AISTech 2019 — Proceedings of the Iron & Steel Technology Conference

6–9 May 2019, Pittsburgh, Pa., USA

DOI 10.1000.377.254

Reheat Furnace Efficiency at Laverton Rod Mill

J. Stanford1, G. Brooks2, R. Janse van Vuuren1, A. Fontana1

1
Liberty Steel,
105-123 Dohertys Road, Laverton, Victoria, 3026, Australia
Ph.: +61 406 385 401
jacob.stanford@libertygfg.com
2
Department of Mechanical and Product Design Engineering
Swinburne University of Technology,
John Street, Hawthorn, Melbourne, Victoria, 3122 Australia

Keywords: reheat furnace; energy efficiency; walking hearth; green steel;

INTRODUCTION
The manufacturing of steel is a highly energy intensive process; in 2015 alone, the iron and steel sector accounted for 5.1% of
the world’s total energy consumption1. To reach a state malleable enough to be rolled, a steel billet is required to be between
1000 to 1200C2. In a steel mill, the reheat furnace is responsible for a significant portion of a mill’s total energy
consumption. It is therefore beneficial to find methods to improve the furnace’s energy efficiency as incremental increases in
efficiency can be highly beneficial from an environmental, financial and productivity standpoint3. For the purposes of this
research, efficiency was defined as a ratio between furnace gross heat input, 𝑄 (MW), and usable heat transferred to billet,
𝑄 (MW).
Liberty Steel’s Laverton, Australia plant consists of an electric arc furnace which feeds both a rod mill and bar mill, with an
annual capacity of 780,000 metric tonnes per year (tpy) of construction grade steels. The Rod Mill, where this study is based,
comprises of 28 cantilevered-style roll stands with 550,000tpy capacity of round and deformed rod, ranging in size from
5.5mm rounds to 16mm deformed rod. The Rod Mill’s reheat furnace is a Danieli walking hearth design with internal
dimensions of 18.6m x 13m x 1.6m (LxWxH). It consists of three fired zones, powered by 35 ‘Bloom 2180’ burners and one
recuperative, non-fired zone. Initially constructed in 1996 with a design capacity of 80 tonnes per hour (tph), incremental
upgrades have enabled the furnace to increase capacity to 93tph cold charge. The mill’s rolling capacity of 105t/hr means the
reheat furnace is currently the limiting step of the overall process. A 150% increase in Australian natural gas prices over the
last 3 years4 has resulted in a significant increase in furnace fuel costs. Increased operating costs along with increasing
capacity were driving factors in the need to improve furnace efficiency.
In analysing the inputs and outputs of operating reheat furnaces, previous research has been able to successfully produce a
working energy balance of the furnace and from this, determine furnace efficiency3, 5, 6. One method has been to use the
Process Heating Assessment and Survey Tool (PHAST) to assess a furnace operating at full production (85tph), partial
production (65tph) and idle (0tph)5. That research demonstrated that flue gas was the greatest contributor to heat losses from
the furnace and reducing production rate negatively impacted efficiency. This was further reiterated through the use of
mathematical modelling to strengthen the relationship between energy consumption rate, billet retention time and energy
consumption amount6. They found that while low production required a low energy consumption rate, the necessary
increased retention time resulted overall in more energy being consumed than for a typical or high heating rate.
Flue gas losses account for approximately 30% of gross heat input to a steel reheat furnace5, it is therefore beneficial to
implement systems to recover the maximum amount of this heat. Previous studies have shown that the addition of a
recuperator can recover up to 47% of flue gas heat6. Research has also shown that in addition to a recuperator, using flue gas
to preheat billets to 315°C can further reduce energy consumption by up to 23.6%5.
Although previous energy-saving studies have been conducted on reheat furnaces, this paper will investigate solutions unique
to the Laverton furnace. Areas of current interest are: findings from previous energy-analysis on reheat furnaces and

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 2461

performing an energy balance on the furnace’s current state, excess air control and the warm charging of billets into the
furnace. The outcome of this project is to better understand the current state of the reheat furnace against industry
benchmarks and determine to what affect the above upgrades will have on capacity.

METHODOLOGY
To accurately model the furnace’s current operating conditions, all energy input and output data was collected at discharge
rates of 50tph, 70tph, 86tph and idle (0tph). Data already logged by existing instrumentation was averaged over a 7-hour
period while oxygen concentration and surface temperature measurements were taken at three separate times for each
operating condition, then averaged.

Data Collection
Data already trended by existing instrumentation was logged to ibaAnalyser software, where it was exported for analysis. To
measure temperatures of the furnace’s external surfaces, a Flir E60 infrared thermal imaging camera was used, using the
contact method to determine furnace surface emissivity12. This procedure was performed on each wall and the roof with the
emissivity determined to be between 0.85-0.95 (the hearth was excluded due to limited access). For consistency in
calculations, all external furnace surfaces were initially approximated as having an emissivity of 0.95.
In measuring the temperatures, each surface was divided into zones with standardised labelling, as shown in Figure 1. The
average temperature was then obtained using the camera’s temperature averaging feature. Surface temperatures were all
taken 3 times – approximately 2 hours apart – for each discharge rate.

Figure 1. Labelling and dimensions of furnace zones

In determining excess air within the furnace, an extractive flue gas analyser (Testo 327-1) was used, which measured volume
percentage (wet) of oxygen in the furnace atmosphere. Extractive measurements were taken from the unfired, recuperative
zone as this was deemed most representative of the furnace’s overall fuel/air ratio, prior to flue gas dilution air being added.
The analyser works by extracting a sample of furnaces gasses, which are then filtered and fed through the internal electro-
chemical sensor. The oxygen concentration is compared against atmospheric air as reference (21%) with an accuracy of 0.1%
O 2.

Energy Balance
For the purposes of this study, the reheat furnace was modelled as a steady-state system with a control volume encompassing
the recuperator and furnace as a single system, as shown in Figure 2. The energy balance was undertaken using the principles
described by Hayes and Algie13. As shown in equation 1, heat provided by combustion in a steady-state system was defined
as the change in enthalpy between the products exiting the furnace to the reactants entering it. As the products do not
condense before exiting the furnace, moisture was assumed to be in its vapour state, therefore leading to the calculation of
natural gas’s lower heating value of 33MJ/Nm3.

2462 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

 Figure 2. Energy balance control volume

𝑄 ∑ 𝑁 ℎ° ℎ ℎ° ∑ 𝑁 ℎ° ℎ ℎ° (1)
𝑁 = number of moles of reactants (mol), 𝑁 = number of moles of products (mol), ℎ° = enthalpy of formation (kJ/kmol), ℎ =
enthalpy (kJ/kmol), ℎ° = enthalpy at standard reference state (25°C and 1atm)
Additional energy entered the system in the form of billets and water seals water while energy was lost from the system by
discharging billets, water seals, leaks (combustion products leaking to atmosphere through gaps and openings), flue gas and
furnace surfaces (transferring heat to the environment by radiation and natural convection).

Leaks
Flue gas is currently not measured for flow rate through the recuperator and stack, therefore, there is currently no accurate
method to calculate the volume of gas escaping the furnace (due to operating at positive pressure). To estimate the volume of
gas escaping the furnace, annual testing of gas flow rates and air were compared against flue gas flow rates. It was then
assumed that the difference between these flow rates was due to leaks from openings and cracks in the furnace. This method
found leaks accounted for 6% of total volume entering the furnace, which was then used for all subsequent energy balances.

Openings
The furnace has 10 main openings, these are a moving charge door, a moving discharge door and 4 fixed openings on either
side for the charge and discharge arms. The charge openings are at the cooler side of the furnace (approximately 1000°C)
while the discharge openings are at the hot side of the furnace (approximately 1200°C). To estimate losses due to openings,
each opening was treated as losing energy only due to radiation and at the temperature of the zone it was present in. The
amount of time that the charge and discharge doors were open for a given period was calculated as a percentage and
multiplied by their respective zone temperatures, as shown below:

𝑄 𝜎 𝑇 𝑇 𝐴 %𝐴 (2)
𝑄 = heat lost through openings (MW), 𝜎 = Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67x10-8Wm-2K-4), 𝑇 = temperature of
furnace zone (°K), 𝑇 = ambient temperature of furnace building (°K), 𝐴 = area of fixed openings (m2),
𝐴 = area of moving openings (m2)
To ensure conservation of energy was maintained, energy leaving the furnace which was not accounted for was deemed other
losses.

Warm Charging
To determine the effect of warm charging on the furnace’s fuel consumption, the current heating efficiency (GJ/t) and
proportion of heat transferred to the load was calculated for the 70tph operating condition. The theoretical heat required for
the load (GJ/t) was then divided by the heating efficiency (%) to obtain the actual heating requirement when warm charging
at different temperatures, as shown below:

GJ ,
Heating Requirement t (3)

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 2463

Cp,steel = specific heat of steel (GJ/kg.°C), Tdischarge = discharge temperature of billet, Twarm charge = charge temperature of billets,
ƞheating = current heating efficiency at 70tph
This method did not account for the changing thermal properties of the steel as it heated up, however, it was used to
determine whether more time should be invested in trialling warm charging at temperatures exceeding 300°C.

RESULTS
Table I shows the calculated energy into and out of the furnace for each operating condition measured (0tph, 50tph, 70tph
and 86tph). It can be seen that idle uses the least amount of fuel (4.46MW) whereas the discharge rate of 70tph required the
most energy at 23.6MW. The 70tph discharge also had the greatest flue gas losses (4.42MW), losses due to leaks (0.69MW),
surface losses (1.71MW) and unknown losses (3.39MW). It can also be seen that discharge rate does not have a significant
effect on losses due to openings, only varying 0.03MW between 50tph and 86tph.

Table I. Summary of heat losses

0tph 50tph 70tph 86tph
Energy In (MW) 4.46 16.34 23.6 21.0
Flue Gas 0.46 10% 2.48 15% 4.42 19% 3.93 19%
Leaks 0.18 4% 0.47 3% 0.69 3% 0.61 3%
Surfaces 0.93 21% 1.40 9% 1.71 7% 1.45 7%
Energy Out (MW)

Billet 0.00 0% 9.16 56% 12.64 54% 14.13 67%

Water 0.23 5% 0.40 2% 0.40 2% 0.40 2%
Openings 0.06 1% 0.34 2% 0.35 1% 0.37 2%
Other Losses 2.60 58% 2.09 13% 3.39 14% 0.11 1%

Heating efficiency during production varied between 52.8% at 70tph to 67.3% during 86tph. As seen in Figure 3, it appears
that there is no linear relationship between discharge rate and heating efficiency; however, it can be inferred that efficiency
does increase with discharge rate due to the efficiency improvement between 50tph and 86tph. Previous research also
obtained similar results, finding furnace thermal efficiency increases with discharge rate5, 6. The results show that thermal
efficiency decreases from 56.1% to 52.8% between 50tph and 70tph before increasing considerably to 67.3% during 86tph.
However, it must be noted that during measuring of 86tph production, the furnace was being charged with billets at 85°C.
This was shown to greatly improve the furnace’s efficiency compared to ambient temperature billets used during 50tph and
70tph production.

Billet Heating Efficiency

70%
Efficiency (Qbillet/Qin)

65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
45 55 65 75 85 95
Discharge rate (tph)

Figure 3. Billet heating efficiency during varying discharge rates

2464 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

Figure 4 compares the results of this study’s 70tph energy balance with similar furnaces from the literature (referred as Study
A16 and Study B6). The comparison shows heat transferred to the billet during this study (52.8%) was slightly less than Study
A (57.5%) and Study B (59.3%). This study found flue gas losses to be higher (18.5%) than the same two studies which
found flue gas losses to be 12.3% and 15.7%, respectively (when including heat recovery by the recuperator). This could be
attributed to recuperator performance and whether they operate a greater recuperative zone to pre-heat billets to a higher
temperature than Laverton.

