Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 285 views

    Heat and Mass Balances in The ULCOS Blast Furnace

    Uploaded by

    akshuk
    This document summarizes heat and mass balance calculations for the ULCOS blast furnace process, which aims to reduce CO2 emissions from blast furnaces by 50% through two steps. The first step is decreasing carbon consumption by recycling top gas after CO2 removal, requiring pure oxygen operation. The second step is underground CO2 storage. The document presents four versions of top gas recycling flowsheets and evaluates their carbon savings, advantages, and drawbacks based on the heat and mass balance models. It also validates the models' ability to accurately predict results by comparing predictions to data from a trial run of the process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Heat and Mass Balances in The ULCOS Blast Furnace

    Uploaded by

    akshuk
    285 views3 pages
    This document summarizes heat and mass balance calculations for the ULCOS blast furnace process, which aims to reduce CO2 emissions from blast furnaces by 50% through two steps. The first step is decreasing carbon consumption by recycling top gas after CO2 removal, requiring pure oxygen operation. The second step is underground CO2 storage. The document presents four versions of top gas recycling flowsheets and evaluates their carbon savings, advantages, and drawbacks based on the heat and mass balance models. It also validates the models' ability to accurately predict results by comparing predictions to data from a trial run of the process.

    Original Description:

    ulcos

    Original Title

    Heat and Mass Balances in the ULCOS Blast Furnace

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes heat and mass balance calculations for the ULCOS blast furnace process, which aims to reduce CO2 emissions from blast furnaces by 50% through two steps. The first step is decreasing carbon consumption by recycling top gas after CO2 removal, requiring pure oxygen operation. The second step is underground CO2 storage. The document presents four versions of top gas recycling flowsheets and evaluates their carbon savings, advantages, and drawbacks based on the heat and mass balance models. It also validates the models' ability to accurately predict results by comparing predictions to data from a trial run of the process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    285 views3 pages

    Heat and Mass Balances in The ULCOS Blast Furnace

    Uploaded by

    akshuk
    This document summarizes heat and mass balance calculations for the ULCOS blast furnace process, which aims to reduce CO2 emissions from blast furnaces by 50% through two steps. The first step is decreasing carbon consumption by recycling top gas after CO2 removal, requiring pure oxygen operation. The second step is underground CO2 storage. The document presents four versions of top gas recycling flowsheets and evaluates their carbon savings, advantages, and drawbacks based on the heat and mass balance models. It also validates the models' ability to accurately predict results by comparing predictions to data from a trial run of the process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Proceedings of the 4th Ulcos seminar, 1-2 October 2008

    SP10 - Top Gas Recycling Blast Furnace / n2-1

    Heat and mass balances in the ULCOS Blast Furnace


    Grard Danloy 1, Jan van der Stel 2, Peter Schmle 3
    1

    Centre for Research in Metallurgy, Lige, Belgium, 2 Corus, Ijmuiden, The Netherlands and
    3
    ThyssenKrupp Steel AG, Duisburg, Germany
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

    The ULCOS blast furnace process aims at reducing the CO2 emission of the blast furnace by 50% in two steps:

    decrease of the carbon consumption by recycling most of the top gas after CO2 removal, which requires operating
    the blast furnace with pure oxygen ;

    underground storage of CO2.


    Heat and mass balance calculations allow choosing the configurations with high carbon savings taking into
    account the experience gained with the conventional BF practice. Examples of different flow sheets are
    presented with their main advantages and drawbacks. The model validity is also demonstrated.

    the line where all the iron oxides are reduced into
    wstite. Take note that modern BF are very efficient
    chemical reactors as their gas utilisation is generally
    higher than 95%. The heat balances provide the
    heat losses of both the upper and lower parts of the
    BF. A heat balance of the raceway area provides the
    RAFT (Raceway adiabatic flame temperature).

    Introduction
    The ULCOS blast furnace process aims at reducing
    the CO2 emission of the blast furnace by 50% in two
    steps:

    decrease of the carbon consumption by recycling most of the top gas after CO2 removal,
    which requires operating the blast furnace with
    pure oxygen ;

    The second type of calculations makes use of the


    same input data, except the coke rate and the slag
    and top gas characteristics, which have to be predicted using the results of the first calculations
    (mainly the chemical efficiency and the heat losses).
    As the equations and hypotheses are the same, both
    types of calculations provide exactly the same results
    if they are applied to the same data. The interest of
    the second type of calculations is its ability to predict
    the answer of the BF when one or more input data
    are modified, for example when a different coal is
    injected or when more oxygen is added to the blast.

    underground storage of CO2.

    Different configurations of the flow sheet are possible, which can be compared based on heat and mass
    balance calculations.

    Heat and mass balance models


    Heat and mass balance calculations of the blast
    furnace process at steady state aim at two objectives. Firstly, they aim at characterising the operational efficiency of a given BF based on measured
    results. Secondly, they intend to predict future results of the same BF under different operating conditions.

    Applied to the conventional blast furnace process for


    more than 40 years, heat and mass balance models
    of the BF at steady state proved to be a powerful
    tool to analyse operational results and to predict
    future results under modified conditions. As a consequence, they are particularly helpful for research and
    development engineers.

    The first calculations are based on all measured


    data. Briefly, this includes mainly the quantity, temperature and chemical analysis of all the materials
    entering (ores, coke, blast, oxygen, coal, fuel oil)
    or exiting (hot metal, slag, top gas) the blast furnace. Balances of C, N2, H2 and O2 allow verifying
    the consistency of these data and calculating the
    chemical efficiency of the operation in terms of approach of the thermodynamic equilibrium (also called
    gas utilisation at wstite level). The material balances are applied not only to the whole BF, but also
    to its upper and lower parts, which are separated by

    For their application to the top gas recycling blast


    furnace, these models have been completed to simulate the CO2 removal unit (including its yields in CO2,
    CO, H2 and N2) and to allow the recycling of the
    product gas into the BF both at tuyeres and lower
    shaft levels.

    Version 1

    Version 4

    In version 1, the decarbonated top gas is recycled


    cold at main tuyeres and hot at the stack tuyeres. An
    example is described at figure 1.

    In version 4, the decarbonated top gas is recycled


    hot at main tuyeres and hot at the stack tuyeres. An
    example is described at figure 3.

    Ore 1584 kg
    Coke 209 kg

    Top gas

    1179 Nm (d.b.)

    CO
    CO2
    H2
    N2
    Temp.

    1283
    Nm

    48.0 %
    37.9 %
    8.6 %
    5.5 %
    110 C

    900C
    DRR 7.6 %

    Coal
    180 kg
    Oxygen 226 Nm
    (98% O2 + 2% N2)

    702 Nm
    2300 C

    Heater

    25C

    1120 Nm

    511 Nm
    144 Nm

    1250
    Nm

    465 Nm - 711 MJ
    CO 11.6 %
    CO2 86.6 %
    0.6 %
    H2
    1.2 %
    N2

    VPSA

    1145 Nm (d.b.)

    CO
    46.7 %
    CO2
    37.7 %
    9.0 %
    H2
    N2
    6.6 %
    Temp. 100 C

    DRR 9.0 %
    804 Nm

    Coal
    180 kg 2150 C
    Oxygen 201 Nm
    (98% O2 + 2% N2)

    Top gas to stoves


    20 Nm - 138 MJ

    Water

    1125 Nm
    VPSA

    835 MJ from top


    & tail gas + 287
    MJ from COG

    Gas
    utilization
    96.0 %

    655 Nm
    CO 73.8 %
    CO2 3.2 %
    H2 14.3 %
    8.7 %
    N2

    Carbon consumption
    319 kg
    Energy export (incl. COG) 1456 MJ
    Carbon saving
    20.6 %

    Hot metal 1000 kg


    Slag 260 kg

    Top gas

    59 Nm - 413 MJ

    Water

    746 MJ from
    top & tail gas

    Gas
    utilization
    96.0 %

    Ore 1584 kg
    Coke 187 kg

    Top gas to stoves

    900C
    1200C

    Heater
    Heater

    Hot metal 1000 kg


    Slag 260 kg

    369 Nm
    291 Nm

    465 Nm- 697 MJ


    CO 11.3 %
    CO2 86.6 %
    0.7 %
    H2
    N2
    1.4 %

    660 Nm
    CO 71.7 %
    CO2 3.2 %
    14.9 %
    H2
    10.3 %
    N2

    Carbon consumption
    300 kg
    Energy export (incl. COG) 681 MJ
    Carbon saving
    25.3 %

    Figure 1. Example of flow sheet in version 1

    Figure 3. Example of flow sheet in version 4

    This version is challenging in reaching the required


    high ore indirect reduction degree (problem of reduction kinetics) and in creating a good raceway for gas
    distribution in the lower BF. To obtain good carbon
    savings it is required to work with a high flame temperature.

    This version has the big advantage of recording the


    highest carbon savings. This is obtained in a comfortable range of coal rates (100-170 kg/thm) with a
    lower sensitivity to the flame temperature and attractive productivity increase,
    Compared to version 1, it shows a lower strain on
    indirect reduction requirement and on raceway size.

    The advantages include the heating of one gas


    stream only, at low temperature and the possibility
    to operate at higher coal rates. Moreover, this version presents a high potential in productivity increase.

    However, it is slightly less economical than version 1


    due to a lower energy export and slightly lower coal
    rates.

    Version 3

    Validation of the model predictions

    In version 3, the decarbonated top gas is recycled


    hot at the main tuyeres only. An example is described at figure 2.

    Heat and mass balance models have been validated


    since many years under conventional BF operation.

    Top gas

    1224
    Nm

    1124 Nm (d.b.)

    CO
    48.3 %
    CO2
    37.5 %
    8.8 %
    H2
    5.3 %
    N2
    Temp. 100 C

    Gas
    utilization
    96.0 %

    1142 Nm

    Top gas to stoves


    56 Nm - 397 MJ

    Water

    1068 Nm
    VPSA

    1080 MJ from top


    & tail gas + 179
    MJ from COG

    DRR 9.7 %

    Coal
    173 kg 1832 C
    Oxygen 199 Nm
    (98% O2 + 2% N2)

    1200C

    Heater

    Hot metal 1000 kg


    Slag 260 kg

    With this new process, the first ULCOS campaign at


    the Experimental BF of LKAB in Lule (Autumn 2007)
    demonstrated also the interest and the validity of the
    models for the prevision of both carbon savings
    (figure 4) and reduction of CO2 emissions.

    628 Nm

    440 Nm- 683 MJ


    CO 11.7 %
    CO2 86.5 %
    H2
    0.6 %
    1.2 %
    N2

    Carbon savings - Results versus previsions


    35

    628 Nm
    CO 74.0 %
    CO2 3.2 %
    H2 14.6 %
    8.3 %
    N2

    Carbon savings at the BF (%)

    Ore 1584 kg
    Coke 199 kg

    Carbon consumption
    305 kg
    Energy export (incl. COG) 847 MJ
    Carbon saving
    24.1 %

    Figure 2. Example of flow sheet in version 3

    This version has the advantage of avoiding shaft


    injection (lower investment cost, good raceway,
    easier operation).

    30
    25
    20
    15
    10

    Predicted using the same hot metal Si and


    temperature as in reference of Campaign 1

    5
    0
    50

    However, it requires operating the BF either at very


    low flame temperatures either at very low PCI rates
    to reach competitive carbon savings. It presents a
    low potential in productivity increase.

    G. Danloy, J. Van de Stel and P. Schmle

    Predicted with Reference 1


    Predicted with Reference 2
    Results of EBF Campaign 1

    60

    70
    80
    Top gas recycling ratio (%)

    90

    100

    Figure 4. Comparison of experimental results with model


    previsions

    SP10 ULCOS-4, October 2008

    Conclusion
    Heat and mass balance models proved to be very
    usefull tools to predict the results of the ULCOS blast
    furnace process with top gas recycling, to compare
    the advantages and drawbacks of the different possible configurations, and to assess their feasibility.
    This study demonstrates that the ULCOS blast furnace process should allow reaching the aims of reducing the CO2 emission at the BF by around 25%
    provided challenging issues are solved. Taking into
    account underground storage of CO2, this should
    result in a reduction of emission by more than 60%
    at the level of the hot rolled coil.

    Acknowledgements
    The present work is part of the ULCOS program,
    which operates with direct financing from its 48
    partners, especially of its core members (ArcelorMittal, Corus, TKS, Riva, Voestalpine, LKAB, Saarstahl, Dillinger Htte, SSAB, Ruukki and Statoil), and
    has received grants from the European Commission
    under the 6th Framework RTD program and the RFCS
    program1.

    Priority 3 of the 6th Framework Programme in the area of Very


    low CO2 Steel Processes, in co-ordination with the 2003 and 2004
    calls of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel

    G. Danloy, J. Van de Stel and P. Schmle

    SP10 ULCOS-4, October 2008

    You might also like