Proceedings of the 4th Ulcos seminar, 1 – 2 October 2008

SP10 - Top Gas Recycling Blast Furnace / n°2-2

Modelling of the blast furnace internal state with MOGADOR

Gérard Danloy

Centre for Research in Metallurgy, Liège, Belgium

danloy@rdmetal.ulg.ac.be

MOGADOR is a 2D mathematical model of the blast furnace at steady state. In this project, it is used to get a
better insight of the internal state of the BF, as the new types of operation differ greatly from the conventional
one. Three important applications for the project are illustrated.

Introduction The results consist in a complete description of each

The ULCOS blast furnace process consists in recy-
cling most of the top gas after CO2 removal and
reheating. Recycling can take place at main tuyeres
and into the stack. To avoid N2 accumulation due to
recycling, the blast is replaced by pure oxygen.
These new operating conditions raise several ques-
tions about the behaviour of this huge and complex
counter-current reactor. Answers are approached
using MOGADOR, a 2-D mathematical model of the
blast furnace at steady state.
point of the blast furnace, i.e. the fields of tempera-
ture, pressure, velocity and chemical composition of
gas, solids and liquids, as well as the wall heat losses
distribution.
The determination of the solid flow is based on a
potential model taking into account the vanishing of
solids by melting and by gasification. The dead man
is imposed. The configuration of the layered struc-
ture results from this solid flow model (Figure 1).

MOGADOR

Description of the model

As the model has already been presented earlier (1,

2), the description will be limited to the basic princi-
ples and to some original features.

MOGADOR (Model for Gas Distribution and Ore Re-

duction) is a 2-D mathematical model of the blast
furnace at steady state.

The input data include notably the complete descrip-

tion of ore and coke layers at stockline, which is
calculated by a burdening model. In the present
work, the burdening model developed by ArcelorMit-
tal Gent (former Sidmar) is applied (3, 4). The latter
model, which applies to a bell-less top, calculates the
layers thickness as well as the grain size distribution
along the blast furnace radius. The results are in
good agreement with the microwave profilemeter
measurements (4). Figure 1. Structure of the cohesive zone calculated by
MOGADOR (example)
MOGADOR extends the burden distribution inside the
whole blast furnace ; it simulates the gas flow The layer thickness decreases progressively from the
through the layered structure, the solids flow, the top to the tuyeres as well as the inclination angle of
liquids flow, the heat transfer between the different the layers: from 30° at the top, it reaches about 6°
phases and with the walls, the ore softening and in the belly. From the start of melting line to the end
melting in the cohesive zone as well as the main of melting line, the ore layers become thinner and
chemical reactions. The work has been restricted to thinner, which reflects the melting phenomenon.
the main phenomena of the blast furnace and some These results fit very well with the observations
sub-models like liquid flow and softening-melting made on several dissected blast furnaces, as for
have been simplified. example on Hirohata n°1 BF of Nippon Steel (5).

