Coke making By-product

description8 papers

group8 followers

lightbulbAbout this topic

Coke making by-products refer to the various substances generated during the production of coke from coal, primarily in the metallurgical industry. These by-products include coal tar, ammonia, and coal gas, which can be further processed and utilized in chemical manufacturing, energy production, and other industrial applications.

lightbulbAbout this topic

Key research themes

1. How does the incorporation of biomass-derived additives influence the physicochemical and rheological properties of coke blends in metallurgical coke production?

This research area investigates the effects of substituting portions of traditional coal blends with bio-components derived from various biomass sources on the coke-making properties crucial for metallurgical processes. The focus is on measuring changes in parameters such as fluidity, dilatation, and mechanical strength of coke blends upon addition of bio-coke or biomass additives and understanding the interactions between biomass particle size, type, and blend composition. These studies matter due to the increasing demand for greener alternatives in coke production aimed at reducing carbon emissions without compromising coke quality.

A Study on Bio-Coke Production—The Influence of Bio-Components Addition on Coke-Making Blend Properties

by Tomasz Radko

2023, Energies

Key finding: The study demonstrates that biomass additives (up to 20%) from various sources such as forestry residues and food industry waste influence coke thermoplastic properties differently, with smaller biomass particles (<0.5 mm)... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

Partial Replacement of Petroleum Coke with Modified Biocoke during Production of Anodes Used in the Aluminum Industry: Effect of Additive Type

by Duygu Kocaefe

2023, Applied Sciences

Key finding: This paper found that modifying biocoke with specific environmentally friendly additives improved the interaction between biocoke and pitch, resulting in anode properties comparable to those produced with pure petroleum coke.... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

Factors Affecting the Formation the Carbon Structure of Coke and the Method of Stabilizing Its Physical and Mechanical Properties

by Ekaterina Shmeltser

2023, C

Key finding: The research identifies the maceral composition of the original coal blend, particularly the ratio of vitrinite to inertinite components, as a critical factor influencing coke carbon microstructure and its resultant strength... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

METALLURGICAL COKEMAKING WITH THE IMPROVED PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS AT AVDEEVKA COKE PLANT

by Chemistry Journal of Moldova ChemJMold

2018, Chemistry Journal of Moldova

Key finding: Industrial-scale experiments show that introducing small concentrations (0.25 wt%) of non-caking corundum micropowders (α-Al2O3 and α-SiC) into coal blends modifies the organic mass crystallinity resulting in improved coke... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

Prediction of coke AMS through data mining: a practical approach

by Dr V K Saxena

2023, International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization

Key finding: By applying classification and regression tree (CART) and random forest algorithms to plant operational data, the study establishes a robust predictive model for coke arithmetic mean size (AMS) based on coal blend properties... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

keyboard_arrow_downShow more

2. What are the effects of coke degradation under simulated blast furnace conditions, and how do these processes affect coke quality and performance?

This theme explores how coke materials degrade when exposed to the high temperature and reactive gas atmosphere conditions akin to those in blast furnaces. Research focuses on changes in microstrength, mechanical strength (tensile, abrasion resistance), and chemical transformations within the coke structure as influenced by annealing and gasification. Understanding degradation mechanisms is crucial to optimizing coke properties for blast furnace longevity and reduced operational costs.

Coke Degradation under Simulated Blast Furnace Conditions

by Paul Zulli

2023, ISIJ International

Key finding: Experimental results reveal that coke microstrength significantly decreases with annealing temperature increases, while gasification at lower temperatures causes marginal microstrength changes. Gasification leads to greater... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

keyboard_arrow_downShow more

3. How is petroleum coke produced from heavy oil residues, and what are the implications for coke properties and sulfur content in by-product management?

This line of inquiry focuses on the processing parameters affecting petroleum coke formation from heavy oil residues, a by-product of the petroleum refining industry, to produce low-sulfur coke that meets environmental and metallurgical standards. Research evaluates catalytic cracking, delayed coking, and thermal cracking processes, analyzing the resultant coke’s chemical composition, especially sulfur content, porosity, and surface morphology, which influence the coke’s suitability for commercial and environmental applications.

