4.4 Article

Numerical Analysis of Blast Furnace with Injection of COREX Export Gas After Removal of CO2

期刊

ISIJ INTERNATIONAL
卷 61, 期 1, 页码 174-181

出版社

IRON STEEL INST JAPAN KEIDANREN KAIKAN
DOI: 10.2355/isijinternational.ISIJINT-2020-384

关键词

blast furnace; COREX export gas; tuyere injection; thermal compensation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51904023, 51804027]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [FRF-TP-19-035A2]
  3. State Key Laboratory of Advanced Metallurgy [KF20-07]
  4. Australian Research Council [DP180101232]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study focused on the impact of Blast furnace (BF) injection of COREX export gas after removal of CO2 (CEG) on the operation of the BF, as well as the acceptable injection volume of CEG under different thermal compensation measures.
Blast furnace (BF) injection of COREX export gas after removal of CO2 (CEG) displays many ecological and environmental advantages. A static model of BF operation of CEG was developed according to mass and heat balance. The effect of CEG injection on the raceway adiabatic flame temperature (RAFT), the amount and composition of bosh gas, and the shape of raceway were studied. The acceptable injection volume of CEG under different thermal compensation measures was investigated. The results show that under no thermal compensation, with the increase of CEG injection, the RAFT decreases but the volume of bosh gas increases. The content of CO and H-2 increases with the increase of CEG injection. Based on the standard of maintaining the RAFT and volume of bosh gas, addition of oxygen, reducing blast humidity and increasing blast temperature are effective measures of thermal compensation to increase the quantity of CEG injection. The characteristics of high temperature zone of BF under different suitable CEG injection volumes were also studied. The findings of this work can be used as a theoretical basis to guide plant operations for CEG injection in BF.

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

4.4
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