4.1 Article

Effect of pellet basicity and MgO content on the quality and microstructure of hematite pellets

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINERAL PROCESSING
卷 99, 期 1-4, 页码 43-53

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.minpro.2011.03.004

关键词

Pellet induration; Swelling; Acid pellets; Reduction degradation index; Silicate melt; MgO pellets

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quality of pellets is influenced by the nature of ore or concentrate, associated gangue, type and amount of fluxes added and their subsequent treatment to produce pellets. These factors in turn result in the variation of physicochemical properties of the coexisting phases and their distribution during pellet induration. In the present study, effect of pellet basicity and MgO content on the melt formation and microstructure during the induration was examined. Fired pellets with varying basicity (0 to 0.8) and MgO (0 and 1.5%) content were tested for cold strength, reduction degradation index, reducibility, swelling and softening-melting characteristics. Optical microscope studies with image analysis software were carried out to estimate the amount of different phases. SEM-EDS analysis was done to record the chemical analysis of oxide and slag phases. X-ray mapping was also carried out to understand the distribution of CaO, MgO, SiO2 and Al2O3 in different phases. From the results, it was observed that with increasing basicity, RDI and softening-melting characteristics of pellets found to be improved. Addition of MgO to both acid and limestone fluxed pellets considerably reduced their swelling tendency. Improved pellet quality could be attributed to the formation of sufficient amount of silicate melt in basic pellets and high melting point slag in MgO pellets. Limestone fluxed pellets at 0.8 basicity, pyroxenite fluxed pellets at 1.5% MgO and dolomite fluxed pellets at 0.4 basicity & 1.5% MgO exhibited optimum metallurgical properties among all the pellets studied. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据