Final-Report on Study of the Potential for
Profitable Utilization of Pulverized Coal
Flyash Modified by the Addition of Limestone
Dolomite Sulfur Dioxide Removal Additives
PH 86-67-122 ' .
-------
-------
-------
final Report
On
Study of the Potential for Profitable Utilization of Pulverized Coal
flyash Modified by the Addition of Limestone-Dolomite Sulfur Dioxide
Removal Additives
To
National Air Pollution Control Administration
(Contract No. PH 86-67-122)
April 30, 1969
Prepa:oed By
Charles f. Cockrell - Supervising Research
Richard B. Kuter - Research Chemist
Joseph W. Leonard - Director
Coal Research Bureau
School of Kines
West Virginia University
Korgantown, West Virginia
Chemis t
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMKARY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
INTRODUCTION .y----------
MODIFIED FLYASH AND CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS
Detroit Edison Company, St. Clair, Michigan ---------------------------
Tenne8see Valley Authority, Colbert, Alabama --------------------------
Babcock and Wilcox Company, Alliance, Ohio ----------------
Chevrolet MOtor Division Plant, St. Louis, Missouri -------------------
Characterization Results ---- ------------------------------
MODIFIED FLYASH UTILIZATION POTENTIAL -- -------------------------
Utilization Method of Good Potential - The ECHC --------------------
Recovery of Lime --------------
Production of Mineral Wool
Recovery of Sulfur Derivatives
The lCHC Proce8s
UTILIZATION METHODS OF LESSER POTENTIAL
Acid Mine Drainage Neutralization
Concrete Admixture
Cement Kiln Raw Material -
Soil Stabilization
Sol1 Amendment
BENEFICIATION PROCEDURES AND UTILIZATION METHODS OF LITTLE POTENTIAL ---
Sizing
Specific Gravity
Magnetic Separation ----
Electrostatic Separation
L1gh~eight Aggregate Production
Smelting
Alumina Recovery
PUTURE WORK
---
-~---
----
--
TABLES
Table
1 Chemical and Physical Properties of Detroit Edison Flyashes ------
2 Source and Chemical Composition of Stones Injected by Detroit Edison
3 Chemical and Physical Properties of TVA Flyashes ---------
4 Source and Chemical Composition of Limestones Injected by TVA
5 Chemical and Physical Properties of Babcock & Wilcox Flyashes
6 Source and Chemical Composition of Limestone Injected by Babcock &
Wilcox ~ ----- ----------- 7
7 Chemical and Physical Properties of Chevrolet Motor Division Flyashes 8
8 Source and Chemical Composition of Dolomite Injected by Chevrolet
MOtor Divi8ion ------- -------- 9
9 Modified Flyash Mineral Wool Description and Production Test 'Results 12
10 Pozzolanic Activity Characterization Test Results for Modified
Flya8hes -------------- ------
11 Summary of Greenhouse Test With Modified, Li~nite and Bituminous
Flyash ------------------------ ~---- 21
i
11
1
3
3
5
7
7
9
10
10
10
11
13
16
18
18
18
20
20
21
22
22
22
23
24
25
25
25
26
2
5
4
5
6
--- 19
-------
FIGURES
FiRure
1
14
Infrared Spectra of Gases Evolved from Modified F1Iash D1D2 Under
Oxidizing Conditions at 21oo.F, 4000 to 1200 CMr 14
Infrared Spectra of Gases Evolved from Modified Fiya8h D1D2 under
Oxidizing Conditions at 2100.F, 1330 to 400 CMr - 15
The ECHC Process 17
2
APPENDIX A
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR VARIOUS BENEFICIATION METHODS AND
UTILIZATION PROCEDURES
TABLES
Table
Chemical AnalY8is of Sieved Size Fractions of MOdified
Al Dry-Collected PID
A2 Wet-Collected PIW
A3 Dry-Collected DD
A4 Wet-Collected DW
F1ya8h
31
32
33
34
Chemical Analysis of Ultrasonically Sieved
A5 Dry-Collected PID
A6 Dry-Collected DD
A7 Dry-Collected Babcock and Wilcox -
A8 Chemical Analysis and Particle Characteristics of -325 Mesh
Fraction of MOdified Flyash Separated by Air Classification
Size Fractions of MOdified Flyash
-- 35
36
37
- 38
Chemical AnalYsis of Specific Gravity Size Fractions of Modified Flyash
A9-13 Dry-Collected PID 39-43
Al4-18 Wet-Collected PIW 44-48
Al9-23 Dry-Collected DD 49-53
A24-28 Wet-Collected DW 54-58
Chemical Analysis of Magnetically Separated
Flyash
A29-33 Dry-Collected PID
A34-38 Wet-Collected PIW
A39-43 Dry-Collected DD --
A44-48 Wet-Collected DW
Size Fractions of Modified
- 59-63
64-68
69-73
74-78
Chemical and Yield Analysis of Electrostatically Separated Size Fractions
of MOdified Flyash
A49-53 Dry-Collected PID 79-83
A54-58 Wet-Collected PIW 84-88
A59-63 Dry-Collected DD ---- 89-93
A64-68 Wet-Collected DW 94-98
A69 Ratio of Lime to Silica and Lime to Alumina Required for Optimum
Results for Alumina Recovery by the Lime-Sinter Process and Those
Found in Modified Flyash -- 99
-------
SUMMARY
The process currently receiving major emphasis by the National Air
'ollution Control Administration (NAPCA) as a means of reducing sulfur
oxides emission at coal burning power stations is the limestone or dolomite
injection process for fixing gaseous sulfur oxides as solid calcium and
..sn.sium sulfates. One of the detriments to limestone or dolomite injection
18 the increase in solid wastes produced since the amount of flyash to be
disposed of would be approximately doubled. Moreover, the flyash produced
would be of little value in conventional flyash utilization schemes because
of the larse increases in lime, magnesia and sulfur.
Tbe objective of this contract was to determine the potential for
profitable utilization of this modified fly ash , resulting from limestone or
dolomite injection, by characterizing the physical and chemical properties
of the material, performing utilization tests and, where feasible, initiating
utilization studies.
The chemical composition and physical characteristics of the modified
flyashes examined and the test conditions under which the ashes were produced
are d..cribed. In determinins the utilization potential, modified flyash
vas 8eparated by sizing, specific gravity, magnetic, electrostatic and
surface chemical (flotation) properties in attempts to concentrate usable
minerals. In addition, the whole material and some size fractions were
h.at treated to determine the potential for recovering iron, producing mineral
wool and sintered asgresate. Leaching tests to recover aluminum were also
undertaken. In addition, the utilization potential of modified flyash in soil
8tabilization, concrete admixtures, acid mine drainage neutralization, and
80il amendment8 vere also studied.
Two developments of this study involving concentration to recover lime
and melting to yield sulfur derivatives and mineral wool have been linked
together to form a preliminary conceptual plan for an Emission Control Minerals
Complex (ECMC) to utilize all parts of modified flyash. The ECMC process
iDvolves slurrying modified flyash with water followed by (a) carbonation
of the slurry to convert unreacted lime and magnesia to their carbonate
form, (b) concentration of lime from the carbonated modified flyash by
agglomerate flotation for reinjection into the furnace, (c) melting of the
concentration rejects for the manufacture of such products as mineral wool,
and (d) recovery of the relatively clean and more concentrated sulfur gases
evolved from the melt for the manufacture of such products as sulfuric acid.
In addition to the ECMC process several other potentiallj successful
utilization methods were tested. However, these were of lesser potential
because of ph/sical, chemical or marketing limitations. It was determined
that modified fl/ash had advantages over lime for acid mine drainage neutral-
ization because of decreased sludge settling and filtering time. However,
the greater amounts of modified flyash required and the transportation
distances likely to be involved would greatly reduce the potential for succes-
ful implementation of this utilization scheme. .
Modified f1jash was a160 found to be of use 1n concrete admixtures since
the strength of concrete and lime-modified flyash mixtures attained good
compressive strengths. However, the attainment of other physical requirements
varied and would therefore require that each modified f1yash be tested
empirically to determine its acceptability for a particular application.
i
-------
Utilization of limestone modified flyash in cement kilns also has
potential because it could supply a portion of both the argillaceous
and calcareous components. Dolomite modified flyashes could not be used
because of limits on the amount of magnesia in portland cement. The
utilization of some limestone modified flyashes could also be restricted
in this area because of limits on the amount of iron oxide in the resultant
portland cement.
The use of modified flyas~ in soil stabilization and as a soil amendment
was found to have potential. The lime to flyash ratio required to stabilize
most soils is already available in modified flyash so that no additional
lime would be required. It would be necessary to determine optimum pro-
portions for each application in this area because of the wide variety of
soils and the interdependence of soil, lime and flyash components. Green-
house studies under standard methods of application indicated that dolomite
modified flyash (DD), when used as a soil amendment, gave good yields
of fescue at the lowest application rate of any of the flyashes listed.
Research is continuing on NAPCA contract 22-68-18 to more fully deter-
mine the feasibility of recovering lime for reinjection, the cementation
properties of modified flyash and to perform pilot tests on the utilization
schemes of lesser potential as warranted.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As a result of past and existing cooperative arrangements between the
Coal Research Bureau and other research organizations, it was possible to
obtain extensive consultation and experimental testing services in the
performance of this work at minimal cost. We wish to acknowledge and to
thank the following organizations for their help: Bituminous Coal Research,
Monroeville, Pennsylvania; School of Mines, West Virginia University;
United States Bureau of Mines, Morgantown and Pittsburgh Research Centers;
West Virginia State Road Commission, Morgantown Testing Laboratory.
11
-------
INTRODUCTION
Air pollution by sulfur oxide emission as a result of combustion and
related heat treating methods of sulfur bearing materials is receiving
considerable attention because of the threat posed to health on a nation-
wide basis.(l) A significant amount of the sulfur oxides emitted are from
coal burning power stations. As a means of eliminating or substantially
reducing these emissions, the Division of Process Control Engineering (DPCE)'
of NAPCA is studying sulfur oxide emission from coal burning power
atations with the aim of developing processes to remove sulfur from the
coal before combustion or to remove the gaseous sulfur oxides from the
stacK gases.(2) The process currently receiving most attention involves
the injection of limestone or dolomite into the utility boiler to fix the
gaseous sulfur oxides as solid calcium and magnesium sulfates. (3,4)
Disposition of the large quantities of solid residues, primarily
f1yash, produced at coal burning power stations is already a problem and it
1& estimated that f1yash production will increase from the current level of
approximately 25 million tons per year to approximately 45 million tons by
1980.(5) This estimate, however, does not consider the possible increase
in flyash production as a result of injecting limestone or dolomite to
prevent sulfur oxide emission. Power stations that inject limestone or
dolomite would be expected to substantially increase their solid residue
output above those projections by the production of about equal amounts of
calcined, 8ulfated limestone or dolomite. For example, with typical steam
coals (eg, two to four percent sulfur and eight to ten percent ash), the
injection of 100 percent of the stoichiometric amount required to convert
all sulfur oxides present in the flue gases to solid sulfates would
approximately double the amount of flyash normally generated during combus-
tion of this same coal. Moreover, the flyash that would result would be
unlike flyashes currently produced because of large increases in lime,
magnesia and sulfates of lime and magnesia. Thus, the elimination of air
pollution by sulfur oxides using limestone or dolomite injection could
result in a larger solids disposal problem.
I
I
The purpose of this study was to determine the potential for profitable
utilization of these modified flyashes by (a) characterizing the chemical
composition and physical properties and (b) investigating the potential for
producing salable products by the application of mineral dressing and other
beneficiation procedures. Since limestone and dolomite modified flyashes
would represent entirely new materials, the problem was approached in a
manner that would develop the most detailed information about individual
components. The physical and chemical characteristics of each modified
flyash .ample were determined by standard analytical techniques except when
the nature of this material required modification of standard tests.
The test program to determine the best methods of utilization consisted
of all the major physical separation techniques (eg, sizing, specific
gravity, magnetic, electrostatic and flotation), heat treatment
and smelting techniques for iron, mineral wool and aggregate production,
leaching tests for aluminum production, pozzo1anic property tests in concrete
admixtures, soil tests for stabilization and amendment properties and
neutralization tests with acidic mine water.
The characterization and utilization test program was initially planned
from the standpoint of concentrating both metallic and non-metallic materials
that might report in modified flyash in a free state as a result of reactions
-------
TABLE 1
Chemical and thysical Properties of Modified }lyash and Normal Flyash Generated
During Detroit Edison-Combustion Engineering Tests
at St. Clair, Michigan Power Station
Unmodified
Identification No. PID PIW DD DW DEl
Modifying Stone Limestone Limestone Dolomite Dolomite
Mode of Collection Dry Wet Dry Wet
Chemical Properties,%
Si02 30.85 19.39 30.81 23.34 49.10
Al203 13.70 7.98 12.54 9.03 16.25
.e203 11.59 9.65 10.72 9.99 22.31
Ti02 0.68 0.31 0.42 0.43 1.09
CaO 33.58 26.02 17.90 13 .84 4.48
MgO 1.49 0.69 14.77 9.24 1.00
Na20 1.12 0.33 0.72 0.65
K20 0.71 0.62 0.99 0.83
S03 2.20 10.94 8.09 18.68 0.73
C 1.12 2.20 1.76 2.11 2.21
Moisture 0.00 Slurry 0.00 Slurry 0.00
Loss on Ignition 1.03 10.85 1.95 9.00
Water Soluble
Fraction 22.11 22.52 20.39 21.08 2.51
Physical Properties
Melting Properties,o.
Initial Deformation Temp. 2071 2030 2246 2061 1702
Softening Temp., Spherical 2138 2316 2356 2237 2400
Ash Softening Temp. 2145 2336 2412 2246 2410
Jiluid Temp. 2172 2381 2430 22.60 2460
.
,
Median Particle
Size, Microns 9.30 9.00 9.30 9.50 7.10
-------
-3-
be~een the coal ash and lime constituents. However, the initial utilization
potential tests did not indicate any beneficiation scheme would yield a
relatively pure material from the coal ash fraction of modified flyash.
Separation of the coal ash constituents would be more difficult after
limestone or dolomite injection as a result of dilution of the fine flyash
with equally fine lime. magnesia and sulfates of lime and magnesia.
The results did indicate that the addition of limestone and dolomite
to the boiler to fix sulfur had not altered the characteristic glassy.
physically-agglomerated makeup of flyash when the stone was injected above
the flame envelope as was the case at the St. Clair facility and in one test
at St. Louis. The degree of reaction between limestone or dolomite when
admixed with the coal prior to combustion has not been determined. Thermo-
dyn~ic considerations indicate that the formation of calcium silicates are
possible. (6) However. the test data indicated that modified flyash consists
of the normal flyash resulting from coal combustion and calcined. partially
sulfated limestone or dolomite in a thoroughly intermixed state. There was
no indication of a change in chemical or physical bonding to any extent
beyond simple electrostatic attraction.
Most results were obtained from samples of limestone and dolomite flyashes
generated at Detroit Edison Company. St. Clair. Michigan because they were
the first modified flyashes available in substantial quantities. The
results obtained with the Detroit Edison modified flyashes revealed that
certain separation and utilization schemes would be of little value due to
physical or chemical limitations of the modified flyash.
MODIFIED FLIASH SAMPLES AND CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS
Modified flyashes used in this study were obtained from the following
sources; (a) Detroit Edison Company. St. Clair. Michigan power plant; (b)
Babcock and Wilcox Company research center. Alliance. Ohio; (c) Tennessee
VAllej Authority, Colbert, Alabama power plant and (d) Chevrolet Motor
Division plant, St. Louis. Missouri. In addition to the modified flyash
samples, sacples of the flyash normally produced were also obtained for
comparative purposes. Samples of the stones injected were also collected
whe~ possible. When stone samples could not be obtained. chemical analyses
were requested.
Details concerning the development. collection and characteristics of
the samples supplied by each source follo~;
7
Detroit Edison Company. St. Clair. Michigan
The work undertaken at the St. Clair, Michigan power station was a
joint effort by Detroit Edison Company and Combustion Engineering. Inc.
to field test the dolomite injection - wet collection sulfur oxide removal
system under development by Combustion Engineering. Inc. In these tests
only a small amount of the dust-laden stack gases were diverted to a wet
scrubber 60 that both wet and drj collected modified flyashes were available.
When the dolomite tests were completed a high purity limestone was tested.
Thus, it was possible to obtain both wet and dry collected limestone and
dolomite modified fljashes. The chemical and physical properties of these
-------
-4-
TABLE 3
Chemical and Physical Properties of Modified Flyash and Normal F1yash Generated
During Injection Tests at Tennessee Valley Authority
Colbert, Alabama Power Station
Identification No.
DID2
Sylacauga
Limestone
Dry
DID3
Selma
Limestone
Dry
Unmodified Ash*
Modifying Stone
Mode of Collection
Chemical Properties, %
Si02
A1203
Fe203
Ti02
CaO
29.52
13.00
31.68
14.29
44.90
20.50
14.85
15.97
16.90
0.53
0.56
22.55
MgO
1.56
24.94
1.49
6.10
1.10
Na20
K20
503
0.59
1.42
0.77
1.63
0.30
0.80
3.73
1.95
0.91
C
0.88
Moisture
c.~o
(\ :!O
Loss on Ignition
2..CD
1.30
Water Soluble
Fraction
21.58
9.58
Physical Properties
Melting Properties. .,
Initial Deformation Temp.
Softening Temp., Spherical
Ash Softening Temp.
Fluid Temperature
Median Particle
Size» Microns
1740 1730
2100 2120
2120 2130
2140 2140
3.80 4.40
*Ana1ysis Obtained From Tennessee Valley Authority
-------
-5-
four modified flyashes and the flyash normally produced at St. Clair are
shown in Table I. The sources and chemical analyses of the limestone and
dolomite used in these tests are given in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Source and Chemical Composition of Stones
Detroit Edison-Combustion Engineering
St. Clair, Michigan
Used In
Tests,
Acid
Source Type Stone %Si02 %R20J !£!Q %CaCOJ ~ %MRCOJ Insoluble
Drummond I eland, Dolomite 0.57 0.74 29.89 53.34 22.30 46.63 0.94
Michigan
Presque Isle, Limestone 1.06 1.04 53.81 96.03 0.57 1.41 1.54
Maine
In these tests, the coal and stone was pulverized to approximately 95
percent passing 200 mesh. The crushed stone was injected through the
top burner, oriented 30. above the horizontal, of a 325 megawatt Combustion
Engineering twin furnace unit. In the initial tests, dolomite was fed
into the boiler at a rate of 6.4 tons per hour (115 percent of the stoi-
chiometric amount required to remove all sulfur oxides generated by the
3 percent sulfur content Ohio strip coal being burned). In the other series
of tests, limestone was fed into the boiler in a similar manner but at a
rate of approximately 10 tons per hour (180 percent of the stoichiometric
requirement).
A combination of electrostatic and mechanical precipitators, rated to
be 99.5 percent efficient, were used to collect the dry samples. The dry
modified flyashes from each type of precipitator were admixed after collection.
The wet scrubbed materials were obtained from the settling tank of the wet
scrubbing circuit.
8
Tennessee Valley Authoritv. Colbert. Alabama
These limestone modified flyashes were generated at the TVA Colbert,
Alabama power station in separate periods of operation when different
limestones were being tested. Analyses are shown in Table 3 for the modified
flyashes and the flyash normally produced by TVA at the Colbert Station.
The sources and chemical analyses of the limestones used in these tests by
!VA are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Source and Chemical Compositions of Limestones Used in Tests by TVA
Colbert, Alabama
Source Type Stone %5i02 %R!O) %CaO %CaCO) ~ %M~CO).. %50)
Sylacauga, Limestone 2.10 0.40 54.00 96.43 0.72 1.51 0.04
Alabama
Selma, Limestone 12.50 6.00 44.30 79.11 0.60 1.26 0.90
Alabama
-------
TABLE 5
Chemical and Physical Properties of Modified F1yash and Normal F1yash Generated
During Babcock and Wilcox, Inc. Tests at Alliance, Ohio Research Facility
Unmodified
Identification No. PHS 42 PHS 45 PHS 46 PHS 47 B22791
Modifying Stone Dolomite Dolomite Dolomite Dolomite
Mode of Collection Dry Dry Dry Dry
Chemical Properties, %
Si02 23.80 17.29 19.02 15.00 43.41
Al203 10.54 7.80 7.55 7.08 23.60
Fe203 9.92 6.17 7.50 6.84 21. 94
Ti02 0.42 0.36 0.38 0.36 1.07
CaO 27.80 30.40 30.98 32.15 6.89
MgO 18.09 20.12 20.48 21.77 0.65
Na 0 0.61 0.62 0.41 0.36 1.65
2
K20 0.68 0.69 0.79 0.69 0.78
503 4.40 5.56 5.55 5.92 1.11
C 3.66 3.96 3.47 3.42 1.01
Moisture 0.40 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.70
Loss On Ignition 11.77 12.06 11.10 11.17 1.68
Water Soluble Fraction 10.25 12.24 11.53 12.40 7.90
Physical Properties
0
Melting Properties, F
Initial Deformation Temp. 1790 1780 1800 1790 1760
Softening Temp., Spherical 2520 2610 2660 2650 1990
Ash Softening Temp. 2530 2613 2680 2660 2030
Fluid Temp. 2550 2632 2685 2670 2050
Median Particle 8.30 7.80 7.10 8.00 7.80
, Size, Microns
-------
-7-
In these tests, the particle size of limestone injected ranged from 70
percent passinR 200 mesh to 95 percent passing 325 mesh. Limestone was in-
jected into the boiler through all sixteen burners by pre-mixing with the
coal in proportions approximately equal to 67 percent of the stoichiometric
requirement for the 6 percent sulfur content coal being burned. These
dry-collected limestone modified flyashes were obtained from standard mechanical
cyclone dust collectors which had been designed to remove approximately 70
percent of the particulate matter in the stack gases. In dust collectors of
this type, the finer size fractions generally escape to the atmosphere.
Thus, the smallest size fractions of modified flyash were not recovered.
9
Babcock and Wilcox Com~anv. Alliance. Ohio
The modified flyashes generated by Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) were produced
during additive tests to determine the effectiveness of raw, hydrated and
calcined limestones and dolomites in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions and
to determine their effect on boiler slagging, ash viscosity and ash fusion
properties. The modified flyashes characterized were produced in a
pilot plant furnace designed to burn from 3 to 20 pounds of coal per hour
under controlled conditions. Chemical and physical analysis of the modified
flyashes and the parent coal ash characterized are shown in Table 5.
the source and chemical analysis of the dolomite used in these tests
is described in Table 6.
Source
Used
TABLE 6
and Chemical Composition of
in Babcock & Wilcox Company
Alliance, Ohio
Limestone
Tests,
Type Stone %Si02
110 Glasshouse 0.004
Dolomite
%R! OJ
0.00
%CaO %CaCO) %~ %MRC03
28.25 50.98 23.00 48.30
Loss On
IaniHon
Source
Charles P. Fizer Co.
GibsonburR. Ohio
47.50
In these tests, dolomite was pulverized to 90 percent passing 200
mesh. The dolomite was injected into the B & W pilot plant furnace
2 3/4 feet below the furnace outlet at a rate amounting to 110 percent
of the stoichiometric requirement for the 4.3 percent sulfur content
of the parent B-2279l coal being burned. The dry collected ash samples
were obtained from a cyclone separator at the pilot plant boiler outlet.
Chevrolet Motor Division Plant. St. Louis. Missouri
.
.
j
The injection tests undertaken by Chevrolet Motor Division at their
St. Louis assembly plant were performed in a small B & W boiler having a
capacity of two tons of coal per hour. Preground commercially available
dolomite was tested both by intermixing and by injection above the flame
envelope. Physical and chemical characteristics of the resultant modified
flyashes and the flyash normally produced by this boiler are shown in Table
7. The eM modified flyash was produced by prernixin~ the dolomite and coal
while the CI material was produced by injecting the material above the
flame envelope. The source and chemical analysis of the dolomite used is
shown in Table 8.
-------
-8-
TABLE 7
Chemical and Physical Properties of Modified .lyash and Normal flyash
Generated During Tests at Chevrolet Motor Division.
St. Louis Plant
Identification No. CM(tremixed) CI(Injected) CU(Unmodifled)
Modifying Stone Dolomite Dolomite
Mode of Collection Dry Dry
Chemical Properties. %
5102 35.90 33.10 48 .40
Al203 14.40 11.80 18.40
.e203 7.76 7.18 13.60
Ti02 0.71 0.65 1.10
CaO 19.18 17.92 5.18
MgO 12.61 11.45 1.66
Na20 0.34 0.46 0.58
K20 0.72 0.72 1.30
503 8.05 6.95 3.18
C 3.29 5.64 9.67
Moisture 0.24 0.26 0.30
Loss On Ignition 3.79 8.34 11. 58
Physical troperties
Melting Properties. of
Initial Deformation Temp. 1870 1720 1890
Softening Temp.. Spherical 2260 2250 2250
Ash Softening Temp. 2270 2270 2260
Fluid Temp. 2300 2280 2270
-------
-9-
TABLE 8
Source and Chemical Composition of Dolomite Used In
Tests at Chevrolet Motor Division Plant,
St. Louis, Missouri
Source
%Si02
3.61
%R20
"
1.65
~ %CaCO) ~
Birmingham,
Alabama
29.76
53.11
21. 27
%MaCO)
44.47
In these tests, the dolomite, vended as "Dolcito", was injected into
the B&W pulverized coal intergal furnace type boiler at a rate of 200
percent of the stoichiometric amount required. The dolomite had been
pulverized by the supplier to 76 percent passin~ 230 mesh and 4.4 percent
passing 325 mesh. The coal burned during the tests contained 3 1/2 percent
sulfur and was obtained from the River King No.2 mine of Peabody Coal
Company and the Sparta Mine of Bell and Zoller Company. The coal was fed
to a B&W Type E pulverizer in a ratio of 60 percent River King to 40
percent Sparta where it was pulverized to 70 percent passing 200 mesh
prior to combustion. The dry modified flyash was collected in an electro-
static precipitator rated to be approximately 99 percent efficient.
In the initial test, dolomite was admixed with the coal by adding 50
pounds of dolomite every three minutes through the exit port of the weigh
feeder. A 45 minute delay occurred between the time dolomite was first
added and a stable reduction of sulfur dioxide occurred. After the stable
reduction occurred the test vas continued for three hours.
In the second test dolomite was injected from a spider system specifi-
cally designed to permit the dolomite to be uniformly sprayed, via six
nozzles, into the boiler above the flame envelope at an angle of approxi-
mately 45 degrees above the horizontal. This test was also of three hours
duration, however, a reduction of sulfur dioxide in the stack gases
occurred almost fmmediately.
Characterization Results
By contrasting the data for modified and normal flyashes obtained by
each of the four testing facilities, the degree of modification of the
physical and chemical characteristics resulting from the injection of lime-
stone or dolomite can be seen. Levels of silica, alumina and iron oxide,
the major constituents of normal flyash, are decreased while the lime and
magnesia content is greatly increased. The injection of limestone and
dolomite also resulted in expected increases in the ash fusion temperatures
.ince the ash became more refractory with increased levels of lime and/or
magnesia above about 30 percent. (10) The amount of vater soluble constituents
vas also increased when limestone or dolomite was injected with the result
that the standard ASTM test for soluble constituents had to be modified
by reducing the modified flyash sample size so that the insoluble residue
. could be dried to a constant weight. The median particle size of modified
flyashes vas approximately the same as the normal unmodified fly ashes ,
indicating that the degree of grinding of the stone is approximately the same
as that of coal when the coal mills are used for grinding.
Initially, amall samples of the wet collected materials obtained from Detroit
Edison set up cementitously in a few days. This setting was greatly retarded for
-------
about six months by maintaining a layer of water over the sample. In most
instances' it was necessary to dry the wet collected samples prior to charac-
terization or testing.
MODIUED FLfASH UTILIZATION POTENTIAL
As a result of the extensive physical separations and utilization tests
on the whole and sized fractions of modified flyash. several feasible methods
of utilization were determined. The potential for profitable utilization
has been divided into three categories. The utilization method having the
greatest potential is the conceptual Emission Control Minerals Complex (ECHt)
because it makes use of all fractions of modified flyash and could lower
operating costs for stone injection. Of lesser importance are utilization
methods of lower potential because of limited markets or chemical and physical
limitation8 of modified flyash. Finally. some beneficiation procedures aDd
utilization methods were studied which had little potential due to the
physical and chemical makeup of modified flyash.
Utilization Bathod of Cood fotential - The ECMC Process For Total Modified
Ilyash Utilization Through Multiple Beneficiation
The ECHC process understudy incorporates the most promising utilization
methods found during the course of contract work. This preliminary plan
has the aim of utilizing all fractions of modified flyash through (a)
recovery of lime for reinjection. (b) mineral wool production and (c) sulfur
recovery. A categoric description of the three main products from the two
proces.es which make up the conceptual plan follows.
Recovery of lime The carbonation of modified flyash-water slurry followed
by agglomerate flotation has yielded concentrates containing 58.19 perceDt
lime from DID2 modified flyash. This amounts to more than a 2 1/2 fold
enrichment over the original feed lime content of 22.55 percent and re.ults
in a product that contains more lime than the highest quality limestone.
Carbonation. the introduction of carbon dioxide into the modified flY88h -
vater .lurry. decreases the amount of undesirable water soluble calcium ..
a result of the formation of relatively insoluble calcium carbonate. Carbona-
tion al.o causes the pH to be lowered providing a means to condition the
slurry and facilitate agglomerate flotation. Agglomerate flotation. a highly
specialized mineral preparation process that is more amenable than froth
flotation to very fine slime-like materials such as modified flyash. is the
intensive mixing of the carbonated slurry and emulsified organic chemicals with
the result that the ultra fine calcium carbonate particles cluster together and
are levitated to the surface of the slurry by mechanically induced air
bubbles where the agglomerated particles are removed. The employment of
carbonation to condition the slurry was additionally supported by zeta
potential (a measure of the surface charge on a particle suspended in a
liquid) measurements which indicated that for the best separation it would
be necessary to regulate the slurry pH in order to favorably adjust and
maximize the differences between the surface charges of the siliceous flyash
and lime particles contained in the slurry.
It has been found that the possible formation of extremely soluble
calcium bicarbonate by excess carbonation i5 not a problem. Bicarbonate
formation occurs by the reaction:
CaCO) + C02 + H20 ~ Ca(HCO)2
when excess carbon dioxide is added.
Should this be a problem with other
-------
-11-
modified flyashes, it could be surmounted by heating the slurry. Beating
the slurry also would have the advantage of lowering the solubility of all
calcium compounds likely to be present which should (a) lower the amount of
materials to be separated, (b) shorten the conditioning time and (c) more
rapidly activate the fraction to be floated.
soluble
The primary aim of the conceptual plan is to recover lime for rein-
jection. The present agglomerate flotation separation used for this purpose
conaists of (a) vigorously agitating or grinding the one part modified flyash
to two part water slurry as a means of exposing new surfaces on the lime
and silica particles; (b) carbonating the slurry to lower the pH to seven;
(c) adding modifiers such as ferric or cupric chloride to promote dispersion
of lime from silica particles during conditioning and agglomerate flotation;
(d) agglomeration by the addition of anionic oil-water emulsions and condi-
tioning in flotation cells at slow rotor speeds; and (e) agglomerate flota-
tion separation by admitting air to the cell to levitate the lime rich
fraction of modified flyash to the surface for mechanical removal at the
desired pH.
The best emulsion used to date consisted of 50 percent water, 25 percent
fuel oil, 22 1/2 percent tall oil and 2 1/2 percent sulfonate surfactant for
froth production. Certain types of tall oil also require the addition of
trace amounts of barium or calcium chloride, to stabilize the emulsion.
Emulsion addition rates are equivalent to about 112.6 pounds per ton of
modified flyash on a water free basis. This amounts to a cost of approxi-
mately $3.56 per ton. While no attempt has been made to recover the emulsion,
recovery is a common operation in agglomerate flotation circuits and should
result in reuse of more than 80 percent of the oils and surfactant.
There would be a substantial saving in limestone costs 1f lime could be
commercially recovered as calcium carbonate by agglomerate flotation. More-
over, the calcium carbonate recovered would be in a finely divided (10 microns
or less), ~nd highly active state and have an adsorption capacity greater
than limestone. In addition, reagents such as iron compounds, etc could be
added during recovery to enhance the capture of sulfur oxides on reinjection
which could further reduce the amount of limestone required. In effect, the
calcium carbonate recovered for reinjection could be custom tailored to promote
uniformity of the reinjected material thereby enhancing sulfur fixation.
Preliminary cost estimates indicate that. based upon 80 percent recovery
of injected lime and reinjection of an 80 percent lime product, a relative
operating cost reduction of about 42 percent might be realized over the cost
of once through limestone injection. These relative cost figures are based
on economic assumptions and feasibility data of limestone injection made or
obtained by other NAPCA contractors (11,12) and include all cost effects, both
direct and indirect, including equipment write-off.
Production of mineral wool Extensive tests on a pilot plant scale have
shown that mineral wool of high quality can be produced from modified flyashes.
A summary of the qualitative and quantitative data obtained on mineral wools
produced from the various modified flyashes is given in Table 9. For compara-
tive purposes the characteristics of mineral wool produced from normal un-
modified B-2219l are also included. From Table 9 it can be seen that wools
were produced that varied in color from brown to grey and contained attached
shot ranging from 20 to 40 percent of the weight of the uncleaned product.
Shot is the result of incomplete fiber formation when the molten material
-------
TABLE 9
MODIfIED fLYASH MINERAL WOOL
DESCRIPTION AND PRODUCTION TESTS RESULTS
SAMPLE DD DW P10 PIW DID2 0103 Uamodified 822791
Wool Description Good fiber Small fiber Light Brown Average fiber Grey Fibers. Average UnsaUsfactory
With Little fluffy Wool Diameter of 10- Moderate Amount Fiber
Attached Shot, With Little 15 Microns With of Shot
Light Grey to Shot Attached Lots of Unattached
White Resilient fiber fine Shot
Shot Content of 26.0 39.3 27.0 24.7 24.7 20.0 63.3
Wool, %
Humidity Test, % 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 Not Tested
Absorption I
Corrosion Test Minimal Very Light Minimal, Less Minimal. Much Very Light Surface Some Chemical Not Tested i-
I
Corrosion. No Surface Rust. Than Blank. No Less Than Test Rust. Some Chemical Etching, Less
Deep Etching Much Better Deep Etchinlt Strips Etching,Less Than 5 Than 5 Percent
Resistance Percent
Than Test
Blank
Flsme Test Nonflamable Non flamab Ie Nonflamable Nonflamable Nonflamable Nonflamable Nonflamable
COllllllents High Yield Wool Not As Very Fluid Smoky With Very Good Wool Low Yield Requires
Smoke And Good As Other Melt At Sulfur Smell More Heat
Sulfur Smell Flyashes. Low Temp. During Production To Melt
Present During Holten Slag With Good Run. Melt Tended To
Production Run. Stream Tends Pouring Range Be Very Fluid
Long Pouring To Break Up
Range And Does Not
Pour Well.
Smoke and
Sulfur Present
During Production
Run
Acid to Base Ratio 1.32 1.40 1.27 1.00 1.22 1.92 9.03
-------
1-
-13-
i8 poured from the furnace and simultaneously blasted with steam or
compre8sed air. The amount of shot present in a mineral wool is a function
of the melt viscosity and is commonly removed during cleaning by raking.
It has been indicated that cleaning mineral wools produced from modified
flyash would be .1milar to other mineral wool cleaning operations and
would present no difficulty.
The melts listed in Table 9 were very fluid at temperatures of approxi-
mately 2500of. This increased fluidity permitted longer pouring and blowing
time at equivalent temperatures or conversely, equivalent pouring time at
lower temperatures as compared with the normal unmodified flyash. Data in
Table 9 for such service tests as humidity, corrosion and flame resistance
indicate that mineral wools produced from modified flyash were as good or
better than commercial rock and slag wools.
