Hot Metal in EAFs

THIS ARTICLE AVAILABLE ON-LINE WWW.STEELTECHNOLOGY.ORG

U.S. raw steel production fell about 20%
in 2001 as the slowing American economy
dampened demands for automobiles and
appliances. Higher energy costs and over-
seas price competition have also dramatical-
ly reduced industry profits, causing many
steel companies to declare bankruptcy.
The current economic situation in the U.S.
steel industry, particularly for scrap-based
producers, requires, among other measures,
improvements in EAF conversion costs to
remain competitive with imported steel.
Depending on the scrap cost development,
use of hot metal provides several options to
improve an EAF operation. Utilizing liquid
iron, where available, is one measure to
enhance EAF productivity, while reducing
conversion costs—both fixed and consum-
able. Other benefits are lower nitrogen levels
and residual contents in the finished product.
Even when not available as a short-term
solution, hot metal should be evaluated as a
long-term alternative to scrap for reducing
EAF costs.
The share of EAF steel production grew in
the last decade of the 20th century from 25
to 37% of the total world raw steel produc-
tion1 (Figure 1). Factors affecting this trend
include capital costs, environmental issues
and process flexibility. EAF growth, howev-
er, is inhibited in some locations due to elec-
tricity and virgin iron availability.
Figure 1
EAF share of world steel production
is continually advancing. (From Ref.
1)
This growth, along with the movement of
EAF producers into higher quality products
such as flat products, as well as an insuffi-
cient supply and increasing cost of prime
scrap, resulted in a sharp increase in
demand for alternative iron units.
Availability of prime scrap and alternative
iron sources is key to the economics and
further development of the EAF process.
Development of EAF process is dependent
on the price of these charge
materials. Utilizing hot metal in
From late 1992 to early 1994,
scrap prices increased dramatical- an EAF is one meas-
ly in the U.S. This was driven in
large part by the growth of scrap- ure to enhance pro-
based capacity in North America
and by integrated steelmakers ductivity and reduce
deciding to use a higher percent-
age of home scrap in BOF pro- conversion costs.
duction. From 1995 to 2001, over
20 million tonnes of new EAF Other benefits are
steelmaking capacity was brought
on-line in North America alone.2 lower nitrogen and
This dramatic increase in scrap
prices disturbed the EAF indus- residual element con-
try, but paved the way for instal-
lation of new production facili- tents in the finished
ties for alternative iron units and
development of new processes product.
to manufacture alternative iron
units.
A stable supply of high-quality virgin iron
units continues to be a major issue for EAF
flat products manufacturers, especially those
with plans to branch out into the high-qual-
ity flat product market.
As the price
of raw materials
Figure 2
amounts to ap-
proximately 60
to 70% of melt-
shop produc-
tion costs, steel-
makers were
relieved when
new capacities
of alternative
iron units,
mostly DRI and
HBI plants,
appeared. Scrap
prices had re- Breakdown of production costs for an EAF.
mained steady (From Ref. 7)
at a high level
for a while, a
situation that made alternative iron units
very competitive.
During this time, many publications
reported the pros and cons of alternative
iron units such as DRI, HBI, iron carbide,

Authors
Manfred Haissig (pictured), M. H. Consulting, Harrisburg, N.C., R. Bruce Genter (not pic-
tured), General Manager, VAII Fuchs, Canonsburg, Pa., and Bernard Villemin (not pictured),
Executive Vice President, VAI Fuchs, Willstaett-Legelshurst, Germany (manfredeaf@aol.com)

