and the Coal�Chemistry Institute [7]. In this method, the oxidationof the coal is characterized on the basis of its maxi�

mum and minimum ignition temperature. To obtainthe maximum value, benzidine is added to a weighedcoal sample; the benzidine restores the initial ignitiontemperature of fresh unoxidized coal. To obtain theminimum value, Perhydrol is used for low�tempera�ture oxidation of the coal. On the basis of the results,the degree of oxidation may be characterized as fol�lows

Degree of oxidation =

where Tig1 is the maximum ignition temperature,obtained by means of benzidine (that is, the ignitiontemperature of fresh, unoxidized coal), °C; Tig2 is theminimum ignition temperature (that is, the ignitiontemperature of coal oxidized by Perhydrol in specifiedconditions), °C; Tig is the ignition temperature of thegiven coal, °C.

In simplified form, the difference between themaximum ignition temperature (obtained by means ofbenzidine) and the ignition temperature of the coalsample may simply be assessed.

This method is characterized by satisfactory sensi�tivity and reproducibility even in the early stages ofcoal oxidation, according to [13–15]. In our view, adisadvantage of these methods is the lack of clear sep�aration of the coal into stages of oxidation, which isassociated with change in the coal’s technologicalproperties (technical analysis, plastic and viscousproperties, petrographic composition, etc.). Suchinformation is required for the optimal production ofblast�furnace coke.

INFLUENCE OF OXIDATION ON THE TECHNOLOGICAL PROPERTIES

OF COAL

Extensive research indicates that oxidation impairscoal quality.

In coal oxidation, the granulometric compositionchanges. (The coal is crushed.) In Donetsk Basin coal,the quantity of fines (≤10 mm) increases by 2–6% inprolonged storage. Table 2 presents the change in gran�ulometric composition of Kuznetsk Basin andKaragandinsk Basin coal on storage in open heaps [16].

Analysis shows that its granulometric compositionchanges on storage on account mainly of the disinte�gration of large pieces (>50 mm) and sometimes ofsmaller pieces.

The influence of oxidation on the granulometriccomposition of coal is confirmed for samples oxidizedfor two days (Table 3) [17].

These data confirm the disintegration of large coalpieces to fines when coal is oxidized: the content of the>3 mm class declines by 1.4%, with correspondingincrease in the content of the 1.5–3.0 and 0.5–1.5 mm

Tig1 Tig–Tig1 Tig2–�� 100,×


OXIDIZED COAL IN COKING 141

classes. The change in granulometric composition onoxidation changes the packing density of the coal.

The change in packing density of coal batch at theKemerovo plant after 3.5 months is 3.7%. As a result ofoxidation of the same coal for 72 h at 130–140°C in adrying chamber, its packing density increases by 8.5–10.6% [17].

In the initial 30–45 days of heap storage, the packingdensity of the coal increases by 3–14%; between 45 and60 days, it decreases, especially for gas coal and long�flame coal; subsequently, in storage for up to 90–135 days, the packing density increases again by 2–5%,depending on the rank of coal and the storage condi�tions [16].

On oxidation, the coal’s content of hygroscopicmoisture markedly increases [10, 18, 19]. This changeis different for different coal ranks, according to [10](Table 4).

Note that the content of hygroscopic moisture in aparticular coal increases in proportion to its degree ofoxidation, but the rate is different for different coals(Table 4).

These data are confirmed by the results from [20].Increase in the analytical and hygroscopic moisture isassociated with increase in oxidation of the coal, asexpressed in the hydroxyl content (Table 5).

On heap storage, the ash content of coal hardlychanges [16]. Table 6 presents change in the sulfurcontent of Donetsk Basin coal on heap storage. Thesulfur content evidently declines as a result of the oxi�dation of pyrite to form iron sulfate, with the liberationof sulfur dioxide.

On oxidation, the yield of volatiles changes differ�ently for different coals, according to [21]. For

Donetsk Basin coal of ranks D, G, and Zh, the yield ofvolatiles declines on oxidation, according to Khrisan�fova’s data, while an increase is seen for coal of ranksOS and T. For Kuznetsk Basin and KaragandinskBasin coal, there is little change in the yield of volatileson heap storage, according to data from the Coal�Chemistry Institute. Thus, the yield of volatilesdeclines by 0.29–1.25% for Kuznetsk Basin coal afterstorage for three, four, and even six months; the corre�sponding decline for unenriched Karagandinsk Basincoal after 50 days is no more than 0.3%.

