Comparison of low-field NMR and mercury intrusion porosimetry in characterizing pore size distributions of coals

In this study we investigated how traditional mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP), constant-rate-controlled mercury porosimetry (CMP), Low-field NMR spectral analysis (LFNMR), and micro focus computerized tomography (μCT) compare in revealing the pore size distribution (PSD) characteristics of coals. The comparison was made using the same source samples throughout. Two limitations of mercury porosimetry are addressed. First, the high-pressure intrusion by mercury may either deform or destroy the coal sample and eventually induce suspect value of coal porosity, thus correction of pore structure compressibility must be made in analyzing lignite or other coals that with very open structure. Second, pore shielding effects can induce high uncertainty of MIP results, in particular when clusters of smaller pores occur in isolated domains in a continuous network of larger pores. This can result in temporary mercury entrapment during the extrusion process and result in inaccurate estimations of PSD. Another pore shielding effect is due to isolated clusters of large pores in a continuous network of smaller pores. Her mercury is prone to be trapped permanently. This effect can induce inaccurate estimations of the total pore volume. CMP is an effective method that can provide much more detailed PSD information of macropores, however it is deficient in analyzing mesopores of coals. After comparison with the results by μCT and other traditional methods, it was found that LFNMR is an efficient tool for nondestructively quantifying the PSD of coal.

[1]  Dameng Liu,et al.  Influences of igneous intrusions on coal rank, coal quality and adsorption capacity in Hongyang, Handan and Huaibei coalfields, North China , 2011 .

[2]  H. L. Ritter,et al.  Pore Size Distribution in Porous Materials , 1948 .

[3]  Evan J Granite,et al.  The thief process for mercury removal from flue gas. , 2007, Journal of environmental management.

[4]  B. F. Swanson,et al.  Resolving pore-space characteristics by rate-controlled porosimetry , 1989 .

[5]  E. Granite,et al.  Novel Sorbents For Mercury Removal From Flue Gas , 2000 .

[6]  D. Tang,et al.  Petrophysical characterization of coals by low-field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) , 2010 .

[7]  S. Rigby,et al.  The influence of mercury contact angle, surface tension, and retraction mechanism on the interpretation of mercury porosimetry data. , 2002, Journal of colloid and interface science.

[8]  L. Humbert,et al.  Pore-Scale Complexity of a Calcareous Material by Time-Controlled Mercury Porosimetry , 2000 .

[9]  Lizhi Xiao,et al.  NMR logging : principles and applications , 1999 .

[10]  Maarten Van Geet,et al.  Quantitative 3D‐fracture analysis by means of microfocus X‐Ray Computer Tomography (µCT): An example from coal , 2001 .

[11]  C. Karacan,et al.  Fracture/cleat analysis of coals from Zonguldak Basin (northwestern Turkey) relative to the potential of coalbed methane production , 2000 .

[12]  L. Scriven,et al.  Pore-Space Statistics and Capillary Pressure Curves From Volume-Controlled Porosimetry , 1994 .

[13]  J. Butler,et al.  Mercury detection at boron doped diamond electrodes using a rotating disk technique , 2005 .

[14]  Yanbin Yao,et al.  Non-destructive characterization of coal samples from China using microfocus X-ray computed tomography , 2009 .

[15]  C. Gaulier Studying Vugular Rocks By-Constant-Rate Mercury Injection , 1971 .

[16]  I. Furó,et al.  Comparison of NMR Cryoporometry, Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry, and DSC Thermoporosimetry in Characterizing Pore Size Distributions of Compressed Finely Ground Calcium Carbonate Structures , 2004 .

[17]  E. Suuberg,et al.  Elastic behaviour of coals studied by mercury porosimetry , 1995 .

[18]  N. Wardlaw,et al.  Mercury porosimetry and the interpretation of pore geometry in sedimentary rocks and artificial models , 1981 .

[19]  L. C. Drake,et al.  Pressure Porosimeter and Determination of Complete Macropore-Size Distributions. Pressure Porosimeter and Determination of Complete Macropore-Size Distributions , 1945 .