4.6 Article

Study on the strength of cold-bonded high-phosphorus oolitic hematite-coal composite briquettes

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12613-014-0925-6

Keywords

hematite; briquetting; binders; compressive strength; porosity; direct reduction process

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51134002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Composite briquettes containing high-phosphorus oolitic hematite and coal were produced with a twin-roller briquette machine using sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, molasses, starch, sodium silicate, and bentonite as binders. The effect of these binders on the strength of the composite briquettes, including cold strength and high-temperature strength, was investigated by drop testing and compression testing. It was found the addition of Ca(OH)(2) and Na2CO3 not only improved the reduction of iron oxides and promoted dephosphorization during the reduction-separation process but also provided strength to the composite briquettes during the briquetting process; a compressive strength of 152.8 N per briquette was obtained when no binders were used. On this basis, the addition of molasses, sodium silicate, starch, and bentonite improved the cold strength of the composite briquettes, and a maximum compressive strength of 404.6 N per briquette was obtained by using starch. When subjected to a thermal treatment at 1200A degrees C, all of the composite briquettes suffered from a sharp decrease in compressive strength during the initial reduction process. This decrease in strength was related to an increase in porosity of the composite briquettes. X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analyses showed that the decrease in strength of the composite briquettes could be caused by four factors: decomposition of bonding materials, gasification of coal, transportation of byproduct gases in the composite briquettes, and thermal stress.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available