Investigation of the parameters of the process of obtaining low-sulfur coke from heavy oil residues in the presence of a recycling agent

by Nurdaulet Buzayev

2022, MATEC Web of Conferences

Key finding: Chromatographic and SEM analyses demonstrate that delayed coking of heavy oil residues with an added recycling agent enhances coke yield and produces coke with reduced sulfur content and improved surface morphology.... Read more

articleView Paper downloadDownload

keyboard_arrow_downShow more

All papers in Coke making By-product

Improving the Preparation of Coking Batch

by Ekaterina Shmeltser

2023, Coke and Chemistry

Currently, the most promising blast-furnace technology involves pulverized-coal injection, and the most promising blast-furnace technology for coke production involves ramming the coal batch before delivery to the coke ovens, so as to... more

Fig. 1. Influence of the moisture content on the packing density of coal batch (coke batteries 1—4).

Fig. 2. Influence of the moisture content on the packing density of coal batch (coke batteries 1—4), after recalcula- tion for dry mass.

Fig. 3. Influence of the moisture content on the packing density of coal batch in a drying chamber.

Fig. 4. Dependence of the moisture content of the coal batch on the drying time.

Fig. 5. Influence of the content of the <3 mm class on the packing density of the coal batch supplied to coke batteries 1—4.

Fig. 6. Influence of the content of the <0.5 mm class on the packing density of the coal batch.

Fig. 7. Influence of the ash content on the packing density of coal batch.

Fig. 8. Dependence of the coke strength M5 on the pack- ing density of the coal batch.

Fig. 10. Silo in enclosed coal store: (/) silo wall; (2) elec- trodes (annular plates); (3) current sources; (4) perforated pipe; (5) vacuum pump; (6) conveyer belt; (7) dosing feeder; (8) output conveyer.

Fig. 9. Dependence of the wear resistance Mjg on the packing density of the coal batch.

Fig. 11. Variation in coal’s moisture content at pressures of 3.5 (A), 5 (@), and 7.5 (0) mm Hg.

Table 2. Weighted-mean characteristics of coke from batteries 1—4 and 6

Table 1. Weighted-mean characteristics of coke supplied to blast furnace 9

Table 4 presents the characteristics of these concen- trates. duced, while the key factor in batch preparation for co absence of mechanica partial briquetting), pends on the ash and moisture content and the de king is the packing density of the batch. In the methods (such as ramming or the packing density mainly degree of crushing of the batch. These factors, in turn, affect the thermal conditions of coking, the physicom- ec. the yield and quality o hanical characteristi cs of the coke produced, and the coking products [9]. In Fig. 1, we plot the packing density of the coal batch supplied to coke batteries 1—4 as a function of its moisture content. The curve is parabolic, with a min- imum at a moisture content of 10.3%. However, the increase in packing density is not due to decrease in the moisture content of the batch but rather to increase in moisture content. In other words, the packing density increases as a result of increase in the mass of water in the coal batch. Table 3. Weighted-mean characteristics of coke supplied to the blast furnaces of shop 1 To investigate the influence of the granulometric composition, ash content, and moisture content of the coal batch on its packing density in the coal-prepara- tion shop for coke production at PAO ArcelorMittal Krivoy Rog, we select samples of coal concentrates for technical analysis and also for the determination of the packing density and granulometric composition. In physical terms, the influence of the moisture content on the packing density of the coal was ana- lyzed in [10]. In the wetting of coal, the water absorbed by its particles is uniformly distributed over their sur- faces, with increase in the distance between coal par- ticles by the thickness of the water film. That changes

Table 4. Characteristics of the coal concentrates used in the batch

Table 5. Characteristics of coal-batch samples

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Clean Production of Coke from Carbonaceous Fines

by Craig Eatough

2023

In order to produce steel (a necessary commodity in developed nations) using conventional technologies, you must have metallurgical coke. Current coke-making technology pyrolyzes high-quality coking coals in a slot oven, but prime coking coals are becoming more expensive and slot ovens are being shut-down because of age and environmental problems. The United States typically imports about 4 million tons of coke per year, but because of a world-wide coke scarcity, metallurgical coke costs have risen from about $77 per tonne to more than $225. This coke shortage is a long-term challenge driving up the price of steel and is forcing steel makers to search for alternatives. Combustion Resources (CR) has developed a technology to produce metallurgical coke from alternative feedstocks in an environmentally clean manner. The purpose of the current project was to refine material and process requirements in order to achieve improved economic benefits and to expand upon prior work on the proposed technology through successful prototype testing of coke products. The ultimate objective of this project is commercialization of the proposed technology. During this project period, CR developed coke from over thirty different formulations that meet the strength and reactivity requirements for use as metallurgical coke. The technologymore » has been termed CR Clean Coke because it utilizes waste materials as feedstocks and is produced in a continuous process where pollutant emissions can be significantly reduced compared to current practice. The proposed feed material and operating costs for a CR Clean Coke plant are significantly less than conventional coke plants. Even the capital costs for the proposed coke plant are about half that of current plants. The remaining barrier for CR Clean Coke to overcome prior to commercialization is full-scale testing in a blast furnace. These tests will require a significant quantity of product (tens of thousands of tons) necessitating the construction of a demonstration facility. Talks are currently underway with potential partners and investors to build a demonstration facility that will generate enough coke for meaningful blast furnace evaluation tests. If the testing is successful, CR Clean Coke could potentially eliminate the need for the United States to import any coke, effectively decreasing US Steel industry dependence on foreign nations and reducing the price of domestic steel.« less

To aid in the selection of machinery for the coke plant, a preliminary plant design wa completed. The plant design included four main sections: feedstock preparation, briquetting, calcining, and COG cleanup (see Figures 1 & 2). Figure 1: Feedstock Preparation, Briquetting, and Calcining

For calcining, multiple furnaces were identified that could accomplish the task. Some furnaces heat the oven by direct burning of the pyrolysis gas released from the green briquettes and others were indirectly heated by either electricity or gas. With these furnaces, there seemed to be a tradeoff between operating costs and capital costs. The COG cleaning system was designed from currently available technology. Pyrolysis gas cleaning is associated with high capital costs. However, COG consists mainly of hydrogen and methane and its value after it is cleaned offsets the costs of cleaning. There are also options for using uncleaned COG such as lime and cement kiln firing if commercialization partners wish to lower the risks of a high capital investment.

Table 1: Metallurgical Coke Properties Possibly the most important requirement for metallurgical coke is the CSR score. The CSR test attempts to mimic conditions in a blast furnace and provides information about two different parameters; (1) the strength of the briquettes after reacting with CO2, and (2) the amount of dust produced by CO? attack and bed agitation. Fine dust can be detrimental to blast furnace operation since it can decrease the permeability of the bed, requiring increased blast pressure to force the air up through the bed. Each formulation of CR Clean Coke was subjected to the CSR test, along with other tests, to determine if it would be suitable for blast furnace use.

Table 2: Summary of Feedstocks in Acceptable Coke Briquettes Early in CR Clean Coke development it was established that relative reaction rates of various feedstocks influenced coked briquette strength (CSR). To aid in the selection of feedstocks, reaction rates in CO2 were measured with a thermogravimetric analyzer. Later, a more extensive research effort was initiated. This effort was intended to develop a method to predict successful feedstock formulations from low-cost raw materials without the need for time intensive testing. The extensive research was performed to:

Final Spending Schedule Project Period: 09/01/02 to 08/31/04

Energy Savings Metrics The Heat Recovery plant produces energy in excess of its oven needs in the form of electricity and steam. The CR Clean Coke plant produces energy in excess of its furnace needs in the form of COG and byproducts. Energy calculations are based on values taken from a presentation given by Gary Amendola at the EPA sponsored Cokemaking Stakeholder Meeting in July of 1999°. COG and byproduct values were taken from traditional byproduct coke plant numbers and adjusted for volatile release percentages.

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Foundry coke without coal: More than half-century of production in Argentina

by Jorge Madias

2022

A foundry coke industry is well established in Argentina, using blends of essencially petroleum coke and coal tar pitch for the production of cupola coke in non-recovery oven batteries. The paper includes a detailed discussion of the raw... more

Figure 2. Delayed coking process advancing in one coking drum [4]. As cracking continues in the drum, gas oil and lighter components are generated in vapor phase and separate from the liquid and solids. The drum effluent is vapor only except for any liquid or solids entrainment, and is directed to a fractionation column where it is separated into the desirable boiling point fractions. Solid coke is deposited in the drum in a porous structure that allows flow through the pores. All solids and uncracked residual liquid produced from the vapor and liquid feed are intended to remain in the drum (figure 2).

Figure 3. Sketch of a typical plant for production of coal tar pitch from coking coal [8]. The second raw material is coal tar pitch. It is produced in Carboqui Ramallo, Buenos Aires, departing from coal tar supplied by Terni plant (www. carboquimicadelparana. com). The production process mica del Parana um Siderar stee is summarized ir the right part of figure 3. Tar is heated to temperatures up to 400°C in speciall) designed distillation stills. This removes moisture, naphthalene, ligh creosote oil anc heavy creosote oil from the coal tar. The resultant product is the coa tar pitch.

Figure 4. Location of the six non-recovery foundry coke facilities in Argentina. There are six plants, belonging to five companies. Two of them are located in Lujan de Cuyo, Mendoza; Las Parej Rodriguez, Buenos Aires and involved are Las Palmas S.R.L. idymetal S.A. (www.sidymetal.com.ar); Minera Lujan (www.mecafargentina.com.ar); S S.R.L. (www.mineralujan.com.ar as, Santa Fe; Quilmes, Buenos Aires, General Tandil, Buenos Aires (figure 4). The companies (www.laspalmas.com.ar); Mecaf Argentina S.R.L. and Procamet S.A. Besides coke, some of them produce recarburizers for the steel and foundry industry and carbonaceous material for sand molds (sea coal substitu es).

Figure 6. General views of one of the plant [7]. Figure 5. Typical non-recovery coke oven design [7].

Figure 7. Scheme of the process for foundry coke production without coal in Argentina [11].

After the drum is full of the solidified coke, the hot mixture from the furnace i: switched to a second drum. While the second drum is filling, the full drum is steamec to further reduce hydrocarbon content of the petroleum coke, and then wate quenched to cool it. The top and bottom heads of the full coke drum are removed and the solid petroleum coke is then cut from the coke drum with a high pressure water nozzle, where it falls into a pit for reclamation to storage. World pet coke production was of some 100 Mt in 2008 (75 Mt in 2004). Th production is dominated by the USA, but with an important production in Latit America (table 1). Worldwide, most of the petroleum coke is used as a raw material for production of anodes for the primary aluminum industry; other uses include combustion (at cement plants), metallurgical coke production, Soderberg paste, graphite electrodes. Four oil refineries have delayed coker in Argentina: YPF in Lujan de Cuyo, Mendoza and La Plata, Buenos Aires (0.93 Mt/year); Esso in Campana, Buenos Aires (0.35 Mt/y), and Shell in Avellaneda, Buenos Aires (0.2 Mt/year) [6]. So, annual production is in the order of 1.5 Mt. Due to the crude oil quality, pet coke sulfur content is usually low (between 0.5 and 1%). Foundry coke producers must compete

In periods where coal tar pitch supply was scarce, the search for substitute materials was strong. Coal tar pitch from Colombia, supplied in 200 | drums, was the easiest substitution, although with additional preparation work. Other have been oxidized A typical proximate analysis of coal tar pitch is presented in table 3.

3 BLEND DESIGN asphalt 120/5, produced in batch reactors where hot liquid asphalt was air injected and the dumped to a pool, where it was cut after solidification. That asphalt was cut into pieces in a special machine and then incorporated to the blend, before grinding. A typical specification of asphalt for coke production is presented in table 4 [9].

Table 6. Calculated proximate analysis of a blend with 80% pet coke, 17% coal tar pitch and 3 % coke breeze

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

ASESSMENT OF COAL TAR PITCH QUALITY

by SANJIT SEET

2022

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

History of Hester Coke Works

by Michael Mance

2018

A look into the history of the Hester Mine and Coke Works. Ca. 1900-1912 Michael J. Mance 2018 Compiled, Written, and Edited by Michael J. Mance, 2018 Old Industry of Southwestern Pennsylvania, coalandcoke.blogspot.com Cover photo of one... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

NU ENERGY: Cokemaking technology for current challenges

by Jorge Madias and

2016

This paper deals with a technology for formed coke production. Milestones in the development of this technology are summarized. Then, the equipment and the process are described. The environmental impact is briefly addressed. The products... more

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

NU ENERGY™: Cokemaking Technology for Current Challenges

by Jorge Madias and

2016

The development of NUENERGYTM started in 1988. Milestones were as follows:  1988-1990: First equipment and batch process testing [1, 2].  1991-2000 10 t per day pilot plant in Bristol, Virginia, USA [3, 4, 6].  2000-2005 Progress in... more

Figure 1. Coal Storage and Grinding. Figures 1 to 3 present schemes of coal stocking and preparation, char production equipment and gas treatment.

Figure 2. Coal Drying, Pyrolysis, and Off Gas Condensation & Char cooling.

In figure 4, a flow diagram, including material and energy balance is presented, for the case of Teco Myra coal. Figure 4. Flow diagram with energy and material balance for Teco Myra coal.

Figure 5. Simplified scheme of process for formed coke NUCOKE™

Figure 6. Block diagram of process for formed coke NUCOKE'™.

Table 1. Properties and yield of selected coals and char [3, 4]. In table 1, properties and yields of selected coals are presented [3, 4]. Bituminous low-volatile coals have a higher char yield, but they are expensive and scarce. Thermal coal have lower yield but are cheaper and more available. Sub-bituminous coals are cheap, too, but present much lower yield.

To estimate the yield of clean gas generated, gas used in the process and gas available for sale, the Teco Myra coal test data are used, see table 2.

NUCARBON™ is the char, product of the pyrolysis, with high fixed carbon content. Its main features are compared with anthracite in table 3.

Table 4. NUCARBON™ cost. JCARBON™ costs are shown in table 4. Production cost is 111 USD/t; total cost is reduced to zero, as a result of the sales NULITE™ and methane. In tables 5 and 6 project earnings, cash flow along ten years, IRR and ROC are presented.

Production costs are estimated for a 50,250 t per year plant. Coking coal and binder cost are an average of 2012 USA cost: Operating cost (labor and services) is estimated on a year 2013 base [6]. NUCOKE™ COST EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

NUENERGY™: Cokemaking Technology for Current Challenges

by Dicky Walia and

2016

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload

Archaeological Management Plan for the G & C Hoskins Ltd Coke Ovens Ruins, Lithgow, New South Wales

by Ray Christison

2015

Archaeological assessment and management plan for the G & C Hoskins Ltd Coke Ovens that were constructed between 1910 and 1915 to manufacture coke for the company's blast furnaces. The failure of these ovens to supply a viable source of... more

Figure 1.1: Plan showing the various properties covering the coke ovens site. (Lithgow City Council)

Figure | 1.2: Property map showing the extent of the coke ovens ruins.