Table 7 presents interesting data from five series ofexperiments in [3].

We see (Table 7) that, in contrast to the consistentincrease in analytical moisture content, the yield ofvolatiles varies differently during the oxidation of coalof different metamorphic stages. The yield of volatilesdeclines for less�metamorphic coal (series 1 and 2),but rises for more�metamorphic coal.

For low�metamorphic coal (Vdaf = 37.7–38.4%),oxidation reduces the yield of volatiles by 3.8–4.5%

Table 2. Change in granulometric composition of Kuznetsk Basin and Karagandinsk Basin coal on storage

Coal. rank Storage time, days

Granulometric composition (%) for size classes (mm)

>50 50–13 13–3 ≤3

Gas coal; G2 Initial coal45

10.56.6

19.820.0

41.642.3

28.1 31.1

Osinovsk; Zh1 Initial coal 190

0.3–

2.83.1

32.3 27.0

64.9 69.9

Baidaevsk; Zh2 Initial coal 170

1.10.4

2.73.0

49.1 36.3

47.1 60.3

Krasnogorskaya mine; KZh Initial coal 200

4.01.9

20.816.9

30.1 24.5

45.1 56.7

Koksovaya mine; K Initial coal 200

10.86.4

22.823.5

28.2 31.1

38.2 39.0

Karagandinsk, Novyi bed Initial coal 20

19.014.6

32.634.0

29.3 29.9

19.1 21.5

Table 3. Influence of coal oxidation on the granulometriccompositio

Class, mmContent of class, %

unoxidized coal oxidized coal

>3 20.2 18.8

1.5–3.0 21.9 22.7

0.5–1.5 31.9 32.5

<0.5 26.0 26.0

142



(abs.), according to [18]. A formula for predicting theyield of volatiles on the basis of petrographic and spec�tral analysis was proposed in [22]

Here Ro is the mean reflection coefficient of vitrinite;CC is the total content of clinkering components;Πre is the degree of reduction of the coking coal; Ko isthe degree of oxidation of the coal.

There are different opinions regarding the behaviorof the reflection coefficient of vitrinite on prolongedstorage, according to [21, 23]. We know that it

Vdaf 58.881Ro 63.338Ro2 18.01Ro

3+–=

– 0.297CC 0.108 Ro CC⋅( ) 5.479Πre+–

– 0.090 Ro CC Πre⋅⋅( ) 1.791Ko 4.896.+–

changes, but its direction is unclear. On prolongedstorage of coal from the Dobrudzha Basin (Bulgaria)in air, the reflection coefficient of vitrinite declines by0.1% for D and G coal and by 0.05% for G and Zhcoal, with smaller changes for coal of greater meta�morphic development [24].

The reflection coefficient of vitrinite falls in the ini�tial stages of oxidation but later rises, according to [1].Table 8 presents data for artificial aging.

The petrographic composition of coal is not signif�icantly affected by oxidation, on the basis of the datain [18, 20].

Coal’s loss of clinkering properties on oxidation isvery important for coking. The appearance of cokeobtained in determining the yield of volatiles indicatesdeterioration in the clinkering properties on oxida�tion. The plastometric characteristics of DonetskBasin coal were considered in [25, 26]. On 10�h oxida�tion in an oxygen jet at 140°C, the plastic�layer thick�ness was reduced by 17 mm (from 27 to 10 mm), whilethe axial shrinkage increased from 8 to 34 mm

However, the study of Kuznetsk Basin andKaragandinsk Basin coal shows that marked decreasein plastic�layer thickness sets in after 32 h for Zh1 coalin artificial oxidation at 175°C and after 56 h for Kcoal.

In heap storage, the plastometric characteristics ofKuznetsk Basin and Karagandinsk Basin coal (exceptcoal from the Baidaevskii deposit) vary within the per�missible deviations in parallel determinations, accord�ing to Fel’dbrin’s data (Table 9).

