Development of a Simplified Ensemble Model for PCI Coal Selection

S.J.Street and J.Burgo

AK Steel – Dearborn Works

Ironmaking Department
Miller Rd, Dearborn, MI, USA, 48120

Keywords: coal, pulverized coal injection, coke replacement ratio, blast furnace, modeling.

INTRODUCTION
The reduction in coke rate, and cost, without sacrificing sustainability is a primary business goal for all blast furnace
operators. A typical strategy to reduce coke rate is to increase the rate of injected fuels such as pulverized coal (PC) and
natural gas. Although pulverized coal injection (PCI) increases operational complexity its use has become widely adopted in
those markets where it offers a financial benefit.
In 2015 of the 29 operating blast furnaces in North America 16 were utilizing PCI.[1] Reported operating injection rates for
these North American furnaces were between 69 and 342 lb/nthm, at an average of 191 lb/nthm, equivalent to 18% of the
total fuel rate (Figure 1). While in comparison adhoc reports suggest European operations injected PCI, on more furnaces
(85%), and at somewhat higher rates averaging nearly 330lb/nthm, equivalent to 33% of the total fuel rate.

Figure 1. Average pulverized coal injection rates of North American blast furnaces 2015.[1]
A summary of blast furnace injectants from 1990 through 2015 is shown in Figure 2.[1] Higher injectant rates over time are
indicative of a better understanding of the technology, changing raw material costs and the quest for lower operating costs.
Over this period of time there has been a decided increase in both natural gas and coal injection.

140

Coal # / NTHM
Oil # / NTHM
120
Gas # / NTHM
Tar # / NTHM
C.O.G. # / NTHM
100

Injectant, lbs/NTHM
80

60

40

20

0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year

Figure 2. Average injectant rates for AISI furnaces from 1990 through 2015.[1]
Despite the broad level of industrial adoption of PCI technology there is no single standard specifying coal requirements for
PCI. Each operation needs to determine its own coal selection criteria based on a broad range of technical and economic
factors. One key parameter for PCI coal selection is the coke replacement ratio. Ideally the coke replacement ratio should be
determined via industrial trials. However, there are issues with such industrial trials, namely the length of trials required to
achieve statistical significance, the personnel required to sample raw materials and evaluate the data, and the cost. One
strategy to avoid the impact of industrial trials is to evaluate the coke replacement ratio by modeling. This paper reviews
some of the known published models for calculating coke replacement ratio, including industrial empirical correlations, and
details the development within AK Steel of a simplified Ensemble Model for calculating the coke replacement ratio for PCI
coal.

PCI COAL SELECTION CRITERIA

Blast furnace operators have expressed interest in coal injection for longer than a century.[2-4] However, until the 1960’s
much of the effort was conceptual and limited to patents or short industrial trials, details of which are difficult to locate. By
the 1960’s there is clear evidence of international activity in research, industrial trials and limited technology adoption,
although the main driver for broader industrial implementation does not occur until the oil crises of the 1970’s.[5-10] In the
majority of cases the cited driver for adopting coal injection has been replacing coke, so as to either reduce cost, or expand
the raw materials base for the blast furnace to a broader range of coals than those required for cokemaking.
The criteria for selecting a coal as a blast furnace fuel injectant cover a broad range of techno-economic issues, in part
because coals have such wide varying characteristics. Key attributes of a coal that allow an operator to determine suitability
have been listed by many authors [11-15], with Kruse et al [14] and Lherbier and Serrano [15] providing the more in-depth
analysis of the subject. These key selection attributes can be summarized as: coal market stability, coal cost, effective cost,
moisture, drying properties, grindability (Hardgrove Index), coal flowability (after drying/pulverizing), volatile matter, coal
ash fusion temperature, ash content, alkali content, sulfur content, phosphorous content, zinc content, chlorine content, and
calorific value (rank).
Coal combustibility is also discussed by many authors as a key attribute for selection.[10-20] Considerable effort has been
invested into developing a greater understanding of coal combustion characteristics under conditions expected within the
blast furnace tuyere and raceway regions. The technical driver for these studies has been to gain knowledge so that furnaces
may operate in a manner with maximum coal combustion within the raceway, so as to minimize char loading to the
furnace.[11-14,17-18,20-26] With respect to coal selection numerous research and industrial trials have shown coal
combustibility is as much influenced by operating strategies as it is by coal properties such as volatile matter. An explanation
for this is provided by considering the mechanisms of coal combustion, which have been described as a four stage (potential
overlapping) process that is initially dependent on heat transfer fundamentals, and in later stages through reagent (oxygen)
availability.[27] The description provided by Babich et al provides clarity as to those operating strategies that have been
found to influence coal combustibility; coal particle size, blast temperature, reaction zone temperature and atmosphere
(tuyere and raceway), raceway length, oxygen enrichment levels, injection levels, and injection lance design and
configuration.[5,8-10,16-18,20-31]
Another key criterion in coal selection for PCI is the comparative cost associated with the coke/oil/natural gas/coal – coal
switching decision. A comparative commodity cost analysis considers all aspects of switching one blast furnace fuel,
typically the incumbent coal for an existing PCI operation, with a candidate coal. This techno-economic analysis considers
the cost of a candidate coal with respect to: coal cost, transportation cost, grinding cost, system maintenance cost,
burdening/processing costs associated with minor tramp elements such as Cl, S, P, Na and K, and fixed costs associated with
predicted productivity changes due to changes in fuel rate. Determination of the potential change in fuel rate – typically
expressed as coke replacement ratio – is one of the more broadly understood steps in coal selection; how much coke can I
replace with coal A versus coal B, can be easily understood by operators, technologists, and financial analysts.