Figure 1.3: Google Earth image showing the relationship of the coke ovens site to the. Lithgow Blast Furnace site and Lake Pillans. (Sinclair Knight Mertz)

Figure 1.4: Plan showing the curtilage of the NSW State Heritage Register listing of the Lithgow Blast Furnace Site. (Heritage Council of NSW SHR 00548)

The Lithgow blast furnaces photographed from the north after the completion of Hoskins’ No.2 Blast Furnace in 1913. (Pictures Collection State Library of Victoria) they developed plans for a major expansion in productive capacity, bringing a second blast furnace on line in 1913.

Figure 2.1: Flowchart of 19™ century ironmaking showing the role of coke in smelting iron. (From Mckillop, B. et al, 2005. Furnace, Fire and Forge p.116)

Plate 2.1: Beehive coke ovens erected at the Vale Colliery, Lithgow in 1890. This photograph clearly shows the coke ovens with their coke bench & rail loading platform. (Pictures Collection State Library of Victoria.) The Lithgow Coal Seam, located deep beneath the eastern end of the Lithgow Valley, appears to have been the only section of this seam suitable for producing metallurgical coke. The first coke ovens in the Lithgow Valley were erected by the Vale Colliery Company adjacent to its colliery in Ida Falls Gully in 189015. It is presumed that the coke ovens were constructed to meet a rapidly increasing demand for coke that had resulted from the silver mining boom of the mid to late 1880s. At this time very little coke was manufactured in New South Wales and smelters were using large quantities of imported coke.

Plate 2.2: A photograph of the Oakey Park Colliery taken around 1904. The Beehive coke ovens constructed between 1898 and 1900 are visible in the centre of the photo beyond the trees. (Lithgow Regional Library, Lithgow District Historical Society Collection)

Plate 2.3: The Oakey Park Beehive ovens photographed around 1915. (Department of Mineral Resources. 1916. The Coke Industry of New South Wales.)

Plate 3.5: Central disintegrator plant footing viewed from the west. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015) Plate 3.7: Northern disintegrator plant footing viewed from the south. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

During 1905-1906 an additional 40 MacLanahan type rectangular coke ovens were constructed during 1905-1906. The rectangular ovens were located about 600 metres from the pit head. These ovens were 9.15m long, 2.44m wide and 1.8m high. Curtain faces at each end reduced the height of the openings to 915mm at one end and 839mm at the other. The company charged its ovens with slack coal, thereby eliminating the need to crush coal. In addition a disintegrator plant was installed near the colliery screens to crush larger coal for coking purposes. Coal was transported from the screens to the coke ovens by endless rope haulage. It was loaded into canisters that were hauled along the tops of the ovens by horse traction and then charged into each oven. The rectangular ovens were fitted with steel doors that were raised by hydraulic power. Steam powered rams were used to discharge coke from these ovens. In 1915 coke was being supplied to the Great Cobar Copper Company and to the Hoskins iron and steel works.?7 When William Sandford had constructed his blast furnace in 1907 contracts were arranged with the Oakey Park Coal and Coke Company for the supply of 500 tons of coke per week. Supply of another 300 tons per week was arranged with the Bulli Coke Company. Arrangements were subsequently made for supply of coke from various other Illawarra coke suppliers, and when G & C Hoskins Ltd took over the iron and steel works they were assured that contracts were in place for 1,300 tons of coke per week. This supply was coming from the Commonwealth Oil Corporation, Federal Coke Works and Australian Coke Company.

Plate 2.5: The Oakey Park Colliery photographed in the 1920s. The beehive coke ovens are generally intact and the MacLanahan ovens can be seen at the far right. (Lithgow Regional Library, Lithgow District Historical Society Collection)

Plate 2.6: The G & C Hoskins Ltd coke ovens viewed from the southwest showing th the coal handling plant and bin located at the western end of the ovens. The corrugated iron water tanks on the side of the coal bin appear to have supplied water for quenching coke. The western end of the coke bench & loading platform is on the right. (Department of Mineral Resources. 1916. The Coke Industry of New South Wales.)

