SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ
PROCESS SIMULATION FOR A NOVEL GREEN IRONMAKING TECHNOLOGY WITH GREATLY REDUCED CO2 EMISSION AND
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
H. Kimura, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
S. Liu, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
M. S. Moats, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
H. Y. Sohn, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
ABSTRACT
A new technology for ironmaking based on direct gaseous
reduction of iron ore concentrate is under development. The process is
based on the flash reduction of the concentrate particles in a gaseous
reducing agent, such as hydrogen, natural gas, a reducing gas
generated by partial combustion of coal, or a combination thereof. This
technology is expected to drastically lower CO2 emission and reduce
energy consumption by about 38% of the blast furnace requirements.
The energy savings are possible largely due to the elimination of
pelletization and cokemaking.
Process design and simulation using hydrogen as the reductant
for iron ore concentrate have been performed. A process flow sheet
composed of a flash reactor, heat recovery system, water removal
system for purifying recycled hydrogen, and all connecting streams was
evaluated using the METSIM software. Ironmaking using two reactors
was also designed and simulated, which could reduce the total required
amount of hydrogen although it would increase the complexity of the
flow sheet and operation.
INTRODUCTION
Currently, more than 90% of iron is produced via the blast furnace,
with the balance produced by direct reduction processes. Even so, the
blast furnace has some drawbacks. From an environmental view point,
emissions of carbon dioxide, especially caused by the requirement for
cokemaking and pelletization/sintering in the process, are significant.
Despite improvements in the operation of the modern blast furnaces,
the effect on the environment is still under serious attention. Ironmaking
in a blast furnace is also the most energy intensive step in the overall
steelmaking process, as it demands a large infrastructure and support
operations. For these reasons, the number of the blast furnaces is
projected to decrease by 15 – 20% by 2015 (2).
While the use of blast furnaces is expected to decline, the world
crude steel production is estimated to increase significantly in the future
(1). Some of this increase will likely be met by steel scrap, but due to
the uncertainty and unreliability of this source, the production of iron will
likely have to increase.
To fill this likely void in iron supply, a new process that is more
energy efficient and more environmentally friendly needs to be
developed. A number of alternative ironmaking processes have been
developed to produce DRI (Direct Reduced Iron) (3, 4), HBI (Hot
Briquetted Iron) (5), Iron Carbide (1) and Pig Iron (6). Gaseous
reduction ironmaking processes such as Midrex and HYL have been
proven commercially (3, 4). Even so, these processes are not intensive
enough to replace the likely decline in blast furnace operation because
of the low production rates and several problems such as sticking and
fusion of particles and refractory problems.
A novel technology for producing iron from fine concentrates by
gas-solid suspension reduction which skips cokemaking and
1 Copyright © 2010 by SME
Preprint 10-022
pelletization/sintering process has been proposed (1). This process is
based on the flash reduction of concentrate particles by a gaseous
reductant, such as hydrogen, natural gas, or a reductant gas generated
by partial combustion of coal, and/or any combination thereof. A
simplified energy comparison between the proposed process and a
blast furnace operation indicates that a 38% decrease in energy
requirements would be possible and thus, a lower environment impact
as well (1).
From an environmental standpoint, hydrogen would be the best
reductant. It can be produced by natural gas reforming, water
electrolysis, coal partial gasification, biomass gasification and other
several processes (7, 8). With the expectation of the development of
the hydrogen economy, the demand of hydrogen is likely to increase
year by year.
Bench scale experiments using hydrogen as the reductant have
proven that the reduction rate of concentrates is sufficiently high at
o
more than 1200 C (1). Although more experimental work and scale-up
trials are needed, the previous experimental results indicate that the
process is of sufficient intensity to replace the blast furnace.
In this work, the proposed process was simulated using
commercially available software METSIM, which is for simulating a
metallurgical process flow sheet using sequential modular approach (9).
Using this method, process material and energy balances around unit
operations are calculated based on input components, chemical
reactions, temperature control, and other constraints applied by the
user.
The simulation was performed for a pilot-plant scale operation to
determine a more detailed material and energy balance including the
use of recycle streams. The object of this process simulation was to
focus on likely conditions that offer high cost efficiency. The simulations
reported in this manuscript were performed using solely hydrogen as a
fuel and a reductant.
PROCESS DESIGN AND MODELING
Pilot Scale Plant Designing and Modeling
The proposed process is shown schematically in Figure 1, which
illustrates possible flow sheet configurations for a 1-step process and
2-step process. Both processes consist of the same unit operations
except for the process of reducing iron oxide, which can make a
difference in fresh hydrogen requirements. The reduction of
concentrate to iron takes place in one reactor in the 1-step process.
The 2-step process separates the reduction into two steps; reduction of
wustite to iron in reactor 1, and reduction of magnetite to wustite in
reactor 2.
After the ironmaking reactors, the sensible heat in the offgas is
recovered or utilized. The offgas passes through a heat exchanger to
preheat hydrogen. The offgas also passes through a waste heat boiler
which would generate steam which could power a turbine power