COKE REPLACEMENT RATIO

The coke replacement ratio is frequently discussed in publications concerning PCI because it is fundamental to the largest
cited driver for adopting the technology, reducing the coke rate.
Patents describing the use of pulverized coal in blast furnace ironmaking tend not to be a good source of information on coke
replacement ratios. A well written patent will heavily control the extent of disclosure, so patents tend to describe claimed
results/benefits qualitatively versus quantitatively. Patents are also applied for in most cases prior to extensive industrial
trials where robust data can be generated, particularly those issued well before broad industrial adoption. For example Dawes
(1831) claims that coal injection allows for the production of iron “…with a less quantity of fuel, and with less expensive
materials…”.[2] Similarly, Broad (1860) claims a patent for a coal injection apparatus that “..lessen[s] more especially the
quantity of large and superior fuel employed in blast furnaces…”.[32]
With increasing industrial interest in coal injection more detailed information regarding coke replacement ratios has been
published in the public domain.
Strassburger et al (1962) describe the installation of coal injection facilities at the Hanna Furnace (Buffalo, NY).[5] During
the test work four coals were trialed at rates up to 30% of the total fuel rate. Several periods of operation were deemed
sufficiently stable that a coal-to-coke ratio was determined. The authors acknowledge that minor variations in operating
variables were ignored, and reported exchange rates of 1.13 and 1.06 (expressed as a coke replacement ratio as 0.88 and
0.94). The authors also indicated that the apparent replacement ratio was worse at injection rates above 22% of the total fuel
rate.
Wei et al (1986) summarize operating experiences of coal injection at Shoudu Iron and Steel Company (China).[8] Reported
coke replacement ratios were in the range of typically 0.8 to 0.9. The authors report that the achieved replacement ratios
varied depending blast oxygen content and combustion temperature; as both oxygen and combustion temperature increased
so did the replacement ratio. The authors also comment that coal type influence the replacement ratio, with bituminous coals
having a replacement ratio about 10% greater than anthracite coals.
Hutny et al (1990) describe the evaluation of coals for blast furnace injection using a modeling approach.[33] The described
model was based on mass and enthalpy balances across a blast furnace and assumed complete coal combustion within the
raceway. Modeling suggested that the C, H, and O contents of coal, and the C/O ratio, influenced the coke replacement ratio
and that the C/O ratio of coals provided a more regular relationship (as shown in Figure 3 and as fitted in Equation 1) for
predicting the coke replacement ratio than compared to the C/H ratio.
Replacement ratio = -1E-9xC/ O 6 + 2E-7xC/ O 5 -2E-5xC/ O 4 + 0.006xC/ O 3 – 0.013xC/ O 2 + 0.1481xC/ O + 0.2828 (1)
 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
C/H and C/O Ratios

Figure 3. Relationship between C/H and C/O ratios and predicted coke replacement ratios as determined by Hutny et al.[33]
Similarly the authors used the predicted replacement ratios and compared the values against the coal calorific values (Figure
4), finding a reasonable relationship existed (Equation 2)
Replacement ratio = -0.6395 + (0.0047 x calorific value (daf)) (2)

Figure 4. Relationship between the calorific value and predicted coke replacement ratios as determined by Hutny et al.[33]
Additionally Hutny et al cite previous works, including those by the authors, where coal ash was related to the replacement
ratio, for example:
Replacement ratio = 1.48 – 0.666 x (coal ash %/ coke ash%) (3)
In this work the replacement ratio, as expressed in Equation 2, was found to be influenced by coal ash by a factor of -0.011
per % increase of coal ash.
Yamaguchi et al (1995) discuss trials undertaken at Kimitsu (Japan) where coal injection rates were pushed beyond
200kg/thm.[34] The authors do not report on the actual coke replacement ratio, but use a value normalized to that achieved
when the injection rate was 120kg/thm. Evident from the trials was that as injection rate was increased the relative
replacement ratio became more variable; when the injection rate was pushed beyond 190kg/thm the replacement ratio
decreased by up to 20%. The decrease in replacement ratio was explained as being due to a loss of shaft efficiency at the
higher injection levels. It is not evident whether a correction was made to the reported replacement rate ratios based on
changes in blast temperature (1150ºC to 1270ºC) and blast humidity (16 g/NM3 to 36 g/NM3) during the trial periods.
Hur et al (1998) discuss the development of technology for increased PCI usage at POSCO (South Korea).[17] The authors
comment that after various activities to improve coal combustion and reduce carbon losses to dust and sludge (top pressure,
burden chemistry, sinter permeability, oxygen enrichment) the coke replacement ratio increased from 0.88 to 0.91.
StaRosa et al (1998) discuss the design and startup of the PCI a system at National Steel Great Lakes (now US Steel Great
Lakes).[11] The authors detail the methodology used for introduction of PCI to the Great Lakes facility including the
evaluation method for coal selection. An effective coal cost was determined by considering coal price, transportation cost,
costs associated with properties (presumably residual elements and HGI) and coke replacement ratio. The replacement ratio
was a theoretical value based on a heat balance, of which no further details are mentioned. In recognition of the concern of
coal combustibility candidate coals were also evaluated using a pilot plant scale blowpipe-tuyere injection rig to test for
combustibility. Post commissioning plant data reports a coke replacement ratio of 0.82, no comments are made as to how
close this value was to that estimated during coal selection, although for the commissioning phase an estimated value of 0.90
was used.
Iishii (2000) reports on a cooperative research program undertaken in Japan investigating PCI technology.[35] One aspect
considered during the research program was the coke replacement ratio, and how the ratio varied with operational practices
(oxygen enrichment and injection rate etc.) and coal properties. Replacement ratios for various Japanese operations were
reported to be between 0.7 and 1.0. Typical trends were reported that showed increasing coal calorific values, and carbon
content, resulted in greater replacement ratios. While increasing coal volatile matter tended to result in lower replacement
ratios. However, a critique of the provided data indicates there was considerable variation in the reported values. This may
be partly explained by the broad range of injection rates (240 to 340lb/nthm) studied. In addition to reporting on industrial
performance the Japanese program also developed a theoretical analysis of the replacement ratio using heat and mass
balances. Relationships between various coal properties and predicted replacement ratios were examined; coal properties
reported included carbon (shown in Figure 5), hydrogen, oxygen, and volatile matter content, and calorific value. Because of
the overriding influence of carbon content on other properties (hydrogen, oxygen, and volatile matter) the authors claim that
the replacement ratio can be practically represented by the coal carbon content, as derived in Equation 4.
Replacement ratio = (0.0137 x carbon content %) – 0.1735 (4)

