Iron and Steel Division - Solution Loss and Reducing Power of Blast Furnace Gas - Discussion

S. T. Killian (Johnstown, Pa.)—This is one of the finest papers I have read. Tying in stoichiometric calculations with furnace performance and practice is a step which had to be taken sooner or later. The noteworthy difference between Dr. Joseph's type of calculations and regular blast furnace calculations is that the Ib mol system is used as a basis. With the Ib mol system, weights, volumes, and chemical reactions can all be expressed in the same equation. In the paper, wind, ore, flux, and fuel are all expressed as lb or lb mols. Probably Dr. Joseph does not realize it, but the vague word coke appears only twice in the entire paper. Lb of C and Ib mols of C are followed through reactions but the word coke appears only as 1560 lb coke per ton of pig and 1700 lb of coke per ton of iron. Obviously in order to understand furnace reactions, the coke should be expressed as lb or lb mols of C. Furnaces can also be compared more easily. In some respects the paper is too thorough and too complete. The effects of the metalloids reduced into the iron upon the top gases represents a difference of less than 3 pct of the CO formed in the bosh. Due to the completeness of the calculations in relation to the CO/CO2 ratio, this was included and was necessary. However, the exclusion might have enabled more furnace men to follow the lb mol system of calculations through the blast furnace to a better degree. By considering only irons of similar analysis, this part of the calculations might have been omitted. However, if this had been done, total rewriting of the paper later would have been necessary in order to make the work complete as it is now. It also would not have been nearly as authoritative. In the paper, there appears the reaction: H2O + CO ? CO2 + H2 [I] Dr. Joseph states that he did not take this reaction into consideration in any calculations pertaining directly to the paper. The piobable reason- for this is that although it contains all the main reacting top gases except N2, it is rather inflexible since it is monomolecular in relation to each of the reacting gases and does not tie in with the gasification of C. Actually the reactions: H2O + C ? CO + H2 [2] 2H2O + C ? CO2 + H2 [31 and the solution loss reaction: CO2 + c ? 2c0 [41 tend to assume an equilibrium through the reaction: H2O + CO ? CO2 + H2 [I] which should be considered a balancing or equilibrium reaction. Reactions 2, 3 and 4 permit furnace conditions to balance with the CO/CO2 ratio and H2 formation. They tie in with the solution loss. Reaction 1 unites them chemically. Probably the best calculation to make at this time would be to try to find the relative importance of the CO2 from the flux and the H2 in the dilution on an actual furnace gas analysis. For this purpose the Dob-scha-Carnegie-Illinois paper—"Effect of Sized and Sintered Mesabi Iron Ores On Blast Furnace Performance" is chosen. This paper was presented before the blast furnace section of the AIME in 1948. This represents the best large scale furnace operation available to me. Unfortunately the changes were brought about by beneficiation of the burden and not by changes on one burden. In choosing the basis for the calculation in relation to the furnace, 100 mols of dry top sgas is chosen. This leaves something to be desired inasmuch as the nitrogen basis is changing but I believe it will be better understood than any other type and it is the easiest to use.