New Developments in Bell-less Top Charging Technology of Blast Furnaces

Paul Tockert, Claude-Charles Thirion, Emile Lonardi, Guy Thillen, Robert Goffin, Lionel Hausemer PAUL WURTH S.A. 32, rue dAlsace, 1122 Luxembourg, Luxembourg Tel.: (+352) 4970-1 Fax: (+352) 4970-2209 E-mail: paulwurth@paulwurth.com Key Words: Blast furnace, Bell-less Top, Burden Distribution, Interface

INTRODUCTION This paper describes the latest developments in PAUL WURTHs Bell-less Top charging technology. The first part will introduce different design characteristics of the GEN2 (Second Generation) Multiple Hopper Bell-less Top charging system in comparison to the previous generation. The second part presents a new innovative interface for defining burden charging recipes.

DISCUSSION Since the beginning of the modern blast furnace era, charging technology has passed through numerous evolutions. The introduction of the first Bell-less Top (BLT) charging system in the early 1970s was undeniably a milestone. Paul Wurth, as the originator of the BLT technology, has permanently invested in research and development with the aim to create the Best Available Technology in the domain of blast furnace charging technology. The New Generation Bell-less Top The 35 years experience gained on more than 450 BLTs worldwide has been a precious asset for the development of the second generation (GEN2) of the Two Hopper & Three Hopper BLT (see Figure 1). The GEN2 BLT is mainly characterized by: A new material hopper design A modular design for easy access and maintenance

The new hopper design (Figure 3), resulting from a displacement of the lower seal valves and material gates towards the centreline of the blast furnace, has enhanced the centering of the material stream. Test rig and on-site tests have proven that the rings are perfectly circular and centered no matter which hopper is used. The enhanced stream centering reduces the wear of the feeder spout and, in combination with the new type of distribution chute, (see Figure 4), provides accurate centre coke charging.

AISTech 2009 Proceedings - Volume I

413

Burden material mass flow (piston flow) discharge results from the new hopper shape. This minimizes grain size segregation during discharging which ensures a higher reproducibility in case of raw material grain size distribution change. The seal valves casing (only for the Two Hopper BLT) and the material gate casings are individual units equipped with roller carriage permitting easy unit withdrawal for specific maintenance activities (e.g. bellow arrangement-, centring device- and feeder spout replacement). Large access doors facilitate maintenance of the seal valve and material gate units. The material hopper load cells have been replaced by weighing beams which are more reliable as no mechanical guides and springs pretension systems are required. A new algorithm for the monitoring of the weighing system, enabling the detection of common phenomena (e.g. hopper tightness), has been developed.

Figure 1 GEN2 Three Hopper BLT Depending on the complexity of the charging cycle (especially when using small batches like centre coke or sinter fines), a Three Hopper BLT may be the only charging system able to achieve the foreseen production rate. A new batch (for refilling a hopper) is only requested from the stockhouse when a hopper starts emptying. The batch to batch time is thus shorter for a Three Hopper Top in comparison to a Two Hopper Top (Figure 2).

Cycle time saving

Three Hopper BLT

C1

C2

O2

by 3HP BLT

Two Hopper BLT

C1

C2

O1

O2

Figure 2 Time diagram for Two and Three Hopper BLTs The valve casing design of the Three Hopper BLT is slightly different: the seal valves open towards the exterior wall, allowing for two hoppers to be discharged simultaneously. This gives, for example, the possibility to discharge simultaneously a batch of sinter and pellets, avoiding segregation (which would have resulted from discharging a mix of sinter and pellets from one hopper) and ensuring a perfect mix leading to an even burden distribution.

414

AISTech 2009 Proceedings - Volume I

In case of a problem on one of the three hoppers it is possible to sustain the normal production (switching to a less complex charging cycle might be required). The first GEN2 Multiple Hopper Bell-less Top charging system was installed in Brazil in 2007 on Blast Furnace No.3 of AM Tubaro. Up to now more than 20 GEN2 Multiple hoppers BLT are in operation or have been ordered.