Figure 5. Relationship between carbon content and predicted coke replacement ratios as reported by Ishii.[35]
Additionally, as shown in Figure 6, a comparison of actual versus predicted replacement ratios, based on coal calorific
values, showed considerable scatter, suggesting that the overall trend of increasing volatile matter reduces replacement ratio
holds true, but that other parameters (coal properties and operating practices) still heavily influence the replacement ratio.
The authors also detail attempts to improve the accuracy of the modeling predictions at high injection rates (>200 lb/nthm),
by allowing for a heat loss correction term that appears to offer a 10% improvement in accuracy.
 Figure 6. Relationship between calorific value and actual and theoretical coke replacement ratios as reported by Ishii.[35]
Carneiro et al (2001) report on development of a coal selection methodology by Usiminas (Brazil).[12] Modeling was used
to determine replacement ratios for initial coal selection, where it was suggested that for the coals being considered binary
mixtures offered higher replacement ratios than individual coals. Although a relationship between coal properties and
replacement ratios were not reported, industrial performance results showed that different coals resulted in different
replacement ratios. Interpolating published process data does present challenges and can led to misinterpretation, as may be
the case in this paper, as replacement ratios appear to cover a very broad range of 0.47 to 0.85; these values also appear to not
to match model predictions. However, as shown in Figure 7, the provided process data clearly shows the variation that can
occur in an operation while trying to evaluate coal performance.
Toxopeus et al (2001) report on the evolution of PCI technology and practices, including coal selection, at Ijmuiden
(Netherlands).[13] The authors mention utilizing a heat and mass balance to assess coke replacement ratios during coal
selection, however, there is no detail provided on correlating coal properties to predicted replacement ratios. Although the
authors do present industrial data from over a 15 year period indicating a general trend of lower replacement ratios (0.98 to
0.75) with increasing coal volatile matter content; noted during this period is that there is also a large increase in targeted
injection rates which may have contributed to the lower replacement ratios.
 Figure 7. Industrial results determined during coal evaluation trials reported by Carneiro et al.[12]
Bennett and Fukushima (2003) discuss an investigation considering various coal quality properties with respect to blast
furnace operations.[36] A heat and mass balance, based on the RIST diagram, was used to investigate predicted coke
replacement ratios for various coals, where it was found that predicted replacement ratios were close to those reported by
higher fuel Japanese operations (Ishii) but lower than those for the lower fuel style European operations. The authors report
that although coal volatile matter content indicates a general trend (increasing volatile matter results in lower replacement
ratios) for predicting replacement ratio that there is considerable scatter in the data (as derived in Equation 5); arguing that
the partial heat of combustion provides a better ranking parameter for estimating the replacement ratio (Figure 8). No further
details of this selection strategy are discussed within the paper.
Replacement ratio = (-0.0062 x volatile matter content %) + 0.8943 (5)

Figure 8. Calculated replacement ratios versus volatile matter and partial heat of combustion as reported by Bennet and
Fukushima.[19,36]
Kruse et al (2003) provide a detailed description of the PCI coal selection process at Inland (now AcelorMittal) blast
furnaces.[14] The authors describe a selection process that initially involves shortlisting possible coals for trials using a set
of five characteristics, the first characteristic being replacement ratio. The estimate of the replacement ratio is determined
using an equation attributed to the Hoogovens Ijmuiden operation. This equation was adopted for coal selection so that the
hydrogen content of a coal could be realized/treated as a benefit with respect to replacement ratio. Although the Hoogovens
equation is not listed by the authors it is assumed – because of reference to the Ijmuiden operation - to be that described
elsewhere as shown in Equation 6 [37] or possibly Equation 7 [19].
Replacement ratio = -86 + (2 x C%) + (2.5 x H%) – (2 x moisture as injected%) + (0.9 x ash%) (6)
Replacement ratio = (-118.9 + (2.3 x C%) + (4.5% x H%) + (0.97 x ash%)) /100 (7)
Both of these simplified equations show a positive effect on predicted replacement ratio from the carbon content and
hydrogen content as has been reported by others (Equation 8; attributed to Bennett and Stanley circa 1999).[38] Of note in
the “Hoogoven” equation is the claimed positive impact of the ash content. Geerdes explains the indicated positive impact
from the ash content as being due to the correction for heat balance effects.[37]
Replacement ratio = (-139.44 + (2 x C%) + (6.2 x H%))/100 (8)
The use of the Hoogovens equation predicts that in general replacement ratio increases with carbon content (rank) and
calorific value. However, as shown by the authors in Figure 9, there is still considerable variation in the replacement ratios if
either of these coal properties is used singularly as a ranking method (i.e. 2 coals with the same predicted replacement ratios
of 0.94 but heating values of 14200 and 14950 BTU/lb). The authors opine the variation may be due to the maceral makeup
of the coal.

Figure 9. Influence of carbon content and heating value on coke replacement ratio as reported by Kruse et al.[14]
When detailing actual operating performance Kruse et al report annual replacement ratios (0.89 to 0.92) commenting that the
accuracy of the data made it impossible to discern a difference between the various coals consumed. Regression analysis for
the periods reported, although good for raw industrial data (0.71, 0.83 and 0.76), indicate periods of operation with
considerable variation in replacement ratiosas shown in Figure 10 (e.g. for a PCI rate of 150kg/thm coke rates of 312 to 340
kg/thm were reported). One aspect discussed by the authors is the influence of furnace stability – for example a change in
coke size – that subsequently influenced unburned char levels. The inference being that furnace stability consequently would
impact actual replacement ratios during these periods.
 Figure 10. Coke rate verusus coal injection rate as reported by Kruse et al.[14]
Bennett (2004) provides an update on an earlier paper [36] modeling the impact of coal quality on blast furnace
operations.[19] As discussed previous modeling results indicate that partial heat of combustion provided a better singular
ranking parameter compared to volatile matter for predicting replacement ratios (Figure 8). Data provided by Bennett allows
a relationship to be determined as shown in Equation 9.
Replacement ratio = (-0.00038 x partial heat of combustion kcal/kg) + 0.8708 (9)
The claim by Bennett that partial heat of combustion offers a superior single ranking parameter is indicated by the higher R2
value from fitting data to develop Equation 9 versus Equation 5, the R2 values being 0.90 vs 0.75 respectively.
As an appendix to these works Bennett (2005) additionally reports on several other published replacement ratio
relationships.[39] In addition to those equations described previously (Eqs. 2, 7, and 9) Bennett briefly summarizes
relationships such as that from an unreferenced European blast furnace based on coal ash and volatile matter content
(Equation 10).
Replacement ratio = 1.14 – 0.014 x ash% - 0.007 x volatile matter % (10)
While another unreferenced European operation reported a relationship based on coal specific energy, hydrogen, carbon and
moisture content (Equation 11).
Replacement ratio = 0.06285xspecific energy (MJ/kg) – 0.0544xH% -0.0104xC% - 0.0169xmoisture% - 0.055 (11)
A further listed relationship, attributed to Ishii and a Japanese furnace, indicates the replacement ratio could be predicted
singularly by coal energy as shown in Equation 12.
Replacement ratio = 0.09 x specific energy (MJ/kg) (12)
A final relationship, attributed to Nippon Steel, is listed by Bennett, where the replacement ratio is related to the calorific
value in the lower zone of the furnace, as shown in Equation 13.
Replacement ratio = 0.065 x Calorific value (partial combustion less sensible heat of CO,H 2 , ash) + 0.633 (13)
Lherbier and Serrano (2008) detail quality criteria requirements for PCI coal selection within US Steel.[15] A mass and
energy balance approach is described, that when data mined revealed nine parameters had the greatest influence on coal
selection. A resulting linear equation for valuing a coal is cited but not detailed. However, the authors show industrial data
that indicates increasing replacement ratio with increasing coal rank (C+H). If the presented data, shown in Figure 11, is
assumed to be from constant operating periods then the influence of coal rank can being approximated at +0.02 (replacement
ratio) for every 1% increase in the coal carbon and hydrogen content.
Figure 11. Total fuel rate achieved with injected coals of different carbon and hydrogen content as reported by Lherbier and
Serrano.[15]
Not unexpected is that a review of public domain information reveals similar trends between coal properties and coke
replacement ratios have been recognized by many authors. However, a critique of the information raises concerns about
exact details of the variables listed in the equations. At times reported equations have also not matched original sources, or
relationships extracted from the provided data. Another comment is that although within the industry there is considerable
discussion about how operating practices influence coal injection performance; little operating data is provided in many of
the papers so as to allow for complete development of a standard factor to compare the influence of purely the coal
properties. The operating parameters frequently not discussed include, hot blast temperature, blast moisture, blast oxygen
content, coal particle size, specific oxygen requirements, furnace efficiency, furnace stability, top gas char content, and also
the fuel rate determination methodology. The typical variation encountered in day to day operations is probably a major
factor in explaining the wide variation seen in industrial data. Also the specific furnace parameters, for example, hot blast
temperature, have shown in our operations, to have significant impact on coal combustion and consequently the effective
replacement ratio.
A similar caution should also be considered when reviewing modeling predictions. As with all models the assumptions made
during development can influence the validity of the predictions. In the modeling derived replacement ratios one assumption
that could generate error is that of complete raceway combustion; at higher injection rates the model may over predict
replacement ratios because there is no allowance for loss associated with char generation. Also the variation of coal
parameters, for example hydrogen content, depending on the range, can have a significant influence on the derived
replacement ratio equations.
As a preliminary conclusion a review of public domain information would suggest that controlled industrial trials are
required to accurately determine the coke replacement ratio of a coal.

