The results from the chemical analyses show a clear increase of the calcium content in iron with increasing temperature of the calcium. The increase of dissolved calcium in the iron phase evidently indicates an increasing vapor pressure of calcium in the container, suggesting therefore that the calcium potential during the experiments was controlled by the vapor pressure from the liquid calcium, as intended.
The reproducibility of the experiments is exemplified by the analyzed calcium contents of Samples 3 and 4 shown in Table I, as these two experiments were conducted under similar experimental conditions. The results are in good accordance. In general, the scatter in the results from the chemical analyses is low. However, the main source for experimental uncertainties is expected to be the chemical analysis, considering the given relative error.
Assuming that the calcium vapor behaves as an ideal gas, the activity of calcium, relative to pure liquid calcium, can be expressed as
$$ a_{\text{Ca(l)}} = \frac{{p_{\text{Ca(l)}} }}{{p_{\text{Ca(l)}}^{ \circ } }} = X_{\text{Ca}} \times \gamma_{\text{Ca(l)}} , $$
(2)
where p
Ca(l) is the vapor pressure of calcium at a given temperature, \( p_{{{\text{Ca}}({\text{l}})}}^{ \circ } \) is the saturated vapor pressure of pure liquid calcium at the same temperature, X
Ca is the mole fraction of calcium in solution, and γ
Ca(l) is the activity coefficient of calcium relative to pure liquid calcium. Data on the saturated vapor pressure of calcium at temperatures above the boiling point of calcium are scarce. The values of \( p_{{{\text{Ca}}({\text{l}})}}^{ \circ } \) at 1823 K and 1873 K (1550 °C and 1600 °C) used for the present discussion are extrapolated based on Eq. [1].
The calculated values of X
Ca and a
Ca(l) based on the experimental results and the assumption that the activity of the liquid calcium held in the lower part of the molybdenum container is equal to unity are shown in Table II.
Table II Calculated Values of X
Ca and a
Ca(l)
The activity of calcium relative to pure liquid calcium is plotted against the mole fraction of calcium in liquid iron in Figure 3(a). It is seen that the dependence of the activity coefficient on temperature is negligible in the temperature range studied.
A comparison of the present results with values based on the data from Song and Han[1] as well as Fujiwara et al.[2] is presented in Figure 3(b). The activity coefficient of calcium in silver was calculated based on the data by Fischbach,[7] as suggested by Fujiwara et al.[2] It should be mentioned that only data below 110 ppm calcium in iron are included in the plot as the focus of the present study is on lower calcium contents. As shown in Figure 3(b), the presented data show a similar trend where the effect of temperature on the activity coefficient is small and the dependency of the activity of calcium on the mole fraction of calcium in iron can be approximated by a linear relationship reasonably well in the composition range studied. It can, however, be noted that the activities evaluated based on iron-silver equilibration are somewhat higher compared to the studies based on iron-calcium vapor equilibration. Assuming that the observed linear relationship between the activity of calcium and the mole fraction of calcium is valid as the mole fraction of calcium approaches zero, a linear least square regression based on data obtained using iron-calcium vapor equilibration was made. The slope of the resulting regression line, shown in Figure 3(b), gives the activity coefficient of calcium in liquid iron at infinite dilution, \( \gamma_{{{\text{Ca}}({\text{l}})}}^{ \circ } , \) as 1551. Considering the large positive deviation from ideality exhibited by calcium in iron, it is reasonable to expect a higher activity coefficient at lower temperature. However, as mentioned above, no such effect can be seen between 1823 K and 1873 K (1550 °C and 1600 °C) from the present data. Corresponding linear least square regression based on data from iron-silver equilibration[2] gives a value of 2162 for the activity coefficient of calcium in liquid iron at infinite dilution. A possible explanation for the observed difference between the data based on different experimental techniques could be the uncertainties related to the data for the activity coefficient of calcium in liquid silver. The equation suggested by Fujiwara et al.[2] is based on extrapolation from data by Fischbach[7] obtained at 1123 K to 1273 K (850 °C to 1000 °C). Measurements in the temperature range of 1570 K to 1831 K (1297 °C to 1558 °C) by Wakasugi and Sano[8] and Tago et al.,[9] using equilibration of silver with CaC2- and CaO-saturated slags, respectively, indicate a lower activity coefficient of calcium in silver compared to the extrapolated values based on Fischbach[7] data. At 1823 K and a mole fraction of calcium in liquid silver of 0.01, the extrapolated value is approximately 20 times higher than the experimental values. While the data by Wakasugi and Sano[8] and Tago et al.[9] cannot explain the difference between the values based on iron-calcium vapor equilibration and the values based on iron-silver equilibration, it indicates the possible uncertainties associated with the available data concerning the activity coefficient of calcium in liquid silver at higher temperatures.