The superiority of modified flyash mineral wools over mineral wools
produced from normal flyash appeared to result from the addition of limestone
or dolomite to the boiler to capture sulfur. Limestone or dolomite addition
had the beneficial effect of altering the ash acid to base ratio (percent
silica plus percent alumina)/(percent lime plus percent magnesia) from
approximately ten to the generally acceptable mineral wool production range
of 0.85 to 1.25. This alteration is evident in Table 9 where the normal
flyash having an acid to base ratio of 9.03 produced unsatisfactory wool
while modified flyashes with acid to base ratios within or near the 0.85
to 1.25 range produced acceptable wools.
The addition of fluxes to normal flyash to adjust the acid to base ratio
was not successful because the materials could not be intimately mixed to
prevent .pot slagging or "hot spots" in the kUn. In modified flyash the
alkaline fluxes and coal ash constituents are intimately mixed in the boiler
with the result that a uniform low viscosity is obtained at about 25000f
o
as compared to 3000 f or higher for normal flyash and coal slags.
Manufacturing cost data are presently unavailable on modified flyash
mineral wool. Indications are that conventional rock or slag mineral wool
processing equipment would be suitable and that production costs should be
lower because of the low heat requirements to produce fluidity and the
elimination of expensive flux additions.
Recovery of sulfur derivatives It was found that the sulfates such as
calcium and magnesium sulfate present in modified flyash can be thermally
decomposed to yield a sulfur-rich gas for further processing. The attractive
possiblity of recovering sulfur from modified flyashes first became apparent
when it was observed upon heating these materials in mineral wool production
tests that malodorous sulfur oxide gases were evolved from the melt prior to
pouring. The evolution of sulfur gases was considered to be anomalous
because the mineral wool production kiln normally operates under oxidizing
conditions. Moreover, the calculated equilibrium constant (2.4 x 10- ) and
heat of reduction for thermal decomposition of calcium sulfate at 22000F
(1.96 x 105 Btu per pound mole) are unfavorable. However. the heat of re-
duction for calcium sulfate decreases with increasing temperatures thus
favoring decomposition at higher temperatures (13.14). .
Bench Bcale tests, designed to determine what reactions were occurring
during heating, utilizing a tube furnace and infrared spectrometer showed
-------
2.5
100
*-
e160
Z
<
~
r-
:E
(/)
Z 40
<
0::
~
-
3.0
I
3.5
I
4.0
MICRONS
5.0
6.0 8.0
. I .. " I
I -.-1 00
I
_.-- ---' f--
. .
.
,
.
.
, ,. .
'. : I
... '---1-j --l-
I i
- --, I
ii,
,
- f-:'- -.-
- -,
;.-- -+-- -- ~I-":"'- ~
j
.-
i.
i
.__L...
'I--
;.... .W' ,..
-
,
I
80
, !
80--;.__JLt- -.--- -~
I i I : i
i !! I I : !
;~-t+----~-T -I, '---7- . - . ; 1
~-~~-~---e---4+- f. , - ~-~; . .i--~+- --re-' . -- --f--,e-j 60
- .: - : i-- -~ ~- - : - -~jl'"- --,-' -1--'t: Jj1-- f-:-' ~ _nJT-- c-'-f - - --- + \---1+
-~~ : 1 .; \'~ I. . . i ~. I': 1"- ~;--' I 40,
: ! -- 't !l i -- t -1- r- ! -.- --,- i I: r---- ---TI-- - -i :
---'-------+ I ! l' 11 I
'. -~-~-,--~--:- -f-t-~+--'---T-+ .-.- ~ -f--+:1- -- ~i~ ---1;- 20
, . : -~:-i -~- -~----i-~ L i i+l -\+\ - i -! 1
-~~e----:0T - : J_T ! ii-luLL 1-1- u_! '
i! : 1 Ii; 'i i: :
J I
.'
-.--
.~-~--'
---:- --- -'-- ----- ... -.-
:
._- .-
..-
I
~
J:-
I
20
oL --
4000
o
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
fREQUENCY I CM ')
neun 1
tN.RARED srECTRA O. GASES F.VOLVED .ROH
HODttIF.O .LIASH NUHRF.R DID2 UNDER OXtDt7.{NG
CONOITtONS AT 2100.., 4000 to 1200 cm-
-------
~
~60
Z
~
~
V)
Z 40
-------
-16-
that sulfur dioxide was the only gas evolved under oxidizing conditions in
the 2000 to 21000F temperature range. This is shown in Figure 1 and 1a
which are the infrared spectra of the gases evolved from modified flyash
DID2 (TVA) at 2l000F. The characteristic absorption bands of sulfur dioxide
at 1375, 1350, 1167 and 1138 wave numbers are evident. The reduction of
absorption intensity in the 2500 wave number region is due to the dilution
of the sample as a result of the tube furnace being swept with air (15).
Additional tests with the tube furnace and a titration apparatus showed
o
that dihydrated calcium sulfate when heated to 2100 F under oxidizing condi-
tions gave off 91 percent of the sulfur present and indicated that decom-
position approached quantitative yields. In a similar test modified
flyash lID gave off 95 percent of the sulfur present.
There are three advantages to be gained if the sulfur recovery phase of
the ECHC process could be placed into practice. First, the effluent gases
from mineral wool kilns would have a higher concentration of sulfur gases
than normally found in coal fired power station stack gases due to increased
amounts of sulfur present in modified flyash. This concentration factor
would also be enhanced by the fact that the sulfurous gases are given off
over a narrow range of temperature. Secondly, these sulfur-rich stack gases
should be relatively free of troublesome nitrous oxides and solid particulate
matter commonly found in stack gases during coal combustion. Finally,
less fuel would be required for producing sulfur oxide under oxidizing
conditions than under reducing conditions.
The ECMC process Work to date on the ECMC process has been of a preliminary
nature. The ECHC process in its present state is envisioned as outlined
in Figure 2. Modified flyash would be transferred from the power plant
precipitators (1) to a conditioning tank (3) for the purpose of mixing
modified flyash and heated water in a uniform slurry. Simultaneously, stack
gases rich in carbon dioxide would be diverted from the stack (2) to the
conditioning tank (3) for the purpose of further heating the slurry and
carbonating the uureacted lime and magnesia materials present to their
corresponding carbonate form. Carbonation by the injection of the carbon
dioxide containing stack gases could result in the following threefold
advantages that would not be possible otherwise:
a. The hot stack gases would partially heat the slurry thereby
reducing the water heating requirements.
b. Heated slurries could decrease the amount of unreacted lime
and magnesia initially taken into solution, therefore, less carbon
dioxide would be required to remove soluble lime and magnesia
and adjust the pH for optimum agglomerate flotation separation.
c. Carbonated lime and magnesia responds more readi1iy to agglomerate
flotation.
In the event that unreacted sulfur gases entered the conditioning tank
and formed more calcium and magnesium sulfates, wet collection may remove
the additional sulfur containing materials for subsequent processing.
After carbonation. modified f1yash slurry would be transferred to a
flotation cell (4) for recovery of the calcium carbonate-rich fraction by
.
agglomerate flotation. The calcium carbonate-rich fraction would be dewatered
: (5) for reinjection into the boiler (14) while agglomerate flotati6n rejects,
containing lesser amounts of unreacted lime and magnesia but containing more
of the reacted lime and magnesia. would be dewatered (6) prior to drying.
-------
Fi9l" 2
THE EMSSION CONTROL MIt£RALS ~EX (ECMC) PROCESS
COAL
PLUS
liMESTONE
o
T~ANSF£~ OF IIoIOOIFIED FlYASH TO CONDITIONING TANK
AND/~
OOlOMI TE
INJECTION
e
AlKAlI!€ EARTH
~1~CTlOIiI
I)[WIIT[AN;
OF
AlKAlJIE
EA~H
MAl IAlS
5
nOTATION
CEll
o
POWER
PlANT
STACK
REMOVAL OF STACK GASES
DURING CAA80NATION
CO. INPUT FOR
CARBONATION" pH CONTROL
o
CONDITIONING
TANK
o
I
....
......
I
H.o
HEATED
TRANSFE R OF CONDITIONED FlYASH SlURRY TO F\DTATION CELL
TRANSFER
OF
FLOTATION
REJECT
DEWATERING
SYSTEM
@
DRIED REJECT TO BE
UTILIZED IN
MINERAL WOOL ..
SUlfUR COMPOUND
PRODUCTION
SULFUR GAS REMOVAl AT (2)
A SPECifiC TEMPERATURE
RANGE
STAGGERED SERIES OF
REVERBERATORy FU~ACES
o
-------
The purpose of a staggered firing system would be to yield a relatively
8teady 8upply of molten material (8) and clean. sulfur-rich gas (9) from
furnaces designed for batch operations. This molten material could be
tapped and blown into mineral wool insulating fibers (11) when the tempera-
ture is 8ufficient to produce a viscosity of approximately 10 poise or less.
The calcium and magnesium sulfates and other sulfur components present
in modified flyash would break down in an oxidizing atmosphere to form 8ulfur
dioxide gas at a temperature of approximately 2000-25000F. Because reverbera-
tory furnaces would be used. the gases (9) might be selectively withdrawn,
by the use of check valves (13) over a narrow temperature range (n08inally .
1800-25000F) in a more concentrated and clean form than is u8ually present
in common flue gases. These enriched sulfur containing gases could then be
processed into useful sulfur derivatives (12) such as liquid sulfur dioxide,
8ulfuric acid. sulfur. etc., using common processing methods. The remaining
hot g88 emissions could be used to supply thermal energy, either directly
or by the use of heat exchangers. for further processing steps before being
passed to the atmosphere (10).
Utilization Methods Of Lesser Potential
The following methods of utilization of modified flyash without prior
beneficiation of any aort were determined to have promise because of the
unique characteristic of this material for a particular application. How-
ever, other physical, chemical or market limitations would limit utilization
of large quantities of modified flyash.
Acid mine drainage neutralization (16) It has been found that limestone
modified flyash can be used in place of lime as a neutralizer for acid mine
drainage. The salient developments in this phase of research are that lime-
stone modified flyash decreased sludge settling time from three hours when
using l1me to five minutes when using modified flyash. increases filtration
from very little in 20 minutes to near complete dewatering in one to three
minutes. increases the chances for waste utilization because the products
can be successfully dewatered for further processing. Bowever. the amount
of modified flyash needed to neutralize acid mine drainage is as much as
10 to 100 times greater than the lime requirement. These preceding obser-
vations suggest that lime should probably continue to be considered for
acid mine water neutralization but that admixed modified or unmodified flyash
..y find application as a settling agent to enhance solid-liquid separation
and utilization.
Concrete admixture Extensive investigations involving chemical analysis.
pozzolanic activity with lime and cement, compressive strength, soundness,
alkali reactivity and mortar expansion tests led to the conclusion that modi-
fied flyash could find application in some instances as a concrete admixture.
The results of pozzolanic activity tests are given in Table 10. The chemical
and phyaical requirements of flyash for use as a concrete admixture set
forth in ASTM C-350 are also given in Table 10 for comparative purposes.
As indicated in Table 10. none of the modified flyashes investigated met
the ASTM C-350 chemical requirements. However. all the modified flyashes
met the physical requirement for fineness, mortar cube compressive strength
and the 28 day lime-flyash pozzolanic strength test. The attainment of
other physical requirements varied with each modified flyash and suggests that
each modified flyash should be tested empirically to determine the best
proportions to use as well as its acceptability for a particular job application.
-------
-19-
TABLE 10
POZZOLANIC ACTIVITl CHARACTERIZATION TEST RESULTS
FOR MODI. lED FLYASHES
Chemical Requirements
Silicon dioxide (Si02) plus aluminum
oxide (Al20]) plus iron oxide (Fe203)
minimum, percent
Magnesium oxide (MgO), maximum percent
Sulfur trioxide (503)' maximum percent
Moisture content, maximum percent
Loss on ignition, maximum percent
Available alkalies as Na20, maximum
percent
Physical Requirements
11neness
Mean particle diameter, microns,
maximum
Compressive strength of mortar cubes
Percent of control at 7 days, minimum
Percent of control at 28 days, minimum
Water requirements maximum percentage of
control
Soundness
Autoclave expansion of mortar bars,
maximum percent
Pozzo1anic activity index;
With Portland cement, at 28 days
minimum, percentage of control
With lime, at 7 days, PSI
Lime-flyash pozzolanic atrength;
7 day strength, PSI
28 day 8trength, PSI
Uniformity Requirements
.
Air entrainment in mortar, amount of air
,
entraining resin required to produce air
content of l~ 3 percent, milliliters
Bulk density
Lime-fl/ash mixtures
ASTK c- 350
Requirements
70.00
5.0
5.0
3.0
12.0
1.5
9.0
100
100
105
0.5
85
800
600
600
None
PID
56.63
1.08
4.13
0.00
1.03
1.71
9.3
136
138
97.4
+5.07
72.3
820
1580
1850
PIW
37.02
0.69
11.80
slurry
10.85
0.85
9.0
139
134
122.6
-0.04
78.3
150
360
630
0.5688 0.763.
117
105
DD
54.07
14.77
7.57
0.00
1.95
1.55
9.3
157
157
99.1
+0.24
118.9
890
1240
1700
0.9467
117
DW
42.26
9.24
18.43
slurry
9.00
1.35
9.5
134
130
114.8
0.00
80.8
200
610
630
0.6667
107
-------
-20-
Cement Kiln Raw Material The utilization of modified flyash was also
investigated as a possible raw material in the production of portland cement.
A comparison of the chemical analysis of cement kiln feeds with modified
flyash chemical analysis indicated that limestone modified flyash could
supply. portion of both the argillaceous and calcareous components of the
kiln feed without detriment to the quality of the resultant portland cement.
Dolomite modified flyashes could not be used since a five percent maximum
magnesia content exists for all types of portland cement.(17)
I
The inclusion of limestone modified flyash could have an economic ad-
vantage over present materials in that preparatory grinding would not be
required. However, there could be a limitation on the amount of limestone
modified flyash containing large amounts of iron (ie near stoichiometric
additions of limestone) that could be admixed because of a U.S. Government
limit of six percent ferric oxide on Types I through IV portland cement
used in Federal jobs.(lS) There is also a limitation on the amount of
sulfur trioxide in the final product (2 1/2 or 3 percent) depending on the
tricalcium aluminate content of the final Type I portland cement product.
However, in view of sulfur dioxide evolution from modified flyash
under oxidizing conditions in mineral wool and related tests, ex-
cessive sulfur should not be a problem.
The above chemical limits on portland cement manufacture from limestone
modified flyash could most probably be overcome by blending with conventional
cement raw materials. However, the major problem to be encountered
in utilizing this material lies in the current overcapacity in the portland
cement industry.(19) It appears unlikely that an additional supply of portland
cement could be econo~ically marketed in an industry that utiliz~d only 74
percent of its rated capacity in 1967 as a result of overexpansion.
It may be possible to make cement manufacture economically more attractive
by recovering sulfur gases from modified flyash in processes similar to the
ICI-Billingham process. In this method, portland cement is produced and the
high kiln tempe~atures cause the evolution of sulfur dioxide for by-product
sulfuric acid production when a section of the cement kiln is operated under
reducing conditions.(ll) Numerous patents have been obtained for related
processes for producing portland cement and by-product sulfur from gypsum. (20)
While it appears that modified flyash might be successfully utilized in the
ICI-Billingham or related processes, no published research results on this
subject are available.
Another possibility considered in the area of cement manufacture was
hydraulic cement.(l7) However. a review of the chemical properties of modified
flyashes indicated that they contained excessive amounts of argillaceous
materials and could not be expected to produce high strength cements without
further lime additions.
Soil stabilization The large amounts of lime present in modified flyash
could make this material an excellent soil stabilizer without the admixture
of additional lime to the f1yash-soil mix. The stabilization of soils with
lime .and flyash has been practical as a means of modifying soil texture,
stabilizing plastic clayey soil. decreasing soi1 plasticity and increasing
friability, maintaining constant volume and imparting strength through
pozzolan1c action between the lime. flyash and soil.(21) Optimum proportions
of lime and f1yash have not been determined for stabilizing soils because of
-------
-21-
the wide variety of soils and flyashes and the interdependence of soil, lime
and flyash components. The ratio of lime to flyash required to stabilize
different textured soils ranges from 1:9 to 1:2. The ratio of lime or lime
and magnesia added or reinjected to the coal ash constituents of modified
flyaah ranges from 1:2.2 to 1:7.4. Thus, the lime to flyash ratio require-
ment is met with modified flyashes and the only soil stabilization problem
expected would be one of determining if the available modified flyash could
be uaed with a particular type of soil. Moreover, an advantage might be
gained by using wet collected materials in some instances because dusting
problems during application would be eliminated; however, it would be
necesaary to apply the material before cementitious setting occurred.
Soil amendment Greenhouse tests(22) with dolomite modified flyash DD
indicated that this material, and modified flyash in general, should have
potential as a soil amendment and acidic soil neutralizer. A 8ummary of
these te8ts i8 shown in Table 11.
TABLE 11
Summary of Greenhouse Tests With Modified,
Lignite and Bituminous Flyash
Application Fescue Fescue Yield Fescue
Rate, Germination Survival fer Yield,
Flyash TfA Rate, % Seed Grams
Dolomite Modified DD 15 92 85 .22 18.4
Montana-Dakota Lignite 25 87 84 .23 19.5
lergus Mine, Minn. Lignite 25 82 82 .20 16.1
lort Martin, W.Va. Bituminous 100 21 18 .20 3.7
Control 0 61 56 .03 1.8
In these tests acid spoil from a recently leveled strip mine having a pH
of 2.8 was admixed with flyash to neutralize the soil at pH 7.5. Duplicate
mixtures of each flyash soil combination were treated with the equivalent of
1000 tODS per acre (TfA) of 10-10-10 granulated fertilizer and seeded with
100 Kentucky fe8cue seeds and 25 birdsfoot trefoil seeds. Moisture was main-
tained at field capacity for each mixture and top and root yields determined
after 61 days. Trefoil germination and survival was low and was not included
in Table 11.
The data of Table 11 indicates that modified flyash DD neutralized the
80il at 8ignificantly lower application rates than lignite flyash and yet
had the best germination and survival rates. Yields were good at 18.4
grams and second only to the Montana-Dakota utilities lignite. Chemical
analY8is of the lignites are not available so that comparison of lime
content cannot be made. Undoubtedly, however, a correlation between the
lime content of a flyash and the amount required to neutralize a 80il exists.
lor example, approximately 8 TfA of finely ground limestone are required to
neutralize this spoil whereas 15 TfA of modified flyash DD, which. is about
half dolomite, were required.
The greenhouse tests were of a preliminary nature and further definitive
te8ts would be required with different modified flyashes before the true
potential of this material as a soil amendment can be assessed. Under the
-------
- ciii~,,-
conditions of these tests it is indicated that high calcium ashes, regardless
of the source of calcium, are extremely beneficial to plant growth and yield.
Therefore, all modified flyashes, regardless of the mode of collection
or type of stone injected should be of value. First, modified flyash would
8upply 8ulfur which agricultural limestone or lime would not. Secondly,
because of the increased rates of addition, it could be used to adjust the
80il from a sandy or clayey form to almost a pure loam which is ideal for
plant growth. Better root nodulation has been obtained in flyash admixed
soils which leads to the conversion of nitrogen to nitrogenous compounds.
linally, modified flyash would supply trace elements not normally availa-
ble in amendments or fertilizer and yet would not be present in sufficient
quantities to poison the plant, as is the case with normal unmodified fly-
ashes.
An obvious detriment to the utilization of modified flyash as a soil
amendment would be transportation of large quantities required to neutralize
80il. Agricultural limestone is available in most areas at about $1.00 per
ton F.O.B. plant. Therefore, transportation of the equivalent amounts of
modified flyash, about twice the weight, could not exceed the low cost plus
transportation charges for agricultrual limestone.
Beneficiation Procedures and Utilization Methods of Little Potential
The following beneficiation and utilization methods were found to be
of little value as a result of the physical and chemical makeup of modified
flyash.
Sizing Conventional wet and dry sieving, ultrasonic sieving and air
classification sizing tests were undertaken in an effort to separate fractions
of modified flyash having potential commercial value. The coarse sizes of
limestone modified flyashes showed increased lime percentages while the fine
sizes of dolomite modified flyash showed increased percentages of lime.
Magnesia was also concentrated in the fine sizes of the dolomite modified
material. Sulfur appears to be concentrated in the finer sizes of both
materials. However, more than 75 percent of these materials passed through
a 400 mesh sieve with the result that little actual beneficiation of the
total product was obtained. Attempts were made to separate the minus 325
mesh fractions by ultrasonic sieving and air classification to determine if
(a) products of commercial value could be obtained by size separation of the
very fine fractions and (b) if separation of the very fine fraction could be
achieved on a commercial basis by such industrially oriented methods as air
classification. The results of the air classification and ultrasonic tests
indicated that the very fine minus 325 mesh coal ash fraction and alkaline
earth constituents of modified flyash could not be separated because they
were of 8imilar sizes which would not allow size separation. The hetero-
genous nature and widely varying particle sizes and densities prevented
sharp 8eparation of the material by air classification. Thus it must be
concluded that benefication by sizing is of little value in upgrading
modified flyash.
lor information purposes, sizing tests data are given in Appendix A
(Table Al through AS).
.
j
Specific Gravity
The results obtained from bench scale separation
-------
-23-
of aodified fll88h bl heavl organic liquids indicated that beneficiation
by Ipecific gravltl leparation techniques would not be feasible. The greatest
portion of the modified fllash lal within a 1.80 to 2.96 specific gravity
raDge. A8 with ai8ing by air classification, the range of particle sizes and
denaitiea did not permit Iharp leparation of the modified fllash constituents.
It ... poasible to aeparate fraction8 of the drl collected limestone modi-
fied fl,alh that contained more than 93 percent lime through a combination
of li8ing to plus 100 .esh and 8eparating the lighter non-lime constituents
of th1a .aterial in tetrabromoethane having a specific gravitl of 2.96.
The plua 100 ...h, 2.96 aink fraction, however, repre8ents les8 than 0.2
percent of th1a modified fllash sample and 1e8s than 0.5 percent of the
itae preaent in the lample. Thus the combination of separation methods
would onll be applicable for obtaining small quantities of relativel, pure
calcined, aulfated ltmeatone for experimental purposes.
Other reaults obtained from specific gravitl tests were that silica,
alua1Da and titanium dloxlde concentratlons decreased in the gravitl lncre-
aentl .. the apeclflc gravity of the separatlng fluid lncreased. The
converae vaa true for iron oxide, lime and magnesia. Silica, alumina and
titanium dioxide reductlons were substantial in the hlgher gravltl fractions;
however, lilnlflcant amounts of these compounds remained in the other gravity
incr..enta. Sulfur vas generally slightll enhanced in the 2.60 to 2.80
Ipecific aravitl ranae. Lime and magnesia values increased in the heavier
(above 2.70) apecific gravitl fractions. The fineness of the materials
resulted in verI Ilow lettling rates. In addition, it vas determined
that pre~ett1D& with a light nonpolar liquid such as carbon tetrachloride
facilitated vetting the .aterial with the heavy organic specific gravity
lolution therebl preventing agglomeration.
The r8V, vet collected .odified fllash samples could not be separated
into apecific gravitl fractions a8 easily a8 the dry collected materials
indicating that h,dration or pozzo1anic activity had cemented the
conatituenta .
lor informational purposes, chemical anallses of the specific gravity
fractions are given ~n Appendix A (Tables A9 through A28).
Magnetic separation Occlusion of the very fine non-magnetic constituents
of aodified fl,ash in the magnetic field was so prevalent that an effective
leparation of the highly magnetic ferruginous constituents could not be made
vith available maanetic separation equipment.
fielda and chemical anallses of the feed and the magnetic fractions
obtained during these te8ts are given in Appendix A (Tables A29 through A48).
Iron concentrates ranging from 45 to 55 percent ferric oxide could be ob-
tained bl clolell sizing the modified flyashes to 200 x 325 mesh and then
aeparating the ferruginous materials from these size fractions at 3000 gauss
. "anetic field 8trength on a cross belt dry magnetic separator. The iron
recovered in this manner, however, amounted to less than 15% of the ferric
oxides preaent in the feed material.
Since the highest iron concentrates were obtained at a low magnetic field
-------
strength of 3000 gauss, further dry magnetic separation tests were run at lower
field strengths of 1400 gauss, the lowest obtainable with available equipment.
There was less iron concentration at 1400 gauss.
The wet magnetic separator used in these tests was a constant magnetic
field device so that no correlation between magnetic field strength and
chemical analyses of the wet magnetically separated fraction could be
obtained. Magnetic occlusion, however, would be expected to be less
with a wet separator because of the water medium.
Statistical evaluation of the yield and chemical analysis data given
in Appendix A (Tables A29 through A48) , for magnetic separation were under-
taken in an attempt to correlate physical and chemical characteristics of
the feed with the resultant magnetically separated product.(23) The
evaluation procedure consisted of determining linear regression equa-
tions for the magnetic yield and each chemical compound analyzed in the
fraction for both wet and dry magnetic separator data. Physical and
chemical parameters and field strength variables were then deleted from
these regression equations in singular steps. The2reduction in the value
of the square of the coefficient of correlation (R ) with the deletion
of each variable gave an indication of the effect of the deleted variable
on the magnetic yield or chemical constituent in the yield. Statis-
tical evaluations were obtained in this manner for both wet and dry separa-
tions.
The correlations indicated that the amount of material reporting in the
magnetic fraction was a function of the magnetic field strength and the
amount of sulfur trioxide in the feed rather than the feed iron content.
The amount of iron reporting in the magnetic fraction was found to be a
function of the silica, alumina and sulfur trioxide in the feed. This would
indicate that the iron in the modified flyash had not been fluxed by the
addition of limestone or dolomite to the boiler but was still physically
interlocked in a glassy matrix of silica and alumina as found in normal
flyash. In wet magnetic separation the amount of lime in the feed accounted
for 40 percent of the variation in iron oxide content in the magnetic fraction
and would indicate that there might be some attraction between the iron-
rich fractions and the lime constituents in water. However, there was a
high degree of dependence of magnesia yield in the magnetic fraction on the
feed magnesia which probably indicates that there is substantially no agglomera-
tion between flyash and magnesia particles.
Thus, it may be concluded that magnetic separation of modified flyash
is not feasible and that there is no substantial agglomeration between the
flyash and the lime or magnesia constituents. The absence of agglomeration
and the indication that the coal ash constituents of modified flyash are
still physically interlocked with themselves after the injection of limestone
in the boiler would also lead to the conclusion that the same problems that
exist in magnetic separation of normal flyash would also be present with
modified flyash. Moreover, the dilution of injected limestone would make
magnetic separation of ferruginous constituents economically less attractive
than with normal flyashes.
Electrostatic Separation This method of beneficiation was undertaken
to determine if upgrading could be achieved by exploitation of the electrical
properties of the different constituents of modified flyash. The effect of
wide variations in particle size, fineness of the particles and the variation
-------
-25-
in density of the particles could not be overcome to achieve upgrading to
any .ignificant extent. The extreme fineness of the particles caused consider-
able duatina .. particles were blown about by the electrostatic field with
the re.ult that as much aa 30 percent of some samples were lost during testing.
VariatioDa in 8i.e and density caused the particles to be projected off the
electro.tatic around roll in varying trajectories with the result that the
collection vas indiscriminate.
Chemical and yield analysis of the electrostatic separation tests are
aiven in Appendix A (Tables A49 through A68).
Lightweight Aggregate froduction Bloating tests. to determine the
uaefulne8s of modified flyash in lightweight aggregate production. indicated
that the modified flyash tested would not be suitable in its present state.
This is due to the hilh concentration of the alkaline earths in the flyash.
The alkaline earths serve a8 a flux and lower the melting point to such an
extent that the modified flyash melts to a fluid of low viscosity before
any bloatins reactions can occur. None of the presently used separation
methods .uccessfully lower the alkaline earth content to an acceptable
concentration for bloatina; therefore. lightweight aggregate production
by this method cannot be considered as a possible utilization method.
Smelting Excess lime prevents modified flyash from being considered
as a .-alter feed. The lime to iron ratio should be about one to ten to
prevent excess slalginl. however. the modified flyashes tested all had a
~1me to iron ratio of about one to four. Smelter concentrates containing
more than 90 percent iron were recovered during testing but slagging prevented
recovery of any substantial quantities of iron. These tests were carried
out iD both oxidizins and reducing furnaces at temperatures up to l700.C.
Althouah no experimental tests were made. modified flyash might well
.erve 88 a ferrUlinous flux in pelletized and sintered blast furnace feeds
if the tran.portation distance was short enough to allow modified flyash
to be obtained economically and the quantities required remain the same.
It would be necessary for "the chemical make up of modified flyash to be
.uch that
%CaO +
%A1203 +
%MgO ,oJ 1.0
%5i02
and
~
%CaO+%MgO -
%5i02
1.45
otherwise additional materials such as lime fluxes and gravel might still
be required(24). These ratios are within the conventional limits for the
modified flyashea tested to date. A major advantage to be gained in utiliza-
tion of modified flyash would be the contribution of iron from the modified
flyash to the final raw pig iron product; however. the effect of sulfur on
the re.ultant iron product and on air pollution from the blast furnace would
have to be considered.
Alumina Recovery Investigations of alumina recovery from modified
flyash in the lime-sinter process indicated that the ratios of lime to
8ilica and lime to alumina could not be adjusted to within the optimum range
required for lood recovery. The lime sinter process involves the formation
of a 80luble calcium aluminate and insoluble dicalcium silicate by heating
-------
-26-
lime and calcined clay to a sintering temperature. The soluble calcium
aluminate is then leached from the solid sinter. The ratio required for
optimum formation of calcium aluminate and dicalcium silicate and the values
found in modified flyashes studied to date are given in Appendix A (Table A69).
With the exception of dolomite modified flyash samples DD. DW, CM and CI. the
lime to silica ratio is low while the lime to alumina ratio is high which
would preclude adjustment of these ratios by the addition of lime or silica.
The addition of lime to samples DD. DW. CM and CI in sufficient quantities
to obtain a good lime to silica ratio would result in excess lime with
respect to alumina. In addition. the iron content of modified flyash is
above the three percent maximum for raw material feeds in the lime-sinter
process.
Experimental alumina recovery tests included simple hot water leaching.
aintering with additional lime and extraction studies. Only small amounts
of alumina were recovered in any test. Thus it must be concluded that alumina
recovery b, lime-sintering has little utilization potential.
FUTURE WORK
Work is continuing on contract PH 22-68-18 (Pilot Scale-Up Of Processes
To Demonstrate Utilization of Pulverized Coal Flyash Modified By the Addition
of Limestone-Dolomite Sulfur Oxides Removal Additives). The following areas
are to be investigated under this contract.
"1.
The three main aspects of the ECMC process will be studied
in greater detail in order to fully determine the potential
for utilizing all fractions of modified flyash in this manner.
2.
The area of flotation as pertaining to modified flyash is to
be more completely researched in order to develop a working know-
ledge of the mechanism of separation and the best reagents
and techniques required to obtain the maximum recovery of the
lime constituent. As part of the flotation studies. preliminary
kinetics of the carbonation reaction will be investigated.
3.
The separation of other constituents in the modified flyash.
particularly calcium sulfate. should be considered with the
objective of adapting the ECMC process to wet collected modi-
fied flyash.
4.
Utilization of the reject solids in the production of heat
treated products in addition to mineral wool is to be studied.
5.
A detailed investigation of the mechanism. kinetics. and
thermodynamics of sulfur dioxide evolution from modified
flyash in an oxidizing atmosphere is also to be investigated.
It is recommended that further studies on the utilization of modified
fllash in the areas of concrete admixtures. soil stabilization and amend-
ments. cement kiln raw materials and acid mine drainage neutralization be
considered to determine if the detriments to utilization in these areas can
be overcome. .
The use of modified flyash in the production of both fired and unfired
building materials also represents an area of utilization likely to hold
-------
-27-
potential. Fired structural building materials such as brick and block could
probably be produced by the WVU-OCR process (25) which would avoid problems
attendant to extension of nonplastic materials and take advantage of the
lighter weight building product that results with this process. Unfired
.tructural building products would most likely be produced by processes
.1milar to the sand-lime process for the production of brick and block.
The .trength and durability of building products produced by this process
depends upon the formation of calcium and aluminum silicates during auto-
claving. It appears that coarse sand might be required to adjust the lime
to .ilica ratio and particle size in this process.
-------
.
.
-28-
REFERENCES
1.
Ludwig, J. H. and Spaite, P. W., "Control of Sulfur Oxide Pollution:
The Challenge to the Chemical Engineer", Presented before the American
Institute ofroit, Michigan, December 4-8, 1966.
2.
Harrington, I.. E. "Proceeding of the Second Limestone Symposium",
Cincinnati, Ohio, Hay 23, 1967.
3.
Potter, A. E., Harrington, I.. E. and Spaite, P. W. "Limestone-Dolomite
Processes for Flue Gas Desulfurization", Presented before the American
Chemical Society, Chicago, Illinois, September 11,1967.
4.
Plumley, A. L., Whiddon. O. D., Shutko, F. W.. and Jonakin. J., uRemoval
of 502 and Dust From Stack Gases", Presented before American Power
Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April 25-27. 1967.
s.
Pursglove, Joseph, Jr., "Flyash in 1980", Coal Age. August 1967, 84.
6.
Reid, William T., "Recommendations for the Use of Limestone and Dolomite
in Boiler Furnaces". fundamental Study of Sulfur Fixation by Lime and
Hagnesia Final Report HEW Contract PH 86-66-108, Batelle Memorial
Institute, June 30, 1966.
7.
Personal Communication. J. M. Martin, Combustion Engineering, Inc.,
Windsor. Connecticut, Lawrence Taylor, Detroit Edison Company, St.
Clair, Michigan.
8.
Personal Communication, A. W. Elder, Division of Chemical Development.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle SChoals, Alabama.
9.
Personal Communication. R. C. Attig. Babcock and Wilcox Company, Alliance,
Ohio.
10. Nicholls, P. and Reid. W. T. "Fluxing of Ashes and Slags As Related
To The Slagging Type Furnace," Trans ASHE, 54, 1932, 167-190.
11. Cherry, R. H. Jr. and Hayhow, W. R., "Econonic Feasibility of Regenerating
Limestone-Modified Flyash Mixtures," Summary Report of Contract PH86-67-84.
Batel1e Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, October 14, 1968.
12. Sulfur Oxide Removal from Power Plant-Conceptual Design and Cost Study;
Sorption by Limestone or Lime: Dry Process." Prepared for the National
Center for Air Pollution Control by Tennessee Valley Authority. 1968.
13. Wheelock. T. D. and Boyland. D. R., "Sulfuric Acid From Calcium Sulfate",
Chemical Engineering Progress4 64 (11), November 1968, 87.
14. Handelik, B. G. and Pierson. C. V., "The Cement-Sulfuric Acid Progress
In the Recovery of Sulfur Values From Calcium Sulfate," Preprint 6c
Symposium on Sulfur. Sulfuric Acid and The Future, Part II. 6lst Annual
Meeting. American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Los Angeles, California,
December 1-5. 1968.
15. Herzberg, Gerhard. Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure II Infrared
And Raman Spectra of Poly.tomic Molecules. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.
Princeton, New Jersey. 1966. 285.
-------
-29-
16. Ladish. D. J. and Jagat. G.. "Informal Report on Treatment of Acid Mine
Drainage with Flyash Modified with Limestone and Dolomite," School of
Mines. West Virginia University, June 20, 1968.
17. Boynton. Robert S., Che~istr1 and Technology of Lime and Limestone.
Interscience Publications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, Second
Printing, 1966, 273, 398.
18. Clausen. C. F., "Cement Materials", Chapter 9, Industrial Minerals and
Rocks. The American Institute of Mining. Metallurgical, and Petroleum
Engineers, New York, New Yor~, 1960, 206.
19. Mundt, John C. "Marketing Problems of the Portland Cement Industry in
the United States", Minerals Processing, January 1969, 10.
20. North, Oliver S., "Processes of Making Portland Cement From Gypsum ...
A Review of the Patents," Minerals Processing, March 1969, 12.
21. Snyder, M. Jack and Nelson, Harlan, W., "A Critical Review of Technical
Information on the Utilization of Flyash," Final Report to Prime Movers
Committee, Edison Electric Institute, July 13, 1962, 23.
22. Personal Communication, J. P. Capp and J. W. Eckerd, Morgantown Research
Center, United States Bureau of Mines, Morgantown, West Virginia.
23. Yearly Progress Report, NAPCA contract PH 86-67-122, Coal Research
Bureau. West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, May 1968.
2~. Y.cGannon, H. E. (ed.), The Making. Shaping and Treating of Steels.
8th edition, U. S. Steel Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylania, 1964, 431.
25. Shafer. Harry E. Jr. and Cockrell. Charles F. "A New Approach to the
Production of Flyash Based Structural Materials", Coal Research Bureau
Report No. 11, September, 1963. See also: SHE Transactions, March
1967, 1-6; USBM Information Circular 8348; SME Transactions, Dec.
1968, 404-409.
-------
-30-
APPENDIX A
Chemical and Physical Anal/sis Results
For Various Beneficiation Methods And Utilization Procedures
-------
-31-
TABLE Al
Chemical Analysis of Dry Sieved Size Fractions of Sample PID,
Dry Collected Presque Isle Limestone Modified F1yash,
St. Clair, Michigan
(Percent Weight)
Tyler Mesh Yield Si02 Al~O) Fe20) Ti02 CaO ~ 503
Feed Head 30.85 13.70 11.59 0.68 33.58 1.49 2.20
+65 0.76 16.18 4.14 5.22 0.21 58.90 0.66 3.02
65 x 100 0.90 14.34 5.63 5.13 0.24 71.00 0.78 1.55
100 x 150 1.54 27.31 7.21 8.53 0.31 54.91 0.74 1.15
150 x 200 2.43 26.76 9.03 9.65 0.38 36.07 0.67 1.04
200 x 270 2.63 27.86 12.29 12.55 0.47 41.49 0.64 1.00
270 x 325 3.88 28.43 12.04 13.94 0.46 33.63 0.69 1.15
325 x 400 2.18 26.23 10.86 11.91 0.42 36.92 0.89 1.50
-400 85.66 31.44 11.32 12.77 0.56 31.35 1.08 2.34
-------
-32-
TABLE A2
Chemical Analysis of Wet Sieved Size Fractions of Sample PIW,
Wet Collected Presque Isle Limestone Modified Flyash,
St. Clair, Michigan
(Percent Weight)
Tyler Mesh Yield Si02 A1203 Fe20) Ti02 CaO ~ ~
Feed Head 19.39 7.98 9.65 0.31 26.62 0.69 10.94
+65 2.71 13.23 4.59 6.23 0.22 50.02 0.60 3.65
65 x 100 2.14 20.19 7.35 7.04 0.31 39.60 0.64 2.93
100 x 150 2.86 25.71 10.21 8.10 0.40 34.42 0.78 3.18
150 x 200 4.46* 35.47 14.19 11. 70 0.51 21.58 0.74 2.95
200 x 270 3.54 32.73 12.29 11.30 0.44 21.58 0.89 4.01
270 x 325 4.39 32.08 12.54 13 .23 0.54 16.30 0.95 5.39
325 x 400 4.16 32.73 12.54 15.48 0.58 14.51 0.95 7.71
-400 75.71 30.20 14.19 11.50 0.53 21.08 1.00 12.54
* Some cementitious lumps present in +150 mesh sizes
-------
-33-
TABLE A3
Chemical Analysis of Dry Sieved Size Fractions of Sample DD,
Dry Collected Drummond Island Dolomite Modified F1yash,
St. Clair, Michigan
(Percent Weight)
Tyler Mesh Yield Si02 Al 0, Fe;ZOJ Ti02 CaO ~ ~
2
Feed Head 30.81 12.54 10.72 0.42 17.90 14.77 8.09
+65 0.35 27.86 11.09 10.53 0.42 10.71 8.79 3.13
65 x 100 0.44 34.77 10.64 10.72 0.49 9.53 6.87 2.12
100 x 150 1.04 45.17 15.40 15.22 0.62 10.71 5.92 2.02
150 x 200 1.90 38.45 16.72 16.04 0.58 8.68 6.22 2.09
200 x 270 2.01 34 . 77 13 .62 15.76 0.56 9.09 7.22 2.81
270 x 325 3.67 34.77 13 .34 15.76 0.57 15.56 14.41 4.03
325 x 400 2.42 . 27.86 11. 79 13 .00 0.48 24.82 16.7.1 5.87
-400 88.13 32.73 11.09 10.17 0.49 19.65 16.71 6.85
-------
-34-
TABLE A4
Chemical Analysis of Wet Sieved Size Fractions of Sample DW.
Wet Collected Drummond Island Dolomite Modified Flyash.
St. Clair. Michigan
(Percent Weight)
Tyler Mesh Yield Si02 Al20) Fe£O) Ti02 Cao ~ ~
-
Feed Head 23.34 9.03 9.99 0.43 13.84 9.24 18.68
+65 3.61 26.23 9.41 17.51 0.44 9.09 8.37 11.28
65 x 100 1.72 26.23 8.85 13.23 0.41 12.91 6.70 11. 73
100 x 150 2.26 30.81 8.67 9.82 0.39 7.20 5.50 7.42
150 x 200 5.22* 32.73 11. 09 10.91 0.43 6.87 8.16 6.57
200 x 270 2.79 25.71 10.21 10.72 0.43 8.09 7.97 7.56 ' I
270 x 325 6.06 24.69 9.22 10.91 0.39 11.22 11. 25 12.94
325 x 400 3.33 22.78 9.03 8.53 0.36 17.90 11.82 21. 45
-400 74.97 23.72 10.21 8.53 0.49 17.90 9.70 21.17
* Some cementitious lumps in +150 mesh sizes
-------
-35-
TABLE AS
Chemical Analysis of Dry Ultrasonically Sieved Size Fractions of Sample PID.
Dry Collected Presque Isle Limestone Modified F1yash.
St. Clair. Michigan
(Percent Weight)
Size Fraction Yield Si02 A1 0) Fe20) Ti02 CaO MgO
2
Feed Head 30.85 13.70 11.59 0.68 33.58 1.49
+100 2.51 17.45 6.86 5.39 0.34 49.50 1.25
100 x 150 2.70 22.87 10.82 6.63 0.43 48.87 1.01
150 x 200 4.47 25.64 11.50 9.82 0.42 36.81 0.93
200 x 270 5.86 29.78 14.14 13.55 0.59 33.91 1.12
270 x 325 5.04 28.49 16.07 13.93 0.54 26.45 1.09
325 x 400 6.20 30.85 15.39 17.80 0.66 28.03 1.22
400 x 20u 24.60 28.75 14.44 16.41 0.67 31. 63 1.49
20u x 10u 39.62 32.53 14.91 12.95 0.67 35.34 1.99
-10u 8.96 25.86 13.70 12.26 0.70 29.26 1.15
-------
TABLE A6
Chemical Analysis of Dry Ultrasouically Sieved Size FractioDa of Sample DD,
Drummond Islaud Dolomite Modified Flya.h.
St. Clair, Michigan
(Percent Weight)
Size Fraction Yield 5iO% Al!O) FetO) Ti02 f!Q. MgO
Feed Head 30.81 12.54 10.72 0.42 17.90 14.77
+100 0.80 25.86 9.99 13.80 0.43 15.33 9.87
100 x 150 1.07 32.53 12.22 16.26 0.53 12.70 10.48
150 x 200 2.08 31.40 13 . 28 17.48 0.56 9.57 8.87
200 x 270 3.03 29.00 11.50 15.82 0.54 14.09 11.97
270 x 325 3.16 24.11 10.60 11.92 0.43 15.21 12.88
325 x 400 3.80 20.59 9.70 9.29 0.38 19.85 13.36
400 x 20u 23.02 23.69 12.61 13.43 0.50 22.63 23.79
20u x 10u 40.83 26.09 11.73 9.82 0.50 25.31 23.19
-10u 22.15 36.82 16.97 11. 71 0.64 19.54 17.76
-------
-37-
TABLE A7
ULTRASONIC SIEVING RECOVERY DATA FOR DRY COLLECTED
LIMESTONE MODIFIED FLYASH SAMPLES OBTAINED FROM BABCOCK AND WILCOX. tNC.
(Percent Weight)
Size
Fraction PHS 42 PHS 45 PHS 46 PHS 47
+100 0.041 0.362 0.354 0.022
100 x 150 0.170 0.511 0.391 0.077
150 x 200 0.455 0.789 0.422 0.067
200 x 270 1.340 1.753 0.569 0.108
270 x 325 1.577 2.597 1.500 0.252
325 x 400 1.553 4.506 2.269 0.662
400 x 20u 16.235 15.379 13.240 11.813
20 x 10u 35.121 41. 975 34.951 45.059
-10u 25.320 17.856 26.409 17.778
-------
.
TABLE A8
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS AND PARTICLE CHARACTERISnCS OF THE -325 MESH FRACTION
OF MODIFIED FLYASH SEPARATED BY AIR CLASSIFICATION
Particle Characteristics (Microns) Chemical Characteristics
1st 2nd Sma11- Larg-
Sample Pass Pass est Mean est Yield Si02 A120) Fe20) Ti02 Cao MgO
Coarse Coarse 2.7 6.95 42.5 29.5 32.06 11.61 17.72 0.65 27.50 1.36
-325 PID Fine 3.0 8.68 39.4 19.0 35.06 11.66 11.64 0.72 33.40 1.68
Fine Coarse 3.1 11. 97 37.1 20.8 33.91 11.82 10.04 0.64 30.55 1.59
Fine 3.2 8.10 27.6 27.2 33.80 12.31 8.55 0.61 32.51 1.74
Coarse Coarse 18.5 29.45 10.51 14.68 0.51 20.18 18.69 I
-325 DD Fine 20.8 30.84 10.87 8.80 0.53 24.79 28.07 w
00
Fine Coarse 17.0 31.11 11.96 9.39 0.58 28.48 22.11 I
Fine 34.3 31. 48 12.54 8.25 0.59 25.00 23.19
Coarse Coarse 28.0 31.09 10.08 18.59 0.66 18.32 1.41
-325 PIW Fine 18.0 31.81 10.08 7.95 0.60 28.14 1.79
Fine Coarse 10.0 36.62 11.45 11.41 0.62 23.96 2.04
Fine 12.0 27.40 9.03 6.25 0.48 30. 72 1.85
eoarse eoarse 24.0 27.63 10.55 19.29 0.60 14.43 7.44
-325 IN Fine 18.0 31.09 10.94 9.78 0.58 18.50 10.58
Fine Coarse 16.0 32.79 10.94 10.88 0.67 20.07 10.43
Fine 28.0 28.07 10.17 6.78 0.58 17 .07 10.28
-------
TABLE A9
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY FRACTIONS OF RAW.
DRY-COLLECTED. LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLYASH.
SAMPLE PID
(Percent We~ght)
Sp. Gr. Yield
Fraction (wt.%) Si0;l A120) Fe20) Ti02 Cao MgO S03
Feed Head 30.85 13 .70 11.59 0.68 33.58 1.49 2.20
1.80 F 5.80 46.29 18.20 5.88 1.03 6.06 0.98 0.63
1.80 x 2.00 4.20 45.99 18.36 5.36 1.01 7.22 0.94 1.08
2.00 x 2.20 4.00 45.99 18.84 6.00 1.00 8.94 1.15 1.05 I
~
\D
I
2.20 x 2.40 6.60 37.68 15.29 4.22 0.32 19.07 1.05 1.50
2.40 x 2.60 19.60 36.62 13 .16 4.49 0.43 29.08 1.30 2.00
2.60 x 2.65 4.40 27.63 13.13 7.20 0.49 40.29 1.82 3.58
2.65 x 2.70 4.00 27.63 11.01 6.51 0.24 44.24 1.62 3.90
2.70 x 2.75 9.40 24.40 9.80 7.34 0.39 47.51 1.70 3.23
2.75 x 2.80 11.40 20.24 9.11 8.87 0.39 49.25 1.56 3.18
2.80 x 2.96 20.60 15.46 7.95 11.41 0.39 54.27 1.45 2.85
2.96 Sink 10.00 9.95 4.01 26.46 0.18 49.25 1.25 1.40
-------
TABLE A10
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY FRACTIONS OF +100 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLYASH.
SAMPLE PID
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr. Yield
Fraction (Wt.%) S102 A1!0) Fe20) Ti02 CaO MgO SO)
Feed 1.66 15.18 4.95 5.17 0.23 65.45 0.72 2.23
1.80 F 13.40 23.17 9.03 3.34 0.39 7.28 0.70 1.40
1.80 x 2.00 4.00 22.17 8.32 3.45 0.38 8.86 0.66 1.58
2.00 x 2.20 10.80 29.96 9.62 4.17 0.38 25.00 0.80 0.93 I
~
o
2.20 x 2.40 18.00 4.48 1.97 2.68 0.16 85.01 0.80 1.55 I
2.40 x 2.60 17 .20 4.79 2.82 2.74 0.16 81.67 1.03 2.20
2.60 x 2.65 6.00 20.43 3.08 3.37 0.20 75.44 1.04 2.00
2.65 x 2.70 3.60 13 .84 4.24 3.96 0.16 68.01 1.15 2.60
2.70 x 2.75 3~60 18.94 6.67 7.57 0.32 56.31 1.60 3.45
2.75 x 2.80 3.00 21. 58 8.02 9.50 0.39 45.30 1.72 4.05
2.80 x 2.96 10.20 16.30 5.13 5.47 0.23 62.22 1.75 5.03
2.96 Sink 10.20 9.52 3.53 6.71 0.17 93.48 2.13 3.90
-------
TABLE All
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY FRACTIONS OF 100 x 200 MESH.
DRY-COLLECTED. LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLY ASH.
SAMPLE PID
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr. Yield
Fraction (Wt. %) Si02 A120) Fe20J Ti02 CaO MgO SO]
Feed 3.97 26.73 8.26 9.14 0.35 42.88 0.69 1.08
1.80 F 8.00 39.31 12.93 5.59 0.89 5.76 0.87 0.75
1.80 x 2.00 12.60 43.30 14.37 6.06 0.92 7.15 0.97 0.55
2.00 x 2.20 4.20 49.74 17.13 7.72 0.90 9.02 1.07 0.38 I
~
~
2.20 x 2.40 16.80 12.60 5.74 3.83 0.28 68.89 0.89 1.10 I
2.40 x 2.60 15.00 16.30 5.53 4.00 0.22 71.61 0.92 1.20
2.60 x 2.65 2.80 17 .34 5.23 4.69 0.27 70.69 0.98 1.33
2.65 x 2.70 1.80 18.94 6.73 8.11 0.33 55.62 1.31 1.60
2.70 x 2.75 2.00 21. 00 7.52 9.78 0.40 46.94 1.34 1.95
2.75 x 2.80 2.80 16.30 6.61 9.68 0.32 74.46 1.55 2.10
2.80 x 2.96 13.00 9.66 3.93 10.36 0.22 69.78 1.25 2.00
2.96 Sink 21.00 8.55 3.27 16.04 0.21 82.76 1.26 1.40
-------
TABLE Al2
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY FRACTIONS OF 200 x 325 MESH.
DRY-COLLECTED. LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLYASH.
SAMPLE PID
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr. Yield
Fraction (Wt. %) Si02 Al203 Fe203 Ti02 Cao MgO S03
Feed 6.51 28.19 12.14 13.38 0.46 36.80 0.67 1.10
1. 80 F 13.00 10.81 17.89 6.00 1.22 6.67 0.98 0.40
1.80 x 2.00 2.40 49.74 20.54 7.06 1.17 9.02 1.08 0.53
2.00 x 2.20 9.00 47.22 17.13 6.51 1.07 11.58 1.02 0.56 I
~
N
2.20 x 2.40 13.20 37.95 12.59 7.20 0.68 27.84 1.13 0.98 I
2.40 x 2.60 10.00 36.62 10.16 7.72 0.53 29.40 1.03 1.28
2.60 x 2.65 1.20 36.35 12.48 13.42 0.72 23.96 1.46 1.50
2.65 x 2.70 0.40 34.54 13.88 13.04 0.67 22.26 1.28 1.70
2.70 x 2.75 2.20 28.75 11.01 10.57 0.50 35.12 1.32 2.05
2.75 x 2.80 2.80 23.57 8.39 8.19 0.42 46.94 1.76 2.90
2.80 x 2.96 9.00 14.48 3.64 8.03 0.28 58.45 1.27 2.85
2.96 Sink 32.80 7.72 4.24 21.32 0.22 76.44 1.44 1.50
-------
TABLE AI3
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVIn FRACn
-------
TARLE A14
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY FRACTIONS OF HEAD SAMPLE,
WET COLLECTED, LIMESTONE MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight).
Sp. Gr.
Fraction Yield Si02 A120) Fe203 Ti02 CaO MgO 503
Feed Head 19.39 7.98 9.65 0.31 26.62 0.69 10.94
1.80 F 0.2 IS* 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.00 0.00 00.00
1.80 x 2.00 0.0 00.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.00 0.00 00.00
2.00 x 2.20 0.0 00.00 0.00 .M>O 0.00 00.00 0.00 00.00
2.20 x 2.40 0.0 00.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.00 0.00 00.00
2.40 x 2.45 8.4 32.66 12.25 4.89 0.53 26.92 1.70 11.43 I
..
So
I
2.45 x 2.50 1.6 20.33 8.44 4.03 0.50 37.45 1.88 16.08
2.50 x 2.55 19.8 19.29 10.27 8.14 0.45 32.29 1.33 12 .63
2.55 x 2.60 61.8 20.86 8.53 11. 72 0.40 26.48 1.24 11.55
2.60 x 2.65 0.4 17 .36 8.53 15.58 0.38 27.37 1.06 12.83
2.65 x 2.70 0.6 IS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.00 0.00 00.00
2.70 x 2.75 0.0 00.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.00 0.00 00.00
2.75 x 2.80 0.2 IS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.00 0.00 00.00
2.80 x 2.96 0.2 IS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.00 0.00 00.00
2.96 Sink 0.2 IS 0.00 0.00 0.00 00.00 0.00 00.00
~ Insufficient Sample for AnaysLs
-------
TABLE Al5
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITt FRACTIONS OF +100 MESH.
