See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309595707

Estimation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Rotary Hearth Furnace Using a

Thermodynamic Model

Article  in  Steel Research International · May 2017

DOI: 10.1002/srin.201600265

CITATIONS READS

4 96

4 authors:

Binay Kumar Srinibash Mishra

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur National Institute of Technology, Srinagar
8 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   39 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gour Gopal Roy Prodip Sen

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
63 PUBLICATIONS   1,860 CITATIONS    45 PUBLICATIONS   353 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Experimental investigation of recovery and efficiency of calcium addition through cored wire in steel melt at Visakhapatnam Steel Plant View project

Modeling of Top Gas Recycle Blast Furnace View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Srinibash Mishra on 02 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

www.steel-research.de

FULL PAPER
Estimation of Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Rotary
Hearth Furnace Using a Thermodynamic Model
Binay Kumar, Srinibash Mishra, Gour Gopal Roy, and Prodip Kumar Sen

A thermodynamic model has been developed for the estimation of carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from rotary hearth furnace (RHF) using different reductant coals and external
fuel gases for the production of sponge iron. The model developed incorporates coal
pyrolysis and ore reduction. Output predictions including coal and fuel gas additions are
computed under no heat loss condition and the stoichiometric addition of the reductant
carbon. Validation with available data from literature has been carried out. The external
fuel gas quantity is determined by calculating adiabatic flame temperature (AFT) and heat
requirement in the reduction zone using software FactSage 6.4. Total iron present in the
sponge is variable depending on the reductant coal and sponge metallization. Combustion
products of producer gas and syn gas may be oxidizing to the metallic iron in the reduction
zone unless extra coal is added. The CO2 emission potential is computed based on complete
combustion of the exit gas from RHF. The emission is estimated to vary from 1.29 to 1.34
ton CO2/ton of sponge for a high VM and low ash coal, depending on external fuel. The
optimum post-combustion inside the reduction zone is found to be 20% under conditions of
stoichiometric coal rate.

1. Introduction loaded with thin stationary layers of prepared raw charge

Presently, most of the iron is produced through blast
furnace route, which requires metallurgical coke. The
depletion of coking coal reserves and growing environ-
mental concerns have motivated researchers to search for
coke-free iron ore reduction processes leading to alterna-
tive routes of iron making. One class of methods is directed
at the production of iron nuggets/sponge using iron ore
fines and non-coking coal fines in the form of pellets. The
sponge/nuggets are then smelted separately. The other
class of methods directly produces molten iron. Several
variants of RHF technologies aimed at sponge/nuggets
production have evolved such as Inmetco, Fastmet,
Fastmelt, and ITmk3. It is claimed that these processes
reduce CO2 emission, although specific data on cases are
lacking.
RHF process is a coal-based direct reduction process
that uses iron ore fines and non-coking coal fines to
produce premium-quality sponge iron or iron nuggets.
From the operational angle, RHF is a modified tunnel kiln
[
] B. Kumar, S. Mishra, Prof. G. G. Roy, Prof. P. K. Sen
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, IIT Kharagpur,
Kharagpur 721302, India
Email: prodipksen@outlook.com
DOI: 10.1002/srin.201600265
on a flat, rotating refractory hearth.[1]
Typically, the feed materials of the RHF process consists
of composite pellets made from a mixture of iron ore fines
and non-coking coal fines. The feed composite pellets are
placed on the hearth one or two layers thick. Burners
located above the hearth provide the heat required to raise
the composite pellets to reduction temperature and start
the process. The burners are fired with fuel gases or oils like
natural gas, fuel oil, waste oil, etc. Most of the heat required
for maintaining the process is supplied by combustion of
fuels. In this process, the temperature of the reduction
zone is variable (1150–1400 8C).
The composite pellets are fed and discharged continu-
ously and stay on the hearth for only one revolution.
Reduction time of composite pellets is typically
6–12 min,[2] depending on the reactivity of the composite
pellets and end product quality. The residence time varies
with the properties of the iron oxide feed stocks. The
reduction of the iron oxides is achieved by the reaction of
carbon contained in the reductant coal with the iron
oxides, generating in situ carbon monoxide (CO) gas. The
final products are in the form of sponge iron or iron
nuggets depend on the degree of reduction. After
reduction, sponge iron or iron nuggets is discharged out
of the RHF and recycled in a blast furnace (BF), basic
oxygen furnace (BOF), or electric arc furnace (EAF). The
exit gas generated in RHF is treated at exit gas treatment

ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 1

FULL PAPER
facilities. The heat of exit gas can be recovered at boiler and
recuperator (heat exchanger).
There has been extensive work performed on the
reduction of iron ore–coal composite pellets and its
kinetics in RHF experimentally as well as mathematical
modeling.[3–13] But only few work has been reported on
modeling of RHF for arriving at energy requirements and
CO2 emission (kg-CO2/ton product iron) of RHF process
routes like Fastmelt and ITmk3. It is reported that energy
consumptions and emissions of CO2 from RHF are lower
than in the blast furnace route.[2] But the comparison
mentioned above may not give real picture because the
end products in the three cases are not same, viz. blast
furnace and Fastmelt products are in molten form, while
ITmk3 product is in solid form. In another comparison of
CO2 emission (kg-CO2) per ton of hot metal from Fastmelt
and ITmk3 process with a small blast furnace,[14] it is
shown that ITmk3 reduces CO2 emissions by approxi-
mately 400 kg/THM compared to the small blast furnace.
From the viewpoint of a life cycle analysis study, a
detailed study on CO2 emissions from ITmk3 process is
reported in the literature.[15] Comparison of CO2 emission
from ITmk3 using natural gas as an external fuel was made
with a conventional blast furnace. It was demonstrated
that CO2 emission from ITmk3 is less compared with blast
furnace per ton of pig iron. Also, CO2 emissions from
ITmk3-EAF are compared with those from BF-BOF. The
comparison is made with and without scrap usage. Due to
the significant CO2 reduction by higher scrap usage ratio,
steelmaking by EAF takes significant advantage of CO2
emissions over BF-BOF. Gordon et al.[16] reported that CO2
emission per ton of product iron (either a liquid metal or
solid DRI) from ITmk3 process is higher than gas-based
DRI processes like Midrex and HYL, but lower than liquid
metal processes such as Blast Furnace, Technored,
Hismelt, Finex, and Rotary kiln with the smelter. It is
noted that the reported CO2 emission for ITmk3 is
considerably lower than the emission reported by previous
work.[2,14,15] CO2 emission as mentioned above from RHF
process is based on a calculation using natural gas as an
external fuel for heat supply. Tsutsumi et al.[17] reported
one demonstration plant that used coke-oven gas as a
combustion fuel in RHF, but the RHF process performance
report was not provided. Information on the utilization of a
variety of fuel gases is scantily reported.
Development of a simple and efficient model for the
reduction of iron ore in RHF process using a variety of fuel
gases is necessary for estimation of CO2 emissions and also
to estimate the performance capability of the RHF process
such as fuel rate.
In the present study, a thermodynamic model for RHF
process has been developed which also includes a coal
pyrolysis model. The coal pyrolysis model is used to
predict the quantity and composition of VM present in
reductant coal based on proximate and ultimate analysis of
coal. The model has been used to study the feed material
requirement, zone wise energy requirement, external fuel
2 steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999
www.steel-research.de
rate, exit gas composition, and volume for known
metallization of the end product. Before this, a base
thermodynamic model is developed and validated with
available literature data. The effect of different external fuel
gases like natural gas, coke-oven gas, syn gas, and producer
gas on exit gas composition and CO2 emissions has been
studied. Effect of reductant coal composition on coal rate
is also investigated. Finally, the feasibility of post-
combustion has been attempted for different external fuel
gases and their effect on CO2 emissions is examined to
make the system sustainable.
2. Thermodynamic Model for RHF Process
The RHF process is divided into three zones based on its
function as shown in Figure 1. Zone I  Preheating of the
composite pellet from 25 to 400 8C and coal pyrolysis at
400 8C. Zone II  Heating of VM free composite pellet from
400 to 900 8C. Zone III  Reduction of the composite pellet
at 900 8C and heating of sponge iron to 1250 8C. It is
assumed that like blast furnace processes, the commence-
ment of Boudouard reaction is at 900 8C, and thus the
minimum reduction temperature is taken as 900 8C.
Zone-I is conceptualized to signify preheating of
composite pellets from 25 to 400 8C and pyrolysis of coal
present in composite pellets at 400 8C. Since primary
pyrolysis of non-coking coal is starts at around 330–360 8C[18]
and completed at around 500 8C, the pyrolysis temperature
in the present work is taken as 400 8C (close to the average of
these two temperatures). Zone-I enthalpy includes preheat-
ing of composite pellets up to 400 8C and decomposition of
coal and its subsequent transformation to products. The
cracking of coal hydrocarbon present in composite pellets in
the absence of air (oxygen) generates gases (major quantity
of CH4) and solid char. The generated gas from this zone is
the devolatized product gas. This pyrolysis gas is mixed with
hot gases coming from zone-II. When two streams of hot
gases (pyrolysis gas and hot gases from zone-II) mixed, they
carry sufficient amount of sensible heat to supply the heat
required in zone-I before coming out from the furnace.
Consequently, combustion of external fuel is not needed in
zone-I. If the sensible heat of hot gases is not sufficient to
fulfill the heat requirement in zone-I, post-combustion of
hot gases coming from zone-II in zone-I may provide the
required heat in this zone.
After preheating and coal pyrolysis in zone-I, the
composite pellets consist of char and iron oxide only. In
zone-II, the VM free pellets are heated from 400 to 900 8C.
Therefore, zone-II enthalpy includes preheating of com-
posite pellets (consisting of coal char and iron oxide only)
up to 900 8C from 400 8C. Since in RHF, gases and solids
move in opposite direction, the heat required in zone-II
may be recovered from the sensible heat of hot gases
moving from zone-III to zone-II. Zone-III hot gases consist
of gases generated from direct reduction of iron oxide at
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the thermodynamic model of RHF process.
900 8C and gas generated due to the complete combustion
of external fuel gas.
In zone-III, direct reduction of iron oxide takes place at
900 8C. This reduction reaction is highly endothermic in
nature and to fulfill this heat requirement, combustion of
external fuel is needed. This zone consumes a majority
(more than 56%) of the total heat required in entire RHF.
The enthalpy of zone-III include the heat of endothermic
reduction of iron ore in the presence of carbon and heating
of reaction product from 900 8C to an exit temperature of
the final solid product (1250 8C for the present model). This
heat is supplied by combustion of external fuel gases like
natural gas, producer gas, syn gas, coke-oven gas, etc.
All the thermodynamic data, for example, heat of
reaction, AFT, exit gas temperature, products of coal
pyrolysis, etc. used in this thermodynamic model has been
estimated with the help of software FactSage 6.4.1
2.1. Computation Approach
For known metallization of the final product (sponge iron or
iron nuggets), iron ore, and reductant carbon quantity is
initially estimated. Based on proximate analysis of coal, the
stoichiometric coal quantity required is worked out.
Subsequently, heat requirements in different zones (zone-
I, zone-II, and zone-III) of RHF have been estimated. Based
on the net heat demand in zone-III, the amount of external
fuel gas is determined once the AFT is calculated using
FactSage 6.4.
1
FactSage 6.4 is a trademark of Thermfact Ltd., and CRCT
(Montreal, Canada) and GTT-Technologies (Aachen, Germany).
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FULL PAPER
For computing the quantity, composition, and tempera-
ture of the exit gases, the following procedure is followed.
Once the amount of external fuel gas is known, the amount of
air required for complete combustion of external fuel gases
and also the quantity and composition of zone-III gases
generated that also includes the CO gas produced from
direct reduction of iron ore, are estimated. The hot gases
from zone-III proceed to zone-II. With known volume and
temperature of waste gas from zone-III and an estimate of
solid heat requirement in zone-II, the exit gas temperature
from zone-II can then readily be calculated. Coal pyrolysis in
zone-I requires additional heat which is used to compute
solid heat requirement in zone-I including charge preheat-
ing. Using the volume, composition, and temperature of the
gas entering zone-I from zone-II, the gas composition and
temperature of the exit gas from RHF (V2, T3, Figure 2) are
predicted. The total quantity of CO2 emitted from the RHF
including its downstream utilization as fuel is readily
estimated based on coal quantity (total carbon), fuel gas
requirement, and sponge analysis.
3. Model Validation
3.1. Coal Pyrolysis Model Validation for Zone-I
For assessing the contribution of coal pyrolysis toward total
emission, a coal model is developed which can predict the
quantity and composition of VM present in reductant coal.
VM mainly contains CH4 and some CO, CO2, etc. which are
also the sources of CO2. Once the ultimate analysis and ash
content of the reductant coal are known, with the help of
steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 3