1
In the gas flow calculations, all the individual layers
are taken into account, even if they are thinner than
one mesh; this specificity of the model allows im-
proving the precision of pressure and flow rate re-
sults.
By optimizing the resolution of the system of equa-
tions, it has been possible to improve the conver-
gence speed and hence to decrease significantly the
time of calculation which is lower than one hour.
Calibration of the model and comparison with vertical
probing measurements
The model has been calibrated with experimental
data obtained by vertical probings and by gas tracing
at blast furnace B of ArcelorMittal Gent (former Sid-
mar) (1, 2, 6).
Before running MOGADOR, a global heat and mass
balance is applied to the operational data. The main
results are compared and fit very well.
The measured vertical profiles of temperature, pres-
sure and gas composition compare rather well with
the calculated ones. It is also the case for the hori-
zontal profiles of top gas temperature and composi-
tion. Figure 2 presents the shape of the cohesive
zone as calculated by MOGADOR for five blast fur-
nace operations corresponding to vertical probings.
The upper face of the calculated cohesive zone is
compared to the measurements in Figure 3.
Taking into account the difficulties involved both in
the measurement and in the modelling work, the
Figure 2. Calculated shape of the cohesive zone (Oct. 96, May 98, Oct. 00, June 01, July 01)
Figure 3. Measured and calculated upper face of the cohesive zone (Oct. 96, May 98, Oct. 00, June 01, July 01)
G. Danloy
results of the model fit rather well with the meas-
urements.
Adaptation of the model to the industrial use
ArcelorMittal Gent developed an interface allowing an
automatic acquisition of the data of blast furnace B
required by the mathematical model. These data are
24 hours averages. They include the top gas pres-
sure, the temperature, the flow rate and composition
of the gas issued from the raceway and the chemical
analysis of sinter, coke and hot metal. The coke
base, the charge weight and the composition of the
charging cycle enter the burdening model, which
calculates the complete burden distribution and
geometry at the blast furnace top.
The model can be run under different modes. The
automatic mode is running on the average data of
last 24 hours. The manual mode allows running the
model on the 24-hour average data of any preceding
day. The detailed mode provides more detailed re-
sults and supplementary diagrams for the process
analysis.
The results are displayed on a PC screen. The results
simulating the operation of the preceding day are
available at the morning meeting where the opera-
tional decisions are taken regarding the plant man-
agement. They are also stored automatically in a
database.
2 SP10 – ULCOS-4, October 2008
Industrial use of the model 2.0
Gas injection level = 9.0 m
8.0 m for low CO2 BF

Gas flowrate (Nm3/m2.s)

MOGADOR started running on line at ArcelorMittal

(average on a 2m layer)
8.0 m for reference BF
1.5 12.0 m for low CO2 BF
Gent (former Sidmar) in July 2001. Several exam- 12.0 m for reference BF

ples of the extensive use of the model have been 1.0

presented earlier (2).

The model is also used on line in AcelorMittal 0.5

Dunkerque (BF 3 & 4), Bremen (BF 2) and Florange

(BF 3). 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
MOGADOR is under investigation in Corus, mainly Distance from the BF axis (m)

at BF 6 & 7 of Ijmuiden and at Queen Anne BF of

Scunthorpe. Figure 5. Horizontal profiles of gas flow rates for the
conventional BF and the ULCOS BF process
Study of the recycled gas penetration
Study of the reduction behaviour
into the lower shaft
The progress of reduction is calculated by MOGA-
The mathematical simulation shows that the gas
DOR along the solid trajectories.
injected into the stack does not penetrate very
deeply inside the furnace (Figure 4). Calculated temperature (Figure 6) and gas compo-
sition profiles are provided to SP10.2 to test the
27.7
reduction behaviour in laboratory.
26.5

25.3
1400
24.1

22.9
N2 content 1200
21.7
from
Gas temperature ( °C )

20.5 1000
injected gas 19.3

18.1 800
0.16-0.2
16.9
0.12-0.16 15.7
600
14.5 Level of gas injection = 11.9 m
0.08-0.12 400
13.3 Wall ( r / R = 0.902 )
0.04-0.08 12.1 Mid-radius ( r / R = 0.476 )
200
10.9 Centre ( r / R = 0.252 )
-0-0.04
9.7 0
8.5 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
At injection 7.3 Height above liquid level (m)
point : 0.18 6.1

4.9
Figure 6 – Example of reduction progress calculated for
3.7

2.5
the ULCOS BF process
1.3

0.1
The kinetics involved in the model is then tuned to
fit the calculated reduction profile with the experi-
Figure 4. Illustration of gas penetration into the BF mental results. A good agreement is recorded (Fig-
ure 7).
However, it should not be a severe problem be-
cause Comparison of calculated and experimental results
1100 100

• the injected gas and the gas ascending from 1000 90

eta_CO, eta_H2, Reduction degree (%)

the bosh have rather similar compositions in 900 80

terms of reducing power;
Temperature Mogador
Temperature SGA
800 70
Temperature (°C)

Reduction
• the horizontal gas flow rate profiles remain 700 Reduction degree degree SGA
60

almost unchanged above the injection point 600

Mogador .
50
Injection Level

(Figure 5). 500

H2O/(H2+H2O)
40

400 30

300 20
CO2/(CO+CO2)
200 10

100 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time (min)