March 2002 AISE Steel Technology 41

 pig iron and hot metal as charge materials in
EAF steelmaking.
The recent slowdown in domestic steel out-
put also has lowered scrap prices. The
increase in gas and electrical energy prices
has further reduced demand for alternative
iron units, as their relative cost has increased.
The issue currently under scrutiny is the
cost-effectiveness of hot metal at low scrap
prices. Analysis will focus exclusively on hot
metal and scrap as the charging material
source for an EAF. The impact of hot metal
on charge and conversion costs, as well as
specific EAF productivity, will be evaluated,
assuming a maximum residual element value
of 0.2%. The results of this analysis are heav-
ily influenced by a lower residual element
value and a change in raw material costs.
Hot Metal Processes
The blast furnace is the standard process
route to deliver hot metal. Aside from the
blast furnace, the cupola furnace has been
used to produce liquid iron. During past
decades, several hot metal producing process-
es have been under development (Table 1).
Some of the processes in Table 1, such as the
blast furnace, Corex, cupola and IDI have been
commercialized to produce hot metal. Other
hot metal processes and developments have
been described in numerous publications and
will not be discussed further in this analysis.
Literature Review
Hot metal has also been discussed in numerous
publications. Hickl3 discussed the theoretical
results that would be achieved by replacing
30% of meltshop charge material with liquid
iron produced by the Tecnored process. From
calculations based on replacing 30% cold virgin
iron units with hot metal, a total savings of
Table 1
Hot Metal Technologies (From Ref. 3)
Primary reduction Development
Process Fe input vessel status
IDI, fines rotary hearth commercial
Redsmelt, + submerged implementation
Fastmelt arc furnace
Corex pellets, shaft furnace commercialized
lump + melter/gasifier
$29.12 per ton of steel, excluding the benefits
of power generation from Tecnored offgas,
could be achieved. Savings resulted from a
reduction of $16.48 in iron unit costs and
$12.64 in conversion costs (labor, electrodes,
refractories, power and maintenance).
Carr4 discussed benefits of hot metal in EAF
operation, claiming that value-in-use justified
the higher cost of hot metal compared to scrap,
up to $80 per ton. The cost of charge materials,
fixed cost dilution and market prices for prod-
uct sold had a major impact on this value.
Jones5 presented the value-in-use method
developed by BHP to calculate the economics
of hot metal as charge material for an EAF. A
replacement equation (Eq. 1) for the equivalent
value of hot metal in an EAF has been present-
ed by Roth6 et al. A critical review concerning
hot metal charging methodology is also given
by Roth6 and Jones.5
1 tonne of hot metal + 25 kg lime =
0.92 tonnes of clean scrap
+ 50 kg coal + 330 kWh (Eq. 1)
Jones7 further reported the advantages of hot
metal charging in an EAF operation and dis-
cussed different hot metal charging methods.
Kaiser and Rokop8 discussed Steel Dynamics'
first results with hot metal produced by the IDI
process. Savings in energy consumption (Figure
3) and a significant reduction in power-on time
were achieved with a 30% hot metal charge.
Based on results achieved with blast furnace
hot metal at Iscor, Vanderbijlpark, Bester9 et al
reported that a much higher decarburization
rate is required to use higher amounts of hot
metal without sacrificing productivity. Standard
decarburization rates of 0.05 to 0.07% C per
minute are achieved today in an EAF operation.
Trial rates of 0.10% C per minute were report-
ed. The 0.10% C per minute rate is the mini-
mum required for hot metal contents of more
than 30% to maintain EAF productivity at com-
petitive levels.9
The integration of a Corex module into an
existing EAF facility is also discussed.10 As
shown in Table 2, energy supplied by one
tonne of hot metal delivered to an EAF,
Figure 3

HIsmelt fines smelter pilot plant

Ausmelt fines smelter pilot plant

Dios fines smelter pilot plant

Tecnored fines, short shaft pilot/

residuals, furnace demonstration
DRI plant

Compact pellets, shaft furnace commercialized

blast furnace lump, sinter Electrical energy savings at Steel Dynamics
with 30% hot metal charge. (From Ref. 8)

