‘

PROCESS ENGINEERING
OF HOT METAL
PRODUCTION IN BLAST
FURNACE
Heat and mass balance calculations for Pellets &
Sinter as charge material

[MH2039 HT17-1 Process Engineering]

Abstract

Alva Army Gerry, Daniel Haster Olsson, Fikan Mubarok Rohimsyah

and Thales Rossi
danieols@kth.se
 ABSTRACT

I
 NOMENCLATURE

II
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
2 THE BLAST FURNACE ........................................................................................................ 2
3 MASS AND HEAT BALANCE ............................................................................................. 3
4 RESULTS................................................................................................................................ 5
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................... 6
6 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 13
7 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 14
APPENDIX A: CALCULATIONS ......................................................................................... 15

III
 1 INTRODUCTION

1
 2 THE BLAST FURNACE

2
 3 MASS AND HEAT BALANCE
The procedure and results of mass and heat balance calculations will be presented in the
following chapter. This includes: the industrial data used in the calculations, general and
specific assumptions, one calculation with pellets as iron-bearing charge material and two
calculations with sinter as iron-bearing charge material.

3.1 Collection of industrial data

The data used in the calculations was collected from articles and reports regarding SSAB’s blast
furnaces in Oxelösund and Luleå. As the real blast furnace process is continuous only average
data could be obtained. All necessary data could not be obtained from one article or report
solely. Thus, the data used in the calculations are combinations from different reports and
articles. E.g. mass of input materials from one report/article and the chemical composition of
the input materials from another one.
As SSAB’s blast furnaces are exclusively charged with pellets as main iron-bearing material, it
was difficult to find corresponding operational data about the outdated sinter method. This
resulted in the usage of mostly the same operational data in the first sinter calculation as in the
pellet calculation. This matter will be discussed further in the calculation section.
Input materials taken into consideration was: iron-bearing material (pellets or sinter), additives
(lime stone, BOF-slag and dust briquettes), reducing agent (coke) and hot blast. The chemical
compositions of iron-bearing materials are presented in Table I, while mass and chemical
composition of remaining input materials are presented in Table II.
Table I. Chemical composition of iron-bearing materials [wt-%].

Fe CaO SiO2 MgO Al2O3

Pellet 66,8 0,35 1,7 1,5 0,32
Sinter 60,4 7,95 3,2 1,96 0,59

3.2 Assumptions
As described in the previous chapter the blast furnace is a highly complex process. Some
assumptions were necessary to enable calculations.

General assumptions:
 No mass or heat loss (closed system)

Iron-bearing material:
 The iron content in sinter and pellets are in the form of hematite.

3
  The small amount of iron in other input materials (BOF-slag, dust briquettes, lime
stone…) are in the form of pure iron.
 3% of total iron input is lost as dust (2%) and into slag (1%) in the form of FeO.

Slag formers:
 Slag forming elements are in their reduced oxide states (e.g. CaO instead of CaCO3).
 Slag forming elements are just heated within the system, they do not take part in any
chemical reaction, except for a small amount of SiO2 that is reduced to enable
dissolution of Si into the hot metal.

Reducing agents:
 Coke is the only reducing agent.
 Sulphur content in the coke is in the form of elemental sulphur.
 The excess of sulphur after dissolution into hot metal will end up in the slag as elemental
sulphur.
Hot blast and off gas:
 Hot blast consists of pure preheated oxygen and nitrogen
 The excess of carbon after dissolution into hot metal will result in an equal amount (1:1
ratio) of CO and CO2 in the output off gas.

3.3 Pellet

3.4 Sinter

4
 4 RESULTS

5
 5 DISCUSSION
Sinter case Background
In the Nordic countries sintering has recently been eliminated altogether. The role of
the sinter plant has been taken over by recycling waste product into briquettes. Nowadays, The
Nordic blast furnace charging consist of almost 100% pellets plus briquettes and additives.
However sintering still dominates in much of Asia and Europe region where raw materials are
imported largely from Australia and Brazil. However, there has been a decline in run of mine
ore grades and exploitation of lower grade deposits that is increasing the need for further
beneficiation. The elimination of sintering resulted in a net gain in energy efficiency in the
chain from mine to steel.