RECONSIDERING INDUSTRIAL TRIALS

As has been discussed previously, ideally industrial trials should be used for selecting a candidate coal for injection. Apart
from determining the coke replacement ratio industrial trials allow for field evaluation of drying, grinding, transportation, and
injection suitability of a coal.
The plan for determining a coke replacement ratio is idealistic straightforward. The blast furnace is operated at various coal
injection rates; holding at each injection level to achieve what is judged to be a stable operation of a sufficient length that the
coke rate can be determined. The coke replacement ratio is then simply the slope of the coke rate (dependent variable) versus
the PCI rate (independent variable) relationship.
Assuming burden and process stability then the minimum length of time at each coal injection level can be determined by an
understanding of the transient nature of thermal changes in a blast furnace. The length of the thermal transition involving a
PCI change has been reported to be 10 to 48 hours in length.[40,41] However, the reported transition lengths are related to
the dynamics of burden throughput time and furnace thermal inertia, which are plant specific. Assuming burden and process
stability, it is not unreasonable for the time lag between initial PCI rate change, achievement of thermal stability, coke
correction and re-establishment of thermal stability to last 48 hours, or perhaps longer.
Typically trials to evaluate the coke replacement ratio will occur simultaneously with those evaluating other selection criteria.
Ideally this would involve starting at lower than business plan injection rates, and then stepping the injection rates to higher
levels following confidence in stability. However, the practical reality is that variation in burden properties and process
operation induce significant influence on the furnace fuel rate. Consequently the length of evaluation trials to achieve
statistical significance is dependent on the typical variation experienced within an operating unit; the greater the variation the
greater the trial length required. Some attempts have been used to apply a standardizing factor to these variations, however, it
is not evident that these have accounted for all the influence of burden and furnace instability that are known to impact fuel
rate.
For example, if the coke quality of a month is reviewed with respect to deviation from average the movement in furnace fuel
rate can be predicted. As shown in Figure 12, because of the daily variation in coke ash and stability, to achieve fuel rate
variations of less than 10lb/nthm requires operating periods of 7 days or longer. This is in addition to the time taken for
injection change stabilization. During this, now 9 day period, the furnace needs to be operated in such a manner that
additional supplemental fuel is not required so as to stretch the trial period further.
Another recognized burden issue that can influence fuel rate occurs for operations charging metallics, in North America 7 of
16 furnaces using PCI reported metallics consumption.[1,42] Metallics such as B scrap, and to a lesser extent HBS and HBI,
can have highly variable iron content and degrees of metallization. The variable iron content in metallics, if not constantly
adjusted for in burden models will impact production, and over short periods, reported burden based theoretical fuel rates.
Typically these manifest as shop to shop (BF-BOF) yield discrepancies with 1 to 2% yield swings being not uncommon (i.e.
the fuel rate on theoretical burden basis would indicate a 1 to 2% variation which is generally not figured out until month end
accounting). With variable metallization the fuel rate savings from pre-reduced material will also change, further
complicating evaluation of trials monitoring the impact of PCI, particularly replacement ratio, on fuel rate.
Process stability can also influence short term fuel rates, and hence the length of trial required for coal evaluation. In addition
to events requiring supplemental fuel, process stability can be discussed in terms of events, or operating practices, which
influence coal combustion and char consumption. Process changes during trials, particularly at higher injection rates, that are
known to affect coal combustion behavior include coal particle sizing, blast oxygen content, hot blast temperature, and
raceway length (wind volume and top pressure), and of course burden distribution. An example of the range of operating
practices that could be encountered is shown in Figure 13; although it is conceded that 2015 may be an atypical year due to
the business climate.

6 50
Coke Quality Daily Variation from Monthly Average (stability %, ash%)

40

4
30

20
2
Fuel Rate Variation (lb/nthm)

10

0 0

-10

-2
-20

-30
-4

-40

-6 -50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Ash % Stability 3 Day Rolling Avg. 5 Day Rolling Avg. 7 Day Rolling Avg.

Figure 12. Variation in coke quality (ash and stability) from monthly average and predicted influence on fuel rate.
 400 10.0

Monthly Range of Tuyere Velocity (ft/s) & Hot Blast Temp. (F) 350
9.0

8.0
300
7.0

Monthly Range of Blast O2 (%)

250
6.0

200 5.0

4.0
150

3.0
100
2.0

50
1.0

0 0.0

Hot Blast Temp Range (F) Tuyere Vel. Range (ft/s) Blast O2 Range (%)

Figure 13. Yearly ranges of hot blast temperature, tuyere velocity (implying raceway length), and blast oxygen, based on
monthly averages, for North American blast furnaces operating in 2015 with PCI.[1]
From a technical aspect the above mentioned concerns of burden and process stability can be overcome by simply running
longer trials. However, the issue with running longer trials, particularly at lower injection levels, is that the coke rate will
increase, which can radically upset company coke inventory levels and hot metal costs. The argument that the increased
burden cost associated with periods of lower than business plan injection rates being offset by periods of equally higher
injection rates might not materialize for operations already differential pressure limited. So although technically sound,
industrial trials to determine coke replacement ratios maybe difficult to justify from a short term business perspective. Other
site specific considerations to running industrial trials include coal blending capabilities at the grinding station (can the trial
coal be blended?), and contractual issues that may limit the volume of coal that can be trialed in place of the incumbent coal
supply.
Despite the initial conclusion, based on the literature survey, after reconsideration of the industrial trial approach for
evaluating the coke replacement ratio, modeling may present under some situations a more realistic, and cost effective,
approach. In fact modeling may be the better approach if the goal is to evaluate the relative values of coals that have similar
replacement ratios to support a comparative cost model.

MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The modeling approach being explored at AK Steel Dearborn Works is that initially proposed by the philosopher Galton,
namely that the wisdom of crowds on average provides a more realistic prediction than that of an individual. More recently
this approach has been adopted by agencies predicting weather, being referred to either as Ensemble Modeling or Ensemble
Averaging. In this case the crowd are judged to be experts within the field of Blast Furnace Ironmaking, or coal utilization,
that have undertaken research to determine a coke replacement ratio based on coal properties. Within this group there is
sufficient diversity and independence of furnace operations, and evaluation approaches, that it can be argued a wise (that is,
more robust) decision can be achieved collectively. In simple terms, the concept of Ensemble Modeling is to weigh the
results of several models into a single prediction that is possibly better than any one model.[43]
The two main decisions to make in this modeling approach are: should all available models (experts) be considered and
should all models be given equal weighting? Decisions regarding exclusion and weighting are necessarily based on
background information that may provide insight into the accuracy of the model outcomes versus those that could be
expected at the operation being studied. For example, an empirical model derived from industrial trials at high injection
levels may not be as robust as other models for predicting the replacement ratio on a furnace targeting low injection rates.
As an example of the modeling approach being developed the replacement ratios for four potential candidate coals were
predicted from ensemble members provided by considering equations 1, 4, 7 and 8. Table I lists the coal property values,
which are typical for Appalachian coals injected in many North American operations.

Table I. Coal Property Values for Candidate Injection Coals

Coal Btu (dry) O% C% H% Ash % VM% C% (af) H% (af)
C1 14950 6.90 78.00 5.32 6.80 37.5 83.7 5.71
C2 14080 6.02 80.23 5.03 6.80 37.5 86.1 5.40
C3 14221 3.94 81.27 5.15 7.25 37.47 87.6 5.55
C4 14572 5.18 82.30 5.16 5.03 37.56 86.7 5.43

In this example no weighting is applied, so all equations are treated equally. By apply no weighting factor the assumption is
made that all models are equally as accurate at predicting the relationship between coal properties and coke replacement ratio.
This assumption may not be as weak as initially thought, as the goal is determining the relative difference between candidate
coals – to feed forward into a comparative cost model – rather than the absolute value of replacement ratio. As shown in
Table II, the Ensemble Modeling described above predicts coke replacement ratios of between 0.91 and 0.98 for the listed
coals. A ranking comparison between the individual and Ensemble model results, shown in Table II, indicates similar
behavior. Not unexpected is that in general the individual models predict a range of coke replacement values between 0.04
lower and 0.06 higher.

Table II. Predicted Coke Replacement Ratios

Coal Replacement Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking
Ratio Overall Eq. 1 Eq. 4 Eq. 7 Eq. 8
C1 0.91 4 4 4 4 4
C2 0.95 3 3 3 3 3
C3 0.98 1 1 2 2 1
C4 0.97 2 2 1 1 2

DISCUSSION
The initial premise that industrial trials are required to determine accurate coke replacement ratios for pulverized coal
injection was challenged, and found wanting. The argument being the length of time required to achieve statistically
significant data is too great, and consequently so is the expense. Although lengthy trials are not a technical issue, the reality
is that longer trials, particularly at lower injection rates, can under some situations become cost prohibitive. This is
particularly the case for operations with burden and operational variability that induce greater influence on the furnace fuel
rate, than a candidate coal that may have a similar replacement ratio as the incumbent coal. This argument can be supported
by considering the proposed coals described in Tables I and II, at typical North American injection rates, the predicted
difference in fuel rate between the 3 highest ranked coals is only 5.7lb/nthm, an amount that it sufficiently small that it may
be difficult to reliably measure. As shown in the review, many operations report considerable variation in fuel rate at a given
injection rate.
The use of the Ensemble Modeling approach, although relatively simple, is not without concerns. The above example, using
four ensemble members (source models), predicted coke replacement ratios of 0.91 to 0.98. It is worth commenting that
these are all greater than the typical replacement ratio at Dearborn Works (0.88). This difference suggests that for coal
selection for the Dearborn operation the number of ensemble members should be expanded, or changed. Although as
previously noted when comparing several potential coals it is the relative difference that is important for use in a comparative
cost model.
The impact of expanding the number of ensemble members has been examined, by including models such as that described in
Equation 10, and empirical relationships as derived from Isshi[35] and Kruse et al[14]. Not unexpected by increasing the
ensemble number the predicted replacement ratios changed. For example by expanding to 8 models more reasonable lower
replacement ratios for the four candidate coals were achieved (0.89, 0.90, 0.94, and 0.93 respectively). Although as seen
similar relative differences and rankings were noted by expanding the selection to 8 models versus 4.
Currently the accuracy of the model is being improved by further expanding the number of models included in the ensemble.
The difficulty remains discounting certain models, which are judged to be unwise, and whether weighting should be applied
to differentiate between the models. For example should a model that accounts for a positive impact from hydrogen content
be given more weighting than a model that considers only carbon content, or a model that allows for a positive impact from
ash content? Furthermore, effort is being applied to evalute which models should be completely discounted, i.e. unwise. It
may not be that the model as originally intended is inaccurate, it may be simply the information provided in the public
domain is reproduced with errors or not fully detailed. For example equation 12 as reported predicts replacement ratios of
approximately 3 and is currently not considered with the Ensemble models, being judged unwise.

