See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285590813

Studies of a Quenched Cupola Part I: Overview of

Experimental Studies

Article · April 2009

CITATIONS READS

4 18

4 authors, including:

Ricardo Aristizabal Paula Andrea Pérez Espitia

University of Antioquia University of Antioquia
23 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Intercritically Austempered Ductile Iron View project

Heat Treatment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paula Andrea Pérez Espitia on 03 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Studies of a Quenched Cupola Part I:
Overview of Experimental Studies
R.E. Aristizábal, C.M. Silva, P.A. Pérez
University of Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia

S. Katz
S. Katz Associates, W. Bloomfield, Michigan

Copyright 2009 American Foundry Society

ABSTRACT

A bold experiment was carried out in which a cupola was quenched with water and gaseous nitrogen while in full operation.
An archeological examination of the cupola’s contents was subsequently carried out which provided a detailed description of
the conditions existing from the charge door to the tap hole (18 sections). This paper is the first in a series. It provides an
overview of the experimental studies and confirmation that the information obtained from this very small cupola (12.2”,
310mm) was representative of the performance of commercial cupolas.

INTRODUCTION

Although the basic concept of cupola operation seems simple, in reality it is extremely complex. For the past twenty years
studies were conducted to elucidate the internal cupola processes [1, 2]. The studies enabled the development of a computer
simulation program that describes both the conditions that exist inside the cupola as well as the cupola output [1-4]. To finalize
the project, it was deemed necessary to verify the suppositions contained in the simulation. The verification was provided by
quenching a cupola with water and gaseous nitrogen while it was in full operation and subsequently conducting an
archeological examination of the entire contents of the cupola.

In order to provide the mechanistic data required to verify the accuracy of the simulation program the cupola was extensively
modified; first to have the cupola conform to the structure and operation of commercial cupolas, second to enable careful
removal of materials and third to provide special access to the interior of the cupola so that materials could be removed after
to quenching. Finally, the computer simulation program was used to examine whether the output conditions were accurately
described by the computer simulation program. Confirmation was critical for both verifying the accuracy of the model and
also to verify that the experimental findings were meaningful for commercial cupola operations.

EARLIER QUENCHING OF A CUPOLA

Cupolas were quenched twice prior to the current study. The first occurred in 1945 in England where a 45” (177mm)
diameter cupola was quenched by shutting off the air blast and introducing water through the charge door of the cupola [5].
The analysis was mainly concerned with the visible changes to the iron, steel and coke. Diminution of the size of coke was
noted as the tuyeres were approached and the locations in the cupola where melting of pig iron, cast iron and steel were
noted. Decarburization of iron and steel prior to melting was observed. Finally, rapid mixing of the layers of coke and
metals was noted.

Quenching of the second cupola was reported in 1952 [6]. The quenching took place at the Battelle Memorial Institute (later
to become the Iron Casting Research Institute). The internal diameter of the cupola was 10” (250mm). Quenching was
carried out by shutting off the air blast and introducing water through the charge door. In the examination of the quenched
materials the order of melting of iron and steel was noted as well as the distance over which melting of each material took
place. Carbon pickup in the well was accurately determined using cubic pieces of coke and noting their loss of weight and
change in shape. Decarburization of iron prior to melting was noted as well as the adherence of oxidizing slags to the
surfaces of both iron and steel.
EXPERIMENTAL DESCRIPTION

CUPOLA DESCRIPTION
Important cupola dimensions are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Important Cupola Dimensions

Parameter Dimension (mm/in)

Initial internal diameter at tuyere level 310/12.2
External diameter in melt zone 600/23.6
Number of tuyeres 4 (one row)
Internal diameter of tuyeres 54/2.1
Protrusion of tuyeres 0
Distance tuyeres to charge door 2,100/82.7
Distance tuyeres to tap hole 320/12.6

MODIFICATIONS TO THE CUPOLA

Several modifications were necessary in order for the cupola to perform the same as larger commercial cupolas. The first
was to change from intermittent tapping to continuous tapping. The second modification was to extend the time of operation
from a few hours to six hours. The latter was necessary to achieve steady state conditions inside the cupola prior to
quenching.

The second set of modifications was carried out in order to facilitate the accuracy of the experimental measurements. The
first change was to facilitate the careful removal of the cupola contents by cutting the cupola stack into five removable
flanged sections. The locations of the sections are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Charge door
Section 1

Flange 1
Section 2

Flange 2

Section 3

Flange 3

Section 4

Flange 4
Section 5

Front slagger

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the cupola noting the five sections and the positions of the flanges.
Figure 2. General view of the cupola furnace with the five sections used to extract the samples after the quenching.