42 AISE Steel Technology March 2002

 Table 2

Energy Content of Hot Metal at 1450°C

(From Ref. 10) General
Energy in
kWh/tonne
Advantages of Hot
Wt% kWh/Wt% of hot metal Metal Additions to
Chemical heat 4.5-4.7 C 27.0 125 w/o post-
EAF Operations
combustion Based on the literature survey
0.6-0.8 Si 91.6 65 above and experiences with
0.1-0.3 Mn 20.0 4
furnaces supplied to cus-
Sensible heat 336 tomers using hot metal as
at 1450°C charge material, the following
Total energy supplied by hot metal 530 advantages can be document-
ed for the application of hot
metal in an EAF (Table 3).
The amount of energy sup-
depending on chemical composition and tem- plied by hot metal with a chemical composition
perature, equals 530 kWh per tonne of hot and temperature of that in Table 2 as the hot
metal. metal percentage increase is presented in
Rong11 et al reported that 30% hot metal in Figure 4.
the charge appeared optimum for their shaft Based on these results and the amount of hot
furnace operation. A reduction in power-on metal charged, potential reductions in electrical
time and energy consumption and a reduction energy consumption are presented in Figure 5.
in average nitrogen levels by 16 ppm resulted When scrap preheating systems are intro-
from the addition of hot metal to a shaft furnace duced to the process, additional energy
operation. reductions can be achieved (Figure 6).
Increasing the hot metal content in the
charge mix also reduces electrode consump-
Table 3 tion. In contrast, when cold DRI is
used instead of hot metal to achieve
General Advantages of Hot Metal the desired residual content, elec-
Additions to EAF Operations
trode consumption is increased
Reduced energy consumption (Figure 7).
(approx. 3 kWh/tonne per % hot metal)

Lower electrode consumption Figure 5

Higher productivity

Lower electrical power requirements (MVA)

Reduced residual contents in finished product

Operating fluctuations from obsolete scrap

eliminated and operations made consistent

Reduced nitrogen levels in finished products

Reduced greenhouse gas generation compared

to other alternative iron sources Impact of hot metal on specific electrical ener-
gy consumption.
Reduced conversion costs compared to 100% scrap

Figure 6

Figure 4

Energy supplies versus percentage of hot Specific electric energy consumption with and
metal in the charge. without scrap preheating.

March 2002 AISE Steel Technology 43

 Figure 7

EAFs Utilizing use a runner or launder inserted either

Hot Metal
Currently, 24 known
EAFs worldwide (Table
4) use hot metal as part
of their charge material.
Of these 24 furnaces,
Effect of hot metal and DRI additions which range in tap
on electrode consumption. weight from 90 to 180
tonnes, 18 furnaces are
powered with AC trans-
formers and six equipped with DC power
plants. Three different furnace types are
employed—15 single-shell furnaces, three
twin-shell furnaces and six shaft furnaces.
Hot Metal Charging Methods
Given the considerable value of hot metal,
the issue becomes charging of hot metal into
the EAF. In principle, there are two solutions.
The simplest is to swing the roof open and
pour the hot metal into the shell from a
ladle. The other method—preferred in terms
of economics and process technology—is to
through the slag door or the furnace side-
wall. The sidewall runner position is the bet-
ter solution.
Top Charging with the Roof
Swung Open
Top charging allows for very short hot metal
charging times (two to three minutes), but
energy is lost through radiation via the open
roof (Figure 8). The melting process of the
first scrap bucket must be interrupted to
charge the hot metal into the crater of the
remaining scrap.
There is also a possibility for slag-hot
metal interactions and resultant reactions.
Large quantities of fumes are released into
the meltshop, and the crane is occupied for
several minutes during charging.
Figure 8

Table 4

Known EAFs Using Hot Metal

Company Description

Europe Cockerill-Sambre one 140-tonne DC

finger shaft furnace
Unimetal one 150-tonne DC Hot metal charging through an open
furnace roof.
Huta one 100-tonne
AC furnace

Russia Severstal two 100-tonne AC

furnaces This charging method loses several min-
one 125-tonne utes of oxygen injection time, causing hot
AC finger shaft metal content to be limited for optimum pro-
furnace
ductivity. Sidewall panels may also be dam-
India Nippon Dendro Ispat two 180-tonne AC aged during charging.
furnaces

Japan Daiwa Steel one 110-tonne DC

furnace
Charging with a Hot Metal
one 120-tonne DC Launder
furnace
Kyoei Steel one 110-tonne DC
Charging hot metal through a launder is
furnace preferable, as it does not increase tap-to-tap
Mitsubishi Steel one 100-tonne DC times when the launder is installed through
furnace
the sidewall. In addition, radiation losses are
South Africa Iscor, Vanderbijlpark three 155-tonne AC minimized, and additional decarburization
furnaces time is made available, allowing larger
Iscor, Pretoria two 120-tonne AC
furnaces (using Corex) amounts of hot metal to be charged.
Saldanha Steel one 150-tonne AC The charging time must be kept as short
twin shell furnace
(using Corex)
as possible, preferably by charging hot metal
at a rate of 10 tonnes per minute to reduce
China Anyang one 100-tonne AC hot metal temperature loss. However, small
finger shaft furnace
ZSJ two 110-tonne AC amounts of hot metal must initially be
finger shaft furnaces charged to reduce oxygen content of the
ZSS one 90-tonne AC slag and avoid reactions.
shaft furnace
When the launder is mounted through the
U.S. Steel Dynamics two 150-tonne AC slag door, scrap melting must occur prior to
twin shell furnaces
charging hot metal to create a cavern close to
the slag door for runner insertion (Figure 9).

44 AISE Steel Technology March 2002

 Figure 9
Charging hot metal through a slag door laun-
der.
Another advantage of charging via a laun-
der is that the chemical composition of the
bath remains fairly constant, as the oxygen
injection rate can be matched to the hot metal
feed rate. Carbon and silicon can then be oxi-
dized close to the rate at which they are fed
into the furnace. Continuous lime additions
are advisable when hot metal charging time
exceeds 10 minutes to maintain a constant
slag composition, high in FeO and constant in
SiO2 and MnO—MgO content, to promote
higher decarburization rates.
Decarburization occurs while scrap is in
the furnace. Thus, post-combustion of CO
can be utilized to increase the scrap temper-
ature. Available decarburization times are
longest with this charging method, allowing
optimized use of the offgas system.
Furnace Design and
Decarburization Limits
Unlike a BOF vessel, the lower shell of an
EAF is not designed to allow for high decar-
burization rates. A typical decarburization
rate in an EAF is 0.03 to 0.07% C per minute.
The bath surface and mixing process of the
highly oxidized slag with the liquid steel
plays a major role in creating high decarbur-
ization rates in an EAF.
Figure 10 presents the decarburization
capabilities of various metallurgical processes.
Consequently, EAF furnace designers are
advised to study the EOF process and vessel
design. The EOF in operation at Siderurgica
Pains in Brazil, where 70% hot metal is consis-
tently charged, allows for decarburization rates
in excess of 0.25% C per minute. Two sub-
merged tuyeres and two sidewall lances even-
ly distributed around the circumference of the
vessel supply oxygen to the bath. The ratio of
hearth diameter to bath depth is similar to that
of BOF vessels, where a higher lower shell
allows the bath to rise during the process.
In contrast, the shape of the furnace shell
and distribution and efficiency of the oxygen
supply appear to be a limiting factor for hot
metal for all EAFs reported in the literature.
However, EAFs can be designed to allow
higher decarburization rates and larger
amounts of hot metal in the charge mix,
March 2002
Figure 10
Decarburization rates of various metallurgical
processes. (From Ref. 9)
given that increased hot metal usage is the
best economic solution.
Due to high energy generation, copper
panels should be used in the furnace shell
and roof. Such panels are capable of with-
standing the high heat loads generated by
the electric arc and the post combustion of
CO to CO2.
Theoretical Energy Balance
Modeling Conditions
To evaluate the economical savings of hot
metal additions, an energy balance model
was used to calculate production data from
zero to 50% hot metal in the charge mix. For
all calculations, a decarburization rate of
0.10% C per minute was used. For the
charge mix with 40 and 50% hot metal,
decarburization rates achieved at Siderurgica
Pains were also used to compare results.
The EAF used in the modeling was
designed to hold 70% of the total scrap
charge required to produce one 165 ton
heat. Four oxygen/gas jet burners were used
to preheat the scrap and decarburize the liq-
uid steel. The charge mix was designed to
keep the residuals of the liquid steel con-
stant at 0.2%. Published scrap, DRI and pig
iron prices were obtained from American
Metal Market in May 2001.
Based on these parameters, the effect of dif-
ferent hot metal additions on production rate,
conversion cost, transformer requirements and
the economics of the charge mixes were ana-
lyzed. The results are discussed below.
Transformer Requirements
With increasing hot metal content in the
charge mix, less electrical energy is required
to finish a heat at the maximum decarburiza-
tion rate permitted.
A 122-MVA transformer is required to pro-
duce 1,567,500 tonnes of liquid steel in 7600
production hours for a 100% scrap charge. With
50% hot metal in the charge and a 0.1% C per
minute decarburization rate, only 90 MVA are
required. This power input is mainly used to
AISE Steel Technology 45
 Figure 11