It follows from Table 9 that the plastometric char�acteristics do not give a reliable idea of the coal oxida�tion, at least for eastern coal.

The change in plastometric and dilatometric char�acteristics is greatest for Zh coal (Table 10), accordingto [27].

The storage of G, G–T, and T coal from theDobrudzha Basin (Bulgaria) for a year changes theGray–King coking properties, the Roga index,the free�swelling index, and the plastometric charac�teristics [28].

Rheological data regarding the influence of oxida�tion on the clinkering properties of coal indicate thatthe fluidity of the plastic mass and the swelling arereduced by half on average after storage for six months,

Table 4. Increase in the content of hygroscopic moisture on oxidation of coal

CoalMoisture content (%) for coal of rank

D G Zh K OS T

Initial 7.5–10.0 6.0 0.7–1.1 0.6–0.8 0.6–0.7 0.8–1.0

Oxidized 10.0–15.0 9.0 1.4–3.4 1.0–3.0 1.0–3.0 1.0–5.0

Increase in moisture content, % 2.5–5.0 3.0 0.7–2.3 0.4–2.2 0.4–2.3 0.2–4.0

Table 5. Influence of the degree of oxidation on the contentof analytical and hygroscopic moisture

Coal sample W*, % Whygr, %Content

of hydroxyls K, mg�equ

1 1.2 1.61 27.86

2 1.3 1.89 34.04

3 1.5 1.95 35.29

4 1.4 2.19 55.33

5 1.6 2.44 57.81

6 1.8 2.68 103.14

7 2.3 3.26 124.49

8 5.1 6.57 233.95

Table 6. Variation in sulfur content of coal on storage

Rank of coal Storage time, days

Sulfur content (%)

initial coal stored coal

D, unenriched 55 1.82 1.69

G, unenriched 60 2.06 1.71

As above 30 2.06 1.84

'' 90 2.06 1.59

G, enriched 120 3.63 2.97

As above 310 3.39 3.09



while the temperature at which visible fluidity beginsincreases by ~8°C [29].

Results obtained by thermal destruction in a cen�trifugal field indicate that the liquid phase in the plas�tic mass after oxidation is sharply less than in the initialcoal [30]: the yield of liquid phase is 50.8% for the ini�tial coal and 28.9% after oxidation in an oxygen fluxfor 2 h at 140°C; the corresponding figures for the gascontent are 13.6% and 17.6%. In the given sample, theRoga index is reduced from 60 to 49.

Various methods of determining the clinkeringproperties of coal are determined in assessing thedegree of oxidation. Thus, the Sapozhnikov–Bazi�levich plastometric method, the Kushnirevich methodfor determining the dynamics of the coal viscosity, theRoga method, and the modified dilatometric methodof the Institute of Fossil Fuels and the DnepropetrovskMetallurgical Institute were used in [31]. The variationin characteristics of the plastic mass was studied indetail for oxidized and unoxidized coal (Table 11). It isevident from Table 11 that, on oxidation, softeningbegins at higher temperatures, and the plasticity inter�val is significantly narrower. Significant decrease instrength of the semicoke is evident from the reductionin the deforming force.

The change in the yield of thermal�destructionproducts in a centrifugal field on oxidation and thechange in clinkering properties, estimated by the Rogamethod, were also studied in [31]. The results agreewith those in [30].

To study the behavior of oxidized coal in the pre�plastic and plastic state, an accelerated method ofdetermining the dynamics of the expansion pressurewas proposed in [31]. This method may be used forhighly oxidized coal.

The influence of the coal oxidation on the plastic�layer thickness y and its variation Δy may be describedby the following formulas, according to [22, 32]

Here Ro is the reflection coefficient of vitrinite; CC isthe total content of clinkering components; Ko is thedegree of oxidation of the coal; τ is the storage time.

INFLUENCE OF THE OXIDATION OF COAL ON THE COKE QUALITY AND YIELD

OF COKING BYPRODUCTS

Oxidation of coal impairs the strength of blast�fur�nace coke [31–38].

y 498.054Ro 371.90Ro2 89.248Ro

3 0.4603CC+ +–=

– 0.215 Ro CC⋅( ) 18.973Πre 24.95Ko– 210.567;–+

Δy 7.423Ro 3.363Ro2 1.813 CC⋅( ) 10 2–

×+–=

– 1.225Ko 0.0242τ 2.963.–+

Table 7. Influence of oxidation on the moisture contentand yield of volatiles for coal of different metamorphicstages

Series Sample Lumines�cence* W*, % Vdaf, %

1 3 6.69 37.19

12 16 4.15 40.153 19 2.66 40.874 22 2.68 40.53

1 6 8.57 29.60

22 24 3.63 33.493 31 1.65 34.574 30 0.99 34.02

1 6 5.69 24.553 2 19–20 3.55 20.66

3 24–25 0.86 16.17

1 7 13.81 27.004 2 16 2.21 16.80

3 24 1.24 14.92

1 8 6.35 24.835 2 20 2.91 18.63

3 26 0.80 16.32

* Smaller values correspond to more oxidized coal.

Table 8. Influence of oxidation on the reflection coefficientof vitrinite

Oxidation time, months Reflection coefficient of vitrinite Ro, %

Initial coal 0.78 1.08 1.12 1.59

0.5 0.74 1.10 1.11 1.67

1 0.82 1.17 1.05 1.73

2 0.80 1.09 1.11 1.70

3 0.81 1.17 1.10 1.72

Table 9. Influence of heap storage on the plastometriccharacteristics of coal

Coal; rank Storage time, days

Plastometric characteristics,

mm

x y

Gas coal; G2 Initial coal 45 4043

1616

Osinovsk, Zh1 Initial coal 180 –3–2

32 30

Baidaevsk; Zh2 Initial coal 170 1526

32 24

Krasnogorskaya mine; KZh

Initial coal 150 1720

22 21

Koksovaya 2 mine; K Initial coal 35 2122

17 17

144



Many specialists have shown that the oxidation ofcoal reduces the gas permeability and structuralstrength of the coke produced (Table 12).

The influence of oxidation on the coking propertieswas investigated by semiindustrial coking (in furnaceswith a one�time load of 200 kg) in [32]. Statisticalanalysis of the results yields regression equations forthe coking properties of the coal as a function of thepetrographic characteristics, oxidation, and open�storage time

ΔΠs = –(1.933 ⋅ CC) × 10–2 + 3.948Ko + 0.0438τ – 4.219;

ΔM25 = –(3.158 ⋅ CC) × 10–2 + 6.469Ko + 0.0486τ – 6.537;

ΔM10 = –(3.212 ⋅ CC) × 10–2 + 5.850Ko + 0.0396τ – 5.662;

Here Πs is the structural strength of the coke; M25 is itsmechanical strength; M10 is its wear susceptibility. Thecorrelation coefficients for these formulas are in therange 0.91–0.94.

For isometamorphic coal with the same content ofclinkering components (in equivalent terms, CCe), the

Table 10. Influence of oxidation on the plastometric and dilatometric characteristics of coal

Coal; rank Storage time, months

Plastometric characteristics, mm Dilatometric characteristics, mm

y x a b

Gas coal; G6 0 16 30 27 4

2 14 30 27 5

4 13 30 17 7

6 14 36 17 –

Bituminous coal; PZh

0 28 16 26 55

2 20 20 17 38

4 20 18 15 8

6 21 23 10 –

Coke�grade coal; K

0 21 11 27 130

2 21 11 25 113

4 21 12 18 98

6 21 13 17 20

Table 11. Characteristics of the plastic mass of oxidized and unoxidized coal

Coal rank Initial softening temperature, °C

Temperature interval of maximum

plasticity, °C

Temperature interval of hardening, °C Deforming force F, kPa

G, initial 430 460–475 475–498 20.5

G, oxidized 443 475–486 486–506 3.4

Zh, initial 427 476–503 503–526 16.4

Zh, oxidized 458 482–498 498–530 5.5

K, initial 435 472–494 494–516 24.7

K, oxidized 453 474–482 482–517 5.5

Table 12. Influence of coal oxidation on coke quality

Final tempera�ture, °C

Storage time, h

Gas perme�ability

Structural strength, %

Final tempera�ture, without treatment, °C

– 246 72.5

150 6 12 24 48

300 305 283 287 228

84.7 85.0 83.6 82.4 79.6

200 6 12 24

312 291 286 280

85.6 84.5 82.5 81.1

250 6 12 24

289 272 208 113

84.7 75.3 76.3 60.0



strength of the coke obtained in a 200�kg furnacedepends linearly on the oxidation coefficient Ko [39].When Ro = 1% and CCe = 60%, we may write

