METALLURGICAL EVALUATION OF PEATS FROM THE VASYUGAN DEPOSIT

S. I. SMOLYANINOV, S. G. MASLOV, G. G. KRINITSYN

(Recommended by the scientific-methodological seminar of the CTF)

From various sections of the Vasyugan peat massif, an expedition of the Gipro­torfrazvedka Institute selected 18 peat samples. The geographical location of the sampling points, the depth at which the sample was taken, the peat type, its botanical composition, and the reserves of raw peat are given in Table 1.

According to GOST 3340-60, the limiting value for the ash content of coke is 11.5–12.5%. The results of the technical and ultimate analyses of the peat samples studied are given in Table 2. Taking into account the yield of volatile matter, only two samples—4 and 16—satisfy the requirements imposed on peat coke as a component of the coke charge. For other fields of application, if the limiting ash content of coke is taken as 12%, samples 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 may satisfy these requirements.

Taking into account the composition of the peat ash (Table 3), peat samples 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 may also be added to them.

The sulfur content in metallurgical coke must not exceed 0.5–0.7% (GOST 2014-53), and in foundry coke, 0.6–1.4% (GOST 3340-60). V. I. Chistyakov limits the sulfur content in peat coke to a value of no more than 0.3% [1]. Taking the proportion of volatile sulfur to be 50%, it may be assumed that only sample No. 6 exceeds the permissible limit.

The modern blast-furnace process is possible only with lump fuel of a definite granulometric composition and definite physicochemical and physicomechanical properties. Therefore the solution of the problem of using peat in metallurgy is connected above all with obtaining a lump material from it. We evaluated the possibility of using various peat samples in two directions. The first was the production of fuel-smelting materials based on machine-formed peat [2, 3, 4]. The second was the production of thermobriquettes based on milled peat [5, 6].

From each batch of peat, lump material was obtained by both methods. It was tested for resistance to crushing and abrasion. The test data are given in Tables 4 and 5. From Table 4 it is evident that the fuel-smelting materials from samples 6 and 18 have the greatest strength, while the specimens from samples 2, 5, and 14 are sufficiently strong. Considering the results of Table 5, it may be concluded that all thermobriquettes surpass, in crushing resistance, the corresponding index for metallurgical coke [4], and in abrasion resistance, although in some cases they are inferior to it, the difference is slight, with the excep-

Principal characteristics of the sampling profiles and the peat of these deposits

Appendix
Table 1

Continuation of Table 1

Table 2

Ultimate and proximate analysis, %

Table 3

Chemical analysis of ash (%)

Table 4

Mechanical strength of fuel-smelting materials in the air-dry state and after heating to 673 and 1173°K

Table 5

Strength of peat thermobriquettes

with the exception of samples 6, 9, 11, and 13, whose strength, however, exceeds the strength of charcoal.

Comparing the data of Tables 2, 4, and 5, it is possible to recommend, taking into account both the strength of the material and the ash content and sulfur content of the initial material, samples 4, 5, 8, and 16 for the production of fuel-smelting materials, and thermobriquettes 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.

Conclusions

1. Eighteen samples from the Vasyugan peat massif were studied in order to determine their suitability as a fuel for metallurgy.

2. The metallurgical properties were determined by ash content and sulfur content, as well as by the strength of thermal briquettes and fuel-smelting materials based on machine-formed peat.

3. Areas were selected with the most favorable indicators for all the factors studied.

Literature

1. V. I. Chistyakov. Paths for the development of scientific-research and experimental work on the thermal processing of peat. Bulletin of Scientific and Technical Information of VNIITP, issue XII, 20, 1961.

2. I. V. Gebler et al. The influence of pressure and moisture on the properties of peat as a metallurgical fuel. Peat Industry, 8, 14–17, 1959.

3. I. V. Gebler. The influence of additions of iron ore and fluxes on the properties of peat as a metallurgical fuel. Proceedings of TPI, 111, 64–68, 1961.

4. I. V. Gebler, S. I. Smolyaninov, A. G. Neznanov. The influence of the degree of grinding of ore and fluxes on the quality of fuel-smelting materials based on peat. Proceedings of TPI, 112, 102–106, 1963.

5. S. I. Smolyaninov, A. M. Denisov. The influence of briquetting temperature and pressure on the mechanical properties of peat thermal briquettes. Proceedings of TPI, 112, 82–86, 1963.

6. S. I. Smolyaninov, V. E. Voronin. Production of peat thermal briquettes under conditions of high-speed heating. Peat Industry, 4, 26–30, 1962.