Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 1613–1625 | Cite as

Evaluation of Steel Cleanliness in a Steel Deoxidized Using Al

  • Edgar-Ivan Castro-Cedeño
  • Martín Herrera-TrejoEmail author
  • Manuel Castro-Román
  • Fabián Castro-Uresti
  • Monserrat López-Cornejo


The effect of magnesium in the aluminum used as a deoxidizer on the cleanliness of steel was studied throughout a steelmaking route for the production of thin slabs. Two deoxidizers with different Mg contents were used. The Mg content of a “typical” deoxidizer was ~0.5 wt pct Mg, whereas that for an alternative deoxidizer was ~2 wt pct Mg. The inclusion population at different stages of the steelmaking process was characterized in terms of chemical composition, number, and size distribution. The inclusion modification path shows that the solid Al2O3 and Al2O3-MgO inclusions formed in the early stage of the steel ladle treatment are modified into Al2O3-MgO-CaO liquid and MgO-Al2O3-liquid inclusions. Although some slight differences were observed in the ladle furnace samples, the chemical composition of inclusions was similar in the samples taken at the mold of the continuous casting, regardless of the deoxidizer used. Gumbel, generalized extreme value (GEV), and generalized Pareto (GP) distributions were used for the description of the size distribution. The GEV and GP distributions resulted in proper distributions to describe the evolution of size distribution throughout the steelmaking process. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences between inclusion size distributions resulting from the use of either deoxidizer were found.


Complex Inclusion Generalize Extreme Value Liquid Steel Generalize Pareto Distribution Cumulative Density Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    P. Kaushik, J. Lehmann and M. Nadif, Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2012, vol. 43, pp. 710-725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    E.B. Pretorius, H.G. Oltmann and B.T. Schart, An Overview of Steel Cleanliness From an Industry Perspective, in Aistech Conference Proceedings, 2013.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L.A. Frank, Castability—From Alumina to Spinels (and More), in 2001 Steelmaking Conference Proceedings, 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Gao, M. Long, Y. Wang, X. Zuo and L. Zhang, Inclusions and Nozzle Clogging during Billet Continuous Casting Process, in Materials Science & Technology 2009 Conference and Exhibition, 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E.B. Pretorious, H.G. Oltmann and T. Cash, Iron Steel Technol., 2010, vol 7, pp. 31-44.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Zhang, Y. Min, C. Liu and M. Jian, ISIJ Int., 2015, vol. 55, pp. 1541-1548. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. V. Atkinson and G. Shi, Prog. Mater. Sci., 2003, vol. 48, pp. 457-520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ASTM E2283-03, Standard Practice for Extreme Value Analysis of Nonmetallic Inclusions in Steel and Other Microstructural Features, ASTM International (2003).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Murakami,, J. Res. Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol,1994, vol. 99, pp. 345-351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Murakami, Metal Fatigue: Effects of Small Defects and Nonmetallic Inclusions, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford UK, (2002), 321.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Beretta and Y. Murakami, Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2001, vol. 32, pp. 517-523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Y. Kanbe, A. Karasev, H. Todoroki and P. G. Jönsson, ISIJ Int., 2011, vol. 51, pp. 2056-2063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Ekengren and J. Bergström, Extremes, 2012, vol. 15, pp. 257-265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. W. Anderson, G. Shi, H. V. Atkinson and C. M. Sellars, Acta Mater., 2000, vol. 48, pp. 4235-4246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Shi, H. V. Atkinson, C. M. Sellars and C. W. Anderson, Acta Mater., 1999, vol. 47, pp. 1455-1468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Shi, H. V. Atkinson, C. M. Sellars and C. W. Anderson, Ironmaking Steelmaking, 2000, vol. 27, pp. 355-360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Shi, H. V. Atkinson, M. Sellars and C. W. Anderson, Ironmaking Steelmaking, 2000, vol. 27, pp. 361-366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Beretta and Y. Murakami, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 1998, vol. 21, pp. 1049-1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    T. W. Anderson and D. A. Darling, “A test of goodness of fit,” J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 1954, vol. 49, pp. 765-769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, 04 2012. Accessed 30 Apr 2014.
  21. 21.
    W.S. Rasband, ImageJ and B. M. U. U.S. National Institutes of Health, ImageJ, Image Processing and Analysis in Java, 1997-2014.
  22. 22.
    J. O. Andersson, T. Helander, L. Höglund, P. F. Shi and B. Sundman, Calphad, 2002, vol. 26, pp. 273-312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and ASM International 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edgar-Ivan Castro-Cedeño
    • 1
  • Martín Herrera-Trejo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Manuel Castro-Román
    • 1
  • Fabián Castro-Uresti
    • 2
  • Monserrat López-Cornejo
    • 3
  1. 1.Centro de Investigación y de Estudios AvanzadosCINVESTAV SaltilloRamos ArizpeMexico
  2. 2.Process Engineering DepartmentTernium MéxicoSan Nicolás de los GarzaMexico
  3. 3.Process Engineering DepartmentTernium MéxicoXoxtlaMexico

Personalised recommendations