4.5 Article

Evolution behavior and mechanism of iron carbon agglomerates under simulated blast furnace smelting conditions

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s42243-023-00910-y

关键词

Iron carbon agglomerate; Reactivity; Evolution behavior; Evolution mechanism; Blast furnace; Softening-melting-dripping property

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The evolution behavior and mechanism of different reactive iron carbon agglomerates (ICA) under simulated blast furnace smelting conditions were studied. The results showed that an appropriate proportion of iron ore in ICA can strengthen its gasification reaction and carburization ability, promoting the reduction, softening, melting, and dripping of slag-iron.
Iron carbon agglomerates (ICA) are the composite burden for low-carbon blast furnace (BF) ironmaking. In order to optimize the reactivity of ICA according to the evolution characteristics of ICA in the BF smelting process, the evolution behavior and mechanism of different reactive ICA under simulated BF smelting conditions were studied. The results show that the existence of more sillimanite and aluminosilicate and less active sites of metallic iron will weaken gasification reaction and carburization ability of ICA-1 (containing 10% iron ore). It weakens the promoting effect of ICA-1 on the reduction, softening, and melting of ferrous burdens and the dripping of slag-iron. The aluminosilicate with a high melting point decreases, the low melting point slag phase and Fe-Si alloy increase, and many active sites of metallic iron exist, which strengthen the gasification reaction and carburization ability of ICA-2 (containing 30% iron ore). The promoting effect of ICA-2 on the reduction, softening, and melting of ferrous burdens and the dripping of slag-iron is significantly improved. The gasification reaction capacity of ICA-3 (containing 35% iron ore) is reduced, and the improvement in ICA-3 on the softening-melting performance of mixed burdens is reduced. The appropriate proportion of iron ore in ICA is about 30%.

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

4.5
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