keep the refining and Impact of Scrap to Hot Metal

superheating period short. Ratio on Productivity
A transformer size Increasing the hot metal charge mix to 40% in
reduction of 25%, under the model led to production increases. Beyond
these limits and conditions, that level however, with a decarburization rate
yielded a productivity limitation of 0.10% C per minute, power-on and
increase of 6.25%. tap-to-tap times increased in the model, reduc-
ing EAF productivity (Figure 11).
Effect of hot metal in the charge mix These model results coincided with actual
on power-on and tap-to-tap (TTT) field results. Between 40 and 50% hot metal in
times and MVA requirements. the charge mix in the model appeared to yield
optimum productivity for a standard EAF.
Such levels are slightly higher than reported
in literature, indicating
Table 5 that individual furnace
conditions, as well as
Model Predictions for a Tap Weight of 165 Tons oxygen supply and off-
gas system restrictions,
Hot metal charge mix are also likely to be
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
limiting factors.
Transformer MVA 122 122 105 94 94 Using 30% hot metal
in the charge mix in the
Power-on time (min.) 34 31 32 31 28
model required only
Power-off time (min.) 14 14 14 12 12 one scrap bucket and
Tap-to-tap time (min.) 48 45 46 43 40
allowed for a power-off
time saving of two min-
Tons per hour 206 220 215 230 248 utes (Table 5).
Tons per year 1,567,500 1,672,000 1,635,652 1,749,767 1,881,000 Details of consum-
able costs predicted by
Total conversion cost $136.37 $133.99 $132.00 $129.66 $130.10 the model are present-
($/ton)
ed in Table 6. Electrical
energy, electrode, oxy-
gen, natural gas,
charge coal, foamy slag
coal, and lime and
dololime consumptions
Table 6
and their unit costs used in
the model are presented.
Consumable Costs Predicted by the Model
When the decarburiza-
tion rate was increased in
Cost Hot metal charge mix
basis 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% the model to 0.12% C per
minute for a 40% hot metal
Electricity $0.03/ $8.95 $8.13 $6.98 $6.08 $5.45 $4.28
kWh
charge and to 0.144% C
per minute for a 50% hot
Electrodes $1.45/ $4.06 $3.77 $3.77 $3.77 $3.19 $3.19 metal charge, a continued
lb
reduction in total conver-
Lance oxygen $0.0014/ $1.86 $1.73 $1.73 $1.73 $1.59 $1.86 sion cost was realized
scf despite an increased
Burner oxygen $0.0014/ $0.23 $0.23 $0.27 $0.30 $0.30 $0.36 charge mix cost. Under
scf these conditions, tap-to-
Natural gas $3.70/ $0.27 $0.27 $0.32 $0.35 $0.35 $0.43
tap times were also
mcf reduced and production
capacity was increased to
Charge carbon $0.10/ $3.60 $3.20 $2.90 $2.18 $0.30 $0.40
lb over two million tons per
year.
Refining carbon $0.10/ $1.06 $1.06 $1.10 $1.18 $1.20 $0.98 The model results
lb
proved that at the rela-
Lime $0.032/ $1.74 $1.70 $1.72 $1.76 $2.12 $2.41 tively low scrap prices
lb
currently in existence and
Total consumable costs $21.77 $20.09 $18.80 $17.36 $14.50 $13.91 a delivered hot metal cost
of $143.00 per ton, the
charge mix cost dropped