production (10). The offgas from the reactor in the 1-step process
moves directly to the sensible heat recovery systems, as shown in
Figure 1. In the 2-step process, the offgas from reactor 1 where wustite
is reduced to iron is used in reactor 2 for reducing magnetite to wustite,
and then the offgas from reactor 2 passes through sensible heat
recovery systems.
The reduction of wustite with hydrogen is significantly limited by
equilibrium. Thus, more than twice the molar amount of hydrogen is
required compared to what would be expected based solely on
stoichiometry (1). This results in a significant amount of hydrogen being
present in the offgas. The utilization of hydrogen content of the offgas
consisted after the removal of water using a scrubber and demister.
Preheating materials and recycling hydrogen is expected to affect fresh
hydrogen requirement.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the METSIM model for pilot scale
“gas-solid suspension reduction ironmaking process” with (a) 1-step
process and (b) 2-step process
METSIM Flowsheet Modeling
The proposed flow sheets are shown in Figure 2 with stream
numbers and labeled reactors to assist in their description. For the
modeling, Phase Splitter (SPP), Mixer (MIX), Heat Exchanger (HTX),
Flash Separator (FLA), and Component Splitter (SPC) unit operation
modules were employed within METSIM. In the description of the
process, the unit operation and reactor label will be listed together. For
2 Copyright © 2010 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ
example, reactor A is an SPP unit operation and will be written as
SPP-A.
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. Block diagram of METSIM model for pilot scale plant of
“suspension reduction ironmaking process” with (a) 1-step process and
(b) 2-step process
In the 1-step process (Figure 2a), ore, flux, oxygen and preheated
hydrogen streams (streams 1, 2, 3 and 15, respectively) were fed into
the reactor, SPP-A. The reactions that were simulated in SPP-A are
shown in Table 1. Reaction extent was used to model the degree of
completion for each reaction. The exiting hot metal, slag and offgas
(streams 5, 6 and 7, respectively) were produced as separate outputs
from SPP-A. The operating temperature was controlled using a
feedback loop controller which controls the oxygen input amount
(stream 3). The input hydrogen and oxygen amounts were connected
using feed forward controller on stream 4. The stream 4 flow rate was
calculated based on the stoichiometric amount needed to reduce the
iron ore and react with oxygen to produce water.
The 2-step process as shown in Figure 1b is shown with reactor
labels and stream numbers in Figure 2b. The reduction of wustite to
iron (reaction (3)), fuel combustion (reaction (1)) and slag making
reactions (reaction (4)-(7)) took place in reactor 1, SPP-F, while
reduction of magnetite to wustite (reaction (2)) took place in reactor 2,
SPP-H. Due to this structure, solid and gas in these two reactors move
in opposite direction; gas stream from SPP-F including enough
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ

hydrogen to reduce magnetite went into SPP-H, while the wustite The simulation of both processes were performed on a basis of
stream from SPP-H went to SPP-F. Thus, oxygen and preheated producing 51,000 ton of hot metal a year (300 days per year) using
hydrogen (streams 18 and 33) were fed into SPP-F, and ore and flux simple compositions of input gas, ore and flux as shown in Figure 3.
(streams 16 and 17) were fed into SPP-H. After separating hot metal The composition of hot metal and slag after chemical reactions are also
and slag (streams 20 and 21) at a specified operating temperature, the shown in Figure 3.
gas from SPP-F (stream 22) passed through the first waste heat boiler,
MIX-G, and went into reactor 2. MIX-G was used as a simplified waste
heat boiler. The temperature of connecting stream into SPP-H (stream
23) was set to make the temperature of wustite (stream 24) and offgas
o
(stream 25) 900 C. Sensible heat in the offgas after SPP-H was utilized
for preheating hydrogen and recovering energy in the heat exchanger,
HTX-I and the second waste heat boiler, MIX-J, and all water vapor was
removed through the scrubber, FLA-K, and the demister, SPC- L.
Streams 19, 28, 29 and 31 and circulating streams represent fresh
hydrogen, cooling water, removed water, and offgas stream circuit,
respectively.

Table1. Reactions occurring in the reactor(s).

Description Reaction Reaction Extent

Fuel combustion (1) 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O 1

Reduction of iron (2) Fe3O4 + H2 = 3FeO + H2O 1

oxide
By hydrogen (3) FeO + H2 = Fe + H2O 0.99

(4) CaO(s) = CaO(l)
(5) SiO2(s) = SiO2(l)
Slag making
(6) Al2O3(s) = Al2O3(l)
(7) MgO(s) = MgO(l)
Material and Energy Balance Calculation
To clarify the criterion of hydrogen amount used in the reactor, a
new term “excess driving force” (equation (1)) is introduced.
1 Figure 3. Material balance and the composition of input materials and
output materials around the reactor(s) after all chemical reactions
1
As Figure 3 shows, it was assumed that all oxygen was consumed
1 during combustion, and the offgas from the reactor was composed of
hydrogen and water vapor. Hydrogen and oxygen input volumes varied
1 depending on the choice of operating conditions. The effects of excess
driving force, preheating temperature of hydrogen input to the reactor,
and operating temperature of hot metal/slag producing reactor were
examined. Reduced iron and slag were assumed to be molten at the
specified operating temperature, considering that melting point
decrease of iron by impurities and of the slag by containing wustite (11).
o

⎧⎪ n H 2,off ⎫⎪ ⎪⎧ n H 2,eq ⎪⎫ Operating temperature was set to be more than 1450 C.

⎨ ⎬−⎨ ⎬ Heat loss for the reduction reactors was set to be 20% of the sum
⎪⎩ n H 2O ,off ⎪⎭ ⎪⎩ n H 2O ,eq ⎪⎭ of input energy and reaction energy. Heat loss in other unit operations
( Excess Driving Force) = (1)
⎧⎪ n H 2,eq ⎫⎪ was not considered.
⎨ ⎬ RESULTS
⎪⎩ n H 2O ,eq ⎪⎭
With the described process conditions and flow sheets, material
Here, n H ,off and nH O ,off are the molar quantities of hydrogen
2 2 and energy balances in the connecting streams and unit operations
and water vapor in the offgas, and nH , eq and nH O , eq are the molar
2 2 were calculated. Specific focus was given to the fresh hydrogen
quantities of hydrogen and water vapor at the equilibrium of “FeO + H2 =
requirement as this variable will have a large influence on the
Fe + H2O(g)”.
economics of the proposed process. Figure 4 shows the comparison of
Excess driving force is determined by the ratio of H2/H2O in the fresh hydrogen volume consumed as a function of excess driving force
o
offgas from the hot metal/slag producing reactor. It is measured by how for the 1-step and 2-step processes producing hot metal at 1600 C with
o
much excess hydrogen is in the offgas as compared to the hydrogen hydrogen preheated to 500 C. The effect of hydrogen recycle is also
contacting with iron, wustite and water at the equilibrium. Higher excess shown.
driving force will allow faster kinetics of the reduction as the
These simulation results reveal as expected that recycling offgas
experimental results at larger volume of input hydrogen showed (1), but
hydrogen reduces fresh hydrogen requirement drastically especially as
obviously requires larger volumes of fresh hydrogen. Excess driving
excess drive force increases. More than 50% of the fresh hydrogen
force is also expressed with equation (3) by substituting equation (2).
requirement can be saved at excess driving force being more than zero
⎧⎪ n H 2O ,eq ⎫⎪ when offgas hydrogen is recycled in both processes. When offgas
K R2 = ⎨ ⎬ (2) hydrogen is recycled, the input hydrogen becomes equal to the molar
⎪⎩ n H 2 ,eq ⎪⎭ amount of water vapor produced through combustion and reduction in
the reactor which is all discarded. Thus, the decrease of fresh hydrogen
⎧⎪ n H 2,off ⎫⎪ requirement in the process with hydrogen recycle is equal to the
( Excess Driving Force) = K R 2 × ⎨ ⎬ −1 (3) hydrogen required to get the specific excess driving force.
⎪⎩ n H 2O ,off ⎪⎭
For both processes, the required fresh hydrogen volume increases
Here, K R 2 is the equilibrium constant for the reaction; FeO + H2 with higher excess driving force. Obviously, an excess driving force
= Fe + H2O(g) means more hydrogen is added to drive the reaction. Additional

