Relationship between interaction under non-load condition and softening & melting behaviour of typical blast furnace feed

Ironmaking & Steelmaking Processes Products and Applications, vol. 49, pp. 626–633

Abstract

The evolution of slag phases and interaction between sinter and acid pellet in cohesive zone were systematically investigated, as well as the relationship between microstructure, thermal calculation and S&M behaviour. The results indicate that both ‘component interaction’ and ‘formation interaction’ will be hindered before the formation of liquid phases. The effect of network iron at the interface on the interaction is more apparent than that of the relative position of materials. The main slag phases detected at the interface are FeO–CaO–SiO2, FeO–CaO–MgO–SiO2, FeO–CaO–Al2O3–SiO2 and FeO–CaO–MgO–Al2O3–SiO2. The relationship between interaction without load and S&M behaviour has been revealed through breaking down the complex process into the reaction between P–P, S–S and P–S. The main area that affects the pressure drop in cohesive zone is the melting region. Mixed burden is beneficial to enhance the interaction and promote the melting behaviour.

Authors 7

1. Xiaoyue Fan Aachen Department of Ferrous Metallurgy

   RWTH Aachen University · University of Science and Technology Beijing

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Ferrous Metallurgy, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   School of Metallurgical and Ecological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

   School of Metallurgical and Ecological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, People's Republic of China

2. Jianliang Zhang

   The University of Queensland · University of Science and Technology Beijing

   Affiliation as printed

   School of Chemical Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia

   School of Metallurgical and Ecological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

   School of Metallurgical and Ecological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, People's Republic of China

3. Kexin Jiao corresponding

   University of Science and Technology Beijing

   Affiliation as printed

   School of Metallurgical and Ecological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

   School of Metallurgical and Ecological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, People's Republic of China

4. Jian Zhang

   The University of Queensland · University of Science and Technology Beijing

   Affiliation as printed

   School of Chemical Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia

   School of Metallurgical and Ecological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

   School of Metallurgical and Ecological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, People's Republic of China

5. Hengbao Ma

   University of Science and Technology Beijing

   Affiliation as printed

   School of Metallurgical and Ecological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

   School of Metallurgical and Ecological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, People's Republic of China

6. Shanchao Gao

   University of Science and Technology Beijing

   Affiliation as printed

   School of Metallurgical and Ecological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

   School of Metallurgical and Ecological Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, People's Republic of China

7. Rongrong Wang Aachen Department of Ferrous Metallurgy

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Ferrous Metallurgy, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany