15.12.2012 Views

Decarburization Efficiency in EAF With Hot Metal ... - Steel Library

Decarburization Efficiency in EAF With Hot Metal ... - Steel Library

Decarburization Efficiency in EAF With Hot Metal ... - Steel Library

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>in</strong>jectors had to be always operated at maximum available<br />

capacity. In case of lower charge carbon contents<br />

(20–40% hot metal), the deviations are more significant.<br />

It is believed that the deviations were caused by<br />

<strong>in</strong>consistent process conditions, among them manual<br />

control of power and chemical energy <strong>in</strong>put, as well<br />

as <strong>in</strong>correct identification of decarburization reaction<br />

launch.<br />

The decarburization reaction efficiency was also evaluated<br />

us<strong>in</strong>g an alternative method, based on sampleto-sample<br />

carbon content difference and elapsed time<br />

between the samples. This method could not be used<br />

for higher carbon contents.<br />

The first sample used to be taken when more or less<br />

flat bath conditions were identified, i.e., when the progress<br />

of decarburization reaction reached 60% or more<br />

for charges with 35–40% hot metal. The second sample<br />

was usually taken close to the superheat<strong>in</strong>g end.<br />

Although the accuracy of carbon content evaluation<br />

<strong>in</strong> the first sample can be questionable, the obta<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

results (Figure 9) are very <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g. Similarly, as <strong>in</strong><br />

the previous case, the relation between carbon content<br />

<strong>in</strong> the liquid bath and the actual decarburization rate<br />

is rather clear. Moreover, the trendl<strong>in</strong>e for all available<br />

results is almost identical to the one <strong>in</strong>dicated <strong>in</strong><br />

Figure 8.<br />

The decarburization rates estimated by the second<br />

method are higher than <strong>in</strong> the first case. This can<br />

probably be expla<strong>in</strong>ed by too-high carbon content<br />

analyzed <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>itial samples, which were not fully<br />

representative of the whole volume of the liquid bath<br />

<strong>in</strong> the furnace.<br />

Performance Data<br />

All three furnaces presented <strong>in</strong> this paper are almost<br />

identical from the design po<strong>in</strong>t of view. The difference<br />

between adopted hot metal charg<strong>in</strong>g practice has<br />

been considered less significant for such performance<br />

<strong>in</strong>dexes as specific energy consumption, lance oxygen<br />

consumption and productivity. Therefore, the available<br />

performance data have been evaluated jo<strong>in</strong>tly.<br />

Figure 11<br />

Specific lance oxygen consumption.<br />

Figure 10<br />

Specific energy consumption results (to liquid steel).<br />

The specific electrical energy consumption results<br />

are shown <strong>in</strong> Figure 10.<br />

For the most frequent charge configuration of<br />

30–40% hot metal, the energy consumption is 220–180<br />

kWh/ton, respectively. <strong>With</strong> 70% hot metal, it is practically<br />

“zero consumption.” For this charge configuration,<br />

practically observed, very limited energy was consumed<br />

<strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>itial part of the heat or before tapp<strong>in</strong>g for the<br />

f<strong>in</strong>e adjustment of required tap temperature.<br />

The lance oxygen consumption results are shown <strong>in</strong><br />

Figure 11. The deviations observed on the graph are<br />

related to the fact that oxygen consumed for silicon<br />

oxidation could not be filtered out <strong>in</strong> a predictable way.<br />

Also, the earlier mentioned <strong>in</strong>consistency <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>jection<br />

system operation with manual control is significant.<br />

Increase of the hot metal share <strong>in</strong> the furnace charge<br />

to 70% dramatically <strong>in</strong>creases the oxygen consumption.<br />

The required oxygen volume <strong>in</strong> lance mode is about<br />

6,000 Nm 3 per heat. <strong>With</strong> six CONSO units operat<strong>in</strong>g<br />

at 2,500 Nm 3 /hour, lance oxygen <strong>in</strong>jection can be<br />

completed <strong>in</strong> less than 25 m<strong>in</strong>utes, with the average<br />

decarburization rates of 0.12–0.14% C/m<strong>in</strong>ute, which<br />

corresponds to the values practically observed dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />

normal operation.<br />

Figure 12<br />

<strong>EAF</strong> productivity results.<br />

68 ✦ Iron & <strong>Steel</strong> Technology A Publication of the Association for Iron & <strong>Steel</strong> Technology

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!