The second modification was the installation of viewing ports at five sections. The ports were used to retrieve iron, slag and
coke samples prior to quenching. The ports were located at 0.1m (4”) intervals starting at tuyere level and extending to 0.4m
(16”) above. The ports are shown in Figure 3. Removal of samples through the ports is illustrated in Figures 4 (a) and (b).
A probe containing small pools of liquid metal that was retrieved from inside the cupola is shown in Figure 4 (c).

Figure 3. General view of gate valves during the lighting of the coke bed before the starting of the operation.
1. The Auxiliary tuyere is not used to blast air. It is only used to move the charge materials when it does not descend
properly due to the small size of the cupola. It remains closed during the operation and it is open only when
necessary.2. Probe sample window. 3. Gate is used to light the coke bed before the beginning of the operation.
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 4. (a) and (b) Taking a sample during the run. (c) A close-up of metallic samples taken during the run.

CHARGE MATERIALS AND BLAST CONDITIONS

The charge material and blast condition data are provided in Table 2. The material charges contained equal weights of cast
iron and steel. It contained two types of SiC; lump and briquettes. The blast was enriched with 5.8% oxygen. The coke
weight was about 24% of the weight of metal and alloy.

Copper (0.8%) was added to the cast iron. Steel contained 0.007% Cu. This difference enabled the determination of the
proportions of cast iron and steel in a liquid metal sample based on its Cu content.

Table 2. Charge Materials and Blast Conditions

Blast conditions
Variable Value
Total blast (air + O2enrichment) [m3/s/ft3/min] 0.108/229
Blast temperature [C/F 410/770
Total %O2 in the blast 26.83
%O2 enrichment 5.83
Flow of pure oxygen added [Nm3/s] 8.00E-3/17
Relative humidity [%] 65
Ambient Temperature [C/F] 24/75

Charge conditions
Silicon carbide Metallic charge
Material Coke Limestone
Lump Briquettes Steel White iron
Weight [kg] 3.0 1.0 0.15 0.45 6.0 6.0
Size [m] 0.037-0.078 0.025-0.038 0.02 0.05 0.002 0.01

Chemical composition of charge

Metallic charge %C %Si %Mn %S %Cu
White iron 3.32 1.40 0.44 0.068 0.80
Steel 0.062 0.002 0.469 0.012 0.007

Silicon carbide*
Presentation %SiC %Free carbon %Cement %SiO2
Briquettes 36.00 27.00 10.00 27.00
Lump 98.0 1.00 0.50 0.50

Characterization of Coke
Residual Humidity Ash Volatiles Carbon Sulfur
0.50 8.50 0.60 90.4 0.52

Characterization of limestone
CaO MgO SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3
53.5 0.89 0.83 0.47 0.13
* The chemical compositions provided by the manufacturer
The following information was taken during the test:
1. Temperature of the metal in the continuous channel was measured with an immersion pyrometer.
2. Iron samples were taken in the cupola trough for characterization of the final iron composition. The samples were
poured into a copper mold in order to avoid the precipitation of free graphite. The analyses were performed with
Optical Emission Spectrometry (OES) (SHIMADZU OES 5500).
3. The concentrations of O2 and CO2 were measured in the take-off gas before it entered the burner.
4. The melt rate was determined by the amount of metal charged over time.

QUENCHING THE CUPOLA

The cupola was operated under steady conditions for six hours. At time zero the air blast was shut off and replaced with a
blast of nitrogen about 3 minutes later. About 5 minutes later water was introduced through the charge door and water was
sprayed on the cupola shell. A thermocouple located at tuyere level monitored the change in temperature (Figure 5). As
shown in the Figure 5, the temperature measured at tuyere level at the start of the water quenching process was about 1500oC
(2732 F). It required about 7.5 minutes for the temperature to be reduced to the freezing point of cast iron (red line). The
entire quenching process took about 16 minutes. Figures 6 and 7 show the quenching system arrangements. Figure 7 shows
steam emanating from an unused auxiliary-tuyere near the end of the quenching process.

1600

1400

1200 Temperature at
Temperature ºC

tuyeres level
1000
Change the air blast
800 for the nitrogen blast

600 Introduction of water

trough the charge
400 door
Solidification of the
200 melting zone
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Time -fraction of hour-
Figure 5. This graph depicts the temperature history at tuyere level during quenching.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 6. (a) Adding water system through the charge door (b) and (c) The nitrogen vaporization equipment.
 Figure 7. General views of the quenching process showing steam emanating from the tuyeres.

ARCHEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION
Once the cupola temperatures enabled the removal of materials the archeological examination began. Materials were
removed and stored in 18 layers. The thickness of each layer was approximately 100mm (4.0”). Once the charge materials
contained within a section were removed, the section was removed to allow access to the materials below. This is illustrated
in Figure 8.

Section 2 Section 3

Section 4

Section 5

Figure 8. Disassembly of a section of the cupola after retrieving the samples from the level above.
RESULTS

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MEASURED CUPOLA OUTPUT AND THE CUPOLA SIMULATION PROGRAM
The comparison between measured cupola output and the results obtained with the cupola simulation program is provided in
Table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of the Predictions of Cupola Output Made by the Computer Simulation Model and Experimental
Results

Output Model prediction Experimental

%C 3.61 3.60
%Si 2.33 2.30
%Mn 0.37 0.42
%S 0.072 0.075
Melt rate [kg/hr/ tons/hr] 322/0.35 318/0.35
Temperature at iron dam [ºC/oF] 1549 /2820 1522 /2772

An important use of the simulation model was to describe the internal conditions of the cupola and to compare the simulation
results with the archeological findings. Figures 9 and 10, respectively represent the simulation results for gas composition
and iron temperature profiles in the cupola. They help to provide the necessary understanding of oxidation
processes and melting characteristics.

Figure 9 shows a series of temperature arrests: starting at the left at 1.35m indicates the location where limestone calcinations
take place. Next arrest to the left is the region where cast iron melts. The next arrest represents the melting of steel.

Figure 10 provides the gas composition profiles for the cupola prior to quenching. It shows the region between 0.0m and
2.7m are oxidizing. Above 2.7m the gases become increasingly reducing.
4.0E+03

3.5E+03

3.0E+03
TEMPERATURE [K]

2.5E+03

2.0E+03

1.5E+03

1.0E+03

5.0E+02

0.0E+00
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

DISTANCE FROM THE TUYERES LEVEL [m]

TEMPERATURE COKE TEMPERATURE METAL TEMPERATURE GAS

Figure 9. These temperature profiles were obtained from the CupolaModel_I simulation.
 4.0E-01

3.5E-01

3.0E-01
VOLUME FRACTION

2.5E-01

2.0E-01

1.5E-01

1.0E-01

5.0E-02

0.0E+00
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1
DISTANCE FORM THE TUYERE LEVEL [m]

O2 CO2 CO
Figure 10. These gas composition profiles were obtained with the CupolaModel_I simulation.

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CUPOLA CONTENTS

A wide range of analytical techniques were used to examine the cupola contents. These included photography to record
general conditions. Figure 11 below provides views of the charge materials at different levels in the cupola. At level 4
virtually no changes have occurred to the state of the materials. At level 10 and 14 cast iron and steel, respectively, began to
melt. Few changes are apparent at Level 10. At Level 14 there is clear evidence for the presence of slag. Level 15 is a view
of materials at tuyere level and Level 18 is the iron pool at the bottom of the cupola.

Level 4 Level 10

Level 14 Level 18

Figure 11. Views of charge materials at different levels

Figures 12 (a) and (b) provide other examples of photographic comparisons that allow for mechanistic interpretation. This
figure shows the characteristic accumulation of slag on lump SiC (Figure 12 (a)) and the degradation of the SiC briquettes
(Figure 12 (b)).

(a) Level 16. Lump SiC (b) Level 15. SiC Briquette

Figure 12. Photographs of SiC lump and briquettes at slightly different levels. Note the difference in slag
accumulation.

Quantitative chemical characterizations of materials were carried out by a number of analytical techniques as follow:

Metallic Samples
Optical Emission Spectrometry was used to measure the compositions of iron and steel at different levels when the size of the
samples were sufficiently large, Semi-quantitative X-ray Microanalysis (XRM) was used in combination with Scanning
Electron Microscopy (SEM) to characterize the composition of small liquid metal drops. Mossbauer Spectroscopy and X-ray
diffraction analyses were employed to identify compounds in the oxide layer of the metallic materials.

Figure 13 plots the Si content as a function of height in the cupola. It illustrates the analyses performed on unmelted iron and
steel by OMS (from 0.3m/-12” to 2.1m/82.7”) and the analyses of liquid metal drops XRM (from -0.3m/-12” to 0.3m/12”).