Comparison of Energy Balance Results Against Previous Studies

70%
57.5% 59.3%
Proportion of Heat Loss

60% 52.8%
50%
40%
30%
20% 15.7% 18.5% 17.7%
12.3%
7.1% 8.8% 7.7%
10% 3.4% 1.7%
0%
Billet Flue Gas Surfaces Water
Source of Heat Loss

Study A Study B This Study

Figure 4. Comparison of 70tph energy balance results against similar studies. *Flue gas losses refer to heat loss after the
recuperator
Most notable across all operating conditions is the presence of unknown losses (other losses). This was the difference
between heat entering the furnace and the heat calculated to be leaving the furnace (through surfaces, openings, flue gas etc).
Unknown losses were most significant during idle where they accounted for 58.8% (2.60MW) of all losses. The lowest
estimated unknowns occurred during the 86tph trials where they accounted for only 0.5% (0.11MW) of all losses. Figure 5
shows the relationship between the proportions of other losses compared to discharge rate, suggesting there was a
relationship between the discharge rate and associated unknown losses.
One reason that unknown losses are so great is likely due to measurement techniques and assumptions made. Due to a lack of
flow meter to measure flue gas, the leaks from the furnace were estimated to be 6% of total flow entering the furnace
(extrapolated from annual testing when flue gas flow rate is measured). This assumption was made with the furnace operating
at 120mmH2O positive pressure however, as shown in Figure 6, the furnace pressure varies over the course of the day and
between discharge rates. This may have induced greater losses due to leaks than what was directly measured or calculated.
Instead of using thermography techniques to measure the temperature of furnace surfaces, similar studies have used a series
of thermocouples attached to the furnace outer surface which were then averaged. This approach is likely to produce more
accurate results due to the elimination of human error in using a handheld thermal camera. Those studies also did not quantify
‘unknown losses’ but instead, assumed any heat discrepancy between the inputs and measured outputs as heat lost through
the roof and hearth. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 7 to Figure 12, there were considerable variances in the furnace surfaces
due to furnace features and damage to the furnace. If future research is to take place on the furnace, the damaged sections
should be repaired, and a more repeatable method of measurement used to reduce or eliminate human error.

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 2465

 Relationship between Other Losses (%) and Discharge Rate (tph)
70%
60%

Other losses (%)

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Discharge rate (tph)

Figure 5. Relationship between other losses and discharge rate

Figure 6. Furnace pressure over testing periods of 0tph, 50tph, 70tph and 86tph

2466 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

 Figure 7: Visible plume of combustion gas leaking Figure 8: Extensive damage to combustion air ducting
through crack in furnace roof, producing hot spot in producing significant, visible heat losses.
refractory.

Figure 9: Temperature variance in roof refractory. (1) Figure 10: Temperature variance on wall due to features.
Steel plate, (2) stable refractory, (3) crack in refractory. (1) Inspection window, (2) refractory wall anchor, (3)
furnace wall.

Figure 11: Hole in furnace roof through to combustion Figure 12: Image taken with normal camera showing hole
chamber due to refractory failure. Thermal camera in furnace roof as in Figure 11
reached maximum allowable temperature at 653°C.
Figure 13 shows each measured air-fuel ratio and the corresponding set air-fuel ratio for the particular discharge rate. The set
ratio has been calculated from the average fuel and air flow rates over each 7-hour testing period. For Melbourne natural gas,
the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio is approximately 10.63:1 (by volume).
During production, it can be seen that the average set air-fuel ratio is 10.79, which corresponds to 1.5% excess air. Over
every discharge rate, the measured air-fuel ratio was greater than the set air-fuel ratio. This was most pronounced during idle

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 2467

where the measured air-fuel ratio was 62% greater than the set value of 15.44. The high measured air-fuel ratio may be
attributed to the air and fuel not completely mixing in low fire before reaching the testing port, hence, the oxygen analyser
drew in more air than if the two were better mixed during operation at normal firing rate.

Comparison of Measured Air-Fuel Ratio Against Set Air-Fuel Ratio

30
24.95
25
Air-Fuel Ratio

20
15.44
15 13.43
10.90 10.74 11.69 10.73 11.35
10

0
0 50 70 86
Discharge Rate (tph)

AF Ratio (Set) AF Ratio (Measured)

