Advertisement

Impact of Sinter Basicity and Alumina on Softening Melting Behavior in Blast Furnace

  • Vijay KumarEmail author
  • Dhanraj Patil
  • K. P. Mrunmaya
  • Rameshwar Sah
  • Madhu Ranjan
Technical Paper
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Softening–melting (SM) experiments have been carried out by using sinter basicity (CaO/SiO2) 1.74 to 2.09 and alumina content 2.90 to 3.39%. The objective of the work is to find the relation between sinter basicity and alumina on SM temperature range, so that we can improve the furnace performance. The increase in basicity of sinter from 1.74 to 2.09 at alumina 2.90 decreases softening start temperature and increases melting finish temperature. Thus, there is a rise in the SM temperature range from 192 to 245 degree Celsius (°C) which increases the gas flow resistance and reduces the permeability across the cohesive zone and deteriorating furnace performance, whereas on the other hand, with an increase in basicity from 1.74 to 2.09 at alumina 3.39, it decreases both softening start temperature and melting finish temperature. Thus, there is a decrease in the SM temperature range from 230 to 220 °C, which shows slight improvement in gas flow resistance.

Keywords

Alumina Basicity Cohesive zone Softening–melting 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Nogueira P F Blast Furnace Burden Softening and Melting Phenomena, Ph D Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (2003).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hsieh L-H and Liu K C ISS ICSTI/Ironmaking Conf. Proc. (1998), pp 1623–1632.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clixby G, Ironmak Steelmak2 (1980), 73.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yi S-H, Huh W W, Rhee C H, and Cho B R, Scand J Metall28 (1999) 260.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shigaki I, Shirouchi S, Tokutake K, and Hasegawa N, ISIJ Int, 30 (1990) 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hatano M, Miyazaki T, Shimoda T, Iwanaga Y, and Yamagata C, in Proc 99th ISIJ Meeting, April 1980, ISIJ.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu Z, Chu M, Wang H, Zhao W, and Xue X, Int J Miner Metall Mater (2015), 1.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Borinder T and Yang Z X, Scand J Metall, 16 (1987) 129.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barnaba P, Ironmak Steelmak12 (1985) 53.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pal S, Chandra N, Mishra U, Singh R N, and Mediratta, S R, ISS ICSTI/Ironmaking Conf. Proc. (1998), p 1615.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Indian Standards, 9660:2001, August 2001, p 1.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Higuchi K, Takamoto Y, Orimoto T, Sato T, Koizumi F, Shinagawa K, and Furuta H, Nippon Steel Technical Report No. 9, 4 July 2006, p 37.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nandy B, Chandra S, Bhattacharjee D, and Ghosh D, Ironmak Steelmak33(2) (2006) 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Umadevi T, Sah R, and Mahapatra P C, Trans. Inst Min Metall C123(2) (2014) 82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Indian Institute of Metals - IIM 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vijay Kumar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dhanraj Patil
    • 2
  • K. P. Mrunmaya
    • 1
  • Rameshwar Sah
    • 1
  • Madhu Ranjan
    • 2
  1. 1.Research and DevelopmentJSW Steel LtdBellaryIndia
  2. 2.Metallurgy and Material ScienceCollege of Engineering, PunePuneIndia

Personalised recommendations