PART I – Communications - American Institute of Mining Engineers

ALUMINUM deoxidation equilibrium in liquid iron has been the subject of many investigations. Sawamura and Sano1 have written a critical survey of the literature on this subject and consider the data of Gokcen and chipman2 and of d'Entremont, Guernsey, and Chip-man3 to be most reliable. The present study was undertaken to check these data and extend the range of the experiments to lower temperature. The experiments consisted of equilibrating 5-lb Fe-Al melts with recrystallized alumina crucibles at 1580o + 10oC, and analyzing the solidified ingots for aluminum and oxygen. The electrolytic iron stock contained 100 ppm C, 20 ppm 0, and trace amounts of other elements.* The stock was induction-melted in an atmosphere of 5 pet H2 in argon to attain equilibrium between the melt and the crucible. The temperature was measured with a W, 3 pet Re/W, 26 pet Re thermocouple, and the equilibration time was about 4 hr. The results are plotted in Fig. 1 along with curves obtained from the data of d'Entremont et al.,3 for temperatures of 1740o and 1910°C. The present results can be seen to be consistent with the previously reported high-temperature data. The reaction under study is AI2O3 (s) = 2 Al (l) +3O [1] for which the deoxidation product is Kl =[% Al]2 [%O]3 [2] (Under the experimental conditions, Fe A12O4 is not expected to form.4) In Fig. 2, values of log Ki evaluated at 0.01 pet A1 are plotted against 1/T, using data obtained from all the investigations under consideration. The deoxidation product is plotted in Fig. 2 in lieu of the equilibrium constant (normally obtained by evaluating Ki as pet A1 — 0) because of the uncertainty involved in extrapolating to zero concentration. The difficulty in extrapolating the present data for 1580°C is apparent curvature in the log Ki vs pet Al plot. This curvature is perhaps due to the uncertainty in oxygen analysis for concentrations of 5 ppm and below. For the data of Gokeen and chipman,' the extrapolation is also difficult because of experimental scatter. The line drawn through the points plotted in Fig. 2 may be represented by the equation: