AISTech 2019 — Proceedings of the Iron & Steel Technology Conference

6–9 May 2019, Pittsburgh, Pa., USA

DOI 10.1000.377.018

Micropelletization of Ironmaking and Steelmaking Dust and Recycling of the Micropellets

Naiyang Ma1, William J. Sammon2, Marcelo W. Andrade3

1
ArceloMittal Global R&D – East Chicago Laboratories
3001 E. Columbus Dr., East Chicago, Indiana, United States of America, 46312
Phone: 1-219-399-5263
Email: Naiyang.Ma@arcelormittal.com
2
ArcelorMittal USA Procurement and Supply Chain Management
3300 Dickey Rd. MC 4-442, East Chicago, Indiana, United States of America, 46312
Phone: 1-219-399-4650
Email: William.Sammon@arcelormittal.com
3
ArceloMittal Global R&D – East Chicago Laboratories
3001 E. Columbus Dr., East Chicago, Indiana, United States of America, 46312
Phone: 1-219-399-6581
Email: Marcelo.Andrade@arcelormittal.com

Keywords: Ironmaking and steelmaking, Dust, Recycling, Micropelletization, Sinter plant

INTRODUCTION
In the ironmaking and steelmaking processes, various dusts are constantly generated. These dusts include those collected by
sinter plant electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), blast furnace (BF) dust catchers or cyclones, basic oxygen furnace (BOF) ESPs,
electric arc furnace (EAF) baghouses, BF stockhouse baghouses, BF casthouse baghouses, steelmaking secondary baghouses
and many other baghouses where there are operations of charging, discharging, crushing, screening, desulfurization, refining,
and so on.
Traditionally, sinter plants are designed to recycle ironmaking and steelmaking solid wastes. Recently, briquetting
technologies have also been adopted for recycling of the solid wastes. Both sintering and briquetting processes can consume
the ironmaking and steelmaking dusts and it seems that they are good solutions. However, a few problems with the
ironmaking and steelmaking dusts remain. First, the dusts can cause secondary emissions on the ground and in air while the
dusts are delivered from the collection sites to sinter plants or briquetting plants and while the dusts are handled in these
plants. Second, due to inappropriate chemical and physical properties, some dusts cannot be internally recycled, and they
have to be shipped out for external recycling or landfilling. There is a risk for the dusts to pollute the environment due to
spills while they are being shipped. Third, the ironmaking and steelmaking dusts are generally very fine, and they can
seriously deteriorate sinter bed permeability and hence worsen performance of sinter machines. Fourth, too much fine dusts
in sinter blends can cause high sinter plant stack emissions and can cause failure of the stack opacity tests. Therefore, it
remains a challenge how to economically and environmentally mitigate the negative impacts of the fine dusts on environment
and production in the ironmaking and steelmaking processes.
In the ironmaking industry, with the depletion of high-grade iron ores, more and more iron ore concentrates have been
produced. Iron ore pelletization was invented and industrialized to deal with the fine concentrates. The pelletized
concentrates have also been used in sinter production, such as hybrid pelletized sinter (HPS) technology.1-3 Intensive
mixing/micropelletization was recently designed to resolve fine dust issues in the sintering process.4-5 These technologies
have set good examples for resolving the issues of fine ironmaking and steelmaking dusts. However, these technologies have
not been able to cope with all issues addressed above due to insufficient generation rates, high diversity and strong
heterogeneity of the dusts.
In-situ micropelletization of the ironmaking and steelmaking dusts is a reasonable choice for resolving the fine dust issues.
Once the dusts are pelletized at the generation sites and if the pellets can remain well integrated, all aforementioned negative

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 163

effects on environment and production disappear. Therefore, in-situ micropelletization of the ironmaking and steelmaking
dusts is a promising solution for handling the dusts. ArcelorMittal has studied mitigation of the fine dust issue by
micropelletization. Various micropelletization devices, including a lab tire pelletizer, a lab disc pelletizer, an industrial rotary
kiln, a lab high shear mixer (HSM), a lab deep drum pelletizer, a lab intensive mixer and a lab pin mixer, were studied and
evaluated. This paper serves as a summary of the research.