Pellets Case Background

Pelletizing is more energy efficient than sintering, however the sinter plant performs
the important function of recycling materials within the steel plant and thereby improving the
material efficiency. Because pelletizing is more energy efficient, a recent European
Commission report recommends increasing the ratio of pellets in the ferrous burden to at least
50% on average in blast furnaces.
From the data above, we consider that sinter still has important role as a steelmaking
process in the world. Sintering and pelletizing are only a part of the steelmaking system. The
objective of this work is to compare mass and energy balance differences between the use of
sinter and pellets for blast furnace steelmaking systems. Further more, optimization of each
process will be obtained.
Mass and energy balance was used to calculate energy consumption of each steelmaking
process for selected cases with different charge and source pellets and sinter are assumed made
from hematite ores. Coke and Slag formers are considered. The unknown parameter are the
input charges of Pellets and Sinter by steelmaking process.

Result discussion
In sinter based blast furnace, the sinter mass input are within expected results. With the
same parameter we got higher mass input for the sinter case than pellets case. In sinter blast
furnace we need 1573.5 Kgs charges and in pellets based need 1411 Kgs pellets charges. As we
expected, the slag amount of sinter based BF larger than pellets based BF. This is happened
because sinter has lower iron content and higher slag formers. As the concequencies, the
produced slag will be higher than pellet based BF. Further more, the energy required in each
process will be different.

6
 Hot Blast Input Pellets based BF Hot Blast Input Sinter based BF
1223.2 kg Pellets 1223.2 kg
Sinter
(38.49%) 1411 kg Dust (36.08%) 1573.5 kg
Dust (44.41%) Briquettes (46.42%)
Briquettes 25.6 kg
25.6 kg (0.76%)
(0.81%)
BOF Slag 38.5
BOF Slag 38.5
kg (1.13%)
kg (1.21%) Coke 456.7 Coke 456.7
Limestone Quartzite Limestone
Quartzite - kg kg
22.35 kg 72 kg - (0%)
(14.38%) (13.47%)
(0.70%) (2.12%)

Total Input mass = 3177.7 kg Total Input mass = 3389.5 kg

Output Pellets based BF Output Sinter based BF

Hot Metal Hot Metal
1000 kg 1000 kg
(31.47%) (29.51%)

Slag 165 kg Slag 165 kg

(5.2%) Off gas (11.08%)
Off gas
Dust 24.14 1988.8 kg
1988.8 kg
kg (0.76%) Dust 24.14
kg (0.71%)

Total output mass= 3177.9 kg Total output mass= 3388.4 kg

Sinter Second calculation coke addition

The total energy consumption of BF then calculated in both sinter based and pellets. After
calculation we found that sinter based blast furnace were lacking of energy.
HEAT BALANCE SINTER BASED BF

10000 14.5 119

9500
9000
8500
8000
7500
7000
6500 7085.7
6000 7749.6
5500
MJ

5000
4500
4000
3500
3000 357.8
2500 624.7
2000
1500 1470.1 1310.9
1000
500
0
Heat Input Heat Output

Hot blast (1470.1 MJ) Exothermic reaction (7749.6 MJ)

Exothermic mixing (14.5 MJ) Hot Metal (1310.9 MJ)
Slag (624.7 MJ) Off gas & Dust heat content (357.8 MJ)
Endhotherm. Reaction (7085.7 MJ) Edhotherm. Reaction (119 MJ)

Figur 2. Heat balance Sinter Blast Furnace

7
This was assumed because Sinter based blast furnace has lower grade of iron content and larger
amount of formed slag which need more energy to be heated. Since we are using same
parameter with pellets due to lack of data this calculation result as expected. Sinter BF will need
more energy than Pellets based BF.
To fulfil the energy required in sinter based blast furnace, we assumed that more energy will be
generated if amount of coke addition were slightly increased based from data that coke
consumption in sinter based blast furnace larger than sinter based blast furnace.
In table below shows industrial reported reductant consumption for European BFs, charged
predominately with sinter plus pellet and lump ore, and the Nordic for both sinter and pellet
operations.
Table 1. Coke Consumption Comparation Pellets vs Sinter