3 Copyright © 2010 by SME

 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ

hydrogen is also needed to heat a larger volume of offgas which in turn between the two processes becomes smaller at higher wustite
generates more water and further increases the hydrogen input reduction temperature and excess driving force. For example, at an
o
necessary to maintain the desired excess driving force. At the same operating temperature of 1600 C and an excess driving force of two,
operating temperature and hydrogen preheating temperature, the the fresh hydrogen consumed for the 2-step process is only marginally
2-step process requires less fresh hydrogen than 1-step process. less than the 1-step process.
Without hydrogen recycle, the 2-step reactor process can save about
32% of the hydrogen over the 1-step process regardless of excess
driving force. With hydrogen recycle, the 2-step process can save more
than 23% of fresh hydrogen as compared to the 1-step process, The
hydrogen requirement savings for the 2-step process over the 1-step
process increases as excess driving force increases.

Figure 5. A plot of fresh hydrogen volume used as a function of

excess driving force for different hydrogen preheating temperatures
and flow sheet configurations.

Figure 4. Comparison of fresh hydrogen volume needed for 1-step

o
and 2-step processes producing hot metal at 1600 C with and without
offgas hydrogen recycle and hydrogen preheating temperature of 500
o
C as a function of excess driving force.
The influence of preheating hydrogen to higher temperatures was
analyzed. Figure 5 shows fresh hydrogen input volume for the 1-step
and 2-step processes at different hydrogen preheating temperatures
and excess driving force. As expected, the analysis shows that
hydrogen requirement is decreased by returning sensible heat energy
with the recycled hydrogen with increasing preheating temperature. It is
mainly from reduced fuel usage and less water produced. The increase
of fresh hydrogen needed with higher excess driving force becomes
more gradual with higher hydrogen preheating temperature. At low
excess driving force, the effect of preheating temperature becomes less
pronounced. These results shows that it will be important to consider
preheating hydrogen to as high temperature as possible using offgas Figure 6. A plot of fresh hydrogen input volume versus wustite
sensible heat in plant to design the real process. reduction temperature.

The effect of the operating temperature at several hydrogen
preheating temperatures was analyzed. Figure 6 shows the fresh
hydrogen requirement at an excess driving force of one as a function of
operating temperature (wustite reduction temperature) for different
hydrogen preheating temperatures and flow sheet configurations. The
results show that lower operating temperature decreases the fresh
hydrogen requirement almost linearly. This is caused by less fuel being
needed to heat the outputs. As shown in previously, the 2-step process
consumes less hydrogen than the 1-step process at the same
preheating hydrogen temperature. From this analysis, if a 1-step
process is utilized then it will be very critical to preheat the hydrogen as
much as possible to compare with the efficiency of the 2-step process.
Figure 7 shows the effect of wustite reduction temperature on
fresh H2 requirements at relatively high hydrogen preheating
temperatures for different excess driving forces and the two flow sheet
configurations. As shown previously, fresh hydrogen volume decreases
as excess driving force decreases and as the wustite reduction
temperature decreases. Although the fresh hydrogen required for the
2-step process is less than that for the 1-step process, the difference
4 Copyright © 2010 by SME
From these results, the proposed ironmaking process will be able
to reduce its hydrogen requirement drastically by utilizing offgas
sensible heat to preheat hydrogen to as a high temperature as possible
and operating the reactor with as low an excess driving force and low
wustite reduction temperature as possible. Obviously, a thorough
economic analysis will be needed to determine the most likely cost-
effective conditions and process flow sheet configuration. The data
generated by these simulations will form the basis of this economic
analysis which will be reported by our group in the future.
CONCLUSIONS
Two possible process flow sheets for the proposed “gas-solid
suspension ironmaking process” were designed and simulated on a
pilot scale plant to determine the expected material and energy balance
when hydrogen gas is used as the reductant and fuel. The “1-step
process” and “2-step process” flow configurations, which have different
number of iron ore reducing reactors, were compared. This study
focused on decreasing the fresh hydrogen requirement as it is expected
to be the most cost dominant input to the process. With the same
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 28-Mar. 03, 2010, Phoenix, AZ