46 AISE Steel Technology March 2002

 Table 7

Charge Mix and Cost at a Residual Content of 0.20% max.

Cost basis
($/ton) % % % % % %

Hot metal $143.00 0 10 20 30 40 50

No. 1 heavy melt $75.00 0 0 0 1 5 15

Shredded $93.00 10 10 10 10 10 15

Bushelings $95.00 30 30 30 29 29 10

Auto bundles $100.00 20 20 20 20 6 0

Home scrap $80.00 8 8 8 8 8 8

Pig iron $150.00 20 10 0 0 0 0

DRI $150.00 12 12 12 2 2 2

Charge cost
($/ton) $114.60 $113.90 $113.20 $112.30 $115.60 $118.00

until a hot metal content of between 30 and

Figure 12 40% was reached (Table 7).
Figure 12 presents the total conversion costs
predicted by the model and predicted charge
costs.

Actual Results
The advantages of hot metal as a scrap replace-
ment in the charge mix have been published.12-
15 Results achieved by finger shaft furnaces that
charge hot metal are presented.

Severstal — The finger shaft furnace at

Severstal has a capacity of 125 tonnes and a
transformer rating of 85 MVA. The charge mix
Effect of hot metal charge mix and total con- is 30% hot metal, with the hot metal charged to
version cost on charge cost at a fixed decar- the EAF through a side launder (Figure 13).
burization rate. The dashed line is the total A tapping temperature of 1660°C is required
conversion costs predicted at higher decar- because of the
burization rates. meltshop layout.
The average Figure 14
power-off time
of 17 minutes
per heat at
Figure 13
Severstal is also a
result of local
conditions.
The specific
electric energy
consumption
based on a relat-
ed tap tempera-
ture of 1620°C is Average tap-to-tap times at Severstal from
240 kWh/tonne July 1999 through Dec. 2000.
at a specific oxy-
gen consump-
tion of 40 Nm3/tonne.
The average tap-to-tap times and average
electrical energy consumptions are shown in
Figures 14 and 15, respectively.
Plan view of the finger shaft furnace with a
side launder at Severstal. ZSJ — The 110-tonne finger shaft furnace at
ZSJ is powered with a 65-MVA transformer
and has been using increasing amounts of hot

March 2002 AISE Steel Technology 47

 Figure 15 Figure 17

metal. The hot metal is

Average electrical energy consump-
tion at Severstal in 2000.
Figure 16
charged into the EAF via a
side launder (Figure 16).
The effect of hot metal
quantity in the charge on
electrical energy consump-
tion and power-on time
can be seen in Figures 17
and 18, respectively. A
reduction in power on time
of 0.3 minutes per hot
metal percent increase can Power-on time versus hot metal content at
ZSJ.
be achieved. An average
electrical energy reduction
of 4 kWh per hot metal
percent increase achieved Figure 18
at this operation coincides
with values given in the lit-
erature.

Summary
Different hot metal charg-
ing methods for EAFs were
View of hot metal being charged presented, with preference
through a side launder at ZSJ. given to the sidewall laun-
der method.
From available literature,
25 to 30% hot metal in the charge appeared
optimum. It was determined that a decarburiza-
tion rate limit of 0.1% C per minute was the lim-
iting factor regarding hot metal usage. Based on
the authors' experience with EOF operations—
where decarburization rates of 0.25% C per
minute are achieved—the EAF geometry must
be specifically designed for higher amounts of
hot metal in the charge to obtain optimum pro-
ductivity and economic performance. In addi-
tion, oxygen must be supplied and distributed
evenly around the EAF shell circumference.
Substantial savings can be achieved when
hot metal is used as a scrap substitute in EAF
operations, even with low scrap prices.
References
1. International Iron and Steel Institute, Brussels,
Belgium.
2. Kawamura, A., "Alternative Iron Market," pre-
sented at a Gorham/Intertech Conference, Atlanta,
Ga., Nov. 3-5, 1999.
3. Hickl, A., "The Impact of Hot Metal Availability
on EAF Steelmaking," presented at a durch Einsatz von fluessigem Roheisen," presented
Gorham/Intertech Conference, Atlanta, Ga., Nov. 3-
5, 1999.
4. Carr, J. D., "Alternative Iron Sources: What
Electric Furnace Steel Makers Should Know," pre-
sented at 3rd Electric Furnace Raw Material
Conference, Pittsburgh, Pa., Sept. 1998.
5. Jones, J. A. T., "Alternative Iron Feedstock for
EAF Steelmaking," Proceedings, Electric Furnace
Conference, Iron and Steel Society, Warrendale, Pa.,
1998.
6. Roth, J. L., Lessmann, H. J., and Heard, R. A.,
"Energy Utilization in a Hot Metal Charged Arc
Furnace," Proceedings, Electric Furnace Conference,
Iron and Steel Society, Warrendale, Pa., 1999.
7. Jones, J. A. T., "Selection of Scrap Feed
Materials for Optimal Furnace Performance," pre-
Electrical energy consumption versus hot
metal content at ZSJ.
sented at a Gorham/Intertech Conference, Atlanta,
Ga., Nov. 3-5, 1999.
8. Kaiser, K., and Rokop, N., "Operational
Experience: Hot Metal Charging at SDI," presented
at a Gorham/Intertech Conference, Atlanta, Ga.,
Nov. 3-5, 1999.
9. Bester, D., Kaspar, S., and Pirkelbauer, W., "The
VAI Integrated Compact Mill (ICM) Concept, Using
the Corex-EAF Technology," Metall. Plant
Technology Int., 18, (1), Feb. 1995, pp. 40-42, 44.
10. Corex Goes Minimill, Voest-Alpine
Industrienlagenbau, Linz, Austria.
11. Rong, S. W., Jian, L., Ngai, T. L., and Bourge,
M., "A new Minimill Concept: Mini Blast Furnace
with Shaft EAF/LF/CC," Iron and Steelmaker, Vol.
28, No. 5, May 2001, pp. 41-46.
12. Scheiding, K., and Rachner, H. G.,
"Energieeinsparung bei der Elektrostahlerzeugung
at VDEH Ausschusssitzung, Sept. 25, 1997.
13. Mordashov, A., Fuchs, G., Narholz, Th., and
Goehler, K., "The Fuchs Finger Shaft Furnace at
Severstal—The Success of Entrepreneurial Spirit,"
Fuchs Technology, March 2001.
14. Knapp, H., and Moxon, P., "Energy efficient
furnace design and operation, combining integrated
scrap preheating together with up to 40% hot metal
charge material," presented at the Scrap Recycling
and Electric Arc Furnace Steel Making Seminar,
Corus Engineering Steels, Stocksbridge, U.K.,
March 15-16, 2001.
15. Ehle, J., Knapp, H., and Mueller, H.,
"Productivity, Costs and Environmental Issues
Operating a Finger Shaft Furnace," VDEH–Stahl
2000, Nov. 2000. AISE

48 AISE Steel Technology March 2002