- Plate 2.7: The original bank of 78 Belgian type. coke ovens erected by /G & C Hoskins Ltd (1910-1912) viewed from the northwest. The additional 15 by-product ovens are just visible at the far left. (Department of Mineral Resources. 1916. The Coke Industry of New South Wales.) An additional 15 ovens were erected in 1915. These were constructed with refractory bricks from Waterloo and were designed with bottom and side flues. Process heat from these flues was used to generate steam and electricity to provide power to machinery at the ovens. In 1915 the output of the ovens was 1,250 tons per week.® Despite modifications undertaken in 1915 the quality of product from the coke ovens continued to provide problems in the operation of the blast furnaces. Experiments were made in mixing Oakey Park Colliery coal with Bulli Seam coal and G & C Hoskins Ltd increasingly found themselves seeking higher quality coke from the Illawarra district.??

Figure 2.2: G & C Hoskins Ltd coke ovens process flowchart. In October 1921 the Lithgow coke ovens were closed down “for an indefinite period” 41. By that time the Wongawilli coke ovens (refer to Section 2.4), constructed by the company from 1916, had the capacity to supply one blast furnace. The Lithgow coke ovens were brought back into production in May 192342. The works were closed in December 1923 when coke workers struck to bring their hours of work in line with district coalminers*?. Disputation over this matter continued well into 1925, and it was reported that a workforce of 35 present in December 1923 had been whittled down to eight by May 1925. The ongoing strike action had led most of the workers to seek employment elsewhere.*4

Plate 2.8: Quenching coke on the coke bench. Water for quenching was supplied from Lake Pillans. The hand held hoses appear to be connected to the loading platform. An electric coke loader can be seen in the background at the eastern end of the platform. (Department of Mineral Resources)

Plate 2.9: Electric coke loader installed at Wongawilli. This appears to be identical to the loader installed on the southern side of the by-product coke ovens erected at Lithgow in 1915. (Department of Mineral Resources) another state. Together these imperatives meant that the works would have to be relocated to a coastal site.> In 1928 Hoskins Iron and Steel Ltd founded Australian Iron and Steel (AIS), which took over all steelmaking assets in the Illawarra. Following a merger of AIS and BHP the Port Kembla steelworks were upgraded. As part of this upgrade a modern by-product coke oven battery was established closer to the iron and steel works. When this plant came on line in 1938 the Wongawilli coke ovens were decommissioned but brought back into production during World War II. They were permanently closed down in 1945 and eventually demolished.*3

Figure 3.1: Representation of the coke oven sidings showing the outline of the coke ovens. The 1912 coal handling & disintegrator plant are represented by the cruciform shape at the right (western end) of the ovens. The Great Western Railway & Lithgow shunting yards are at the top of the image. (From McKillop et al, 2005. Furnace Fire and Forge. p.231)

‘Figure 3.2: Google Earth image showing the key features of the coke ovens ruins. (Sinclair Knight Mertz) The rubble remains of the coke ovens consist of whole bricks, part bricks and completely crushed bricks. Some of the rubble is formed of individual heaps presumably corresponding to oven units, but some of it is a single amorphous area. ... the remnants did not represent anywhere near the 90 ovens ... The rubble tends to fade away towards the western end, leaving a considerable gap before ... (an) extant wall ... However, the rubble remnants, the gap and the single wall may well equal the area of the reported 90 ovens. The single brick wall runs north-south. It appears to be constructed of silica bricks and has a slight structural inclination inwards. It also appears to be the end wall of the coke oven embankment.*4

— Plate 3.1: : Disintegrator ator plant footings \ viewed from the south. _ (Ray Christison 30.8.2015 5)

_ Plate 3.3: The southern disintegrator © plant footing viewed from the southwest.

Plate 3.2: The southern & central disintegrator plant footings viewed from the west.

Plate 3.4: The southern footing viewed from the west. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

four bases were identified but more may be located under the serrated tussock grass that covers the area.

Plate 3.9: The base of a coal bin upright viewed from the west. (Ray Christison 5.9.2015) ———— Nee ae ae Plate 3.8: Coal bin u upright bases viewed from the west. (Ray Christison 5.9.201 5)

Plate 3.9: The office/wash house ruing viewed from the west. (Ray Christison 5.9.2015)

Plate 3.10: Doorway into the northeast — room. The floors of this room are coved up the walls (Ray Christison 5.9.2015)

Plate 3.12: Photograph of the coke oven seat removed in late 2014. (Lithgow City Council)

Plate 3.13: View west along the northern side of the Belgian coke ovens. Brick scatter is evident along this slope. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.14: View west along what may be the southern side of the Belgian coke ovens. The mound to the left on the former coke bench contains large amounts of brick rubble. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.15: Brick rubble and crushed brick mounded along the coke oven site. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.16: A large mound of demolition material including concrete and brick rubble, and structural steel is located near the centre of the site. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

“Plate 3.17: Part of the eastern section of the 1910-1912 loading platform wall showing the | arched openings often mistaken as coke ovens. The coal waste in front of the wall appears to have been brought into the site. The humped area behind the platform wall appears to be the ruins of the coke ovens that have been bulldozed onto the coke platform. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015) The coke oven platform is constructed in a dark brown brick with a concrete render on its upper surface. The based of the platform consists of structural arches, 12 of these arched cavities currently being visible. ... At the rear of the platform arches, a small channel has been cut into the ground. Its back is formed by the continuation of the brick platform wall and its front is also brick faced. It was probed but did not appear to have a brick base, rather the base is formed by several centimetres of silt. The channel continues from one arched area to the next ...°?

Plate 3.18: A ‘single. arched « opening. . Drainage openings ;in the back wall of the recess are clearly visible. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.19: View into an arched opening showing the _ drainage holes and large drain along the base of the wall. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.20: Brick opening towards the rear of the arch apex. This may have provided a void to carry water pipes to the coke bench for use in quenching operations. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.21: View west within an arched opening showing the openings for water pipes and the large drain at the base of the walls. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.22: View west into the large drain at the base of the walls. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.23: The north-eastern corner of the coke oven seat of the 1915 by-product ovens. This is located on Lot 1 DP791921. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.24: De-ashing portal on the northern side of the most easterly by-product coke oven seat. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.25: View east along the oven seat on the northern side of the by-product coke oven site. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.26: Exposed section of by-product coke oven floors. (Ray Christison 30.8.2 2015)

Coke bench & electric coke loader platform

Plate 3.28: View west along the loading platform wall built to accommodate the electric coke loader showing the English Bond brickwork. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.27: Eastern end of the coke bench. The loading platform wall built to accommodate the electric coke loader is visible on the left. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

sateen =e +: memes es es os < seen mamma 77 7 Reema 1 Xen eee Plate 3.29: View northeast along the loading p platform we wall built to accommodate the electric coke loader. The mounds on the former coke bench appear to contain rubble from the coke ovens. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.30: This photograph shows the location at which the coke bench loading platform wall of the 1915 by-product ovens meets the wall related to the 1910 Belgian ovens. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

Plate 3.31: View east along the formation of the coal sidings. The formation for the coal siding is clearly visible on the northern side of the western end of the Belgian coke ovens. Much of the formation beyond this point appears to have been obliterated by earthworks. The coke siding has been mostly buried to provide road access along the northern side of the Great Western Railway. Earthworks for the headshunt of the coke sidings are intact, and the headshunt area contains remnant sleepers and discarded railway dog spikes.

Plate 3.32: View west along the coke siding headshunt towards the coke ovens site. The roadway on the left has been built on coal waste dumped on the coke siding and runaround loop. (Ray Christison 30.8.2015)

3.2 Belgian type coke ovens -— 1910-1912

descriptionView Paper arrow_downwardDownload