iron/slag making reactor operating temperature, excess driving force
and input hydrogen temperature, recycling hydrogen would be able to
save more than 50% of fresh hydrogen required in the process as
compared to not recycling hydrogen. The results also showed that the
fresh hydrogen requirement could be decreased by preheating the
hydrogen to as high temperature as possible by transferring the offgas
sensible heat. Hydrogen input was also decreased by decreasing the
excess driving force and the operating temperature for both processes.
The fresh hydrogen requirement for the 2-step process was less than in
1-step reactor process at the same excess driving force, operating
temperature and hydrogen temperature. The 1-step reactor process
may be able to use less fresh hydrogen than the 2-step reactor process
if it could preheat hydrogen to a much higher temperature than 2-step
reactor process could. The data generated by these simulations will be
used as a basis for economic evaluation of the processes and guide
future research.
7. L. K. Mytelka and G. Boyle (2008), Making Choices about
Hydrogen: Transport Issues for Developing Countries, Tokyo,
Japan, United Nations University Press, p. 68.
8. D. Simbeck and E. Chang (2002), Hydrogen Supply: Cost
Estimate for Hydrogen Pathways — Scoping Analysis,
NREL/SR-540-32525, Golden, Colorado, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, November, pp. 8-10.
9. X. J. Guo (2003), “Process Modeling and Intelligent System in
Copper Smelter — The Concept of Future Smart Smelter,”
th
Proceedings of the Copper 2003-Cobre 2003 the 5 International
Conference Vol.4. Pyrometallurgy of Copper: Hermann Schwarze
Symposium (book 2), Montreal, Canada, Canadian Institute of
Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, pp.165-177;
http://www.pdf-search-engine.com/metsim-pdf.html;
http://www.hatch.ca/non_ferrous/articles/process_modelling.pdf.

10. R. H. Kehlhofer, J. Warner, H. Nielsen, and R. Bachmann (1999),

Combined-Cycle Gas Steam Turbine Power Plants, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, Penn Well Publishing Company.
11. A. K. Biswas (1981), Principles of Blast Furnace Ironmaking,
Brisbane, Australia, Cootha Publishing House, pp. 56 and 108.

Figure 7. The comparison of fresh hydrogen input volume as a

function of wustite reduction temperature for different excess driving
o
forces with hydrogen preheating temperatures of 1000 C for the 1-step
o
process and 750 C for the 2-step process.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by American Iron and Steel Institute
under a research service Agreement. Special thanks are extended to
Dr. P.C. Chaubal of ArcelorMittal for technical discussion.
REFERENCES

1. H. Y. Sohn (2007), “Suspension Ironmaking Technology with

Greatly Reduced Energy Requirement and CO2 Emissions,” Steel
Times International, May/June, pp. 68-72.

2. R. Fruehan (1998), Blast Furnaces Output will Continue to Fall,

May, New Steel.
3. L. Greene (2000), Iron Making Process Alternatives Screening
Study, LG job No. 010529.01, U.S Department of Energy,
October.
4. 2008 World Direct Reduction Statistics, Midrex Technology. Inc.

5. R. Lucena, R. Whipp and W. Albarran (2006), “The Orinoco Iron

FINMET® Plant Operation,” STAHL 2006 Crossing Frontiers,
Dusseldorf, Germany, November.
CIS
6. W. Grill (2009), “The Simetal Corex/Finex Process,” Convention
on Clean, Green and Sustainable Technologies in Iron and Steel
Making, July.

5 Copyright © 2010 by SME