Former

New

Figure 3 Former versus New design of BLT

Figure 4 Central discharging with an improved centre coke chute

AISTech 2009 Proceedings - Volume I

415

An Innovative Interface for Defining Burdening Recipes Blast furnace operation is much about burden composition and burden distribution. Simply put, burden composition (amongst others) conditions the slag rate and its composition and thus the hot metal quality; whereas burden distribution conditions the gas distribution in the blast furnace counter-current iron making process. In this paper, the composition in terms of raw materials, the corresponding weights and the discharging pattern for each batch of a burden charging cycle, is referred to as a recipe. The Common way to define burdening recipes The most common way to define a recipe is to perform a mass balance calculation to determine the raw material amounts (usually per ton of hot metal) to be used. These calculated values are scaled up to match a desired reference basis (coke thickness at throat, coke basis, ferrous basis, etc.) thus providing the total weights to be burdened per nominal charge. A nominal charge is a set of at least one coke and one ferrous material batch which when considered together, respect the targeted burden composition and the reference basis. The burden material weights to be used in the charging cycle correspond to the burdening weights of the nominal charge times the number of considered charges. The charging cycle weights of material will be split into batches. If, taking into consideration all batches, the sum of each raw material weight does not match the corresponding raw material charging cycle weight; the burden composition will not be in line with the target composition. Whenever a raw materials chemical composition changes significantly enough to affect the process (e.g. slag basicity), the process engineer or operator has to repeat all the steps in order to update the batch composition of the recipe. These steps are summarized in Figure 5.
1. Mass Balance

2. Calculate nominal charge weights Upon significant change of chemical composition of one raw material

3. Calculate charging cycle weights

4. Allocate charging cycle weights to batches

Figure 5 Common recipe definition A simple recipe example is a furnace running solely prepared burden, e.g. sinter, having only one additive for basicity correction and using a CO (the symbol indicates batches) charging cycle. In this case the charge weights consist of four figures: coke, nut coke, sinter and additive weights. In case of a raw material composition change, only these four figures have to be changed (for conveyor belt charging; skip charging would be different). A more representative example would incorporate the use of more raw materials: a furnace running mainly on sinter along with pellets, iron ore, sinter fines, three additives, centre coke, coke, and nut coke. Assuming that the required amount of sinter fines (obtained by screening the sinter) to be burdened is produced after four charging cycles - the charging cycle comprises four charges, such as: C1+CCO1C2O2C3O3C4O4+SF where CC stands for centre coke and SF for sinter fines. Each charge (e.g. C2O2) comprises 8 weight figures (sinter, pellets, iron ore, 3 additives, coke and nut coke), except for the first and last charge which, in addition to the other materials, comprise centre coke and sinter fines. As many as thirty-four weight figures would have to be changed in case of a raw material composition change. Even if in some plants the steps 1 to 3 (Figure 5) are combined, defining and updating the batch weights is a tiresome job and is a very likely source of error.

416

AISTech 2009 Proceedings - Volume I

Proposed recipe burdening definition In order to overcome this complicated recipe updating procedure, the concept of relative recipe definition was developed. The starting points are, as in the common recipe definition, the raw material weights per ton of hot metal obtained by mass balance. A reference basis (typically a coke layer height in the throat or belly or a coke, ferrous or hot metal basis) as well as the total number of charges must be defined; the total weights by raw material for the nominal charge can thus be calculated. The main difference is that the weights allocated to batches are expressed in a relative manner i.e. in percentages of the nominal charge. The total percentage to be allocated per raw material is equal to the number of requested charges times a hundred percent. Upon raw material composition change, the only figures to be changed, in order to update the recipe, are the raw material weights per ton of hot metal. The process is summarized in Figure 6.

1. Weights per ton of hot metal Specify reference basis 2. Automatic calculation nominal charge weights Specify batch composition by using percentages of the charge weight 3. Automatic calculation of batch weights Upon significant change of chemical composition of one raw material

Figure 6 Proposed recipe definition A burdening interface has been developed to implement this recipe definition concept. In Figure 7 the raw materials and corresponding weights are defined in placeholder 1. By specifying the reference basis and the number of charges in placeholder 2, the nominal charge weights (placeholder 3) and the total percentages to be allocated per raw material are determined. Each batch composition is defined by allocating percentages for each used raw material (see placeholder 4).

1. Used raw materials & weights per ton of hotmetal 3. Nominal charge weights

2. Definition of reference basis & number of charges

4. Defining batch composition by specifying raw materials to be used and allocating corresponding percentages

Figure 7 Paul Wurth BLT Burdening Interface batch composition

AISTech 2009 Proceedings - Volume I

417

In the interface it is possible to specify the raw material arrangement on the main charging conveyor (if the stockhouse supports raw material arrangement specification). This concept is illustrated in Figure 8. A + symbol between materials of a batch indicates that these materials will be layered whereas a blank indicates the start of a new section with one or more layered materials. Batch 1 2 3
C1 S1 50% 50% + + C1 S1 50% 50%

NC

100%

P1

100%

O1

100%

A1

100%

A2

100%

A1 O1 P1 NC S1 A2 S1

Conveyor direction
C1

C1

Figure 8 - Specifying the raw material arrangement on the main charging conveyor The interface also assists the operator in avoiding potential pitfalls. Once the composition of all the batches has been specified, the operator can request a check of the specified batch composition (this check will be performed in any case before the recipe will go into production). Before describing the different checks that are performed, it has to be mentioned that the interface is connected to the process control system and has access to the following stockhouse information (amongst others): availability, current extraction speed, weighing bin capacity and contained material type for each weighing bin extractor. The following checks can be performed: The interface will check that all requested materials have been used in the recipe and that their percentages are correct. This will ensure that the recipe matches the specified burden composition. In the case where the stockhouse supports the specification of the raw material arrangement of the material on the main charging conveyor, the operator will be able to specify how many weighing bin extractors shall be used for extracting a specific material. In Figure 8 this is illustrated by batch 1 where 2 extractors are specified to extract coke C1. In this case the interface checks that there are enough C1 extractors available in the stockhouse and if the capacity of the corresponding weighing bins is not exceeded. The interface will also check if the flow rate resulting from the requested material arrangement will not exceed the capacity of the main conveyor. In case of skip charging, it is possible to specify splitting raw materials into skips for each batch. In this case the interface will check that the skip capacity is not exceeded. The interface will check if any batch volume exceeds the Bell-less Top material hopper capacity. Warnings can be issued when coke (not nut coke) and ferrous burden are mixed or, depending on the main conveyor slope, when pellets are not charged in a sandwich layer.

418

AISTech 2009 Proceedings - Volume I

The mass balance (see Figure 9) is connected to the process control system and has access to the chemical analysis per stockhouse weighing bin (determined by material tracking or manual input). For each raw material type the average chemical analysis will be calculated and used for the mass balance calculation. To illustrate the concept of raw material type, S1 and S2 would be two different sinter qualities (e.g. from two distinct sinter strands); the two raw material types belong to the same family sinter but are distinguishable. Several stockhouse weighing bins with available extractors can contain S1 so that the average chemical analysis for S1 will be representative for this material type.

Figure 9 Paul Wurth BLT Burdening Interface burden composition A recipe will, using the interface, be updated as follows: Upon raw material composition change, the process engineer or operator opens the burden composition view (Figure 9). The information for performing the mass balance (basicity target, selected additives and proportion of ferrous burden types) is stored in the recipe so that, basically, only the calculation needs to be triggered. The new weights will be transferred to the interface. Upon request to put the recipe into production, the recipe is checked for potential errors or problems. If an error or problem is detected, the interface will substitute the percentages by the actual weights (so that the operator can compare the values with the recipe currently in production). Upon validation the recipe goes into production. The system is also capable of working in closed loop upon detection of raw material composition change. So far we have only covered the recipe batch composition aspect; in order to complete the recipe definition, the charging pattern for each batch must be specified. In the interface a second view pane (see Figure 10) enables the operator to input all required information to define charging patterns: number of revolutions or percentage of burden weight per distribution chute position, chute tilting direction, material gate closure between chute positions, possibility to specify a rotational starting angle for the discharging start and an optional angle increment for the subsequent discharges of the same batch. An alternative method for specifying the burden material per chute position, a shorthand notation that will allow distribution chute direction change during the discharge of a batch, will be implemented. The interface helps the operator to avoid pitfalls. The interface will check if the burden material flow rate resulting from the charging pattern is not too low or too high (once the batch composition has been specified, the weight and volume of each batch is known which enables the calculation of the burden material flow rate per batch).