Figure 13. Comparison of measured air-fuel ratio against set air-fuel ratio
Similarly, during a discharge rate of 50tph the measured air-fuel ratio was 13.43, compared to the set ratio of 10.90. While all
ratios measured greater than their set ratio, the cause for the air-fuel ratio to be higher during 50tph is most likely due to how
it was measured. As oxygen readings were taken manually as an extractive measurement, this only provided a ‘snapshot’ of
the furnace conditions at that point in time. The variance in measurements between the set ratio and measured ratio
demonstrates the need for more accurate testing of oxygen concentration within the furnace. As it currently stands, it cannot
be said with certainty whether the measurements deviate due to inconsistencies in the measurement technique or whether the
furnace is in fact operating away from its set parameters. For this reason, it is recommended that more measurements be
taken with the installation of an online oxygen analyser.
The warm charging of billets during 70tph production was explored to determine energy savings available. Table II shows
billets entering the furnace at 70tph and 15°C require 12.64MW to reach discharge temperature. To determine the benefits of
warm charging, the incoming billet temperature was increased in 50°C increments up to 400°C, and the corresponding
required billet heat was calculated. Assuming a heating efficiency of 53% remains, it shows that for billets entering the
furnace during 70tph at 400°C, 8.25MW of heat is required, a 35% reduction from ambient temperature billets. The results of
the warm charging study were compared against similar studies5. They found that billets entering the furnace at 315°C would
reduce fuel consumption by 23.6% (0.29GJ/t reduction). In comparison, the results of the warm charge study on Laverton’s
furnace found that billets at 315°C would have an estimated 27% reduction on fuel consumption (0.32GJ/t reduction).

2468 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

 Table II. Estimated warm charging fuel requirements for 70tph discharge rate
Charge temperature GJ/t GJ/t Energy requirement
of billet MW (theoretical) (actual) reduction

15 12.64 0.66 1.23

50 12.28 0.64 1.19 -3%
100 11.71 0.61 1.14 -8%
150 11.13 0.58 1.08 -12%
200 10.55 0.55 1.03 -17%
250 9.98 0.52 0.97 -21%
300 9.40 0.49 0.91 -26%
315 9.23 0.48 0.91 -27%
350 8.82 0.46 0.86 -30%
400 8.25 0.43 0.80 -35%

Figure 14 shows the theoretical relationship between the temperature of billets entering the furnace and the corresponding
heat required (GJ/t), demonstrating a linear relationship between the two. It must be noted, however, that the results are only
based off the energy required to raise the billets to the required discharge temperature. Further research is required on warm
charging billets into the furnace to better understand its potential.

Estimated Warm Charging Fuel Requirements for 70tph Discharge Rate

1.40 0%
1.20 -5%

Fuel Flow Reduction

-10%
Efficiency (GJ/t)

1.00
-15%
0.80
-20%
0.60
-25%
0.40 -30%
0.20 -35%
0.00 -40%
15 50 100 150 200 250 300 315 350 400
Billet Charging Temperature (°C)

Heating Requirement (GJ/t) Fuel Requirement (%)

Figure 14. Estimated warm charging fuel requirements for 70tph discharge rate

CONCLUSIONS
This research was undertaken to obtain the source and magnitudes of energy losses occurring in the reheat furnace and how
the losses were affected by the furnace’s discharge rate.
The results indicated that as furnace discharge rate increased, so did its thermal efficiency to heat billets. Ignoring unknown
losses, flue gas remained the greatest contributor towards heat loss for all discharge rates except during idle, where surface
losses contributed the most. It was found that although Australia experiences high prices for natural gas, the financial cost of

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 2469

oxy-fuel to reduce fuel consumption would still be of negative financial benefit. However, this was not the case if used to
increase furnace capacity. The most effective and cost-efficient method to reduce fuel consumption in the furnace was to
improve planning to prioritise warm charging, which had the benefit of reducing fuel requirements by 35% if billets were
charged at 400°C instead of ambient.
The research was limited to analysis of four operating conditions (0tph, 50tph, 70tph and 86tph). Flow rates of flue gas and
water seals were estimated from previous work due to lack of instrumentation as well as wall temperatures and oxygen
concentration taken as point measurements, not continuously logged over the testing periods. Further research would benefit
from the implementation of online logging of all measurements to better understand how the furnace reacts to changing
discharge rates over the course of a product campaign. This may include the installation of more instrumentation such as (1) a
permanently installed gas analyser and flow rate measurement of flue gas, (2) flow and temperature monitoring of water seals
water. The upgrades will enable more accurate modelling for future energy studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Geoffrey Brooks and Rudi Janse van Vuuren for their support and supervision during this project.

REFERENCES
1. International Energy Agency, IEA sankey diagram world final consumption, 2015 [accessed 23 May 2018], available
from: http://www.iea.org/Sankey/.
2. S. Kang, Y.-S. Jung, J.-H. Jun, and Y.-K. Lee, “Effects of recrystallization annealing temperature on carbide
precipitation, microstructure, and mechanical properties in Fe–18Mn–0.6C–1.5Al TWIP steel”, Materials Science and
Engineering, vol. 527, no. 3, 2010, pp. 745-751.
3. K. Enes, K. Durmuş, K. Fatma Çanka, E. Muharrem, Ö. Mehmet, T. Osman, and P. Witold, “An energy efficiency
analysis of an industrial reheating furnace and an implementation of efficiency enhancements methods”, Energy
Exploration & Exploitation, vol. 32, no. 6, 2014, pp. 989-1003.
4. Australian Energy Regulator, Victorian gas market average daily weighted prices by quarter, 2018 [accessed 23 April
2018], available from: https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistics/victorian-gas-market-average-
daily-weighted-prices-by-quarter.
5. M. Si, S. Thompson, and K. Calder, “Energy efficiency assessment by process heating assessment and survey tool
(PHAST) and feasibility analysis of waste heat recovery in the reheat furnace at a steel company”, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, no. 6, 2011, pp. 2904-2908.
6. W.H. Chen, Y.C. Chung, and J.L. Liu, “Analysis on energy consumption and performance of reheating furnaces in a
hot strip mill”, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 32, no. 5, 2005, pp. 695-706.
7. A. Durmaz, R. Pugh, S. Yazici, K. Erdoǧan, and A. Ko̧an, “Novel application of organic rankine cycle (ORC)
technology for waste heat recovery from reheat furnace evaporative cooling system”, AISTech, Association for Iron &
Steel Technology, 2012.
8. F. Erfurth, J. Grzych, I. Richard Parron, F. Miller, M. Hernandez, K. Tian, D. O’Connor, L. Rosen, and N.Y.
Tonawanda, “Fuel savings for slab reheating furnaces through oxyfuel combustion”, AISTech, Association for Iron and
Steel Technology, 2006.
9. S. Thompson and M. Si, “Strategic analysis of energy efficiency projects: case study of a steel mill in Manitoba”,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 40, 2014, pp. 814-819.
10. F.A.D. Oliveira, J.A. Carvalho, P.M. Sobrinho, and A. de Castro, “Analysis of oxy-fuel combustion as an alternative to
combustion with air in metal reheating furnaces”, Energy, vol. 78, 2014, pp. 290-297.
11. H.J. Karimi and M.H. Saidi, “Heat transfer and energy analysis of a pusher type reheating furnace using oxygen
enhanced air for combustion”, Journal of Iron and Steel Research, vol. 17, no. 4, 2010, pp. 12-17.
12. R. Usamentiaga, P. Venegas, J. Guerediaga, L. Vega, J. Molleda, and F.G. Bulnes, “Infrared thermography for
temperature measurement and non-destructive testing”, Sensors, vol. 14, no. 7, 2014, pp. 12305-12348.
13. P.C. Hayes and S.H. Algie, Process Principles in Minerals and Materials Production. 2nd ed. 1993, Sherwood: Hayes
Publishing.

2470 © 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology.

14. Australian Energy Market Operator, Gas composition data, 2018 [accessed 20 August 2018], available from:
http://energylive.aemo.com.au/Home/Gas/Declared-Wholesale-Gas-Market-DWGM/Data.
15. S.H. Han, Y.S. Lee, J.R. Cho, and K.H. Lee, “Efficiency analysis of air-fuel and oxy-fuel combustion in a reheating
furnace”, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 121, 2018, pp. 1364-1370.
16. K. Kangvanskol and C. Tangthieng, “An energy analysis of a slab preheating chamber for a reheating furnace”,
Engineering Journal, vol. 18, no. 2, 2014, pp. 1-12.

© 2019 by the Association for Iron & Steel Technology. 2471