The data above shows per ton Hot Metal produce, pellets has slightly lower coke consumption
than sinter in steelmaking process. So, we performed second calculation with more coke
addition. By increasing coke rate, we gained sufficient energy needed to operate the blast
furnace using Sinter charge.

HEAT BALANCE SINTER BASED BF WITH COKE ADDITION

10000 14.5 119

9500
9000
8500
8000
7500
7000
6500 7951.2 7085.7
6000
5500
MJ

5000
4500
4000
3500
3000 327.6
2500 626.6
2000
1500 1588.4 1310.9
1000
500
0
Heat Input Heat Output

Hot blast (1588.4 MJ) Exothermic reaction (7951.2 MJ)

Exothermic mixing (14.5 MJ) Hot Metal (1310.9 MJ)
Slag (626.6 MJ) Off gas & Dust heat content (327.7 MJ)
Endhotherm. Reaction (7085.7 MJ) Edhotherm. Reaction (119 MJ)

8
Comparation Pellets and Real Problem
To gain confident in our report we try to compare our calculation with the real data from SSAB
Luleå and SSAB Oxelshund. In our calculation of pellets blast furnace we need 9235 MJ to
produce one ton of Hot Metal.
Tabel 2. Operation Datasheet BF No. 3 Lulea

Table above shows energy needed per year of operations. By assuming parameter in our case
and converting Energy from GWh into MJ and production in 1 ton hot metal by calculation:
Known, 1GWh = 3600 GJ
Energy needed (output) = Energy content hot metal + Energy content slag + Energy lost in
dust+ Energy content off gas
= 2395,04 GWh + 78,37 GWh + 17,56 GWh + 72 GWh
= 2562,97 GWh / 873000 THM
=9,226x109 MJ/873000 THM
=10568,94 MJ/THM

Table above shows energy balance per year of BF operation. At the real operation, they are
using pellets as input materials. We compared our calculation with the real data operation. In
this case we compared pellets energy balance calculation with real energy balance in BF No.3
Lulea.

9
Heat calculation Pellets based BF Vs Heat Real data

HEAT INPUT COMPONENT CALCULATION VS REAL DATA

100%

80%
Heat Content

60%

40%

20%

0%
Heat Input Heat Input real
Calculation data
Hot Blast Exothermic reaction Exothermic mixing
COG (coke oven gas) BFG (blast furnace gas) Coke
Nut Coke Electric PCI

HEAT OUTPUT COMPONENT CALCULATION VS REAL

DATA

100%
80%
Heat Content

60%
40%
20%
0%
Heat Output Heat Output real
Calculation data
Hot metal Exothermic reaction Exothermic mixing
COG (coke oven gas) BFG (blast furnace gas) Coke
Nut Coke Electric PCI

10
 COMPARATION HEAT INPUT CALCULATION VS HEAT INPUT REAL
OPERATION

10000 14.5
9500
9000
8500
8000
7500
7000
6500
6000 7749.6
5500
MJ

5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500 357.8
2000 273.5
1500 1470.1 1310.9
1000
500
0
Heat Input Heat Input real
Calculation operation

Hot blast (1470.1 MJ) Exothermic reaction (7749.6 MJ) Exothermic mixing (14.5 MJ)
COG (coke oven gas) BFG (recycled blast furnace gas) coke
nut coke Column1

11
Compared with the real data, our pellets based BF slightly different with the real data. We
assumed this caused by simplified assumption compared to real complexity of the real blast
furnace operation.

12
 6 RECOMMENDATIONS

13
 7 REFERENCES
Det finns inga källor i aktuellt dokument.

14
APPENDIX A: CALCULATIONS

15