FULL PAPER
Figure 2. Schematic flow chart of the computational approach of the present model.
FactSage 6.4 software one can estimate the quantity and
composition of VM present in the reductant coal.
The validation of composition and the volatile fraction
is indirectly obtained from the prediction of proximate
analysis (dry ash basis) of the coal from ultimate analysis
and ash content. For purposes of validation, for given total
carbon (TC) from the ultimate analysis, fixed carbon (FC)
and composition and quantity of VM on dry ash basis are
computed using equilibrium module of FactSage 6.4 for
coal pyrolysis at 400 8C. The summation of the volatile
4 steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999
www.steel-research.de
constituents as obtained from FactSage simulation is
readily obtained which provides the VM percentage in coal
as well as the FC. These are then compared with literature
data.[19] This comparison is shown in Table 1. Based on a
satisfactory match of computed FC and VM data with
literature data, the quantity of gases generated after
pyrolysis is considered to be validated as no direct
measurements have been reported. Thus, for a given coal
sample, it is possible to predict both the quantity and
composition of the pyrolysis gases once the ultimate
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de

FULL PAPER
Literature data WSA FactSage 6.4 results

Sl. No. Coals FC VM TC FC VM TC

1 Bituminous coal (Sample 1) 39.51 19.83 50.23 37.82 21.73 46.65

2 Bituminous coal (Sample 2) 32.46 17.48 41.14 31.22 18.13 39.55
3 Indonesian coal 56.23 28.28 70.36 53.84 29.81 65.99
4 Indian washed coal 43.50 18.67 52.87 42.59 19.05 55.71
5 Imported coal 54.16 39.39 74.24 52.35 40.40 71.70
6 Coal 7 (Jindal) 48.41 19.05 57.67 47.38 19.24 57.47
7 240 60.13 26.38 74.12 59.60 26.10 72.91
8 252 43.94 43.09 66.78 48.73 38.29 69.09
9 263 58.35 32.16 75.40 64.52 25.70 77.00
10 272 50.82 35.29 69.53 58.75 26.37 72.05
11 274 61.89 29.32 77.43 65.12 25.76 76.74
12 281 81.18 8.85 85.87 79.71 10.57 82.44
13 283 55.45 32.30 72.57 61.23 26.23 73.74
14 284 54.88 26.22 68.77 57.95 22.55 70.25
15 296 54.50 30.37 70.59 60.46 23.81 72.25
16 297 41.89 43.81 65.11 45.59 40.11 70.09
17 298 57.30 29.94 73.17 61.78 25.16 73.15
18 299 50.11 26.63 64.22 52.13 25.53 61.39
19 306 60.49 19.35 70.74 61.37 18.52 70.57
20 310 62.80 25.18 76.14 63.85 23.44 75.76

Table 1. Comparison of FC, VM, and TC (dry ash basis) from literature data[19] and FactSage 6.4 simulation.