WET COLLECTED. LIMESTONE MODIFIED FLYASH.
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr.
Fraction Yield Si02 Al20] Fe20) Ti02 CaO MgO S03
Feed 4.85 16.30 5.80 6.59 0.26 . 45.52 0.62 3.33
1.80 F 1.0 33.45 12.91 6.34 0.58 6.90 0.67 2.30
1.80 x 2.00 ' 1.4 24.94 9.03 3.94 0.43 11.09 0.66 5.08
I
2.00 x 2.20 8.6 20.68 8.53 5.15 0.44 19.02 0.84 7.08 ~
Ion
I
2.20 x 2.30 8.8 25.57 11.48 5.32 0.46 26.92 1.03 6.03
2.30 x 2.40 32.4 13 .70 5.82 4.49 0.30 41.00 1.76 3.65
2.40 x 2.60 29.0 24.52 9.13 9.61 0.41 35.06 2.02 6.03
2.60 x 2.65 3.0 34.26 11.06 15.30 0.49 24.58 1.46 3.80
2.65 x 2.70 2.6 27.32 10.15 17.19 0.54 24.38 1.51 3.95
2.70 x 2.75 3.4 30.88 12.96 17.12 0.71 23.30 1.40 3.45
2.75 x 2.80 3.2 27.32 12 .09 17.97 0.56 23.39 1.70 2.95
2.80 x 2.96 4.0 24.94 12.25 19.96 0.57 24.18 1.33 2.50
2.96 Sink 2.6 11.23 8.73 35.95 0.49 16.80 1.49 1.43
-------
TABLE A16
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY FRACTIONS OF 100 x 200 MESH.
WET COLLECTED, LIMESTONE MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr.
Fraction Yield SiO~ A120) Fe203 Ti02 Cao MgO SO)
Feed 7.32 31.65 12.63 10.29 0.47 26.60 0.75 2.04
1.80 F 13.8 43.10 17.07 7.42 1.03 3.44 0.72 0.43
1.80 x 2.00 12.6 38.95 16.06 5.22 0.89 4.08 0.62 0.63
I
2.00 x 2.20 10.0 39.16 18.99 7.83 0.72 9.01 0.82 0.48 s:-
o-
I
2.20 x 2.40 10.2 25.78 11.19 6.34 0.43 37.76 0.91 0.98
2.40 x 2.60 8.4 25.78 7.11 5.90 0.36 34.21 0.83 1.10
2.60 x 2.65 1.6 27.09 7.57 7.45 0.34 29.73 0.75 1.23
2.65 x 2.70 1.6 22.92 9.13 11.40 0.42 37.14 1.13 1.63
2.70 x 2.75 1.8 21.97 11.34 13 .22 0.47 34.49 1.43 1.83
2.75 x 2.80 2.8 15.87 7.57 10.57 0.36 39.35 1.33 1.78
2.80 x 2.96 9.6 10.29 5.93 10.17 0.29 44.89 1.23 2.18
2.96 Sink 25.6 3.86 2.37 10.08 0.21 46.39 1.70 1.53
-------
I~--
TABLE A17
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY FRACTIONS 0' 200 x 325 MESH,
WET COLLECTED. LIMESTONE MODIFIED FLYASH.
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr.
Fraction Yield Si02 A120) Fe20) Ti02 CaO KgO SO)
Feed 7.93 32.37 12.43 12.36 0.50 18.65 0.93 4.78
1.80 F 1.4 42.95 16.21 6.67 0.84 4.54 0.89 1.00
1.80 x 2.00 0.8 51.11 24.42 8.39 1.00 13.32 1.43 3.25
I
2.00 x 2.20 3.2 38.55 18.68 5.78 0.66 11.66 1.28 4.40 ,e:..
.....
I
2.20 x 2.40 14.0 37.36 14.42 9.24 0.66 27.83 2.61 7.83
2.40 x 2.50 19.4 30.38 13 . 09 6.34 0.48 19.99 1.81 7.15
2.50 x 2.60 36.0 27.77 10.52 9.61 0.23 23.01 1.94 7.55
2.60 x 2.65 2.4 24.11 10.78 18.12 0.28 18.56 1.74 5.13
2.65 x 2.70 3.2 19.81 9.91 22.15 0.31 17 .66 1.23 4.38
2.70 x 2.75 3.2 18.47 11.34 27.16 0.37 17 .37 1.33 3.65
2.75 x 2.80 3.0 16.16 9.24 38.98 0.45 15.21 1.29 2.95
2.80 x 2.96 1.6 14.75 17 .52 42.90 0.44 18.87 1.21 2.88
2.96 Sink 10.0 9.13 5.49 37.44 0.31 7.19 0.62 1.18
-------
TABLE A18
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY FRACTIONS OF -325 MESH.
WET COLLECTED. LIMESTONE MODIFIED FLYASH.
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr.
Fraction Yield Si02 AI 0) Fe 0) Ti02 CaO MgO SO)
1 %
Feed 79.87 30.33 14.10 11. 70 0.53 20.73 1.00 12.30
1.80 F 0.0
1.80 x 2.00 0.0
2.00 x 2.20 0.8 25.14 11.93 14.36 0.50 27.60 1.72 6.70
2.20 x 2.25 0.0
2.25 x 2.30 0.0
2.30 x 2.35 0.0
2.35 x 2.40 84.0 21. 78 9.79 10.57 0.45 30.22 1.36 11.78
2.40 x 2.60 0.0
2.60 x 2.65 0.0
2.65 x 2.70 0.0
2.70 x 2.75 0.0
2.75 x 2.80 13.4 18.79 8.25 14.89 0.40 32.02 2.20 2.90
.2.80 x 2.96 0.0
2.96 Sink 0.0
-------
TABLE A19
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY FRACTIONS OF RAW,
DRY-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr. Yield
fraction (Wt.%) SiO Al 0) FeZO) Ti02 CaO MgO SO)
% 2
Feed Head 30.81 12.54 10.72 0.42 17 .90 14.77 8.09
1.80 F 2.00 51.69 20.54 6.92 0.97 4.95 1.76 0.85
1.80 x 2.00 4.00 45.08 18.84 6.64 1.02 4.91 2.40 1.48
2.00 x 2.20 1.00 47.22 18.52 8.03 0.92 6.22 2.76 I.S.*
,
~
2.20 x 2.40 2.60 50.39 17.43 7.34 1.16 7.15 2.87 1.40 \0
I
2.40 x 2.60 5.60 47.84 17.89 8.11 0.81 12.14 10.14 3.75
2.60_x 2.65 3.80 34.29 12 .81 6.06 0.61 23.22 23.18 7.13
2.65 x 2.70 6.20 26.96 9.97 5.64 0.48 20.28 23.67 8.08
2.70 x 2.75 19.00 27.85 9.53 6.85 0.48 25.82 20.95 8.70
2.75 x 2.80 20.00 26.74 10.34 5.88 0.48 24.22 17.37 8.63
2.80 x 2.96 20.80 22.96 8.39 12 .80 0.47 24.74 29.61 8.05
2.96 Sink 6.60 15.96 7.38 41.34 0.42 14.58 13 .07 3.90
*lnsufficient Sample for Analysis
-------
TABLE AlO
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY FRACTIONS OF +100 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE MODIFIED FLYASH.
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr. Yield
Fraction (Wt. %) SiO! A1!0) Fe!O TiOZ CaO MgO SO)
j
Feed 0.79 31. 70 10.84 10.63 0.46 10.05 7.72 2.60
1.80 F 10.00 26.09 10.43 5.82 0.53 5.25 1.06 1.78
1.80 x 2.00 14.00 31.09 11. 31 5.47 0.62 4.95 1.08 1.58
2.00 x 2.20 11.20 51.37 17 .89 8.36 1.11 5.62 2.15 0.90 I
VI
o
I
2.20 x 2.40 5.20 46.60 17 .73 14.07 1.02 7.61 3.32 3.23
2.40 x 2.60 9.00 38.22 10.05 10.16 0.55 11.69 9.85 3.40
2.60 x 2.65 5.20 I.S.*
2.65 x 2.70 5.80 46.29 11.31 15.54 0.64 10.95 7.25 I.S.*
2.70 x 2.75 9.20 40.71 13.75 20.37 0.74 11.36 11.56 2.65
2.75 x 2.80 1.00 35.57 13 .63 17.11 0.67 18.32 16.19 I.S.*
2.80 x 2.96 7.40 31.33 11. 21 17.59 0.64 18.69 16.77 4.63
.2.96 Sink 18.60 17.69 6.43 13.29 0.32 26.66 29.61 5.50
*Insufficient Sample For Analysis
-------
..
TABLE A21
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY FRACTIONS OF 100 x 200 MESH.
DRY-COLLECTED. DOLOMITE MODIFIED FLYASH.
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr. Yield
Fraction (Wt.%) Si02 A1Z0J Fe20J TiO% CaO MgO SO)
Feed 2.94 40.83 16.25 15.75 0.59 9.40 6.11 2.08
1.80 F 10.40 55.06 19.85 9.31 1.15 5.91 1.85 5.80
1.80 x 2.00 18.20 40.15 14.00 5.70 0.75 5.57 1.56 1.33
2.00 x 2.20 12.20 54.03 16.54 8.28 1.08 7.28 2.15 0.73 I
VI
....
2.20 x 2.40 7.40 45.38 14.50 10.67 0.84 9.02 3.32 1.15 I
2.40 x 2.60 8.00 45.68 12.26 11. 63 0.84 10.74 5.50 1.68
2.60 x 2.65 4.00 39.87 10.91 11.86 0.63 14.02 8.59 2.35
2.65 x 2.70 6.60 40.43 12.37 17 .76 0.75 13 .36 11.91 2.98
2.70 x 2.75 8.00 32.79 11.31 20.37 0.64 15.61 12.47 3.28
2.75 x 2.80 4.00 26.52 9.88 20.37 0.54 22.03 18.69 3.98
2.80 x 2.96 2.00 25.02 9.62 21.32 0.50 24.22 19.04 4.50
2.96 Sink 18.00 16.30 7.25 39.26 0.35 16.57 15.38 2.80
-------
TABLE A22
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS O} SPECI}IC GRAVITY }RACTIONS OF 200 x )25 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE MOOIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr. Yield
Fraction (Wt. %) S102 A120) Fe20) T102 CaO }{gO S03
Feed 5.68 34.77 13 .44 15.76 0.57 13 .33 11.86 3.69
1. 80 , 4.00 53.70 21.26 7.64 1.17 6.06 2.40 0.65
1.80 x 2.00 5.60 41.56 14.50 6.31 0.89 5.63 2.79 1.80
2.00 x 2.20 10.40 44.18 14.76 7.42 0.84 7.74 5.63 1.95 I
<.It
N
I
2.20 x 2.40 14.00 37.41 12.26 7.72 0.66 12.98 9.19 2.73
2.40 x 2.60 20.00 28.53 9.36 8.69 0.48 15.31 15.38 3.38
. 2.60 x 2.65 6.00 32.05 11.11 12.44 0.56 19.87 19.77 4.55
2.65 x 2.70 9.20 26.31 10.82 16.34 0.50 18.50 15.65 5.28
2.70 x 2.75 7.80 22.36 11.01 27.66 0.50 15 .77 11. 73 4.45
2.75 x 2.80 1.00 20.24 9.36 28.92 0.44 14.29 13.93 5.10
2.80 x 2.96 9.80 19.12 10.34 40.63 0.46 15.77 10.89 3.55
2.96 S1nk 6.80 15.13 7.05 56.57 0.37 8.94 5.02 1.48
-------
TABLE A23
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY FRACTIONS OF -325 MESH.
DRY-COLLECTED. DOLOMITE MODIFIED FLYASH
.
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr Yield
Fraction (Wt. %) SiO% A120) Fe20) Ti02 Cao MgO SO)
Feed 90.55 32.59 11.10 10.25 0.49 19.78 16.71 6.83
1.80 . 1.60 54.72 22.00 7.06 1.10 2.56 1.81 1.05
1.80 x 2.00 1.40 49.10 19.51 5.42 0.90 3.28 2.31 1.25
2.00 x 2.20 1.80 51.69 19.67 6.19 0.89 4.73 2.78 1.20 I
V1
w
2.20 x 2.40 I
1.20 50.07 16.83 6.92 0.90 6.10 2.71 I.S.*
2.40 x 2.60 4.60 41.85 12.15 7.64 0.68 12.85 9.85 4.23
2.60 x 2.65 6.00 26.74 9.97 5.59 0.49 20.07 18.01 6.78
2.65 x 2.70 14.80 28.53 11.11 6.38 0.48 20.28 18.34 6.83
2.70 x 2.75 25.00 25.45 10.34 6.44 0.44 19.67 18.69 6.88
2.75 x 2.80 30.00 22.96 8.87 9.13 0.46 23.46 17.69 6.93
2.80 x 2.96 12.40 19.12 9.11 19.82 0.39 22.74 19.04 6.03
2.96 Sink Insufficient Sample for Analysis
*Insufficient Sample For Analysis
-------
-.
TABLE A24
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY 'RACTIONS OF RAW,
WET-COLLECTED. DOLOMITE MODIfIED FLYASB.
SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr. Yield
Fraction (Wt. %) 5i02 AlIO) Fe!O, TiO! CaO KgO SO)
Feed Head 23.24 9.03 9.99 0.43 13 .84 9.24 18.68
1.80 , 0.40 Insufficient Sample for Analysis 2.35
1.80 x 2.00 0.20 Insufficient Sample for Analysis 7.73
2.00 x 2.20 5.60 31.57 9.11 10.57 0.53 15.61 9.99 18.80
I
\II
2.20 X 2.25 1.60 40.15 12.70 7.42 0.69 9.79 10.14 8.75 ~
t
2.25 x 2.30 0.20 Insufficient Sample for Analysis
2.30 x 2.35 30.00 30.85 8.87 8.52 0.53 14.72 11.56 24.93
2.35 x 2.40 51.80 32.05 9.71 10.26 0.53 15.16 11.22 19.85
2.40 x 2.60 1.80 27.85 8.09 15.89 0.51 13.62 6.11 16.45
2.60 x 2.65 0.20 Insufficient Sample for Analysis
2.65 x 2.70 0.60 Insufficient Sample for Analysis
2.70 x 2.75 1.80 19.12 7.73 70.19 0.96 3.83 2.56 1.68
2.15 x 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.80 x 2.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.96 Sink 4.40 15.00 5.04 66.82 0.28 2.14 1.46 1.15
-------
TABLE A25
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 010 SPECIFIC GRAVITY PRACTIONS 0' +100 MESH,
WET-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr. Yield
Joraction (Wt. %) Si02 A1203 Jie20) Ti02 Cao MgO SO,
Joeed 5.33 26.23 9.23 16.13 0.43 10.33. 7.83 11.43
1.80 P 2.60 35.05 11.93 9.59 0.65 2.84 2.18 2.45
1.80 x 2.00 6.40 23.98 8.32 6.31 0.46 4.16 4.25 4.23
2.00 x 2.20 12.20 33.53 10.91 7.80 0.54 10.74 12.28 10.68 I
VI
VI
I
2.20 x 2.40 14.80 29.21 8.87 8.11 0.47 15.46 17 .69 17.35
2.40 x 2.50 19.30 28.98 8.79 9.04 0.47 15.01 14.63 16.85
2.50 x 2.60 22.10 21.40 5.15 6.60 0.38 22.82 6.01 28.35
2.60 x 2.65 4.60 48.02 9.84 15.27 0.45 23.65 3.38 14.00
2.65 x 2.70 1.20 27.63 10.06 18.75 0.57 29.72 3.18 8.83
2.70 x 2.75 3.00 29.87 13 .24 27.02 0.61 33.71 4.40 5.05
2.75 x 2.80 4.60 33.30 13 .80 27.80 0.71 31.64 3.07 2.40
2.80 x 2.96 3.40 21.97 9.95 28.06 0.53 34.45 3.14 2.38
2.96 Sink 4.60 5.99 3.75 38.98 0.34 39.91 1.46 1.58
-------
1-
TABLE A26
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 0' SPICUIC GRAVITY fRACTIONS 0', 100 x 200 MESH,
WET-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE MODUIED fLYASH,
SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr. Yield
Iraction (Wt. %) Si02 A120) 'e203 Ti02 Cao MgO SO~
feed 7.48 32.15 10.36 10.58 0.42 6.97 7.35 6.61
1.80 , 4.00 46.06 20.27 7.08 0.94 4.22 1.82 1.28
1.80 x 2.00 2.20 38.31 15.50 6.38 0.76 4.98 4.28 4.20
2.00 x 2.20 9.60 40.39 17 .80 6.54 0.67 11.00 13.03 7.25 I
\II
CJ\
2.20 x 2.25 14.80 33.45 14.63 4.25 0.69 10.46 10.92 7.78 I
2.25 x 2.30 5.20 29.89 15.06 4.64 0.53 12.26 14.31 9.35
2.30 x 2.35 1.80 37.54 15.74 12.77 0.77 4.22 6.00 6.28
2.35 x 2.40 43.30 29.65 10.52 6.09 0.48 19.34 10.21 17.68
2.40 x 2.60 3.40 33.30 12.89 11.67 0.59 22.96 6.19 11.60
2.60 x 2.65 0.40 26.21 11.48 17 .97 0.51 7.36 4.13 0.00
2.65 x 2.70 0.80 23.93 14.82 36.52 0.67 18.83 5.66 5.08
2.70 x 2.75 1.40 14.48 10.52 38.67 0.42 6.19 4.33 2.45
2.75 x 2.80 0.80 33.30 15.74 26.01 0.80 17 .78 6.00 2.28
2.80 ]I: 2.96 4.00 2(}.58 13 .80 28.87 0.79 18.01 6.29 1.85
2.96 Sink 0.00 c.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-------
TABLE A27
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 0' SPECI'IC GRAVITY 'RACTIONS Of 200 x 325 MESH,
WET COLLECTED, DOLOMITE MODIFIED fLYASH,
SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
Sp. Gr.