AISTech 2009 Proceedings - Volume I

419

Definition of distribution chute position tilting direction Definition of number of revolutions or percentage of burden weight per distribution chute position

Discharging rotational starting angle and optional angle increment

Figure 10 Paul Wurth BLT Burdening Interface batch burdening settings Further advantages of the burdening interface During the definition and development of the interface, additional possibilities for enhancement were identified. In a recipe, dedicated information is stored for each batch; the opportunity was taken to enrich this information in order to increase the Bell-less Top charging accuracy. One of the well known correction methods is the updating of the material gate characteristic flow curve. Typically each material gate has a characteristic curve for ferrous material (O type curve) and for coke (C type curve). These curves are used to determine the material gate aperture angle (constant during the material hopper discharge) for a given average volumetric flow rate. After each hopper discharge, the characteristic curve is updated in order to reduce the detected flow rate error. As there are only a limited number of curve types, this can lead to recurrent discharging errors. The following example will illustrate such a situation: The charging cycle is C1C2O1O2 where O1 is sinter and O2 is sinter with a substantial amount of pellets. After several discharged batches the accuracy for C1, C2 will be very satisfactory because of the C type material gate characteristic curve updating. On the other hand, the accuracy for O1 and O2 will not be improved: after discharging batch O1, the O type material gate characteristic curve will be updated to match 100% sinter. The use of this curve for discharging a mixture of pellets and sinter and its updating after discharge will lead to a recurrent error. An easy way to solve this problem is to define material gate characteristic curves for each batch. When defining a recipe, standard curves, O and C types, will be copied into each batch depending on their nature O or C. When the recipe is put into production, each batch characteristic curve will be updated after the corresponding batch has been discharged. This will lead to maximum accuracy even if the material gate is closed between distribution chute positions. When the recipe is taken out of production the updated material gate characteristic curve data are saved in the corresponding recipe file in order to have accurate characteristic curves the next time the recipe is used. This concept is illustrated in Figure 11.

420

AISTech 2009 Proceedings - Volume I

In definition
Batch 1 2 3
C1 S1 50% 50% + + C1 S1 50% 50%

& V
Type C O

& V

NC

100%

& V Batch 1

Put into production

Batch 1 2 3 Type C O

C1 S1

50% 50%

+ +

C1 S1

50% 50%

NC

100%

Correction

In production

& V Batch 2
Correction

Figure 11 Paul Wurth principle of individual batch material gate flow characteristic curve correction Another enhancement to be implemented in the future is the interaction with the Paul Wurth Burden Distribution Model. When a recipe has been defined, all information regarding batch composition and discharging pattern are available. The operator will, upon request, be able to visualize the expected burden distribution profile, burden descent through the stack and belly, indicative cohesive zone shape and position and information on the burden porosity. This integration will prevent tiresome double encoding of information.

CONCLUSIONS Mastering burden composition and burden distribution are key factors in high-performance iron making. In comparison to its previous generation, the Paul Wurth GEN2 Bell-less Top charging system provides improved reliability and even better burdening accuracy. The preferred interface for defining charging cycles is the user-friendly Paul Wurth Bell-less Top Burdening Interface (patent pending): When defining a burdening recipe, the operator can take into consideration all the BLT and stockhouse features while being assured that the recipe is in line with the target burden composition. The Burden Distribution Model assists the operator in defining the optimum charging pattern. The combined use with a profilemeter provides valuable feedback and gives the operator the opportunity to react in a timely manner if the burden distribution should not be as expected. The combined use of Paul Wurths GEN2 Three Hopper Bell-less Top charging system, BLT Burdening Interface and Burden Distribution Model will provide a decisive asset for achieving high-class performance, especially when dealing with a wide range of raw materials.

REFERENCES 1. J. Brinckmann, R. Dele, R. Goffin, P. Kinsch, G. Thillen (Paul Wurth S.A.), The newest generation of Paul Wurth Bell-less Top Blast Furnace Charging Systems, The 4th China International Steel Congress, Peking, PR China, March 2006. 2. G. Thillen, R. Goffin, J. Brinckmann, R. Dele, N. Agus (Paul Wurth S.A.), The latest generation of Bell-less Top Blast Furnace Charging Systems, The 5th China International Steel Congress, Shanghai, PR China, June 2008.

AISTech 2009 Proceedings - Volume I

421

422

AISTech 2009 Proceedings - Volume I