Analysis of these formulas indicates that increasingthe oxidation of the coking coal reduces the mechani�cal strength M25 and increases the wear susceptibilityM10 of the blast�furnace coke produced.

The possibility of using partially oxidized coal incoking batch, as well as the caution required in sodoing, was addressed in [40–44]. The dependence ofthe reactivity and hot strength of coke on the oxidationof coal was studied in [45–47]. It was found that stor�age of coal for more than 300 days increases the reac�tivity and reduces the hot strength of the coke.

The composition and yield of coking byproductschange on coking partially oxidized coal properties.Thus, the yield of tar, unsaturated compounds, ben�zene, ammonia and methane declines, according to[48]. Likewise, the yield of carbon dioxide and carbonmonoxide increases, while the yield of oxygen andhydrogen mildly fluctuates.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Research using different methods of determin�ing the degree of oxidation has shown that the oxida�tion of coal changes its granulometric composition,packing density, analytical and hygroscopic moisturecontent, total sulfur content (and its components),yield of volatiles, and clinkering and coking proper�ties, as well as the yield of coking byproducts. The useof oxidized coals in coking batch worens the mechan�ical (M25, M10) and “hot” (CRI, CSR) strength of thecoke.

(2) The use of considerable quantities of oxidizedcoal in coking batch today calls for detailed researchinto means of measuring the degree of oxidation andits influence on the quality of the coal, the batch, andthe blast�furnace coke obtained, as well as the yield ofcoking byproducts. Specific recommendations mustbe developed for the use of oxidized coal in cokingbatch.

(3) The best of the existing methods of assessing thedegree of oxidation, in our view, is that proposed by theInstitute of Mining, Academy of Sciences of theUSSR, and the Coal�Chemistry Institute, whichemploys simple equipment, is largely free of subjectiveerror, and permits assessment of the early stages of oxi�dation.

REFERENCES

1. Eremin, I.V., Lebedev, V.V., and Tsikarev, D.A., Petro�grafiya i fizicheskie svoistva uglei (Petrography andPhysical Properties of Coal), Moscow: Nedra, 1980.

M25 93.87 18.45Ko;–=

M10 8.76 19.37Ko.+=

2. Amosov, I.I. and Eremin, I.V., Determining the Degreeof Oxidation and Predicting the Quality of Coal on theBasis of Petrographic Data, Trudy IGI (Proceedings ofthe Mining Institute), Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR, 1960,vol. XIV, pp. 3–20.

3. Eremin, I.V., Izmenenie petrograficheskikh osobennosteiuglei pri okislenii ikh v estestvennykh usloviyakh(Change in Petrographic Characteristics of Coal onNatural Oxidation), Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR, 1956.

4. Popova, M.E., Prognoz grupp koksuemosti uglei iz zonyokisleniya: Trudy VUKhINa (Predicting the CokingGroup of Coal from the Oxidation Zone: Proceedingsof the Coal�Chemistry Institute), 1946, issue 3.

5. Stankevich, A.S., Ivanov, V.P., and Kalinina, A.V.,Change in the Coking Properties of Coal on Oxidation,Koks Khim., 1996, no. 6, pp,. 15–18.

6. Eremin, I.V., Artser, A.S., and Bronovets, T.M.,Petrologiya i khemiko�tekhnologicheskie parametry ugleiKuzbassa (Petrology and ChemicotechnologicalParameters of Kuznetsk Basin Coal), Kemerovo, 2000.

7. Sklyar, M.G. and Tyutyunnikov, Yu.B., Chemistry ofSolid Fuels, Laboratornyi praktikum (LaboratoryPracticum), Kiev, 1985.

8. Kukharenko, T.A., Okislennye v plastakh burye i kamen�nye ugli (Bed�Oxidized Lignite and Coal), Moscow:Nedra, 1972.

9. Ammosov, I.I. and Babinkov, N.I., Luminescent Deter�mination of Coal Properties, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR,Otd. Tekh. Nauk, 1951, no. 3.

10. Veselovskii, V.S., Khimicheskaya priroda goryuchikhiskopaemykh (Chemical Nature of Fossil Fuels), Mos�cow: Izd. AN SSSR, 1955.

11. Okislenie i khranenie tverdykh goryuchikh iskopaemykh(Oxidation and Storage of Fossil Fuels), Transzhel�dorizdat, 1958.

12. Zashkvara, V.G. and Krym, E.S., Issledovanie okislyae�mosti donetskikh kamennykh uglei (Oxidizability ofDonetsk Coal), Kharkov: Fond UKhIN, 1952.

13. Novitskii, N.V., Babkin, R.L., Martynova, M.I., et al.,Self�Ignition of Coal in New Kuznetsk Basin Deposits,Khim. Tverd. Topl., 1980, no. 5, pp. 29–33.

14. Veselovskii, V.S., Vinogradova, L.P., Orleanskaya, G.L.,and Terpogosova, E.A., Fizicheskie osnovy samovozgo�raniya uglya i rud (Physical Principles of Coal and OreSelf�Ignition), Moscow: Nedra, 1972.

15. Babkin, R.L. and Aksenova, T.A., Improved Method ofDetermining the Spark Point of Coal, Khim. Tverd.Topl., 1975, no. 5, pp. 79–81.

16. Zashkvara, V.G., Podgotovka uglei k koksovaniyu (Pre�paring Coals for Coking), Moscow: Metallurgiya, 1967.

17. Agroskin, A.A., Grigor’ev, S.M., Petrenko, I.G., andPitin, R.N., Sasypnoi ves uglei dlya koksovaniya (PackingDensity of Coking Coal), Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR,1956.

18. Stankevich, A.S., Stankevich, F.M., and Sidel’nikov, D.N.,Relation between the Oxization and PetrographicCharacteristics of Kuznetsk Basin Coal, Koks Khim.,1978, no. 9, pp. 17–19.

19. Aronov, S.G. and Nesterenko, L.L., Khim. tverdykhgoryuchikh iskopaemykh (Chemistry of Fossil Fuels),Kharkov: Izd. KhGU, 1960.

146



20. Frishberg, V.D., Agafonov, A.A., Shtemenko, O.V.,et al., Experience with Partially Oxidized Coal in Coking,Koks Khim., 1973, no. 9, pp. 1–4.

21. Ammosov, I.I., Litifikatsiya i neftegazonosnost’.Petrologiya uglei i paragenez goryuchikh iskopaemykh(Lithification and Oil and Gas Content: Petrology ofCoal and Paragenesis of Fossil Fuels), Moscow: Nauka,1967.

22. Ivanov, V.P. and Stankevich, A.S., Influence of SpectralCharacteristics of Coal Oxidation and Reduction onTheir Technological Characteristics, Koks Khim., 2003,no. 9, pp. 21–23.

23. Eremin, I.V., Influence of Oxidation on the ReflectionCoefficient of Vitrinite, Petrologiya organicheskikhvechestv v geologii goryuchikh iskopaemykh: sb. nauch.tr. AN SSSR (Petrology of Organic Materials in theGeology of Fossil Fuels: Proceedings of the Academyof Sciences of the USSR), Moscow: Nauka, 1987,pp. 172–175.

24. Sallabasheva, V.I., Coal Storage. 1. Change in theReflection Coefficient of Vitrinite, Koks Khim., 1992,no. 3, pp. 5–13.

25. Sapozhnikov, L.M., Kamennye ugli i metallurgicheskiikoks (Coal and Metallurgical Coke), Moscow: Izd. ANSSSR, 1941.

26. Goftman, M.V., Prikladnaya khimiya tverdogo topliva(Applied Chemistry of Solid Fuels), Moscow: Nedra,1963.

27. Markowa, K. and Piszew, K., Koks, Smola, Gaz, 1982,no. 9, pp. 82–84.

28. Markowa, K. and Piszew, K., Vilchewa, S., et al., GTF,vol. 78, part 1, pp. 138–149.

29. Geguchadze, R.A., Rheological Data Regarding theInfluence of Oxidation on the Clinkering Properties ofCoking Coal, Khim. Tverd. Topl., 1971, no. 5, pp. 84–86.