Using the activity coefficient of calcium calculated based on iron-calcium vapor equilibration, it is possible to estimate the level of dissolved calcium in liquid iron during steelmaking on the basis of the following reaction,
$$ {\text{Ca}}({\text{l}}) + {\text{O}}_{{(1\;{\text{wt}}\;{\text{pct}}\;{\text{in}}\;{\text{Fe}})}} = {\text{CaO}}({\text{s}}). $$
(3)
The standard Gibbs free energy of the reaction can be calculated based on the following reactions:[10]
$$ {\text{Ca}}({\text{l}}) + \frac{1}{2}{\text{O}}_{2} ({\text{g}}) = {\text{CaO}}({\text{s}}), $$
(4)
$$ \Updelta G_{4}^{ \circ } = {-} 640,152 + 108.6 \times T\;{\text{J}}/{\text{mol}} , $$
(5)
$$ \frac{1}{2}{\text{O}}_{2} ({\text{g}}) = {\text{O}}_{{(1\;{\text{wt}}\;{\text{pct}}\;{\text{in}}\;{\text{Fe}})}} , $$
(6)
$$ \Updelta G_{6}^{ \circ } = {-} 117,152 - 2.887 \times T\;{\text{J}}/{\text{mol}}. $$
(7)
The resulting standard Gibbs free energy for Reaction [3] is
$$ \Updelta G_{3}^{ \circ } = {-} 523,000 + 111.5 \times T\;{\text{J}}/{\text{mol}} . $$
(8)
The equilibrium constant for Reaction [3] can be written as
$$ K_{3} = \frac{{a_{\text{CaO(s)}} }}{{a_{{{\text{Ca}}({\text{l}})}} \times a_{{{\text{O(}}1\;{\text{wt}}\;{\text{pct}}\;{\text{in}}\;{\text{Fe}})}} }}. $$
(9)
Based on Eq. [9], the maximum content of dissolved calcium can be calculated assuming that the steel is in equilibrium with a calcium oxide-saturated slag (a
CaO(s) = 1). It is well known that the oxygen activity, relative to the 1 wt pct in iron standard state, in an aluminum-killed steel is in the range of 1 to 3 × 10−4. Assuming a
O(1 wt pct in Fe) = 1 × 10−4, the calcium activity relative to pure liquid calcium is calculated as 1.7 × 10−5, corresponding to a mole fraction of calcium of 1.1 × 10−8 or 0.008 ppm (by weight). The extremely low calcium content in the steel would rule out the possibility of using slag to modify inclusions with respect to calcium oxide, since the mass transfer of calcium in the steel would be very slow.
It is worthwhile to mention that the estimated maximum content of dissolved calcium (0.008 ppm) is approximately 1000 times lower than the lowest calcium contents obtained in the present study. This estimation indicates a strong need for more experimental data at even lower calcium contents in order to correctly describe reactions involving calcium in ironmaking and steelmaking. A good chemical analysis technique is essential to make this investigation.
Although the content of dissolved calcium during iron and steelmaking is extremely low, as seen above, it is still of great interest to consider the solubility of calcium in liquid iron in contact with pure liquid calcium. As discussed in the introduction, calcium treatment is commonly used by many steel producers. It is expected that the calcium activity would vary with the position in the steel bath with respect to the calcium addition. Nevertheless, knowledge of the maximum theoretical calcium content which can be achieved locally during calcium treatment of steel is essential. Neglecting the effects of the other dissolved elements, a rough estimation of the dissolved calcium content of liquid iron in contact with pure liquid calcium in the temperature range of 1823 K to 1873 K (1550 °C to 1600 °C) can be made. Assuming an activity of calcium relative to pure liquid calcium of one and an activity coefficient of calcium of 1551, the solubility of calcium in iron is calculated to be (in mole fraction of calcium) 6.45 × 10−4 or 463 ppm (by weight). A comparison of the estimated value with earlier experimental results and estimated values is presented in Table III. It can be seen that the values are in the same order of magnitude with a variation between 320 and 463 ppm by weight. It should, however, be noted that for calcium treatment these estimated values only apply to situations where the total pressure exceeds the saturated vapor pressure of liquid calcium. At pressures close to atmospheric pressure, the solubility of calcium would be considerably lower.
Table III Solubility of Calcium in Liquid Iron in Equilibrium with Pure Liquid Calcium
Assuming local equilibrium, the steel at the calcium addition would be saturated with calcium (300 to 500 ppm by weight). A short distance from the calcium addition, the calcium activity would be very low, resulting in a very low dissolved calcium content in the steel (in the order of 0.01 ppm by weight). To illustrate this aspect, Figure 4 presents the mole fraction of calcium as a function of log a
Ca(l) at 1873 K (1600 °C) based on the experimental results from iron-calcium equilibration. As the added calcium is being vaporized and the calcium vapor escapes, the condition of the steel being in equilibrium with pure liquid calcium vanishes. As Figure 4 evidently shows, the steel is supersaturated with respect to calcium just after the calcium addition.