SAMPLE, EQUIMENT AND METHOD

Samples
Two BOF ESP dusts from ArcelorMittal USA BOF shops and one pickling iron oxide dust were chosen for this study due to
interests of the related plants. The first BOF shop offgas cleaning system has two offgas cleaning facilities. The first-stage
deduster is a dropout box which collects coarse dust, and the second-stage deduster is an ESP set which collects fine dust.
The coarse dust and the fine dust are comingled and pneumatically transported into a dust silo. The second BOF shop also
has a two stage dedusting system in its offgas cleaning system. The first stage gas cleaner is a spark box which cools and
washes the offgas by injecting atomized water. The spark box slurry is pumped into a settling box where wet grit is
generated and overflow wastewater is pumped to the wastewater treatment plant for further treatment. The second stage gas
cleaner is an ESP set which captures the fine dust particles. The fine dust is transported into a dust bunker by screw
conveyers. The pickling iron oxides are generated at a pickle acid recycling facility.
Dust samples were taken from under the ESP dust silo, from under the ESP dust bunker and from a pickling iron oxide pile.
The samples were bagged, sealed in drums and shipped to the lab. Upon arrival at the lab, the dust samples were
homogenized by thorough mixing and then sealed for later testing.
The dust samples were tested for particle size distributions and chemical compositions. The results are presented in Tables 1
and 2, respectively.

Table 1 Particle size distributions of the dust samples, %wt in dry basis
Size, mm >1 1 - 0.5 0.5 - 0.18 0.18 - 0.075 <0.075
BOF1 ESP Dust 0.00 0.99 20.66 42.52 35.83
BOF2 ESP Dust 0.45 4.99 40.02 32.43 22.11
Pickling Iron Oxides 0.00 0.08 14.99 74.19 10.74

Table 2 Chemical compositions of the dust samples, %wt in dry basis

Component Fe SiO2 Al2O3 TiO2 CaO MgO MnO Na2O K2O P C S Zn
BOF1 ESP Dust 56.84 1.14 0.14 0.06 9.32 2.81 0.76 < 0.1 0.22 0.04 1.21 0.038 0.16
BOF2 ESP Dust 58.86 2.43 0.41 0.15 7.04 1.79 1.66 < 0.1 0.05 0.13 0.70 0.040 1.74
Pickling Iron Oxides 70.42 0.31 0.22 0.05 0.08 <0.01 0.41 <0.1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.10 <0.020 <0.01

Various binders have been tested for micropelletization of the dusts, including Portland cement, corn starch, flyash, burnt
lime fines and artificial liquid binders from several vendors.

Pelletization devices
The lab tire pelletizer and the disc pelletizer have been used to evaluate pelletization potentials of various dusts in small
scales at ArcelorMittal Global R&D – East Chicago Laboratories. Previously, micropelletization of a sinter plant ESP dust
was studied using the tire pelletizer and the disc pelletizer.6 A current ArcelorMittal contractor tested the possibility of
making micropellets of BOF1 ESP dust using the lab pug mill. The lab deep-drum pelletizer and the pin mixer were tested
on the BOF1 and BOF2 ESP dusts at a supplier’s lab. The industrial rotary kiln has been used to produce micropellets of the
BOF1 ESP dust by an existing contractor of ArcelorMittal’s. The lab intensive mixer was tested at a supplier’s lab. The lab
high shear mixer (HSM) has been extensively tested at the supplier’s lab and at ArcelorMittal Global R&D – East Chicago
Laboratories.

164 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

Evaluation methods
The objective of this study is to produce quality micropellets of ironmaking and steelmaking dusts for utilizing the
micropellets in sintering. When selecting pelletization devices, both casual observation and quantitative measurements were
used to evaluate whether good micropellets could be made. Trial and error were used to optimize operation conditions of
pelletization devices. Properties of micropellets to be tested include particle size distribution, compressive strength, attrition
strength, dropping strength and water stability.
For use of the micropellets in sintering, the target size range of the micropellets is between 1 mm and 6.35 mm.
When measuring compressive strength of micropellets, fifty pellets between 2.36 mm and 4.75 mm are randomly chosen.
The compressive strength was measured using a Chatillon compression tester. Compressive strengths (average and deviation)
were recorded.
200 grams of pellets between 1 mm and 6.35 mm were selected for the attrition test. The sample was shacked on the 1 mm
screen for 5 min on machine. Attrition index was then calculated using Eq. (1)

𝐴 100% , (1)

where A is attrition index in %wt in dry basis, W and W0 are masses of the on-screen micropellets and the raw sample, and x
and x0 are moisture contents of the on-screen micropellets and the raw sample in %wt.
500 grams of pellets between 1 mm and 6.35 mm were selected for the dropping test. The pellets were dropped from the
designated height into a steel container. The dropped pellets were then screened with a 1 mm sieve. The dropping index was
calculated using Eq. (2)

𝐷 100%, (2)

where D is dropping index in %wt in dry basis, W and W0 are masses of the on-screen micropellets and the raw sample, and
x and x0 are moisture contents of the on-screen micropellets and the raw sample in %wt.
Water stability was tested using the following procedure
1. Take 1000 grams of micropellets between 1 mm and 6.35 mm.
2. Fill a 19-liter pail with tap water.
3. Keep water flow rate at 3.8 liter per minute. Drain overflow water into the drainage system.
4. Put the sample into a 1 mm sieve. Gently put the sieve and the pellets in the pail filled with water. Keep the sieve
and the pellets in the water for 60 minutes.
5. Take the sieve and the pellets out of the water.
6. After draining, dry the pellets in an oven at 105 °C.
7. Screen the dried pellets with a 1 mm sieve and record the mass of the oversize pellets.
8. Calculate water stability index of the micropellets using Eq. (3)

𝑆 100% (3)

where S is water stability index in %wt in dry basis, W is the mass of survived pellets in dry basis, W0 is the mass of raw
sample in as-received basis, x0 is moisture content in the raw sample in %wt.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Selection of pelletization devices
In selecting pelletization devices, a few criteria were considered. First of all, the machines must be capable of making good
micropellets. Micropellets are characterized by their smaller sizes compared to regular pellets. Some of the candidate
pelletization devices are good at making regular large pellets while micropellets in these devices tend to agglomerate into

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 165

large pellets quickly and do not achieve the desired strength characteristics. Therefore, using these kinds of pelletization
devices for making micropellets will face the challenges of preventing formation of large pellets and strengthening the
micropellets. Second, the devices must be simple and compact to fit in the existing dust collection areas where are generally
already very crowded. Third, capital costs and operating costs are important. Overall, the devices should be simple and
effective.
The industrial rotary kiln has already been used to make micropellets for ArcelorMittal, and qualities of the kiln micropellets
are satisfactory for applications in sintering. Therefore, the kiln micropellets are used as a reference for evaluation of other
pelletization devices. A photo of the kiln micropellets is shown in Figure 1 and some properties of the pellets are presented
in Table 3.

Figure 1 A photo of a sample of the green reference micropellets

166 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

 Table 3 Properties of the reference micropellets

>1 mm <6.35 Dropping Index of the Green Compressive Strength of Fully Water Stability Index of
mm, % Pellets from 4.6 m High, % Cured Pellets, KgF per pellet the Green Pellets, %
75.14 96.3 3.94 96.99

Though the industrial rotary kiln is capable of making high-quality micropellets, it cannot be considered for the in-situ
micropelletization since it requires large capital and operating costs and large real estate.
The disc pelletizer is a device for making regular large pellets. Testing with the pug mill was unsuccessful. The deep-drum
pelletizer is similar to the disc pelletizer and it is good for making large-size pellets. While it was operated at a large tilted
angle for making micropellets, the residence time of the pellets in the pelletizer was significantly reduced and the
micropellets were immature and weak. Significant amounts of raw dust were discharged with micropellets. In Figure 2, a
typical batch of micropellets with the dust from the deep-drum pelletizer are displayed. Compared to the reference
micropellets in Figure 1, the deep-drum micropellets are not satisfactory.

Figure 2 A typical batch of pellets from a deep-drum pelletizer

The pin mixer has a rotation shaft on which many pins are installed in certain patterns. The internal structure of the pin mixer
is shown in Figure 3. While the pin mixer is running, dust and binders are introduced into the mixer and water is injected.
The high-speed pins mix and press the dust to form micropellets. Opposite to the disc pelletizer and the deep-drum pelletizer,
the pin mixer produces under-size micropellets. Since the pin mixer runs at high speed, clogging can be an issue, and hence
the residence time of the feed in the mixer is short. Under various conditions of rotation speeds, types of dusts, types of
binders and dosages of binders, compressive strengths of the fully cured pin mixer micropellets were always less than 1 KgF
per pellets, far weaker than the reference micropellets.

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 167

Consequently, the tire pelletizer, the disc pelletizer, the kiln pelletizer, the deep-drum pelletizer and the pin mixer were all
excluded from the further investigation.

Figure 3 Internal structure of the pin mixer

The intensive mixer and the HSM both are compact, simple and capable of making good micropellets. As a matter of fact,
they both share the same design principle of countercurrent mixing. However, the HSM is significantly cheaper in capital
investment and maintenance cost. Therefore, the HSM was chosen for further investment.
As a summary, comparison of the various pelletizers is presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Comparison of various pelletizers for micropelletization

Pelletizer Quality of Micropellets Equipment Size Cost
Disc pelletizer Poor Not suitable High
Deep-drum pelletizer Poor Suitable Good
Rotary kiln Good Not suitable High
Pin mixer Poor Not suitable High
Intensive mixer Good Suitable High
HSM Good Suitable Good

Micropelletization of the ironmaking and steelmaking dusts using a lab HSM

The HSM is designed based on the principle of countercurrent mixing. The lab HSM is shown in Figure 4. The pan and feed
move in the opposite direction of the paddle so that high-efficiency mixing can be achieved.

168 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

 Figure 4 The lab HSM
A photo of the HSM micropellets of the BOF1 ESP dust is displayed in Figure 5. Properties of the fully cured pellets are
presented in Table 5. It can be seen that the micropellets made using the HSM are satisfactory. The micropellets are strong
enough to resist compression, dropping, abrasion and water. One can also see that different types of binders and binder
dosages have strong effects on the properties of the micropellets. Optimization will be needed to minimize the consumption
of binders with low prices for the best economics in micropelletization of the ironmaking and steelmaking dusts.

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 169

 Figure 5 A photo of micropellets of the BOF1 ESP dust made using the HSM

170 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

 Table 5 Properties of micropellets of the BOF1 ESP dust made using the HSM
Compressive Strength, Attrition Dropping Water
Binder
KgF per pellet Index, % Index, % Stability, %
No Binder 2.77 97.06 92.80 97.80
3% Fly Ash 3.84 97.70 96.45 97.47
5% Fly Ash 4.97 98.13 96.94 97.51
3% Cement 1.51 97.38 93.50 96.55
5% Cement 2.18 98.02 95.16 97.08
4% 50/50 Mixture of
4.83 98.36 97.16 96.93
Fly Ash and Cement
5% 50/50 Mixture of
4.31 98.06 97.08 97.27
Fly Ash and Cement

Using the lab HSM, micropellets of the BOF2 ESP dust and the pickling iron oxides were also successfully produced.
Compressive strengths of the micropellets versus curing days are showing in Figures 6 and 7. Effects of various binders on
the compressive strengths of the micropellets are also shown in the figures. One can see that the curing time has a very
strong effect on the compressive strength of the micropellets. Sufficiently long curing time is needed before the micropellets
can be used. One can also see that the compressive strengths of the micropellets are strongly correlated to kinds of binders
and dosages of the binders. Referring to Table 5 and Figures 6, it is noted that the micropellets can be rather strong even
without any binders added. The reason could be due to burnt lime in the BOF ESP dusts. From Table 2, one can see that
both BOF1 and BOF2 ESP dusts contain significant amounts of CaO. The burnt lime in the BOF ESP dust can act as a
binder. While the micropellets are being cured, CaO in the micropellets can react with CO2 in the air and can strengthen the
micropellets. The binding capability of the burnt lime is proven in Figure 6 where the micropellets of pickling iron oxides
with 10% burnt lime display high compressive strength.

Figure 6 Compressive strengths of the micropellets of the BOF2 ESP dust versus curing days

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 171

 Figure 7 Compressive strength of the micropellets of the pickling iron oxides versus curing days

CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this article, the authors presented research activities of micropelletizing the ironmaking and steelmaking dusts at
ArcelorMittal. After careful evaluation, a high shear mixer is believed to be the best choice for in-situ micropelletization of
the ironmaking and steelmaking dusts. The test results show that satisfactory micropellets can be produced using the high
shear mixer. Micropellet strength is closely related to curing time. Sufficiently long curing time is needed for the
micropellets to be utilized. Binder types and dosages have strong effects on the strength of the micropellets. Lime fines can
be an ideal binder for the micropelletization. It is possible to make satisfactory micropellets of BOF dusts without additional
binders. The in-situ micropelletization of the ironmaking and steelmaking dusts will eliminate the secondary emissions of the
dusts and will improve permeability of sinter feed while they are utilized in sintering. The in-situ micropelletization will
completely eliminate the negative effects of the dusts on environment and production. Accordingly, the value-in-use of the
dusts can be increased.

REFERENCES
1. Y. Niwa, N. Sakamoto, O. Komatsu, H. Noda and A. Kumasaka, “Commercial Production of Iron Ore Agglomerates
Using Sinter Feeds Containing a Large Amount of Fine Ores,” ISIJ International, Vol. 33, No. 4, April 1993, pp. 454-
461.
2. A. Kumasaka, K. Kondo, N. Sakamoto, O. Komatsu, H. Noda and M. Shimiz, “Granulation Characteristics of Iron Ore
Fines for Hybrid Pelletized Sinter Process,” Revue de Metallurgie, Vol. 89, No. 3, March 1992, pp. 225-232.
3. W. Borges, C. Melo, R. Braga, E. Santos, C. Maria, O. Kojima and H. Sato, “Application of HPS (Hybrid Pelletized
Sinter) Process at Monlevade Works,” La Revue de Métallurgie-CIT, Vol. 101, No. 3, March 2004, pp. 189-194.
4. Primetals, “The Perfect Sinter Plant,” 2015, Website: https://www.primetals.com/fileadmin/user_upload/content/
01_portfolio/1_ironmaking/sinter-plant/THE_PERFECT_SINTER_PLANT_2018pdf.pdf, Accessed on January 22,
2019.
5. D. Burchart-Korol, J. Korol and P. Francik, “Application of the New Mixing and Granulation Technology of Raw
Materials for Iron Ore Sintering Process,” Metabk, Vol. 51, No. 2, May 2012, 187-190.
6. N.-Y. Ma, “Recycling of Sinter Plant Offgas Cleaning System Dust by Pre-agglomeration,” Energy Technology 2015:
Carbon Dioxide Management and Other Technologies, Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp 193-200.

172 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.