CONCLUSIONS
The criteria for selecting a coal as a blast furnace fuel injectant cover a broad range of techno-economic issues. One key
parameter for PCI coal selection is the coke replacement ratio. From purely technical aspects the coke replacement ratio
should be determined via industrial trials.
As a preliminary conclusion a review of public domain information supported this initial premise, that controlled industrial
trials are required to accurately determine the coke replacement ratio of a coal. However, after reconsideration of the
industrial trial approach, it was opined that modeling may present under some situations a more realistic, and cost effective,
approach. This argument is made on the basis of the length of trials that may be required to ascertain accurate fuel rates,
particularly with operations charging metallics and operating over a broad range of parameters and conditions.
A simple modeling approach is described that is based on the wisdom of crowds. It is argued that in this case the crowd are
experts within the field, and that there exists sufficient diversity and independence in the models that the individual models
can collectively achieve a wise decision.
As an example four potential candidate coals were considered using the Ensemble Modeling approach, using four of the
provided coke replacement ratio models derived from literature. Although the predicted replacement ratios were greater than
achieved in practice, suggesting that the ensemble size needs expansion, it was noted that in most cases only a comparative
evaluation is required for coal selection. It was also noted that the predicted differences in coke replacement ratio values
between the coals was sufficiently small that distinguishing between the coals using industrial trials may be difficult.
Concerns with the Ensemble Modeling approach were discussed, and are being addressed by ongoing developments such as
expanding the number of ensemble members, applying weighting factors, and validating some of the published models.
It is concluded that under some conditions Ensemble Modeling offers a simple, cost effective, yet valid approach to
determining the coke replacement ratio during the coal selection process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the management of AK Steel for permission to publish this work. Staff within AK Steel Dearborn
Works Ironmaking Department are thanked for their support of the work, ongoing assistance, and technical discussions. The
authors also acknowledge the assistance of A. Babich, A. Cheng, M. Geerdes, and H. Valia regarding technical matters
discussed in the paper.