Fraction Yield Si02 A1203 fe20) Ti02 CaO HgO S03
Feed 8.85 25.33 9.65 10.99 0.41 . 10.38 10.36 11.25
1.80 , 0.2 IS*
1.80 x 2.00 0.2 IS
I
2.00 x 2.20 1.0 24.52 11.63 20.31 0.47 12.78 6.18 16.43 \It
"
I
2.20 x 2.25 0.2 35.93 18.99 5.60 0.70 8.64 6.36 9.13
2.25 x 2.30 3.0 28.93 12.74 6.54 0.56 15.85 8.04 17.23
2.30 x 2.35 28.0 29.41 10.65 5.96 0.50 15.72 9.11 20.08
2.35 x 2.40 55.0 21.97 10.92 13.59 0.42 20.84 8.83 19.15
2.40 x 2.60 8.2 23.51 11.06 15.44 0.48 19.66 7.14 18.20
2.60 x 2.65 0.2 15
2.65 x 2.70 0.2 8.59 8.53 41.23 0.38 3.62 1.88 6.05
2.70 x 2.75 1.0 9.60 6.48 35.95 0.38 3.94 2.58 1.55
2.75 x 2.96 0.0 15
2.96 Sink 0.4 IS
* Insufficient Sample for Analysis
-------
TABLE 1\28
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY FRACTIONS OF -325 MESH.
WET COLLECTED. DOLOMITE MODIFIED FLY ASH.
SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
5102 Al20J Fe20] Ti02 CaO MgO SO]
23.68 10.16 8.53 0.49 17.90 9.79 21.19
IS
IS
I
29.65 11.06 6.81 0.55 18 . 71 12.34 19.00 VI
00
I
26.87 10.40 17.19 0.53 21.01 7.03 19.70
27.09 13 .45 10.67 0.53 19.99 9.11 19.88
Sp. Gr.
Fraction Yield
Feed 78.30
1.80 F 0.2
1.80 x 2.00 0.2
2.00 x 2.20 0.4
2.20 x 2.40 2.0
2.40 x 2.45 95.2
2.45 x 2.50 0.0
2.50 x 2.55 0.0
2.55 x 2.60 0.0
2.60 x 2.65 0.4
2.65 x 2.70 0.2
2.70 x 2.75 0.0
2.75 x 2.80 0.0
2.80 x 2.96 0.0
2.96 Sink 0.0
IS
IS
-------
-59-
TABLE A29
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED RAW.
DRY-COLLECTED. LIMESTONE MODIFIED-FLYASH.
SAMPLE PID
(Percent Weight)
Magnetic Field Strength. Gauss
Feed 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
- -
Y1eld . Head 33.60 59.60 50.40 56.80 30.00
Si02 30.85 32.54 27.40 30.38 32.05 27.63
Al203 13.70 12.88 12.42 12.31 13.47 10.65
Fe203 11.59 20.56 12.09 17.76 16.34 17.76
T102 0.68 0.61 0.57 0.67 0.64 0.50
Cao 33.58 22.26 28.14 27.24 28.76 13 .88
KgO 1.49 1.23 1.13 1.33 1.37 1.12
S03 2.20 3.85 3.97 3.75 3.83 1.33
-------
-60-
TABLE A30
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS O} MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED + 100 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, LIMESTONE-MODI}IED }LIASH,
SAMPLE PID
(Percent Weight)
MaRnetic Ue1d StrenRth. Gauss
}eed 3000 6000 9000 ~ Wet
field 1.66* 12.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 75.00
5102 15.18 29.91 36.88 35.05 30.38 21.00
A120) 4.95 11.24 12.53 12.20 10.17 7.23
}e203 5.17 . 19.82 15.02 10.46 7.34 5.53
7102 0.23 0.54 0.70 0.61 0.52 0.32
CaO 65.45 11.15 16.40 17.24 13.23 52.96
MgO 0.72 1.03 0.96 1.03 0.70 0.78
50) 2.23 2.48 2.43 2.40 3.03 1.48
* iercentage of raw sample coarser than 100 mesh
-------
-61-
TABLE A31
CHEMICAL ANALISIS 010 MAGNETICALLl SEPARATED 100 x 200 MESH,
DRI-COLLECTED, LIMESTONE-MODIIoIED 1oL1ASH,
SAMPLE PID
(Percent Weight)
MaRnetic 10 ie1d StrenRth. Gauss
.eed 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
lie1d 3.97* 20.00 40.00 46.00 52.00 79.60
SiO 26.73 26.31 39.87 39.04 36.62 25.02
2
Al20 8.26 12.88 13.84 13 .47 12.65 10.55
.3
.e203 9.14 32.42 24.41 17.59 21.13 12.20
Ti02 0.35 0.51 0.78 0.80 0.66 0.55
Cao 42.88 7.95 10.55 9.53 9.79 40.29
MgO 0.69 0.76 1.03 0.92 0.74 0.97
503 1.08 0.53 0.60 0.75 0.73 1.18
* Percentage of raw sample falling into this size range
-------
-62-
TABLE A32
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS O} MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED 200 x 325 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, LIMESTONE MODI. lED }LYASH.
SAMPLE rID
(tercent Weight)
MaRnetic Field StrenRth. GaUBS
!!!! 1400 3000 6000 9000 12000 !!!!.
lield 6.51* 23.00 22.00 46.00 42.00 46.00 71.40
5i:) 28.19 21.38 20.43 34.29 32.79 35.05 29.68
2
Al203 12.14 9.62 7.93 12.76 13.35 14.73 12.88
}e203 13.38 48.61 53.35 34.77 30.22 31.58 22.31
TiO 0.46 0.58 0.42 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.65
2
CaO 36.80 7.74 6.67 8.78 8.86 9.44 12.98
MgO 0.67 0.79 0.78 0.85 0.80 0.80 1.00
503 1.10 0.45 0.40 0.70 0.70 0.80 0.78
* rercentage of raw sample falling into this size range
-------
-63-
TABLE A33
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS O. MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED -325 MESH,
DRl-COLLECTED, LIMESTONE-MODIFIED .LlASH,
SAMPLE rID
(Percent Weight)
MaRnetic Field StrenRth. Gauss
feed 1Q.QQ 6000 9000 12000 Wet
lie1d 87.84* 18.00 24.00 32.00 38.00 40.00
Si02 31.31 15.96 17.86 18.76 16.47 27.40
AlO 11.31 8.31 9.72 9.45 8.86 10.65
2 3
le203 12.75 53.80 45.81 47.39 41. 70 16.95
TiO 0.56 0.44 0.47 0.50 0.48 0.60
2
Cao 31.49 7.81 9.53 9.27 9.44 28.76
MaO 1.07 0.80 0.78 0.72 0.69 1.37
503 2.33 0.63 0.95 1.00 1.15 1.80
* Percentages of raw sample finer than 325 mesh
-------
-64-
TAiLE A34
CBEKlCAL ANALYSIS O} MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED RAW.
WET-COLLECTED. LIMESTONE-MODU lED I LIASB.
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight)
MaRnet1c }1e1d StrenRth. Gauss
~ 3000 iQQQ !Q.QQ. 12000 1!!!.
l1e1d Bead 86.00 94.40 92.40 92.40 46.15
' "
S102 19.39 27.63 21.77 26.31 25.23 24.86
A1 0 7.98 10.06 9.28 10.06 9.97 10.63
2 3
leZ03 9.65 7.64 10.77 8.11 10.46 16.07
T102 0.31 0.34 0.44 0.43 0.46 0.43
CaO 26.62 30.38 43.21 33.58 30.05 28.62
MgO 0.69 1.25 1.19 1.42 1.42 0.55
503 10.94 13.80 13.65 13.58 13.43 10.38
-------
-65-
TABLE A35
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS O} MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED, +100 MESH
,
WET-COLLECTED. LIMESTONE-MODIFIED }LYASH,
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight)
Magnetic Field Strength, Gauss
feed 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
- -
Yield 4.85* 60.00 82.00 86.00 94.00 96.00
Si02 16.30 16.15 25.93 22.14 21.01 20.57
A1203 5.80 8.99 9.69 9.42 10.44 9.07
fe203 6.59 13.81 11. 32 10.80 11.54 9.19
Ti02 0.26. 0.35 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.44
Cao 45.42 43.51 38.22 40.98 43.95 32.26
HgO 0.62 0.38 0.46 0.39 0.50 0.50
503 3.33 5.93 5.55 5.25 5.40 4.75
* Percentage of raw sample coarser than 100 mesh
-------
-66-
TABLE A36
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED. 100 x 200 MESH.
WET-COLLECTED. LIMESTONE MODIF lED FLYASH
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight)
Magnetic Field Strength. Gauss
leed 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
-
Yield 7.32* 42.00 78.00 82.00 84.00 90.00
Si02 31.65 20.57 35.93 29.11 32.00 35.55
A1203 12.63 12.70 13.82 11.90 11.90 13.43
Fe203 10.29 . 36.63 27.31 20.95 17.50 20.36
TiO 0.47 0.53 0.64 0.50 0.56 0.67
2
CaO 26.60 14.97 22.99 19.02 16.54 19.79
MgO 0.62 0.41 0.57 0.46 0.47 0.57
S03 2.04 4.13 5.30 5.18 5.53 2.76
* Percentage of raw sample falling into this size range
.
,
.
-------
-67-
TABLE A3 7
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS 01 MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED. 200 x.325 MESH.
WET-COLLECTED. LIMESTONE-MODIFIED 1oLYASH.
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight)
MaRnetic 1oie1d StrenRth. Gauss
~ lliQ 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
l1e1d 7.93* 33.00 38.00 60.00 66.00 74.00 82.00
Si02 32.37 18.76 15.65 20.57 21.46 26.48 29.73
AlO 12.43 9.03 9.51 11.90 11.90 12.12 11.68
2 3
Fe203 12.36 33.29 46.41 34.93 33.64 28.63 26.80
TiO 0.50 0.32 0.42 0.50 0.54 0.52 0.57
2
Cao 18.65 10.45 9.28 13.02 14.53 16.22 17.39
MgO 0.93 1.12 0.25 0.39 0.36 0.43 0.57
503 4.78 3.83 3.20 4.80 5.23 5.63 3.18
* Percentages of raw sample falling into this size range
-------
-68-
TABLE A38
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED, -325 MESH,
WET-COLLECTED, LIMESTONE-MODIfIED FLYASB,
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight)
Magnetic Field Strength. Gauss
!!!.!! 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
-
Yield 79.87* 90.00 94.00 98.00 98.00 50.00
Si02 30.33 19.11 19.72 21.01 24.60 27.62
A1203 14.10 9.16 10.63 10.24 11.25 10.94
Fe203 11.70. 10.20 10.10 10.49 10.90 16.69
Ti02 0.53. 0.47 0.45 0.44 0.47 0.54
CaO 20.73 31.63 33.91 31.94 38.22 22.76
MgO 1.00 0.44 0.51 0.46 0.60 0.60
S03 12.30 15.95 15.78 16.13 16.00 10.25
* Percentage of raw sample finer than 325 mesh
-------
-69-
TABLE A39
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED, RAW,
DRY-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Magnetic Field Strength. Gauss
Feed 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
- -
Yield Head 60.80 60.80 59.60 62.40 48.00
Si02 30.81 26.20 28.81 29.11 25.93 24.86
A1203 12.54 8.90 10.94 12.23 11.90 11. 25
Fe203 10.72 8.52 11.32 13 . 30 11. 32 18.88
Ti02 0.42 . 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.42 0.53
Cao 17.90 16.71 19.60 18.10 20.19 9.47
MgO 14.77 15.02 16.84 15.77 14.30 12.97
SO 8.09 6.85 6.48 6.43 6.45 4.30
3
-------
-70-
TABLE A40
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED, +100 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Magnetic Field Strength, Gauss
Feed 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
- - -
Yield 0.79* 36.00 74.00 80.00 82.00 91. 66
Si02 31.70 31. 34 38.68 38.68 34.45 26.20
AJ 203 10.84 12.58 11.90 11.90 12.70 11. 25
Fe203 10.63 24.61 17.17 14.90 12.97 10.80
Ti02 0.46 0.72 0.66 0.74 0.72 0.50
CaO 10.v5 d.2", 7.38 7.53 7.83 6.55
MgO 7.72 4.71 3.51 3.46 4.27 6.32
503 2.60 1.73 1.98 2.08 2.20 1. 33
* Percentages of raw sample coarser than 100 mesh
-------
-71-
TABLE A41
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED, 100 x 200 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Magnetic Field Strength, Gauss
j
Feed 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
Yield 2.94* 40.00 68.00 78.00 82.00 85.70
Si02 . 40. 83 24.09 41.20 45.52 49.26 38.27
A1203 16.25 12.35 14.48 14.61 14.21 13.95
Fe203 15.75 35.60 25.08 21.55 22.17 17.83
Ti02 0.59 0.61 0.73 0.54 0.77 0.69
Cao 9.40 6.42 6.95 7.38 7.99 7.02
MgO 6.11 2.12 2.66 3.63 3.46 4.87
S03 2.08 0.70 1.40 1.40 1.55 0.63
* Percentage of raw sample falling into this size range
-------
-72-
TABLE A42
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MAGNETlCAlJ.Y SEPARATED, 200 x 325 MESH,
- DRY-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIUED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Magnetic Field Strength. Gauss
Peed ~ 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
- - -
Yield 5.68* 25.00 26.00 58.00 70.00 66.00 83.70
Si02 34.77 19.86 19.11 33.03 33.38 32.00 33.03
Al 0 13.44 9.03 11.79 13.95 15.03 12.94 12.82
2 3
Fe203 15.76 41.34 48.66 27.57 24.38 24.61 20.36
TiO 0.57 . 0.52 0.55 0.59 0.58 0.67 0.60
2
CaO 13.33 6.97 6.81 9.01 8.57 7.53 8.40
MgO 11.86 2.33 1.83 5.55 5.73 3.88 9.20
so 3.69 0.85 1.43 2.20 2.35 2.33 0.88
3 * Percentage of raw sample falling into this size range
-------
-73-
TABLE A43
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED, -325 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLYASH
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Ma2netic Field Strength, Gauss
Feed 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
-
Yield 90.55* 48.00 76.00 76.00 78.00 32.00
Si02 32.59 29.11 24.86 25.66 25.39 38.21
A1203 11.10 9.96 11.04 12.01 11.79 13.69
Fe 0 10.25 10.39 9.10 10.49 9.91 22.38
2 3
TiO 0.49 0.58 0.53 0.57 0.46 0.61
2
CaO 19.78 20.60 20.81 22.76 20.19 9.37
HgO 16. 71 18.87 17.39 15.52 17.11 12.35
SO 6.83 7.00 6.65 6.65 6.35 3.98
3
* Percentage of raw sample finer than 325 mesh
-------
-74-
TABLE A44
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED RAW,
WET-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLY ASH ,
SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
Magnetic Field Strength. Gauss
Feed 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
-
Yield Bead 74.80 88.80 88.00 85.60 44.23
Si02 23.24 29.91 25.02 24.81 26.31 24.34
A:.. 0 9.03 11.01 10.82 9.19 9.71 11. 25
2 3
Fe203 9.99 12.80 11. 63 12.56 11.30 21. 35
Ti02 0.43 0.49 0.48 0.52 0.48 0.48
CaO 13 .84 16.57 15.46 15.01 18.88 15.58
MgO 9.24 10.28 8.36 9.07 7.35 6.97
S03 18.68 18.93 19.05 19.08 18.98 16.88
-------
-75-
TABLE A45
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED, +100 MESH,
WET-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIfIED FLY ASH ,
SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
Magnetic Field Strength, Gauss
Feed 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
- -
Yield 5.33* 60.00 82.00 88.00 90.00 86.00
SiO 26.23 25.39 30.68 24.34 28.51 28.51
2
AI203 9.23 10.15 8.99 9.78 9.16 12.12
Fe203 16.13 23.69 16.22 18.52 17.33 18.00
Ti02 0.43 0.58 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.50
Cao 10.33 14.97 15.74 14.25 12.89 11.67
MgO 7.83 9.05 9.67 8.21 6.97 7.95
SO 11.43 14.33 15.55 15.25 15.90 9.55
3 * Percentage of raw sample coarser than 100 mesh
-------
-76-
TABLE A46
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED, 100 x 200 MESH,
WET-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIF lED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
Magnetic Field Strength. Gauss
Feed 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
- - -
Yield 7.48* 38.00 64.00 70.00 76.00 84.00
Si02 32.15 19.93 27.33 30.04 29.42 30.36
~
A1203 10.36 10. 73 12.58 12.12 13.31 12.47
Fe203 10.58 43.85 26.05 24.61 22.60 20.95
TiO 0.42 0.50 0.54 0.50 0.58 0.57
2
CaO 6.97 7.60 7.91 7.38 8.40 8.23
MgO 7.35 2.94 4.00 4.64 5.11 6.43
S03 6.61 3.80 7.18 7.05 7.40 4.28
* Percentage of raw sample falling into this size range
-------
-71-
TABLE A4 7
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED. 200 x 325 MESH.
WET-COLLEC!ED. DOLOMITE-MODIJoIED JoLYASH,
SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
Magnetic Field Strength. Gauss
Peed 1400 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
- -
Yield 8.85* 22.00 20.00 42.00 54.00 54.00 58.00
Si02 25.01 18.40 16.84 17.02 19.11 20.79 23.59
Al ° 9.53 8.55 10.15 9.68 10.05 10.34 11. 25
2 3
Fe203 10.85 37.92 53.50 29.74 25.08 28.10 24.38
Ti02 0.41 0.52 0.48 0.44 0.47 0.47 0.47
CaD 10.23 9.10 7.38 10.15 12.39 13.55 11.55
MgO 10.21 3.75 1.80 5.83 6.12 5.92 7.09
SO 11.25 8.28 4.05 12.15 14.10 13.48 12.10
3
* Percentage of raw sample falling into this size range
-------
-78-
TABLE A48
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MAGNETICALLY SEPARATED, -325 MESH.