analysis is known. Table 1 also compares TC (dry ash basis) According to WSA,[20]
computed using world steel association (WSA) ap-
proach[20] and FactSage 6.4. TC is the summation of FC Total Carbon ¼ 100  ½%Ash  0:47½%VM ð1Þ
and carbon present in VM, as obtained through model
predictions.
Equation for TC from regression analysis of literature
A regression equation (Equation 2) is developed
data,[19]
correlating TC with percentage ash and VM in coal and
compared with the formula for estimating TC given by
WSA (Equation 1). The correlation of TC developed from Total Carbon ¼ 100  0:97½%Ash  f0:43½%VMþ 2:59g;
data using FactSage 6.4 is given by Equation 2 with a
correlation coefficient of 0.97. The slight discrepancy R2 ¼ 97:32 ð2Þ
between these correlations may be attributed to a limited
number of coal samples studied in the present study.
Thus, the present correlation may be used to predict the
TC by knowing the proximate analysis of a coal sample. 3.2. Model Validation with ITmk3 Data
The TC value so obtained can be directly used to predict
the total CO2 emissions once fuel gas emissions are The data generated from the present thermodynamic
estimated. model are compared with data available for ITmk3 process

ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 5

FULL PAPER
in the literature.[15] The present model has been tuned to
an ITmk3 process for comparison.
The major components of the hematite iron ore used
in the present model are 65.3% Fe, 3.0% Al2O3, and 3.7%
SiO2. The reductant coal taken for validating ITmk3
process has 22.9% VM and 8.8% ash in the dry base and
has 87.3% C, 4.89% H, 0.97% N, 6.23% O, and 0.60% S in
dry ash-free base. Iron nuggets produced from the
ITmk3 process typically contain carbon of 2.5–3.0%. For
validating the present model, iron nuggets carbon is
taken as 3.0%. In ITmk3 process, since the final product
(iron nugget) is obtained after reduction and melting
(iron and slag are separated), zone-III maximum
temperature is taken as 1400 8C for validation only in
place of 1250 8C (present model exit temperature for
sponge process). The model predicted information such
as heat requirement in different zones, the amount of
external fuel gas requirements, as well as the compari-
son of model predicted results with literature data, are
provided in Table 2. Additionally, gas temperature and
volume at different zones, and calorific value (CV) and
composition of exit gas for the ITmk3 process are also
reported in Table 2.
For estimating CO2 emissions derived from reductant
coal and natural gas, Fujita et al.[15] referred to unit heat
value and carbon emission factor of fuels as a guideline to
assess CO2 emissions. There is slight variation in data
available in literature and present model prediction. The
reason behind this may be the variation in the composition
of reductant coal and iron oxide. The validated model is
subsequently used for parametric study as discussed in the
following section.
4. Model Predictions (CO2 Emission) for
Sponge Processes
No data points are available for validation from literature if
the product is sponge iron. Since the ITmk3 process data is
validated, it is assumed that the model can satisfactorily
predict input and output streams for a rotary hearth
sponge process. However, in the sponge process, unlike in
ITmk3, no melting takes place. Suitable changes in the
model were made to account for the above changes
including different solid output temperature.
4.1. Effect of Reductant Coal Type
4.1.1. Prediction of VM Variations
For the present study, three different reductant coals have
been considered. Coal-1 is low VM and low ash, coal-2 is high
VM and low ash, and coal-3 is high VM and high ash. Table 3
shows the ultimate and proximate analysis of reductant
coals, as well as the model predicted composition of VM in
6 steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999
www.steel-research.de
reductant coals considered in the present study. From
Table 3, it is clear that majority of the VM present in the coals
are in the form of CH4. At lower temperature, CH4 and
H2O are more stable than H2, CO2, and CO and on increasing
temperature, reforming of CH4 takes place (Equation 3 and
4) and CH4 and H2O converts into H2 and CO and/or CO2.
Beyond 650 8C CO2 further, converts into CO (Equation 5)
depending on CO/CO2 ratio.
CH4 þ H2 O ¼ CO þ 3H2 ð3Þ
CH4 þ 2H2 O ¼ CO2 þ 4H2 ð4Þ
CO2 þ C ¼ 2CO ð5Þ
4.1.2. Calculation of Heat of Decomposition (HOD) of
Reductant Coal
The HOD has been correlated with the CV of the coal on
the dry ash free (Qdaf) basis (kJ/100 g). Gyul’maliev et al.[21]
derived Equation 6 for calculating the CV of coals from the
elemental composition on a dry ash-free (daf) basis of the
organic matter of coals based on a large database. Using
Equation 6, CV of coal-1, coal-2, and coal-3 are found to be
34110, 33802, and 32781 kJ kg1, respectively.
4:184ð80:860C þ 239:548H  20:741O þ 15:225N  63:650SÞ
Qdaf ¼
10
ð6Þ
where C, H, O, N, and S represent the percentages of
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur (daf basis)
present in coal.
With the help of Hess’s law, the enthalpy of formation of
coals DH daf
298 (kJ/100 g) can be evaluated from the complete
combustion of 100 g of coal organic matter using the
Equation 7 and the HOD can be correlated to the enthalpy
of formation from the Equation 8.
X
DH daf
298 ¼ DH C298 ðcombustion productsÞþQdaf ð7Þ
HOD ¼ DH daf
298 ð8Þ
The HOD of reductant coals is estimated from the
calculated CV of coals. Estimated HOD of coal-1, coal-2,
and coal-3 are 104, 1788, and 2509 kJ kg1, respectively.
These HOD values of reductant coals are used as an input
for heats required for pyrolysis of reductant coals during
the heat requirements calculation in zone-I.
4.1.3. Char Rate Calculation
The carbon rate is initially calculated based on the reduction
reaction provided in Figure 1. Coal rate and char rate per ton
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de