2.0

%Si STEEL
(EXPERIMENTAL)

1.6

%Si IRON (EXPERIMENTAL)

SILICON [w%]

1.2

%Si CRUCIBLE ZONE

(CUPOLA BOTTOM)

0.8

STEEL MELTING POINT

(EXPERIMENTAL)

0.4

IRON MELTING POINT

(EXPERIMENTAL)

0.0
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10

DISTANCE FROM THE TUYERE LEVEL [m]

Figure 13. These plates show silicon profiles in iron and steel.
Silicon Carbide Samples:
Samples of 98% and 36% SiC were crushed and analyzed for carbon and sulfur by LECO analyses. X-Ray Fluorescence
analyses were used to determine all other elements. X-Ray diffraction was used to determine the presence of crystalline
phases. Figure 14 shows the presence of the compounds Tobermorite and Gehlenite that form the cement bond phase in the
SiC briquettes. At Levels 14 and 15 the Tobermorite peak disappears, indicating a major loss of strength. Scanning Electron
Microscopy (SEM) was used to view materials at high magnification (Figure 15). Semi-quantitative X-ray Microanalysis
was used in combination with SEM to characterize the composition of the phases observed in Figure 15.

B_N0
Gehlenite (21,552)

Quartz (26,640)

Tobermorite (29,160)
B_N8

CaO (48,376)
B_N10

SiC (35,656)

CaO (39,492)

Silicon (56,103)
B_N12
B_N14
Cristobalite (21,865)

Tobermorite (42,824)
Tobermorite (20,985)

SiC (59,996)
B_N15

Quartz (50,139)
Vaterite (27,031)
Vaterite (24,872)

SiC (38,151)

Silicon (47,306)
SiC (34,089)

SiC (54,685)

SiC (65,714)
20 30 40 50 60 70
2TETA
2Theta

Figure 14. X-Ray diffraction of SiC briquettes between Level 8 to 15.

Resin

Slag

Reaction zone at
slag/ SiC interface

Resin
SiC

Figure 15. The surface of lump SiC shows a reaction zone between the SiC and the slag covering.
 DISCUSSION

It was important to establish whether or not the experimental results represent the same basic processes that take place in
commercial cupolas. The best measure was a comparison of cupola output data with those predicted by the computer
simulation program. The computer simulation program has a long record of correctly describing commercial cupola
operations [2]. As seen in Table 3 the agreement between the experimental results and the computer simulation is excellent.
It provides the reassurance needed that the conditions noted in the quenched materials also apply to larger cupolas.

The visual observations of the materials inside the cupola are qualitatively the same as the observations made in earlier
quenched cupola experiments, i.e., the rapid mixing of the layers of coke and metal that are initially charged, the oxidation of
steel and decreasing size of coke with descent in the cupola.

Samples of the different materials important in the cupola performance, like cast iron, steel, silicon carbide and coke were
collected and analyzed by different techniques. Future papers will report the results of these characterizations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support received from the American Foundry Society, S. Katz Associates, Inc
and the University of Antioquia. We also wish to acknowledge the donation of the latest version of the CupMelt cupola
simulation program by Dr. Vladimir Stanek and the donation of all the SiC materials by Exolon Co. Finally, we wish to
thank AFS Division 8 Research Committee, especially, Chairman Mark Bauer for their support for this program.

REFERENCES

1. Stanek, V., Katz S., C.F. Landefeld. “AFS Cupola Furnace Model: Current Status and Predictive Capabilities” 2nd
Internacional Cupola Conference, Trier, Germany (2004).
2. Stanek, V., Katz S., C.F. Landefeld .“Part I, The Basic Cupola Model”, Cupola Handbook, 6 th Edition, Chapter 27,
American Foundry Society (1999).
3. Stanek, V. Report of the Silicon Carbide Project (November 2006).
4. Aristizábal, R., Silva, C.M., Perez, P.E., Stanek, V., Katz, S., Bauer, M.E. “Studies of a Quenched Cupola, Part I, The
Behavior of Carbon and Silicon in the Metallic Charge”, FUNDIPRESS, Spain, Number 4, pp 42-52, March 2008.
5. Rambush, N.E., Taylor, G.B. “A New Method for Investigating the Behavior of Charge Material in an Iron-Foundry
Cupola and Some Results Obtained,” Foundry Trade J., Issues from 11/8/45 through 3/7/46.
6. Lownie, H.W, Jr., Krause, D.E., Greenidge, C.T. “How Iron and Steel Melt in the Cupola.” AFS Trans., pp 766-774
(1952).

View publication stats