WET-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIfIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DW
(fercent Weight)
Magnetic Field Strength, Gauss
Jeed 3000 6000 9000 12000 Wet
- - - -
Yield 78.30* 86.00 92.00 96.00 98.00 32.00
8i02 23.68 23.10 21.91 19.72 21.68 17.94
AI203 10.16 9.60 9.87 10.24 9.51 11.14
te203 8.53 . 8.93 10.80 9.37 8.93 24.38
TiO 0.49 0.45 0.48 0.49 0.47 0.53
2
Cao 17.90 16.54 17.56 18.66 17.39 13.55
MgO 9.79 9.05 9.20 8.35 9.51 5.20
803 21.19 20.50 20.00 20.58 20.68 14.98
* fercentage of raw sample finer than 325 mesh
-------
TABLE A49
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED RAW,
DRY-COLLECTED, LIMESTONE-MODIFED FLYASH,
SAMPLE PID
(Percent We1ght)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two Ta11 Ta11 Prod.
Analysis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield Head 50.40 18.00 1.60
5102 30.65 26.84 44.13 30.17 17.72 26.63 1.39 I
....,
\0
A1203 14.48 11.97 41.66 15.13 18.81 11. 51 1.27 I
Fe203 11.50 13.02 57.06 18.26 28.58 15.44 2.15
T102 0.62 0.51 41.46 0.58 16.84 0.55 1.42
CaO 34.42 34 .72 50.84 33.61 17.58 14.45 0.67
. HgO 1.08 1.12 80.21 1.31 21.83 0.77 1.14
503 2.20 2.20 50.40 1.55 12.68 I.S.* I.S.
*lnsufficient Sample for Analysis
-------
- -
TABLE ASO
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED +100 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLY ASH ,
SAMPLE PID
(PerceDt We1sht)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction 'ract. Two Ta11 TaU Prod.
~lY8i8 One Rec. Va1uea Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 1.66 74.20 12.60 8.40
S102 15.18 16.12 78.79 21.22 17.61 16.70 9.24 ,
CD
o
A120) 4.95 7.16 107.)3 10.16 25.86 7.97 13.52 I
Fe20) 5.17 3.27 46.93 10.94 26.66 5.68 9.23
Ti02 0.23 0.29 93.56 0.37 20.27 0.35 12.78
CaO 65.45 48.29 54.75 35.28 6.79 6.02 0.77
MgO 0.72 1.08 111.30 1.72 30 .10 0.46 5.37
50 2.23 1.93 64.22 2.15 12 .15 4.08 15.37
3
-------
. .
TABLE AS1
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS 0' ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED 100 x 200 MESH.
DRY-COLLECTED. LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLYASH.
SAMPLE PID
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two Ta11 Ta11 Prod.
Analysis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 3.97 62.20 26.00 3.40
S102 26.73 25.80 60.04 32.33 31.45 15.28 1.94 I
00
A1203 8.26 10.68 80.42 12.79 40.26 9.24 3.80 ~
I
Fe203 9.14 8.90 60.57 14.87 42.30 8.90 3.31
TiO 0.35 0.51 90.63 0.57 42.34 0.31 3.01
2
CaO 42.88 39.82 57.76 29.76 18.04 5.92 0.47
MgO 0.69 1.02 91. 95 0.78 29.39 0.42 2.07
S03 1.08 1.20 69.11 0.83 19.98 I.S.* 1.5.
*Insufficient Sample for Analysis
-------
TABLE A52
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY 8EPARATED 200 x 325 MESH.
DRY-COLLECTED. LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLYASH.
SAMPLE PID
(Percent Weisht)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two Tail
Analysis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product
Yield 6.51 79.80 10.20 0.20
8i02 28.19 27.48 77.79 25.19 9.11 1.8.*
Al20) 12.14 14.91 0.00 12.13 0.00 1.8.
Fe20) 13 .)8 14.18 84.57 26.98 20.57 1.5.
Ti02 0.46 0.54 93.68 0.43 9 . 53 - 1.5.
CaO 36.80 34.44 74.68 16.77 4.65 1.5.
MSO 0.67 1.15 136.97 0.68 10.35 1.8.
SO 1.10 1.20 87.05 0.90 8.35 t.S.
)
*Insufficent Sample for Analysis
Tail Prod.
Rec. Values
1.8. I
00
1.5. N
I
1.8.
1.8.
1.8.
1.5.
1.5.
-------
TABLE AS3
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED -325 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLYASH,
. SAMPLE PID
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two Tail Ta11 Prod.
Analysis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 87.84 76.20 7.60 0.00
Si02 31.31 33.32 81.09 27.92 6.78 0.00 0.00
I
00
A1203 11.31 15.82 106.59 11. 97 8.04 0.00 0.00 w
I
Fe203 12.75 14.87 88.87 16.49 9.83 0.00 0.00
Ti02 0.56 0.62 84.36 0.63 8.55 0.00 0.00
CaO 31.49 31.50 76.22 28.12 6.79 0.00 0.00
MgO 1.07 1.94 138.16 1.36 9.66 0.00 0.00
SO) 2.33 2.40 78.47 2.25 7.34 0.00 0.00
-------
- -
1.\BLV A54
CHEUlCAL AND YIELD AN.~~SIS ('~ FLECTROSTATlt:ALLY SEP}.RATED R}'~ J
WET-COLLECTED, LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two Tai1 Tai1 Prod.
Analysis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield Head 38.00 58.20 1.60
Si02 19.39 26.00 50.95 23.04 69.16 23.23 1.92
7.98 12.45 59.29 11.37 82.92 9.80 1.96 I
A120] 00
$:0
I
Fe20] 9.65 14.18 55.84 12.17 73 .40 11.49 1.91
Ti02 0.31 0.59 72.32 0.51 95.75 0.49 2.53
CaO 26.62 33.61 47.98 33.07 72 .30 28.58 1.72
HgO 0.69 1.48 81.51 1.39 117.24 1.25 2.90
so] 10.94 12.93 44.91 13 .30 70.76 I.S.* I.S.*
* Insufficient Sample for Analysis
-------
TABLE A55
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED +100 MESH.
WET-COLLECTED. LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLYASH.
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two Tail Tail Prod.
Anal sis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 4.85 69.40 26.20 3.60
5102 16.30 23.42 99.71 22.85 36 . 73 17 .91 3.96
I
A1203 5.80 . 10.42 124.68 11.82 53.39 9.80 6.08 00
VI
I
Fe203 6.59 10.84 114.16 10.42 41.43 9.92 5.42
Ti02 0.26 0.46 122.78 0.50 50.38 0.46 6.37
CaO 45.42 36.74 56.14 36.15 20.85 25.50 2.02
MgO 0.62 1.54 17 2 . 38 1.42 60.01 1.17 6.79
503 3.33 5.15 107.33 5.78 45.48 1.S. * I.S.*
* Insufficient Sample for Analysis
-------
TABLE A56
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED 100 x 200 MESH.
WET-COLLECTED, LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLYASH.
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction
Analys is One Rec. Values Two
Yield 7.32 66.20 25.80
Si02 31. 65 31.12 65. C) 27.70
A1203 12.63 11.37 59.f.1 12.29
Fe203 10.29 16.34 105.12 18.60
Ti02 0.47 0.59 83.10 0.54
CaO 26.60 22.37 55.67 24.28
MgO 0.62 1.58 168.70 1.29
S 2.04 5.35 173.61 6.08
* Insufficient Sample for Analysis
Fract. Two
Rec. Values
22.58
25.11
46.64
29.64
23.55
53.68
76.89
Tail Tail Prod.
Product Rec. Values
0.20
I
I.S.* 1.8. 01)
0-
I
I.S. I.S.
1.8. I.S.
I.S. I.S.
1.8. I.S.
I.S. I.S.
I.S. I.S.
-------
TABLE A57
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED 200 x 325 MESH,
WET-COLLECTED, LIMESTONE-MODIFIED FLY ASH ,
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Yeight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two Tail Tail Prod.
Analysis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 7.93 77 .40 18.00 0.20
5i02 32.31 28.58 68.34 23.61 13.13 1.5.* 1.5. I
CD
....,
A1203 12.43 11.97 74.54 12.13 17.57 I.S. 1.5. I
Fe203 12.36 19.66 123.11 25.54 37.19 1.5. 1.5.
Ti02 0.50 0.53 82.04 0.46 16.56 1.5. I.S.
CaO 18.65 18.36 76.20 20.10 19.40 1.5. 1.5.
H~O 0.93 1.65 137.32 1.38 26.71 1.5. 1.5.
503 4.78 6.40 103.63 8.05 30.31 t.S. 1.5.
*lnsufficient Sample for Analysis
-------
TABLE AS8
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS 0' ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED -325 MESH.
WET-COLLECTED. LIMESTONE-MODIFIED 'LYASH.
SAMPLE PIW
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fractiou Fract. One Fraction Fract. 1'\10 TaU TaU Prod.
Analysis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 79.87 13 .80 56.20 30.00
5102 30.33 24.59 11. ~ 24.79 45.93 24.39 24.12 I
00
A1203 14.10 11.22 10. 18 13 .14 52.37 10.81 23.00 f
Fe203 11.70 13 . 79 16 . c' 7 12.17 58.46 11. 38 29.18
TiO 0.53 0.61 15.88 0.57 60.44 0.52 29.43
2
CaO 20.73 31.25 20.80 33.61 91.12 27.44 39.71
M~O 1.00 1.50 20.70 1.50 84.30 1.48 44.40
503 12.30 14.75 16.55 14.60 66 . 71 14.98 36.54
-------
TABLE AS9
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED RAW.
DRY-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLYASH.
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two TaU TaU Prod.
~alysis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield Head 8.20 79.60 3.80
Si02 30.81 28.58 7.61 26.84 69.34 26.42 3.26
,
A1203 12.54 15.82 10.34 11.97 75.98 13.89 4.21 co
..0
,
Fe203 10.72 10.63 8.13 11.27 83.68 12.77 4.53
Tl0 0.42 0.61 11.91 0.60 113.71 0.56 5.07
2
CaO 17.90 24.28 11.12 24.28 107.97 25.70 5.46
MgO 14.77 12.81 7.11 11.17 60.20 12.37 3.18
SO 8.09 6.90 6.99 6.60 64.94 I.S.* I.S.
3
*Insufficient Sample for Analysis
-------
TARLE ,660
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED +100 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two TaU Tail Prod.
Analysis One R.ec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 0.79 65.80 24.20 9.60
5102 31. 70 31. 84 66.09 26.84 20.49 16.55 5.01
,
\0
A1203 10.84 13.89 84.31 10.29 22.97 6.65 5.89 0
I
Fe203 10.63 11. 60 71. 80 17.76 40.43 5.22 4.71
Ti02 0.46 0.64 91. 55 0.45 23.67 0.32 6.68
CaO 10.05 15.57 101.94 8.67 20.88 2.79 2.67
MgO 7.72 9.19 78.33 6.88 21. 57 1.08 1.34
503 2.60 2.45 62.00 1.98 18.43 2.43 8.97
-------
TABLE A61
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED 100 x 200 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two Tail TaU Prod.
Analysis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 2.94 73.00 18.00 2.80
S102 40.83 36.18 64.69 30.41 13.41 14.47 0.99 '
\0
.....
I
A1203 16.25 . 15.58 69.99 14.91 16.52 9.13 1.57
Fe203 15.75 18.78 88.05 24.67 28.52 7.58 1.36
T102 0.59 0.71 87.85 0.62 18.92 0.33 1.57
CaO 9.40 11.54 89.62 8.82 16.89 1.83 0.55
MgO 6.11 7.19 85.90 5.96 17.56 0.83 0.38
S03 2.08 1.65 57.91 1.48 12.81 I.S.. I.S.
*Insufficent Sample for Analysis
-------
TABLE A62
CllPJ{tCAL AND YIELD ANALYSts OJ ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED 200 x 325 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIfIED FLYASB,
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Feed FractiOD Fract. One FracttOD Fract. Two Tail Tail Prod.
Analysis One Rac. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 5.68 74.20 11.60 5.60
5i02 34.77 33.07 70.57 25.59 8.54 22.48 3.62
I
\0
A1203 13 .44 16.30 89.99 11.66 10.06 10.04 4.18 N
I
Fe203 15.76 18.10 85.22 25.80 18.99 29.48 10.48
Ti02 0.57 0.65 84.61 0.47 9.56 0.45 4.42
CaO 13.33 16.23 90.34 9.28 8.08 6.34 2.66
KgO 11.86 9.54 59.69 6.31 6.17 3.63 1.71
503 3.69 3.33 66.96 2.40 7.54 1.5.* 1.5.
*Insufficient Sample for Analysis
-------
TABLE A63
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTR05TATlCALLY SEPARATED -325 MESH,
DRY-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DD
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two Tail TaU Prod.
Analysis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 90.55 32.00 62.00 0.20
5102 32.59 26.42 25.94 27.92 53.12 1.5.* 1.5.
I
\0
A1203 11.10 10.16 29.29 11.82 66.02 1.5. 1.5. \.to>
I
Fe203 10.25 10.02 31.28 9.92 60.00 1.5. 1.5.
T102 0.49 0.53 34.61 0.54 68.33 1.5. 1.5.
CaO 19.78 24.68 39.93 28.12 88.14 1.5. 1.5.
MgO 16.71 8.77 16.79 10.81 40.11 1.5. 1.5.
503 6.83 6.63 31.06 6.70 60.82 1.5. 1.5.
itlnsufUcent Sample for Ana1ys1s
-------
TABLE A64
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED RAW,
WET-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two TaU TaU Prod.
~alysi8 One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield Head 7.40 68.20 23.80
510 23.24 24.79 7.89 25.19 73.92 25.19 25.80 '
\Q
2 ~
,
A1203 9.03 10.29 8.43 10.42 78.70 13 .89 36.61
Fe20) 9.99 9.73 7.21 10.12 69.09 14.05 33.47
TiO 0.43 0.49 8.43 0.48 76.13 0.57 31.55
2
CaO 13.84 20.95 11.20 18.67 92 .00 22.92 39.41
-
. MgO 9.24 7.99 6.40 9.19 67.83 10.12 26.07
50) 18.68 20.43 8.09 19.913 72.76 19.17 24.42
-------
TABLE A65
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED +100 MESH,
WET-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two TaU TaU Prod.
Analysis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 5.33 29.60 19.80 49.40
5102 26.23 23.42 26.43 25.19 19.01 28.14 53.00 I
\0
8.82 \J'
A1203 9.23 . 28.29 9.80 21.02 11.16 59.73 I
Fe20) 16.13 10.02 18.39 17 .12 21.02 20.03 61.34
Ti02 0.43 0.45 30.98 0.53 24.40 0.54 62.04
CaO 10.33 25.08 71.87 19.45 37.28 11.44 54.71
MgO 7.83 6.78 25.63 7.75 19.60 7.87 49.65
SO) 11.43 22.83 59.12 11.88 20.58 9.60 41.49
-------
TABLE A66
CHEMtCAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED 100 x 200 MESH,
WET-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLYASH
SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two Tail TaU Prod.
Analysis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 7.48 59.80 15.60 13 .80
Si02 32.15 34.34 63.87 25.80 12.52 23.23 9.97 I
\0
C'\
A1203 10.36 12.96 74.81 11. 97 18.02 12.29 16.37 I
Fe203 10.58 14.32 80.94 18.78 27.69 23 .80 31. 04
TiOZ 0.42 0.61 86.85 0.48 17.83 0.51 16.76
CaO 6.91 12.13 104.01 10.88 24.35 10.52 20.83
MgO 1.35 1.41 60.29 8.63 18.32 8.24 15.47
SO 6.61 10.63 96.11 10.50 24.78 1.85 16.39
3
-------
TABLE A67
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANALYSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED 200 x 325 MESH,
WET-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLYASH,
SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract. One Fraction Fract. Two TaU Tail Prod.
Analysis One Rec. Values Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 8.85 23.60 62.20 1.80
Si02 25.01 26.84 25.33 28.36 70.53 26.84 1.83
I
A1203 9.53 :13.32 32.99 13.32 86.94 10.95 2.07 \0
.....
I
Fe203 10.85 13.02 28.32 14. 32 82.09 13. 79 2.29
Ti02 0.41 0.50 28.78 0.52 78.89 0.51 2.24
CaO 10.23 21. 29 49.11 18.67 113.52 17.92 3.15
MgO 10.21 11.17 25.82 11.17 68.05 9.49 1.67
50) 11. 25 19.85 41.64 18.40 101. 73 1.5.* 1.5.
* Insufficient Sample for Analysis
-------
TABLE A68
CHEMICAL AND YIELD ANAI.YSIS OF ELECTROSTATICALLY SEPARATED -325 MESH,
WET-COLLECTED, DOLOMITE-MODIFIED FLYASH,
. SAMPLE DW
(Percent Weight)
Feed Fraction Fract One Fraction Fract. Two TaU TaU Prod.
Analysis One Rec. 'a1ues Two Rec. Values Product Rec. Values
Yield 78.30 80.00 19.60 0.20
SiO 23.68 29.26 98 1J5 29.26 24.22 25.80 0.22 I
2 \0
00
A1203 10.16 12.62 99 37 12.62 24.35 11.08 0.22 I
Fe20) 8.53 12.41 116.39 11.60 26.65 10.02 0.23
Ti02 0.49 0.57 93.06 0.58 23.20 0.51 0.21
CaO 17.90 23.49 104.98 23.49 25.72 19.94 0.22
MRO 9.79 10.12 82.70 10.81 21.64 9.80 0.20
SO) 21.19 20.35 76.83 20.45 18 . 92 I.S.* 1.S.
*Insufficient Sample for Analysis
-------
-99-
TABLE A69
RATIO OF LIME TO SILICA AND LIME TO ALUMINA
REQUIRED FOR OPTIMUM RESULTS FOR ALUMINA RECOVERY
BY THE LIME-SINTER PROCESS AND THOSE FOUND IN MODIFIED FLYASH
SAMPLE CaO:Si02 CaO:AIIO]
Required 2:1 5:3
PID 1. 09 : 1 7.35:3
PIW 1. 34: 1 9:78:3
DD 0.58:1 4.28:3
DW 0.59:1 4.60:3
PHS42 1.17:1 7.91:3
PHS45 1. 76 : 1 11.69:3
PHS46 1.63:1 12.31:3
PHS47 2.14:1 13.62:3
D1D2 0.76:1 5.19:3
DID3 0.79:1 5.23:3
CM 0.53:1 3:99:3
CI 0:54:1 4:55:3
------- |