DISCLAIMER
Any views or opinions presented in this report do not necessarily represent those of AK Steel Corporation. AK Steel accepts
no liability for the content of this report and for consequences of any action taken on the basis of information contained in
this report.
REFERENCES
1. Anon, AIST 2016 North American Blast Furnace Roundup, Iron and Steel Technology, Vol 13, No. 3, Mar, 2016.
(earlier data also available in BF Roundup, published yearly in March Edition).
2. J.S. Dawes, Manufacture of Iron, British Patent No. 6207, Dec 22, 1831.
3. S.M. Banks, Manufacture of Iron, British Patent No. 8479, Apr 16, 1840.
4. J.M.A. Thiollier and P.M.F. Laurent, Improvements Relating to Cupola and Blast Furnaces, United States Patent No.
250602, Dec 6, 1881.
5. J.H. Strassburger, E.J. Ostrowski and J.R. Dietz, “Solid Fuel Injection at the Hanna Furnace Corporation”, Blast
Furnace, Coke Oven and Raw Materials Committee Conf. Proc., Met. Soc. of AIME, Vol 21, 1962, pp. 157-181.
6. L. Coche, “Why Injection? – Some Facts and Figures”, Blast Furnace Injection Symp. Proc., Ed. N.Standish,
Australia, 1972, pp.1-1 to 1-4.
7. N.B.Melcher and W.M. Mahan, “Blast Furnace Fuel Injection in the United State – State of the Art”, Blast Furnace
Injection Symp. Proc., Ed. N.Standish, Australia, 1972, pp.2-1 to 2-8.
8. G. B. Wei, S. Wang and L-Q. Zongda, “Coal Powder Injection on Blast Furnaces of Shoudu Iron and Steel Company”,
5th International Iron and Steel Conf. Ironmaking Proc., ISS, vol 45, 1986, pp. 501-508.
9. S. Tada, T. Yabata and T. Uehara, “Coal Injection in the Blast Furnace – Kobe Steel”, Future Ironmaking Processes
Conf. Proc., Canada, June, 1990, pp.5-1 to 5-23.
10. A. Poos and N. Ponghis, “Potentials and Problems of High Coal Injection Rates”, Ironmaking Conf. Proc., Vol 49,
ISS, 1990, pp. 443-453.
11. D. StaRosa, D. Fanning, A.Cheng, M. Sakurai and N. Smith, “Pulverized Coal Injection Start Up at National Steel’s
Great Lakes Division”, Ironmaking Conf. Proc., ISS/ICSTI, Vol 57, 1998, pp. 379-394.
12. R.T.S. Carneiro, H. Sad, and H.R.S. Junior, “Coal Selection Methodology for Blast Furnace Injection”, Ironmaking
Conf. Proc., ISS, Vol 60, 2001, pp. 485-493.
13. H. Toxopeus, A. Steeghs, J. van den Boer, “PCI at the Start of the 21st Century”, Ironmaking Conf. Proc., ISS, Vol 60,
2001, pp. 735-742.
14. R.J. Kruse, P.C. Chaubal, J.B. Moore, and H.S. Valia, “Blast Furnace PCI Coal Selection at Ispat Inland”, Ironmaking
Conf. Proc., ISSTech 2003, pp. 787-797.
15. L.W. Lherbier and E.J. Serrano, “Quality Criteria for Blast Furnace Injection Coals”, 36th McMaster Symposium on
Iron and Steelmaking – The Challenges of Coal Injection in Today’s Blast Furnaces, McMaster University, Canada,
2008, pp. 175-188.
16. H. Reintjes and S. Tamura, “Injection and Combustion of Coal in a Blast Furnace”, Iron and Steel Engineer, Feb,
1983, pp. 33-37.
17. N.S Hur, B.R. Cho, H.D. Kim and K.S Heor, “Reduction of Coke Rate to 310kg/THM under the High Productivity at
the Kwangyang No. 4 Blast Furnace”, Ironmaking Conference Proc., ISS/ICSTI, 1998, Vol 57, pp. 373-378.
18. M. Picard, “Pulverized Coal Combustion in the Blast Furnace Raceway, using a 3D Numerical Simulation”,
Ironmaking Conference Proc., ISS, 2001, pp. 229-239.
19. P. Bennett, “Using a Blast Furnace Model for the Selection of PCI Coals”, 2nd Intl. Ironmaking Conf. Proc., Brazil,
2004.
20. S. Ray, L. Giroux, T. MacPhee, K. W. Na, T. Todoschuk “Evaluation of PCI Coals in New Injection Facility at
Canmet Energy – Ottawa”, AISTech Conf. Proc., 2015, pp. 926-937.
21. A. Babich, S.Yaroshevskii, A. Formoso, A. Isidro, S. Ferreira, A. Cores and L. Garcia, “Increase of Pulverized Coal
Use in Efficiency of Blast Furnace”, ISIJ Intl., Vol 36, 10, 1996, pp. 1250-1258.
22. M. Sakurai, K. Mori, A. Cheng, D. Fanning and T. Jere, “Process Consideration for Coal Injection at National Steel’s
Great Lakes D-4 Blast Furnace”, Ironmaking Conference Proc., ISS/ICSTI, 1998, Vol 57, pp. 425-430.
23. M. Gu, Z. Chen, D. Huang, P. Chaubal and C. Q. Zhou, “Heat Transfer, Devolatilization and Combustion of Injected
Coal Before Entering Raceways”, AISTech Conf. Proc., 2006, pp. 345-355.
24. D. Maldonado, P.R. Austin, P. Zulli, B. Guo, “Modelling Coal Combustion Behaviour in an Ironmaking Blast Furnace
Raceway – Model Development and Applications”, AISTech Conf. Proc., 2008.
25. Y. Shen, A. Yu, and P. Zulli, “CFD Modeling and Applications of Pulverized Coal Injection in Blast Furnace”,
AISTech Conf. Proc., 2011, pp. 495-505.
26. Y. Shen and A. Yu “Characterization of Coal Burnout in the Raceway of an Ironmaking Blast Furnace”, Steel
Research Intl., 86, 6, 2015, pp. 604-611.
27. A. Babich, D. Senk, and S. Born, “Interaction between Co-Injected Substances with Pulverized Coal into the blast
Furnace”, ISIJ Intl., Vol 12, No. 12, 2014, pp. 2706-2712.
28. W. Walker, M. Gu, N. Selvarasu, J. D’Alessio, N. Macfadyen and C. Q. Zhou, “Numerical Study of Pulverized Coal
Injection with Natural Gas Co-Injection in a Blast Furnace”, AISTech Conf. Proc., 2007.
29. D. Fu, D. Zheng, C. Q. Zhou, J. D’Alessio, K. J. Ferron, and Y. Zhao, “Parametric Studies on PCI Performances”,
ASME/JSME 8th Thermal Engineering Joint Conf. Proc., 2011.
30. A. Majeski, A. Runstedtler, J. D’Alessio, N, Macfadyen, and K. Ferron, “The Effects of Lance Positioning and Design
on the Co-Injection of Pulverised Coal and Natural Gas into Blast Furnace”, 9th Intl. Conf. on CFD in the Minerals and
Process Industries, 2012.
31. T. Okosun, S.Street, Y.Chen, J.Zhao, B.Wu, and C.Q.Zhou, “Investigation of Co-Injection of Natural Gas and
Pulverized Coal in a Blast Furnace”, AISTech 2015 Conf. Proc., 2015, pp. 1581-1594.
32. J. Broad, Apparatus for Economosing Coal and Other Fuel to be Used with Hot or Cold Blast in the Smelting of Iron
Ores and Remelting of Pig Iron, British Patent No. 1759, Jul 20, 1860.
33. W.P. Hutny, J.T. Price and J.F. Gransden, “Evaluation of Coals for Blast Furnace Injection using a Computer Model”,
Ironmaking Conf. Proc., ISS, 1990, pp. 323-330.
34. K. Yamaguchi, H. Ueno, S. Matsunaga, K. Kakiuchi and S. Amano, “Test on High-rate Pulverized Coal Injection
Operation at Kimitsu No. 3 Blast Furnace”, ISIJ International, Vol 35, No. 2, 1995, pp. 148-155.
35. Advanced Pulverized Coal Injection Technology and Blast Furnace Operation, K. Ishii (ed.), Pergamon, 2000.
36. P. Bennett and T.Fukushima, “Impact of PCI Coal Quality on Blast Furnace Operations”, 12th Intl. Conf. on Coal
Science, The Australian Institute of Energy, Cairns, Australia, Nov, 2003.
37. M. Geerdes, R.Chaigneau, I. Kurunov, O. Lingiardi and J. Ricketts, Modern Blast Furnace Ironmaking, 3rd Edition,
IOS Press, 2015.
38. H. Valia, Private Communication, June, 2014.
39. Anon – attribute to Bennett, “PCI-Impact on Blast Furnace Operation, Appendix A – Replacement Ratio of a Coal”,
www.coaltech.com.au/LinkedDocuments/Appendix%20A.pdf, accessed Jan 27th, 2016.
40. A. Babich, S. Yaroshevskii, A. Formoso, A. Cores, L. Garcia and V. Nozdrachev, “Co-Injection of Noncoking Coal
and Natural Gas in Blast Furnace”, ISIJ International, Vol 39, No. 3, 1999, pp. 229-238.
41. Y. Otsuka, M. Konishi, and T. Maki, “Stabilization Method for Hot Metal Temperature in Operation Change of Blast
Furnace”, ISJ International, Vol 40, No. 4, 2000, pp. 324-347.
42. J.C. Agarwal, F.C. Brown, D.L. Chin, G.S. Stevens, and D.M. Smith, “Coinjection of Natural Gas and Pulverized Coal
in the Blast Furnace at High Levels: Field Test Results at USS/Gary”, Ironmaking Conference Proc., ISS/ICSTI, 1998,
Vol 57, pp. 105-134.
43. L. Rokach, Pattern Classification using Ensemble Methods, World Scientific Publishing Co., 2009, pp. 19-65.