Figure 7. Comparison of calculated and experimental

progress of reduction degree for the ULCOS BF process

G. Danloy 3 SP10 – ULCOS-4, October 2008

Based on these results, no problem of reduction The total pressure drop inside the BF is also re-
kinetics is expected in the ULCOS BF process. duced (respectively 1.13 , 0.79 and 0.99 bar for the
conventional BF, version 1 and version 4), which
Study of the cohesive zone confirms the possibility of a significant productivity
increase.
Position and shape of the cohesive zone are calcu-
lated after adapting the burden distribution to the Conclusion
new process (Figure 8).
Using MOGADOR, a 2-D mathematical model of the
The model shows that the cohesive zone is slightly blast furnace at steady state, the internal behaviour
thicker than in conventional operation. This seems of the ULCOS BF has been simulated. Based on the
to be in contradiction with the first results from the results, initial anxiety has been eased concerning
dissected Experimental BF of Luleå. Hence, the the gas penetration into the stack, the progress of
model parameters have to be adapted further. ore reduction and the position and shape of the
cohesive zone.

Conventional BF Version 1 Version 4

26 26 26

24 24 24

22 22 22

20 20 20

18 18 18

16 16 16

14 14 14

12 12 12

10 10 10

8 8 8

6 6 6

4 4 4

2 2 2

0 0 0

-2 -2 -2

-4 -4 -4
-11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 -11 -9 -7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11
-6 -6 -6

Figure 8. Calculated cohesive zone for versions 1 and 4 of the ULCOS BF compared to conventional BF

Acknowledgements [3] A. Hamilius, M. Deroo, G. Monteyne, R.

Bekaert, R. D'hondt. “Blast furnace practice with
The present work is part of the ULCOS program, stave-coolers and with a rotating chute for burden
which operates with direct financing from its 48 distribution”. Ironmaking Proceedings, Chicago,
partners, especially of its core members (Arcelor- 1978, Vol. 37, pp. 160-168.
Mittal, Corus, TKS, Riva, Voestalpine, LKAB, Saar-
stahl, Dillinger Hütte, SSAB, Ruukki and Statoil), [4] M. Bracke, G. Dauwels, L. Bonte. “The use of a
and has received grants from the European Com- microwave device for the burden profile measure-
mission under the 6th Framework RTD program and ment and verification of the off-line burden distri-
the RFCS program1. bution model results”. European Commission. ECSC
Workshop. Düsseldorf, 27-28 Jan. 1998, pp. 73-83.
References
[5] M. Sasaki K. Ono, A. Suzuki, Y. Okuno, K. Yo-
[1] G. Danloy, J. Mignon, R. Munnix, G. Dauwels, L. shizawa. “Formation and Melt-down of Softening-
Bonte. “A blast furnace model to optimize the bur- Melting Zone in Blast Furnace”. Transactions ISIJ,
den distribution”. 60th Ironmaking Conference Vol. 17, 1977, pp. 391-399.
Proceedings, Baltimore, 2001, Vol. 60, pp. 37-48.
[6] L. Bonte, R. Vervenne, F. Stas, R. Bekaert, G.
[2] G. Danloy, J. Mignon, R. Munnix, G. Dauwels, L. Danloy. “Process control techniques for the realiza-
Bonte – Industrial application of the CRM blast tion of high hot metal quality, high productivity and
furnace model at Sidmar – Proceedings of METEC high pulverized coal injection at the Sidmar blast
Congress 03 and 3rd International Conference on furnaces”. 1998 ICSTI/Ironmaking Conference
Science and Technology of Ironmaking, Düsseldorf, Proceedings, Toronto, 1998, Vol. 57, pp. 257-278.
16-20 June, 2003, pp. 83-88.

1
Priority 3 of the 6th Framework Programme in the area of “Very
low CO2 Steel Processes”, in co-ordination with the 2003 and 2004
calls of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel

G. Danloy 4 SP10 – ULCOS-4, October 2008