FULL PAPER
Model predicted information
Zone-I, 4H1 1.6
Heat requirements (GJ) Zone-II, 4H2 1.1
Zone-III, 4H3 4.8
Preheat air 1.5
Amount of natural gas required for 4H3 (Nm ) 3
167.7
Zone-III entry temperature of hot combustion product gases (8C) 2496.0
Zone-III, T1 1000.0
Exit gas temperature (8C) Zone-II, T2 674.4
RHF, T3 313.2
Zone-III, V1 2347.16
Exit gas volume (Nm3) Zone-II, V2 2347.16
RHF, V3 2491.90
–3
CV of exit gas (kJ Nm ) 4320.11
CO2 7.01
Exit gas composition (%) H2O 14.90
N2 50.93
CO 23.36
CH4 3.80
Comparison of the model predicted results with literature data
Literature data[15] Model prediction
Coal (kg) 500 501a)
Energy balance
Input (GJ)
Reductant coal 13.34 14.48
External fuel 4.60 4.83
Preheat air 4.37 1.47
Power 0.69
Total 23.00 20.78b)
Output (GJ)
Offgas (Total) 10.58c) 10.75
Ironmaking process 10.12 10.03
Total 20.70 20.78
Total CO2 emission (kg) 1627 1672
a)
Based on char composition and quantity.
b)
Power not included.
c)
Including losses.

Table 2. Model predicted information and comparison of the model predicted results with literature data per ton iron nugget for the
ITmk3 process.

ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 7
 www.steel-research.de
FULL PAPER

Coal-1 Coal-2 Coal-3

Ultimate analysis
C 94.93 87.30 82.40
H 2.17 4.89 5.83
N 1.08 0.97 0.99
O 1.29 6.23 10.39
S 0.52 0.60 0.39
Proximate analysis
FC 81.18 68.30 50.11
VM 8.85 22.90 26.63
Ash 9.97 8.80 23.26
Predicted VM composition (wt%)
CH4 80.07 58.95 59.63
CO2 0.91 11.97 19.23
CO 0.06 0.16 0.56
N2 5.37 3.90 2.85
H2O 13.59 25.02 17.72

Table 3. Ultimate analysis, proximate analysis, and predicted VM in reductant coals.

of sponge (based on proximate analysis of coal) for a Sponge iron product grades, as well as coal and char rate per
different degree of metallization with reductant coals are ton of sponge, are estimated and reported in Table 4. It may
estimated based on the stoichiometric carbon rate be noted that higher char rate leads to a lower grade of
(257–283 kg, depending on the degree of metallization). sponge. In composite pellets, gangue associated with coal

Reductant coal

Coal-1 Coal-2 Coal-3

Coal rate Char rate Coal rate Char rate Coal rate Char rate
(kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)

Degree of 100% 348 317 413 318 515 378

metallization
95% 332 303 394 304 494 362
90% 317 289 377 291 474 348

Fe(M) Fe(O) Fe(T) Fe(M) Fe(O) Fe(T) Fe(M) Fe(O) Fe(T)

(kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)
Degree of 100% 877.0 0.0 877.0 875.0 0.0 875.0 801.5 0.0 801.5
metallization
95% 823.2 43.3 866.5 821.8 43.3 865.0 755.7 39.8 795.5
90% 771.3 85.7 857.0 770.4 85.6 856.0 711.0 79.0 790.0
Fe(M)-Metallic iron; Fe(O)-Iron in residual iron oxides; Fe(T)-Total iron.

Table 4. Coal and char rate, and metallic iron, iron in residual iron oxides and total iron per ton of sponge for different degree of
metallization, and reductant coals.

8 steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de
remain in the sponge iron after reduction, therefore, total
iron is less in high ash coal composite pellets (coal-3).
Therefore, for premium-quality sponge product high ash
content reductant coal is not suitable.
4.2. Estimation of Heat Requirement in Different Zones
As mentioned earlier, RHF is divided into three zones. In
zone-I, feed materials are heated up to 400 8C from 25 8C,
and coal pyrolysis takes place at 400 8C. Since the feed
materials (iron ore and coal) quantity and composition are
known, the heat requirement in zone-I is predicted using
FactSage 6.4 software. In zone-II, devolatized composite
pellets consist of iron ore and char only because coal
volatilizationhad taken place in zone-I. Therefore, heat
requirement in zone-II is calculated from sensible heat
required to heat the coal char and iron ore from 400 to
900 8C. Reduction reaction[4,9–11,13,22–24] (Equation 9 and
10) at 900 8C carried out in zone-III, which is highly
endothermic in nature and after reduction the reaction
product consist of metallic iron, iron in combined form,
and gangue. Finally, the reaction product is heated to solid
exit temperature (1250 8C for the present study) from
900 8C. Heat requirement in zone-II and zone-III was also
estimated using FactSage 6.4 software. Figure 3 shows the
heat requirement in the three zones for a different degree
Figure 3. Heat requirement in a) Zone-I, b) Zone-II, c) Zone-III, and d) total heat requirement per ton of sponge.
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FULL PAPER
of metallization and reductant coals.
Fex Oy þ yCO ¼ xFe þ yCO2 ð9Þ
C þ CO2 ¼ 2CO ð10Þ
Figure 3a clearly indicates that heat requirement per ton
of sponge in zone-I is minimum in coal-1 and maximum in
coal-3 because HOD as well as coal rate for coal-1 is
minimum whereas, in the case of coal-3, HOD and coal
rate both are high (Section 4.1.2 and Table 4). With the
decrease in the degree of metallization, heat requirement
in zone-I is slightly reduced because there is a minor
reduction in coal and ore rate. In zone-II, devolatized coal
(char) and iron ore are heated from 400 to 900 8C only.
Since this zone only involves sensible heat and no other
heat of reactions is involved, heat requirement in zone-II is
almost equal in all the reductant coals and negligible
reduction with a decrease in the degree of metallization.
Heat requirement in zone-II are shown in Figure 3b.
Figure 3c represents the heat demand in zone-III per
ton of sponge. For coal-1 and 2, char rate and metallic
iron both are almost equal; therefore, heat requirement is
also same. But in the case of coal-3, char rate is high and
metallic iron is less per ton of the sponge (Table 4), that is,
lesser amount of iron ore to be reduced; therefore, the heat
steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 9

FULL PAPER
Producer gas
Composition (%)
CO 22.00
CO2 13.00
H2 21.00
CH4 3.00
N2 41.00
–1
Model predicted CV (kJ mol ) 137.76
Model predicted AFT (8C) 2211
Table 5. Composition, model predicted CV, and AFT of external fuel gases.
required is less compared to coal-1 and -2. With the
decrease in the degree of metallization, heat requirements
per ton of sponge for all three reductant coals are
decreased. As shown in Figure 3d, total heat requirement
per ton of sponge for the RHF process is maximum for
coal-3 with minimum metallic iron and minimum for coal-
1 with maximum metallic iron.
4.3. Prediction of External Fuel Gas Requirement
Table 5 represents the composition, and the model
predicted CV and AFT (external fuel gas and air enters
at 600 8C) of external fuel gases. The requirement of natural
gas, coke-oven gas, producer gas, and syn gas as an
external fuel per ton of sponge are 173, 273, 842, and
490 Nm3, respectively for 100% metallization with coal-1. It
is found that the amount of external fuel gas requirement
decreases with a decrease in the degree of metallization
and is related to the CV of the external fuel gases. The
higher the CV of the external fuel gas, the lower is the
requirements and vice versa. Since the primary objective of
the external fuel is to supply the heat demand of zone-III
only and the endothermic reduction reaction heat demand
(>90% of zone-III heat requirements) is independent of
reductant coal. Therefore, the effect of reductant coal is
found to be very less in the requirement of external fuel
gases, especially for external fuel with high CV.
4.4. Prediction of CO2 Emission
Direct emission (CO2 generated inside the RHF on
combustion of external fuel as well as post-combustion
of gases in the kiln) and downstream emission (CO2
produced when exit gas is combusted completely outside
the RHF) constitute the total CO2 emission from RHF
10 steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999
www.steel-research.de
External fuel gases
Coke-oven gas Syn gas Natural gas
5.50 46.31 0.00
2.00 16.22 0.00
51.90 33.44 0.00
32.00 2.17 100.00
4.80 1.86 0.00
412.33 231.28 802.37
2511 2525 2496
process. The total emission has been estimated using the
exit gas quantity and composition analysis for different
reductant coals and external fuel gases. In actual practice,
it is very difficult to produce 100% metallized sponge iron;
therefore, results based on 90% metallization are reported
in this section and next section. Figure 4a shows the
predicted direct emissions from the RHF as well as
downstream CO2 emissions from different external fuel
gases and reductant coals for 90% metallization. CV of
natural gas is maximum compared to other fuel gases but
the direct CO2 emission for coke-oven gas is minimum
because combustion of coke-oven gas primarily produces
water vapor since it contains around 50% H2. Similarly, CV
of syn gas is almost double of producer gas but, both
produces approximately identical direct CO2 emission.
Therefore, it cannot be pre-assumed that the higher caloric
fuel gives lower emission. The emission value depends not
only on the CV but also on the constituents of the fuel gas.
The downstream CO2 emission does not depend on the
external fuel gas because it is completely combusted. It is
related to the CO generated during the reduction of iron
ore and coal pyrolysis gases. Figure 4b illustrates a typical
calculation methodology for estimating the total emis-
sions. Figure 4a also indicates that with an increase in VM
in reductant coal, the downstream CO2 emission will
increase (coal-2 and 3) since higher VM in reductant coal
results in more carbon bearing pyrolysis gases. Thus, to
minimize the total CO2 emission from RHF process, high
VM reductant coals are not beneficial.
The composition, volume, temperature, and CV of exit
gas for different external fuel gases and coal-2 with 90%
metallization are computed and reported in Table 6,
considering no post-combustion. Exit gas volume per ton
of sponge varies from 1818 to 2209 Nm3 depending on
external fuel. Lower gas volume results in lower exit gas
temperature but, higher heat content since CO generated
from the iron ore reduction in zone-III and VM of the
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de

FULL PAPER

Figure 4. a) Predicted direct and downstream CO2 emission from different fuel gases and reductant coals, and b) typical model prediction
of CO2 emission in RHF for 90% metallization of iron ore (coal-2).

ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 11
 www.steel-research.de
FULL PAPER

Per ton of product sponge

Producer gas Coke-oven gas Syn gas Natural gas

3
Exit gas volume (Nm ) 2209 1910 1818 1915
Exit gas composition (vol%)
CO2 13.56 5.66 16.65 6.86
H2O 10.68 17.17 10.90 14.58
N2 50.85 48.37 42.88 49.84
CO 21.68 25.07 26.34 25.01
CH4 3.22 3.73 3.23 3.71
Exit gas temperature (8C) 352 222 208 221
Predicted CV of exit gases 3910 4521 4753 4510
(kJ Nm–3)

Table 6. The composition, volume, temperature, and model predicted CV of exit gas for different external fuel gases and coal-2 with 90%
metallization considering no post-combustion.

reductant coal is independent of external fuel. CV of exit
gases varies from 3910 to 4753 kJ Nm3 and chemical
energy associated with the exit gas is around 8.63 GJ per
ton of sponge which can be further utilized in drying of
pellets, preheating of air, and power generation. Figure 5
represents the comparison of predicted total CO2 emission
per ton of sponge from different external fuels and
reductant coal with a degree of metallization considering
no post-combustion inside RHF. Coal containing high VM
leads to higher emission values. Total CO2 emissions from
producer and syn gas are around 350–400 kg more than
coke-oven gas and natural gas per ton of sponge and even
more than BF emission. With the decrease in the degree of
metallization, emissions values also decrease since CO
generation in reduction zone, and external fuel require-
ment is reduced because a lesser amount of iron ore to be
reduced.
The total CO2 emission value from BF route is around 1.8
ton tcs1.[25] For coke-oven gas and natural gas as an external
fuel in RHF, the total CO2 emission values vary from 1.29 to
1.34 ton per ton sponge considering 90% metallization
(1.70 t-CO2/tcs) and further melting of sponge iron in an

Figure 5. Predicted total CO2 emission (kg ton1 of sponge) with different degree of metallization and reductant coals; a) coke-oven gas,
b) natural gas, c) producer gas, and d) syn gas.

12 steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de
Figure 6. a) Percentage decrease in external fuel requirement, b) percentage decrease in total CO2 emission, and c) decrease in CO/CO2
ratio with post-combustion (coal-2 with 90% metallization).
electric arc furnace is estimated to produce around 0.15 ton
additional CO2/tcs. Therefore, net total CO2 emission
through RHF route may be estimated to 1.85 ton tcs1 for
coke-oven gas and natural gas which is almost similar to the
blast furnace route steel making. For syn gas and producer
gas, total CO2 emission values are estimated to more than 2.2
ton tcs1 because of lower calorific values. Also for reduction
of iron ore in reduction zone, CO/CO2 ratio should be greater
than two to avoid reoxidation.[26] In the case of natural gas
and coke-oven gas, CO/CO2 ratio in the reduction zone is
3.80 and 4.65, respectively which is much more than two
whereas for producer gas and syn gas this ratio is 1.63 and
1.61, respectively. Therefore, producer and syn gas may not
be suitable for external heat supply as well as CO2 emission
control unless extra coal is added to maintain a reducing
atmosphere over the bed. The emission values computed
earlier for these fuels would accordingly increase.
4.5. Effect of Post-Combustion in Reduction Zone
In RHF, solids and gases moves in opposite direction
and majority of the heat required in RHF process is
utilized in reduction zone (zone-III); therefore, complete
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
FULL PAPER
post-combustion of the CO generated from reduction
reaction in zone-III itself is not beneficial. Again excess
heat from zone-III that moves to zone-I and -II, become
superfluous as the heat requirements in these zones are
meager. Besides, generation of excess heat will lead to heat
loss and less energy efficient system. On the other hand, if
such CO laden gas is combusted outside at proper useful
sink, overall energy efficiency is expected to be better.
But partial post-combustion of CO might lead to a
reduction in external fuel gas requirement which finally
results in a decrease in CO2 emission. The typical effects of
partial post-combustion in reduction zone (coal-2 with
90% metallization) on fuel gas requirement, total CO2
emission, and CO/CO2 ratio in the reduction zone is
represented in Figure 6.
It is evident that the introduction of partial post-
combustion in the reduction zone provides additional heat
in this zone, thus reducing external fuel gas requirement as
well as total CO2 emission. The percentage decrease in
external fuel requirement with post-combustion is same
for all external fuels. However, external fuel having least
CO2 emission on no post-combustion (coke-oven gas)
have the least percentage decrease in CO2 emission on the
introduction of the same degree of post-combustion as
steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 13

FULL PAPER
compared to other external fuels having higher CO2
emission on no post-combustion. But CO/CO2 ratio
also decreases with post-combustion, and beyond 20%
post-combustion, this ratio becomes less than two even for
natural gas and coke-oven gas. Therefore, more than 20%
post-combustion might not be beneficial as atmosphere
no longer remains reducing to sponge.
5. Conclusions
1. A thermodynamic model for a sponge iron producing
unit based on RHF has been developed. The model has
been validated based on limited literature data and is
capable of predicting exit gas volume and composition
including CO2 emission per ton of sponge for a
specified metallization and fuel gas.
2. For a specific coal composition (VM-8.85 and FC-
81.18) lowest achievable coal rate (stoichiometric) for
100% metallization of the sponge is 348 kg per ton of
sponge iron.
3. CO2 emissions have been estimated for some operat-
ing cases using different coal and fuel gases. Coke-
oven gas generates lowest CO2 (1.2 ton per ton of
sponge) when compared with natural gas, syn gas, and
producer gas. CO2 emissions are increased when a
high VM coal is chosen.
4. Producer and syn gases may not be suitable for
external heat supply unless additional carbon is
supplied because the product gases have always been
found to be oxidizing to the sponge.
5. On introduction of post-combustion in reduction
zone, fuel gas requirements as well as total CO2
emission reduces. For a particular coal (VM-22.9 and
FC-68.3), 20% post-combustion reduces external fuel
requirements by 24% whereas the reduction in total
CO2 emission varies from 3.8 to 8.5% depending on the
external fuels.
6. Post-combustion beyond 20% may not be suitable
even for coke-oven gas and natural gas because the
product gases become oxidizing to the sponge.
7. The CO2 emission values are strongly dependent upon
coal and the nature of external fuel used. Although this
study has used iron ore of constant composition,
regarding the model, the emissions would also change
if the input ore oxygen is changed.
8. The stoichiometric model used for the gas-solid
reduction process provides only ideal state reduc-
tion degrees for the ore with assumed metallization
degrees. The variation of outputs with the assumed
metallization percentages may be considered as a
departure from equilibrium. Use of FactSage 6.4 for
gas phase equilibrium for coal pyrolysis is subject to
equilibrium gas phase pyrolysis compositions.
Rigorous modeling will involve kinetics of coal
pyrolysis, and this has not been attempted as this
14 steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999
www.steel-research.de
is outside the major scope of this paper dealing with
emissions.
9. Regarding gas phase compositions, oxidation of the gas
phase constituents has been considered as being
governed by reaction stoichiometry. The possible effects
of departure from equilibrium in the gas phase at various
reaction zone temperatures are not considered since the
space velocity of the gas phase is considerable, and there
is insufficient time to attain equilibrium.
10. Thermodynamic calculations made in this work for
predicting heats of reaction, adiabatic flame tempera-
ture estimate, and coal pyrolysis are likely to provide a
foundation for emission calculations for different
degrees of metallization signifying the departure from
equilibrium.
Received: July 20, 2016; Revised: October 5, 2016
Keywords: Rotary hearth furnace; External fuel; CO2
emission; Reductant coal; Degree of metallization
References
[1] R. M. Klawonn, G. E. Hoffman, Iron Steel Technol.
2006, 3, 177.
[2] H. Ishikawa, J. Kopfle, J. Mcclelland, J. Ripke, Arch.
Metall. Mater. 2008, 53, 541.
[3] S. Halder, R. J. Fruehan, Metall. Trans. B 2008, 6, 796.
[4] I. Sohn, R. J. Fruehan, Metall. Trans. B 2006, 37, 223.
[5] M. K. Sharma, V. Sholanki, G. G. Roy, P. K. Sen,
Ironmaking Steelmaking 2013, 40, 590.
[6] Y. S. Lee, D. W. Ri, S. H. Yi, I. Sohn, ISIJ Int. 2012, 52,
1454.
[7] T. Hu, X. Lv, C. Bai, Steel Research Int. 2016, 87, 494.
[8] S. Mishra, G. G. Roy, Metall. Trans. B 2016, 47, 2347.
[9] S. H. Chung, K. H. Kim, I. Sohn, ISIJ Int. 2015, 55,
1157.
[10] V. Kumari, G. G. Roy, P. K. Sen, Trans. Indian Inst.
Met. 2015, 68, 109.
[11] H. Han, D. Duan, P. Yuan, D. Li, Ironmaking
Steelmaking 2015, 42, 579.
[12] S. Mishra, G. G. Roy, Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 2016,
DOI: 10.1007/s12666-016-0890-z
[13] H. Han, D. Duan, S. Chen, P. Yuan, Metall. Trans. B
2015, 46, 2208.
[14] K. Seki, H. Tanaka, SEAISI Q. (South East Asia Iron
Steel Inst.) 2008, 37, 40.
[15] K. Fujita, T. Harada, S. Michishita, H. Tanaka,
International Symposium on Ironmaking for
Sustainable Development, Osaka, Japan, 28-29
January. 2010.
[16] Y. Gordon, S. Kumar, M. Freislich, Y. Yaroshenko,
Steel Transl. 2015, 45, 627.
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.steel-research.de
[17] H. Tsutsumi, S. Yoshida, M. Tetsumoto, Kobelco
Technol. Rev. 2010, 29, 85.
[18] C. R. Ward, Z. Li, L. W. Gurba, Int. J. Coal Geol. 2008,
75, 157.
[19] Z. Gao, M. Zheng, D. Zhang, W. Zhang, J. Energy Inst.
2016, 89, 544. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2015.
07.002]
[20] CO2 emissions data collections, User Guide Version 7,
World steel association, Available at: http://www.
worldsteel.org (accessed 2016-02-15)
[21] A. M. Gyul’maliev, M. Ya. Shpirt, Solid Fuel Chem.
2008, 42, 263.
ß 2016 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
View publication stats
FULL PAPER
[22] S. Kikuchi, S. Ito, I. Kobayashi, O. Tsuge, K. Tokuda,
Kobelco Technol. Rev. 2010, 29, 77.
[23] H. M. Ahmed, N. Viswanathan, B. Bjorkman, Steel
Res. Int. 2014 85, 293.
[24] H. Tanaka, FASTMET, FASTMELT, and ITmk3: Deve-
lopment of new coal-based ironmaking pro- cesses", in
Direct from Midrex: RHF Technologies 2007/2008,
http://midrex.com/assets/user/medi/FASTMET_FA
STMELT_ITmk3.pdf (date accessed 2016-03-19).
[25] Data from World Steel Association, Available at:
http://www.worldsteel.org (accessed 2016-02-15).
[26] W.-K. Lu, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 2001, 32, 757.
steel research int. 87 (2016) No. 9999 15