30. Biryukov, Yu.V. and Lebedev, V.A., Influence of CoalOxidation on the Yield of Liquid Phase from Coal’s Plas�tic Mass, Khim. Tverd. Topl., 1971, no. 5, pp. 82–83.

31. Starovoit, A.G., Koverya, A.S., Vadeshkin, I.S., andPanchenko, E.A., Comparison of Clinkering Methodsin Terms of Their Sensitivity to the Properties of Oxi�dized Coal, Uglekhim. Zh., 2010, no. 1/2, pp. 39–46.

32. Stankevich, A.S., Kalininina, A.V., Zolotukhin, Yu.A.,and Puzakov, A.A., Variation in the Properties of Par�tially Oxidized Coal on Storage, Koks Khim., 1987,no. 5, pp. 4–6.

33. Gray, R.J., Rhoades, A.H., and King, D.T., Trans. Soc.Mining Eng. AIME, 1976, vol. 260, no. 4, pp. 334–341.

34. Duhankan, W., Fassotte, W., and Saussez, M., AnnMines Belg., 1969, no. 7/8, pp. 797–812.

35. Goodarzi, F., Hermon, G., Iley, M., and March, H.,Fuel, 1975, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 105–112.

36. Sentfle, J.T. and Davis, A., Int. J. Coal Geol., 1984,vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 375–381.

37. Byrtus, F., Bugosz, A., Karsz, A., and Mgrys, L., Arch.Gorn., 1967, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 355–361.

38. Magrys, Z., Zesz. Nauk. Abh., 1970, no. 267, pp. 219–221.

39. Eremin, I.V. and Gagarin, S.G., Taking Account ofCoal Oxidation in Petrographic Models for PredictingCoke Strength, Koks Khim., 1997, no. 3, pp. 13–16.

40. Korshunov, V.A., Mel’tenisov, M.A., Ageeva, A.A., andMyuller, I.P., Technological Properties of OxidizedKuznetsk Basin Coal, Khim. Tverd. Topl., 1971, no. 5,pp. 114–116.

41. Stankevich, A.S., Kruglov, V.N., and Vorsina, D.V.,Influence of Petrographic Inhomogeneity and Oxida�tion of Coal on the Mechanical Strength of Coke, KoksKhim., 2001, no. 4, pp. 2–10.

42. Leonov, A.S., Belinskii, S.B., Shcherbina, V.M., et al.,Coal�Storage Times, Koks Khim., 1966, no. 3, pp. 15–20.

43. Stankevich, A.S., Yablochkin, N.V., Kogtev, Yu.P.,et al., Formulation of Coking Batch on the Basis ofOptimization and Prediction of Coke Strength, KoksKhim., 2002, no. 3, pp. 9–17.

44. Stankevich, A.S., Smelyanskii, A.Z., Berkutov, N.A.,et al., Rational Distribution of Coals and Optimizationof Coking�Batch Composition, Koks Khim., 2003,no. 9, pp. 8–16.

45. Gagarin, S.G. and Gyul’maliev, A.M., Relationbetween Carbon Structure and the Reactivity of Blast�Furnace Coke, Koks Khim., 2005, no. 1, pp. 13–18.

46. Alvarez, R., Barriocanal, C., Casal, M.D., et al.,Weathering Study of an Industrial Coal Blend Used inCokemaking, ISIJ Intern., 1998, vol. 38, no. 12,pp. 1332–1338.

47. Suárez�Ruiz, I. and Crelling, J.C., Applied Coal Petrol�ogy: The Role of Petrology in Coal Utilization, Elsevier,2008.

48. Gorelov, P.N. and Kotelenets, M.S., Influence of CoalOxidation on the Coking Byproducts and Composition ofCoke�Oven Gas, Koks Khim., 1985, no. 5, pp. 20–22.

Documents

Oxidized coal in coking: A review