[0001] Process for producing a premium coke suitable for use in the production of a graphite
electrode and graphite electrode made from said premium coke.
[0002] The invention relates to premium coke suitable for use in the production of a graphite
electrode, and particularly to a process for producing a premium coke from a blend
of pyrolysis tar and hydrotreated decant oil.
[0003] Premium coke is well known in the art and is a commercial grade of coke having acicular,
anisotropic microstructure.
[0004] The premium cokes are used in the production of electrode grade graphite. This use
of premium cokes results in various requirements to be made of the cokes. Some of
these requirements are pointed out herein.
[0005] A graphite electrode which will be used in the arc melting of steel or the like must
possess a low value for the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) because of the
severe thermal shocks which occur in such processes. The premium coke used for producing
the graphite electrode must be capable of imparting a low CTE to the electrode.
[0006] The process for producing a graphite electrode from a premium coke requires that
the electrode be heated to a temperature in the range of from about 2000°C to about
3000°C in order to provide energy to convert the carbon in the coke to a graphite
crystalline form and to volatilize impurities. When a carbon body made from premium
coke is heated to a temperature in the range of from about 1000°C to about 2000°C,
various sulfur-containing compounds present in the coke decompose and this could result
in a rapid, irreversible expansion of the carbon body. This phenomenon is termed "puffing".
It is desirable to use a low sulfur containing precursor material for producing the
premium coke in order to minimize or preferably eliminate problems due to "puffing".
[0007] Typically, commercially produced premium cokes are made from low sulfur containing,
aromatic, slowly reacting feedstocks such as decant oils from catalytic cracking and
tars obtained from the thermal cracking of decant oils and gas oils.
[0008] It would be desirable to use pyrolysis tars as feedstocks for producing premium cokes
because pyrolysis tars are relatively inexpensive mixtures of aromatic compounds and
have low amounts of sulfur. Generally, pyrolysis tars are heavy byproducts of the
cracking process for producing ethylene.
[0009] Pyrolysis tars are known to be unsuitable for the commercial production of premium
coke because this production is carried out by the delayed coking process and the
highly reactive pyrolysis tars convert to coke in the coils of the delayed coker furnace.
This result in clogging and short operating periods.
[0010] Another drawback of the pyrolysis tars is that the premium cokes produced from them
impart an undesirably large CTE to the graphite electrodes.
[0011] Prior art attempts to produce a premium coke from pyrolysis tars have the drawbacks
of poor economy and/or relatively high values of the CTE.
[0012] U.S. Patent No. 3,8i7,853 hydrotreats a pyrolysis tar in the presence of an inert
diluent and obtains a feedstock which produces graphite electrodes having a CTE of
about 1.6 x 10
-6 per °C and higher. While this is an improvement, a CTE of about 0.5 x 10
-6 per C or less is needed for high quality graphite electrodes. In addition, the examples
in the patent teach the use of from about 12.2 to about 18.7 standard cubic meters
of hydrogen per barrel of pyrolysis tar. This is a relatively high cost process.
[0013] U.S. Patent No. 4,213,846 hydrotreats pyrolysis tars, petroleum resids, and thermal
tars by coking them with a hydrogen donor diluent produced by the catalytic hydrotreatment
of a coker gas oil fraction generated from the delayed coking of the blend. The hydrotreated
feed is an equal blend with fresh feed. This process has several drawbacks. The hydrotreated
coker gas oil does not contribute to the yield of the process and the examples teach
a maximum of 15% by weight pyrolysis tars.
[0014] The instant invention overcomes the drawbacks of the prior art and provides a process
for the commercial production of a premium coke suitable for making high quality graphite
electrodes.
[0015] In its broadest embodiment, the invention is a process for producing a premium coke
for making a graphite electrode having a CTE less than about 0.5 x 10
-6 per °C. comprising the steps of forming a blend of a pyrolysis tar and a hydrotreated
decant oil which includes from about 50% to about 75% by weight of the pyrolysis tar
and from about 50
0A to about 25% by weight of the hydrotreated decant oil; and coking the blend by delayed
coking, whereby the premium coke is formed.
[0016] In a preferred embodiment, the hydrotreated decant oil is produced by hydrotreating
a decant oil until there is added from about 2 to about 4 hydrogen atoms per average
molecule of the decant oil, more preferably from about 2 to about 3 hydrogen atoms.
[0017] Another preferred embodiment of the invention is a graphite electrode made from the
premium coke of the invention.
[0018] Further embodiments and advantages of the invention will be set forth in the following
specification and will be obvious therefrom.
[0019] A pyrolysis tar as used herein and according to the prior art is generally the heaviest
by-product of olefins production by vapor-phase cracking of liquid hydrocarbons in
the presence of steam at temperatures of from about 760°C to about 930°C at pressures
from about 100 pa to about 200 pa. It is the fraction which boils above about 200°C.
[0020] A decant oil as used herein and according to the prior art is generally the highest
boiling by-product of gasoline production by catalytic cracking after the removal
of catalyst particles by settling. It generally boils at a temperature above about
300°C.
[0021] Preferably, the pyrolysis tar used in the invention should have a sulfur content
of less than about 1% by weight and the decant oil used in the invention should have
a sulfur content of less than about 2% by weight. The hydrotreatment of the decant
oil provides the additional incidental advantage of hydrodesulfurizing the decant
oil so that the potential problem of puffing is reduced or eliminated even though
the hydrotreatment is not carried out for that purpose.
[0022] Generally the hydrotreatment of the decant oil can be carried out in accordance with
the prior art by contacting the decant oil with hydrogen at an elevated temperature
and high pressure in the presence or a suitable catalyst.
[0023] For a fuller understanding of the nature and objects of the invention, reference
should be had to the following detailed description, taken in connection with the
accompanying drawings, in which:
Fig. 1 is a simplified block system of a bench-scale delayed coking unit used in a
laboratory; and
Fig. 2 is a simplified block system of a pilot plant delayed coker.
[0024] Illustrative,"non-limiting examples of the practice of the invention are set out
below. Numerous other examples can readily be evolved in the light of the guiding
principles and teachings contained herein. The examples given herein are intended
to illustrate the invention and not in any sense to limit the manner in which the
invention can be practiced. The parts and percentages recited therein and all through
this specification, unless provided otherwise, refer to parts by weight and percentages
by weight.
EXAMPLE 1
[0025] A gas oil-based pyrolysis tar A having the properties shown in Table 1 was blended
with a hydrotreated decant oil A, having the properties shown in Table 2. Three blends
were prepared with the amounts of pyrolysis tar A being 25%, 50%, and 75% by weight.

[0026] A bench scale delayed coking unit as shown in Fig. 1 was used to coke each of the
blends as well as separate portions of the pyrolysis tar A and the hydrotreated decant
oil A.
[0027] The coking unit of Fig. 1 operates as follows:
A feed liquid 1 in tank 2 is pumped through line 3 by pump 4 at a rate of from about
17 to about 24 g. per minute. The feed liquid 1 in line 3 is conveyed to heated, pressurized
coil 6 which maintains a high pressure due to pressure unit 7. The material in coil
6 communicates through line 8 to top of heated, pressurized tank 9. The temperature
and pressure of coil 6 and tank 9 were about 475°C and about 689kPa. The feed period
was from about 140 to about 170 minutes. After the feeding was completed, the coke
was further devolatilized by heating at about 50°C per hour to about 500°C and holding
this temperature for from about 75 to about 90 minutes. A pressure control valve 11
is provided for the removal of distillates and cracking gases.
[0028] For each blend, additional heating at about 1000°C was carried out and the yields
for these examples is shown in Table 3. The values shown in the Table 3 are based
on measurements and deviate slightly from the sum of the components, being equal to
100%.

[0029] The Table 3 shows that the distillates and cracking gas yields reduced as the amount
of pyrolysis tar increased.
[0030] The coke from each of the tests was used to produce graphite electrodes in accordance
with conventional testing procedures. The procedure used is generally as follows:
The coke which had been calcined at 1000°C was crushed and milled to 55% + 10% through
200 mesh to obtain a flour. The flour was made into a rod about 130 mm long with a
19 mm diameter.
[0031] The rod was then converted into a graphite electrode. Typically, the last graphitizing
temperature is in the range of from about 2800°C to about 3000°C.
[0032] The value of the longitudinal CTE of each rod was measured in the temperature range
of from 30°C to 100°C. Only longitudinal CTE is of interest herein.
[0033] Table 4 shows the values of CTE for rods made from different blends.

[0034] It is surprising that as much as about 50% pyrolysis tar A in the blend will still
provide a graphite electrode having an excellent CTE. If one were to compute the expected
value for the CTE on the basis of the rule of mixtures, a much higher value greater
than about 0.5 x 10
-6 per
0C would be calculated.
[0035] The hydrotreated decant oil modifies the pyrolysis tar to allow good continuous delayed
coking and to provide excellent values of the CTE for high proportions of pyrolysis
tar.
[0036] The amount of hydrotreatment given to the decant oil will have an effect on the process.
If the decant oil is saturated, then it will not act as a donor. The lower limit for
hydrotreating the decant oil for various blends can be determined experimentally.
[0037] The Example 1 shows that high coke yields are obtained for relatively low amounts
of hydrogen. It is also advantageous economically to hydrotreat the decant oil rather
than the pyrolysis tar.
EXAMPLE 2
[0038] The tests carried out in the Example 1 were carried out with the hydrotreated decant
oil A of Example 1, and a predominantly kerosene-based pyrolysis tar B, having properties
as shown in Table 5.

