In what aspects do the advantages of ramming coking mainly lie???
Thread Content
Since I have not been working for long, both the previous and current workplaces use top-charging coke ovens; therefore, I have not had experience with ramming coke ovens yet. However, I have noticed that many independent coking plants use ramming coke ovens, and I think this represents a trend in development. Yesterday, I read some materials that compared various aspects of top-charging and ramming coke ovens. The more I read, the less I understood. The comparison is as follows:| Item | Ramming Coke Oven | Top-Charging Coke Oven |
|------|-------------------|------------------------|
| Moisture content of coal fed into the oven | Strictly controlled: 10%–12% | Less strictly controlled: 8%–14% |
| Type of coal | Requires testing; strict requirements | Less strict requirements |
| Particle size of coal fed into the oven | High requirements | Relatively lower requirements |
| Coal loading process | High requirements | Simpler process |
| Weight of coke oven machinery | Heavy, high cost | Lighter, lower cost |
| Environmental impact of coal loading | Significant issues, difficult to address | Basically resolved |
| Lifespan of the oven | Around 20 years | Can exceed 35 years |
| Quality of coke | Improvements in M40, M10, and CSR grades | No changes |
| Cost of coal fed into the oven | Can be reduced by 20–30 yuan per ton | Higher cost |
| Investment per ton of coke produced | 20–30 yuan higher | Lower cost |
From this table, it seems that the advantages of ramming coke ovens are not very obvious. I also noticed that most of the plants using ramming coke ovens are independent coking plants, while large steel conglomerates like Baosteel and Wuhan Iron and Steel do not use such ovens. Yet, ramming coke ovens seem to be quite popular at present, with much research being done on them. I would like to ask everyone the following questions: 1. Besides allowing the use of more low-cohesion coal, what other advantages does ramming coke technology offer? 2. With the rapid development of ramming coke ovens, why don’t large steel conglomerates adopt this technology? What are the specific disadvantages of ramming coke ovens for such companies? Thank you all for your help. Also, if anyone has detailed information on ramming coke ovens, could they please share it with me? I’d like to gain a deeper understanding of this technology. My email address is 57745378@qq.com. Thank you in advance...
This post was last edited by ryn on 2009-2-27 09:15
The output and quality of rammed coke ovens are better than those of top-charged coke ovens.
As a region with abundant gas-producing coal, it is necessary to leverage the advantages of briquette production. Resources can be utilized effectively
More weakly bonded coal can be included in the coal mixture used for briquetted coke; as a result, the cost of preparing this coal mixture is reduced. This leads to a significant improvement in the cold strength of the coke, while the improvement in its hot strength is relatively minor
With the coke quality remaining unchanged, more weakly bonding coal can be used to reduce coking costs； The quality of coke can be improved while keeping the quality of the blending coal constant.
It mainly allows for the use of cheaper coal types such as weakly bonded coal and lean coal, thereby reducing the amount of primary coking coal and 1/3 coking coal required. 1. Reduce the cost of blended coal. 2. The key issue is the unreasonable structure of the enterprise’s coal resources, which forces the use of ramming methods. 3. Regarding coke quality, some indicators have improved, but given the poor quality of the coal used, how much can other indicators improve? 4. Currently, the perception is that producing compacted coke implies using low-quality coal to create low-quality coke, which gives a very negative image; as a result, blast furnaces with a capacity of over 3,000 m3 are not used. . In my opinion, those of us in the coking industry need to seriously study how to produce high-quality coke using rammed coke ovens. . Let’s all work hard. .
Please refer to post http://bbs.hcbbs.com/viewthread.php?tid=347544’s 4# for a detailed comparison of the performance of tamped coke and top-loaded coke. . http://bbs.hcbbs.com/viewthread.php?tid=144498 This post is a comparison regarding costs. This post was last edited by ryn on 2009-2-27 09:28]
1. The greatest advantage of ramming coking is cost savings; especially in regions such as Shandong and Jiangsu, where there is a shortage of high-quality coking coal and lean coal, it is possible to use up to one-third local coking coal or gas coal, with a maximum proportion of 65%. Reduce transportation costs. 2. Under the same coal blending conditions, ramming coking can improve coke quality more effectively. 3. Rammed coke ovens achieve higher production rates for the same furnace size compared to top-charged coke ovens. 4. The service life of coke ovens depends crucially on operation and maintenance; the exact number of years required still needs to be determined through experimentation.
Thank you all for your answers; I’ve learned a lot from them: lol
Each has its advantages as well as its disadvantages: handshake :handshake :lol
The original poster asked a good question, and the other experts gave great answers; I’ve learned a lot!
The original poster might want to consider why large steel companies such as Baosteel and Wuhan Iron and Steel didn’t adopt ramming technology The reason is actually very simple: they produce their own coke and use it themselves! The coke produced by the coking plant is mainly used in the blast furnaces of its own ironmaking plant! The blast furnaces of such large steel companies are 2,500 cubic meters in size, or even over 3,200 cubic meters! Although everyone is clamoring to use ramming, what is the actual quality of the coke produced by this method? Especially CRI and CSR. For blast furnaces with a capacity of over 3,200 cubic meters, the requirements regarding coke quality are M10≤6.5, CRI≤25, and CSR≥65. Can coke produced by ramming coke-making meet these standards? This needs to be proven! If large steel companies adopt ramming technology, it can only be said that their current coking techniques are not sufficient to meet the needs of blast furnaces; therefore, ramming must be implemented based on the existing coal blending strategies, so as to maximize the quality of coke! The use of ramming in many independent coking plants is mainly due to cost considerations (the inclusion of less cohesive materials such as gas coal). Their coke is mainly purchased to supply blast furnaces with a capacity of 2,000 cubic meters or even less at some small and medium-sized steel mills in the country.
Last edited by ryn on 2009-5-8 17:33 at http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-365572-1-1.html Comparison of coke oven options for an annual production of 1.8 million tons of coke
Ramming coking can increase the apparent density and bulk density of coke
Our company uses coal for charging coke ovens that does not contain bituminous coal or 1/3 coking coal; instead, high-cohesiveness coal is used. The resulting coke has a CRI of around 25% and a CSR of around 65%, and it is intended for use in 3200-type blast furnaces.