Discussions - Iron and Steel Division

T. L. Joseph (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.)—Mr. Killian is to be commended for his inquiry as to why a decrease of 15.3 pct in coke consumption was accompanied by a decrease of only 1.9 pct in the CO/CO, ratio of the top gas. Although I encouraged him in his efforts to find a more significant and meaningful carbon-gas ratio, the method, calculations, and conclusions originated entirely with the author. Whether we agree entirely with the assumptions underlying his corrected ratio, I think we can all agree that a better ratio is needed, and that he deserves credit for recognizing the need and for doing something about it. To be most useful, the CO/CO, ratio for the top gas should reflect the way in which the carbon is gasified in the furnace, particularly the degree of oxidation and the extent of heat release. The effect of CO, from the decomposition of the limestone and the effect of the reaction of CO and water vapor in the upper part of the furnace on the quality of top gas should be isolated from the effect of more basic reactions such as ore reduction and solution loss. The reduction of sufficient iron oxide to produce a ton of pig iron and the accompanying changes in the proportions of the carbon gases can be expressed on a mol basis as follows: 16.5FeA + 16.5CO - 33FeO + 16.5CO, [1] 33FeO + 33.0CO = 33Fe + 33CO. [2] The CO, from eq 1 normally escapes from the furnace because it does not react with coke at the temperature of its release. However, as much as 50 pct of the CO, from eq 2 may react with coke because it is released at temperatures above 1000°C: 16.5CO. + 16.5CO2 = 33CO [3] Thus we see that the gasification of 16.5 mols or about 200 lb of C in solution loss will regenerate as much CO as is required for the last stage of reduction. The pronounced effect of reaction 3 on the final proportions of CO and CO, in the gas stream is obvious. It also follows that reaction 3 materially alters the heat release but it cannot be entirely eliminated in Lake ore practice. A previous study indicates that 100 lb of solution loss may be necessary to maintain the reducing power of the gas. A reduction of 100 lb from the normal level of 200 lb would mean that over 1,-000,000 additional Btu are released in the process. The 100 lb of additional carbon which will be burned at the tuyeres will release 437,000 Btu and the absorption of 583,000 Btu by eq 3 would be prevented. One of the chief objectives of sized ore burdens and more uniform distribution of the gas stream is to minimize solution loss by completing reduction higher in the furnace and in turn to release the maximum amount of heat from the carbon charged. It was odd, indeed, to find that the use of sized ore and sinter in the careful tests reported by Dobscha had changed the CO/CO2 ratio very little. The author has stressed the close correlation between his corrected CO/CO, ratio and production. A correlation of fuel consumption and the CO/CO, might be more logical. Fuel consumption on the prepared ore burden decreased 15.3 pct whereas the corrected CO/CO2 ratio decreased 19.0 pct. Although this agreement between the reduction in fuel and the reduction in corrected CO/CO2 ratio is not as close as the correlation with tonnage, it indicates the corrected ratio is superior to the normal ratio which decreased less than 4 pct. Some adjustment should be made for the reaction: CO + H2O = CO2 + H2 —700Btu [41 because there is evidence to indicate that about one half of the hydrogen is formed in the upper 21 ft of