[0039] Table 6 shows the yields for the different blends and Table 7 shows the values of
longitudinal CTE measured for graphite electrodes made from the blends. The measured
CTE'S of the graphite electrodes made from blends having 50% and 75% pyrolysis tar
were lower than one would calculate based on the mixture of the two components, and
one would not expect to obtain good quality graphite electrodes based on such calculations.

EXAMPLE 3
[0040] The hydrotreated decant oil A of the Example 1 and the pyrolysis tar B of the Example
2 were blended to run tests with the pyrolysis tar content 0%, 50%, 75%, and 100%.
[0041] The pilot plant delayed coker shown in Fig. 2 was used. The operation of the pilot
plant delayed coker is as follows:
Feed tank 12 supplies the blend to be coked. Pump 13 moves the blend from the feed
tank 12 through line 14 to preheaters 16 and then to the delayed coker 17. Distillates
and cracking gases from the coker 17 move through line 18 to fractionator 19. Heavy
products suitable for recycling are pumped from the fractionator 19 through line 21
by pump 22 to the preheater 16. Light products from the fractionator 19. move through
line 23 to quencher 24 where they are cooled. The light products in the quencher 24
which are suitable for recycling are pumped by the pump 22 through line 26 to the
preheater 16. The light products in the quencher 24 not suitable for recycling are
removed through line 27. Gases in the fractionator 19. are removed through line 28.
[0042] , Table 8 shows some of the operating parameters of the pilot plant delayed coker.
A pressure of about 275 K Pa was maintained, the throughput ratio was held as close
to 2.0 as possible, and the furnace temperature was in the range of from about 470
C to about 500°C. The higher temperature was used for less reactive feedstocks whereas
the lower temperature was used for more reactive feedstocks.

[0043] The coke yields increased and the distillate yields decreased for higher proportions
of the pyrolysis tar B in the blends. The yield of coke for 100% pyrolysis tar B was
higher than one would anticipate from the other results because for this test the
throughput was much higher than the throughput used for the other tests.
[0044] Graphite electrodes were made from the cokes calcined at 1000°C and the value of
the CTE of each was measured, as in the Example 1. The measured values are shown in
Table 9.

EXAMPLE 4
[0045] Blends were prepared of a hydrotreated decant oil B having the properties shown in
Table 10 and a naphtha-based pyrolysis tar C having the properties shown in Table
11.
EXAMPLE 5
[0047] A pyrolysis tar D having the properties shown in Table 13 and hydrotreated decant
oil A were blended together for coking in the pilot plant delayed coker. Blends having
0%, 50%, 75%, and 100% pyrolysis tar were used.

[0048] Some of the operating parameters of the pilot plant delayed coker are shown in Table
14. The coking yields increased for larger proportions of pyrolysis tar.

[0049] Test graphite electrodes were made-and the measured values of the CTE are given in
Table 15.

EXAMPLE 6
[0050] Blends were made with pyrolysis tar D and decant oil C, having the properties shown
in Table 15 to show the results of blends which are not in accordance with the invention.
[0051] The bench scale delayed coker of the Example 1 was used for blends of 0%, 50%, 75%,
and 100% pyrolysis tar. Table 17 shows some of the operating parameters. The relatively
high level of sulfur for the graphite electrode made from an equal blend would be
expected to present puffing problems and would be regarded as unacceptable. This high
amount of sulfur is due to the omission of the hydrotreatment which would reduce the
sulfur content of the decant oil.

[0052] Graphite electrodes were made from the blends except of the blend containing 25%
pyrolysis tar. Table 18 shows the measured values of CTE.

EXAMPLE 7
[0053] The tests carried out in the Example 6 were repeated in a pilot plant delayed coker
for blends containing 0%, 50%, and 100% pyrolysis tar D. In addition, the decant oil
C was hydrotreated until there was added about 2.5 hydrogen atoms per average molecule
of decant oil. A blend of 50% of this hydrotreated decant oil with 50% pyrolysis tar
D was also coked in the pilot plant coker. Table 19 shows operating parameters and
coke yields. Results for the blend containing 50% hydrotreated decant oil are shown
by 50.

[0054] Table 20 shows that cokes made from the blends containing untreated decant oil have
CTE's in accordance with those calculated by the rule of mixtures, whereas coke from
the blend containing 50% hydrotreated decant oil has a CTE substantially lower than
that calculated from the rule of mixtures.
[0055] We wish it to be understood that we do not desire to be limited to the exact details
shown and described herein, or other modifications that occur to a person skilled
in the arts.
[0056] Having thus described the invention, what we claim as new and desired to be secured
by Letters Patent, is as follows: